Click the case name for better results:

Practice Note (Court of Appeal Civil Division: Assessment of Costs): CA 26 Apr 1999

The Court of Appeal will normally identify in advance those cases where it expected to apply a summary assessment of costs and at which a statement of costs would be required, though parties may propose such an assessment. Citations: Times 26-Apr-1999 Statutes: Civil Procedure Rules Part 44 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Litigation Practice Updated: 11 … Continue reading Practice Note (Court of Appeal Civil Division: Assessment of Costs): CA 26 Apr 1999

Kimondo, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department (Relevant Rules; AOS Requirements) (IJR): UTIAC 14 Nov 2014

(1) In judicial review applications transferred by the Administrative Court to the Upper Tribunal, the applicable procedural regime is that contained in the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008. The Civil Procedure Rules have no effect thereafter; although the procedural history may be significant, particularly as regards time limits. (2) The prohibition in rule 29(3) … Continue reading Kimondo, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department (Relevant Rules; AOS Requirements) (IJR): UTIAC 14 Nov 2014

Ho v Adelekun: SC 6 Oct 2021

The Court was asked whether there is jurisdiction in a personal injury claim that attracts the application of Part 44 Section II of the Civil Procedure Rules (‘CPR’), which relates to Qualified One-way Costs Shifting (‘QOCS’), to allow the set-off . .

Lowin v W Portsmouth and Co: QBD 20 Jun 2016

‘relatively narrow point about the construction of the Civil Procedure Rules (‘the CPR’). It is an appeal from an order of Costs Master Whelan (‘the Master’) dated 8 December 2015. He decided that the costs allowed to the appellant on provision . .

Omega Engineering Inc v Omega SA: ChD 20 May 2003

An ‘unless’ order had been agreed between the parties, but the order had not allowed for what would happen if either party sought permission to appeal. The respondent argued that the claimant could not have an extension of time pending the outcome of his application for permission, saying that the court was now functus officio. … Continue reading Omega Engineering Inc v Omega SA: ChD 20 May 2003

Aoot Kalmneft v Glencore International AG and Another: QBD 27 Jul 2001

When asking whether the time for appeal against an arbitrator’s award should be extended, the court should look at several circumstances, including the length of the delay; whether the party was acting reasonably in all the circumstances in delaying; whether the other party had contributed to the delay; whether other party would suffer irremediable prejudice … Continue reading Aoot Kalmneft v Glencore International AG and Another: QBD 27 Jul 2001

Capital One Developments Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise: ChD 4 Feb 2002

The company sought repayment of some 8 million pounds overpaid VAT from the Commissioners. That claim was yet to be determined, but the company sough an order for interim payments, on the basis that it could repay if necessary. Held: Whilst such an order might be made, it would require exceptional circumstances. The claim was … Continue reading Capital One Developments Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise: ChD 4 Feb 2002

CIL International Ltd v Vitrashop Ltd: ChD 2002

Pumfrey J held that an Earth Closet order was not incompatible with the CPR. His reason was that such an order was not incompatible with the overriding objective: ‘That being the existing state of the law prior to the Civil Procedure Rules it may be seen immediately that it is consistent with the overriding objective … Continue reading CIL International Ltd v Vitrashop Ltd: ChD 2002

Sony Computer Entertainment and Others v. Ball and Others: ChD 17 May 2004

Pumfrey J considered the test to be applied when a party applied for leave to commence proceedings for contempt of court against another party: ‘It seems to me, in the light of the judgment in Malgar v. Leach, that the discretion to permit applications of this nature to proceed must be exercised with very great … Continue reading Sony Computer Entertainment and Others v. Ball and Others: ChD 17 May 2004

Deg-Deutsche Investitions Und Entwicklungsgesellschaft Mbh v Koshy and Others: ChD 13 Jan 2000

Once a legal aid certificate is revoked the party is deemed by statute never to have had the benefit of a legal aid certificate. The rules relating to assessment of costs which applied when a party had legal aid did not therefore apply. An order however which has once been made cannot be varied subsequently … Continue reading Deg-Deutsche Investitions Und Entwicklungsgesellschaft Mbh v Koshy and Others: ChD 13 Jan 2000

