Category: Litigation Practice

Sheffield Wednesday Football Club Ltd and others v Hargreaves: QBD 18 Oct 2007

The defendant operated a web forum in which posters posted defamatory messages about the claimants. The claimants sought an order disclosing the contact details of the members of the forum. The owner of the forum said he had undertaken not to disclose members’ contact details save under a court order.
Held: The threshhold tests identified in Mitsui were met, but ‘I do not think that it would be right to make an order for the disclosure of the identities of users who have posted messages which are barely defamatory or little more than abusive or likely to be understood as jokes. That, it seems to me, would be disproportionate and unjustifiably intrusive. ‘ However the defendant’s costs claimed were wholly disproportionate and reduced.

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 2375 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Norwich Pharmacal Co and others v Customs and Excise Commissioners HL 26-Jun-1973
Innocent third Party May still have duty to assist
The plaintiffs sought discovery from the defendants of documents received by them innocently in the exercise of their statutory functions. They sought to identify people who had been importing drugs unlawfully manufactured in breach of their . .
Cited – Totalise Plc v The Motley Fool Limited and Interative Investor Limited (2) CA 19-Dec-2001
The respondent operated a web site which contained a chat room. Defamatory remarks were made by a third party through the chat room, and the claimant sought details of the identity of the poster. The respondent refused to do so without a court . .
Cited – Mitsui and Co Ltd v Nexen Petroleum UK Ltd ChD 29-Apr-2005
Mitsui sought disclosure of documents from a third party under the rules in Norwich Pharmacal.
Held: Such relief was available ‘where the claimant requires the disclosure of crucial information in order to be able to bring its claim or where . .
Cited – Home Office v Lownds (Practice Note) CA 21-Mar-2002
The respondent had been ordered to pay costs of over pounds 16,000 in an action for clinical negligence where the final award was only pounds 4,000. The Secretary of State appealed claiming that the costs were disproportionate.
Held: In such . .

Cited by:

Cited – Smith v ADVFN Plc QBD 13-Mar-2008
Order re case management application. The claimant said he had been defamed on an internet forum run by the defendants, and sought orders for disclosure of the identities of the posters to the website. The operator said that special software might . .
Cited – Smith v ADVFN Plc and others QBD 25-Jul-2008
The claimant had brought multiple actions in defamation against anonymous posters on an online forum. The claimant sought to lift the stay which had been imposed because of the number of actions. The claimant had not yet paid outstanding costs . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Costs

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.261573

Strachan v The Gleaner Company Limited and Stokes: PC 25 Jul 2005

PC (Jamacia) The plaintiff challenged an order setting aside a default assessment of damages in his claim for defamation. After the action was lost, two witnesses had come forward who might have allowed a defence of justification. He claimed that the order amounted to an order for a retrial.
Held: A default judgment is one which has not been decided on the merits. The Courts have jealously guarded their power to set aside judgments where there has been no determination on the merits, even to the extent of refusing to lay down any rigid rules to govern the exercise of their discretion. There having been no determination on the merits in relation to liability, the court had had jurisdiction to set aside the judgment for damages to be assessed. ‘Walker J held that he had jurisdiction to make the order he did. If wrong, his decision could be reversed by the Court of Appeal which would be bound without going into the merits to set aside his substantive order as a nullity. As between the parties, however, and unless and until reversed by the Court of Appeal, his decision (both as to jurisdiction and on the merits) was res judicata. As a judge of co-ordinate jurisdiction Smith J had no power to set it aside.’
Lord Millett said that an order made by a judge without jurisdiction was obviously vulnerable, but not wholly without effect. It must be obeyed unless and until set aside.

