Category: Litigation Practice

Lisle-Mainwaring v Associated Newspapers Ltd: CA 27 Jun 2018

Whether valid grant of leave to appeal on retirement of judge.

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 1470, [2018] WLR(D) 396, [2018] 1 WLR 4766

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Protection from Harassment Act 1997

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – HRH The Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers Ltd ChD 22-Mar-2021
The defendant had been found to be in breach of copyright, and of misuse of private information. The court now considered the form of orders required to complete the judgment.
Held: The statement to be published by the defendant was not to be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Litigation Practice

Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.618927

Greenwich Inc Ltd v Dowling and Others: ChD 15 Jul 2014

The defendant said that a worldwide freezing order had been made ex parte against them by means of a failure by the claimants to disclose the matters it should have properly disclosed to the court.

Judges:

Peter Smith J

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 2451 (Ch), [2014] WLR(D) 334

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.534642

Hallam Estates Ltd and Another v Baker: QBD 24 Apr 2012

The court considered whether proceedings for defamation had been served within time. The words complained of were issed in May 2010, the proceedings were issued just in time, and service had not been within time, but had been within an extension of time granted by the court.

Judges:

Tugendhat J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 1046 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Defamation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.452979

Adams v The Law Society of England and Wales and Others: QBD 17 Apr 2012

The claimant solicitor sought an extension of time for filing his proceedings seeking to challenge the way that the respondent had handled their intervention in his law practice.

Judges:

Foskett J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 980 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Legal Professions, Litigation Practice

Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.452713

Hancock Shipping Limited v Kowaski Heavy Industries: CA 1992

Leave was sought by the plaintiffs to amend their points of claim in circumstances where it was common ground that the amendments would introduce new causes of action which, if brought in new proceedings, would have been statute-barred. Held Jurisdiction to reject a second claim as arising from the same or similar facts as a previous case arises if there is a sufficient overlap between the facts supporting the original claim and those supporting the new claim. The loss of an accrued defence of limitation is a relevant consideration when considering a requested amendment to the pleadings and there is a burden of persuasion on the applicant to satisfy the court of the justice of allowing an amendment having that effect.
Staughton LJ said: ‘In my judgment it is not helpful to speak of the burden of proof, but rather of the burden of persuasion. If the court concludes that it cannot decide whether or not it is just to allow the amendment, the party applying for leave must fail. … But the party making the application cannot be expected to adduce evidence on all points which might conceivably affect the justice of the case.’

Judges:

Staughton LJ, Kerr LJ

Citations:

[1992] 1 WLR 1025

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Tabarrok v E D C Lord and Co (A Firm) CA 14-Feb-1997
The appellant wanted to open a pizza restaurant. He and his partners acquired a company for the purpose, which was to take a lease of premises. They sought advice from the defendants who, they said, failed to advise them of the need to be aware of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Limitation

Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.271022

Associated Leisure (Phonographic Equipment Co) Ltd v Associated Newspapers Ltd: CA 1970

The defendant sought to be allowed to amend its pleadings to add justification. They now appealed against refusal.
Held: The amendment was allowed. However, in general, in a libel action, if the defendant seeks at a late stage to amend his defence by adding a plea of justification, his application will be closely inquired into and it will be allowed where he has shown due diligence in making his inquiries and investigations, but it may well be refused if he has been guilty of delay or has not made proper inquiries earlier.
Lord Denning MR said: ‘Like a charge of fraud, [counsel] must not put a plea of justification on the record unless he has clear and sufficient evidence to support it.’

Judges:

Lord Denning MR

Citations:

[1970] 2 QB 450, [1970] 2 All ER 754

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Atkinson v Fitzwalter CA 25-Mar-1987
A court should not grant leave to amend a pleading into a form which is liable to be struck out. The more serious the allegation that is made, the more clearly satisfied must the Court be that no prejudice will be caused that cannot be compensated . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.465098

Greenhalgh v Mallard: CA 1947

Somervell LJ set out the concept of abuse of process in civil cases on a plea of res judicata: ‘res judicata for this purpose is not confined to the issues which the court is actually asked to decide, but . . it covers issues or facts which are so clearly part of the subject-matter of the litigation and so clearly could have been raised that it would be an abuse of the process of the court to allow a new proceeding to be started in respect of them.’

