Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Litigation Practice - From: 2004 To: 2004

This page lists 129 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Brimko Holdings Limited v Eastman Kodak Company [2004] EWHC 1343 (Ch)
2004

Park J
Litigation Practice
The defendant sought security for costs. The court considered the burden of proof in such a claim: ". . the court should not restrict its evaluation of the ability of a claimant to provide security to the means of the claimant itself. If the claimant cannot provide the security from its own resources, the court will be likely to consider whether it can reasonably be expected to provide it from third parties such as, in the case of a corporate claimant, shareholders or associated companies or, in the case of an individual claimant, friends and relatives. If the case moves to the stage of considering whether the security should be regarded as being available from third parties, the burden still rests on the claimant. He or it has to show that, realistically, there do not exist third parties who can reasonably be expected to put up security for the defendant's costs" and "the court should not press too far the proposition that the burden [of showing that an order in more than a certain sum will stifle the claim] rests on the claimant. It should be recalled that when the claimant has to establish that third parties do not exist from whom security can reasonably [be] expected and obtained, that is to place on the claimant the burden of proving a negative."
1 Citers


 
XXX v YYY [2004] IRLR 471; [2004] EWCA Civ 231
2004
CA
Buxton LJ
Litigation Practice, Employment
Buxton LJ: "The first and most important rule of the law of evidence, though one that is not always perceived or observed, is that evidence is only admissible if it indeed is relevant to an issue between the parties."
1 Citers



 
 Pinto v Governor of Brixton Prison and another; Admn 2004 - [2004] EWHC 2986
 
Re: Ravenhart Service (Holdings) Limited [2004] 2 BCLC 376; [2004] EWHC 76 (Ch)
2004
ChD
Etherton J
Company, Litigation Practice
The petitioners in a combined section 459 and contributories' winding up petition sought interim relief akin to an ordinary freezing order but which was designed specifically to prevent the assets of the company from dissipation, and similar relief against certain of the company's subsidiaries. Counsel for the respondents submitted that the application for that interim relief was fatally flawed (under Ravenhart) because the petition did not assert any cause of action for restitution or other monetary payment, but rather an order for the purchase of the petitioner's shares by one or more of the respondents, or alternatively an order for compulsory winding up. The continuation of relief against the subsidiaries was abandoned by consent. Held: The court rejected counsel's submissions based upon Premier Electronics. It expressly adopted Pumfrey J's. conclusion that a section 459 petition asserted a sufficient cause of action against the company to justify Mareva relief, that an interim order preventing the dissipation of the company's assets pending the hearing of the petition was well within the court's jurisdiction as a means of preserving the effectiveness of any order which might be made upon the hearing of the petition.
Companies Act 1985 459
1 Citers


 
Building Product Design Ltd v Sandtoft Roof Tiles Ltd (No. 2) [2004] FSR 41
2004

HH Judge Fysh QC
Intellectual Property, Litigation Practice
An action was originally brought alleging infringement from a "vent tile" which would be used in the ridge of a roof. What was pleaded was a clay half-round ridge vent tile; and this tile was the only infringement mentioned in the agreed order. BPD asked that three other tiles be included in the inquiry. Sandtoft objected. Sandtoft admitted selling such further tiles before the commencement of the action but argued that the pleadings and the agreed order being limited to the clay half-round ridge tiles only, there was no scope for these other tiles to be included in the enquiry. It was not disputed that the clay and concrete tiles were identical save as to their material. Held: In a case management conference on the "clay v. concrete" tile issue, the order could be corrected under the slip rule; and that the concrete half round ridge tiles could properly be regarded as falling within the scope of the inquiry as to damages. He dismissed BDP's application to have the angled tiles included in the inquiry. BDP then brought a second action, claiming that the angled tiles infringed its patent. The court struck out the second action as an abuse of process: "I do not regard the commencement of this second action for infringement of the Patent as just a "procedural inconvenience" to Sandtoft; it amounts to an abuse of process. Proper pleading requires the timely identification of every type of infringement alleged. And, on that understanding, a defendant should know by the end of the trial (and normally well before trial) where it stands. In relation to Sandtoft's angled ridge tiles, that did not happen. This application succeeds and the second action will therefore be struck out." The "clay v. concrete" issue involved a correction of the original order under the slip rule. It was the correction of a mistake in the original order. What they were made of was immaterial. By contrast, when the infringing product was a different product, the judge held that it should have been specifically pleaded.
1 Citers


 
Aaron v Shelton [2004] EWHC 1162 (QB)
2004


Litigation Practice, Costs
A party wishing to raise a matter concerning the conduct of the opposing party, either before or during litigation, was under a duty to raise it before the judge making the costs order, was too broadly stated.
1 Citers


 
Chesterfield v North Derbyshire Royal Hospital NHS Trust [2004] Lloyds Rep Med 90
2004
CA
Brooke LJ
Litigation Practice
A claim was brought on behalf of a child with cerebral palsy, said to result from clinical negligence at the time of the child's birth. Each side had permission to call one expert consultant obstetrician but the claimant had sought permission to call a second such expert, saying this was necessary to avoid an inequality of arms in the circumstances of the particular case. Those circumstances were that the two medical witnesses who would be giving evidence of fact in relation to the birth of the claimant were now consultant obstetricians of some note. The application to call an additional expert was refused. Held: The decision was reversed.
Brooke LJ said: "Above all, however, for a case of this importance, high monetary value and complexity the parties will not be on an equal footing if Master Ungley's order is to stand. The master appreciated that it was inevitable that a witness who happened to be a professional will give evidence of his actions based upon his or her professional expertise, but he thought that it was possible to isolate this evidence from the evidence on the 'vital question of whether those decisions fell short of the required standard', on which he was permitting only one expert on each side. In my judgment he was clearly wrong to do this on the facts of this case.
Anybody watching the trial would be bound to be impressed by the fact that there was only one consultant obstetrician giving evidence for the claimant, while there would be three giving evidence for the defendant hospital trust, and those three would cover a much wider spectrum of personal experience than the single expert permitted to the claimant. It is not as if the medical witness of fact for the defendants is a junior hospital doctor."
1 Citers


 
Netbank v Commercial Money Center [2004] Bda LR 46
2004

Kawaley J
International, Litigation Practice
(Supreme Court of Bermuda) Before the court was an issue as to the enforcement of a letter of request from Ohio for oral evidence to be taken from employees in Bermuda of an insurance company. The island's Evidence Act 1905 had provisions identical to those in the English Act of 1975. Held: "Typically, perhaps, oral examination relates almost exclusively to the requested documents, so, if the documents are not properly sought, oral examination falls away." Since the request was only for oral evidence chose to adopt the approach commended in Zayed, he held that he had a discretion, which he proceeded to exercise.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Jobserve v Skillsite [2004] EWHC 661 (Ch)
2004
ChD
Lewison J
Litigation Practice
Whilst the general principles of contractual construction applied to the construction of undertakings any ambiguity should be resolved in favour of the person giving the undertaking.
1 Citers


 
Hiscox Underwriting Limited v Dixon [2004] 2 Lloyd's Rep 438; [2004] EWHC 479 (Comm)
2004

Cooke J
Arbitration, Litigation Practice
Arbitration proceedings had been commenced betweeen the parties, and an order was sought under s244. Held: Without such an order the insurers could suffer substantial losses before the arbitrator could itself make the necessary orders. The defendant argued that the power of the court was restricted to the class of case identified in section 44(3), namely to make "such orders as it thinks necessary for the purpose of preserving evidence or assets". That submission was rejected. Section 44(3) was permissive and not restrictive, and the court has jurisdiction under s44 to grant an interim mandatory injunction. The words "the court may" in 44(3) contrasted with "the court shall act only" in subsections (4) and (5). The draftsman was thought to have good reason for using of such different language and if the draftsman had intended that all three sub-sections should impose similar restrictions, he would have used the same language.
Arbitration Act 1996 44
1 Citers