Judges:

Lord Hoffmann, Lord Millett, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Carswell, Sir Charles Mantell

Citations:

[2005] UKPC 33, [2005] 1 WLR 3204

Links:

Bailii, PC, PC

Citing:

Cited – Mason v Desnoes and Geddes Ltd PC 2-Apr-1990
(Jamaica) A section enabled the Court to set aside a judgment where a party had not appeared at the trial.
Held: The reference to ‘the Court or a Judge’ made it clear that the jurisdiction may be exercised by a judge in chambers and: ‘ . . the . .
Cited – Pugh v Cantor Fitzgerald International CA 7-Mar-2001
Where judgment had been entered with damages to be assessed, the issues which could be raised on the assessment of damages were any directly affecting that assessment, but the defendant could not raise an issue which would impugn the judgement . .
Cited – Alpine Bulk Transport Co Inc v Saudi Eagle Shipping Co Inc The ‘Saudi Eagle’ CA 1986
The defendants, believing that they had no assets, deliberately allowed an interlocutory judgment for damages to be assessed to be entered against them by default, and only after damages had been assessed and final judgment entered, realising that . .
Cited – Dipcon Engineering Services Ltd v Bowen and Another PC 1-Apr-2004
PC Grenada ‘Whilst Saudi Eagle is clear authority, if authority were needed, for the proposition that an application to set aside a default judgment can be made (and, if refused, can then be appealed) . .
Cited – Lunnon v Singh CA 1-Jul-1999
Once judgment has been given, whether after a contested hearing or in default, for damages to be assessed, the defendant cannot dispute liability at the assessment hearing. . .
Cited – Evans v Bartlam HL 1937
The House emphasised the width of the jurisdiction to excuse default in the case of a defendant seeking to have a default judgment set aside and to be let in to defend.
Lord Atkin said: ‘The principle obviously is that, unless and until the . .
Obiter remarks criticised – Craig v Kanssen CA 1943
There had been a failure to serve process where service of process was required. The result was that the order made based upon that process was irregular.
Held: In the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, the Court was entitled to set it . .
Cited – In re Pritchard CA 1963
An originating summons seeking relief was accepted and sealed in a local district registry. It ought to have been sealed in the Central Office of the Royal Courts of Justice. Wilberforce J had held that the originating summons was a nullity and that . .
Cited – In re Padstow Total Loss and Collision Assurance Association CA 1882
The High Court had made a winding up order against an insolvent association under a section of the Companies Act 1862 which applied to unregistered companies. The Act prohibited the formation of an unregistered company with more than twenty members. . .

Cited by:

Cited – O’Connor v Piccott and Another PC 17-Feb-2010
(Jamaica) The parties agreed for the sale of land. The seller sought specific performance by the buyer. The buyer had said there was a problem of title. The appellant had failed to defend the proceedings, and appealed against judgment in default. . .
Cited – Park v Cho and Others ChD 24-Jan-2014
The parties disputed the chairmanship of a charity. The claimant succeeded, but a third party later intervened saying that permission had not first been obtained from the Charity Commission as required. The defendant now appealed against the lifting . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Defamation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.229324

Building Product Design Ltd v Sandtoft Roof Tiles Ltd (No. 2): 2004

An action was originally brought alleging infringement from a ‘vent tile’ which would be used in the ridge of a roof. What was pleaded was a clay half-round ridge vent tile; and this tile was the only infringement mentioned in the agreed order. BPD asked that three other tiles be included in the inquiry. Sandtoft objected. Sandtoft admitted selling such further tiles before the commencement of the action but argued that the pleadings and the agreed order being limited to the clay half-round ridge tiles only, there was no scope for these other tiles to be included in the enquiry. It was not disputed that the clay and concrete tiles were identical save as to their material.
Held: In a case management conference on the ‘clay v. concrete’ tile issue, the order could be corrected under the slip rule; and that the concrete half round ridge tiles could properly be regarded as falling within the scope of the inquiry as to damages. He dismissed BDP’s application to have the angled tiles included in the inquiry. BDP then brought a second action, claiming that the angled tiles infringed its patent. The court struck out the second action as an abuse of process: ‘I do not regard the commencement of this second action for infringement of the Patent as just a ‘procedural inconvenience’ to Sandtoft; it amounts to an abuse of process. Proper pleading requires the timely identification of every type of infringement alleged. And, on that understanding, a defendant should know by the end of the trial (and normally well before trial) where it stands. In relation to Sandtoft’s angled ridge tiles, that did not happen. This application succeeds and the second action will therefore be struck out.’ The ‘clay v. concrete’ issue involved a correction of the original order under the slip rule. It was the correction of a mistake in the original order. What they were made of was immaterial. By contrast, when the infringing product was a different product, the judge held that it should have been specifically pleaded.