Judges:

Somervell LJ

Citations:

[1947] 2 All ER 255

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Greenhalgh v Mallard CA 1943
The court said of certain pre-emption provisions: ‘in the case of the restriction of transfer of shares I think it is right for the court to remember that a share, being personal property, is prima facie transferable, although the conditions of the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Henley v Bloom CA 9-Mar-2010
Different claims allowed re-litigation
The parties had had long standing disputes as landlord and tenant. They were at one point settled, but the tenant claimed again, and the landlord sought to strike out the claim as an abuse of process, saying the claimant had failed to comply with . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.402562

McGuiness v Kellogg Co of Great Britain Ltd: CA 1988

The plaintiff sought damages for personal injuries. The defendants had refused to disclose the evidene they wished to bring to establish that he hwas not as severely injured as he had claimed.
Held: The plaintiff’s appeal against refusal of an order for disclosure was dismissed. ‘It was necessary to keep well in mind the principle that the interests of justice were best served by the early disclosure of all relevant material.’

Judges:

Neill LJ

Citations:

[1988] 1 WLR 913

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Superceded – Khan v Armaguard Ltd CA 23-Feb-1994
The plaintiff had been injured when, as a passenger in his employer’s security van, it turned over as it left the motorway. Liability was not disputed but the defendants alleged that the plaintiff was malingering and said that they had video . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.541910

Mylward v Weldon: ChD 15 Feb 1595

Bailii FORASMUCH as it now appeared to this Court, by a report made by the now Lord Keeper, (being then Master of the Rolls,) upon consideration had of the plaintiff’s replication, according to an order of the 7th of May anno 37th Reginae, that the said replication doth amount to six score sheets of paper, and yet all the matter thereof which is pertinent might have been well contrived in sixteen sheets of paper, wherefore the plaintiff was appointed to be examined to find out who drew the same replication, and by whose advice it was done, to the end that the offender might, for example sake, not only be punished, but also be fined to Her Majesty for that offence; and that the defendant might have his charges sustained thereby; the execution of which order was, by a later order made by the late Lord Keeper the 26th of June, Anno 37th Reginae, suspended, without any express cause shewed thereof in that order, and was never since called upou until the matter came to be heard, on Tuesday lost, before the now Lord Keeper; at which time some mention was again made of the same replication; and for that it now appeared to his Lordship, by the confession of Richard Mylward, alias Alexander, the plaintiff’s son, that he the said Richard himself, did both draw, devise, and engross the same replication; and because his Lordship is of opinion that such an abuse is not in any sort to be tolerated, proceeding of a malicious purpose to increase the defendant’s charge, and being fraught with much impertinent matter not fit for this Court; it is therefore ordered, that the Warden of the Fleet shall take the said Richard Mylward, alias Alexander, into his custody, and shall bring him into Westminster Hall, on Saturday next, about ten of the clock in the forenoon, and then and there shall cut a hole in the myddest of the same engrossed replication (which is delivered unto him for that purpose), and put the said Richard’s head through the same hole, and so let the same replication hang about his shoulders, with the written side outward; and then, the same so hanging, shall lead the same Richard, bare headed and bare faced, round about Westminster Hall, whilst the Courts are sitting, and shall shew him at the bar of every of the three Courts within the Hall, and shall then take him back again to the Fleet, and keep him prisoner, until he shall have paid 10l. to Her Majesty for a fine, and 20 nobles to the defendant, for his costs in respect of the aforesaid abuse, which fine and costs are now adjudged and imposed upon him by this Court, for the abuse aforesaid.

