Click the case name for better results:

Grobbelaar v News Group Newspapers and Another: CA 18 Jan 2001

Citations: [2001] EWCA Civ 1213 Links: Bailii Statutes: Civil Procedure Rules 32 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: Appeal from – 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 … Continue reading Grobbelaar v News Group Newspapers and Another: CA 18 Jan 2001

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

Guardian News and Media Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court: CA 3 Apr 2012

The newspaper applied for leave to access documents referred to but not released during the course of extradition proceedings in open court. Held: The application was to be allowed. Though extradition proceedings were not governed by the Civil Procedure Rules, wider principles still applied. The open justice principle is a constitutional principle to be found … Continue reading Guardian News and Media Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court: CA 3 Apr 2012

Markos v Goodfellow and Barke and Barke: CA 26 Jul 2001

There was a boundary dispute. The judge in the County Court had made an error. Counsel had offered to apply to amend the order under the slip rule, and therefore the judge had refused leave to appeal. Held: This was an application for leave to apply for a second appeal, and such appeals only very … Continue reading Markos v Goodfellow and Barke and Barke: CA 26 Jul 2001

Parsons and Another v George and Another: CA 13 Jul 2004

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 … Continue reading Parsons and Another v George and Another: CA 13 Jul 2004

Hashtroodi v Hancock: CA 27 May 2004

The claimant had issued proceedings in time, but then the limitation period expired before it was served, and in the meantime the limitation period had expired. The defendant appealed against an automatic extension of time for service granted to the claimant. Held: The Rules should generally be interpreted without reference to case law under the … Continue reading Hashtroodi v Hancock: CA 27 May 2004

Q v Q (Family proceedings: Costs order): FD 21 Jun 2002

The provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules as to costs in Family division proceedings did not replace entirely the old rules after April 26, 1999, and the Leary case was not superceded. The requirement for summary assessment of costs for hearings less than a day did not abrogate the power to make such an assessment … Continue reading Q v Q (Family proceedings: Costs order): FD 21 Jun 2002

Flaxman-Binns v Lincolnshire County Council: CA 5 Apr 2004

When looking at whether to lift a stay on an action imposed before the coming into effect of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court should look at each of the items listed in the rule, and should then stand back and look at the overall needs of justice. Judges: Lord Justice Clarke Lord Phillips Of … Continue reading Flaxman-Binns v Lincolnshire County Council: CA 5 Apr 2004

Department of Economic Policy and Development of City of Moscow and Another v Bankers Trust Company and Another: CA 25 Mar 2004

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. Judges: Mance VC, Carnwath, Mance LJJ … Continue reading Department of Economic Policy and Development of City of Moscow and Another v Bankers Trust Company and Another: CA 25 Mar 2004

Polanski v Conde Nast Publications Limited: CA 11 Nov 2003

The claimant sought damages for defamation. He feared arrest and extradition to the US if he came to England, and was granted an order allowing him to give evidence by video link. The defendant appealed that order. Held: There was no absolute rule which would allow the order made. The judge had considered that if … Continue reading Polanski v Conde Nast Publications Limited: CA 11 Nov 2003

Douglas and Others v Hello Ltd and others: CA 3 Mar 2003

Statements had been obtained from a witness by the claimants, but not included amongst the evidence. At a point during the trial, a defendant asked for and was given leave to include the evidence. He now appealed leave given to the claimant to cross examine the witness having taken the statement themselves. Held: One purpose … Continue reading Douglas and Others v Hello Ltd and others: CA 3 Mar 2003

Grobbelaar v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Another: HL 24 Oct 2002

The claimant appealed against a decision of the Court of Appeal quashing the judgement in his favour for damages for defamation. Held: The Court of Appeal was not able to quash a jury verdict as perverse, and the appeal succeeded. An appellate court could not substitute its own verdict on the facts for that of … Continue reading Grobbelaar v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Another: HL 24 Oct 2002

Kennedy v The Charity Commission: SC 26 Mar 2014

The claimant journalist sought disclosure of papers acquired by the respondent in its conduct of enquiries into the charitable Mariam appeal. The Commission referred to an absolute exemption under section 32(2) of the 2000 Act, saying that the exemption continued until the papers were destroyed, or for 20 years under the 1958 Act. Held: The … Continue reading Kennedy v The Charity Commission: SC 26 Mar 2014