Judges:

HH Judge Fysh QC

Citations:

[2004] FSR 41

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Ultraframe (UK) Ltd v Fielding and others ChD 27-Jul-2005
The parties had engaged in a bitter 95 day trial in which allegations of forgery, theft, false accounting, blackmail and arson. A company owning patents and other rights had become insolvent, and the real concern was the destination and ownership of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Litigation Practice

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.230350

Amin v Brown: ChD 27 Jul 2005

The defendant raised as a preliminary point the question of whether the claimant, an Iraqi, was an enemy alien, and therefore debarred from bringing proceedings to recover.
Held: Under modern law it could not be a requirement that a state of war had been formally declared. The force used against Iraq was used according to HM government under authorisation of the UN. The position of the government was clearly that they were not at war with Iraq. Also: ‘the disability of alien enemies is part of the rules of English law relating to the traditional laws of war, and . . there is no warrant for extending it to modern armed conflict not involving war in the technical sense.’

Judges:

Lawrence Collins J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 1670 (Ch), Times 24-Aug-2005

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Trading with the Enemy Act 1939 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Calvin’s case 1606
Sir Edward Coke said: ‘If this alien becomes an enemy (as all alien friends may) then he is utterly disabled to maintain any action, or get anything within this realm.’ and ‘If a King comes to a kingdom by conquest, he may change and alter the laws . .
Cited – Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States) ICJ 1986
The prohibition on the use of force in article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter was accepted as jus cogens, a universally recognised principle of international law. . .
Cited – Rex v Bottrill, Ex parte Kuechenmeister CA 1946
There is no right as such of entry to the UK for someone fleeing persecution in their own country. The certificate of the Foreign Secretary given on behalf of the Crown as to the existence of a state of war involving HMG is conclusive and binding on . .
Cited – Sovracht (V/O) v Van Udens Scheepvaart en Agentuur Maatshappij 1943
The rule that an enemy alien may not prosecute an action is based on public policy, namely the need for the protection of the state in time of war. . .
Cited – Kawasaki Kisen Kabushiki Kaisha of Kobe v Bantham Steamship Company Limited CA 1939
The case was heard against the background of an armed conflict between Japan and China. The charterparty contract included a clause providing for cancellation ‘if war breaks out involving Japan’.
Held: The court rejected an argument that the . .
Cited – Wells v Williams 1697
An alien enemy living in England by the King’s licence and under his protection could bring a court action. . .
Cited – Rodriguez v Speyer Brothers 1919
The courts will not give assistance to proceedings which, if successful would lead to the enrichment of an alien enemy, and therefore would tend to provide his country with the sinews of war. An enemy alien has no standing to commence proceedings . .
Cited – Porter v Freudenberg CA 1915
A British citizen or neutral who is voluntarily resident in the enemy country is to be treated as an alien enemy when the question is asked as to his entitlement to bring proceedings in England.
An order for substituted service, which is as . .
Cited – Janson v Driefontein Consolidated Mines 1902
Lord MacNaghten said: ‘the law recognises a state of peace and a state of war, but . . it knows nothing of an intermediate state which is neither the one thing nor the other – neither peace nor war.’ . .
Cited – Princess Thurn and Taxis v Moffitt 1914
The subject of an enemy state registered in the United Kingdom under the Aliens Registration Act 1914 as an alien was entitled to sue in England. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.229036

Three Rivers District Council and others v The Bank of England: CA 14 Jul 2005

A long hearing was to be interrupted by the long vacation. The Bank sought an order to restrict publication of the part evidence given by one witness until his evidence had been concluded.
Held: Though the witness was only such and not a party, he had been centrally involved in the activities about which complaint was made: ‘weighing the public interest and Mr Quinn’s private interest, the scale has to fall, however unfortunate this is for Mr Quinn, in the direction of the public interest. ‘ However he should be allowed a short period in which he would be allowed to inform those he cared of of his previously undisclosed medical condition.

