The claimant sought damages for libel in an internal email written by her manager, accusing her of being a compulsive liar. The email had not been disclosed save in Employment Tribunal proceedings, and the claimant sought permission to use the email and to extend the limitation period saying it had been withheld. Held: There had … Continue reading McBride v The Body Shop International Plc: QBD 10 Jul 2007
The Alexander T, owned by the appellant and insured by the respondents was a total loss. The insurers resisted payment, the appellant came to allege improperly, and the parties had settled the claim on full payment under a Tomlin Order. The owners later began proceedings in Greece claiming what the defendants said were the same … Continue reading Starlight Shipping Co v Allianz Marine and Aviation Versicherungs Ag and Others: CA 20 Dec 2012
The applicants each alleged breach of copyright and misuse of confidential information in the format of the television program ‘Who wants to be a Millionaire’. The defendant appealed a refusal to strike out the claim. It was not contended that no copyright or confidentiality existed, but only that there was no evidence that they had … Continue reading Celador Productions Ltd v Melville: ChD 21 Oct 2004
The claimants were shareholders in Westrip, accusing the Defendant directors of deliberately engaging in a course of conduct which has led to Westrip losing ownership and control of a very valuable mining licence and which, but for their intervention, would have led to Westrip losing all or almost all of its remaining assets. They say … Continue reading Iesini and Others v Westrip Holdings Ltd and Others: ChD 16 Oct 2009
Allegations of breach of landlords’ repairing obligations – defendants’ strike out application. Held: ‘ the critical question is whether this second action is based on the same cause, or causes, of action, and not whether it pleads the same particulars of breach or loss and damage.’ The claims were founded on a single cause of … Continue reading Moorjani and Others v Durban Estates Ltd and Another: TCC 15 May 2019
The claimant appealed against a finding of indebtedness to the bank. He had said at trial that the bank had been charging interest at 25%. The bank denied this, but after trial it became clear that he had been correct. The bank argued for abuse of process, res judicata and estoppel, and requested a strike … Continue reading Sarwar v The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc (Rev 1): ChD 27 Jul 2011
Computers had been supplied by the second defendant to the claimant and first defendant at different times for exclusive distribution in the UK. Defects were alleged. The case concerned applications made for dismissal of a case as an abuse of process, and for discovery. A previous action had been settled against the second defendant. Allegations … Continue reading Time Group Limited v Computer 2000 Distribution Limited and IBM United Kingdom Limited: TCC 4 Feb 2002
The appellant company sought to recover assets which, it said, had been acquired by a former partner in breach of his obligations under the partnership agreement, but which had been taken in the names of some of the respondents. There had been an arbitration beween the claimant and the former partner, which were lost, and … Continue reading Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Sinclair and Another: CA 13 Jan 2017
World-wide freezing orders had been made under the 1982 Act. The defendants were members of a Turkish family with substantial business interests in the telecommunications industry. In breach of orders made in the US some defendants had sought to hide their assets. They had failed to respond as required to orders to disclose their assest, … Continue reading Motorola Credit Corporation v Uzan and others (No 2): CA 12 Jun 2003
The parties had been involved in serial disputes regarding the management of leasehold apartments. It was now objected that the current case was an abuse of process. Held: The appeal against the stay succeeded. The new case had been flagged up to the defendants in the earlier proceedings and it was implicit in those proceedings … Continue reading Walbrook Trustees (Jersey) Ltd and Others v Fattal and Others: CA 8 Apr 2009
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Striking-out/dismissal In April 2009, the Claimant, who was then 77 years of age, was employed by the Respondent, when he was laid off without pay. While still being employed by the Respondent he submitted an ET1 alleging he had been laid off. By a judgment of Employment Judge Salter (‘the … Continue reading Foster v Bon Groundwork Ltd: EAT 17 Mar 2011
The claimant had alread challenged the validity of the defendant’s registered trade mark, but sought to do so now on grounds which could have been advanced in the earlier case. The claimant owned the trade mark ‘SPAM’ for canned meats, and the defendant had the mark ‘SPAMBUSTER’ for computer programs. Held: The claim was estopped. … Continue reading Hormel Foods Corporation v Antilles Landscape Investments NV: ChD 24 Jan 2005