 
Coflexip Sa and Another v Stolt Comex Seaway Ms Ltd and others [2004] EWHC 3 (Ch)
5 Jan 2004
ChD
Laddie J
Intellectual Property, Litigation Practice

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Harracksingh v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago and PC Neville Adams [2004] UKPC 3
15 Jan 2004
PC
Lord Hoffmann Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Scott of Foscote Sir Andrew Leggatt Sir Kenneth Keith
Commonwealth, Litigation Practice, Police, Torts - Other
(Trinidad and Tobago) The appellant had succeeded in a claim for damages against the police for false imprisonment and assault. He now appealed a reversal of that decision. The judge had been doubtful as to the value of the police evidence. The Court of Appeal had apparently re-assessed that evidence. Held: The trial judge had made explicit findings of fact which the appellate court had no standing to alter. The judgment was re-instated. "the conduct of the police officers was not merely "overzealous", as Mr Dingemans submitted: it was tortious. Although even upon that assumption he did not formally concede liability for malicious prosecution, it is irresistible. Not only was the prosecution doomed, but charging a person with an offence, which the arresting officer knows he has not committed, necessarily involves a lack of honest belief on the part of the officer, and his motive can only have been improper. "
1 Cites

[ Bailii ] - [ PC ] - [ PC ] - [ PC ]

 
 Taylor v Nugent Care Society; CA 19-Jan-2004 - Times, 28 January 2004; [2004] EWCA Civ 51
 
McCaughey and Another, Re Application for Judicial Review [2004] NIQB 2
20 Jan 2004
QBNI
Weatherup J
Coroners, Human Rights, Litigation Practice
Application by the fathers of Martin McCaughey and Desmond Grew, who were killed by soldiers on 9 October 1990, for Judicial Review of the decisions of the Chief Constable and the Coroner concerning the disclosure of documents for the purposes of the Inquests into the deaths.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Attorney General v Durlacher [2004] EWHC 222 (Admin)
27 Jan 2004
Admn

Litigation Practice

Supreme Court Act 1981 41
[ Bailii ]
 
CF v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] EWHC 111 (Fam); [2004] 2 FLR 517
30 Jan 2004
FD
Munby J
Family, Litigation Practice, Prisons
The court considered the choice or procedures arising in relation to a baby ward of court living with its mother in prison. The sentence to be served would take the child beyond the maximum age provided for in mother and baby units.
Prison Rules 1999
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 E v Secretary of State for the Home Department etc; CA 2-Feb-2004 - [2004] EWCA Civ 49; Times, 09 February 2004; [2004] QB 1044; [2004] INLR 268; [2004] BLGR 463; [2004] 2 WLR 1351
 
Cartwright and Knowles v The Superintendant of Her Majesty's Prison and The Government of the United States of America [2004] UKPC 10; [2004] 1 WLR 902
10 Feb 2004
PC
Lord Steyn, Sir John Roch and Sir Swinton Thomas, Lord Hoffmann and Lord Rodger of Earlsferry dissenting
Commonwealth, Extradition, Litigation Practice
PC (Bahamas) A warrant for extradition had been held to be void, and the prisoners released. It was argued that the US government had no right of appeal. Held: Section 17(3) of the Court of Appeal Act was applicable. Lord Steyn said that "[t]he correct approach is to ask, against the relevant context, what the legal effect of the pronounced decision is." He concluded: "[The Court of Appeal's] view [that in substance the judge had been making an order for certiorari] is reinforced by the judge's conclusion that 'I find that the orders of committal are void'. The judge was in effect making a declaration that the orders of committal were void. From that decision it followed that the state was no longer entitled to detain the applicants. The judge had based his decision on judicial review. Accordingly there was a right of appeal against the critical order."
The dissenting minority said: "Even if the judge (contrary to his express statement) is to be treated as having made an order of certiorari, we do not see how that helps the applicants. That only means that he made two orders: a deemed order of certiorari and an actual order that habeas corpus should issue. The applicants may have been entitled to appeal against the first. But that does not enable them to set aside the order for release unless they can also appeal against the second."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ PC ] - [ PC ] - [ PC ]
 
Karen Phillipps v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2004] EWHC 190 (QB)
10 Feb 2004
QBD
The Honourable Mr Justice Eady
Defamation, Litigation Practice

[ Bailii ]
 
Sinclair Investment Holdings Sa v Carlton Ellington Cushnie, Sci Sacaleca, Guillaume Leong-Son, Marrlist Limited, Assets International Management Limited, Asset Nominees Limited [2004] EWHC 218 (Ch)
12 Feb 2004
ChD
Mann, The Honourable Mr Justice Mann
Litigation Practice

[ Bailii ]
 
Practice Statement (Judicial review: Asylum Support) Times, 09 March 2004
13 Feb 2004
Admn
Collins J
Immigration, Benefits, Litigation Practice
Where an asylum applicant sought to have reviewed a decision not to provide support by way of benefits, the respondent Secretary of State was to be given an automatic extension of the time limit for replying to the application. Interim relief could be granted to the applicant and so he would not generally be prejudiced by this arrangement.
Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 55

 
Steamship Mutual Underwriting Assn Trustees (Bermuda Ltd) and Another v Baring Asset Management Ltd [2004] EWHC 202 (Comm)
13 Feb 2004
ComC

Litigation Practice

[ Bailii ]
 
Parker v Hutchings [2004] EWCA Civ 254
17 Feb 2004
CA
Brooke LJ, Scott Baker J
Litigation Practice

[ Bailii ]
 
Worcestershire County Council v Tongue, Tongue, and Tongue [2004] EWCA Civ 140; Gazette, 18 March 2004; [2004] 2 Ch 36
17 Feb 2004
CA
Lord Justice Chadwick Lord Justice Peter Gibson Sir Martin Nourse
Animals, Litigation Practice
The defendants had been convicted of animal welfare offences, and banned from keeping animals. The claimant sought to enter the premises to remove animals, but were denied entry. Held: The court had no power to make an order to allow access for this purpose:" truth what the Council is doing is to point to deficiencies in the present criminal law and to ask the court to make an order overcoming those deficiencies."
Protection of Animals Act 1911 1 - Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act 2000
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Garratt v Saxby [2004] EWCA Civ 341; Gazette, 18 March 2004; [2004] 1 WLR 2152
18 Feb 2004
CA
Ward, Buxton, Dyson LJJ
Road Traffic, Negligence, Litigation Practice, Costs
There had been a Part 36 offer to settle the action. It was disclosed inadvertently to the judge. Held: There had been no serious procedural irregularity, and fairness and justice did not require a rehearing before different judge.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Loveridge and Loveridge v Healey [2004] EWCA Civ 173; Times, 27 February 2004
20 Feb 2004
CA
Lord Justice Buxton Lord Phillips Master Of The Rolls Lord Justice Thomas
Housing, Litigation Practice
The landowner sought to recover possession of land occupied under an agreement by a mobile home owner. Held: It was necessary for the land owner to show that he had complied with the requirements under the Act. It was insufficient for the matters to be admitted in the pleadings. Pleadings are not superfluous and are still "critical to identify the issues".
Lord Phillips MR said: "It is on the basis of the pleadings that the parties decide what evidence they will need to place before the court and what preparations are necessary before the trial. Where one party advances a case that is inconsistent with his pleadings, it often happens that the other party takes no point on this. Where the departure from the pleadings causes no prejudice, or where for some other reason it is obvious that the court, if asked, will give permission to amend the pleading, the other party may be sensible to take no pleading point. Where, however, departure from a pleading will cause prejudice, it is in the interests of justice that the other party should be entitled to insist that this is not permitted unless the pleading is appropriately amended. That then introduces, in its proper context, the issue of whether or not the party in question should be permitted to advance a case which has not hitherto been pleaded." The court rejected the submission that the court should "disregard the pleading rather than . . close its eyes to what are admitted to be the true facts".
Mobile Homes Act 1983 Sch 1 para 4(a)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Shirayama Shokusan Co Ltd and others v Danovo Ltd Times, 22 March 2004; Gazette, 01 April 2004
26 Feb 2004
ChD
Blackburne J
Litigation Practice
The court had ordered the parties to conduct a mediation to resolve their dispute. The defendant applied to court that the mediation should be stayed until a named director of the claimant represented the other party. Held: That director was not himself a named party, and the court had no jurisdiction to make such an order against him.