Judges:

Pill, Rix LJJ, Rimer J

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 933

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Contempt of Court Act 1981 812(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – In re Trusts of X Charity ChD 2003
If a hearing is heard in private, then it is open to the court to rule that its judgment should be maintained in private. Sir Andrew Morritt said: ‘This, essentially administrative, jurisdiction is designed to provide guidance to the fiduciary as to . .
Cited – Scott v Scott HL 5-May-1913
Presumption in Favour of Open Proceedings
There had been an unauthorised dissemination by the petitioner to third parties of the official shorthand writer’s notes of a nullity suit which had been heard in camera. An application was made for a committal for contempt.
Held: The House . .
Cited – Regina v Chief Registrar Friendly Societies, ex parte Newcross Building Society 1984
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.229010

R (Iran) and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 27 Jul 2005

The court gave guidance on the powers available to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal as constituted under the 2002 Act. The powers were broadly those of the former Immigration Appeal tribunal. The Tribunal had power to admit new evidence after a demonstrated error. There is only limited scope for challenging a First-tier Tribunal’s findings of fact on appeal to the Upper Tribunal on a point of law. A challenge is sustainable in only four types of case. These are where the tribunal has (i) made perverse or irrational material findings of fact; (ii) failed to take into account and/or resolve conflicts of fact or opinion on material matters; (iii) given weight to immaterial factors; or (iv) made a mistake as to a material fact, which could be established by objective and uncontentious evidence, and which results in unfairness.

Judges:

Brooke LJ, Chadwick LJ, Maurice Kay LJ

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 982, Times 19-Aug-2005

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Litigation Practice

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.229027

Smithkline Beecham Plc and others v Apotex Europe Ltd and others: PatC 26 Jul 2005

Application was made to join in further parties to support a cross undertaking on being made subject to interim injunctions.
Held: On orders other than asset freezing orders it was not open to the court to impose cross-undertakings against parties unwilling to grant them. ‘Since a cross-undertaking cannot be imposed, it follows that a fortiori it cannot be imposed retrospectively. ‘ and ‘the proper interpretation of a cross-undertaking is not a question of divining the mutual understanding of the parties to the litigation, for the terms of the cross-undertaking are a matter for the court. Equally, because the cross-undertaking is given to the court, it may be enforced by one who is not a party to the action, if the cross-undertaking is given for his benefit.’ and ‘at least as at 2002, it could not be said that it was implicit in any application for an interim injunction (other than a freezing or search order) that the applicant must be taken to have offered a cross-undertaking in favour of third parties who were not defendants to the proceedings.’ Applications save under estoppel were struck out or dismissed.

Judges:

Lewison J

Citations:

[2005] FSR 44, [2006] 2 All ER 53, [2006] IP and T 307, [2005] EWHC 1655 (Ch), Times 10-Aug-2005