The claimant sought damages for psychiatric injury suffered when working for the defendant who replied that the matter had already been litigated in her claims in the Employment Tribunal, and that a cause of action estoppel applied. Held: The decision in Fraser v HLMAD was distinguished. The cause of action now pleaded was not that … Continue reading Campbell v Leeds United Association Football: Misc 3 Apr 2009
The claimant appealed against orders preventing him from suing his former solicitors in respect of heads of claim which the court said should have been included in earlier proceedings. Held: When deciding whether a claim was an abuse of process it was not part of that decision to consider the merits of the later claim, … Continue reading Stuart v Goldberg and Linde (a firm): CA 17 Jan 2008
The taxpayer had been represented in proceedings throughout by tax law experts, Tenon Media, who were not legally admitted, but had a right to conduct litigation under the 1990 Act. The Inspector objected to paying costs as if the representatives were admitted. Held: Someone acting through the licensed access schemes was not a litigant in … Continue reading Andre Agassi v S Robinson (H M Inspector of Taxes) (No 2): CA 2 Dec 2005
The parties had divorced. The wife alleged a serious assault against her husband, and instructed a claims firm to recover damages from him. Her ancillary relief claim in the divorce was compromised with her having sought to rely upon the assault, but without mentioning having instructed the claims firm. The husband resisted these proceedings for … Continue reading Ganesmoorthy v Ganesmoorthy: CA 16 Oct 2002
The claimant sought a contribution from the defendant towards its liability for a fire at its premises, as found in earlier proceedings against the now claimant. The defendant had filed a defence merely not admitting, and not denying, responsibility for the fire. The claimant now requested that that defence be struck out as an abuse … Continue reading Hi-Lite Electrical Ltd v Wolseley UK Ltd: QBD 17 Jul 2009
The claimant had previously issued a claim against the defendant solicitors through his company. He now sought to pursue a claim in his own name. It was resisted as an abuse of process, and on the basis that no personal duty of care was owed to the claimant. The defendants appealed orders against them. They … Continue reading Johnson v Gore Wood and Co (a Firm): CA 12 Nov 1998
Challenge to the making of a non-party costs order under section 51 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 against the product liability insurer of one of the defendants in litigation being managed under a Group Litigation Order (‘GLO’). Many of the claimants in the successful action were not insured, and Travelers, the defendant’s insurers resisted … Continue reading Travelers Insurance Company Ltd v XYZ: SC 30 Oct 2019
The claimant appellant alleged that properties she owned were transferred to the first defendant under undue influence or other unconscionable conduct by the second and third defendants. The claim was dismissed. Three years later she claimed to set that judgment aside having been obtained by fraud. To support the allegation she brought evidence not available … Continue reading Takhar v Gracefield Developments Ltd and Others: SC 20 Mar 2019
Abuse of Process and Re-litigation The court set down the principles to be applied in abuse of process cases, where a matter was raised again which should have been dealt with in earlier proceedings. Sir James Wigram VC said: ‘In trying this question I believe I state the rule of the Court correctly when I … Continue reading Henderson v Henderson: 20 Jul 1843
Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd sought to recover damages exceeding 49,000,000 pounds for the infringement of a European Patent which did not exist in the form said to have been infringed. The Technical Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office had retrospectively amended it so as to remove with effect from the date of grant … Continue reading Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Zodiac Seats UK Ltd: SC 3 Jul 2013
Shareholder May Sue for Additional Personal Losses A company brought a claim of negligence against its solicitors, and, after that claim was settled, the company’s owner brought a separate claim in respect of the same subject-matter. Held: It need not be an abuse of the court for a shareholder to seek damages against advisers to … Continue reading Johnson v Gore Wood and Co: HL 14 Dec 2000
The court was asked whether Moir would be entitled to legal aid to bring a derivative action on behalf of a company against its majority shareholder. Held: A minority shareholder bringing a derivative action on behalf of a company could obtain the authority of the court to sue as if he were a trustee suing … Continue reading Wallersteiner v Moir (No 2): CA 1975
The appellant had judgments obtained in Russia against the respondent. It now appealed against a refusal of enforcement of those judgments based upon the ground that there was a complete defence to the recognition and enforcement of the judgments namely public policy, by reason of the ‘finality principle’. Held: Summary judgment was inapplicable. Substantial issues … Continue reading Joint Stock Company (Aeroflot-Russian Airlines) v Berezovsky and Another: CA 16 Jan 2014