Judges:

Lord Keeper

Citations:

[1595] EWHC Ch 1

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.443306

Foley Independent News and Media Ltd and Others v Lord Ashcroft KCMG: CA 4 Apr 2012

The defendants in this defamation action appealed against interlocutory orders striking out their defence of justification.
Held: Elias LJ indicated obiter that his ‘strong preliminary view’ was that ‘a pleading of fraud in the context of justification should be subject to the same stringent requirements as it is in other contexts’.

Judges:

Pill, Elias LJJ, Sharp J

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 423, [2012] EMLR 25

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Stocker v Stocker QBD 10-Jun-2015
The claimant alleged defamation by his former wife in a post on facebook. The posting and associatedeEmails were said falsely to have accused him of serious abuse, and that the accusations had undermined his relationship with his new partner.
See Also – Lord Ashcroft KCMG v Foley and Another (No 2) QBD 30-Jul-2012
Eady J considered whether a pleading of fraud in a defamation case should be subject to similar restrictions as to a similar pleading in a torts claim, and ruled that the introduction of the probability test would unduly inhibit the pleading of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452473

Phaestos Ltd and Another v Ho: TCC 16 Mar 2012

The claimants sought an extension of a final order for electronic disclosure of their correspondence, on the grounds that they were changing legal representatives. The claimants had said that the terms of disclosure sought would produce much too great a quantity of material.

Judges:

Akenhead J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 668 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Litigation Practice

Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452424

Fisher v Cadman and Others: ChD 14 Jun 2005

The trial was concluded and the judgment had been given, but before the order was handed down, the defendants applied to be allowed to provide further evidence.
Held: The standards of Ladd v Marshall might be applied in such a situation, but with a little more flexibility than an appeal court might have done, but the defendants had not shown that they could not have obtained this evidence with reasonable diligence. The appeal failed.

Judges:

Phillip Sales

Citations:

Times 23-Jun-2005, [2005] EWHC 377 (Ch), [2006] 1 BCLC 499

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Companies Act 1985 459

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Ladd v Marshall CA 29-Nov-1954
Conditions for new evidence on appeal
At the trial, the wife of the appellant’s opponent said she had forgotten certain events. After the trial she began divorce proceedings, and informed the appellant that she now remembered. He sought either to appeal admitting fresh evidence, or for . .

Cited by:

Cited – Kohli v Lit and Others ChD 13-Nov-2009
The claimant asserted that the other shareholders had acted in a manner unfairly prejudicial to her within the company.
Held: The claimant was allowed to bring in without prejudice correspondence to contradict evidence by the defendant which . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Company

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.227911

Bournemouth and Boscombe Athletic Football Club Ltd v Lloyds TSB Bank Plc: ChD 16 Apr 2003

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Peter Smith

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 834 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed to – Bournemouth and Boscombe Athletic Football Club Ltd v Lloyds TSB Bank Plc CA 10-Dec-2003
Appeal from refusal of extension of time to serve particulars of claim and strike out. . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Bournemouth and Boscombe Athletic Football Club Ltd v Lloyds TSB Bank Plc CA 10-Dec-2003
Appeal from refusal of extension of time to serve particulars of claim and strike out. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Banking, Professional Negligence, Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.181384

AM v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Others: QBD 23 Feb 2012

The claimant had obtained an interim order restraining many media organisations from publishing any story which might concern his life. Representatives of the Sun having been said to have acted in breach of the order, the proceedings were amended to name its owner as the first defendant.

Judges:

Tugendhat J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 308 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Protection from Harassment Act 1997

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Torts – Other, Media, Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.451740

Fred Perry (Holdings) Ltd v Brands Plaza Trading Ltd and Another: CA 1 Feb 2012

Lewison LJ cited with approval paragraph 6.5 of the Jackson report, which said: ‘courts at all levels have become too tolerant of delays and non-compliance with orders. In so doing they have lost sight of the damage which the culture of delay and non-compliance is inflicting on the civil justice system. The balance therefore needs to be redressed.’