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – W v H (Family Division: without notice orders) FD 10-Jul-2000
Munby J considered the practice to be followed in the Family Division when injunctions are granted ex parte and without notice against third parties in ancillary relief cases.
Held: The court traced the history of undertakings in damages give . .
Cited – Tucker v New Brunswick Trading Company of London CA 1890
An action was brought against three defendants, Matthews, Lamplough and the New Brunswick Trading Company of London, to restrain the company from confirming in general meeting certain agreements between the company and Matthews and Lamplough. An . .
Cited – The Mito 1987
The court discussed the requirement of undertakings in damages from a party seeking an interim injunction: ‘When such security is originally sought it is sought as a condition for the grant of the injunction, in other words the plaintiff is told if . .
Cited – Colledge v Crossley CA 18-Mar-1975
The Master of the Rolls discussed undertakings given to support injunctions: ‘. that it was unfortunate that the undertaking in damages was not put into the original order. It was an automatic undertaking which was invariably inserted when an . .
Cited – Attorney-General v Albany Hotel Co 1896
The court considered the undertakings to be inserted in ex parte interim injunction applications: ‘Upon drawing up an order for an interlocutory injunction the registrar invariably inserts such an undertaking on the part of the plaintiff, even . .
Cited – F Hoffmann La Roche and Co A G v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry HL 1975
No Indemnity for misadministration
The Secretary of State sought an interlocutory injunction under the Act to restrain the appellant from charging prices in excess of those fixed by a statutory instrument he had made. The appellant argued that the statutory instrument was ultra . .
Cited – Miller Brewing Co v Ruhl Enterprises Ltd and another ; Miller Brewing Co v Mersey Docks and Harbour Co amd Others ChD 23-May-2003
The claimant obtained an interim injunction in respect of alleged infringement of its trade marks in beers brewed under licence by the respondents. They said the beers produced were of inferior quality, and threatened the brand. The grant of such . .
Cited – Allied Irish Bank v Ashford Hotels Limited and Ashford Hotels Limited v Higgins; Tyree and Emblem Bv CA 8-May-1997
The court asked itself whether it had power to require a cross-undertaking in favour of third parties as a condition of appointing a receiver.
Held: Phillips LJ: ‘The Mareva injunction is a comparatively recent addition to the armoury of the . .
Cited – Berkeley Administration Inc v McClelland CA 1990
There is no legally acceptable basis on which the benefit of an undertaking, to which a member of a group of companies is entitled, may be claimed on behalf of the group as a whole. The court discussed who had the benefit of cross undertakings given . .
Cited – Ketteman v Hansel Properties Ltd HL 1987
Houses were built on defective foundations. The purchasers sued the builders and later the architects who designed them. The defendants argued that the houses were doomed from the start so that the cause of action accrued, not when the physical . .
Cited – Re Inchcape 1942
The court had been called upon to decide the domicile of Lord Inchcape at the date of his death. Counsel then asked for the costs of all parties to be paid by the estate. However, costs had been incurred before the issue of proceedings and these . .
Cited – Republic of India and Another v India Steamship Co Ltd (Indian Endurance and Indian Grace) (No 2) HL 23-Oct-1997
When a action in rem against a ship was in fact parallel to an action in personam begun in India and awaiting a decision; an action was not to be allowed here.
Lord Steyn: ‘It is settled that an estoppel by convention may arise where parties to . .
Cited – Expert Clothing Service and Sales Ltd v Hillgate House Ltd CA 1985
Landlords took possession after a successful, at first instance, forfeiture claim. The tenant succeeded on appeal and then brought a claim for the wrong of breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment.
Held: The lease had been in existence all . .
Cited – The Indian Endurance HL 1986
The House considered how an estoppel by convention arose: ‘It is settled that an estoppel by convention may arise where parties to a transaction act on an assumed state of facts or law, the assumption being either shared by them both or made by one . .
Cited – National Australia Bank Ltd v Bond Brewing Holdings Ltd 1991
(Supreme Court of Victoria) The court had appointed a receiver without requiring a cross-undertaking in damages. The order was then set aside, and compensation was sought. There had been no cross-undertaking.
Held: If it had power to award . .
Cited – Linden Gardens Trust Ltd v Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd and Others; St. Martins Property Corporation Ltd v Sir Robert McAlpine HL 8-Dec-1993
A contractor had done defective work in breach of a building contract with the developer but the loss was suffered by a third party who had by then purchased the development. The developer recovered the loss suffered by the purchaser.
Held: . .
Cited – Alfred Mcalpine Construction Limited v Panatown Limited HL 17-Feb-2000
A main contractor who was building not on his own land, would only be free to claim damages from a sub-contractor for defects in the building where the actual owner of the land would not also have had a remedy. Here, the land owner was able to sue . .
Cited – Regina v Medicines Control Agency ex parte Smith and Nephew (Primecrown Ltd intervening) ChD 1999
The court considered liability to third partries under a cross-undertaking given to the court: ‘Whether the recoverable damage is that which is foreseeable by the plaintiff or that which is directly caused by the injunction is not in point. None of . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Smithkline Beecham Plc Glaxosmithkline UK Ltd and Another v Apotex Europe Ltd and others (No 2) CA 23-May-2006
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Litigation Practice