The claimant appealed against the striking out of his claims for fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation as to the suitability for deveopment of two former fire service properties. The court had said that a settlement with co-tortfeasors operated to settle also this matter. Held: The appeal was dismissed. The judge’s conclusion was plainly correct. Longmore, Ryder, … Continue reading Gladman Commercial Properties v Fisher Hargreaves Proctor and Others: CA 14 Nov 2013
Company alone may sue for legal wrong against it. A bill was lodged by two of the proprietors of shares in a company incorporated by Act of Parliament, on their own and the other shareholders’ behalf. They claimed against three bankrupt directors, a proprietor, solicitor and architect charging them with fraudulent transactions misapplying the company’s … Continue reading Foss v Harbottle: 25 Mar 1843
The claimant alleged passing off by the defendant’s use of the name ‘Boca Bistro Cafe’, and subsequently ‘Bica Bistro Cafe’ Held: Where the defendant had changed its trading style during the proceedings it was possible, if the claimant believed that confusion remained, for the claimant to alter his claim to include the new trading style. … Continue reading Bocacina Ltd v Boca Cafes Ltd: IPEC 14 Oct 2013
The claimant sought damages after an explosion at the defender’s nearby premises damaged its shop. The defender said that the claim was out of time, and now appealed against a decision that time had not begun to run under the 1973 Act. Held: (Lord Hodge and Lord Toulson dissenting) The appeal was allowed. The natural … Continue reading David T Morrison and Co Ltd (T/A Gael Home Interiors) v ICL Plastics Ltd and Others: SC 30 Jul 2014
The taxpayer imported swimwear for sale. The respondent had incorrectly indicated that such swimwear had one classification. The claimant sought to prevent the respondent reclassifying the goods, saying that they had made given binding tariff information. It depended on the proportion of rubber in the suits. The respondent viewed the calculation differently. Held: the commissioners … Continue reading Matalan Retail Ltd v Revenue and Customs: ChD 5 Aug 2009
The claimant apealed against refusal of permission to amend his claim for negligence against his former solicitors by adding claims from 1993 and 1994 . .
A plaintiff shareholder cannot recover damages merely because the company in which he has an interest has suffered damage. He cannot recover a sum equal to the diminution in the market value of his shares, or equal to the likely diminution in . .
The claimant had been arrested. He had been refused access to a solicitor whilst detaiined, but, in breach of statutory duty, he had not been given reasons as to why access was denied. He sought damages for that failure.
Held: If damages were . .
The claimant alleged defamation. He had been acquitted of a criminal offence and said that material published by the defendant continued to imply or assert his guilt of the offence. The defendant argued truth. The claimant now sought a strike out of . .
References: [1843] 67 ER 189, [1843] EngR 478, (1843) 2 Hare 461 Links: Commonlii Coram: Wigram VC, Jenkins LJ Ratio A bill was lodged by two of the proprietors of shares in a company incorporated by Act of Parliament, on their own and the other shareholders’ behalf. They claimed against three bankrupt directors, a proprietor, … Continue reading Foss v Harbottle; 25 Mar 1843
References: (1843) 3 Hare 100, [1843] EngR 917, (1843) 67 ER 313 Links: Commonlii Coram: Sir James Wigram VC The court set down the principles to be applied in abuse of process cases, where a matter was raised again which should have been dealt with in earlier proceedings. Sir James Wigram VC said: ‘In trying … Continue reading Henderson v Henderson; 20 Jul 1843
1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts
An unqualified person who gives notice of appearance is thereby acting in contravention of section 2 of the 1843 Act. The relevant rule of court required a notice of appearance to be given either by the defendant himself or his solicitor. Judges: Lord Alverstone CJ Citations: [1905] 2 KB 103 Statutes: Solicitors Act 1843 2 … Continue reading In re Ainsworth, ex parte the Law Society: 1905
There was a claim that there had been a breach of section 2 of the 1843 Act by law stationers (who had had various dealings with the Probate registry under the supervision of solicitors). The Rules of the Probate Court required applications for probate to be made, if not by the executor, then by a … Continue reading The Law Society of the United Kingdom v Waterlow Brothers and Layton: HL 1883
Mr Barrow was a member of an action group which had successfully sued a number of members’ agents for negligent underwriting. Having substantially succeeded, but recovered only a proportion of the damages he had claimed, Mr Barrow issued fresh proceedings against his members’ agent on a different ground. It was clear that this claim, even … Continue reading Barrow v Bankside Members Agency Limited: CA 10 Nov 1995
