Application for vexatious litigant order. Citations:  EWHC Admin 123 Links: Bailii Statutes: Supreme Court Act 1981 42 Litigation Practice Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.137068
ICO The complainant was the subject of a civil proceedings order issued under section 42 of the Supreme Court Act 1981. The complainant asked the public authority for a letter about him which was sent by the judges to the Attorney General’s Office after his court case that initiated this order. The public authority did … Continue reading Her Majestys Courts Service (Decision Notice): ICO 25 Mar 2009
Application for leave by person subject to vexatious litigant order to commence proceedings against her former husband. Citations:  EWHC 2727 (Admin) Links: Bailii Statutes: Supreme Court Act 1981 42(1) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Litigation Practice Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.246355
The claimant appealed against a refusal by the magistrate to allow access to documents filed during proceedings when the court felt that all relevant matters had been discussed openly and in detail in court.
Held: The appeal failed, and the . .
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
Citations:  EWHC 1534 (Admin) Links: Bailii Statutes: Supreme Court Act 1981 42 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: Cited – Harkness v Bell’s Asbestos and Engineering Limited CA 1966 The plaintiff’s solicitors had applied to a district registrar for leave of the court for the purposes of the Limitation Act 1963 when they ought to … Continue reading Johnson, Regina (on the Application Of) v Attorney General: Admn 29 Jun 2005
Application for civil proceedings order Judges: Rose LJ, Leveson J Citations:  EWHC 2794 (Admin) Links: Bailii Statutes: Supreme Court Act 1981 42 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Litigation Practice Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.220113
Request for vexatious litigant orders Citations:  EWHC 2057 (Admin) Links: Bailii Statutes: Supreme Court Act 1981 42 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Litigation Practice Updated: 13 June 2022; Ref: scu.201623
vexatious litigant allegation Citations:  EWHC 2144 (Admin) Links: Bailii Statutes: Supreme Court Act 1981 42 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Litigation Practice Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.220577
Application by HM Attorney General, pursuant to section 42 of the Supreme Court Act 1981, for a civil proceedings order against Mr Alexander. The basis of the claim is that Mr Alexander has habitually and persistently and any without reasonable ground instituted vexatious civil proceedings, and made vexatious applications within civil proceedings, whether instituted by … Continue reading Attorney General v Alexander: Admn 26 Nov 2003
The Court set out the range of remedies available to protect court processes from abuse by litigants who persist in making applications totally devoid of merit. The courts are facing very serious contemporary problems created by the activities of litigants who bombard them with applications which have no merit at all. The court made an … Continue reading Bhamjee v Forsdick and Others (No 2): CA 25 Jul 2003
Judges: Brooke, Carnwath LJJ Citations:  EWCA Civ 799 Links: Bailii Statutes: Supreme Court Act 1981 42 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: See also – Bhamjee v Forsdick and Others (No 2) CA 25-Jul-2003 The Court set out the range of remedies available to protect court processes from abuse by litigants who persist in making … Continue reading Bhamjee v Forsdick and others: CA 14 May 2003
Civil proceedings order. The defendant had commenced ten sets of proceedings which the court held amounted to serial and repeated litigation of the same points. Held: The fact that new details had emerged which might throw new light on the underlying events did not mean that the respondent’s behaviour did not come within the section. … Continue reading HM Attorney General v Pepin: Admn 27 May 2004
The applicant sought to have set aside an order declaring him a vexatious litigant under the 1981 Act. Held: The application was refused. Judges: Ognall J Citations:  EWHC Admin 493 Links: Bailii Statutes: Supreme Court Act 1981 42 Litigation Practice Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.139757
The defendant had been made subject to a civil proceedings order but had begun criminal prosecutions from his prison cell against journalists. Held: The civil restraint order did not prevent the defendant commencing criminal actions. A criminal proceedings restraint order was made. Citations:  EWHC Admin 216 Links: Bailii Statutes: Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 … Continue reading Hm Attorney General v Gleaves: Admn 9 Mar 1999
Application for civil proceedings order. Citations:  EWHC Admin 619 Links: Bailii Statutes: Supreme Court Act 1981 42 Litigation Practice Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.138740
Application for Civil Proceedings Order. Judges: Lord Justice Kennedy, and Mrs Justice Smith Citations:  EWHC Admin 965 Links: Bailii Statutes: Supreme Court Act 1981 42 Litigation Practice Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.137910
The claimant, subject to a vexatious litigant order under the 1981 Act, sought leave to bring judicial review proceedings of a decision by the respondents to appoint a woman to the position of Minor Canon in the cathedral. Held: Permission was refused. He had no prospect of success, and the proceedings woud amount to an … Continue reading Regina v Dean and Chapter of St Paul’s Cathedral and Church In Wales ex parte Williamson: Admn 22 Aug 1997