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.229014

Guildford Borough Council v Hein: CA 27 Jul 2005

The council sought an injunction under the section against the defendant to restrain her from keeping dogs on her premises for animal welfare purposes.
Held: The defendant’s appeal was allowed in part. There had to be shown something more than repeated infringements to support an injunction. The authority had to show a deliberate and flagrant flouting of the law. (Clarke LJ dissenting in part)

Judges:

Waller, Clarke LJJ, Sir Martin Nourse

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 979, Times 21-Sep-2005, [2005] BLGR 797

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Local Government Act 1972 222

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Stoke-On-Trent City Council v B and Q (Retail) Ltd HL 1984
The defendants had been trading on Sundays in breach of s.47 of the Shops Act 1950, which, by s.71(1) imposed on every local authority the duty to enforce within their district the provisions of that Act. Parliament has given local authorities a . .
Cited – City of London Corporation v Bovis Construction Ltd CA 18-Apr-1988
An injunction had been granted to restrain Bovis from causing a noise nuisance outside certain hours specified in a notice served by the council under the 1974 Act which created a criminal offence ‘without reasonable excuse’ to contravene the . .
Cited – Worcestershire County Council v Tongue and others ChD 6-Aug-2003
The defendants had been convicted of offences involving mistreatment of animals, and debarred from having custody of animals. They were now in breach of that order, and the council sought a civil order allowing it access to their land to remove any . .

Cited by:

Cited – Birmingham City Council v Shafi and Another CA 30-Oct-2008
The Council appealed a finding that the court did not have jurisdiction to obtain without notice injunctions to control the behaviour of youths said to be creating a disturbance, including restricting their rights to enter certain parts of the city . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Animals, Litigation Practice, Local Government

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.229025

Johnson, Regina (on the Application Of) v Attorney General: Admn 29 Jun 2005

Citations:

[2005] 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 have made the application to a judge in chambers. The district registrar ordered that Section 2(1) . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.228897

Farley v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (No 2): CA 22 Jun 2005

The Court of Apeal had previously considered an appeal from the grant of a liability order made by magistrates. It had become clear that the order had been made without jurisdiction.
Held: The order must be set aside. The court had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the High Court hearing an appeal by way of case stated. Nevertheless, the issue had been an appropriate issue for the court. The appellant could apply for judicial review, the CA could sit as a court of first instance and reject that request, then the appellant could then appeal that and the Court of Appeal could then re-instate the order. Accepting limited undertakings for the lodging of documents, the court so acted.

Judges:

Lord Woolf LCJ, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers MR

Citations:

Times 30-Jun-2005, [2005] EWCA Civ 869

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Child Support Act 1991

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Westminster City Council v O’Reilly and others CA 1-Jul-2003
The defendant sought to appeal against a decision of the High Court on a case stated by the Magistrates.
Held: A decision by the High Court on an appeal by way of case stated from the Magistrates was final, and no further appeal lay to the . .
See Also – Farley v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Another CA 25-Jan-2005
The Respondent had sought a liability order against the appellant, the non-resident parent in respect of child support maintenance arrears. The appellant had asked the magistrates to consider whether he was liable to pay child support maintenance, . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Farley v Child Support Agency and Another; Farley v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (No. 2) HL 28-Jun-2006
Magistrates were wrong to think they had a discretion to look at the validity of a liability assessment under child support legislation. The Act gave the payer alternative avenues of appeal, and therefore the Act should be read as it stated and the . .
Cited – Kenya Aid Programme v Sheffield City Council Admn 22-Jan-2013
The claimant challenged a decision that it was liable for non domestic rates in respect of some commercial units, on the basis that the use by the charity was not itself charitable.
Held: ‘there is no reason for limiting the ambit of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Child Support, Judicial Review

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.228268

Pattison v Clarksons and Steele: CA 16 Oct 2002

The claimant had instructed the defendant firm of solicitors to claim in copyright. They failed to notify the defendants in that action that he was legally aided. When the action was dismissed, the solicitors were ordered to pay costs. Subsequently the claimant had begun several actions against the defendants. Each had been lost, with orders for costs against him, totalling pounds 28,000, and bankruptcy proceedings commenced. A further action was stayed pending payment.
Held: The bankruptcy order made him incompetent to pursue these proceedings. There were no grounds to permit an appeal to go ahead.