MacDonald v Taree Holdings Ltd: ChD 28 Dec 2000

It was wrong to deprive a party of his costs because only of his failure to serve an appropriate schedule of costs at least 24 hours before the summary assessment hearing. The court should consider first, a brief adjournment, and second whether the case should be stood over for a detailed assessment, and third whether … Continue reading MacDonald v Taree Holdings Ltd: ChD 28 Dec 2000

GKR Karate (UK) Limited v Porch, Yorkshire Post Newspaper, Holmes: QBD 17 Jan 2000

The claimant sought damages alleging defamation. The judge ordered certain elements of the case to be heard first, and others, if necessary later. Although the case had been begun under the old rules, the new civil procedure regime gave the judge much wider powers of management, and defamation cases were notoriously expensive and lengthy and … Continue reading GKR Karate (UK) Limited v Porch, Yorkshire Post Newspaper, Holmes: QBD 17 Jan 2000

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

Lloyd v McMahon: HL 12 Mar 1987

The district auditor had issued a certificate under the 1982 Act surcharging the appellant councillors in the sum of 106,103, pounds being the amount of a loss incurred or deficiency caused, as the auditor found, by their wilful misconduct. Held: An aggrieved objector to local government spending should pursue his rights under the Act and … Continue reading Lloyd v McMahon: HL 12 Mar 1987

Thurrock Borough Council v Secretary of State for the Enviroment, Transport and The Regions ex parte Terry Holding: CA 13 Dec 2000

Where the claimant was not out of time to bring an appeal, or he retained the right of appeal, or the works proposed involved were not new, and no amendment or substitute of a new claim was proposed, the court should exercise its discretion to amend the claim form so that an application for permission … Continue reading Thurrock Borough Council v Secretary of State for the Enviroment, Transport and The Regions ex parte Terry Holding: CA 13 Dec 2000

In Re Levin; Regina v Governor of Brixton Prison, Ex parte Levin: HL 10 Apr 1997

The applicant had been detained pending extradition to the United States on charges of fraud. He said the evidence would not have been sufficient to justify his committal for trial. Held: The Francis case did not establish that the 1984 Act did not apply to extradition procceedings, and they might also be admissible under the … Continue reading In Re Levin; Regina v Governor of Brixton Prison, Ex parte Levin: HL 10 Apr 1997

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

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

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

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

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

In re T (Children): SC 25 Jul 2012

The local authority had commenced care proceedings, alleging abuse. After lengthy proceedings, of seven men and two grandparents, all but one were exonerated. The grandparents had not been entitled to legal aid, and had had to mortgage their house for legal costs. Despite being exonerated, the judge followed the normal practice of not awarding costs … Continue reading In re T (Children): SC 25 Jul 2012

Kelly v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police: CA 2001

At the conclusion of the evidence, the claimant sought to amend her claim to include an alternative factual basis of liability based not on her own evidence but on that of one of the police officers with whom she had been struggling in a car. Held: The grounds for refusing permission were not sufficient to … Continue reading Kelly v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police: CA 2001

Wilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry; Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (No 2): HL 10 Jul 2003

The respondent appealed against a finding that the provision which made a loan agreement completely invalid for lack of compliance with the 1974 Act was itself invalid under the Human Rights Act since it deprived the respondent lender of its property rights. It was also argued that it was not possible to make a declaration … Continue reading Wilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry; Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (No 2): HL 10 Jul 2003

Tibbles v SIG Plc (T/A Asphaltic Roofing Supplies): CA 26 Apr 2012

The court considered applications for relief from sanction under CPR 3.1(7). Held: An application under CPR 3.1(7) usually requires a change of circumstances. Considerations of finality, the undesirability of allowing litigants to have two bites at the cherry and the need to avoid undermining the concept of appeal all required a principled curtailment of an … Continue reading Tibbles v SIG Plc (T/A Asphaltic Roofing Supplies): CA 26 Apr 2012

Office Equipment Systems Ltd v Hughes: CA 1 Aug 2018

The case had been decide on the basis of the papers after the employer had failed to submit a response. It now appealed against a refusal to allow them to be heard as to the assessment of damages. Held: The appeal succeeded. The tribunal should apply the practice which apply in standard civil claims. Judges: … Continue reading Office Equipment Systems Ltd v Hughes: CA 1 Aug 2018