Citations:  EWHC Admin 691 Links: Bailii Statutes: Supreme Court Act 1981 42 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Ecclesiastical, Litigation Practice Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.137636
Citations:  EWHC Admin 663 Links: Bailii Statutes: Supreme Court Act 1981 42 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Litigation Practice, Ecclesiastical Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.137608
The applicant, subject to a civil proceedings order, was refused permission to appeal to the court of appeal against refusal of his request for permission to bring judicial review proceedings against the respondent in respect of his claim for compensation for personal injuries after being assaulted. Judges: Laws J Citations:  EWHC Admin 240 Links: … Continue reading Regina v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board ex parte E: Admn 10 Mar 1997
Citations:  EWHC Admin 155 Links: Bailii Statutes: Supreme Court Act 1981 42 Crime Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.137100
Reasons for Civil proceedings order. Citations:  EWHC Admin 157 Links: Bailii Statutes: Supreme Court Act 1981 42 Litigation Practice Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.136705
Appeals were made against orders under s42 of the 1981 Act restraining the appellants from commencing proceedings without consent of the court. Held: The non-disclosure of a bench memorandum was the usual practice internationally, and not a breach of the litigant’s human rights. The right to present a case, did not include the right to … Continue reading Attorney-General v Covey; Attorney-General v Matthews: CA 19 Feb 2001
Citations:  EWHC Admin 296 Statutes: Supreme Court Act 1981 42 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Litigation Practice Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.137241
A person requiring leave to issue proceedings as a vexatious litigant, had also to obtain leave again before entering an appeal to the Court of Appeal. The entering of an appeal is either the institution of new proceedings, or an application requiring leave as an application in any civil proceedings instituted in any court.Sir Richard … Continue reading Johnson v Valks: CA 23 Nov 1999
An order that someone be denied access to the courts save with consent of a judge was a challenge to that individual’s constitutional rights, and should only be made if the statutory pre-conditions are fulfilled. It had to be shown that the litigant had habitually and persistently and without reasonable ground instituted vexatious civil proceedings. … Continue reading Attorney-General v Barker: CA 16 Feb 2000
A section 42 order embraced applications to or in the Court of Appeal as well as below. A person against whom a vexatious litigant order was sought could not seek to argue anew the findings which had already been made against him by the courts in which he had been litigating. In dealing with an … Continue reading Attorney General v Jones: CA 1990
In an application for a vexatious litigant order, the court asked whether the repetitious proceedings must be against the same defendant. Lord Justice Rose: ‘The question is whether it is a necessary prerequisite for the making of an order under section 42 that the repetitious behaviour of which complaint is made has necessarily either to … Continue reading Attorney-General v Covey: QBD 6 Oct 2000
Challenge to new rules on vexatious litigants. Judges: Sullivan J Citations:  EWHC 504 (Admin),  2 All ER 993 Links: Bailii Statutes: Supreme Court Act 1981 42(1) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Litigation Practice Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.239254
Application by the Attorney General for a civil proceedings order under section 42 of the Supreme Court Act 1981. Citations:  EWHC 2849 (Admin) Links: Bailii Statutes: Supreme Court Act 1981 42 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Litigation Practice Updated: 01 April 2022; Ref: scu.246362
‘Mr Barrett is obsessed with the loss of his house and has been making wild allegations of fraud against anyone who decides anything against him in the context of that loss. He is totally unable to appreciate that his activities before the court are vexatious and are completely lacking in any merit whatever. ‘ His … Continue reading Regina v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate ex parte Barrett: Admn 21 Oct 1998
Application by the Attorney General for Mr R to be declared a vexatious litigant  EWHC 1291 (Admin) Bailii Supreme Court Act 1981 42 England and Wales Litigation Practice Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.185040
The defendant had instituted over 80 fruitless actions over years. He had been made subject to a vexatious litigant order, but the Attorney General now requested additional injunctive relief. This was a very extreme instance of extreme litigation. He had since applied for permission over 150 times to begin different kinds of proceedings. He had … Continue reading HM Attorney-General v Ebert: Admn 21 Sep 2001
The claimant sought discharge of a declaration that she was a vexatious litigant. The order had been made in 2006. Held: The claimant had persisted with attempts to litigate speculative matters. The claim was rejected: ‘The Applicant’s recent attempts at litigation, right up to last year, demonstrate that her propensity for vexatious litigation remains. I … Continue reading Douglas v HM Attorney General and Others: Admn 15 Dec 2015
Vexatious litigant application . .