TSP Group Ltd v Globemark (UK) Ltd: QBD 2 Nov 2005

The claimant interpleader appealed summary dismissal of its claim. Held: The appeal was upheld. Despite the Civil Procedure Rules, the old case law on interpleader retained value. Although under the new rules, the precise formulation of an issue might be dispensed with, the matter could not be dealt with out of hand except in exceptional … Continue reading TSP Group Ltd v Globemark (UK) Ltd: QBD 2 Nov 2005

Practice Note: Declaratory proceedings: Medical and welfare decisions for adults who lack capacity: 2001

Citations: [2001] 2 FLR 158 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Cited – Practice Note (Family Division: Incapacitated adults) FD 2-Jan-2002 Proceedings which invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court to grant declarations as to the best interests of incapacitated adults were civil proceedings to which the Civil Procedure Rules applied. Although not assigned to … Continue reading Practice Note: Declaratory proceedings: Medical and welfare decisions for adults who lack capacity: 2001

UCB Corporate Services Ltd (formerly UCB Bank plc) v Halifax (SW) Ltd: CA 6 Dec 1999

It was proper to strike out a claim for abuse of process where the party had been involved in a wholesale disregard of the Civil Procedure Rules and of court orders. The court has a range of remedies appropriate to the degree of such disregard. Where such disregard indicated that the party had no intention … Continue reading UCB Corporate Services Ltd (formerly UCB Bank plc) v Halifax (SW) Ltd: CA 6 Dec 1999

Atlantic Bar and Grill Ltd v Posthouse Hotels Ltd: 2000

The third defendant sought an order that the costs of the claim for an injunction against him, once it was discontinued on the second day of trial, should be assessed on an indemnity basis. Held: The order should be made. The power of the court under Rule 38.6 to ‘order otherwise’ clearly includes power, in … Continue reading Atlantic Bar and Grill Ltd v Posthouse Hotels Ltd: 2000

Maclennan v Morgan Sindall (Infrastructure) Plc: QBD 17 Dec 2013

The defendant had applied for an order limiting the number of witnesses sought to be called by the claimant (43). Held: The power to prohibit the calling of witnesses under CPR r 32.2(3) sat towards the more extreme end of the court’s powers and was a power to be considered after less intrusive measures had … Continue reading Maclennan v Morgan Sindall (Infrastructure) Plc: QBD 17 Dec 2013

In Re C (Legal Aid: Preparation of Bill of Costs): CA 2001

The appellant argued that the Costs Practice Direction, supplementing Parts 43-48 of the CPR, had the same force in law as the Legal Aid in Family Proceedings (Remuneration) Regulations 1991; and that they impliedly amended or repealed them in so far as they were inconsistent. Held: The argument was rejected. Hale LJ said: ‘Unlike the … Continue reading In Re C (Legal Aid: Preparation of Bill of Costs): CA 2001

Fay v Chief Constable of Bedfordshire Police: QBD 6 Feb 2003

The claimant had begun proceedings for the return of money held by the respondent. His action was stayed for inactivity, and the respondent later had the claim struck out on the basis that it would be an abuse of process to proceed. Held: The claim could still be tried without unfairness, and accordingly it should … Continue reading Fay v Chief Constable of Bedfordshire Police: QBD 6 Feb 2003

Regina v Vale of Glamorgan Council, Ex Parte Clements and Others: CA 22 Aug 2000

Although the Court of Appeal did not have power to hear a renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review under the new rules where the application had been lodged in March 1999 before the new rules came into effect, the court could still apply the over-riding objective to allow it to hear the … Continue reading Regina v Vale of Glamorgan Council, Ex Parte Clements and Others: CA 22 Aug 2000

R H Tomlinson (Trowbridge) Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment and Another: CA 31 Aug 1999

Under the CPR, a company could now appear at court in person and without a legal representative. The old rule has not been carried forward. However the old rule had been clear and in a case under those rules, the order that the company was not properly before the court was properly made. Citations: Times … Continue reading R H Tomlinson (Trowbridge) Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment and Another: CA 31 Aug 1999

HFC Bank Plc v HSBC Bank Plc (Formerly Midland Bank Plc): CA 26 Apr 2000

Following a trial, and before the judgment was delivered, the parties arranged to meet and settled their dispute. The judges and the court were not advised and continued to take the trouble of preparing the now nugatory judgment. The legal representatives had a clear duty to inform the court of such happenings in order to … Continue reading HFC Bank Plc v HSBC Bank Plc (Formerly Midland Bank Plc): CA 26 Apr 2000

Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Broomco (1984) Ltd (Formerly Anchor Foods Ltd): CA 17 Aug 2000

When an appeal is lodged in a VAT dispute, the discretion as to whether to require the appellant to lodge security for costs in the appeal, was a decision exclusively to be decided by the tribunal itself. A decision as to such security could not be challenged within enforcement proceedings. Citations: Times 17-Aug-2000 Statutes: Finance … Continue reading Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Broomco (1984) Ltd (Formerly Anchor Foods Ltd): CA 17 Aug 2000

Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Eastwood Care Homes: CA 17 Feb 2000

The rules on applications for appeals out of time have changed fundamentally. The court can no longer look at these by applying strict rules, but each case had to be looked at from the point of view of how justice could be achieved, allowing for the length of any delay, the merits of the appeal, … Continue reading Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Eastwood Care Homes: CA 17 Feb 2000

Care First Partnership Ltd v Roffey and Others: CA 22 Nov 2000

An employment tribunal had no power to dismiss a claim as without a reasonable prospect of success before it was begun to be heard. The power to regulate its own hearings did not include such a power, and the power to dismiss a claim as frivolous or vexatious, or for failure to comply with directions … Continue reading Care First Partnership Ltd v Roffey and Others: CA 22 Nov 2000

Bank of Credit and Commerce International Sa (In Liquidation) v Ali and Others (No 4): CA 2 Mar 2000

The claimant and his former employers had compromised the employee’s claim for damages, but the claimant then sought to sue for stigma damages after these were awarded elsewhere. The general language of the release was sufficiently comprehensive to embrace the claims which Mr Naeem sought to pursue. Held: Since all the claims known to the … Continue reading Bank of Credit and Commerce International Sa (In Liquidation) v Ali and Others (No 4): CA 2 Mar 2000

Adam Phones Ltd v Goldschmidt and Others: CA 17 Aug 1999

Especially given the new emphasis on proportionality, a party who brought contempt proceedings, in the case of an inadvertent breach of an injunction, with a view solely to creating costs for the other party, could expect to face those costs themselves. It was unwise to execute a complex search and seize order on a Saturday … Continue reading Adam Phones Ltd v Goldschmidt and Others: CA 17 Aug 1999

1-800 Flowers Inc v Phonenames Ltd: CA 17 May 2001

When making a summary assessment of costs, the court should look primarily to the facts of the particular case before it. It would be proper to bear in mind its own experience of comparable cases. Having made that assessment, it was also proper to look at the total claimed to judge whether it was reasonable … Continue reading 1-800 Flowers Inc v Phonenames Ltd: CA 17 May 2001

Banks and Another v Cox and Another: CA 17 Jul 2000

The court considered the principles of admitting new evidence on appeal after the introduction of the new rules. Moritt LJ: ‘In my view the principles reflecting in the rules in Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489 remain relevant to any application for permission to rely on further evidence, not as rules, but as matters … Continue reading Banks and Another v Cox and Another: CA 17 Jul 2000

Lynch Hall and Hornby (a Firm) v Thakerar (No 2): ChD 15 Nov 2005

The debtor had made an unsuccessful attempt to set aside a statutory demand. She did not then pay, and a third party debt order was made by the registrar in bankruptcy. Held: The CPR applied to bankruptcy proceedings, and its powers could be exercised by a registrar acting in a bankruptcy, and to make the … Continue reading Lynch Hall and Hornby (a Firm) v Thakerar (No 2): ChD 15 Nov 2005

P B J Davis Manufacturing Co Ltd v Fahn: 1967

Interpleader proceedings Citations: [1967] 1 WLR 1059 Cited by: Applied – TSP Group Ltd v Globemark (UK) Ltd QBD 2-Nov-2005 The claimant interpleader appealed summary dismissal of its claim. Held: The appeal was upheld. Despite the Civil Procedure Rules, the old case law on interpleader retained value. Although under the new rules, the precise formulation … Continue reading P B J Davis Manufacturing Co Ltd v Fahn: 1967