Taylor and others v Midland Bank Trust Company Limited: CA 21 Jul 1999

Stuart-Smith LJ rationalised the possible conflict between Part 24 and the practice direction to Part 24 in its original form by saying that the correct view of the effect of the practice direction is to be gleaned from the heading to the paragraph which reads ‘the court’s approach’. It indicates no more than examples of … Continue reading Taylor and others v Midland Bank Trust Company Limited: CA 21 Jul 1999

Turner v Grovit and others: CA 28 May 1999

A court has an inherent power to injunct a party not to institute or continue proceedings abroad, where they appear intended purely to harass another party in proceedings here. The two actions here were based upon the ‘same contractual relationship’ and concerned the ‘same subject matter’. This is not limited to cases of exclusive jurisdiction … Continue reading Turner v Grovit and others: CA 28 May 1999

Infantino v Maclean: QBD 20 Jul 2001

Where a court could no longer grant an extension of time for service of proceedings under rule 7.6, a court could, in appropriate circumstances, achieve the desired result by dispensing with service under rule 6.9. Here the parties had long been in negotiation, and the receiving party knew entirely of the document which was to … Continue reading Infantino v Maclean: QBD 20 Jul 2001

Dow Jones and Co Inc v Jameel: CA 3 Feb 2005

Presumption of Damage in Defamation is rebuttable The defendant complained that the presumption in English law that the victim of a libel had suffered damage was incompatible with his right to a fair trial. They said the statements complained of were repetitions of statements made by US authorities. The claimant had asserted that no more … Continue reading Dow Jones and Co Inc v Jameel: CA 3 Feb 2005

Regina (G) v Ealing London Borough Council and Others: QBD 28 Feb 2002

Nothing in the new rules prevented the court from allowing cross examination of witnesses in judicial review cases, though the procedure does not lend itself to cases with a high degree of factual debate. The court has a wide discretion, and the Wilkinson case seems to imply this. This applies notwithstanding that Part 54 appeared … Continue reading Regina (G) v Ealing London Borough Council and Others: QBD 28 Feb 2002

Halborg v EMW Law Llp: CA 23 Jun 2017

The Court was asked whether a Limited Liability Partnership (‘LLP’) of solicitors, which is a party to litigation and acts as its own legal representative in the proceedings, is a litigant in person within CPR 46 and so can only recover the level of costs allowed to litigants in person under CPR 46.5(2) and PD46 … Continue reading Halborg v EMW Law Llp: CA 23 Jun 2017

Mulalley and Co Ltd v Martlet Homes Ltd: CA 24 Jan 2022

‘can a defendant plead a comprehensive defence to allegations of breach (which relies on matters not expressly addressed by the particulars of claim), and raise a separate case on causation (which it says would defeat the claimant’s claim in any event), and then seek to rely upon CPR 17.4(2) to deny the claimant the opportunity … Continue reading Mulalley and Co Ltd v Martlet Homes Ltd: CA 24 Jan 2022

Godfrey Morgan Solicitors (A Firm) v Armes: CA 2 May 2017

‘The issue in this appeal is whether a defendant joined to proceedings by way of amendment outside the limitation period, and sued in the alternative to the existing defendant, has been added to the claim as a new party or has been substituted for the existing defendant, for the purposes of the Civil Procedure Rules … Continue reading Godfrey Morgan Solicitors (A Firm) v Armes: CA 2 May 2017

Fourie v Le Roux and others: HL 24 Jan 2007

The appellant, liquidator of two South African companies, had made a successful without notice application for an asset freezing order. He believed that the defendants had stripped the companies of substantial assets. The order was set aside for want of jurisdiction, because it had not been ancillary to any proceedings which had even been formulated … Continue reading Fourie v Le Roux and others: HL 24 Jan 2007

Assicurazioni Generali Spa v Arab Insurance Group (BSC): CA 13 Nov 2002

Rehearing/Review – Little Difference on Appeal The appellant asked the Court to reverse a decision on the facts reached in the lower court. Held: The appeal failed (Majority decision). The court’s approach should be the same whether the case was dealt with as a rehearing or as a review. Tanfern was limited to appeals from … Continue reading Assicurazioni Generali Spa v Arab Insurance Group (BSC): CA 13 Nov 2002

