Once a legal aid certificate is revoked the party is deemed by statute never to have had the benefit of a legal aid certificate. The rules relating to assessment of costs which applied when a party had legal aid did not therefore apply. An order however which has once been made cannot be varied subsequently … Continue reading Deg-Deutsche Investitions Und Entwicklungsgesellschaft Mbh v Koshy and Others: ChD 13 Jan 2000
Various parties appealed refusal and grant of extensions of time for service of claim forms. Held: The court gave detailed guidance. The three central issues were the proper construction of the rule, the question of whether the court could reconsider an application made without notice and on paper, and whether the Hashtroodi guidance was being … Continue reading Collier v Williams and others: CA 25 Jan 2006
The parties had been involved in protracted litigation where a freezing order had been made to support a claim which was eventually dismissed. The claimant sought to have set aside an earlier order made ordering him to pay costs on failing to have the order discharged. Held: The order had been made under the former … Continue reading Deg-Deutsche Investitions – Undentwicklungs Gesellschaft Gmbh v Thomas Koshy: ChD 13 Dec 2004
The court considered applications for relief from sanction under CPR 3.1(7). Held: An application under CPR 3.1(7) usually requires a change of circumstances. Considerations of finality, the undesirability of allowing litigants to have two bites at the cherry and the need to avoid undermining the concept of appeal all required a principled curtailment of an … Continue reading Tibbles v SIG Plc (T/A Asphaltic Roofing Supplies): CA 26 Apr 2012
Defendants appealed against an order allowing the application of the first, second and fourth respondents for relief from sanction under CPR 3.9. The relief sought had previously been refused by Hildyard J, so this was the respondents’ second application for the same relief. The defendants had, before the second application complied with the unless order. … Continue reading Thevarajah v Riordan and Others: CA 16 Jan 2014
The defendant had been found to owe money to the bank. In order to avoid damaging his career he agreed to execute a charge to secure the judgment. He now sought release from that order, and to withdraw his admission of the debt. He had acted in person, but had since been advised that he … Continue reading Kojima v HSBC Bank Plc: ChD 22 Mar 2011
Rule Against Appeal was Ultra Vires W had applied to have set aside the consent order made on her ancillary relief application accusing the husband of material non-disclosure. She complained that her application to have the order varied had been refused on the ground that her only remedy was in an appeal. Held: The appeal … Continue reading CS v ACS and Another: FD 16 Apr 2015
The parties had settled a personal injury claim, on the basis as expected that the claimant would be provided with accommodation by the local authority. It later turned out that accommodation would not be provided, and he returned to court to request that the order be amended. He now appealed refusal of an order. Held: … Continue reading Roult v North West Strategic Health Authority: CA 20 May 2009
The appellant and defendant said that the agreement compromising their action, and embodied within a Tomlin schedule, had been reached by duress and was vitiated. He said that the Recorder had exercised undue influence in advising the need for a settlement by compromise, and had ventured into discussing the terms of what had been without … Continue reading Watson v Sadiq and Another: CA 16 Jul 2013
(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
There had been a consent order in the terms of an unless order giving the landlord an order for possession unless the tenant paid sums by a certain date, time being of the essence. The order was not complied with and the tenant applied for a . .
The defendants had failed to comply with an ‘unless’ order requiring disclosure, and had been first debarred from defending the cases as to liability. They applied to a second judge who granted relief from sanctions after new solicitors had complied . .
An application was made under Part 3.1(7) to vary an earlier final order made by the judge after a trial, on the application of the wife of one of the defendants whose potential interest in funds subject to the judge’s order had been overlooked by . .
The defendant sought a variation under Part 3.1(7) of an order setting aside an earlier judgment in default of defence, on terms requiring a substantial payment into court with which the defendant, who was a litigant in person, had not complied.
The defendant occupied property belonging to the claimant. An order for immediate possession had been granted in January. The defendant now said that part of the order was been made without jurisdiction.
Held: Though he occupied the property . .
The Court considered the interpretation of a consent order on an application to vary its terms. The terms were incorporated within a consent order. It was argued that the variation could be based on CPR 3.1(7) which provides that the Court has power . .