Mamidoil-Jetoil Greek Petroleum SA v Okta Crude Oil Refinery AD: CA 4 Apr 2003

Though the rules did not set down any timetable, it was a requirement of a proposed appellant to go ahead promptly. A reasonable time was within 14 days to apply to set aside a permission given to appeal. Judges: Clarke LJ, Richards J Citations: Times 19-Jun-2003 Statutes: Civil Procedure Rules 52.9 Jurisdiction: England and Wales … Continue reading Mamidoil-Jetoil Greek Petroleum SA v Okta Crude Oil Refinery AD: CA 4 Apr 2003

Frankson and Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Johns v Same: CA 8 May 2003

The claimants sought damages for injuries alleged to have been received at the hands of prison officers whilst in prison. They now sought disclosure by the police of statements made to the police during the course of their investigation. Held: The court ordered the police to disclose witness statements obtained during a criminal investigation, because … Continue reading Frankson and Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Johns v Same: CA 8 May 2003

In re T (a Child) (Contact: Alienation: Permission to Appeal): CA 24 Oct 2002

After a judgment the parties sought to appeal. Held: The judge had failed to make a finding on a critical issue in the case, namely whether or not the mother of the child concerned had ‘even if prompted only at a subconscious level, nevertheless deliberately engaged in alienation.’ Whilst some circumstances might require an application … Continue reading In re T (a Child) (Contact: Alienation: Permission to Appeal): CA 24 Oct 2002

Inntrepreneur Pub Company (CPC) and Another v Sweeney: ChD 27 May 2002

The landlord sought an injunction against the defendant. The defendant countered, relying upon sec 2(1). Held: The remedy provided by the section was limited to the award of damages. It could not, therefore, be used to defend an action for an injunction. Whilst he might be entitled in equity to repudiate the lease, he could … Continue reading Inntrepreneur Pub Company (CPC) and Another v Sweeney: ChD 27 May 2002

A (a Patient) v A Health Authority and Others; In re J (a Child); Regina (S) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another: CA 24 Jan 2002

The case asked how cases involving disputes as to the care of children, and of the treatment of adults claimed to be mentally incompetent. Where the issues were solely ones of public law, then they should be heard by way of judicial review in the QBD. Where any private law issues arose, they should be … Continue reading A (a Patient) v A Health Authority and Others; In re J (a Child); Regina (S) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another: CA 24 Jan 2002

Black v Sumitomo Corporation: CA 3 Dec 2001

The claimants proposed pre-action discovery which was resisted. Held: A purpose of pre-action disclosure is to assist those who need disclosure as a vital step in deciding whether to litigate at all or to provide a vital ingredient in the pleading of their case. The rules required first that disclosure would be desirable in the … Continue reading Black v Sumitomo Corporation: CA 3 Dec 2001

Law Society v Southall: CA 14 Dec 2001

In making a strike out decision under Part 24, the court of first instance was exercising a discretion which an appellate court should be reluctant to disturb. The court should only interfere in the case of a manifest error. The Law Society had intervened in the legal practice of the respondent’s late husband. The court … Continue reading Law Society v Southall: CA 14 Dec 2001

Fieldman and Another v Markovitch and Another: CA 4 Jul 2001

Where a judge, on an oral application, gave leave to appeal, but limited it to certain issues, it was not for the party on the later substantive appeal to try again to re-open issues which that judge had considered and excluded. Once leave to appeal had been granted after first written and then oral submissions, … Continue reading Fieldman and Another v Markovitch and Another: CA 4 Jul 2001

Axa Insurance Co Ltd v Swire Fraser Ltd: CA 9 Dec 1999

Where an action was commenced before the new rules came into effect, but an application to strike out an action was issued and decided after they came into effect, that application could not be decided under the old rules. The new rules applied fundamentally different tests, and these tests had to be applied.Assessment of respective … Continue reading Axa Insurance Co Ltd v Swire Fraser Ltd: CA 9 Dec 1999

Jackson v Marina Homes Ltd: CA 2008

Sir Henry Brooke considered the requirements in the CPR for requesting permission to appeal: ‘When the CPR introduced a well-nigh universal regime for permission to appeal-see CPR r.52.3(1) -the rule makers introduced a tough regime in order to avoid the progress of appeals being delayed while leave to appeal was being sought from a lower … Continue reading Jackson v Marina Homes Ltd: CA 2008