HM Customs and Excise v Barclays Bank Plc: HL 21 Jun 2006

The claimant had served an asset freezing order on the bank in respect of one of its customers. The bank paid out on a cheque inadvertently as to the order. The Commissioners claimed against the bank in negligence. The bank denied any duty of care. Held: The bank’s appeal succeeded. The bank owed a duty … Continue reading HM Customs and Excise v Barclays Bank Plc: HL 21 Jun 2006

Turner v Grovit and others: HL 13 Dec 2001

The applicant was a solicitor employed by a company in Belgium. He later resigned claiming unfair dismissal, saying he had been pressed to become involved in unlawful activities. The defendants sought to challenge the jurisdiction of the English Tribunal system. The defendants had begun procedures in Spain for conciliation. The claimant had obtained an injunction … Continue reading Turner v Grovit and others: HL 13 Dec 2001

Vedanta Resources Plc and Another v Lungowe and Others: SC 10 Apr 2019

The claimants alleged negligence causing them personal injury and other losses arising from pollution from mining operations of the defendants in Zambia. The company denied jurisdiction. In the Court of Appeal the defendants’ appeals were dismissed. Held: The appeals failed save that the UK was not the proper jurisdiction to bring the case. The claim … Continue reading Vedanta Resources Plc and Another v Lungowe and Others: SC 10 Apr 2019

Autorita per l’energia elettrica e il gas v Bertazzi (Order 2): ECJ 7 Mar 2013

1. Social policy – Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP – Directive 1999/70 – Workers doing the same work – ‘Same work’ – Definition – Workers in a similar situation – Criteria for assessment – Nature of the work, training requirements and working conditions – Powers of review of the … Continue reading Autorita per l’energia elettrica e il gas v Bertazzi (Order 2): ECJ 7 Mar 2013

Vilnius City, the District Court of v Barcys: Admn 22 Mar 2007

The court considered whether it had jurisdiction to apply the Rules to extend time to appeal against discharge of an extradition request. The notice of appeal was not filed (or served) within seven days. Held: Latham LJ said: ‘I acknowledge the force of this argument. But it begs the question as to what power the … Continue reading Vilnius City, the District Court of v Barcys: Admn 22 Mar 2007

Middleton, Regina (on the Application of) v Coroner for the Western District of Somerset: HL 11 Mar 2004

The deceased had committed suicide in prison. His family felt that the risk should have been known to the prison authorities, and that they had failed to guard against that risk. The coroner had requested an explanatory note from the jury. Held: The jury should indeed have been given opportunity to explain their verdict: ‘By … Continue reading Middleton, Regina (on the Application of) v Coroner for the Western District of Somerset: HL 11 Mar 2004

Regina (Holding and Barnes plc) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions; Regina (Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others) v Same and Others: HL 9 May 2001

Power to call in is administrative in nature The powers of the Secretary of State to call in a planning application for his decision, and certain other planning powers, were essentially an administrative power, and not a judicial one, and therefore it was not a breach of the applicants’ rights to a fair hearing before … Continue reading Regina (Holding and Barnes plc) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions; Regina (Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others) v Same and Others: HL 9 May 2001

Knight v Axa Assurances: QBD 24 Jul 2009

The claimant was injured in a car accident in France. The defendant insurer said that the quantification of damages was to be according to French law and the calculation of interest also. The claimant said that English law applied. Held: The assessment of damages is a procedural matter, and is governed by the law of … Continue reading Knight v Axa Assurances: QBD 24 Jul 2009

Anglia Research Services Ltd and Another v Finders Genealogists Ltd and Another: QBD 17 Feb 2016

The parties were competing companies. The claimant sought to usePre-action disclosure procedures after proceedings had already been issued. Held: ‘the Claimants have made out a clear and strong case for the exercise of the Court’s discretion to order pre-action disclosure in their favour, and I so order.’ Moloney QC HHJ [2016] EWHC 297 (QB) Bailii … Continue reading Anglia Research Services Ltd and Another v Finders Genealogists Ltd and Another: QBD 17 Feb 2016

Abela and Others v Baadarani and Another: ChD 28 Jan 2011

The claimant sought damages alleging inter alia fraud by the defendant in a company sale between the parties. The defendant now sought to have set aside the service on him in Lebanon, saying that The English court was not the forum coveniens. He also said that the claim was out of time. Held: The application … Continue reading Abela and Others v Baadarani and Another: ChD 28 Jan 2011