Judges:

Maurice Kay VP, Jackson, Lewison LJJ

Citations:

[2012] FSR 28, [2012] 6 Costs LR 1007, [2012] EWCA Civ 224

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Venulum Property Investments Ltd v Space Architecture Ltd and Others TCC 22-May-2013
The claimant sought an extension of time to serve the Particulars of Claim. The solicitors said that they had misread the relevant Rules.
Held: The solicitors had acted on the basis of the former practice, but the rules had been substantially . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.451736

Merchant International Company Ltd v Natsionalna Aktsionerna Kompaniia Naftogaz: CA 29 Feb 2012

The defendant appealed against a refusal to strike out the claim which was to seek to enforce a judgment obtained in Kiev and in the Ukraine Supreme Court.
Held: It had been a proper exercise of the discretion under CPR r 13.3 to refuse to set aside the default judgment. A court in England had jurisdiction to consider whether a judgment obtained in a foreign Convention state was obtained in breach of the Human Rights Convention provided there was clear evidence. Otherwise there is a strong presumption that the procedures of a Convention state complied with it. Here, the judgment was obtained in default had been obtained on a debt established in a foreign final judgment of a Convention state, A later judgment setting aside the original judgment had been made in open breach of article 6. The appeal failed.

Judges:

Lord Neuberger MR, Hooper, Toulson LJJ

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 196, [2012] CP Rep 25, [2012] 1 WLR 3036, [2012] 1 CLC 396, [2012] WLR(D) 51, [2012] 2 All ER (Comm) 1

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 6, Civil Procedure Rules 13.3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Contract, Litigation Practice, Human Rights, International

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.451704

Cherrilow Ltd v Butler-Creagh: CA 9 Dec 2011

The claimants challenged an order granting the defendants leave to appeal against judgment, saying that the application had been made without the required disclosure and with material inaccuracies.
Held: The court should not take the exceptional step of setting aside leave once given,

Judges:

Richards LJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 1679

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.451336

Njoroge and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs: Admn 20 Mar 2012

The claimants wished to pursue an action alleging that they had beensubject to unlawful renditions to Kenya and Uganda where they said they had been tortured. They sought disclosure of documents held by the defendant.

Judges:

Sir John Thomas P, Silber J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 681 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.452183

Abela and Others v Baadarani: CA 15 Dec 2011

The claimant alleged fraud against the defendant. The defendant now appealed against an order allowing service of the proceedings on him in Lebanon.

Judges:

Arden, Longmore, McFarlane LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 1571

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules Part 11

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Abela and Others v Baadarani and Another ChD 28-Jan-2011
The claimant sought damages alleging inter alia fraud by the defendant in a company sale between the parties. The defendant now sought to have set aside the service on him in Lebanon, saying that The English court was not the forum coveniens. He . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Abela and Others v Baadarani SC 26-Jun-2013
The claimants sought damages alleging fraud in a company share purchase. They said that their lawyer had secretly been working for the sellers. The claim form had been issued, but the claimant had delayed in requesting permission for its service . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.451330

Shah and Another v HSBC Private Bank (UK) Ltd: CA 30 Nov 2011

Appeal against refusal of permission to amend pleadings. The claimants suffered large losses after the bank delayed implementing his instructions after staff members initiated a report under the 2002 Act. The claimant said that the evidence supporting a claim that the report was made in bad faith had only just come to light.
Held: The appeal was refused. The new evidence did not appear to support the allegation made.

