Search Results for: Civil Procedure Rules 3.1

Click the case name for better results:

Aoot Kalmneft v Glencore International Ag and Another: ComC 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: ComC 27 Jul 2001

CIBC Mellon Trust Company and others v Mora Hotel Corp Nv and Another: CA 19 Nov 2002

A party had been ordered to pay into court as a condition of an application to set aside a judgment, a substantial sum in respect of past costs, and also as security for costs to be incurred. The defendant appealed. Held: The judge had not differentiated between the two. On an application for security for … Continue reading CIBC Mellon Trust Company and others v Mora Hotel Corp Nv and Another: CA 19 Nov 2002

Olafsson v Gissurarson: QBD 8 Dec 2006

Judgment in default had been entered against the defendant after the court had in its own discretion corrected an error in service of the claim form. The form had been served personally in Reykjavik, but that form of service was not allowed in Iceland. Held: The appeal was allowed. Rule 3.10 could not be used … Continue reading Olafsson v Gissurarson: QBD 8 Dec 2006

Thevarajah v Riordan and Others: SC 16 Dec 2015

The defendants had failed to comply with an ‘unless’ order requiring disclosure, and had been first debarred from defending the cases as to liability. They applied to a second judge who granted relief from sanctions after new solicitors had complied with the order. The claimant challenged the right of the second judge to grant such … Continue reading Thevarajah v Riordan and Others: SC 16 Dec 2015

Deg-Deutsche Investitions – Undentwicklungs Gesellschaft Gmbh v Thomas Koshy: ChD 13 Dec 2004

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 … Continue reading Deg-Deutsche Investitions – Undentwicklungs Gesellschaft Gmbh v Thomas Koshy: ChD 13 Dec 2004

Barr and Others v Biffa Waste Services Ltd: TCC 15 May 2009

The Claimants were the residents of a housing estate who applied for a Group Litigation Order to pursue their claim of nuisance and negligence against a waste contractor. The Defendant requested the disclosure of their ‘after the event’ insurance policy as a condition of the GLO. Held: The policy was disclosable both under CPR31.14 and … Continue reading Barr and Others v Biffa Waste Services Ltd: TCC 15 May 2009

Stockton-On-Tees Borough Council v Latif: Admn 13 Feb 2009

The council appealed against a decision that the crown court had jurisdiction to extend the time for appeal against refusal of a private hire vehicle licence. Held: The court did not have the jurisdiction it used: ‘The terms of the section 300 of the Public Health Act 1936 are, in my view clear. A fixed … Continue reading Stockton-On-Tees Borough Council v Latif: Admn 13 Feb 2009

Independent Trustee Services Ltd v GP Noble Trustees Ltd and Others: ChD 14 Dec 2010

An application was made under Part 3.1(7) to vary an earlier final order made by the judge after a trial, on the application of the wife of one of the defendants whose potential interest in funds subject to the judge’s order had been overlooked by him when making it, in her absence. Held: The application … Continue reading Independent Trustee Services Ltd v GP Noble Trustees Ltd and Others: ChD 14 Dec 2010

Lloyds Investment (Scandinavia) Ltd v Ager-Hanssen: ChD 15 Jul 2003

The defendant sought a variation under Part 3.1(7) of an order setting aside an earlier judgment in default of defence, on terms requiring a substantial payment into court with which the defendant, who was a litigant in person, had not complied. Patten J discussed the jurisdiction under Part 3.1(7): ‘The Deputy Judge exercised a discretion … Continue reading Lloyds Investment (Scandinavia) Ltd v Ager-Hanssen: ChD 15 Jul 2003

Polar Park Enterprises v Allason: ChD 18 Apr 2007

The defendant occupied property belonging to the claimant. An order for immediate possession had been granted in January. The defendant now said that part of the order was been made without jurisdiction. Held: Though he occupied the property as a licensee only of the claimant, that licence had been granted against the promise of the … Continue reading Polar Park Enterprises v Allason: ChD 18 Apr 2007

