Civil Procedure Rules - 1999

Cases and material dealing with the new Civil Procedure Rules.

These cases are extracted from a very large database. The entries on that database are now being published individually to the main swarb.co.uk website in a much improved form. As cases are published here, the entry here will be replaced by a link to the same case in that improved form on swarb.co.uk. In addition the swarb.co.uk site includes very substantial numbers of cases after 2000. Please take the time to look.  

This page lists 11 cases, and was prepared on 18 May 2014. These case are being transferred one by one to the main swarb.co.uk site which presents them better, with links to full text where we have it, and much improved cross referencing.
Maltez -v- Lewis
27 Apr 1999
ChD
Neuberger J
Civil Procedure Rules Casemap
1 Citers
The right of a litigant, to choose his solicitor and counsel, is a fundamental one not to be set aside by mere rules of court. In particular the new rules should not be interpreted so as to achieve this. This is part of the principle of equality of arms.
Civil Procedure Rules Rule 1.1(2) ( c)
Seth Agodzo -v- Martin Amegashitsie Eddie Quaynor [1999] EWCA Civ 1453
20 May 1999
CA
Civil Procedure Rules, Arbitration
The judge had repeatedly adjourned a matter, directing that the parties should consider alternative dispute resolution. Since the first adjournment, the rules had been changed to allow a court to refer a case for such an arrangement. One party objected. Held: The new power could be exercised even in an existing case, and therefore the objection, even if it succeeded, could not prevent a judge making a reference under the new rules upon its return.
Civil Procedure Rules 26.4
Link[s] omitted
McPhilemy -v- Times Newspapers Ltd and Others (2) Times, 26 May 1999; [1999] EWCA Civ 1464; [1999] 3 All ER 775; [1999] CPLR 533; [1999] EMLR 751
26 May 1999
CA
Lord Woolf MR
Defamation, Litigation Practice, Civil Procedure Rules
1 Cites
1 Citers
The new Civil Procedure Rules did not change the circumstances where the Court of Appeal would interfere with a first instance decision, but would apply the new rules on that decision. Very extensive pleadings in defamation cases should now be otiose. In the modern era of witness statements, extensive and fully particularised pleadings are no longer as necessary as they used to be, so long as they still identify the issues, the extent of the dispute between the parties and the general nature of the case of the pleader.
Lord Woolf MR said: "The need for extensive pleadings including particulars should be reduced by the requirement that witness statements are now exchanged. In the majority of proceedings identification of the documents upon which a party relies, together with copies of that party's witness statements, will make the detail of the nature of the case the other side has to meet obvious. This reduces the need for particulars in order to avoid being taken by surprise. This does not mean that pleadings are now superfluous. Pleadings are still required to mark out the parameters of the case that is being advanced by each party. In particular they are still critical to identify the issues and the extent of the dispute between the parties. What is important is that the pleadings should make clear the general nature of the case of the pleader. This is true both under the old rules and the new rules. The Practice Direction to CPR 16, paragraph 9.3 requires, in defamation proceedings, the facts on which a defendant relies to be given. No more than a concise statement of those facts is required.
As well as their expense, excessive particulars can achieve directly the opposite result from that which is intended. They can obscure the issues rather than providing clarification. In addition, after disclosure and the exchange of witness statements pleadings frequently become of only historic interest."
Civil Procedure Rules
[ Bailii ]
Burrells Wharf Freeholds Ltd -v- Galliard Homes Ltd [1999] EWHC Technology 219
1 Jul 1999
TCC
Dyson J
Civil Procedure Rules Casemap
1 Cites
The court was aksed to provide pre-action discovery under the rules. The defendant said that the rules were invalid, having been made under an invalid power. Held: "article 5 of the Order would not have been invalidated by a failure to mention in the recital the statutory power pursuant to which it was made. "
Civil Procedure Rules 31.16
Link[s] omitted
Ricardo Biguzzi -v- Rank Leisure Plc [1999] EWCA Civ 1972; [1999] 1 WLR 1926
26 Jul 1999
CA
Lord Woolf MR
Litigation Practice, Civil Procedure Rules