 
Drury v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [2004] EWCA Civ 200; Times, 15 March 2004; Gazette, 25 March 2004; [2004] 1 WLR 1906; [2004] 2 All ER 1056
26 Feb 2004
CA
Lord Justice Ward Lord Justice Mummery And Mr Justice Wilson
Land, Litigation Practice
Trespassers occupied part of the land owned by the claimant. They now appealed agaainst an injunction preventing them unlawfully occupying any part of the claimant's land including areas not previously occupied. Held: It was critical to determine just what land was to be protected by the proposed order. The action was in rem and would protect the land against all-comers. As such a high standard of proof was required. If there was convincing evidence of a real danger of other land being occupied, an order might be given, but such evidence was not available here.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Perotti v Watson and others; CA 26-Feb-2004 - [2004] EWCA Civ 269
 
Goodway and Another v Zurich Insurance Co. [2004] EWHC 136 (TCC)
27 Feb 2004
TCC

Litigation Practice, Torts - Other
The Insurance company sought enforcement of a Tomlin Order, and the defendant sought its setting aside for having been obtained by misrepresentation.
[ Bailii ]
 
Smillie v Olympic House Limited Cameron K Russell [2004] ScotCS 50
27 Feb 2004
OHCS
Lord Drummond Young
Litigation Practice, Scotland

[ Bailii ] - [ ScotC ]
 
Three Rivers District Council and others v The Governor and Co of the Bank of England (No 6) [2004] EWCA Civ 218; Times, 03 March 2004; Gazette, 18 March 2004; [2004] 3 All ER 168; [2004] QB 916; [2004] 2 WLR 1065
1 Mar 2004
CA
Lord Justice Longmore Lord Phillips Of Worth Matravers, Mr Lord Justice Thomas
Litigation Practice, Legal Professions
The Bank of England had sought assistance from its lawyers to prepare for a private non-statutory enquiry. The claimant sought disclosure of that advice. The defendant bank claimed legal professional privilege. Held: Not all advice given by a solicitor to his client attracts privilege. The broad protection which did exist did not extend to situations where the dominant purpose was not the obtaining of legal advice and assistance in relation to legal rights and obligations. What was protected was advice which required a knowledge of the law. Here, the advice was on matters of presentation, though that might have included matters of law. That possibility would not protect the entire range of assistance given. Where the advice was as to how the witness might present his case so as perhaps to avoid criticism, that should not itself attract privilege. The inquiry was not concerned with legal rights and liabilities. The communications did not in general attract privilege.
Tribunals of Inquiry Evidence Act 1921 1(3)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Claimants under the Loss Relief Group Litigation Order v Inland Revenue Commissioners Times, 10 March 2004; Gazette, 25 March 2004
3 Mar 2004
ChD
Park J
Litigation Practice, Taxes Management, Corporation Tax
Various claimants sought to have issues of law on group relief and other issues settled under a group litigation order. Held: The High Court had no jurisdiction to hear such matters until they had first been raised in ordinary tax appeals before the special or general commissioners. Courts do not decide questions of principle which went as to liability. Such questions were for the commissioners first. The application was refused.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Claimants Under the Loss Relief Group Litigation Order v Inland Revenue [2004] EWHC 358 (Ch); [2004] EWHC 3588 (Ch)
3 Mar 2004
ChD

Litigation Practice

Civil Procedure Rules 19.10
[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Hughes and others (By Their Litigation Friend) v Richards (Trading As Colin Richards and Co ) [2004] EWCA Civ 266; [2004] PNLR 35
9 Mar 2004
CA
Lord Justice Aldous Lord Justice Peter Gibson Lord Justice Jacob
Professional Negligence, Litigation Practice
Parents and their children claimed against a tax adviser for negligence in relation to setting up an offshore trust. The defendant applied to strike out the children's claim on the basis that the defendant owed them no duty of care and only the parents could recover. The success of the claim was dependant upon the development of the law in White v Jones. Held: An application to strike out on this ground should not be granted unless the court is certain that the claim is bound to fail. Peter Gibson LJ said: "I start by considering what is the correct approach on a summary application of the nature of Mr. Richards's application at this early stage in the action when the pleadings show significant disputes of fact between the parties going to the existence and scope of the alleged duty of care. The correct approach is not in doubt: the court must be certain that the claim is bound to fail. Unless it is certain, the case is inappropriate for striking out . ."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Attorney General v Lawal [2004] EWHC 816 (Admin)
11 Mar 2004
Admn

Litigation Practice
Application for civil proceedings order.
Supreme Court Act 1981 42
[ Bailii ]
 
Spencer v Wood and Another (T/A Gordons Tyres, A Firm) [2004] EWCA Civ 352; Times, 30 March 2004
15 Mar 2004
CA

Legal Professions, Litigation Practice
A conditional fee agreement was invalid in failing to specify how much of the success fee was attributable to a cost for the representative's agreement to postone his fees and expenses.
[ Bailii ]
 
Roadrunner Properties Ltd and Another v Dean and Another [2004] EWCA Civ 376
17 Mar 2004
CA

Litigation Practice
Application to amend order drawn up and agreed
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Swycher v Vakil [2004] EWCA Civ 444
18 Mar 2004
CA

Insolvency, International, Litigation Practice

[ Bailii ]
 
CI v NS (Revised 1) [2004] EWHC 659 (Fam)
19 Mar 2004
FD

Wills and Probate, Litigation Practice
The executor sought to appeal an order made on behalf of a residuary beneficiary that he produce accounts in an estate. The order had been made in his absence, and with a costs order. Held: To avoid a breach of natural justice, time should be extended to allow an appeal.
Administration of Estates Act 1925 25
[ Bailii ]
 
Sutton v GE Captial Commercial Finance Ltd and others [2004] EWCA Civ 315; [2004] 2 BCLC 662
19 Mar 2004
CA

Litigation Practice
Application for order to return documents released in proceedings.
[ Bailii ]
 
HM Attorney General v Fradkina [2004] EWHC 698 (Admin)
23 Mar 2004
Admn

Litigation Practice
vexatious litigant order
Supreme Court Act 1981 42
[ Bailii ]
 
United States of America v Philip Morris Inc and Others and British American Tobacco (Investments) Ltd [2004] EWCA (Civ) 330; Times, 16 April 2004
23 Mar 2004
CA
Mr Justice Brooke Lord Justice Chadwick Lord Justice Scott Baker
Litigation Practice, Legal Professions, Evidence
The defendants appealed orders requiring them to produce evidence for use in the courts in the US. Held: It was the pleasure and duty of British courts to respond positively to a letter of request. Public interest required that a court should have before it all the evidence it required to fulfil its task. Unless it was clear that the majority of questions asked could be resisted on the grounds of legal professional privilege, the rquest should be complied with.
Evidence (Proceedings in other Jurisdictions) Act 1975
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Department of Economic Policy and Development of City of Moscow and Another v Bankers Trust Company and Another [2004] EWCA Civ 314; [2005] 1 QB 202; [2004] 1 CLC 1099; [2004] 3 WLR 533; [2004] BLR 229; [2004] 2 Lloyd's Rep 179; [2004] 4 All ER 746; [2004] 2 All ER (Comm) 193
25 Mar 2004
CA
Mance VC, Carnwath, Mance LJJ
Arbitration, Litigation Practice
The word "private" in rule 39.2 means the same as "secret". Lord Justice Mance said: "It may be equated with the old 'in camera' procedure, rather than the old 'in chambers' procedure." Privacy and confidentiality are features long assumed to be implicit in parties' choice to arbitrate in England.
Arbitration Act 1996 1 - Civil Procedure Rules 39.2
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
A v XB (Non-Party) [2004] EWHC 447 (QB)
25 Mar 2004
QBD
Morland J
Personal Injury, Litigation Practice
Application for disclosure order in respect of claimant's medical records - bipolar mood disorder or hypomania.
[ Bailii ]
 