Thakerar v Lynch Hall and Hornby (a Firm): ChD 21 Oct 2005

An order was sought to declare the claimant to be a vexatious litigant. The respondent answered that some of her applications had succeeded. Held: It was not necessary to show that all applications by the claimant had been without merit. Judges: Lewison J Citations: Times 30-Nov-2005, [2005] EWHC 2751 (Ch), [2006] 1 WLR 1511 Links: … Continue reading Thakerar v Lynch Hall and Hornby (a Firm): ChD 21 Oct 2005

Steele v Mooney and others: CA 8 Feb 2005

The claimant had sought an extension of time for service of her claim form in her action for personal injury. The solicitors in error did not include the words ‘claim form’ in their request. The judge had initially held the error was one of drafting not of procedure, and refused rectification. Held: The distinction was … Continue reading Steele v Mooney and others: CA 8 Feb 2005

Cook v Cook and Another: QBD 28 Jun 2011

The court was asked to decide whether an interim award of damages should be limited to calculations up to the claimant’s sixteenth birthday. Judges: Eady J Citations: [2011] EWHC 1638 (QB), [2011] PIQR P18 Links: Bailii Statutes: Civil Procedure Rules 3.1(2) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Personal Injury, Damages Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.441247

Robert v Momentum Services Ltd: CA 11 Feb 2003

The claimant appealed against an order refusing an extension of time for service of her particulars of claim. She had made the application before the period expired. Held: The rules made a clear distinction between applications made before time expired and those made afterwards. For the latter the rules laid down a checklist. It was … Continue reading Robert v Momentum Services Ltd: CA 11 Feb 2003

Dermot Gerard Richard Walsh v Andre Martin Misseldine: CA 29 Feb 2000

The claimant sought damages for injuries from 1989. His claim was pursued effectively, but a four-year delay ensued after 1994. He then sought to enlarge his claim greatly by introducing a lot of new issues of which the defendant’s insurers had no notice when they calculated the value of the claim in the early 1990s … Continue reading Dermot Gerard Richard Walsh v Andre Martin Misseldine: CA 29 Feb 2000

The Royal Brompton Hospital National Health Service Trust v Hammond and Others (No 5): CA 11 Apr 2001

When looking at an application to strike out a claim, the normal ‘balance of probabilities’ standard of proof did not apply. It was the court’s task to assess whether, even if supplemented by evidence at trial, the claimant’s claim was bound to fail and even if unchallenged. The court could look to witness statements to … Continue reading The Royal Brompton Hospital National Health Service Trust v Hammond and Others (No 5): CA 11 Apr 2001

Sartipy (Aka Hamila Sartipy) v Tigris Industries Inc: CA 1 Mar 2019

The claim had been struck out on the basis that the claimant was a proxy for a person against whom an extended civil restraint order had been made. The claimant had herself been made to an ECRO. The point allowed to come to appeal was whether such an order was available when the claimant had … Continue reading Sartipy (Aka Hamila Sartipy) v Tigris Industries Inc: CA 1 Mar 2019

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

Mullen v Birmingham City Council: QBD 29 Jul 1999

Under the new rules, judges were required to take greater control over court proceedings, and accordingly had the power to entertaining a submission of no case to answer at the close of the claimant’s case and without first requiring the defendant to elect not to offer any evidence. Judges: David Foskett QC Citations: Times 29-Jul-1999 … Continue reading Mullen v Birmingham City Council: QBD 29 Jul 1999

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

Ideal Shopping Direct Ltd and Others v Mastercard Incorporated and Others: CA 13 Jan 2022

Whether service of an unsealed amended claim form is good service and, if it is not, whether the failure to serve a sealed claim form is an error of procedure capable of rectification under CPR 3.10. Judges: Sir Julian Flaux, Chancellor of the High Court Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing And Lord Justice Birss Citations: [2022] … Continue reading Ideal Shopping Direct Ltd and Others v Mastercard Incorporated and Others: CA 13 Jan 2022

