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 offer. It was noted that an offer on costs was to … Continue reading Ali Reza-Delta Transport Co Ltd v United Arab Shipping Co Sag: CA 17 Jun 2003
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 permission to take it out. He inclined, following Marsh v. Frenchay Healthcare, to a more … Continue reading MRW Technologies v Cecil Holdings: 22 Jun 2001
Judges: Lord Justice Auld, Lord Justice Waller And Lord Justice Mantell Citations: [2003] EWCA Civ 782 Links: Bailii Statutes: Civil Procedure Rules 36 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: See Also – KR and others v Bryn Alyn Community (Holdings) Ltd and Another CA 12-Feb-2003 The respondent appealed decisions by the court to allow claims for … Continue reading DK, KR, CGE, DHM, PS, RM, DJ, GOM v Bryn Alyn Community (Holdings) Ltd (In Liquidation) and Royal and Sun Alliance PLC: CA 22 May 2003
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 be made both at first instance, and again … Continue reading P and O Nedlloyd BV Aktieselskabet Dampskibsselskabet Svendborg v Utaniko Limited/East West Corporation (No 2): CA 19 Feb 2003
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 to award before testing whether the payment had been beaten. Held: The … Continue reading Blackham v Entrepose UK: CA 27 Jul 2004
Judges: Costs Judge Leonard Citations: [2022] EWHC 2561 (SCCO) Links: Bailii Statutes: Civil Procedure Rules 36.20(1), (2) (4) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Costs Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.682260
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. Judges: Rix, Lloyd, Stanley Burnton LJJ Citations: [2012] EWCA Civ 588 Links: Bailii Statutes: Civil Procedure Rules 36 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Civil … Continue reading PHI Group Ltd v Robert West Consulting Ltd: CA 10 May 2012
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 traffic accident claims. Judges: Pill, Moore-Bick, Aikens LJJ, Hurst SCJ Citations: [2011] EWCA … Continue reading Solomon v Cromwell Group Plc: CA 19 Dec 2011
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 offers which included costs. Their purpose was to direct costs after a case … Continue reading Mitchell and Others v James and Others: CA 12 Jul 2002
Judges: Tugendhat J Citations: [2010] EWHC 597 (QB) Links: Bailii Statutes: Civil Procedure Rules 36.14(3)(b) Litigation Practice Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.406529
Judges: MacDuff J Citations: [2010] EWHC 311 (QB), [2010] 3 Costs LR 402 Links: Bailii Statutes: Civil Procedure Rules 36 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Costs, Litigation Practice, Civil Procedure Rules Updated: 14 August 2022; Ref: scu.401923
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 paid in was not automatic. Where the court felt that … Continue reading Carver v BAA Plc: CA 22 Apr 2008
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 acceptance of the offer and thereafter on an indemnity basis. Held: The judge … Continue reading Read v Edmed: QBD 8 Dec 2004
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 proximity of the negotiations to the litigation was not one of time, but of the closeness of the connection between … Continue reading Framlington Group Ltd and Another v Barnetson: CA 24 May 2007
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 amount. He ordered the defendant to pay the costs of the liability trial … Continue reading HSS Hire Services Group Plc v BMB Builders Merchants Ltd and Another: CA 24 May 2005
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 . .