Arcadia Group Brands Ltd and Others v Visa Inc and Others: CA 5 Aug 2015

Appeal by the claimants from the order of Simon J by which he ordered on summary judgment applications by the defendants that (1) the claimants are not entitled to rely on section 32(1)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980; and the claims are time barred pursuant to sections 2 and 9 of the 1980 Act insofar … Continue reading Arcadia Group Brands Ltd and Others v Visa Inc and Others: CA 5 Aug 2015

Manchester City Council v Pinnock: SC 3 Nov 2010

The tenant had been secure but had his tenancy had been reduced to an insecure demoted tenancy after he was accused of anti-social behaviour. He had not himself been accused of any misbehaviour, but it was said that he should have controlled his family members. The county court had been unwilling to allow any challenge … Continue reading Manchester City Council v Pinnock: SC 3 Nov 2010

UKI (Kingsway) Ltd v Westminster City Council: SC 17 Dec 2018

Short issue as to the requirements for valid ‘service’ of a completion notice so as to bring a newly completed building within liability for non-domestic rates. The notice had been served by email where no statutory authority existed for this. Held: The LA’s appeal succeeded. ‘Against the background of the detailed scheme established by or … Continue reading UKI (Kingsway) Ltd v Westminster City Council: SC 17 Dec 2018

Regina (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 23 May 2001

A prison policy requiring prisoners not to be present when their property was searched and their mail was examined was unlawful. The policy had been introduced after failures in search procedures where officers had been intimidated by the presence of prisoners. Particularly when examining documents subject to legal professional privilege, the rules did not allow … Continue reading Regina (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 23 May 2001

Unison, Regina (on The Application of) v Lord Chancellor: SC 26 Jul 2017

The union appellant challenged the validity of the imposition of fees on those seeking to lay complaints in the Employment Tribunal system. Held: The appeal succeeded. The fees were discriminatory and restricted access to justice. The consequence of the order had been very substantially to reduce the number of cases coming before the tribunal, and: … Continue reading Unison, Regina (on The Application of) v Lord Chancellor: SC 26 Jul 2017

Klausecker v Germany (Dec): ECHR 6 Jan 2015

ECHR Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Access to court Limitations on access to domestic courts to review recruitment procedure before European Patent Office when reasonable alternative procedure (arbitration) available: inadmissible Facts – The applicant, who is disabled, applied for a post as a patent examiner at the European Patent Office (EPO) in Munich. Although … Continue reading Klausecker v Germany (Dec): ECHR 6 Jan 2015

Hoon v The United Kingdom (Dec): ECHR 13 Nov 2014

ECHR Article 8-1 Respect for private life Publication of parliamentary investigation into conduct of former Minister: inadmissible Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Civil rights and obligations Complaints relating to parliamentary investigation into conduct of former Minister: inadmissible Facts – The case concerned the investigation by parliamentary authorities into the applicant, a former government minister, … Continue reading Hoon v The United Kingdom (Dec): ECHR 13 Nov 2014

Tchenguiz v Director of The Serious Fraud Office and Others: CA 13 Oct 2014

Application made pursuant to paragraph 32 of Practice Direction 52C to rely on a supplementary skeleton argument for the purposes of the present appeal. The context in which this application is made is an appeal by the claimant against an order of Mr Justice Eder in the exercise of his discretion under Civil Procedure Rules, … Continue reading Tchenguiz v Director of The Serious Fraud Office and Others: CA 13 Oct 2014

Home Office v Lownds (Practice Note): CA 21 Mar 2002

The respondent had been ordered to pay costs of over pounds 16,000 in an action for clinical negligence where the final award was only pounds 4,000. The Secretary of State appealed claiming that the costs were disproportionate. Held: In such cases the court must undertake a two stage examination. First it should look at the … Continue reading Home Office v Lownds (Practice Note): CA 21 Mar 2002

Hughes Jarvis Ltd v Searle and Another: CA 15 Jan 2019

The claimant and director appealed from orders associated with a finding of contempt of court. The Director, the case having been adjourned overnight during the course of his evidence, and despite warnings to the contrary had sought to communicate with his solicitors and counsel. He had then been remanded in custody overnight despite that that … Continue reading Hughes Jarvis Ltd v Searle and Another: CA 15 Jan 2019