Pannone Llp v Aardvark Digital Ltd: CA 12 Jul 2011

Claimant a few minutes late filing and then serving documents under an unless order although the process of filing by fax and serving by email was initiated in each case before the deadline. Arden, Lloyd, Tomlinson LJJ [2011] EWCA Civ 803, [2011] 1 WLR 2275, [2011] NPC 74 Bailii Civil Procedure Rules 3.1(2)(a) England and … Continue reading Pannone Llp v Aardvark Digital Ltd: CA 12 Jul 2011

Mucelli v Government of Albania (Criminal Appeal From Her Majesty’s High Court of Justice): HL 21 Jan 2009

The House was asked whether someone who wished to appeal against an extradition order had an obligation also to serve his appellant’s notice on the respondent within the seven days limit, and whether the period was capable of extension by the court. Held: The appeal failed (Lord Rodger dissenting). Giving notice, for the purposes of … Continue reading Mucelli v Government of Albania (Criminal Appeal From Her Majesty’s High Court of Justice): HL 21 Jan 2009

Roult v North West Strategic Health Authority: CA 20 May 2009

The parties had settled a personal injury claim, on the basis as expected that the claimant would be provided with accommodation by the local authority. It later turned out that accommodation would not be provided, and he returned to court to request that the order be amended. He now appealed refusal of an order. Held: … Continue reading Roult v North West Strategic Health Authority: CA 20 May 2009

Point Solutions Ltd v Focus Business Solutions Ltd and Another: ChD 16 Dec 2005

It was claimed that the defendant’s computer software infringed the copyright in software owned by the claimant. A declaration was sought beacause of allegations that assertions about infringement had been made to third parties. Held: The declaration was refused. There was no explicit provision in copyright law for a declaration of non-infringement as was available … Continue reading Point Solutions Ltd v Focus Business Solutions Ltd and Another: ChD 16 Dec 2005

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

Olakunle O Olatawura v Alexander O Abiloye: CA 17 Jul 2002

The claimant challenged an order requiring him to give security for costs before proceeding. The judge had felt he was unreasonable in the way he was pursuing his claim. He appealed saying the order was made outside the scope of Part 25. Held: The rules now allowed orders akin to orders for security for costs … Continue reading Olakunle O Olatawura v Alexander O Abiloye: CA 17 Jul 2002

Sloutsker v Romanova: QBD 5 Mar 2015

The claimant sued for libel in respect of the publication in this jurisdiction of allegations of fabricating evidence, conspiracy to murder, and the bribery and corruption of the prosecutor and judges in criminal proceedings. The defendant now applied to set aside service of proceedings on her outside the jurisdiction.As to CPR 23.11, Warby J said: … Continue reading Sloutsker v Romanova: QBD 5 Mar 2015

Allen v Bloomsbury Publishing Plc and Another: ChD 18 Mar 2011

Further applications in defendant’s application for summary judgment and or security for costs in the claimant’s claim alleging copyright infringement. Held: The claimant was ordered to pay a sum of andpound;50,000 as security for costs.Kitchin J summarised the principles: ‘(i) the court has jurisdiction under rule 24.6 to make an order which is tantamount to … Continue reading Allen v Bloomsbury Publishing Plc and Another: ChD 18 Mar 2011

London Borough of Hackney v Findlay: CA 20 Jan 2011

An application had been made to set aside a possession order obtained by a social landlord and determined by a district judge who applied CPR3.1 (7), when setting the possession order aside. By the time the landlord’s appeal against that decision was heard, the decision in Forcelux was available and the circuit judge held that … Continue reading London Borough of Hackney v Findlay: CA 20 Jan 2011

Forcelux Ltd v Binnie: CA 21 Oct 2009

Forcelux and Mr Binnie were the landlord and tenant of a flat in Lincoln. Under the lease, the tenant was obliged to pay ground rent and other charges. The lease contained a forfeiture provision in the event of non-payment of rent or charges. Mr Binnie fell into arrears and Forcelux obtained a default judgment against … Continue reading Forcelux Ltd v Binnie: CA 21 Oct 2009

