The defendant had made a payment into court. She then applied to reduce the amount paid in, but the claimant accepted the original sum before that application was heard. The defendant appealed saying that their application operated as a stay. Held: The rules did not spell out the answer. The defendant could have made an … Continue reading Flynn v Scougall: CA 13 Jul 2004
The claimant had recovered damages, but was ordered to pay costs since she had recovered less than was paid in. She appealed. Held: There were anomalies in the system with regard to the recoverable social security benefits. The sums recoverable were not reduced in line with any reduction for contributory negligence, benefits could be recovered … Continue reading Williams v Devon County Council: CA 18 Mar 2003
The court was able to make costs orders which differentiated between different stages and elements of a case. This might well result, as here, in a situation of a succesful claimant being ordered to pay 80% of the defendant’s costs, because of costs incurred pursuing issues on which it lost. Judges: Tomlinson J Citations: [2003] … Continue reading Kastor Navigation Co Ltd and Another v AGF M A T and others: ComC 17 Mar 2003
The claimant succeeded in her action for personal injuries. She appealed against an order for costs in her favour on the standard basis, saying that it should have been on an indemnity basis. Judges: Schiemann, Tuckey, Jonathon Parker LJJ Citations: [2002] 3 All ER 263, [2002] EWCA Civ 398, [2002] PIQR 591, [2003] 1 WLR … Continue reading Huck v Robson: CA 21 Mar 2002
A part 36 offer had been made and declined. A significant amendment was made to the defendant’s pleadings on the basis of information which had always been available to him. The claimant then accepted the payment in. Should the claimant be regarded as the successful party for costs purposes. Held: Costs remain at the discretion … Continue reading Factortame Ltd and others v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions): CA 28 Jan 2002
The award of costs under Rule 36.21 on an indemnity basis is not intended to be penal, and the court must look at what was fair and reasonable in the circumstances. Lord Woolf said: ‘However, it would be wrong to regard the rule [36.21] as producing penal consequences. An order for indemnity costs does not … Continue reading Petrograde Inc v Texaco Ltd: CA 23 May 2000
Where a party wished to put the other at risk of payment of costs by the making of an offer, it was vital that the other party should be made properly aware of any information available to decide on the offer. Under the new regime, it was not appropriate to hold back such information, and … Continue reading Ford v GKR Construction and Others: CA 22 Oct 1999
The new civil procedure rules could impose sanctions or penalties on parties who failed to act in accordance with the spirit of the rules. The word ‘interest’ when allowing a judge to award interest by way of a penalty for the failure to accept a reasonable offer was not the same as the interest awarded … Continue reading All-In-One Design and Build Ltd v Motcomb Estates Ltd and Another: QBD 4 Apr 2000
The court was asked ‘what it means in a purported CPR Part 36 offer to say that the offer is ‘open for 21 days’. On one view it means that the offer is not open after 21 days. On another view it means, in its context, that the offer will not be withdrawn for 21 … Continue reading C v D: CA 27 May 2011
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
The fact that a defendant had not acted unreasonably in pursuing a case after an offer of settlement, was not a reason for not awarding costs to be paid on an indemnity basis. Such an award had no penal element, and did not first require any condemnation of the plaintiff. Nor was it wrong to … Continue reading McPhilemy v Times Newspapers Ltd (No 4): CA 3 Jul 2001
Citations: [2018] EWCA Civ 1831 Links: Bailii Statutes: Civil Procedure Rules 36 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Civil Procedure Rules Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.620466
The defendant had made a substantial payment into court in protracted proceedings. Held: The comparison between the payment in and the eventual amount of damages awarded should be assessed on the basis of the damages calculated as at the date of the payment in, and not at any later date. The rules were not to … Continue reading William John Henry Johnson v Gore Wood and Co: CA 27 Jan 2004
