Acts
1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts
1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts
Section 45 of the 1925 Act gives the court a very wide discretion to grant an injunction. Judges: Lord Denning MR Citations: [1978] 1 QB 644 Statutes: Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925 45 Citing: Applied – Beddow v Beddow CA 1878 The power in the section embraced the grant of an injunction ‘in … Continue reading Rasu Maritima SA v Perusahaan (the Pertamina): CA 1978
The court considered the abatement of an application for financial relief in divorce proceedings on the death of one party. Held: The wife’s claim to secured provision was not a cause of action within the terms of section 1(1). The wife only had the hope that the court would in its discretion order a secured … Continue reading Dipple v Dipple: 1942
An injunction was sought against a Panamanian ship-owning company to restrain it from disposing of a fund, consisting of insurance proceeds, in England. The claimant for the injunction was suing the company in a Cyprus court for damages and believed the company to have no other assets from which to meet the hoped-for damages award … Continue reading Siskina (owners of Cargo lately on Board) v Distos Compania Naviera SA: HL 1979
A Dutch serviceman who had been arrested for desertion and brought before a magistrate who ordered him to be handed over to the Dutch military authorities under the Allied Forces Act 1940. An application for habeas corpus was rejected by a Divisional Court. The Court of Appeal held that they had no jurisdiction to entertain … Continue reading Amand v Home Secretary and Minister of Defence of Royal Netherlands Government: HL 1943
The claimant sought an injunction to prevent the respondent Trades Union calling on its members to boycott mail to South Africa. The respondents challenged the ability of the court to make such an order. Held: The wide wording of the statute did not mean that the courts had, in effect, limitless powers to grant interlocutory … Continue reading Gouriet v Union of Post Office Workers: HL 26 Jul 1977
The plaintiff had applied for disclosure of assets under the Rules of the Supreme Court in support of a Mareva freezing order. The rules were held not to provide any such power: disclosure of assets could not be obtained as part of discovery as the documents concerned did not relate ‘to matters in question in … Continue reading A J Bekhor and Co Ltd v Bilton: CA 6 Feb 1981
An ex parte order was sought by the plaintiff to restrain the defendant dispersing his assets. Held: The court granted the ad personam order requested making use of the jurisdiction given to it by the 1925 Act: ‘A mandamus or an injunction may be granted or a receiver appointed by an interlocutory order of the … Continue reading Mareva Compania Naviera SA v International Bulkcarriers SA: CA 1 Feb 1975
The court considered whether a deed of trust created a post nuptial settlement within the 1950 Act: ‘Inasmuch as the deed vested no property in trustees and created no successive legal or beneficial interests it had none of the attributes of a settlement which are familiar to conveyancing practitioners. It has, however, long since been … Continue reading Prescott v Fellowes: CA 1958
When dealing with an application to strike out, the judge should record his reasons for the finding, but it is sufficient if what he says shows the parties and, if need be, the Court of Appeal the basis on which he has acted. The court also . .