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
Judges: Mr Justice Miles Citations: [2022] EWHC 3057 (Ch) Links: Bailii Statutes: Civil Procedure Rules 11, Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Arbitration, Financial Services Updated: 12 December 2022; Ref: scu.683605
The court considered the meaning of ‘real’ prospects of success: ‘This does not mean that a party can successfully resist summary judgement by suggesting, like Mr Micawber, that something may turn up to save him, though he does not know what: see per Megarry V-C in Lady Anne Tennant v. Associated Newspapers Group Ltd [1979] … Continue reading Fraser and others v Oystertec Plc and others: 3 Nov 2009
The judge had repeatedly adjourned a matter, directing that the parties should consider alternative dispute resolution. Since the first adjournment, the rules had been changed to allow a court to refer a case for such an arrangement. One party objected. Held: The new power could be exercised even in an existing case, and therefore the … Continue reading Agodzo v Amegashitsie and Another: CA 20 May 1999
Dispute about whether a Part 36 settlement offer that was accepted can later be withdrawn and whether the settlement should be approved by the court. The facts were unusual and raise some novel questions as to the application of Part 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules to protected parties or children. Judges: Ms Clare Ambrose … Continue reading Wormald v Ahmed: QBD 21 Apr 2021
No Judicial Review of Decisions of Private Body Despite the wide range of its powers, the disciplinary committee of the Jockey Club remains a domestic tribunal. Judicial review is not available to a member. The relationship is in contract between the club and its member. Sir Thomas Bingham MR said: ‘No serious racecourse management, owner, … Continue reading Regina v Disciplinary Committee of the Jockey Club, ex parte Aga Khan: CA 4 Dec 1992
The court has a wide discretion whether to order the assessment of costs on an indemnity basis and the court of Appeal will rarely disturb the judge’s order as to costs.Judge LJ said: ‘By treating the absence of allocation to track as conclusive in my judgment District Judge Jenkins misdirected himself. The omission may have … Continue reading Voice and Script International Ltd v Alghafar: CA 8 May 2003
In defamation proceedings the defendant had invited one issue to be left to the jury. After losing the case, the defendant sought to appeal, arguing that the jury’s verdict was perverse. It was held that such an appeal amounted to an abuse of process, and if allowed, would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. … Continue reading McPhilemy v Times Newspapers Ltd; Liam Clarke and and Andrew Neil (No 3): CA 12 Jun 2001
The second defendant insurers appealed against a refusal by the court to allow it to withdraw an admission of liability in respect of a road traffic accident. The insurer said that the fact that it now saw the accident as fraudulent was an exceptional circumstance such as to allow the change. Held: The appeal failed. … Continue reading Dar v Vonsak and Another: QBD 17 Dec 2012
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 applicants sought to strike out a claim under section 459. The two companies sold toiletries, the one as retail agent for the other. They disputed the relationship of the companies, and the use of a trading name. Documents were disclosed which appeared to be fabrications. Held: Where a party was in breach of court … Continue reading Arrow Nominees Inc, Blackledge v Blackledge: ChD 2 Nov 1999
A part 36 offer can be withdrawn at any time before it is accepted or expires. The rules can not force an offer to be left open. Clear words would have been required within the rules to impose such an obligation. The actual words referred to offers ‘expressed’ to be open for 21 days, but … Continue reading Scammell and Others v Dicker: CA 21 Dec 2000
The claimant had begun its action complaining of infringement of unregistered design right in the High Court. The defendant applied to have the case heard in the Patents County Court. Held: The current practice, under which such a decision was made by the transferring court was the correct one, and was within the Civil Procedure … Continue reading DKH Retail Ltd v Republic (Retail) Ltd: ChD 3 Apr 2012
W appealed against the striking out as an abuse of its request for a declaration that the tenants of the flats at Dolphin Square were entitled to acquire its freehold from the respondents. They had previously served and withdrawn a notice claiming the right. Held: The tenants’ appeal was allowed. CPR 38.7 did not operate … Continue reading Westbrook Dolphin Square Ltd v Friends Life Ltd: CA 18 May 2012
The court was asked as to whether the on-line marketplace site defendant was liable for trade mark infringements by those advertising goods on the web-site. Held: The ECJ had not yet clarified the law on accessory liability in trade mark infringement, and the legislation remained unclear. Many of the direct sellers were held to be … Continue reading L’Oreal Sa and Others v Ebay International Ag and Others: ChD 22 May 2009
