Click the case name for better results:

Nectrus Ltd v UCP Plc: CA 21 Jan 2021

Application for reconsideration of refusal of leave to appeal. Judges: Lord Justice Flaux Citations: [2021] EWCA Civ 57 Links: Bailii, Juciciary Statutes: Civil Procedure Rules 52.30 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: See also – UCP Plc v Nectrus Ltd ComC 21-Feb-2018 Application for stay pending proceedings in Isle of Man . . See also – … Continue reading Nectrus Ltd v UCP Plc: CA 21 Jan 2021

Hayes and others v Transco Plc: CA 17 Sep 2003

The defendant appealed awards against it of disturbance payments to the claimants under their contracts of employment. The claimants had produced documents at the last minute before the trial but it was arguable that since these documents were those of the defendants, they should heve been disclosed anyway. Held: The evidence, however badly introduced had … Continue reading Hayes and others v Transco Plc: CA 17 Sep 2003

Sengupta v Holmes and Others, Lord Chancellor intervening: CA 31 Jul 2002

The appellant had applied for leave to appeal to a single judge, who had refused the application. He appealed and was granted leave by two judges. He then objected when the single judge who had refused leave was included in the panel of judges to hear the substantive appeal. Held: There was no reason to … Continue reading Sengupta v Holmes and Others, Lord Chancellor intervening: CA 31 Jul 2002

Colley v Council for Licensed Conveyancers: CA 17 Jul 2001

The applicant had sought to exercise his statutory right of appeal from a decision by his professional body. The judge had considered that leave was necessary under the rules, and granted limited permission. The applicant appealed, saying that his statutory right of appeal could not be limited except by clear and specific provision. The court … Continue reading Colley v Council for Licensed Conveyancers: CA 17 Jul 2001

James v Baily Gibson and Co (a firm): CA 30 Oct 2002

The claimant succeeded in an action for negligence against the respondent solicitors. The court required her to submit to a psychiatric examination to allow assessment of her claim. In default the entire action was to be stayed. She refused, and appealed, saying that her right to a fair trial had been infringed. Held: The court … Continue reading James v Baily Gibson and Co (a firm): CA 30 Oct 2002

Jackson v Marina Homes Ltd: CA 2008

Sir Henry Brooke considered the requirements in the CPR for requesting permission to appeal: ‘When the CPR introduced a well-nigh universal regime for permission to appeal-see CPR r.52.3(1) -the rule makers introduced a tough regime in order to avoid the progress of appeals being delayed while leave to appeal was being sought from a lower … Continue reading Jackson v Marina Homes Ltd: CA 2008

M v M (Breaches of orders: Committal): CA 28 Jul 2005

The mother sought to appeal refusal of a judge to commit the father for contempt in not complying many times with court orders related to residence and contact. Held: Leave was required for such an appeal. The rules distinguished between an appeal against a committal where leave was not required, and against any other order … Continue reading M v M (Breaches of orders: Committal): CA 28 Jul 2005

Teva UK Ltd v Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh and Co Kg: CA 16 Dec 2016

The Court considered the rights or otherwise of appealing to the Court of Appeal in Patents cases. Kitchin, Floyd LJJ [2016] EWCA Civ 1296 Bailii Civil Procedure Rules 52.3(6) England and Wales Litigation Practice, Intellectual Property Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572422

Multiplex Construction (Uk) Ltd v Honeywell Control Systems Ltd: TCC 8 Feb 2007

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

The Convergence Group Plc and Another v Chantrey Vellacott (a Firm): CA 16 Mar 2005

An accountant sought payment of his professional fees. The defendants had sought to re-amend their defence and counterclaim. Appeals had variously been allowed to go ahead or denied after the master had not been able to deal with all of them for lack of time. Held: The several appeals raised common issues. Some were first … Continue reading The Convergence Group Plc and Another v Chantrey Vellacott (a Firm): CA 16 Mar 2005

Fieldman and Another v Markovitch and Another: CA 4 Jul 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

Kaneria v Kaneria and Others: ChD 15 Apr 2014

The parties were embroiled in a company dispute with allegations of conduct prejudicial to minority shareholders. An application was now made for sanctions for a failure to comply with court directions. Held: Unless and until a higher Court has said that the approach in Robert is no longer to be followed, it was binding and … Continue reading Kaneria v Kaneria and Others: ChD 15 Apr 2014

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

In re Stanford International Bank Ltd and Others: ChD 9 Jul 2009

One of the parties wanted to request permission to appeal, but had not done so at the hearing. The court considered whether it had power to do so at a later hearing. Held: It did not. The Rules set out a deliberately prescriptive regime which the court must follow. Once the hearing was concluded, the … Continue reading In re Stanford International Bank Ltd and Others: ChD 9 Jul 2009