The debtor’s wife was personally acquainted with counsel for the petitioner in his bankruptcy examination. He sought that it be set aside. Held: Whereas a judge had a duty to be independent of the parties, no such duty fell on counsel. A court might disqualify counsel where there was a complaint as to use, or … Continue reading Skjevesland v Geveran Trading Co Ltd: CA 30 Oct 2002
The case was listed to be heard on the Monday. On the Friday before it had been settled. The court complained of the lawyers that they had not informed the court, and that consequently much of the judge’s time over the weekend had been wasted in preparatrion. The parties must recognise that a judge would … Continue reading Tasyurdu v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 24 Mar 2003
appeal about security for costs. Held: Where a foreign company is reticent in revealing, or declines to reveal its financial position, it is ‘sound’ practice to grant security against it: ‘ If a company is given every opportunity to show that it can pay a defendant’s costs and deliberately refuses to do so there is, … Continue reading Sarpd Oil International Ltd v Addax Energy Sa and Another: CA 3 Mar 2016
rattan_ubsComC0314 The claimant had sought an order limiting the defendant’s costs after alleged non-compliance with directions, and failing to file a costs budget. Held: The application was rejected. The Commercial Court will firmly discourage the taking of futile and time wasting procedural points: ‘the claimant’s argument has not only increased the expense of this CMC … Continue reading Rattan v UBS Ag, London Branch: ComC 12 Mar 2014
(De Laval Ltd, Part 20 defendant) (Practice Note) Several parties applied for relief from sanctions, having been refused at first instance: Held: The court identified a three stage process. It should first calculate the seriousness and or significance of the breach. If it is not serious or substantial, the further steps may be taken less … Continue reading Denton and Others v TH White Ltd and Others: CA 4 Jul 2014
The defendant was said to have acted in contempt but only after the family proceedings were concluded. The court was now asked whether such an application was to be made in the High or the Family Court.
Held: The material date was that on . .