Dipcon Engineering Services Ltd v Bowen and Another [2004] UKPC 18; 64 WIR 117
1 Apr 2004
PC
Lord Brown of Eaton-Under-Heywood
Commonwealth, Litigation Practice
PC Grenada "Whilst Saudi Eagle is clear authority, if authority were needed, for the proposition that an application to set aside a default judgment can be made (and, if refused, can then be appealed) notwithstanding that final judgment has been entered, it is certainly not authority for saying that on an appeal against an assessment of damages a previous default judgment can be set aside without any such application ever having been made ..."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ PC ]

 
 Bajwa and others v Furini; ChD 2-Apr-2004 - [2004] EWCA Civ 412

 
 Gezer v Secretary of State for Home Department and others; CA 2-Apr-2004 - [2004] EWCA Civ 510
 
Rose v Lynx Express Ltd. and Bridgepoint Capital (Nominees) Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 447; Times, 22 April 2004; [2004] 1 BCLC 455
7 Apr 2004
CA
Lord Justice Peter Gibson Mr Justice Keene Lord Justice Mance
Company, Litigation Practice, Civil Procedure Rules
In an request for pre-action discovery it was plainly wrong for the court to seek to decide in advance any element of the virtues of the case. Held: The appeal should be allowed. The case was arguable and should be allowed to proceed.
Peter Gibson LJ said: "We have reservations about the approach adopted by the judge. We are concerned whether it is possible, and it is in our view certainly unsatisfactory, to have a situation in which what is described as a straightforward issue of construction is decided one way for one purpose, but may later be re-argued and possibly decided differently during the course of subsequent proceedings. Further, whether or not the determination would be binding at the trial of the substantive claim, there are practical dangers about considering any substantive issue, and particularly the core issue in the action, in the context of an application for pre-action disclosure. At the pre-action stage, the parties may not have thought through or seen all the implications of the issue in the same way as they will have done by the time when it comes to be tried. Any pre-action determination will have to take place in the light of assumptions about the factual circumstances, which may prove incomplete or incorrect. The actual factual circumstances, when known, may throw up problems about a particular construction of the articles which may not have been apparent at the pre-action stage. We think therefore that courts should be hesitant, in the context of an application for pre-action disclosure, about embarking upon any determination of substantive issues in the case. In our view it will normally be sufficient to found an application under CPR 31.16(3) for the substantive claim pursued in the proceedings to be properly arguable and to have a real prospect of success, and it will normally be appropriate to approach the conditions in CPR 31.16(3) on that basis."
Civil Procedure Rules 31.16(3)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Bishop v Bishop; CA 26-Apr-2004 - [2004] EWCA Civ 738
 
Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Comp v Bovis Lend Lease Ltd [2004] EWHC 1614 (Comm)
7 May 2004
ComC

Litigation Practice
Transfer of proceedings from one branch of High Court to a specialist branch (Technology and Construction Court)
[ Bailii ]
 
Wiltshire v Powell and others [2004] EWCA Civ 534; Times, 03 June 2004; [2004] 3 All ER 235; [2004] 3 WLR 666; [2005] QB 117
7 May 2004
CA
Lord Justice Latham Lady Justice Arden Mr Justice Holman
Contract, Litigation Practice
The claimant sought a declaration as to the ownership of an aircraft. Saying he had bought it in good faith from E H and S, who in turn similarly claimed to have bought it from Ebbs. The defendant had obtained a judgment that he was owner as against Mr Ebbs after the sale to E H and S, but before the sale to the claimant. Held: Since the issue of ownership had been determined before his purchase and against one through whom he claimed to derive title, the claim failed. The doctrine of privity applies in the same manner to a judgment determining the ownership of goods as it does to one determining the ownership of land.
Latham LJ expressed his conclusion: "where title to goods is in dispute . . a person claiming title is privy to the interests of those through whom he claims that title for the purposes of the operation of the doctrine of estoppel per rem judicatam but only if the title he claims was acquired after the date of the judgment."
Arden LJ said "Res judicata promotes the important public policy of finality in legal proceedings and thus legal certainty . . If there was no estoppel per rem judicatam in this situation the result would always be that a defendant to an action about the ownership of property could always avoid the result of an adverse judgment by disposing of the property before the judgment was enforced. That would clearly be an intolerable state of affair . . "
Holman J said: "If after A has obtained a final judgment establishing that a chattel belongs to A rather than B, A wishes to sell it, it is essential that a purchaser can rely on the judgment as against B for otherwise A cannot really benefit from his judgment. Any alternative view would lead to uncertainty and commercial chaos."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Alma Communications Ltd and Another v Feedback Communications Ltd [2004] EWHC 1305 (Ch)
10 May 2004
ChD

Intellectual Property, Litigation Practice

[ Bailii ]
 
Dyno-Rod Plc v Debel Ltd and others [2004] EWHC 1100 (Ch)
11 May 2004
ChD

Litigation Practice
Application for a search and seize order and freezing order.
[ Bailii ]

 
 Halsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust etc; CA 11-May-2004 - [2004] EWCA Civ 576; Times, 27 May 2004; Gazette, 03 June 2004; [2004] 1 WLR 3002; [2004] CP Rep 34; [2004] 4 All ER 920; (2005) 81 BMLR 108; [2004] 3 Costs LR 393
 
Dadourian Group International Inc and Others v Simms and Others [2004] EWCA Civ 686
13 May 2004
CA

Litigation Practice
Application for leave to appeal against worldwide asset freezing order.
[ Bailii ]
 
Attorney General v Mensah [2004] EWHC 1441 (Admin)
13 May 2004
Admn

Litigation Practice

Supreme Court Act 1981 41
[ Bailii ]

 
 Ultraframe (UK) Ltd v Tailored Roofing Systems Ltd; CA 14-May-2004 - [2004] EWCA Civ 585
 
Medtia v Hamid and Another [2004] EWCA Civ 666
21 May 2004
CA

Litigation Practice
Appeal against stay - costs
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Perotti v Collyer-Bristow (A Firm); CA 21-May-2004 - [2004] EWCA Civ 639; [2004] 4 All ER 53
 
Noble v Commissioner of Police for Metropolis [2004] EWCA Civ 1195
25 May 2004
CA

Litigation Practice
Application for leave to appeal refused : 'The application is completely and absolutely hopeless. '
[ Bailii ]
 
HM Attorney General v Pepin [2004] EWHC 1246 (Admin)
27 May 2004
Admn
Auld LJ, Pitchers J
Litigation Practice
Civil proceedings order. The defendant had commenced ten sets of proceedings which the court held amounted to serial and repeated litigation of the same points. Held: The fact that new details had emerged which might throw new light on the underlying events did not mean that the respondent's behaviour did not come within the section. An order was granted, save that he could proceed with the first action provided an advocate with higher court rights of audience so advises and only if and so long as such an advocate continues to represent him in the conduct of the claim.
Supreme Court Act 1981 42
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Express Medicals Ltd v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd [2004] EWHC 1185 (TCC)
28 May 2004
TCC

Litigation Practice
Application for disclosure of documents where action discontinued.
[ Bailii ]
 
Celltech R and D Ltd v Medimmune Inc [2004] EWHC 1522 (Pat)
18 Jun 2004
Patc
Jacob J
Intellectual Property, Litigation Practice
With the consent of the parties, the court tried two questions of US patent law – file wrapper estoppel and argument estoppel, neither of which exists under our domestic law – without needing to receive expert evidence of US law.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
BG and Others v HMTQ in Right of BC 2004 BCCA 345; [2004] BCJ No 1235 (QL); [2004] CarswellBC 1359; 200 BCAC 223; 242 DLR (4th) 665
22 Jun 2004