The appellant appealed an order declaring him a vexatious litigant. He had been involved in a whole series of attempts to set aside a judge’s decision from 1990. He asserted that the party who had made the application for the declaration, the . .
Application for a civil proceedings order . .
Application for Civil Proceedings Order.
Held: ‘This defendant has become a compulsive litigant who has lost touch with reality. Her remorseless pursuit of litigation is wholly without merit, is clearly vexatious and has perpetrated a waste of . .
The standard of proof in vexatious litigant proceedings is civil not criminal. Even so, because the fundamental rights of the subject are affected by the making of a civil proceedings order, there should be evidence placed before the court that the . .
Application for civil proceedings order. . .
The Attorney general was entitled to discontinue an application for a vexatious litigant order. . .
The respondent had been subject first to a Grepe v Loam order and then to an extended civil restraint order. The court had still faced many hopeless applications. An order was now sought that any future application for permission to appeal be heard . .
Application for civil proceedings order. . .
A vexatious litigant order applies equally to the business partners of a subject of the order. . .
The claimant was subject to a cvil proceedings order, requiring to obtain leave before issuing proceedings. He now sought to appeal a finding against him that he should have sought such permission before applying for permission to issue judicial . .
Civil Restraint Order . .
Criminal Proceedings Order application . .
An order had been made enjoining the respondent from entering the Royal Courts of Justice, or commencing proceedings, without written leave. Some insolvency applications remained outstanding. The applications made several repetitions of applications . .
Application for civil proceedings order. . .
vexatious litigant order . .
The AG sought a civil proceedings order against the respondent.
Held: Before the court can make an order under the section it must be satisfied that the statutory precondition of an order is fulfilled, namely that the person against whom the . .
The claimant appealed against an order striking out his claim and a consequential civil proceedings order had been made.
Held: ‘ the statement of case in this action disclose no reasonable grounds for bringing any of these claims. Accordingly . .
Application for civil proceedings order. . .
Applications for civil proceedings orders. . .
The Attorney General sought orders under section 42 as to the defendants. . .
The parties to the action had given cross undertakings to support the grant of an interim injunction. A third party subsequently applied to be joined, and now sought to take advantage of the cross undertakings to claim the losses incurred through the giving of the ‘wrongful undertakings’ Held: The joined party, who had not itself … Continue reading Smithkline Beecham Plc Glaxosmithkline UK Ltd and Another v Apotex Europe Ltd and others (No 2): CA 23 May 2006
The defendants appealed against an order that a defamation trial should proced before a judge alone. Held: ‘Where the parties, or one of them, is a public figure, or there are matters of national interest in question, this would suggest the need for a jury trial; but a question relating to a person’s ‘fitness for … Continue reading Right Hon Aitken MP and Preston; Pallister and Guardian Newspapers Ltd: CA 15 May 1997
An indictment had not been signed despite a clear statutory provision that it should be. The defects were claimed to have been cured by amendment before sentence. Held: The convictions failed. Sections 1(1) and 2(1) of the 1933 Act which provided for a bill of indictment (which had of itself no legal standing save as … Continue reading Clarke, Regina v; Regina v McDaid: HL 6 Feb 2008
The plaintiffs were Indian Chiefs from Canada. They complained that the 1982 Act which granted independence to Canada, had been passed without their consent, which they said was required. They feared the loss of rights embedded by historical treaties. The Attorney General sought the strike out of the claims. Held: The application for a strike … Continue reading Manuel and Others v Attorney-General; Noltcho and Others v Attorney-General: ChD 7 May 1982
The appellants were barristers against whom wasted costs orders had been made. They appealed. They had made allegations of fraud in pleadings, but without being able to provide evidence to support the allegation. This was itself a breach of the Bar Council Code of Practice. Held: A barrister must not draft a pleading containing an … Continue reading Medcalf v Mardell, Weatherill and Another: HL 27 Jun 2002