A defendant made a payment into court in respect of some but not all of the issues in the case. The payment in was accepted, and the claimant continued to litigate the balance of his claim. He sought his costs in respect of the matters settled by the payment in. He was not entitled to … Continue reading Clark Goldring and Page Ltd v ANC Ltd: ChD 17 May 2001
The parties had disputed liability for personal injuries in a road traffic accident. The court had held the defendant liable, but held over the assessment of damages. The defendant sought to refer to the fact of his offer of settlement when assessing the costs of the liability trial. Held: CPR r 36.13(2) did not permit … Continue reading Beasley v Alexander: QBD 9 Oct 2012
In litigation where there are split issues (such as liability preceding quantum), where no offer to settle the litigation under CPR Part 36 has been made, and where one party makes a without prejudice save as to costs offer covering the entirety of the litigation (‘a Calderbank offer’) how might the discretion as to costs … Continue reading Mckeown v Langer: CA 26 Nov 2021
New CPR govern Indemnity Costs awards The defendant had successfully defended the main claim and now appealed against the refusal of an order for costs on an indemnity basis even though judge thought that the claimants had behaved unreasonably. He had said that some conduct deserving of moral condemnation was required. The defendant had made … Continue reading Reid Minty (a firm) v Taylor: CA 2002
After a personal injury claim, the judge had apportioned liability and ordered each side to pay the costs of the other. The case had been allocated to the fast track. Held: The appeal failed. The existence of the Conditional Fee Agreement did not affect the form of order. The award of costs remained the exercise … Continue reading Horth v Thompson: QBD 6 Jul 2010
The claim related to the alleged infringement of a patent. There had been a split trial, with liability being tried first. The court considered the costs implications.
Held: Henderson J said: ‘Where there is a split trial (which I understand . .
The case had concluded. Offers of settlement had been made and the operative one included an offer on the interest payable. The court came to decide how the interest part of the offer was to be considered when assessing whether the judgment bettered . .
The court heard an appeal against a Master’s order which had given the defendant permission under rule 36.6(5) to withdraw a Part 36 payment.
Held: The same considerations apply to giving permission to withdraw money in court as to refusing . .
. .
The claimants had made a Part 36 offer at first instance, but the matter was appealed. Having won at appeal they sought their costs on an indemnity basis of the appeal also.
Held: If a party wished to protect itself by a Part 36 offer, it must . .
The claimant had succeeded in his claim for damages for personal injuries, but there had been a payment in. There were cross appeals, as to the proportion of costs awarded, and by the defendant saying that the interest awarded should have been added . .
The court considered the application of rule 36, and the general rules as to costs, in relation to contribution proceedings between two parties both liable to a claimant for the same damage. . .
Common issues relating to the construction of Part 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules and its inter-action with Part 44, which contains general rules about costs, and Section II of Part 45, which contains rules about costs in certain kinds of road . .
The defendant had made an offer including an offer that each party bear their own costs. A later action led to an order on better terms, and the claimant sought costs on an indemnity basis.
Held: The rules were generally incompatible with . .
. .
. .
The claimant had succeeded in her claim and had recovered more than the sum paid in by the defendant, and now appealed an order for costs in favour of the defendant.
Held: The award of costs to a successful claimant achieving more than any sum . .
The claimant had offered to accept damages subject to a 50% finding of contributory negligence. The defendant did not accept. That was the exact order made. The claimant appealed refusal to award her costs on the standard basis to the time for . .
The defendant had sought an order requiring the claimant to remove from a witness statement elements referring to without prejudice discussions between the parties before litigation began.
Held: The defendant’s appeal succeeded. The test for . .
The claimant licensee alleged that the license contract had been repudiated by the defendant licensor. The claimant succeeded at the trial of liability. The defendant had made a payment into court. The judge was told of the payment but not of the . .
