Click the case name for better results:

Amin Rasheed Shipping Corp v Kuwait Insurance Co: HL 1983

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

Cutts v Head and Another: CA 7 Dec 1983

There had been a trial of 35 days regarding rights of way over land, which had proved fruitless, and where some orders had been made without jurisdiction. The result had been inconclusive. The costs order was now appealed, the plaintiff complaining that the judge had failed to take into account an offer of settlement made … Continue reading Cutts v Head and Another: CA 7 Dec 1983

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

Marlton v Tectronix UK Holdings: ChD 10 Feb 2003

The court considered what was to be discovered under Part 31.4.1 of CPR. Pumfrey J expressly approved the commentary in the White Book: ‘A computer database which forms part of the business records for company is, in so far as it contains information capable of being received and converted into readable form, a document for … Continue reading Marlton v Tectronix UK Holdings: ChD 10 Feb 2003

Regina (G) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal; Regina (M) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal: Admn 25 Mar 2004

The applicants sought judicial review of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal’s refusal of leave to appeal. The court had to decide whether such a right survived section 101 of the 2001 Act. Held: The right to have a judicial review could only be removed by the clearest of words. A right remained, but it was severely … Continue reading Regina (G) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal; Regina (M) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal: Admn 25 Mar 2004

Baiai and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 10 Apr 2006

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

Hicks Developments Ltd v Chaplin and others: ChD 5 Feb 2007

The defendants had succeeded in an application before the Land Registry adjudicator for a strip of land adjoining their property to be registered in their name after a finding that they had successfully established a claim by adverse possession. The claimants had developed the adjoining land leaving the strip unbuilt upon. A fence had been … Continue reading Hicks Developments Ltd v Chaplin and others: ChD 5 Feb 2007

Hardy and others v Fowle and Another: ChD 26 Oct 2007

Mortgagees claimed possession of the land. The occupiers claimed a right of occupation under a lease. The mortgagees argued that the lease had been surrendered. Held: The lease had been surrendered by a deed. The defects in notice alleged did not affect the result. The bank’s claim under estoppel was made out. Judges: John Randall … Continue reading Hardy and others v Fowle and Another: ChD 26 Oct 2007

HM Solicitor General v Holmes: Admn 10 Jun 2019

Disruption of court proceedings – whether contempt in face of court. Judges: Coulson LJ, Spencer J Citations: [2019] EWHC 1483 (Admin), [2019] WLR(D) 332 Links: Bailii, WLRD Statutes: Civil Procedure Rules 81 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Contempt of Court, Civil Procedure Rules Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.639230

Adelson and Another v Associated Newspapers Ltd: CA 9 Jul 2007

The claimant sought to add the name of a further claimant. The defendant objected, saying that it was after the expiry of the limitation period. Held: The claimant was seeking to use the rules for substitution of parties to add a party. In defamation law, the claim of each claimant was a single and separate … Continue reading Adelson and Another v Associated Newspapers Ltd: CA 9 Jul 2007

Framlington Group Ltd and Another v Barnetson: CA 24 May 2007

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

Aird and Another v Prime Meridian Ltd: CA 21 Dec 2006

The court had ordered preparation of a joint statement by the parties expert witnesses with a view to encouraging mediation. The claimant obtained an order that the statement was privileged, and could not be used later in the proceedings. Held: The defendant’s appeal succeeded. Though ‘with some exceptions not relevant to this appeal’, what goes … Continue reading Aird and Another v Prime Meridian Ltd: CA 21 Dec 2006

Woodward and Another v Phoenix Healthcare Distribution Ltd: CA 12 Jun 2019

The Court considered the circumstances in which it is appropriate, on an application for retrospective validation of service pursuant to CPR r 6.15(1) and (2), to allow a potential defendant to take advantage of a mistake on the part of a would-be claimant giving rise to defective service where any new claim would be statute-barred. … Continue reading Woodward and Another v Phoenix Healthcare Distribution Ltd: CA 12 Jun 2019