The appellant sought to enforce a international arbitration award against the respondent. The award was made under an arrangement which later became unlawful on Romania’s accession to the EU, and Romania obtained s stay pending resolution by the CJEU. Held: The stay was lifted. Judges: Lady Hale, Lord Reed, Lord Hodge, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Sales … Continue reading Micula and Others v Romania: SC 19 Feb 2020
The appellant challenged an order declaring him a vexatious litigant, saying that the order had been made by a court of two judges, where the Act required that only one judge should sit. Held: Only a single judge of the Hight Court has jurisdiction to hear such an application. Citations: Times 12-Jun-1984 Statutes: Supreme Court … Continue reading In Re Fletcher: CA 12 Jun 1984
The judge, a circuit judge who had been appointed a judge of the TCC, had adjudicated on the claimant’s case in the High Court in the false belief that the appointment allowed him to do so. Held: The judge had not wilfully closed his eyes to the law, and his mistake was understandable. On established … Continue reading Coppard v The Commissioners of Customs and Excise, Lord Chancellor intervening: CA 9 Apr 2003
The appellant had been detained in a mental hospital after a conviction. Later released, he was recalled, but he was not given written reasons as required by a DoH circular. However the SS referred the recall immediately to the Tribunal. He appealed from refusal of a finding that his subsequent detention had been unlawful. Held: … Continue reading Lee-Hirons v Secretary of State for Justice: SC 27 Jul 2016
ICO The complainant is the subject of a civil proceedings order issued under section 42 of the Supreme Court Act 1981. The Complainant wrote to the Attorney General’s Office to request information related to the making of this order. The request was transferred to the Treasury Solicitors who refused the request on the grounds that … Continue reading Treasury Solicitors (Decision Notice): ICO 23 Oct 2006
A civil proceedings order was sought against the respondent. The respondent had commenced many actions against a particular company, which it was claimed were vindictive in nature. Held: Though the earliest proceedings had been vexatious it was not possible to characterise more recent attempts to litigate as such. ‘An improper motive may convert an otherwise … Continue reading HM Attorney-General v Ian Richard Flack: Admn 29 Nov 2000
The defendants sought relief for transactions entered into at an undervalue. The bankrupt had entered into charges and an assignment of a loan account in their favour before his bankruptcy, and the trustee had obtained an order for them to be set aside as a fraud on his creditors. Held: To have such orders set … Continue reading Hill (As Trustee In Bankruptcy of Nurkowski) v Spread Trustee Company Ltd and Another: CA 12 May 2006
(US Supreme Court) Underhill, a US citizen, had constructed a waterworks in Bolivar for the government which was eventually overthrown by revolutionary forces, one of whose generals was Hernandez. After Hernandez had captured Bolivar, Underhill sought to leave. Hernandez refused the request and confined Underhill to his house, in order to coerce Underhill into continuing … Continue reading Underhill v Hernandez: 29 Nov 1897
The applicant sought to bring an action to challenge new rules on approval of export credit guarantees. The company was non-profit and founded to support investigation of bribery. It had applied for a protected costs order to support the application, and now appealed its refusal. Held: The court restated the practice on the making of … Continue reading Corner House Research, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry: CA 1 Mar 2005
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
A section 51 application was made because the cover was limited under the defendant’s liability policy and insufficient to pay all the damages, let alone any part of the costs, and the defendant was not worth powder and shot. Nonetheless the claim fell squarely within the cover provided by the policy. It was an insured … Continue reading TGA Chapman Limited; Benson Turner Limited v Christopher and Sun Alliance and London Insurance Plc: CA 8 Jul 1997
The term ‘charterer’ in section 21(4) includes ‘time charterer’. Citations:  1 Lloyds Rep 225 Statutes: Supreme Court Act 1981 21(4) Cited by: Appeal from – The Span Terza HL 10-Jan-1984 The parties, suppliers of goods and charterers, disputed the ownership of bunkers at the point of sale. Held: Lord Diplock said: ‘My Lords I … Continue reading The Span Terza: CA 1982
May LJ said that the three questions which a Judge has to decide under section 69 so as to conclude whether a defamation trial should by by jury or judge alone, ‘requires a value judgment, based on what he is told by counsel, and his experience at the Bar and on the Bench.’ Judges: May … Continue reading Viscount de L’Isle v Times Newspapers Ltd: CA 1988