Mrs Nolan had been employed at a US airbase. When it closed, and she was made redundant, she complained that the appellant had not consulted properly on the redundancies. The US denied that it had responsibility to consult, and now appealed. Held: The appeal failed (Lord Carnworth dissenting). That the exact situation might not have … Continue reading The United States of America v Nolan: SC 21 Oct 2015
The defendant applied to have set aside judgement entered against him in default of acknowledgment of service. Held: The authorities make it plain that, in order to satisfy the test for resisting a summary claim for for wrongful repudiation and/or breach of contract, a defendant has to demonstrate a defence which is not ‘false, fanciful … Continue reading International Finance Corporation v Utexafrica SPRL: ComC 9 May 2001
In the course of a long dispute, the defendant’s solicitors had indicated that they would accept service of proceedings. Just before the limitation period expired, the papers were served directly in the client. The defendants solicitors said that this was invalid service, and that later service out of time could not revive the claim. Held: … Continue reading Firstdale Ltd v Quinton: ComC 5 Aug 2004
The court considered steps to be taken after a very late withdrawal of an appeal. Judges: Peter Gibson, Laws, Longmore LJJ Citations: [2004] EWCA Civ 87 Links: Bailii Statutes: Civil Procedure Rules 3.1 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: Cited – Tasyurdu v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 24-Mar-2003 The case was listed … Continue reading Yell Ltd v Garton: CA 2 Feb 2004
The judge allowed the defendant’s submission of no case to answer without putting them to their election and again the claimant’s appeal succeeded. The trial judge had been persuaded that the rule in Alexander -v- Rayson had been altered by the Civil Procedure Rules ‘and that as a general rule a judge was not required … Continue reading Lloyd v John Lewis Partnership: CA 1 Jul 2001
EAT Practice and Procedure – Case ManagementIn considering whether or not to strike out or impose some lesser remedy the guiding consideration was the overriding objective which required justice to be done between the parties and that in particular the Tribunal should consider the magnitude of the default, whether the default was the responsibility of … Continue reading Weir Valves and Controls (UK) Ltd v Armitage: EAT 15 Oct 2003
The court considered the circumstances under which a Hearing Officer’s decision could be reversed on appeal: ‘Those experienced in cases such as these, such as the Hearing Officer, would have known that the sort of evidence normally adduced on issues of distinctiveness included evidence from editors of trade and other magazines, evidence from buyers of … Continue reading E I Du Pont De Nemours and Company v S T Dupont; Du Pont Trade Mark: CA 10 Oct 2003
The claimant sought damages from his wife for personal injuries. He had been late beginning the claim, and it was served without particulars. He then failed to serve the particulars within 14 days. Totty and then Sayers had clarified the procedure for applications for extension of time. Held: The lower courts had failed to apply … Continue reading Price v Price (Trading As Poppyland Headware): CA 26 Jun 2003
The court should only exercise its power under the Civil Procedure Rules Part 3 to require a payment in only in limited circumstances, and not do so unless the party against whom the order was sought had acted in bad faith. Citations: [2002] EWHC 369 (Ch) Links: Bailii Statutes: Civil Procedure Rules Jurisdiction: England and … Continue reading Reed and others v Oury and others: ChD 14 Mar 2002
The Civil Procedure Rules have allowed the Courts to accept an amendment to introduce a cause of action arising out of facts occurring subsequent to the commencement of the proceedings. There is no absolute rule of law or practice which precludes an amendment to rely on a cause of action which accrued only after the … Continue reading Maridive and Oil Services (SAE) and Another v CNA Insurance Company (Europe) Ltd: CA 25 Mar 2002
Those issuing proceedings, anticipating no dispute as to the facts, and therefore using Part 8, should remain aware of the fact that, upon a dispute, and in the absence of a judge explicitly reallocating the claim to the multitrack, the court rules would do the same by default, with the further effect of disallowing any … Continue reading Yenula Properties Ltd v Naidu: ChD 18 Jul 2001
The procedure for making a wasted costs order was primarily compensatory, for costs wasted, rather than punitive for malpractice. The procedure is summary, and more in line with applications for costs made under the Civil Procedure Rules rule 44.3, rather than cases involving contempt of court. Usually there is no need for the judge in … Continue reading In re P (a Barrister) (Wasted Costs Order): CACD 23 Jul 2001