Tinseltime Ltd v Roberts and Others: TCC 28 Sep 2012

The defendants sought an order for payment of their costs by the claimants solicitors who, they said had wasted them Judges: Stephen Davis J Citations: [2012] EWHC 2628 (TCC) Links: Bailii Statutes: Senior Courts Act 1981 51(3), Civil Procedure Rules 48.2 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Costs, Civil Procedure Rules Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.465189

Sawyer v Atari Interactive Inc: ChD 1 Nov 2005

The claimant owned the copyright in several successful computer games. He had granted licenses for the use of the software, which licences were assigned to the defendants. Disputes arose as to the calculation of royalty payments, and the claimant sought to exercise his auditing rights. The defendant company in the US handled the accountancy for … Continue reading Sawyer v Atari Interactive Inc: ChD 1 Nov 2005

Garbutt and Another v Edwards and Another: CA 27 Oct 2005

The client challenged his opponent’s solicitors bill of costs, saying that the other side had not been given an estimate of costs. The solicitor acted on several matters for the client and had not given a formal estmate. Held: The absence of the estimate should not deprive the solicitor of payment for the work undertaken … Continue reading Garbutt and Another v Edwards and Another: CA 27 Oct 2005

Sekhon, etc v Regina: CACD 16 Dec 2002

The defendants appealed against confiscation orders on the basis that in various ways, the Crown had failed to comply with procedural requirements. Held: The courts must remember the importance of such procedures in the fight against crime, and must not allow procedural or technical failures to defeat that purpose. Courts should rather look to see … Continue reading Sekhon, etc v Regina: CACD 16 Dec 2002

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

Midtown Ltd v City of London Real Property Company Ltd: ChD 20 Jan 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

Morgan EST (Scotland) Ltd v Hanson Concrete Products Ltd: TCC 22 Jul 2004

Citations: [2004] EWHC 1778 (TCC) Links: Bailii Statutes: Limitation Act 1980 35 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: Appealed to – Morgan Est (Scotland) Ltd v Hanson Concrete Products Ltd CA 17-Feb-2005 The defendant appealed an order adding two new claimants. Held: Cases decided under the old RSC were not apposite for matters covered by the … Continue reading Morgan EST (Scotland) Ltd v Hanson Concrete Products Ltd: TCC 22 Jul 2004

Owens Corning Fiberglas (UK) Pension Plan Ltd: ChD 25 Jun 2002

The pension scheme trustees had obtained leave to issue proceedings to compromise a claim without naming any defendants under the rules. The beneficiaries sought leave to be joined. Held: The urgency of the situation now required the proceedings to be allowed to go ahead without delay, but it would have been better for the trustees … Continue reading Owens Corning Fiberglas (UK) Pension Plan Ltd: ChD 25 Jun 2002

The United States of America v Nolan: SC 21 Oct 2015

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

Black and Another v Sumitomo Corporation and others: CA 28 Sep 2001

The defendants had been given extended time to comply with an order for pre-action discovery. Leave to appeal had been granted, with a stay, but there was confusion as to whether expedition was also ordered. The current date had been fixed, but application was now made for that date to be vacated. Held: The court … Continue reading Black and Another v Sumitomo Corporation and others: CA 28 Sep 2001

Markos v Goodfellow and Barke and Barke: CA 26 Jul 2001

There was a boundary dispute. The judge in the County Court had made an error. Counsel had offered to apply to amend the order under the slip rule, and therefore the judge had refused leave to appeal. Held: This was an application for leave to apply for a second appeal, and such appeals only very … Continue reading Markos v Goodfellow and Barke and Barke: CA 26 Jul 2001

Parsons and Another v George and Another: CA 13 Jul 2004

The claimant sought to begin proceedings to renew his business tenancy, but the proceedings were issued in the wrong name. He sought to amend the proceedings to substitute the correct defendant, but that application was out of time. Held: Proceedings under the 1954 Act were not within the proceedings listed by CPR 19.5 since the … Continue reading Parsons and Another v George and Another: CA 13 Jul 2004