Judges:

Longmore, Moses, Black LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 1669

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Proceeds of Crime Act 2002

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Shah and Another v HSBC Private Bank (UK) Ltd QBD 26-Jan-2009
The claimants sought damages after delays by the bank in processing transfer requests. The bank said that the delays were made pending reports of suspected criminal activity. The bank’s delay had stigmatised the claimant causing further losses. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Banking

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.451327

Courtman v Ludlam and Another; In re Ludlam (Bankrupts): ChD 6 Aug 2009

The applicant trustee in bankruptcy sought an extended civil restraint order against the respondents, saying that they had made unmeritorious claims in the proceedings.
Held: The rules required there to be shown that person had ‘persistently issued claims or made applications which are totally without merit’. The court must respond to such behaviour in a proportionate and graduated way. The statutory scheme must have a higher precondition threshold than a limited or general order. ‘Persistence’ in this context must mean a bare minimum of three such applications. Without substituting his own opinion for that of he judge who had heard previous cases, the court was entitled to look at the cases instanced as unmeritorious.
The most important factor in the exercise of the discretion is the ‘threat level’ of continued issue of wholly unmeritorious claims or applications: ‘will the litigant, now, continue with an irrational refusal to take ‘no’ for an answer’

Judges:

Bartley Jones QC

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 2067 (Ch), Times 26-Oct-2009, [2010] BPIR 98

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 83

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Grepe v Loam; Bulteel v Grepe CA 1887
The court was asked for an order restricting the right of a group of litigants be restrained from beginning further court actions without first obtaining the court’s consent, they having been accused of issuing vexatious proceedings.
Held: The . .
Cited – Supperstone v Hurst and Another ChD 8-Jun-2009
The making of three wholly unmeritorious claims or applications were sufficient to support an application for a civil restraint order against the respondent. . .
Cited – Kumar, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs CA 13-Jul-2006
The scheme of Civil Restraint Orders faithfully reproduced the scheme set out in Bhamjee. The statutory CRO regime it was sufficient that the previous claims or applications were totally without merit, and that the litigant persisted in making them. . .
Cited – Ebert v Venvill (Trustee In Bankruptcy); Woolf; Midland Bank Plc and Rabinowicz (a Solicitor) CA 5-Jul-1999
The court refused leave to appeal from the High Court. It would be absurd if, when an order was made restricting commencement of proceedings by a vexatious litigant, that the High Court should not have power to restrain by the same order also . .
Cited – 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 applications totally devoid of merit. The courts are facing very serious contemporary problems created by the activities of . .
Cited – HM Attorney-General v Ebert Admn 21-Sep-2001
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. . .
Cited – Thakerar v Lynch Hall and Hornby (a Firm) ChD 21-Oct-2005
An order was sought to declare the claimant to be a vexatious litigant. The respondent answered that some of her applications had succeeded.
Held: It was not necessary to show that all applications by the claimant had been without merit. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.375955

Williams v Hull: ChD 19 Nov 2009

The parties had bought a house together, but disputed the shares on which it was held. The appeal was on the basis that a without prejudice letter had been redacte and then wrongly admitted as not in fact without prejudice, an as an unambiguous impropriety. In the claim Mr Hull sought 50%, but in the letter offered to accept a lower proportion.
Held: The letter should not have been admitted. It was properly part of a negotiating process, and was more than a mere assertion of rights. It was suggested that the contents of the letter suggested admission of facts which Mr Hull contradicted in court. However any possible impropriety could only be established in cross examination. It was not unambiguous, and expressly did not make any assertion of fraud. The letter should not have been admitted.

Judges:

Arnold J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 2844 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – South Shropshire District Council v Amos CA 1986
Lord Justice Parker said that the use of the words ‘without prejudice’ prima facie meant that a letter was intended to be a part of negotiation. A letter which purported to initiate some sort of negotiation (‘an opening shot’) is not necessarily . .
Cited – Rush and Tompkins Ltd v Greater London Council and Another HL 1988
Use of ‘Without Prejudice Save as to Costs”
A sub-contractor sought payment from the appellants under a construction contract for additional expenses incurred through disruption and delay. The appellants said they were liable to pay the costs, and were entitled to re-imbursement from the . .
Cited – Bradford and Bingley Plc v Rashid HL 12-Jul-2006
Disapplication of Without Prejudice Rules
The House was asked whether a letter sent during without prejudice negotiations which acknowledged a debt was admissible to restart the limitation period. An advice centre, acting for the borrower had written, in answer to a claim by the lender for . .
Cited – Schering Corporation v CIPLA Ltd and Another ChD 10-Nov-2004
The defendants appealed against a refusal to strike out the patent infringement proceedings issued by the claimant, saying the only evidence offered was a letter written by the defendants which was headed ‘without prejudice’.
Held: The . .
Cited – Buckinghamshire County Council v Moran CA 13-Feb-1989
The parties’ respective properties were separated by a fence or hedge and the true owner had no access to the disputed land. In 1967 the Defendants’ predecessors in title began to maintain the land by mowing the grass and trimming the hedges and . .
Cited – Savings and Investment Bank Ltd (In Liquidation) v Fincken CA 14-Nov-2003
Parties to litigation had made without prejudice disclosures. One party sought to give evidence contradicting the dsclosure, and the other now applied for leave to amend based upon the without prejudice statements to be admitted to demonstrate the . .
Cited – Berry Trade Ltd and Another v Moussavi and others CA 22-May-2003
A defendant appealed against an order admitting as evidence, records of ‘without prejudice’ conversations.
Held: Written and oral communications, which are made for the purpose of a genuine attempt to compromise a dispute between the parties, . .
Cited – Unilever plc v Procter and Gamble Company CA 4-Nov-1999
The defendant’s negotiators had asserted in an expressly ‘without prejudice’ meeting, that the plaintiff was infringing its patent and they threatened to bring an action for infringement. The plaintiff sought to bring a threat action under section . .

Cited by:

Cited – Avonwick Holdings Ltd v Webinvest Ltd and Another ChD 10-Oct-2014
Application by the claimant that certain correspondence between the parties and their solicitors in April-May 2014 should be admissible as evidence, notwithstanding that most of it was headed ‘without prejudice and subject to contract’. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.380335

Lewis and Others v Ward Hadaway (A Firm): ChD 21 Dec 2015

The claimants were said to have chosen to understate their claim in order to reduce court fees, but lodged the claim within the limitation period. After that period expired, the amended the claim and paid the extra fees. The defendant said this was an abuse of process and that the claim had not accordingly been issued in time.
Held: The rules required that the claim be lodged with the appropriate fee. That had not occurred here and the claimants were guilty of abuse of process. The claim was out of time.

Judges:

John Male QC sitting as a deputy High Court judge

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 3503 (Ch), [2015] WLR(D) 551, [2016] 4 WLR 6, [2016] 1 Costs LO 49

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Limitation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.558299

The Trademark Licensing Company Ltd and Another v Leofelis Sa: ChD 11 Dec 2009

Application for stay of action pending conclusion of case in Milan. The claimant said that the cases were not related.

Judges:

Sir William Blackburne

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 3285 (Ch), [2010] ILPr 16, (2010) 33(2) IPD 33009

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Contract, Litigation Practice

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.384068

Regina v Ebert: ChD 12 Nov 2001

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 already refused. No new evidence or arguments were put forward. ‘Mr. Ebert has either lost touch with the realities of his position or is simply concerned to maintain a vendetta.’ Permission refused.

Judges:

Mr Justice Patten

Citations:

[2001] EWHC Ch 457

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Supreme Court Act 1981 42

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.166819

Hunter v Skingley: CA 25 Apr 1997

When assessing responsibility for delay in proceedings a Judge can look to different periods and the responsibility of separate parties.

Judges:

Hirst, Phillips LJJ

Citations:

Times 07-May-1997, [1997] EWCA Civ 1541, [1997] 1 WLR 1466

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.141937

Insurance Corporation of Channel Islands Limited and Another v Royal Hotel Limited and others: CA 14 Feb 1997

A speedy trial had been agreed. One defendant was unable to put its solicitors in funds, and sought a release of the date to allow time to get funds together.