Tombstone Ltd v Raja and Another; Raja v Van Hoogstraten and others (No 9): CA 17 Dec 2008

The claimant complained of an irregularly obtained judgment. The defendant had obtained an amendment to a writ of sequestration in the course of a bitterly fought dispute bewteen the defendant and the owner of the claimant. The judge had found the irregularity proved, but declined to set the order aside. The claimant now said that … Continue reading Tombstone Ltd v Raja and Another; Raja v Van Hoogstraten and others (No 9): CA 17 Dec 2008

Collier v Williams and others: CA 25 Jan 2006

Various parties appealed refusal and grant of extensions of time for service of claim forms. Held: The court gave detailed guidance. The three central issues were the proper construction of the rule, the question of whether the court could reconsider an application made without notice and on paper, and whether the Hashtroodi guidance was being … Continue reading Collier v Williams and others: CA 25 Jan 2006

Nasser v United Bank of Kuwait: CA 11 Apr 2001

The claimant, a foreign resident, alleged that her jewels had been stolen from a deposit box while in possession of the defendants. The defendants sought security for costs. Held: An order for security may not legitimately be based on the bare fact of residence abroad, which would amount in most cases to discrimination on grounds … Continue reading Nasser v United Bank of Kuwait: CA 11 Apr 2001

Basil Shiblaq v Kahraman Sadikoglu (No 2): ComC 30 Jul 2004

The court considered whether there had been effective service of proceedings on defendants in Turkey. Evidence was given as to the effectiveness of such service in Turkish law. Held: The defendant’s application to set aside the judgment in default succeeded. The claimant’s applications in respect of CPR 3.10 and CPR 6.9 were refused. The Civil … Continue reading Basil Shiblaq v Kahraman Sadikoglu (No 2): ComC 30 Jul 2004

Cranfield and Another v Bridgegrove Ltd; Claussen v Yeates etc: CA 14 May 2003

In each case claims had been late in being served and extensions in time were sought and refused. Held: The recent authorities were examined. The words ‘has been unable to serve’ in CPR 7.6(3)(a) include all cases where the court has failed to serve, including mere oversight. The court’s discretion might then be exercised according … Continue reading Cranfield and Another v Bridgegrove Ltd; Claussen v Yeates etc: CA 14 May 2003

Godwin v Swindon Borough Council: CA 10 Oct 2001

The claimant appealed against an order striking out his claim for personal injuries. The claim had been issued in time, but not served. An extension of time was granted, and the notice sent by first class post the day before that period expired. The defendant had claimed that the rules deemed service on the second … Continue reading Godwin v Swindon Borough Council: CA 10 Oct 2001

Vinos v Marks and Spencer plc: CA 2001

The appellant claimed personal injuries. His solicitors issued a claim form within the limitation period, but only served it after the expiry of the four month period after the date of issue within which CPR 7.5 stipulated that the claim had to be served. CPR 7.6 provided that a claimant could apply for an order … Continue reading Vinos v Marks and Spencer plc: CA 2001

Cardiff County Council v Lee (Flowers): CA 19 Oct 2016

The court was asked: ‘can the court proceed to validate a warrant of possession where a landlord who seeks to enforce his right to possession because of an alleged breach of the terms of a suspended possession order has not complied with CPR 83.2? ‘ Held: CPR r 83.2 were intended to provide real protection … Continue reading Cardiff County Council v Lee (Flowers): CA 19 Oct 2016

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

Elmes v Hygrade Food Products Plc: CA 24 Jan 2001

Where a claim form is served in time but is incorrectly served (in this case on the defendants’ insurers instead of on the defendants themselves), there is no power in the court under CPR 3.10(b) (remedy of errors of procedure) or CPR 6.8 (service by an alternative method) retrospectively to remedy the error by deeming … Continue reading Elmes v Hygrade Food Products Plc: CA 24 Jan 2001