Scribes West Limited v Relsa Anstalt and Another (No 1): CA 1 Jul 2004

The court handed down a New Practice Direction 52 for grounds of appeal, decisions in permissions to appeal, notices to respondents of appeals, appeal bundles etc. Judges: Mr Justice Brooke Lord Justice Mance Lord Justice Dyson Citations: [2004] EWCA (Civ) 835, Times 08-Jul-2004, [2005] CP Rep 2, [2005] 1 Costs LR 18 Links: Bailii Statutes: … Continue reading Scribes West Limited v Relsa Anstalt and Another (No 1): CA 1 Jul 2004

Hashtroodi v Hancock: CA 27 May 2004

The claimant had issued proceedings in time, but then the limitation period expired before it was served, and in the meantime the limitation period had expired. The defendant appealed against an automatic extension of time for service granted to the claimant. Held: The Rules should generally be interpreted without reference to case law under the … Continue reading Hashtroodi v Hancock: CA 27 May 2004

Rose v Lynx Express Ltd. and Bridgepoint Capital (Nominees) Ltd: CA 7 Apr 2004

In an request for pre-action discovery it was plainly wrong for the court to seek to decide in advance any element of the virtues of the case. Held: The appeal should be allowed. The case was arguable and should be allowed to proceed.Peter Gibson LJ said: ‘We have reservations about the approach adopted by the … Continue reading Rose v Lynx Express Ltd. and Bridgepoint Capital (Nominees) Ltd: CA 7 Apr 2004

Weir Valves and Controls (UK) Ltd v Armitage: EAT 15 Oct 2003

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

Downtex v Flatley: CA 2 Oct 2003

The claimants sought damages for defamation and breach of contract. The claimants had purchased a business from the defendant, which contract included a clause requiring the defendant to say nothing damaging about the business. The defendant asserted qualified privilege. The defendant was alleged to have told suppliers, by means of anonymous letters, that they were … Continue reading Downtex v Flatley: CA 2 Oct 2003

Dunnachie v Kingston Upon Hull City Council; Williams v Southampton Institute; Dawson v Stonham Housing Association: EAT 8 Apr 2003

EAT Unfair Dismissal – CompensationIn each case, The employee sought additional damages for non-economic loss after an unfair dismissal. Held: The Act could be compared with the Discrimination Acts which explicitly awarded damages for hurt feelings. Clear authority lay against such awards in unfair dismissal cases. An Employment Tribunal considering a claim for damages for … Continue reading Dunnachie v Kingston Upon Hull City Council; Williams v Southampton Institute; Dawson v Stonham Housing Association: EAT 8 Apr 2003

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

Kastor Navigation Co Ltd and Another v AGF M A T and others: ComC 17 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

North East Lincolnshire Borough Council v Millenium Park (Grimsby) Ltd: CA 23 Oct 2002

An agreement was made for a redevelopment of land. The council sought an order requiring specific performance by the respondent of its obligations. The council sought summary judgment, which the respondent resisted claiming that it was presently impossible to proceed. Held: The judge had been wrong, on an application for summary judgement, to proceed on … Continue reading North East Lincolnshire Borough Council v Millenium Park (Grimsby) Ltd: CA 23 Oct 2002

Melissa Maguire v Ricardo David Molin: CA 24 Jul 2002

A case had been originally dealt with under the fast track procedure, but after amendment, the amount at stake came to exceed andpound;15,000. Held: It was permissible for a judge to continue to deal with a matter under the procedure. Relevant factors are the amount by which the claim comes to exceed the limit, and … Continue reading Melissa Maguire v Ricardo David Molin: CA 24 Jul 2002

Jolly v Jay and Another: CA 7 Mar 2002

The applicant sought to appeal a refusal to grant him permission to renew an oral application for leave to appeal. The respondent had appeared at the initial unsuccessful application, and had been awarded costs although there appeared to be no provision for their appearance. Held: The Rules contained inconsistencies, and needed clarification. The Court of … Continue reading Jolly v Jay and Another: CA 7 Mar 2002

Factortame Ltd and others v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions): CA 28 Jan 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