Judges:

Mantell J

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 1551

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Insolvency, Litigation Practice

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.217727

Pennington and Another v Waine and others: CA 17 Oct 2002

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 1587

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Pennington and Another v Waine, Crampton and others CA 4-Mar-2002
The deceased had made a gift of shares. She had executed a transfer, and acting upon the promise, the donee had agreed to become a director which he could only do if he also became a shareholder. The transfer was delivered to the deceased’s agent, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.217728

TSB Private Bank International SA v Chabra: ChD 1992

Asset freezing orders may be made against persons in relation to whom the claimant asserts no cause of action and seeks no money judgment, but in relation to whom there is an arguable case that assets held in their name or under their control are in truth beneficially owned by the defendant against whom the claim is made.

Judges:

Aikens J

Citations:

[1992] 1 WLR 231

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – HM Revenue and Customs v Egleton and others ChD 19-Sep-2006
The claimants had applied for the winding up of a company for very substantial sums of VAT due to it. Anticipating that hearing, it now sought restraining orders against the director defendants, alleging that there had been a carousel or missing . .
Cited – Franses v Al Assad and others ChD 26-Oct-2007
The claimant had obtained a freezing order over the proceeds of sale of a property held by solicitors. The claimant was liquidator of a company, and an allegation of wrongful trading had been made against the sole director and defendant. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.245160

Aiglon Limited and another v Gau Shan Co Limited: ChD 1993

The defendants had obtained world-wide Mareva injunctions in support of substantive proceedings by way of their counterclaim to enforce an arbitration award against the plaintiffs under section 26 against two companies, Aiglon Limited and L’Aiglon SA (a Swiss company).
Held: There was no basis under section 26 for enforcement of the arbitration award against SA, but the question arose whether any other basis for a freezing order against SA existed, having regard to the fact that the defendants’ only contractual entitlement was against Limited. There were two bases. It was well arguable that a transfer of assets from Limited to SA fell foul of section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986, thereby giving the defendants a direct cause of action against SA as victims of the transaction. Second, since an administrator or liquidator of Limited (if appointed) could apply to set aside the relevant transaction under section 238 of the Insolvency Act 1986 with the consequence that SA would hold the assets transferred as trustee for Limited, the case fell within the Chabra jurisdiction since it was arguable that SA held assets beneficially belonging to Limited, against which the defendants had a good cause of action. It mattered not that Limited’s arguable beneficial interest in assets transferred to SA was contingent both upon the appointment of an administrator or liquidator of Limited, and the successful pursuit by the officeholder of a claim under section 238.

Judges:

Hirst J

Citations:

[1993] BCLC 1321

Statutes:

Arbitration Act 1950 26, Insolvency Act 1986 423

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – HM Revenue and Customs v Egleton and others ChD 19-Sep-2006
The claimants had applied for the winding up of a company for very substantial sums of VAT due to it. Anticipating that hearing, it now sought restraining orders against the director defendants, alleging that there had been a carousel or missing . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Arbitration, Insolvency