VIS Trading Co Ltd v Nazarov and Others: QBD 18 Nov 2015

Application for the first defendant to be committed for alleged contempt of court for having failed to make disclosure of documents as required by a court order.Whipple J said: ‘In this case, the extent to which the Defendants are in continuing breach is in issue. In resolving that factual issue, Mr Milner suggests that it … Continue reading VIS Trading Co Ltd v Nazarov and Others: QBD 18 Nov 2015

Malgar Ltd v R E Leach Engineering Ltd: ChD 1 Nov 1999

The Civil Procedure Rules could not change the substantive law. It therefore remained necessary for it to be shown that in addition to knowing that what was said was false, the party had to have known that what was being said was likely to interfere with the course of justice. No new category of contempt … Continue reading Malgar Ltd v R E Leach Engineering Ltd: ChD 1 Nov 1999

Chellaram and Another v Chellaram and others (No 2): ChD 16 Apr 2002

One of the defendants had not been properly served by posting the proceedings to an address at which he stayed on his very occasional visits to London. The proceedings had not been issued for the purposes of service abroad, because at the time of deemed service under CPR 6 he was not physically within the … Continue reading Chellaram and Another v Chellaram and others (No 2): ChD 16 Apr 2002

O’Brien v Chief Constable of the South Wales Police: CA 23 Jul 2003

The claimant sought damages for malicious prosecution, and sought to adduce similar fact evidence. The defendant appealed an order admitting the evidence. Held: Comparisons between admission of similar fact evidence in civil and criminal proceedings were made. In general, the greater the putative force of the evidence the less ready a court should be to … Continue reading O’Brien v Chief Constable of the South Wales Police: CA 23 Jul 2003

Phones 4U Ltd v EE Ltd and Others: CA 2 Feb 2021

‘These appeals raise questions as to the jurisdiction and the discretion of the court in relation to disclosure provided under CPR Part 31,[1] where senior officers, employees and ex-employees of companies have or may have used their personal electronic devices to send and receive work-related messages and emails.’ Sir Geoffrey Vos MR, Asplin, Green LJJ … Continue reading Phones 4U Ltd v EE Ltd and Others: CA 2 Feb 2021

Wyche v Careforce Group Plc: ComC 25 Jul 2013

The defendant had failed to comply in all respects with an ‘unless’ order. Held: The court gave relief under CPR 3.9 for two failures which the court described as ‘material in the sense that they were more than trivial’. They were ‘unintentional and minor failings in the course of diligently seeking to comply with the … Continue reading Wyche v Careforce Group Plc: ComC 25 Jul 2013

Blockbuster Entertainment Ltd v James: CA 25 May 2006

The defendant company appealed against an order re-instating the claimants’ claims for damages for race discrimination and victimisation after they had been struck out for wilful disobedience of the tribunal’s orders. Held: When making a strike-out order, there were two cardinal conditions at least one of which must be met. Either the unreasonable conduct has … Continue reading Blockbuster Entertainment Ltd v James: CA 25 May 2006

XXX v Camden London Borough Council: CA 11 Nov 2020

Anonymity in Court Proceedings – No two stage test XXX appealed against the refusal to make orders anonymising her name and redacting certain details from published judgments. The appeal raised a point about the proper approach to applications for anonymisation under CPR 39.2. She brought proceedings for judicial review of the Council’s housing allocation policy, … Continue reading XXX v Camden London Borough Council: CA 11 Nov 2020

Clarke v Cognita Schools Ltd (T/A Hydesville Tower School): ChD 1 Apr 2015

The claimants sought to have set aside statutory demands served to enforce judgmens, they said under a discrepancy. The order refusing their application should they said, have notified them of their right to appeal. Held: None of the applicable rules expressly required otification that an appeal was available. Newey J [2015] EWHC 932 (Ch), [2015] … Continue reading Clarke v Cognita Schools Ltd (T/A Hydesville Tower School): ChD 1 Apr 2015

Stott (Procurator Fiscal, Dunfermline) and Another v Brown: PC 5 Dec 2000

The system under which the registered keeper of a vehicle was obliged to identify herself as the driver, and such admission was to be used subsequently as evidence against her on a charge of driving with excess alcohol, was not a breach of her right to a fair trial. The right not to give evidence … Continue reading Stott (Procurator Fiscal, Dunfermline) and Another v Brown: PC 5 Dec 2000

ZXC v Bloomberg Lp: QBD 23 Feb 2017

Investigation of claimant was properly disclosed The claimant requested the removal of material naming him from the defendant’s website. Criminal investigations into a company with which he was associated were begun, but then concluded. In the interim, the article was published. The hearing had been in private and the claimant anonymised. Held: The weight to … Continue reading ZXC v Bloomberg Lp: QBD 23 Feb 2017