Horne-Roberts (a Child) v Smithkline Beecham plc and Another: CA 18 Dec 2001

The court has a power to order substitution of a party though the limitation period, and even the ‘long stop’ limitation period had expired. The claimant child sought damages after a vaccination. The batch had been attributed to the wrong manufacturer, and the error only came to light outside the limitation period. It was said … Continue reading Horne-Roberts (a Child) v Smithkline Beecham plc and Another: CA 18 Dec 2001

MacDonald v Taree Holdings Ltd: ChD 28 Dec 2000

It was wrong to deprive a party of his costs because only of his failure to serve an appropriate schedule of costs at least 24 hours before the summary assessment hearing. The court should consider first, a brief adjournment, and second whether the case should be stood over for a detailed assessment, and third whether … Continue reading MacDonald v Taree Holdings Ltd: ChD 28 Dec 2000

Unilever Italia SpA v Central Food SpA: ECJ 26 Sep 2000

ECJ National rules embodying a specification contained in a document which lays down the characteristics required of a product, including the requirements applicable to the product as regards labelling, constitute technical specifications within the meaning of Article 1(2) of Directive 83/189 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical … Continue reading Unilever Italia SpA v Central Food SpA: ECJ 26 Sep 2000

Yenula Properties Ltd v Naidu: ChD 18 Jul 2001

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

Halabi v London Borough of Camden: ChD 14 Feb 2008

Ms Halabi applied to annul her bankruptcy order, made for non payment of her rates. She applied within approximately 6 months of her adjudication. Her bankrupt estate was solvent but illiquid. She had not previously appreciated that she had sufficient equity in her property (over andpound;70k) to borrow sufficient to discharge her debt. Held: The … Continue reading Halabi v London Borough of Camden: ChD 14 Feb 2008

Samaroo and Sezek v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 17 Jul 2001

Two foreign nationals with leave to remain in this country committed serious crimes. The Secretary of State ordered their deportation. Held: Where the deportation of a foreigner following a conviction here, would conflict with his human rights, the court had to assess whether the, first, the objective could be achieved by some alternative, less interfering, … Continue reading Samaroo and Sezek v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 17 Jul 2001

Steeds v Peverel Management Services Limited: CA 30 Mar 2001

Where it was not the claimant’s fault that proceedings had not been issued within the appropriate time limit, the judge when considering exercise of his discretion to admit the claim, should not be tempted to refuse to admit it on the basis that the claimant would have a clear claim for negligence against the solicitor … Continue reading Steeds v Peverel Management Services Limited: CA 30 Mar 2001

G and G v Wikimedia Foundation Inc: QBD 2 Dec 2009

The claimants sought an order that the defendants, an internet company in Florida, should disclose the IP address of a registered user of the site with a view to identifying the user and pursuing an action against him or her. Held: Tugendhat J said: ‘Hearings in private under CPR 39.2 (3) and orders under CPR … Continue reading G and G v Wikimedia Foundation Inc: QBD 2 Dec 2009

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

Lloyd v McMahon: HL 12 Mar 1987

The district auditor had issued a certificate under the 1982 Act surcharging the appellant councillors in the sum of 106,103, pounds being the amount of a loss incurred or deficiency caused, as the auditor found, by their wilful misconduct. Held: An aggrieved objector to local government spending should pursue his rights under the Act and … Continue reading Lloyd v McMahon: HL 12 Mar 1987

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

Safeway Stores Plc v Albert Tate: CA 18 Dec 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

In Re Levin; Regina v Governor of Brixton Prison, Ex parte Levin: HL 10 Apr 1997

The applicant had been detained pending extradition to the United States on charges of fraud. He said the evidence would not have been sufficient to justify his committal for trial. Held: The Francis case did not establish that the 1984 Act did not apply to extradition procceedings, and they might also be admissible under the … Continue reading In Re Levin; Regina v Governor of Brixton Prison, Ex parte Levin: HL 10 Apr 1997

Regina v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Ex Parte Eastaway: HL 8 Nov 2000

Where the Court of Appeal had refused permission to apply for judicial review after a similar refusal by a judge, that decision was also, by implication, a refusal to grant permission to appeal against the judge’s decision, and there was no scope for a further appeal to the House of Lords. It is not the … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Ex Parte Eastaway: HL 8 Nov 2000

Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Anchor Foods Ltd (No 3): ChD 8 Jul 1999

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

Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Anchor Foods Ltd (No 2): ChD 24 Mar 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

C Inc Plc v L and Another: QBD 4 May 2001

The plaintiff had obtained judgment against L, only then to find that she claimed that all only apparent assets were held by her on trust for or as agent for her husband who was overseas. The plaintiff therefore now set out to add him, and to claim an asset freezing injunction against him. Held: The … Continue reading C Inc Plc v L and Another: QBD 4 May 2001

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

Maclennan v Morgan Sindall (Infrastructure) Plc: QBD 17 Dec 2013

The defendant had applied for an order limiting the number of witnesses sought to be called by the claimant (43). Held: The power to prohibit the calling of witnesses under CPR r 32.2(3) sat towards the more extreme end of the court’s powers and was a power to be considered after less intrusive measures had … Continue reading Maclennan v Morgan Sindall (Infrastructure) Plc: QBD 17 Dec 2013

Regina v Vale of Glamorgan Council, Ex Parte Clements and Others: CA 22 Aug 2000

Although the Court of Appeal did not have power to hear a renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review under the new rules where the application had been lodged in March 1999 before the new rules came into effect, the court could still apply the over-riding objective to allow it to hear the … Continue reading Regina v Vale of Glamorgan Council, Ex Parte Clements and Others: CA 22 Aug 2000

Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Broomco (1984) Ltd (Formerly Anchor Foods Ltd): CA 17 Aug 2000

When an appeal is lodged in a VAT dispute, the discretion as to whether to require the appellant to lodge security for costs in the appeal, was a decision exclusively to be decided by the tribunal itself. A decision as to such security could not be challenged within enforcement proceedings. Citations: Times 17-Aug-2000 Statutes: Finance … Continue reading Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Broomco (1984) Ltd (Formerly Anchor Foods Ltd): CA 17 Aug 2000

Lynch Hall and Hornby (a Firm) v Thakerar (No 2): ChD 15 Nov 2005

The debtor had made an unsuccessful attempt to set aside a statutory demand. She did not then pay, and a third party debt order was made by the registrar in bankruptcy. Held: The CPR applied to bankruptcy proceedings, and its powers could be exercised by a registrar acting in a bankruptcy, and to make the … Continue reading Lynch Hall and Hornby (a Firm) v Thakerar (No 2): ChD 15 Nov 2005

Mamidoil-Jetoil Greek Petroleum SA v Okta Crude Oil Refinery AD: CA 4 Apr 2003

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

Inntrepreneur Pub Company (CPC) and Another v Sweeney: ChD 27 May 2002

The landlord sought an injunction against the defendant. The defendant countered, relying upon sec 2(1). Held: The remedy provided by the section was limited to the award of damages. It could not, therefore, be used to defend an action for an injunction. Whilst he might be entitled in equity to repudiate the lease, he could … Continue reading Inntrepreneur Pub Company (CPC) and Another v Sweeney: ChD 27 May 2002

Black v Sumitomo Corporation: CA 3 Dec 2001

The claimants proposed pre-action discovery which was resisted. Held: A purpose of pre-action disclosure is to assist those who need disclosure as a vital step in deciding whether to litigate at all or to provide a vital ingredient in the pleading of their case. The rules required first that disclosure would be desirable in the … Continue reading Black v Sumitomo Corporation: CA 3 Dec 2001

General Mediterranean Holdings SA v Patel and Another: QBD 19 Jul 1999

The new Civil Procedure Rules were ultra vires and invalid insofar as they purported to remove any right of a solicitor’s client to assert his right of confidence as against his solicitor. The solicitor was therefore unable in this case to defend himself against a wasted costs order, but the court could allow for the … Continue reading General Mediterranean Holdings SA v Patel and Another: QBD 19 Jul 1999

Royal and Sun Alliance Insurance Plc and Others v Textainer Group Holdings Ltd and Others: ComC 26 Jul 2021