Finch CJ, MacKenzie, Lowry JJ
Media, Litigation Practice
Court of Appeal fro British Columbia - Teachers had been accused of historical sexual abuse. An order was made for their anonymisation pending conclusion of those civil proceedings. The proceedings had now been dismissed. The Court now considered whether the anonymisation of the complainants had been correctly dischatrged. Held: Finch CJ cited substantial authority in support of his proposition that "replacing the names of certain parties with initials relates only to 'a sliver of information' and minimally impairs the openness of judicial proceedings".
1 Citers

[ Canlii ]
 
Mersey Docks Property Holdings and others v Kilgour [2004] EWHC 1638 (TCC)
25 Jun 2004
TCC

Litigation Practice
The parties disputed whether or not the fourth defendant had been effectively served with notice of the proceedings.
[ Bailii ]

 
 Marlwood Commercial Inc v Kozeny; CA 25-Jun-2004 - [2004] EWCA Civ 798; [2004] 3 All ER 648; [2005] 1 WLR 104
 
Stolzenberg and others v CIBC Mellon Trust Co Ltd and others [2004] EWCA Civ 827
30 Jun 2004
CA
Lord Justice Ward Lady Justice Arden Sir William Aldous
Torts - Other, Jurisdiction, Litigation Practice
The court considered the issue of the use of a strike out as a sanction for non-compliance with a court order. Held. The approach of the court in a case considering relief for sanctions - exemplified by RC Residuals v Linton Fuel was bound to be different from that in Arrow Nominees v Blackledge, as there was no "unless" order in the latter case. Her Ladyship stated: "The fact that an 'unless' order has been made inevitably means that there is an additional factor to consider. Had there been a relevant order in Arrow Nominees, that, too, would have been a factor. It is only a factor to be weighed in the balance. Moreover, compliance with orders of the court is not a question of judicial amore propre. It goes to the essence of the rule of law that parties subject to the court's jurisdiction . . should comply with the court's orders. The gravity of the matter of non-compliance is plainly increased where the non-compliance results from a conscious decision, as in this case. It follows, as Ward LJ said in High Tech Limited v Coventry City Council [1997] 1WLR 1666 at 1674 to 1675, that, 'If a party intentionally or deliberately . . flouts the order, he can expect no mercy'. He has to persuade the court that in all the circumstances the injustice to him outweighs the interests of the administration of justice and the injury to the other party."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (Mahajan) v Central London County Court and Department of Constitutional Affairs Times, 13 July 2004; [2004] EWCA Civ 946
30 Jun 2004
CA
Brooke LJ
Litigation Practice
The High Court has power to make a general civil restraint order to prevent the litigant commencing proceedings in the County Court as well as the High Court.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Pelling v Bruce-Williams, Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs intervening (2004) 2 FLR 823; [2004] EWCA Civ 845; [2004] 3 All ER 875
5 Jul 2004
CA
Lord Justice Sedley Lord Justice Thorpe Lady Justice Arden
Family, Litigation Practice
The applicant sought an order that his application for a joint residence order should be held in public. Held: Though there was some attractiveness in the applicant's arguments, the issue had been fully canvassed by the ECHR. The time had come for the court to consider in each case whether a proper balance of competing rights requires the anonymisation of any report of the proceedings and judgment but only following a hearing which was conducted in public and therefore open to all who cared to attend. Otherwise the application failed.
Family Proceedings Rules 1991 4.16 - Children Act 1989 97(2)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Lennox Lewis v Eliades [2004] EWHC 1697 (Ch)
8 Jul 2004
ChD
Peter Smith J
Litigation Practice
The defendant sought to set aside an oder appointing a receiver of a charging order over the defendant's property.
[ Bailii ]
 
Assets Recovery Agency v Customs and Excise and others [2004] EWHC 1821 (Admin)
12 Jul 2004
Admn

Criminal Practice, Litigation Practice
Civil action to recover proceeds of drugs crime for the assets recovery agency
[ Bailii ]
 
Attorney General v Ebert [2004] EWHC 1838 (Admin)
13 Jul 2004
Admn

Litigation Practice
Criminal Proceedings Order
Supreme Court Act 1981 42
[ Bailii ]
 
Parsons and Another v George and Another [2004] EWCA (Civ) 912; Times, 28 July 2004; [2004] 1 WLR 3264
13 Jul 2004
CA
Lord Justice Clarke Vice-Chancellor, The Vice-Chancellor Lord Justice Dyson
Landlord and Tenant, Litigation Practice, Civil Procedure Rules
The claimant sought to begin proceedings to renew his business tenancy, but the proceedings were issued in the wrong name. He sought to amend the proceedings to substitute the correct defendant, but that application was out of time. Held: Proceedings under the 1954 Act were not within the proceedings listed by CPR 19.5 since the 1954 Act was silent as to the addition or substitution of parties to proceedings. The assumption was that such amendments were to be allowed because the Act did not proscribe them. The extension of CPR 17.4 to limitation periods in some other statutes is within the powers of the rules committee.
Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 Part II - Civil Procedure Rules 29(3)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Reed Executive Plc, Reed Solutions Plc v Reed Business Information Ltd, Reed Elsevier (Uk) Ltd, Totaljobs.Com Ltd [2004] EWCA (Civ) 887; Times, 16 July 2004; [2005] FSR 3; [2004] 1 WLR 3026; [2004] 4 All ER 942; [2005] CP Rep 4; (2004) 27(7) IPD 27067; [2004] 4 Costs LR 662; (2005) 81 BMLR 108; [2004] 3 Costs LR 393
14 Jul 2004
CA
Lord Justice Auld Lord Justice Rix Lord Justice Jacob
Costs, Litigation Practice
After successfully appealing, the defendant claimant argued for a substantial part of its costs, saying that the defendant had unreasonably refused ADR. To pursue this, it now sought disclosure of the details of the without prejudice negotiations between them. Held: No distinction is to be made between party-to-party negotiations and negotiations conducted within a mediation: both are to be treated as subject to the without prejudice rule. Negotiations protected by a general Without Prejudice agreement should not be used at any point, even on issues of costs: "the rule in Walker v Wilshire remains good law and that the Court cannot order disclosure of "without prejudice" negotiations against the wishes of one of the parties to those negotiations. This may (indeed does) mean that in some cases the Court when it comes to the question of costs cannot decide whether one side or the other was unreasonable in refusing mediation. "
Civil Procedure Rules 44.3(4)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Attorney General v Burgess [2004] EWHC 2057 (Admin)
14 Jul 2004
Admn

Litigation Practice

Supreme Court Act 1981 42
[ Bailii ]
 
Scribes West Limited v Relsa Anstalt and Another (No 2) (Practice Note) [2005] 1 WLR 1839; [2004] EWCA Civ 965; [2004] 4 All ER 653
20 Jul 2004
CA
Lord Justice Mance Lord Justice Brooke Lord Justice Dyson
Landlord and Tenant, Insolvency, Litigation Practice
The court gave guidance on the destination of appeals from county court cases. It was vital to identify the precise nature of the order under appeal: "The judges of this court (and the staff at the Civil Appeals Office) have to interpret the order of the lower court as we find it. The relevant decision is the Court's order, and the Destination Order determines where appeal should lie from that order . . The appeal court must be the one that is readily ascertainable from the face of the court's order, and not one which would or might have been ascertainable if the judge had made a different order. It would be intolerable if appeal courts had to be subjected to a complicated examination of the types of order that might have been made if the parties had dealt with things differently in the lower court, merely for the purpose of determining whether they possess jurisdiction. The destination of the appeal should be ascertainable from the language of the order."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Humber Work Boats Ltd v 'Selby Paradigm', Owners of Mv and others [2004] EWHC 1804 (Admlty)
23 Jul 2004
AdCt