Carlton Advisors v Dorchester Holdings Ltd: ComC 29 Aug 2014

The court considered a request to order the defendants to pay a sum of money into court having defaulted in compliance with directions. Held: The court does have the power under 3.1(5) to order a party to pay a sum of money into court if that party has, without good reason, failed to comply with … Continue reading Carlton Advisors v Dorchester Holdings Ltd: ComC 29 Aug 2014

Stoute v LTA Operations Ltd (T/A Lawn Tennis Association): CA 15 May 2014

The claimant issued proceedings requesting the court to return the summons to him for service. In error the court served direct. The defendant argued that the service error made the claim invalid, and in the circumstances out of time. The claimant appealed from a decision in the defendant’s favour. Held: The appeal succeeded. ‘the principal … Continue reading Stoute v LTA Operations Ltd (T/A Lawn Tennis Association): CA 15 May 2014

Thevarajah v Riordan and Others: CA 16 Jan 2014

Defendants appealed against an order allowing the application of the first, second and fourth respondents for relief from sanction under CPR 3.9. The relief sought had previously been refused by Hildyard J, so this was the respondents’ second application for the same relief. The defendants had, before the second application complied with the unless order. … Continue reading Thevarajah v Riordan and Others: CA 16 Jan 2014

Vidal-Hall and Others v Google Inc: QBD 16 Jan 2014

The claimants alleged misuse of their private information in collecting information about their internet useage when using Google products. Google now applied for an order setting aside consent for service out of the jurisdiction. Held: The judge dismissed the applications to set aside permission to serve the claim form out of the jurisdiction in respect … Continue reading Vidal-Hall and Others v Google Inc: QBD 16 Jan 2014

Kojima v HSBC Bank Plc: ChD 22 Mar 2011

The defendant had been found to owe money to the bank. In order to avoid damaging his career he agreed to execute a charge to secure the judgment. He now sought release from that order, and to withdraw his admission of the debt. He had acted in person, but had since been advised that he … Continue reading Kojima v HSBC Bank Plc: ChD 22 Mar 2011

CS v ACS and Another: FD 16 Apr 2015

Rule Against Appeal was Ultra Vires W had applied to have set aside the consent order made on her ancillary relief application accusing the husband of material non-disclosure. She complained that her application to have the order varied had been refused on the ground that her only remedy was in an appeal. Held: The appeal … Continue reading CS v ACS and Another: FD 16 Apr 2015

Americhem Europe Ltd v Rakem Ltd: TCC 13 Jun 2014

americhem_rakemTCC0614 Complaint was made that a costs estimate had been signed not by a solicitor, but by a costs draftsman. Held: The rules required the estimate to have been signed by a ‘senior legal representative’. A costs draftsman whose involvement in the matter was restricted to the preparation of the costs schedule was not such. … Continue reading Americhem Europe Ltd v Rakem Ltd: TCC 13 Jun 2014

Watson v Sadiq and Another: CA 16 Jul 2013

The appellant and defendant said that the agreement compromising their action, and embodied within a Tomlin schedule, had been reached by duress and was vitiated. He said that the Recorder had exercised undue influence in advising the need for a settlement by compromise, and had ventured into discussing the terms of what had been without … Continue reading Watson v Sadiq and Another: CA 16 Jul 2013

Mitchell MP v News Group Newspapers Ltd: CA 27 Nov 2013

(Practice Note) The claimant brought defamation proceedings against the defendant newspaper. His solicitors had failed to file his costs budget as required, and the claimant now appealed against an order under the new Rule 3.9, restricting very substantially the costs which might be made in his favour. Held: The appeal was refused. It was inherent … Continue reading Mitchell MP v News Group Newspapers Ltd: CA 27 Nov 2013

Brown and Others v InnovatorOne Plc and Others: ComC 19 Jun 2009

The claimants served proceedings by fax. The defendants denied that it was effective saying that they had not confirmed that they were instructed to accept service or that as required by the rules they had confirmed that they would accept service by fax. Held: The service had not been valid. The claimant effectively argued for … Continue reading Brown and Others v InnovatorOne Plc and Others: ComC 19 Jun 2009