Judgment following a Case Management Conference, at which was also listed the Claimants’ application for orders under CPR 19.6(1)(b) that the First Claimant be permitted to act as representative of four other insurers who participated as followers in the Primary Policy in issue in this case, and that RSA also be permitted to act as … Continue reading Royal and Sun Alliance Insurance Plc and Others v Textainer Group Holdings Ltd and Others: ComC 26 Jul 2021

Kelly v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police: CA 2001

At the conclusion of the evidence, the claimant sought to amend her claim to include an alternative factual basis of liability based not on her own evidence but on that of one of the police officers with whom she had been struggling in a car. Held: The grounds for refusing permission were not sufficient to … Continue reading Kelly v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police: CA 2001

Wilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry; Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (No 2): HL 10 Jul 2003

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

McPhilemy v Times Newspapers Ltd and Others: CA 7 Jun 2000

The new civil procedure rules did not change the basic rules of evidence. The old rule prevented a party putting in evidence a witness statement which he knew conflicted substantially with the case he wished to place before the jury, and then be allowed to assert to a jury that he disagreed with large parts … Continue reading McPhilemy v Times Newspapers Ltd and Others: CA 7 Jun 2000

Regina v Ashworth Hospital Authority (Now Mersey Care National Health Service Trust) ex parte Munjaz: HL 13 Oct 2005

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

Dollfus Mieg et Cie v CWD International Ltd; LBJ Regents Ltd and another v Dolifus Mieg et Cie: QBD 17 Mar 2003

The applicant was a Part 20 defendant in a cross action brought between two other parties. It sought to have its own claim against the original claimant heard as a counterclaim. Held: Article 6 should not be construed so widely as to allow a cross claim by someone other than the original defendant to the … Continue reading Dollfus Mieg et Cie v CWD International Ltd; LBJ Regents Ltd and another v Dolifus Mieg et Cie: QBD 17 Mar 2003

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

Taylor and others v Midland Bank Trust Company Limited: CA 21 Jul 1999

Stuart-Smith LJ rationalised the possible conflict between Part 24 and the practice direction to Part 24 in its original form by saying that the correct view of the effect of the practice direction is to be gleaned from the heading to the paragraph which reads ‘the court’s approach’. It indicates no more than examples of … Continue reading Taylor and others v Midland Bank Trust Company Limited: CA 21 Jul 1999

Marsh v Frenchay NHS Trust: QBD 13 Mar 2001

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

Dow Jones and Co Inc v Jameel: CA 3 Feb 2005

Presumption of Damage in Defamation is rebuttable The defendant complained that the presumption in English law that the victim of a libel had suffered damage was incompatible with his right to a fair trial. They said the statements complained of were repetitions of statements made by US authorities. The claimant had asserted that no more … Continue reading Dow Jones and Co Inc v Jameel: CA 3 Feb 2005

Richards v Worcestershire County Council and Another: CA 12 Dec 2017

Appeal by two public authorities against a refusal to strike out the claimant’s claim as an abuse of process. The principal point of law which arises for decision is whether (following O’Reilly v Mackman [1983] 2 AC 237) the claimant was entitled to proceed under Part 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules rather than by … Continue reading Richards v Worcestershire County Council and Another: CA 12 Dec 2017

Emojevbe v Secretary of State for Transport: CA 7 Jul 2017

The claimant appealed against the refusal of adjournment of the trial of his action on the basis of his medical ability to attend. Judges: Lloyd Jones, King, LJJ Citations: [2017] EWCA Civ 934 Links: Bailii Statutes: Civil Procedure Rules 39.3(3) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Litigation Practice, Civil Procedure Rules Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.588990

Halborg v EMW Law Llp: CA 23 Jun 2017

The Court was asked whether a Limited Liability Partnership (‘LLP’) of solicitors, which is a party to litigation and acts as its own legal representative in the proceedings, is a litigant in person within CPR 46 and so can only recover the level of costs allowed to litigants in person under CPR 46.5(2) and PD46 … Continue reading Halborg v EMW Law Llp: CA 23 Jun 2017