Daltel Europe Ltd and others v Makki and others: ChD 3 May 2005

Application was made for leave to bring proceedings for contempt of court. David Richards J said that: ‘Allegations that statements of case and witness statements contain deliberately false statements are by no means uncommon and, in a fair number of cases, the allegations are well-founded. If parties thought that they could gain an advantage by … Continue reading Daltel Europe Ltd and others v Makki and others: ChD 3 May 2005

Sugar v British Broadcasting Corporation and Another (2): SC 15 Feb 2012

The claimant sought release of a report prepared by the respondent as to its coverage of the Arab/Israel conflict partly for journalistic purposes, and partly for compliance. Held: The appeal failed. Where the report was prepared even if only in part for jurnalistic purposes, it was exempt from disclosure under the 2000 Act. Lord Wilson … Continue reading Sugar v British Broadcasting Corporation and Another (2): SC 15 Feb 2012

Three Rivers District Council and Others v Governor and Company of The Bank of England (No 3): HL 22 Mar 2001

Misfeasance in Public Office – Recklessness The bank sought to strike out the claim alleging misfeasance in public office in having failed to regulate the failed bank, BCCI. Held: Misfeasance in public office might occur not only when a company officer acted to injure a party, but also where he acted with knowledge of, or … Continue reading Three Rivers District Council and Others v Governor and Company of The Bank of England (No 3): HL 22 Mar 2001

KJM Superbikes Ltd v Hinton: CA 20 Nov 2008

The claimant had been sued for the misuse of trademarks by selling motorcycles imported via a parallel market. It claimed that the defendant had filed false evidence in that action, and now appealed a refusal by the judge to bring contempt proceedings. The defendant argued that proceedings could only be brought with the consent of … Continue reading KJM Superbikes Ltd v Hinton: CA 20 Nov 2008

Clingham (formerly C (a minor)) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Regina v Crown Court at Manchester Ex parte McCann and Others: HL 17 Oct 2002

The applicants had been made subject of anti-social behaviour orders. They challenged the basis upon which the orders had been made. Held: The orders had no identifiable consequences which would make the process a criminal one. Civil standards of evidence therefore applied, and hearsay evidence was admissible. Nevertheless, the test as to whether it was … Continue reading Clingham (formerly C (a minor)) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Regina v Crown Court at Manchester Ex parte McCann and Others: HL 17 Oct 2002

Bank Mellat v HM Treasury: QBD 11 Jun 2010

The respondent had made an order under the Regulations restricting all persons from dealing with the the claimant bank. The bank applied to have the order set aside. Though the defendant originally believed that the Iranian government owned 80% of the shares, the figure was 20% and soon to be reduced to 15%. It said … Continue reading Bank Mellat v HM Treasury: QBD 11 Jun 2010

Wragg and Another v Partco Group Ltd UGC Ltd: CA 1 May 2002

A claim was made against directors of a company involved in a takeover, for failure to make proper disclosure. The case involved also other issues. The defendants appealed against a refusal to strike out the claim. Held: The rules made specific reference to cases in areas of law involving developing jurisprudence. This was one such, … Continue reading Wragg and Another v Partco Group Ltd UGC Ltd: CA 1 May 2002

A and Others v The United Kingdom: ECHR 19 Feb 2009

(Grand Chamber) The applicants had been subjected to severe restrictions. They were foreign nationals suspected of terrorist involvement, but could not be deported for fear of being tortured. The UK had derogated from the Convention to put the restrictions in place. Assurances had been given by the home nations that on return they would not … Continue reading A and Others v The United Kingdom: ECHR 19 Feb 2009

Grace, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 9 Jun 2014

What is ‘totally without merit’? The claimant had sought judicial review. Her case had been certified as being ‘totally without merit’, thus denying to her any opportunity to renew her application for leave at an oral hearing, leaving only recourse to a judge of the Court of Appeal to consider the papers and decide whether … Continue reading Grace, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 9 Jun 2014

Gibbon v Manchester City Council, L G Blower Specialist Bricklayer Ltd, Reeves and another: CA 25 Jun 2010