The court’s powers under the new CPR to deal with non-compliance with time limits, were wide enough to allow the court to allow re-instatement of an action previously struck out. The court could find alternative ways of dealing with any delay which could recompense the other party and seek to achieve justice as between the … Continue reading Biguzzi v Rank Leisure Plc: CA 26 Jul 1999
A judge may reopen a case even after he has delivered his final judgment. A judge invited counsel to amend his pleading to incorporate an improvement, but in the face of his repeated failure to take up the invitation, entered final judgment against him. After advice from leading counsel, counsel requested the judgment be reopened … Continue reading Stewart v Engel, BDO Stoy Hayward: CA 17 May 2000
The respondent, a neighbour of the claimant, had fallen into dispute with the claimant, and issued a leaflet and signs alleging fraud. The claimants obtained an injunction, and in the absence of a substantive defence, judgement. He claimed that the judgement had deprived him of his right to a jury trial because the case involved … Continue reading Safeway Stores Plc v Albert Tate: CA 18 Dec 2000
The defendant sought judicial review of his court-martial and of the confirming officers. He said the court should have heard that he committed the offence whist intixicated after taking an anti-malarial drug. The court dd not explain why it had found no causal connection beween the treatment and the offence. Held: There is no over-riding … Continue reading Regina v Ministry of Defence ex parte Colin James Murray: QBD 15 Dec 1997
The Civil Procedure Rules have not changed the common law rules which say that an interlocutory order for costs could not be varied by another judge sitting at first instance, except only in exceptional circumstances where it appeared for example that fraud might be involved. To do so would be for the court to act … Continue reading Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Anchor Foods Ltd (No 3): ChD 8 Jul 1999
The claimant intended to seek recovery of a very substantial sum from the defendant. On learning of the defendant’s intention to sell its assets, it sought an order freezing them. Held: The court has the discretion to order a freezing of a defendant’s assets so as to prevent a transfer of those assets, even though … Continue reading Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Anchor Foods Ltd (No 2): ChD 24 Mar 1999
The parties in ancillary relief proceedings sought orders for discovery. H had been to the wife’s flat surreptitiously on five occasions, and taken photocopies of so many documents obtained by him in the course of those visits (but returned after photocopying) that the photocopies themselves would now ‘fill a crate’, as the judge was told. … Continue reading Hildebrand v Hildebrand: 1992
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
A claimant must show good reason why service on a foreign defendant should be permitted. This head of jurisdiction was an exorbitant jurisdiction, one which, under general English conflict rules, an English court would not recognise as possessed by any foreign court in the absence of some treaty providing for such recognition. Comity dictated that … Continue reading Amin Rasheed Shipping Corp v Kuwait Insurance Co: HL 1983
The tenancy had been an introductory tenancy. The council sought to terminate the tenancy, delivering the papers to the court before the anniversary. Held: The proceedings were not begun under the section until the court issued the claim form. That had occurred outside the twelve month period, and the trial tenancy had expired and the … Continue reading Salford City Council v Garner: CA 27 Feb 2004
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
Whilst surprising, it was possible that a successful claimant could be ordered to pay the majority of a defendant’s costs. Under the Civil Procedure rules, it was proper to order costs on an issue by issue basis. Judges: Chadwick LJ Citations: [2001] EWCA Civ 2020 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Cited – Kastor Navigation … Continue reading Summit Property Ltd v Pitmans: CA 19 Nov 2001
The claimant was detained in a secure Mental Hospital. He complained at the seclusions policy applied by the hospital, saying that it departed from the Guidance issued for such policies by the Secretary of State under the Act. Held: The House allowed the Hospital’s appeal. The policy was lawful. Seclusion was to be seen as … Continue reading Regina v Ashworth Hospital Authority (Now Mersey Care National Health Service Trust) ex parte Munjaz: HL 13 Oct 2005
Whilst litigants in person should be allowed the assistance of a McKenzie friend, the duties of the friend should not normally include representation and advocacy. Nevertheless, each case should be viewed separately, and applications for permission should be attended to, even if only granted in exceptional circumstances. The litigant should understand that this is an … Continue reading Izzo v Philip Ross and Co (a Firm): ChD 31 Jul 2001
A party to litigation made an offer on the day before trial of settlement without prejudice save as to costs. At trial it made an open offer in similar terms which was rejected. After reading a draft unfavourable judgment, the party applied to be allowed to accept the offer, contending that such an offer was … Continue reading Pitchmastic Plc v Birse Construction Ltd: QBD 8 Jun 2000