Secretary of State for Health and Others v Servier Laboratories Ltd and Others: CA 22 Oct 2013

The French company defendants had been ordered to disclose documents which they said might expose them to criminal prosecution in France. They now appealed. Held: The court was not obliged to make use of the Council Regulation. Orders for discovery of a document in this court (or for inspection of a document already disclosed) are … Continue reading Secretary of State for Health and Others v Servier Laboratories Ltd and Others: CA 22 Oct 2013

Fourie v Le Roux and others: HL 24 Jan 2007

The appellant, liquidator of two South African companies, had made a successful without notice application for an asset freezing order. He believed that the defendants had stripped the companies of substantial assets. The order was set aside for want of jurisdiction, because it had not been ancillary to any proceedings which had even been formulated … Continue reading Fourie v Le Roux and others: HL 24 Jan 2007

Societe Eram Shipping Company Limited and others v Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corp Ltd, Compagnie Internationale de Navigation: HL 12 Jun 2003

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

Siskina (owners of Cargo lately on Board) v Distos Compania Naviera SA: HL 1979

An injunction was sought against a Panamanian ship-owning company to restrain it from disposing of a fund, consisting of insurance proceeds, in England. The claimant for the injunction was suing the company in a Cyprus court for damages and believed the company to have no other assets from which to meet the hoped-for damages award … Continue reading Siskina (owners of Cargo lately on Board) v Distos Compania Naviera SA: HL 1979

HM Customs and Excise v Barclays Bank Plc: HL 21 Jun 2006

The claimant had served an asset freezing order on the bank in respect of one of its customers. The bank paid out on a cheque inadvertently as to the order. The Commissioners claimed against the bank in negligence. The bank denied any duty of care. Held: The bank’s appeal succeeded. The bank owed a duty … Continue reading HM Customs and Excise v Barclays Bank Plc: HL 21 Jun 2006

AXA General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others: SC 12 Oct 2011

Standing to Claim under A1P1 ECHR The appellants had written employers’ liability insurance policies. They appealed against rejection of their challenge to the 2009 Act which provided that asymptomatic pleural plaques, pleural thickening and asbestosis should constitute actionable harm for the purposes of an action of damages for personal injury. Held: The insurers’ appeals failed. … Continue reading AXA General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others: SC 12 Oct 2011

ZH (Tanzania) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 1 Feb 2011

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

Bains and Others v Moore and Others: QBD 15 Feb 2017

The claimant anti-asbestos campaigners complained that the defendant investigators had infringed their various rights of privacy. They now sought discovery to support the claim. Held: the contents of the witness statements do show that it is more than speculative that these Claimants could, if their recollection was prompted by seeing documents, formulate a claim with … Continue reading Bains and Others v Moore and Others: QBD 15 Feb 2017

Turner v Grovit and others: HL 13 Dec 2001

The applicant was a solicitor employed by a company in Belgium. He later resigned claiming unfair dismissal, saying he had been pressed to become involved in unlawful activities. The defendants sought to challenge the jurisdiction of the English Tribunal system. The defendants had begun procedures in Spain for conciliation. The claimant had obtained an injunction … Continue reading Turner v Grovit and others: HL 13 Dec 2001

Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police: HL 19 Nov 1981

No collateral attack on Jury findigs. An attempt was made to open up in a civil action, allegations of assaults by the police prior to the making of confessions which had been disposed of in a voir dire in the course of a criminal trial. The plaintiffs had imprisoned having spent many years after conviction … Continue reading Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police: HL 19 Nov 1981

Paragon Finance Plc (Formerly the National Home Loans Corporation Plc) v Pender and Pender: ChD 25 Nov 2003

Section 114 of the 1925 Act has no application to Registered Land. It provides for a transfer ‘unless a contrary intention is expressed’ in the mortgage. Thus if section 114 applies, all depends upon the true construction of the mortgage. The power under the Civil Procedure Rules to revoke an earlier order included a power … Continue reading Paragon Finance Plc (Formerly the National Home Loans Corporation Plc) v Pender and Pender: ChD 25 Nov 2003