The claimant sought a declaration that an offer earlier given to settle the action was no longer open for acceptance not having been accepted. Judges: Warren J Citations: [2010] EWHC 2940 (Ch), [2010] 47 EG 140, [2011] 1 WLR 331, [2011] 3 EG 84 Links: Bailii Statutes: Civil Procedure Rules 3(1)(m) 36 Jurisdiction: England and … Continue reading C v D and D2: ChD 16 Nov 2010
The court considered the approval required for an order under the 2002 Act. Held: Welfare considerations were important but not paramount: ‘Given the permanent nature of the order under s.30, it seems reasonable that the court should adopt the ‘lifelong’ perspective of welfare in the Adoption and Children Act 2002 rather than the ‘minority’ perspective … Continue reading In re X and Y (Foreign Surrogacy): FD 9 Dec 2008
The defendant appealed against a refusal to strike out the claim which was to seek to enforce a judgment obtained in Kiev and in the Ukraine Supreme Court. Held: It had been a proper exercise of the discretion under CPR r 13.3 to refuse to set aside the default judgment. A court in England had … Continue reading Merchant International Company Ltd v Natsionalna Aktsionerna Kompaniia Naftogaz: CA 29 Feb 2012
Value added tax – MTIC fraud – whether transactions of appellant connected with tax losses caused by fraud of others – whether appellant knew or should have known of fraud by others Precedent – whether a First-tier Tribunal should take account in a decision of other decisions of the First-tier Tribunal about related factual issues … Continue reading Charles (T/A Boston Computer Group Europe) v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 12 Jun 2012
Judges: Gloster J DBE Citations: [2007] EWHC 3010 (Comm), [2008] ILPr 14, [2008] 1 All ER (Comm) 305 Links: Bailii Statutes: Civil Procedure Rules 71.2 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International (UK) Ltd ComC 17-May-2005 . . See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International (UK) Ltd CA … Continue reading Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another: ComC 20 Dec 2007
Applications for trade marks on behalf of the claimant had been rejected. Acquired distinctiveness was a significant issue, and the question of whether the appeal was a review or a rehearing was significant. In this appeal, the parties had given oral evidence, and the Registrar contended that any further appeal to the High court should … Continue reading Dyson Limited v The Registrar of Trade Marks: ChD 15 May 2003
The court considered issues relating to the appropriateness of the claimants instructing London solicitors in a case in which those solicitors had submitted a bill of costs totalling pounds 220,000 in connection with a claim in which their clients had recovered pounds 90,000. Sir Christopher Staughton said: ‘So surely case management powers will allow a … Continue reading Solutia UK Limited v Griffiths: CA 26 Apr 2001
The defendants appealed against a refusal to allow them to amend their pleadings. They wished to include allegations as to matters which were unknown to the journalist at the time of publication. Held: It is necessary for the defendants to establish that they had a duty to publish the article if they are to be … Continue reading Loutchansky v Times Newspapers Limited (No 2): CA 12 Mar 2001
The appellant landlords appealed against the award of damages to their former tenants under the 1985 and 1972 Acts. The judge had proceeded to hear the case in their absence. Held: The court considered whether the appellants should instead have applied to have the judgments set aside. Judges: Moore-Bick, Gross LJJ Citations: [2011] EWCA Civ … Continue reading Williams and Another v Hinton and Another: CA 14 Oct 2011
The claimant had appealed a judgment against her. The court itself recommended that the parties use a method of alternate dispute resolution, to avoid the need for appeal. The defendant refused, not wishing to make any payment over and above the offer it had already made. Held: The defendant, otherwise successful on appeal, should be … Continue reading Dunnett v Railtrack plc: CA 22 Feb 2002
The defendant, having been sued for defamation by the claimant social worker pleaded justification and now sought third party disclosure against the hospital involved and against the police of documents which might support the stories it had published. Judges: Eady J Citations: [2011] EWHC 1364 (QB) Links: Bailii Statutes: Civil Procedure Rules 31.17 Defamation, Civil … Continue reading Henry v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Others: QBD 26 May 2011
The court allowed the appellant’s application to dispense with service of a claim form under the rule. The High Court became seised of the matter as at 19 January 2005. Further directions were given. Judges: The Honourable Mr Justice Peter Smith Citations: [2005] EWHC 1880 (Ch) Links: Bailii Statutes: Civil Procedure Rules 6.9 Jurisdiction: England … Continue reading Phillips, Harland (Suing As Administrators of the Estate of Christo Michailidis) v Symes (A Bankrupt), Nussberger, Galerie Nefer Ag, Geoff Rowley: ChD 19 Aug 2005