Transport, Litigation Practice
The barge had become holed when run aground and then repaired. The repair was faulty, and it sank. The insurers rejected the claim saying that the owners had failed to disclose a report showing areas of thinning of the hull. The underwriters sought to be joined as defendants after judgment. Held: It was argued that party could be added after judgment: "the argument runs following the judgment there is, by definition, no "matter in dispute" in the proceedings.
I unhesitatingly reject this submission. Any proper analysis of the rule must be on the assumption that the existing defendants and/or the intended defendants have a defence that has a real prospect of success. If there is no such prospect, any joinder would be a barren exercise. If there is an arguable defence, then it is a bootstraps argument to assert that the default judgment can be relied upon to assert that the prosecution of such a defence is barred. "
Civil Procedure Rules 19(2)(2) - Marine Insurance Act 1906 39(5)
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Angelo Perotti v Iliffe Booth Bennett and others [2004] EWCA Civ 1018
27 Jul 2004
CA
Lord Justice Brooke Kay, Lord Justice Kay
Litigation Practice
The claimant appealed the striking out of his claims against solicitors for negligence, and a declaration that his case was an abuse of process.
[ Bailii ]
 
Her Majesty's Attorney General v Dick Lucien Chitolie [2004] EWHC 1943 (Admin)
27 Jul 2004
QBD
Mr Justice Henriques Lord Justice Dyson
Litigation Practice
civil proceedings order
[ Bailii ]
 
Angelo Perotti v Collyer-Bristow (A Firm) (No 2) [2004] EWCA Civ 1019
27 Jul 2004
CA
Lord Justice Brooke Kay, Lord Justice Kay
Litigation Practice
Amendments to draft judgment
[ Bailii ]
 
Scottish and Newcastle Plc v Raguz [2004] EWHC 1835 (Ch)
27 Jul 2004
ChD
Hart J
Litigation Practice, Landlord and Tenant
The claimant had previously assigned its interest in a lease to the defendant, who had in turn re-assigned it. The eventual tenant became insolvent, and the landlord had recovered sums from the claimant who now sought an indemnity under the covenant implied under section 24. The defendant now applied for the claim to be struck out, saying that the claimant had not complied with an order to disclosed details of actions it had agreed with the landlord and which had increaed the sums due. Held. There had not been sufficient non-compliance to justify a striking out of the claim.
Land Registration Act 1925 24
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Lfepa v Halcrow Gilbert and Co Ltd [2004] EWHC 2340 (TCC)
28 Jul 2004
TCC
Toulmin QC J
Litigation Practice
Application for disclosure of expert's report resisted on the grounds of legal professional litigation privilege.
[ Bailii ]
 
Her Majestys Attorney-General v Paul Benton [2004] EWHC 1952 (Admin)
28 Jul 2004
QBD
Henriques Mr Justice Henriques Lord Justice Dyson
Litigation Practice
Application for Civil proceedings order
Supreme Court Act 1981 41
[ Bailii ]
 
Ayobiojo and Another v Easyspace Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 1247
29 Jul 2004
CA

Litigation Practice
Production of falsified divorce petition to support opposition to charging order on former matrimonial home despite transfer to wife.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Sayers and Other v Smithkline Beecham plc and others Times, 22 October 2004
30 Jul 2004
QBD
Keith J
Litigation Practice, Legal Aid
In group litigation in respect of the MMR vaccinne, certain lead claimants had had their legal aid withdrawn. Held: They would be allowed to withdraw from the action and would not require the permission of the court.

 
Phillips, Harland (Administrators of the Estate of Michailidis), Papadimitriou; Symes (A Bankrupt), Robin Symes Limited (In Administrative Receivership), Domercq etc [2004] EWHC 1887 (Ch)
30 Jul 2004
ChD
The Honourable Mr Justice Peter Smith
Health, Litigation Practice
Under the Ciivil Procedure Rules, experts have acquired greater responsibilities to the court. Those responsibilities transcend their perceived obligations to the parties whom they give evidence.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Pritchard Englefield v Steinberg and Steinberg [2004] EWHC 1908 (Ch)
30 Jul 2004
ChD
The Honourable Mr Justice Peter Smith
Litigation Practice, Registered Land
Enforcement of charging order absolute.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Middleweek v Collins Stewart Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 1179
20 Aug 2004
CA

Employment, Litigation Practice
Ex parte application for leave to appeal against order allowing amendment of pleadings.
[ Bailii ]
 
R v W Primary Care Trust [2004] EWHC 2085 (Fam)
3 Sep 2004
FD

Litigation Practice, Professional Negligence

[ Bailii ]
 
South Cambridgeshire District Council v Persons Unknown [2004] EWCA Civ 1280; Times, 11 November 2004
17 Sep 2004
CA
Brooke and Clarke LJJ
Planning, Environment, Litigation Practice
The council appealed refusal of an order against persons unknown with regard to preventing breaches of planning control at a specific site. Held: An injunction could properly be granted against persons unknown "causing or permitting hardcore to be deposited, caravans, mobile homes or other forms of residential accommodation to be stationed, or existing caravans or other mobile homes to be occupied on land" adjacent to a gypsy encampment in rural Cambridgeshire. The land adjoined a gipsy caravan site. The council had refused applications to allow infill development between such sites. The courts powers had clearly developed sufficiently to make an order of the kind sought in this kind of situation. Brooke LJ commented: "There was some difficulty in times gone by against obtaining relief against persons unknown, but over the years that problem has been remedied either by statute or by rule."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Dumford Trading Ag v Oao Atlantrybflot [2004] EWCA Civ 1265
17 Sep 2004
CA
Clarke LJ
Litigation Practice
Applications for suspension of enforcement pending appeal and similar.
[ Bailii ]
 
Jeyapragash, Regina (on the Application Of) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal [2004] EWCA Civ 1260; Times, 12 October 2004
21 Sep 2004
CA

Immigration, Litigation Practice
The parties settled an immigration appeal in the last days before the date set for the hearing. Held: Parties should bear in mind the new Court of Appeal rules requiring documents to be lodged early, and for settlements to be agreed if possible early so that listing slots should not be lost. Representatives can expect to be called to appear in person before the court to explain themselves and to be penalised in costs for breaches of the rules.
[ Bailii ]
 
Fourie v Le Roux and Others Times, 08 October 2004
30 Sep 2004
ChD
John Jarvis QC
Litigation Practice, Insolvency
Interim asset freezing injunctions had been obtained on the application of a liquidator in South Africa. The defendant applied for their discharge. Held: They should be discharged. No foreign proceedings had been specified for which they were proposed as support. An insolvency process was insufficient for this purpose. The court had forewarned the plaintiff of this difficulty. The 1982 Act applied only to injunctions sought for foreign proceedings. The only order in South Africa was an order nisi, was narrow and involved no damages claim nor any tracing remedy.
Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 25
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Al-Khatib v Masry and others [2004] EWCA Civ 1353; Times, 21 October 2004; [2005] 1 FLR 381
5 Oct 2004
CA
Thorpe LJ
Family, Litigation Practice
The parties had been involved in protracted and bitter family disputes. After a previous appeal they had been invited to refer their disputes to mediation. Held: At that time, mediation within the Appeal Court was managed by commercial mediators. No attempt had been made to supervise the mediation, and it had failed. There is no good reason why the court should not maintain some supervisory role. The court noted that the mediation had been resumed and been successful.
Thorpe LJ observed: "there is no case, however conflicted, which is not potentially open to successful mediation, even if mediation has not been attempted or has failed during the trial process"
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Braybrook v The Basildon and Thurrock University NHS Trust [2004] EWHC 3352
7 Oct 2004