The circumstances required to allow a person to withdraw money paid into court. The new rules created a flexibility unavailable under the old rules, and the case law associated with the old pre-Woolfe rules should not now determine how such applications are dealt with. Citations: Times 13-Mar-2001 Statutes: Civil Procedure Rules Part 36 Cited by: … Continue reading Marsh v Frenchay NHS Trust: QBD 13 Mar 2001
Registered osteopath given conditional discharge for possession of offensive weapon in public place Judges: Lord Justice Underhill, (Vice-President of the Court of Appeal (Civil Division)), Lord Justice Stuart-Smith, And, Lord Justice Nugee Citations: [2021] EWCA Civ 1940, [2021] WLR(D) 636, [2022] 1 WLR 1626 Links: Bailii, WLRD, Judiciary Statutes: General Osteopathic Council (Professional Conduct Committee) … Continue reading Wray v General Osteopathic Council: CA 17 Dec 2021
The claimant having received a better settlement of his claim than had been offered by the defendant, he now sought an order under CPR and as to the level of interest payable. Judges: Pepperall QC DHCJ Citations: [2017] EWHC 3051 (QB), [2017] WLR(D) 784 Links: Bailii, WLRD Statutes: Civil Procedure Rules 1998 36.17(4) Jurisdiction: England … Continue reading Mohammed v The Home Office: QBD 24 Nov 2017
The parties were involved in litigation under the 1976 Act. The claiant now appealed against an order penalising him for failing to provide a costs budget. He said that it had not been a case management conference at which one was to be filed. Judges: Hickinbottom J Citations: [2014] EWHC 1037 (Ch), [2014] WLR(D) 168 … Continue reading Kershaw v Roberts (Representative of The Estate of Jones) and Another: ChD 10 Apr 2014
The Court was asked whether an admission was to be treated as binding on a party Judges: Purle QC HHJ Citations: [2017] EWHC 1336 (QB) Links: Bailii Statutes: Civil Procedure Rules 1998 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Litigation Practice Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.588181
The appeal concerned a final third party debt order (formerly a garnishee order). A judgment in France was registered here for enforcement. That jurisdiction was now challenged. Held: A third party debt order is a proprietary remedy operating by attachment against the property of the judgment debtor. The property so attached is the chose in … Continue reading Societe Eram Shipping Company Limited and others v Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corp Ltd, Compagnie Internationale de Navigation: HL 12 Jun 2003
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
The respondent had arrived and claimed asylum. Three claims were rejected, two of which were fraudulent. She had two children by a UK citizen, and if deported the result would be (the father being unsuitable) that the children would have to return with her. Held: The mother’s appeal succeeded. The court had to consider the … Continue reading ZH (Tanzania) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 1 Feb 2011
The court considered where the trial of the action should take place. Held: The defendant’s appeal failed. Even though the rights sought to be protected were of a proprietary nature, where the rights could properly be said to have arisen under an English contract, the English court could use its discretion to assert jurisdiction. Though … Continue reading Deripaska v Cherney: CA 31 Jul 2009
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
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
In the course of unfair dismissal proceedings, the defendant had disclosed possession of confidential materials of his former employer. The employer began these proceedings based on the materials. Only at a later point when he appointed solicitors was a challenge to made to that use as contempt. The company now appealed against the strike out … Continue reading IG Index Ltd v Cloete: CA 31 Jul 2014
Application for permission to appeal. Jackson J considered whether permission to appeal should have been requested at the hearing: ‘It seems to me that I have got to interpret the provisions of Rule 52.3 and the provisions of the Practice Direction in a manner which is obviously consonant with the intentions of those who drafted … Continue reading Multiplex Construction (Uk) Ltd v Honeywell Control Systems Ltd: TCC 8 Feb 2007
Three prisoners raised questions as to the circumstances in which the Parole Board is required to hold an oral hearing before making an adverse decision. One of the appeals (Osborn) concerned a determinate sentence prisoner who was released on licence but then recalled to custody. The other appeals (Booth and Reilly) were indeterminate sentence prisoners … Continue reading Osborn v The Parole Board: SC 9 Oct 2013