The defendant company sought to appear by a lay representative in a small claims track case in a county court. The court did not allow that, and the only representative was a director with limited English. The company appealed. Held: The normal rule as to representation of companies did not apply in cases allocated in … Continue reading Sunrule Ltd v Avinue Ltd: CA 26 Nov 2003
The respondent having successfully defended the claim by the Revenue, now sought its costs on an indemnity basis having made a Part 36 offer. The Revenue responded that Part 36 did not apply to such claims. Judges: Carnwath , Moses LJJ Citations: [2010] EWCA Civ 1448, [2011] STC 547, [2011] BVC 30, [2011] STI 129 … Continue reading Revenue and Customs v Blue Sphere Global Ltd: CA 16 Dec 2010
The court considered an appeal against an order allowing an amendment outside the limitation period which would Judges: Lloyd, Wilson, Gross LJJ Citations: [2010] EWCA Civ 1153, [2011] Bus LR 504, [2011] BPIR 158, [2011] 1 WLR 1364 Links: Bailii Statutes: Civil Procedure Rules 19.5, Limitation Act 1980 35 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: Cited … Continue reading Irwin and Another v Lynch and Another: CA 6 Oct 2010
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 new rules now required a respondent to an application for judicial review, to prepare and file an acknowledgement of service. Where he was successful in defending, or resisting the application for leave, there is no reason in principle why he should not be allowed to recover from the applicant, the costs of steps he … Continue reading Regina (Leach) v Commissioner for Local Administration: QBD 2 Aug 2001
The claimant had served proceedings on a representative without first checking that they had authority to accept service. This was discovered too late, and applied for an extension of time for service. The application was refused. The requirement to ensure that the person served had such authority was now clear, and the claim form must … Continue reading Mark Smith v David Probyn, PGA European Tour Ltd: QBD 25 Feb 2000
The court considered the scope of the court’s power to permit an amendment as regards parties outside a limitation period. The amendment in this instance was to substitute one claimant in place of another, namely the liquidator of a company instead of the company itself. Held: The court said of the new rule that: ‘The … Continue reading Parkinson Engineering Services Plc v Swan and Another: CA 21 Dec 2009
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
The rejection of a Part 36 offer does not render it incapable of later acceptance. Judges: Coulson J Citations: [2008] EWHC 2616 (TCC) Links: Bailii Statutes: Civil procedure Rules Part 36 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Cited – Gibbon v Manchester City Council, L G Blower Specialist Bricklayer Ltd, Reeves and another CA 25-Jun-2010 … Continue reading Sampla and Others v Rushmoor Borough Council and Another: TCC 22 Oct 2008
Application for leave to appeal. Judges: Wall LJ Citations: [2009] EWCA Civ 754 Links: Bailii Statutes: Civil Procedure Rules 1998 52.3(6) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Children Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.361447
The court considered how a Part 36 offer could be treated as accepted when it involved an agreement to transfer land, because the offer and its acceptance would not operate under the 1989 Act. Held: The agreement was enforceable. The Civil Procedure Rules, and the inherent jurisdiction of the court, allowed the creation of rights … Continue reading Orton v Collins and others: ChD 23 Apr 2007
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
The court gave reasons for making an extended civil restraint order against the claimant. Judges: Popplewell J Citations: [2013] EWHC 3671 (QB) Links: Bailii Statutes: Civil Procedure Rules 3.11 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Litigation Practice Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.518369
The respondent brought in laws restricting marriages between persons subject to immigration control, requiring those seeking non Church of England marriages to first obtain a certificate from the defendant that the marriage was approved. The applicants said this was discriminatory and infringed their human rights. Held: Legislation which prevented marriages of convenience between aliens and … Continue reading Baiai and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 10 Apr 2006
PROCEDURE – hearing in public or private – VAT Tribunals Rules 1986 r 24(1) – assessment to recover allegedly over-claimed input tax – VATA 1994 ss 25, 26, VAT Regs 1995, reg 29, Sixth Directive art 18 – Human Rights Convention arts 6 and 8 – appellant a sole practitioner solicitor – application for hearing … Continue reading A Practitioner v Customs and Excise: VDT 12 Dec 2003
The court considered the consequences of delay in applications for judicial review: ‘It is important that those parties, and indeed the public generally, should be able to proceed on the basis that the decision is valid and can be relied on, and that they can plan their lives and make personal and business decisions accordingly.’ … Continue reading Hardy and others v Pembrokeshire County Council and Another: CA 19 Jul 2006