General Mediterranean Holdings SA v Patel and Another: QBD 19 Jul 1999

The new Civil Procedure Rules were ultra vires and invalid insofar as they purported to remove any right of a solicitor’s client to assert his right of confidence as against his solicitor. The solicitor was therefore unable in this case to defend himself against a wasted costs order, but the court could allow for the … Continue reading General Mediterranean Holdings SA v Patel and Another: QBD 19 Jul 1999

FG Hemisphere Associates LLC v Republic of Congo: QBD 9 Dec 2005

The claimant judgment creditor sought a third party payment order. An interim third party payment order had already been obtained byanother party. The claimant sought payment pari passu. Held: The other party had priority once their interim order was made absolute. A garnishee order nisi created a defeasible charge in favour of the judgment creditor … Continue reading FG Hemisphere Associates LLC v Republic of Congo: QBD 9 Dec 2005

Royal and Sun Alliance Insurance Plc and Others v Textainer Group Holdings Ltd and Others: ComC 26 Jul 2021

Judgment following a Case Management Conference, at which was also listed the Claimants’ application for orders under CPR 19.6(1)(b) that the First Claimant be permitted to act as representative of four other insurers who participated as followers in the Primary Policy in issue in this case, and that RSA also be permitted to act as … Continue reading Royal and Sun Alliance Insurance Plc and Others v Textainer Group Holdings Ltd and Others: ComC 26 Jul 2021

Singer (formerly Sharegin) v Sharegin: 1984

In family proceedings, the starting point for the award of costs is that they prima facie follow the event but that presumption may be displaced much more easily than, and in circumstances which would not apply, in other divisions of the High Court. Judges: Cummin-Bruce LJ Citations: [1984] FLR 114 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited … Continue reading Singer (formerly Sharegin) v Sharegin: 1984

Grobbelaar v Sun Newspapers Ltd: CA 9 Jul 1999

With the new Civil Procedure Rules, it was no longer correct that a court could not exclude evidence which was relevant, on the grounds that its probative value was outweighed by its prejudicial effect. The court now has full power and discretion to make such orders. ‘The just resolution of this case depends on the … Continue reading Grobbelaar v Sun Newspapers Ltd: CA 9 Jul 1999

Moscow City Council v Bankers Trust Company and Another: QBD 5 Jun 2003

Proceedings before an arbitrator were governed by rule 62.10, which provided its own entire code, and imposed a presumption in favour of privacy. The principles of Scott v Scott need not apply. Scott would now be decided under analogous reasonings under the Human Rights Act. Judges: Cooke J Citations: Times 01-Sep-2003 Statutes: Civil Procedure Rules … Continue reading Moscow City Council v Bankers Trust Company and Another: QBD 5 Jun 2003

Halabi v London Borough of Camden: ChD 14 Feb 2008

Ms Halabi applied to annul her bankruptcy order, made for non payment of her rates. She applied within approximately 6 months of her adjudication. Her bankrupt estate was solvent but illiquid. She had not previously appreciated that she had sufficient equity in her property (over andpound;70k) to borrow sufficient to discharge her debt. Held: The … Continue reading Halabi v London Borough of Camden: ChD 14 Feb 2008

KU (A Child) v Liverpool City Council: CA 27 Apr 2005

(Practice Note) The solicitor appealed an order which made the success fee payable different at different stages of the court action. Held: The court had no power to make such an order. To the extent that the CPR might suggest otherwise they were wrong. ‘a practice direction has no legislative force. Practice directions provide invaluable … Continue reading KU (A Child) v Liverpool City Council: CA 27 Apr 2005

Republic of Uganda v Rift Valley Railways (Uganda) Ld and Others: ComC 11 Dec 2020

Application by RVR Investments (Pty) Limited and KU Railways Holdings Limited (the ‘Shareholders’) to be joined as parties to the proceedings under CPR rule 19.4 – or more correctly CPR rule 19.2. The underlying proceedings are a challenge under section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996 brought by the Claimant, the Republic of Uganda (‘Uganda’) … Continue reading Republic of Uganda v Rift Valley Railways (Uganda) Ld and Others: ComC 11 Dec 2020

Federal Bank of the Middle East v Hadkinson and Others: CA 16 Mar 2000

The Court had to decide whether an order in the standard form of freezing order was effective to cover assets which were held in the defendant’s name but which belonged beneficially to third parties. Held: It did not. A Mareva injunction in its standard form operated only to attach and freeze assets in which the … Continue reading Federal Bank of the Middle East v Hadkinson and Others: CA 16 Mar 2000