(Supreme Court of Canada) The court considered the reason behind the common law rule against a court examining the activities of a jury: ‘the rule seeks to preserve the secrecy of the jury’s deliberations, while ensuring that those deliberations remain untainted by contact with information or individuals from outside the jury. As a result, where … Continue reading Regina v Pan: 29 Jun 2001
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
The Civil Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to award Costs from central funds and they should be made in favour of successful applicants against wasted costs orders in criminal proceedings. Citations: Gazette 08-Jan-1992,  1 WLR 407,  2 All ER 642 Statutes: Supreme Court Act 1981 51(1) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Appeal … Continue reading Holden and Co v Crown Prosecution Service (No 2); Similar Cases: CA 8 Jan 1992
Limits to Police Exemption from Liability The claimant, an elderly lady was bowled over and injured when police were chasing a suspect through the streets. As they arrested him they fell over on top of her. She appealed against refusal of her claim in negligence. Held: Her appeal succeeded. It is normally only in a … Continue reading Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police: SC 8 Feb 2018
Rehearing/Review – Little Difference on Appeal The appellant asked the Court to reverse a decision on the facts reached in the lower court. Held: The appeal failed (Majority decision). The court’s approach should be the same whether the case was dealt with as a rehearing or as a review. Tanfern was limited to appeals from … Continue reading Assicurazioni Generali Spa v Arab Insurance Group (BSC): CA 13 Nov 2002
The claimant sought damages from the first defendant for breach of copyright. An ex parte search order had been executed, with the defendant asserting his privilege against self-incrimination. As computer disks were examined, potentially unlawful images of children were found. The searching officer asked the court for directions as to what to do. Held: The … Continue reading C Plc and W v P and Secretary of State for the Home Office and the Attorney General: ChD 26 May 2006
The claimant teachers had been involved in a day’s strike action They objected that the employer had deducted 1/260 and not 1/365 of their annual salary. Held: Section 2 of the 1870 Act did apply to a teacher’s contract, and the employee’s appeal failed. Elias, Tomlinson, Sales LJJ  EWCA Civ 455,  WLR(D) 216, … Continue reading Hartley and Others v King Edward VI College: CA 14 May 2015
The complainant requested a variety of information, including information on files and records relating to him and held by the Law Officers, papers generated in the proceedings brought against him under section 42 of the Supreme Court Act 1981, and access to all communications between the public authority and named third parties. Part of the … Continue reading Treasury Solicitors (Decision Notice): ICO 20 Jul 2006
The question which arises on this appeal is whether it is open to the landlord to oppose the grant of a new business tenancy if the works which he says that he intends to carry out have no purpose other than to get rid of the tenant and would not be undertaken if the tenant … Continue reading S Franses Limited v The Cavendish Hotel (London) Ltd: SC 5 Dec 2018
(New South Wales) The plaintiff had launched and advertised a soft drink. A year later, the defendant launched a similar product using similar names, styles and advertising, but then registered trade marks. The plaintiff sought damages, and for the trade mark to be deregistered. The judge held that there was enough of a difference to … Continue reading Cadbury-Schweppes Pty Ltd And Others v Pub Squash Co Pty Ltd: PC 13 Oct 1980
The claimants sought to bring an action for damages after a family member suspected of dealing drugs, was shot by the police. At the time he was naked. The police officer had been acquitted by a criminal court of murder. The chief constable now appealed a finding that he might nevertheless be liable in a … Continue reading Ashley and Another v Chief Constable of Sussex Police: HL 23 Apr 2008
The House considered the court’s jurisdiction to award costs out of central funds. Held: In this case there was no such power, but: ‘still more important, in the present context, is the special constitutional convention which jealously safeguards the exclusive control exercised by Parliament over both the levying and expenditure of the public revenue. It … Continue reading Steele Ford and Newton v Crown Prosecution Service (No.2): HL 1993