The case concerned the recovery of costs by a solicitor for acting as steward of a manor. The claim to tax such costs failed: ‘The statute does not authorise the taxation of every pecuniary demand or bill which may be made or delivered by a person who is a solicitor, for every species of employment … Continue reading Allen v Aldridge: 1844
The paying party objected that Counsel’s bill had not been paid at the time the solicitors’ bill was presented. Held: The court had an inherent jurisdiction to permit a solicitor to withdraw his incorrect bill of costs and to substitute a fresh correct bill. Jenkins LJ said: ‘I entirely agree with the judge when he … Continue reading Polak v Marchioness of Winchester: CA 1956
Farwell LJ said: ‘it is settled beyond controversy that the solicitor is, for the purposes of taxation, bound by the bill that he has delivered and cannot alter it without the leave of the Court or the consent of the party.’ Judges: Farwell LJ Citations: [1908] 2 KB 510, [1908] UKLawRpKQB 107 Links: Commonlii Statutes: … Continue reading Sadd v Griffin: CA 4 Jun 1908
A petitioner for a decree of nullity of an English marriage in the English courts on the grounds of lack of consent to the marriage, having failed to obtain such decree, obtained a declaration from the Belgian court that the English marriage, was void ab initio on the ground that the marriage was merely a … Continue reading Vervaeke v Smith: HL 1983
The court considered in the context of legal privilege the distinction between the disclosure of a document and its use at trial. Parties who grant a joint retainer to solicitors do not retain any confidence as against one another.A bankrupt’s entitlement to legal professional privilege vests in the trustee so that neither the bankrupt nor … Continue reading In re Konigsberg (A Bankrupt): 1989
The borrower had agreed to pay the lender’s solicitors bill, but challenged it saying that it included elements for personal work. Held: The personal items were excluded. Costs which are outside the scope of the third party’s liability ‘would not have to be taxed or considered’. In other words it is no part of the … Continue reading In Re Longbotham and Sons: CA 1904
The court considered whether a court could order an assessment of a solicitor’s bill of costs more than 12 months after it had been paid. It was argued that the Court has no power to order taxation under section 70(4) outside the statutory period of 12 months after the bill has been paid, and the … Continue reading Harrison v Tew: HL 1990
Sir John Romilly MR said: ‘It is, I am informed, well established in practice that where a solicitor has delivered a bill of costs to his client, and proceedings between the parties have been taken to tax it under the statute, no alteration can be made in it except by consent. The reason and justice … Continue reading Re Catlin: CA 1854
(New Zealand Court of Appeal) Thomas J said: ‘the diminution in the value of Mr and Mrs Christensen’s shares in the company is by definition a personal loss and not a corporate loss. The loss suffered by the company is the loss of the lease and the profit which would have been obtained from harvesting … Continue reading Christensen v Scott: 1996
The defendant solicitors acted in several matters for a client on terms specifying hourly rates but providing also for ‘a 20% reduction from solicitor/client costs for any lost cases’. Held: The agreement amounted to a contingency fee agreement which was unenforceable as being contrary to public policy. The court rejected the solicitors’ argument that the … Continue reading Aratra Potato Co Ltd v Taylor Joynson Garrett: 1995
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
Tenants invited the court to construe the terms of a rent review provision in the sub-underlease under which they held premises. The provision had been construed in a sense adverse to them in earlier proceedings before Walton J, but they had been unable to challenge his decision on appeal. Later cases threw doubt on his … Continue reading Arnold v National Westminster Bank Plc: HL 1991
Limitations on HMRC discretion on investigation The Commissioners had been concerned at tax evasion of up to 1 million pounds a year by casual workers employed in Fleet Street. They agreed with the employers and unions to collect tax in the future, but that they would not pursue those who had evaded taxes in the … Continue reading Regina v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte the National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd: HL 9 Apr 1981
Restraint of Second Action as Abuse Hong Kong – A company purchased a property from the defendant bank who had taken it back into possession from a former borrower. The company itself fell into arrears, the property was taken back again and resold. The company sought a declaration that the sale had been a sham … Continue reading Yat Tung Investment Co Ltd v Dao Heng Bank Ltd: PC 1975
Client’s Right to Taxation of Bill is Settled Law Cotton LJ said: ‘Now, it has been well established that, when a solicitor sends in his bill, he gives the client to whom he sends it in a right to have that bill taxed. That rule was laid down to prevent any attempt being made by … Continue reading Re Thompson: CA 1885