Objection was made to the use of an expert witness who had formerly been a senior employee of the defendant. Held: The court set out criteria for testing the independence of a proposed expert witness: ‘i) It is always desirable that an expert should have no actual or apparent interest in the outcome of the … Continue reading Armchair Passenger Transport Ltd v Helical Bar Plc and Another: QBD 28 Feb 2003
The defendant had made a part 36 offer of settlement. The claimant did not accept it, but then tried to accept it after the trial had begun. Held: The risks of litigation were such that situations would often alter when a case came on for trial. It was implied in a part 36 offer that … Continue reading Hawley v Luminar Leisure Plc Ase Security Services Limited, Mann: CA 1 Feb 2006
Before proceedings, in without prejudice discussions, the defendant made certain admissions. They were withdrawn before proceedings commenced. The claimant said that they could not be withdrawn. Held: Until proceedings began the Civil Procedure Rules had nothing on which to bite. Accordingly the defendant remained free to withdraw a concession before proceedings were issued. Judges: Lord … Continue reading Sowerby v Charlton: CA 21 Dec 2005
Various cargo owners sought damages against the owners of the ship which had suffered an explosion with the loss of the cargo. The defendants asserted limitation. Some claimants had agreed an extension of time. Proceedings were then issued but served only eventually made with letters claimed to be equivocal. The question was what constituted service. … Continue reading Asia Pacific (Hk) Ltd. and others v Hanjin Shipping Co Ltd (Hanjin Pennsylvania): ComC 7 Nov 2005
The claimants sought to amend their particulars of claim to add a request for declarations with regard to a bill of lading and contract for carriage. Held: The application to amend was made more than six years after the cause of action accrued. It was in its nature a new claim. The additional possibility that … Continue reading P and O Nedloyd BV v Arab Metals Co and Others (‘The UB Tiger’): QBD 22 Jun 2005
The claimant claimed damages for historic child abuse by a teacher. On 19 January 2018 the Defendant offered to settle the claim by paying pounds 80,000 to the Claimant. On 2 April 2020 the Claimant accepted the offer. Because the period for accepting the offer under Part 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules had expired … Continue reading MRA v Education Fellowship Ltd (Aka Rushden Academy): QBD 22 Apr 2022
The appellants appealed rejection of their application for judicial review. They were long term residents in a nursing home, which the respondents had decided to close. Held: Though the respondent did exercise some public functions, and its activities were in part paid for by public authorities, its activity of providing residential accommodation was not a … Continue reading Regina (Heather and Another) v Leonard Cheshire Foundation: CA 21 Mar 2002
Each side had succeeded in part on their claims and counterclaims, but the Respondent was andpound;5,000 out of pocket. Each party had been ordered to pay the costs of the other. Held: The appeal succeeded. The judge had correctly recognised the difficulty of settling costs on an issue by issue basis, but should have considered … Continue reading Burchell v Bullard and others: CA 8 Apr 2005
The landlord had been given permission by the court to adduce one unnamed expert. He obtained one report, but disliked it and sought another. The tenant objected and he was not allowed to rely upon the new report. He appealed judgment in favour of the tenant. Held: A party in such a position was entitled … Continue reading Hajigeorgiou v Vasiliou: CA 10 Mar 2005
Tenants occupied land next to land which was to be developed after compulsory acquisition. The tenants and the landlords asserted a right of light over the land, and sought an injunction to prevent the development. The developer denied that any right of light had been acquired. The sky contour diagrams projected that the reductions in … Continue reading Midtown Ltd v City of London Real Property Company Ltd: ChD 20 Jan 2005
The court found no reason why the courts should apportion costs on a case in accordance with the degree of fault found in a collision giving rise to a claim. Judges: Aikens J Citations: [2008] EWHC 1880 (Admlty), Times 20-Oct-2008 Links: Bailii Statutes: Civil Procedure Rules 44.3(2)(a) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Transport, Costs, Civil Procedure … Continue reading Maritime Inc (Krysia) v Intership Ltd: Adct 1 Aug 2008
Parties appealed from decisions of the Trade Marks Registry, and requested leave to introduce new evidence. Held: It was not agreed what rules applied on appeals under the 1938 Act. The Trade Mark system had public interest effects as well as private law. The rules governing appeals were therefore different from other regimes. The courts … Continue reading E I Du Pont de Nemours and Co v S T Dupont (1): ChD 31 Oct 2002
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