Sumner J
Civil Procedure Rules, Litigation Practice
Sumner J gave guidance on the withdrawal of an admission under the CPR: "From the cases and the CPR I draw the following principals:
1. In exercising its discretion, the court will consider all the circumstances of the case and seek to give effect to the overriding objective.
2. Among the matters to be considered will be:
(a) The reasons and justifications for the Application which must be made in good faith;
(b) The balance of the prejudice to the parties and whether a party has been the author of any prejudice they might suffer;
(c) The prospect of success of any issue arising from the withdrawal of an admission;
(d) The public interest in avoiding possible satellite litigation, disproportionate use of court resources and the impact of any strategic manoeuvoring.
3. The nearer any Application is to a final hearing, the less chance of success it will have, even if the party making the Application can establish clear prejudice. This may be decisive if the application is made shortly before the hearing."
Civil Procedure Rules 14
1 Citers


 
Laemthong International Lines v Artis and others [2004] EWHC 2226 (Comm)
7 Oct 2004
ComC
The Honourable Mr Justice Colman
Litigation Practice
Application to set aside freezing order.
[ Bailii ]
 
Marketmaker Beijing Co Ltd and others v CMC Group Plc and others [2004] EWHC 2208 (QB)
8 Oct 2004
QBD
Stanley Burnton J
Banking, Litigation Practice
Interim injunctions had been obtained to prevent the defendants carrying out certain banking transactions. Held: The remedy sought and the claim was extravagant and unlikely to succeed. The injunctions should be discharged. It was not at all clear that the information sought to be protected was confidential according to the evidence, and an injunction was not required to protect documentation pending any trial.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Kohanzad v Chief Constable of Derbyshire [2004] EWCA Civ 1387
8 Oct 2004
CA

Police, Litigation Practice

[ Bailii ]
 
Babbings v Kirklees Metropolitan Council Times, 04 November 2004
11 Oct 2004
CA
Brooke LJ, Dyson LJ
Litigation Practice
The court refused leave to appeal, but commented that counsel had travelled from Manchester to London for a half hour hearing. The court said that the new system of video links would do much to reduce the costs of such applications, and in future, the court might look to see whether counsel had weighed up the relative costs of a video link hearing.

 
Phillips, Harland (Suing As Administrators of the Estate of Christo Michailidis), Papadimitriou v Symes (A Bankrupt) Robin Symes Limited (In Administrative Receivership) Jean-Louis Domercq [2004] EWHC 2330 (Ch); [2005] 2 Costs LR 224; [2005] 2 All ER (Comm) 538; [2005] CP Rep 12; [2005] 4 All ER 519; [2005] 1 WLR 2043; (2005) 83 BMLR 115
20 Oct 2004
ChD
The Honourable Mr Justice Peter Smith
Litigation Practice, Costs, Legal Professions
Dr Zamar had given expert evidence in the principal proceedings. It was now said that that evidence had not been given in the proper way, and a remedy was now sought.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Celador Productions Ltd v Melville [2004] EWHC 2362 (Ch)
21 Oct 2004
ChD
Sir Andrew Morritt V-C
Intellectual Property, Litigation Practice
The applicants each alleged breach of copyright and misuse of confidential information in the format of the television program 'Who wants to be a Millionaire'. The defendant appealed a refusal to strike out the claim. It was not contended that no copyright or confidentiality existed, but only that there was no evidence that they had infringed any such right. Held: As to the first two claims, the appeal succeeded, but the third had a real prospect of success and should be allowed to go to trial. When considering an application for summary judgment the following principles should be applied: (a) the applicant must show that the respondent's case has no real prospect of success at trial; (b) a "real" prospect of success is one which is more than fanciful and merely arguable; (c) if it is clear beyond question that the respondent will not be able at trial to establish the facts on which he relies then his prospects of success are not real; (d) the court is not entitled, on an application for summary judgment, to conduct a trial on the documents without disclosure or cross-examination.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Mersey Docks Property Holdings Ltd and others v Birse Construction Lrd and 4 Orsy [2004] EWHC 3264 (TCC)
21 Oct 2004
TCC
Toulmin QC J
Litigation Practice
Application for leave to amend pleadings - whether addition of claim debarred through limitation.
[ Bailii ]
 
Khalid Ali Ismail Turkey v Adnan Mohammed Awadh, Aziza Khalid Ali Ismail Turki [2004] EWCA Civ 1471
26 Oct 2004
CA
Sir Christopher Staughton
Litigation Practice
The claimant asserted that he had taken a transfer of the house from his daughter and son in law. They said the transfer had been procured by misrepresentation and undue influence. The claimant now sought a stay of an order for payment of costs pending the appeal against the county court judge's order.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Wickramaratna v Cambridge University Chemistry Department [2004] EWCA Civ 1532
2 Nov 2004
CA

Litigation Practice, Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
J Sainsbury Plc and Another v WSP Consulting Engineers Plc and Another [2004] EWHC 2556 (TCC)
4 Nov 2004
TCC

Litigation Practice

[ Bailii ]
 
South Tyneside v Wickes Building Supplies Ltd. [2004] EWHC 2428 (Comm)
4 Nov 2004
ComC

Landlord and Tenant, Litigation Practice
Challenge to witness summonses on reference to arbitration of rent review
[ Bailii ]
 
Schering Corporation v CIPLA Ltd and Another Times, 02 December 2004; [2004] EWHC 2587 (Ch); [2005] FSR 25
10 Nov 2004
ChD
Laddie J
Legal Professions, Litigation Practice
The defendants appealed against a refusal to strike out the patent infringement proceedings issued by the claimant, saying the only evidence offered was a letter written by the defendants which was headed 'without prejudice'. Held: The essential character of a without prejudice communication was that the writer genuinely intended it to form part of a negotiation. That might arise on the first part of a communication, as it did here. The appeal succeeded.
Laddie J referred to Standrin and said: "it seems to me that the Court of Appeal indicated that in determining the nature of correspondence and, in particular, in determining whether or not it is to be treated as bona fide without prejudice, it is necessary to consider all the circumstances. In that case, the common practice of negotiating when a reference to the Land Tribunal was in prospect was one factor which the Court of Appeal took into consideration. But it also took into consideration the fact that the document was headed with the words "without prejudice". As Parker LJ made clear, merely putting those words on a document does not conclusively mean that the document is privileged. However the occurrence of those words may well be an important factor in determining the document's status.
Behind this, it seems to me, is the following principle.The court has to determine whether or not a communication is bona fide intended to be part of or to promote negotiations. To determine that, the court has to work out what, on a reasonable basis, the intention of the author was and how it would be understood by a reasonable recipient."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
J Sainsbury Plc and Another v Wsp Consulting Engineers Plc [2004] EWHC 2610 (TCC)
10 Nov 2004
TCC
Seymour QC J
Litigation Practice
Application for disclosure of documents.
[ Bailii ]
 
University of Oxford and others v Broughton and others [2004] EWHC 2543 (QB)
10 Nov 2004
QBD
Grigson J
Litigation Practice
The claimants sought injunctions to protect themselves against the activities of animal rights protesters, including an order preventing them coming with a wide area around the village. Held: The orders made were justified with the additional requirement that the defendants should not photograph the claimants.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Three Rivers District Council and others v Governor and Company of the Bank of England (No 6); HL 11-Nov-2004 - [2004] UKHL 48; Times, 12 November 2004; [2004] 3 WLR 1274; [2005] 1 AC 610
 
Ramondin and Ramondin Capsulas v Commission (State Aid) C-188/02; [2004] EUECJ C-188/02 P
11 Nov 2004
ECJ

European, Litigation Practice
Where the European Courts has power to permit interventions in direct actions they exercise the power in a restrictive manner, and allow interventions only by those persons able to establish a direct interest in the ruling on the specific act whose annulment is sought.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Brian Warwicker Partnership Plc v Hok International Ltd [2004] EWHC 2642 (TCC)
11 Nov 2004
TCC

Litigation Practice
What rate of interest was to be applied on judgment amount.
[ Bailii ]
 
Merelle v Newcastle Primary Care Trust Times, 01 December 2004
11 Nov 2004
QBD
Eady J
Litigation Practice
The claimant claimed harassment. The judge dismissed his claim as being utterly implausible. He appealed. Held: The limits of the new tort of harassment were not clearly set. In such circumstances it would be wrong to dismiss a case depriving the claimant of a hearing even though, as the judge decided the claim was inherently implausible.