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Civ 1022

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See also – Insurance Corporation of Channel Islands Limited and Another v Royal Hotel Limited and others (No 2) 1998
The court was asked whether insurers could avoid a policy by reason of the creation by one of the insured hotel’s directors of false invoices intended to create a more favourable picture of the hotel’s trading performance if it became desirable to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.141418

Greenalls Management Limited v Canavan: CA 29 Apr 1997

An appellant should notify the respondent if wishes to apply again for leave to add further grounds of appeal.

Citations:

Times 19-May-1997, [1997] EWCA Civ 1551

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Greenalls Management Limited v Canavan CA 30-Jul-1997
A lease of a pub contained a term by which the parties purported to agree that the Block Exemption applied. The claimants sought to enforce its beer tie which was by type. The lessee contended among other things that the tie was not within the . .

Cited by:

See Also – Greenalls Management Limited v Canavan CA 30-Jul-1997
A lease of a pub contained a term by which the parties purported to agree that the Block Exemption applied. The claimants sought to enforce its beer tie which was by type. The lessee contended among other things that the tie was not within the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Commercial

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.141947

W Nagel (A Firm) and Another v Pluczenik and Another: QBD 21 Nov 2019

‘whether CPR Part 71 allows a person to be compelled for examination as a ‘judgment debtor’ when the only outstanding parts of the judgment against him are costs orders for sums which have yet to be agreed or determined by assessment. Payment of those sums has not yet, therefore, fallen due.’

Judges:

Mr Justice Griffiths

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 3126 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs, Litigation Practice

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.645969

North Shore Ventures Ltd v Anstead Holdings Inc: CA 18 Jan 2012

The defendants had been found to owe the claimant US$35 million. In these enforcement proceedings they objected to on order for the production of documents which the said they did not possess.

Judges:

Pill, Arden, Toulson LJJ

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 11

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.450325

Rugby Football Union v Viagogo Ltd: CA 20 Dec 2011

The Union complained that the defendant operators of a web-site had permitted the sale of its tickets at far above their face value. The Court considerer whether it was proper to make a Norwich Pharmacal order which would entail the disclosure of personal data contrary to the Data Protection Directive and the 1998 Act.
Held: It would generally be proportionate to make an order revealing the identity of arguable wrongdoers. Longmore LJ said that there could be no reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of data which reveal such arguable wrongs. The respondent’s own conditions of business pointed out to their customers that their may be circumstances in which their personal data will be passed on to others. The requirement of disclosure of a limited amount of personal data was proportionate because there was no other way in which arguable wrongdoing could be exposed: ‘In this case, as in many other Norwich Pharmacal cases, necessity and proportionality may go hand in hand’.

Judges:

Longmore, Patten, Rafferty LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 1585

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Data Protection 1998 Act 1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – The Rugby Football Union v Viagogo Ltd QBD 30-Mar-2011
The claimant objected to the resale through the defendant of tickets to matches held at the Twickenham Stadium. The tickets contained terms disallowing resales at prices over the face value. They sought orders for the disclosure of the names of the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Patel v Unite The Union QBD 27-Jan-2012
The claimant, wanting to bring defamation proceedings in respect of postings on the defendant’s internet forum, sought orders for disclosure of the identities of the posters. The defendants said that the forum having been taken down, they were now . .
Appeal from – The Rugby Football Union v Consolidated Information Services Ltd SC 21-Nov-2012
The Union challenged the right of the respondent to resell tickets to international rugby matches. The tickets were subject to a condition rendering it void on any resale at above face value. They said that the respondent had advertised tickets in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Information, Litigation Practice, Human Rights

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.450115

Webb and Another v Markos and Another: CA 8 Jul 2011

After a bitter neighbour dispute the defendants had been subject to successful possession proceedings, and an order for the sale of their house irrespective of their possession. The claimants had bought the house and now sought possession. An order was granted with a penal order attached. One of the defendants refused still to leave, and an order of committal was made. The defendants now appealed.
Held: The appeals were dismissed. The grounds of the appeal were a mere refusal to accept the result of the proceedings, and the committal orders for 14 days were to be enforced.