The claimant appealed against the denial of her claim that the defendant had infringed her right to respect for her private life. She was a model who had proclaimed publicly that she did not take drugs, but the defendant had published a story showing a picture of her leaving a drug addiction clinic, along with … Continue reading Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd (MGN) (No 1): HL 6 May 2004
The parties had a joint venture agreement which provided that any dispute was to be referred to an arbitrator from the Ismaili community. The claimant said that this method of appointment became void as a discriminatory provision under the 2003 Regulations. The High Court found the appointment to be outwith the provisions, but this was … Continue reading Jivraj v Hashwani: SC 27 Jul 2011
A Dutch serviceman who had been arrested for desertion and brought before a magistrate who ordered him to be handed over to the Dutch military authorities under the Allied Forces Act 1940. An application for habeas corpus was rejected by a Divisional Court. The Court of Appeal held that they had no jurisdiction to entertain … Continue reading Amand v Home Secretary and Minister of Defence of Royal Netherlands Government: HL 1943
The appellant, former chair of a road activist group, challenged certain roads orders saying that the respondent had not carried out the required environmental assessment. His claim was that the road had been adopted without the consultation required by the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive (‘the SEA Directive’), and that that the scope of the public … Continue reading Walton v The Scottish Ministers: SC 17 Oct 2012
The claimant had produced the Star War films which made use of props, in particular a ‘Stormtrooper’ helmet designed by the defendant. The defendant had then himself distributed models of the designs he had created. The appellant obtained judgment against the respondent in the US for punitive damages, but these had not been collected, and … Continue reading Lucasfilm Ltd and Others v Ainsworth and Another: SC 27 Jul 2011
The trustees had contracted to sell shares in a private company held within the estate. A family member now claimed that they were held in trust after a settlement of a possible challenge to the will based in lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence. The trustees requested the court to determine the trusts on … Continue reading Jones and others v Firkin-Flood: ChD 17 Oct 2008
The claimant sought damages for the development of neural plaques, having been exposed to asbestos while working for the defendant. The presence of such plaques were symptomless, and would not themselves cause other asbestos related disease, but signalled the presence of asbestos in the lungs. The employer appealed a finding of liability. Held: The claims … Continue reading Johnston v NEI International Combustion Ltd; Rothwell v Chemical and Insulating Co Ltd; similar: HL 17 Oct 2007
The taxpayer insurance company had transferred sums from accounts designated as Capital Reserves. The Revenue said that these were properly part of the profit and loss accounts for the respective tax years, and chargeable receipts. Held: The Revenue’s cross appeal succeeded. As a life assurance company, the amounts to be taken into account in computing … Continue reading Scottish Widows Plc v Revenue and Customs: SC 6 Jul 2011
Paradoxical Inhertiance of Nationality Rights Whether transmission of British citizenship through the female line allowed from 1983 was retrospective: ‘With effect from 1 January 1983, the restriction to descent in the male line was abrogated by legislation for those born after that date, and 20 years later in 2003 the legislation was retrospectively amended so … Continue reading The Advocate General for Scotland v Romein: SC 8 Feb 2018
The claimant was employed as a teaching assistant. He was suspended after allegations of sexual misbehaviour with boy at the school. He refused to take part in the disciplinary proceedings until the police investigation was concluded. A decision was made that no prosecution would follow. The claimant’s solicitors asked to be allowed to represent him … Continue reading G, Regina (on The Application of) v X School: SC 29 Jun 2011
The parties disputed the effective date of termination of the claimant’s employment. Was it the date on which the letter notifying her was sent, or was it on the day she received it. She had been dimissed without notice, and the date was the date on which it took effect. The court was asked whether … Continue reading Gisda Cyf v Barratt: SC 13 Oct 2010
Consequential judgment. Mr Coventry had been found liable in the principle judgment in nuisance to the appellant neighbours. The Court was now asked as to several matters arising. First, to what extent were the defendants’ landlords liable to the claimants, and second as to the suspension of the injunctions whilst the property to be protected … Continue reading Coventry and Others v Lawrence and Another (No 2): SC 23 Jul 2014