 
Windmill Racing Stables v Lewis [2004] EWCA Civ 1813
17 Nov 2004
CA
Lord Justice Ward Lord Justice Sedley
Litigation Practice
Failure to comply with unless order
[ Bailii ]
 
Attorney General v Lewis [2004] EWHC 2794 (Admin)
17 Nov 2004
Admn
Rose LJ, Leveson J
Litigation Practice
Application for civil proceedings order
Supreme Court Act 1981 42
[ Bailii ]
 
J Sainsbury Plc and Another v WSP Consulting Engineers Plc and Another [2004] EWHC 2749 (TCC)
18 Nov 2004
TCC
Seymour QC J
Litigation Practice
Application for leave to bring additional evidence.
[ Bailii ]
 
Gray v Legal Services Ombudsman and others [2004] EWCA Civ 1683
18 Nov 2004
CA

Litigation Practice
(very short) Appeal dismissed in absence of applicant.
[ Bailii ]
 
Compagnie Noga D'Importation Et D'Exportation Sa v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd and others [2004] EWHC 2601 (Comm)
18 Nov 2004
ComC
Mr Justice Langley
Banking, Litigation Practice

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Customs and Excise v Barclays Bank Plc [2004] EWCA Civ 1555; [2005] 1 WLR 2082
22 Nov 2004
CA
Lord Justice Peter Gibson Lord Justice Longmore Mr Justice Lindsay
Litigation Practice, Banking, Negligence
The claimant had obtained judgment against customers of the defendant, and then freezing orders for the accounts. The defendants inadvertently or negligently allowed sums to be transferred from the accounts. The claimants sought repayment by the bank. Held: The bank was liable. "a duty ought to be imposed on the Bank, towards claimants who have obtained a freezing order, to take care that funds of a person whose account has been frozen pursuant to that order should not be dissipated in breach of that order. I would not be deterred by the apparent absence of any express or deliberate assumption of responsibility on the part of the Bank since I would hold that the law ought to decide that such responsibility should be imposed and that that, in accordance with Phelps, is sufficient. I do not believe that the absence of an express assumption of responsibility should be fatal to the conclusion reached by relying on the first approach. I further conclude, applying the third (incremental) approach, that the imposition of such a duty of care is not to impose on banks liabilities different in kind from the sort of liabilities to which banks have become used at the hands of their customers and others for many years."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Lloyds Bank Plc and others v Cassidy [2004] EWCA Civ 1767; Times, 11 January 2005
1 Dec 2004
CA
Lord Justice Auld, Lord Justice Chadwick, Lord Justice Clarke
Insolvency, Professional Negligence, Litigation Practice
The defendant sought leave to appeal against orders for possession. The trial had been transcribed by the claimant. At the start of the application, a copy of the transcript was given to the judge but not the defendant despite his application. Held: The judge should not be provided with a document which was not also to be provided to the other party. The failure to do so was a procedural irregularity. In this case however the transcript had been provided in time for the defence counsel to make use of it for his closing summary, and no prejudice had in fact occurred. The other grounds of appeal failed. Appeal dismissed.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Matthews, Regina (on the Application of) v Employment Tribunal [2004] EWHC 3385 (Admin)
6 Dec 2004
Admn
Hughes J
Employment, Litigation Practice, Human Rights
The applicants sought to challenge the practice of employment tribunals not to record their proceedings. They wished to allege perjury by a witness but had found that no prosecution would flow without a record. Held: the application for judicial review was unarguable and failed. "Article 6 requires that the claimant should have had a full and public fair hearing, where his rights were in issue, as they were. The absence of recording equipment is, however, entirely irrelevant to whether the hearing itself is fair or not. "
European Convention on Human Rights 6
[ Bailii ]
 
Chan v Alvis Vehicles Ltd and Another [2004] EWHC 3092 (Ch); [2005] 1 WLR 2965; [2005] 3 All ER 155; [2005] EMLR 19
8 Dec 2004
ChD
Park J
Media, Litigation Practice
The parties had had a part trial, and settled. The Gardian Newspaper now applied for disclosure of various documents to support a proposed news story. The parties had disputed payment to the claimant of commissions on the sales of military vehicles by the defendant to an overseas government. The disclosure was opposed by the defendants. Held: The issue was as to the contuned availabity of the papers after conclusion of the trial. Considering the Rules and the notes to them in the White Book, the notes did not appear to follow from the rules.
Civil Procedure Rules 32.13 5.4(2)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Chan U Seek v Alvis Vehicles Ltd; ChD 8-Dec-2004 - [2005] 1 WLR 2965; [2005] EMLR 19; [2005] 3 All ER 155
 
Birminham City Council and Another v Yardley Times, 13 December 2004
9 Dec 2004
CA
Kennedy LJ, Jacob LJ, Gage LJ
Litigation Practice
The litigant was informed before the case that the judge was from the same chambers as counsel for the opposing side. Held: Such a litigant if he wanted to complain of bias must do so immediately. The judgment had been delivered only in draft form, but remained effective and binding.
1 Cites


 
Capital Bank Plc v Stickland [2004] EWCA Civ 1677
10 Dec 2004
CA
Lord Justice Keene Lord Justice Longmore Lord Justice Mance
Litigation Practice

[ Bailii ]
 
Deg-Deutsche Investitions - Undentwicklungs Gesellschaft Gmbh v Thomas Koshy Times, 07 January 2005; [2004] EWHC 2896 (Ch)
13 Dec 2004
ChD
Hart J
Civil Procedure Rules, Litigation Practice
The parties had been involved in protracted litigation where a freezing order had been made to support a claim which was eventually dismissed. The claimant sought to have set aside an earlier order made ordering him to pay costs on failing to have the order discharged. Held: The order had been made under the former Supreme Court Rules. The power under the new rules to revoke an order made under the rules did not operate retrospectively to allow revocation of an order made under the earlier rules.
Civil Procedure Rules 3.1(7)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Baldock v Webster and Others Times, 13 January 2005
21 Dec 2004
CA
Kennedy, Laws, Arden, LJJ
Litigation Practice
The claimant alleged negligence against his solicitors in having failed to challenge an order made ultra vires by a county court judge. Held: The common law doctrine of de facto jurisdiction validated the decision of the judge. The recorder had a colourable title to hear the case, and could assume that the case had been validly listed before him.
1 Cites


 
North British Housing Association Ltd v Matthews, Same v Others [2004] EWCA Civ 1736; Times, 11 January 2005; [2005] 1 WLR 3133; [2005] 2 All ER 667; [2005] HLR 17
21 Dec 2004
CA
Lord Justice Brooke Vice President Of The Court Of Appeal (Civil Division) Lord Justice Mance And Lord Justice Dyson
Housing, Litigation Practice
In each case the tenants requested adjournment of the possession proceedings brought against them by the landlord for arrears of rent to allow them time to bring the arrears below the level at which a possession order could be made. In each case it was said that the situation arose from maladministration by the local authority of their housing benefit, and that this was an exceptional circumstance to allow an adjournment. Held: The effective date was the date of the hearing. The judge had no discretion to adjourn, and the failures of the local authority did not create an exceptional circumstance. To adjourn the case would deprive the landlord of its claim. "the authorities tend in our judgment to show that the court should not adjourn a hearing date for the purpose of enabling a defendant to rely on a subsequent change in the law or the facts and thereby defeat the claim. " and "We acknowledge that this conclusion will lead to tenants who are in receipt of housing benefit having no defence to a claim for possession in circumstances where they are not at fault. The statutory scheme is, therefore, potentially draconian in its application."
Housing Act 1988 8
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.