A payment in had been made, and a counter offer made by the claimant. The original offer was increased but rejected. The counter-offer was not withdrawn, and was then accepted by the defendant. On receipt of the acceptance, the claimant purported to withdraw the counter offer. The judge had held that since the offer had … Continue reading Gibbon v Manchester City Council, L G Blower Specialist Bricklayer Ltd, Reeves and another: CA 25 Jun 2010

WXY v Gewanter and Another: QBD 30 May 2012

The claimant had obtained an injunction to restrain publication of what was private information. The third defendant now applied to set aside the judgment, saying that their application for an adjournment had been wrongly refused. He said that he had been intimidated into not attending. Held: The defendant’s evidence was inconclusive and, though his delay … Continue reading WXY v Gewanter and Another: QBD 30 May 2012

Kennedy v The Information Commissioner and Another: CA 12 May 2011

The claimant, a journalist, sought further information from the Charity Commission after the release of three investigations into the ‘Mariam Appeal’ and questions about the source and use of its funds. The Commission replied that it was exempt under section 32. The claimant appealed against the finding of a blanket exemption, and continued after completion … Continue reading Kennedy v The Information Commissioner and Another: CA 12 May 2011

King, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice: CA 27 Mar 2012

In each case the prisoners challenged their transfer to cellular confinement or segregation within prison or YOI, saying that the transfers infringed their rights under Article 6, saying that domestic law, either in itself or in conjunction with recent decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, acknowledged that serving prisoners have a right to … Continue reading King, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice: CA 27 Mar 2012

A v Secretary of State for the Home Department, and X v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 16 Dec 2004

The applicants had been imprisoned and held without trial, being suspected of international terrorism. No criminal charges were intended to be brought. They were foreigners and free to return home if they wished, but feared for their lives if they did. A British subject, who was suspected in the exact same way, and there were … Continue reading A v Secretary of State for the Home Department, and X v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 16 Dec 2004

Hamalainen v Finland: ECHR 16 Jul 2014

ECHR Grand Chamber – Article 8-1 Respect for family life Respect for private life Refusal to give applicant female identity number following sex change unless marriage was transformed into civil partnership: no violation Facts – Under Finnish law marriage is only permitted between persons of opposite sex. However, while same-sex couples are not permitted to … Continue reading Hamalainen v Finland: ECHR 16 Jul 2014

Johnson v The Medical Defence Union Ltd: ChD 3 Mar 2006

The claimant sought disclosure under the 1998 Act by the defendant of records held by them. The respondent said that the information they held did not amount to data under the Act. Held: The information was contained in different formats, on paper, electronically and on CD, but was then brought together in a risk assessment. … Continue reading Johnson v The Medical Defence Union Ltd: ChD 3 Mar 2006

Roberts v Gill and Co Solicitors and Others: SC 19 May 2010

The claimant beneficiary in the estate sought damages against solicitors who had acted for the claimant’s brother, the administrator, saying they had allowed him to take control of the assets in the estate. The will provided that property was to be transferred only if the claimant’s brother paid all the Inheritance Tax. It was transferred … Continue reading Roberts v Gill and Co Solicitors and Others: SC 19 May 2010

Fairclough Homes Ltd v Summers: SC 27 Jun 2012

The respondent had made a personal injury claim, but had then been discovered to have wildly and dishonestly exaggerated the damages claim. The defendant argued that the court should hand down some condign form of punishment, and appealed against refusal of a strike out of the claim. The Court of Appeal said that it was … Continue reading Fairclough Homes Ltd v Summers: SC 27 Jun 2012

Media Cat Ltd v Adams and Others: PCC 18 Apr 2011

The claimants had begun copyright infringement cases. Having been refused a request to be allowed to withdraw the cases as an abuse, their solicitors now faced an application for a wasted costs order. Held: The court only has jurisdiction to make a wasted costs order when the impugned conduct has caused a waste of costs … Continue reading Media Cat Ltd v Adams and Others: PCC 18 Apr 2011

Eastenders Cash and Carry Plc and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Revenue and Customs: SC 11 Jun 2014

Alcoholic drinks had been seized by the respondents pending further enquiries with a view to a possible forfeiture, then held and returned but only under court order. The company had complained that the detention of the goods was unlawful. The Revenue appealed against an order upholding that complaint. Held: The appeal succeeded. Section 139 allowed … Continue reading Eastenders Cash and Carry Plc and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Revenue and Customs: SC 11 Jun 2014