Two barristers had been struck off for disciplinary offences. Their appeals were heard by three High Court judges sitting as Visitors, who dismissed the appeals. The barristers now sought judicial review of that decision.
Held: Justices . .
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
A printed form of bill of sale set out that in consideration of andpound;250 being ‘now paid by the grantees to’ and then identifying a third person ‘at the request of the grantor’ chattels were assigned by way of security for the repayment of the loan with interest at andpound;55 per cent per annum. The … Continue reading Burchell v Thompson: CA 1920
A writ had been served on the lunatic defendant’s business manager. The Court Rules provided: ‘When a lunatic or person of unsound mind not so found by inquisition is a defendant to the action, service on the committee of the lunatic, or on the person with whom the person of unsound mind resides or under … Continue reading The Fore Street Warehouse Company Ltd v Durrant and Co: 1883
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
A judge in chambers gave permission pursuant to the Law of Libel Amendment Act 1888 to bring proceedings for criminal libel. The proposed defendant sought to appeal. This raised the question whether the order was made in ‘criminal proceedings’ . .
The power in the section embraced the grant of an injunction ‘in any case where it would be right or just to do so’. Judges: Sir George Jessel MR Citations: (1878) 9 ChD 89 Statutes: Judicature Act of 1873 25 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Applied – Rasu Maritima SA v Perusahaan (the Pertamina) … Continue reading Beddow v Beddow: CA 1878
The plaintiffs, with the leave of the court, had obtained garnishee and charging orders nisi against the debtor 11 and a half years after they had obtained a consent judgment. Held: An application by the judgment debtor to set aside the orders on the ground that they were statute barred under section 24(1) should be … Continue reading Lowsley and Another v Forbes (Trading As I E Design Services): HL 29 Jul 1998
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
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
Bank not to recover more than its losses The court was asked as to the remedy available to the appellant bank against the respondent, a firm of solicitors, for breach of the solicitors’ custodial duties in respect of money entrusted to them for the purpose of completing a loan which was to be secured by … Continue reading AIB Group (UK) Plc v Mark Redler and Co Solicitors: SC 5 Nov 2014
The parties, the plaintiff who was the equitable assignee of performing rights and the infringing defendant, joined specific issue on the absence of the legal owner of the rights. Held: His absence was critical. PRS failed to obtain a perpetual injunction against music hall proprietors to prevent unlicensed public performances of ‘the Devonshire Wedding’ and … Continue reading Performing Right Society Limited v London Theatre of Varieties Limited: HL 1924
The statutory time limit under the Limitation Act applied only to the right to take substantive proceedings and had nothing whatever to do with the procedural machinery for enforcing a judgment when one was obtained. The Act of 1875 brought about a . .