Balancing Rights of Prisoner and Society The appellant had been convicted of the murder of three police officers in 1966. His tariff of thirty years had now long expired. He complained that material put before the Parole Board reviewing has case had not been disclosed to him. Held: The appeal failed (by a majority). The … Continue reading Roberts v Parole Board: HL 7 Jul 2005
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
The bank had brought possession proceedings against the defendant under two legal charges securing personal guarantees. The proceedings had been abandoned, but the court now was asked whether costs for the defendant should be on the standard or indemnity basis. The defendant argued that the proceedings had been brought for a collateral purpose and were … Continue reading The Co-Operative Bank Plc v Phillips: ChD 21 Aug 2014
This appeal raises the question of how the court should approach the grant of relief from sanctions in a case where the defaulting party has delayed in applying for relief but is able to point to evidence that enables it to allege that the claim is a fraudulent one. Lewison, Beatson, Vos LJJ [2016] EWCA … Continue reading Gentry v Miller and Another: CA 9 Mar 2016
The defendant sought to have struck out the claim on the basis that delay made a fair trial impossible. Warren J [2006[ EWHC 3697 (Ch) Bailii Civil Procedure Rules 3.492) England and Wales Litigation Practice Updated: 09 January 2022; Ref: scu.263664
The court had made an order removing one executor, though with no criticism. It now considered its order for costs, all parties seeking costs in their favour. Held: The two personal representatives could not be expected to continue to work together, and at least one must go. Master Matthews said: ‘there are not two sets … Continue reading Jones v Longley and Others: ChD 20 Nov 2015
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
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
The complainant has requested information relating to an amendment of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR)/ County Court Money Claims Centre (CCMCC). The Commissioner’s decision is that Ministry of Justice (MOJ) has correctly cited section 14(2) in response to the request. The Commissioner does not requires the public authority to take any steps as a result … Continue reading Ministry of Justice (Central Government): ICO 14 Sep 2021
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
ECJ Order Of The Court – Preliminary ruling – Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court – Social policy – Directive 1999/70/EC – Framework agreement ETUC, UNICE and CEEP on fixed-term work – Clause 4 – Contracts of fixed-term employment in the Public Sector – Procedure stabilization – Recruitment of fixed-term workers … Continue reading Per l’energia autorita elettrica e il gas v Bertazzi And Others: ECJ 4 Sep 2014
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
Mr Justice Morison [2003] EWHC 1367 (Comm) Bailii Civil Procedure Rules 31.16 England and Wales Civil Procedure Rules Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.183567
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
The defendant objected to the introduction of certain evidence by the claimant under a Civil Evidence Act notice. Claimants seeking to adduce academic journals as expert evidence Arnold J [2013] EWHC 936 (Ch), [2013] WLR(D) 183 Bailii, WLRD Civil Procedure Rules 35 England and Wales Citing: See Also – Interflora Inc and Another v Marks … Continue reading Interflora Inc and Another v Marks and Spencer Plc and Another: ChD 15 Apr 2013
The claimants sought to issue election petitions to challenge the results of local elections. The petitioners had complied with all the rules save that they had failed to serve the notice of presentation within the five day period. The claimants argued that the Civil Procedure Rules took sway over the Election Rules, and that the … Continue reading Ullah and Others, Ahmed v Pagel, Scallan, Kennedy: CA 12 Dec 2002
The claimant sought to enforce a judgment debt against a foreign resident company, and for this purpose to examine or have examined a director who lived abroad. The defendant said that the rules gave no such power and they did, the power was outside the rule-maker’s power. Held: Even though the rule-making power is wide … Continue reading Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Co Sal and Others: HL 30 Jul 2009
The Defendant applies under CPR 11.1 for an order declaring that the court has no jurisdiction to try this claim against him on the grounds that the claim is barred by the defence of state immunity under the State Immunity Act 1978. Rose J [2014] EWHC 1807 (Ch), [2014] 1 WLR 4437, [2015] 1 All … Continue reading Harb v HRH Prince Abdul Aziz: ChD 9 Jun 2014
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
The parties disputed whether the inclusion of length of service within a selection matrix for redundancy purposes would amount to unlawful age discrimination. The court was asked whether it was correct to make a declaratory judgment when the case had otherwise been effectively settled. Held: With considerable misgivings, the court agreed to hear the appeal. … Continue reading Rolls-Royce plc v Unite the Union: CA 14 May 2009