1 Citers
The court's powers under the new CPR to deal with non-compliance with time limits, were wide enough to allow the court to allow re-instatement of an action previously struck out. The court could find alternative ways of dealing with any delay which could recompense the other party and seek to achieve justice as between the parties. The new Civil Procedure Rules had ushered in a new regime, and that it was no longer useful to look back at decisions under the pre-CPR regime because that was a different regime. Lord Woolf pointed out the array of sanctions made available under the CPR which might enable a court to do justice to the parties, after delay had occurred, without resorting to the draconian measure of a strike out order.
Lord Woolf MR said: "it is also essential that parties do not disregard timetables laid down. If they do, then the court must make sure that the default does not go unmarked. If the court were to ignore delays which occur, then undoubtedly there will be a return to the previous culture of regarding time limits as unimportant."
Civil Procedure Rules
Link[s] omitted
Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, ex parte O'Byrne; Admn 20-Aug-1999
Cala Homes (South) Limited -v- Chichester District Council; Admn 20-Aug-1999
In Re Club Europe Trade Mark
2 Sep 1999
ChD
Intellectual Property, Civil Procedure Rules
A court hearing an appeal under the Act, and deciding whether or not to admit new evidence, must now bear in mind the overriding objectives of litigation as defined, and also the need for proportionality. In this case, the pre-hearing procedures had failed to identify the real issues between the parties, and justice required that additional evidence be admitted rather than the case be remitted for hearing.
Swain -v- Hillman; CA 21-Oct-1999
Ford -v- GKR Construction and Others [2000] 1 All ER 802; [1999] EWCA Civ 3030
22 Oct 1999
CA
Judge LJ, Woolf MR
Costs, Civil Procedure Rules Casemap
1 Citers
Where a party wished to put the other at risk of payment of costs by the making of an offer, it was vital that the other party should be made properly aware of any information available to decide on the offer. Under the new regime, it was not appropriate to hold back such information, and a party who did so risked losing his costs even if the payment in would otherwise meet the criteria. The Claimant recovered less damages than the amount of the payment into Court, but the Defendants were ordered to pay the whole of the Claimant's costs, including those incurred after the date of the payment in. Held: "the judge reaching his decision about costs is required to take into account all relevant aspects of the litigation." The order was justified in the circumstances of that case, in particular because of the late introduction of evidence by the Defendants which had the effect of reducing the amount of the judgment below that of the payment in. "Indeed, [the judge's] judgment has served to underline [not "undermine"] the importance, rightly and increasingly, to be attached to civil litigation being conducted openly between the parties with the real issues between them efficiently and quickly identified and investigated without, as it now seems to me, any unfairness to these defendants in this case." (Woolf MR) "I also draw attention to the fact that the rules refer to the power of the court to make other orders and make it clear that the normal cost consequences of failing to beat the sum paid in does not apply when it is unjust that it should do so. If a party has not enabled another party to properly assess whether or not to make an offer, or whether or not to accept an offer which is made, because of non-disclosure to the other party of material matters, or if a party comes to a decision which is different from that which would have been reached if there had been proper disclosure, that is a material matter for the court to take into account in considering what orders it should make." Judge LJ: "Civil litigation is now developing into a system designed to enable the parties involved to know where they stand in reality at the earliest possible stage, and at the lowest practicable cost, so that they .... may make informed decisions about their prospects and the sensible conduct of their cases. Among other factors the judge exercising his discretion about costs should consider is whether one side or the other has, or has not, conducted litigation with those principles in mind."
Civil Procedure Rules 36
Link[s] omitted
Malgar Ltd -v- R E Leach Engineering Ltd; ChD 01-Nov-1999