Regina on the Application of Davies (No 2) v HM Deputy Coroner for Birmingham: CA 27 Feb 2004

The claimant appealed against a costs order. She had previously appealed against an order of the High Court on her application for judicial review of the inquest held by the respondent. Held: The coroner, and others in a similar position should not generally be expected to pay the costs of an appeal against an order … Continue reading Regina on the Application of Davies (No 2) v HM Deputy Coroner for Birmingham: CA 27 Feb 2004

Dyson Appliances Limited v Hoover Limited (No 3): ChD 21 Oct 2002

The plaintiff had accepted a payment in which was more advantageous than its own offer of settlement. It now sought costs on an indemnity rather than a standard basis. They argued that under the rule they were entitled to costs on an indemnity basis up to date of acceptance. Held: The rules said that once … Continue reading Dyson Appliances Limited v Hoover Limited (No 3): ChD 21 Oct 2002

Dyson Appliances Limited v Hoover Limited (No 4): PatC 18 Feb 2003

The court refused to make an order for a payment of interim costs when the substantive claim for costs remained to be heard. The claimant had accepted a payment in entitling it to its costs, but now sought an interim award before the full costs could be assessed. Any rule allowing a judge to make … Continue reading Dyson Appliances Limited v Hoover Limited (No 4): PatC 18 Feb 2003

Baird v Moule’s Patent Earth Closet Co Ltd: CA 3 Feb 1876

Where a patentee sues for infringement and then discontinues his claim against the alleged infringer and consents to the revocation of his patent, he may yet require the alleged infringer to pay a substantial proportion of his costs if he can show that this situation came about because the alleged infringer had amended his defence … Continue reading Baird v Moule’s Patent Earth Closet Co Ltd: CA 3 Feb 1876

Deutsche Bank AG v Sebastian Holdings Inc and Another: CA 21 Jan 2016

Appeal from Order joining party for purposes of third party costs order. Judges: Moore-Bick VP, Lewison, Simon LJJ Citations: [2016] EWCA Civ 23, [2016] CP Rep 17, [2016] 4 WLR 17, [2016] WLR(D) 25 Links: Bailii, WLRD Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: Approved – Dymocks Franchise Systems (NSW) Pty Limited v Todd and Todd, Bilgola … Continue reading Deutsche Bank AG v Sebastian Holdings Inc and Another: CA 21 Jan 2016

Corner House Research, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry: CA 1 Mar 2005

The applicant sought to bring an action to challenge new rules on approval of export credit guarantees. The company was non-profit and founded to support investigation of bribery. It had applied for a protected costs order to support the application, and now appealed its refusal. Held: The court restated the practice on the making of … Continue reading Corner House Research, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry: CA 1 Mar 2005

Braybrook v The Basildon and Thurrock University NHS Trust: 7 Oct 2004

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) … Continue reading Braybrook v The Basildon and Thurrock University NHS Trust: 7 Oct 2004

Hamilton v Al Fayed (No 4): CA 2001

The court considered the applicability of cases before the introduction of the new rules on the exercise of a judge’s discretion. Held: The old cases ‘remain powerful persuasive authority’. Judges: Lord Phillips MR Citations: [2001] EMLR 15 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Cited – Al-Koronky and Another v Time-Life Entertainment Group Ltd and Another … Continue reading Hamilton v Al Fayed (No 4): CA 2001

In re Guardian Newspapers Ltd (Court Record: Disclosure): ChD 8 Dec 2004

The newspaper sought disclosure of documents which had been referred to in statements filed in proceedings, but which had not been read out, because the case had been settled before the hearing. Held: Changes in court practice now meant that many fewer statements and documents came to be read out in court. The demands of … Continue reading In re Guardian Newspapers Ltd (Court Record: Disclosure): ChD 8 Dec 2004

Practice Statement (Judicial review: Costs): Admn 17 May 2004

The general rule under the Civil Procedure Rules that when a court order was silent as to costs, no party would be liable for the costs of another party did not apply in applications for leave to proceed on a judicial review. An order made on such an application would carry by implication an order … Continue reading Practice Statement (Judicial review: Costs): Admn 17 May 2004