Judges:

Rix, Lloyd LLJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 1564

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice, Contempt of Court

Updated: 01 October 2022; Ref: scu.450034

Sinclair Roche and Temperley (A Firm) v Somatra Ltd (Documents): CA 23 Oct 2003

The court refused an application for further documents to be disclosed, the application being made on the day before the hearing of the appeal.

Judges:

Schiemann, Tuckey, Longmore LJJ

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 1475

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Main Judgment – Sinclair Roche and Temperley (A Firm) v Somatra Ltd (Damages) CA 23-Oct-2003
The ‘Somatra’ was lost at sea. The insurance claim had been refused on the basis that the ship was unseaworthy. The owners came to instruct the appellant solicitors to represent them in the insurance claim. Having lost confidence in the solicitors, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 01 October 2022; Ref: scu.450029

Sheikh and Another v Dogan and Others: ChD 17 Nov 2009

The judge had reserved his judgment, but had since received further voluminous representations from a party.
Held: None of the matters raised suggested a proper reason for exercising the jurisdiction given by In re Barrell. The claimant was subject to a civil restraint order, and these applications had been made without consent. Nor had she made them in a way which would allow the defendants to make their own representations on them.

Judges:

Norris J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 2935 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – In re Barrell Enterprises CA 1972
A judge has power to reconsider a judgement which he has delivered before the order consequent upon it has been sealed, but the judge should only exercise this power if there are strong reasons for doing so. When oral judgments have been given the . .
Cited – L, Regina (On the Application of) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis SC 29-Oct-2009
Rebalancing of Enhanced Disclosure Requirements
The Court was asked as to the practice of supplying enhanced criminal record certificates under the 1997 Act. It was said that the release of reports of suspicions was a disproportionate interference in the claimants article 8 rights to a private . .
Cited – Paulin v Paulin CA 17-Mar-2009
The court considered an application by the wife when, anticipating ancillary relief claims, the husband sought to have himself declared bankrupt, and she intervened to have the bankruptcy set aside. The husband now appealed.
Held: Wilson LJ . .
Cited – Egan v Motor Services (Bath) Ltd CA 18-Oct-2007
The claimant bought an Audi car from new. He sought to reject it, but now appealed a finding that there was nothing wrong with it. He had said that it pulled to the left. The defendant’s tests showed no such tendency. His own independent test . .
Cited – McPhilemy v Times Newspapers Ltd and Others (2) CA 26-May-1999
The new Civil Procedure Rules did not change the circumstances where the Court of Appeal would interfere with a first instance decision, but would apply the new rules on that decision. Very extensive pleadings in defamation cases should now be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 01 October 2022; Ref: scu.380255

Raja v Van Hoogstraten and others: ChD 5 Apr 2006

Application to discharge asset freezing order.
Held: The defendant had displayed a readiness to do what was necessary to avoid compliance with court orders. The application (and others) were dismissed.

Judges:

Lightman J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 998 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Iraqi Ministry of Defence and Others v Arcepey Shipping Co SA, The Angel Bell 1980
The court considered whether a defendant should be allowed to pay his debts as they fell due despite an asset freezing order.
Held: The Mareva jurisdiction should not ‘improve the position of claimants’. Rather, it should prevent the injustice . .
Cited – Halifax Plc v Chandler CA 13-Nov-2001
The claimant had sought payment of a substantial shortfall debt from the defendant after repossessing and selling the defendant’s home. It compromised that debt, and was paid, but now sought to re-open the compromise on the basis of an alleged . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 01 October 2022; Ref: scu.241547