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.245162

HM Revenue and Customs v Egleton and others: ChD 19 Sep 2006

The claimants had applied for the winding up of a company for very substantial sums of VAT due to it. Anticipating that hearing, it now sought restraining orders against the director defendants, alleging that there had been a carousel or missing trader fraud. The defendants said that the interim frezing orders made had been without jurisdiction or should not have been made as a matter of discretion.
Held: The court did have jurisdiction to grant the freezing orders against the respondents in this case, or to continue them pending the appointment of a liquidator of CandE: ‘the time has come for the English Courts to recognise, consistently with the carefully considered conclusion of the High Court of Australia, that the jurisdiction to grant freezing orders against third parties is not rigidly restricted by the Chabra requirement to show that, at the time when the order is sought, the third party is already holding or in control of assets beneficially owned by the defendant. ‘ and ‘once the relatively clear Chabra boundary line is breached, there is no wider boundary which has any sufficient clarity to serve as a workable condition to the existence of jurisdiction, than the broad confines of the second limb of the principle in paragraph 57 of the main judgment in Cardile. In particular, it seems to me that a rigid causation test is too narrow and potentially unjust, in particular because it would protect third party fraudsters who had in reality caused the claimant’s loss from exposure to a freezing order while exposing honest third parties . . ‘

Judges:

Briggs J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 2313 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Cardile v LED Builders PTY Limited 1999
(High Court of Australia) The respondent (‘LED’) twice sought relief from Eagle Homes PTY Limited (‘Eagle’) for copyright infringement. Anticipating the proceedings the only shareholders and controllers of Eagle, the claimants arranged the . .
Cited – Re: Ravenhart Service (Holdings) Limited ChD 2004
The petitioners in a combined section 459 and contributories’ winding up petition sought interim relief akin to an ordinary freezing order but which was designed specifically to prevent the assets of the company from dissipation, and similar relief . .
Cited – C Inc Plc v L and Another QBD 4-May-2001
The plaintiff had obtained judgment against L, only then to find that she claimed that all only apparent assets were held by her on trust for or as agent for her husband who was overseas. The plaintiff therefore now set out to add him, and to claim . .
Cited – In Re Premier Electronics (GB) Ltd ChD 27-Feb-2001
The petitioners brought an action under s459 and obtained freezing orders both in relation to the property of the subject company and in relation to the assets of its two executive directors up to the value of pounds 500,000 each. On the adjourned . .
Cited – Siskina (owners of Cargo lately on Board) v Distos Compania Naviera SA HL 1979
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 . .
Cited – Mercantile Group (Europe) Ag v Aiyela and Others CA 4-Aug-1993
Interlocutory injunctions including Mareva procedures and orders are available to support the enforcement of a judgment. The purpose of such a jurisdiction is so that the court can ‘ensure the effective enforcement of its orders’. A court may still . .
Cited – Aiglon Limited and another v Gau Shan Co Limited ChD 1993
The defendants had obtained world-wide Mareva injunctions in support of substantive proceedings by way of their counterclaim to enforce an arbitration award against the plaintiffs under section 26 against two companies, Aiglon Limited and L’Aiglon . .
Cited – TSB Private Bank International SA v Chabra ChD 1992
Asset freezing orders may be made against persons in relation to whom the claimant asserts no cause of action and seeks no money judgment, but in relation to whom there is an arguable case that assets held in their name or under their control are in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Customs and Excise, Litigation Practice, Company

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.245032

WTA Global Holdings Ltd v (Lombard North Central Plc and Others: ComC 15 Feb 2019

Judgment following of two applications; one made, or treated as having been made, by the Claimant, for directions, and the second, made by the Defendants, principally for the summary disposal of the claim.

Judges:

HH Judge Klein

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 277 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Banking, Litigation Practice

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.637497

Shepherd v Henderson: HL 1 Dec 1881

Appeal – Competency – 6 Geo. IV. c. 120, sec. 40 – Findings in Fact
Terms of an interlocutor which were held to import a judgment upon a matter of fact, and consequently under the Judicature Act not to be capable of being carried by appeal to the House of Lords.
Opinion (per Lord Watson) that parties are not entitled to ask the House of Lords as a matter of right to send a case back to be heard again in the Court of Session on the ground that they did not at the former hearing there insist on facts on which it was then open to them to have insisted.

Judges:

Lords Penzance, Blackburn, and Watson

Citations:

[1881] UKHL 577, EAT 08:19 11/05/2019 – 15

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Litigation Practice

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.636800

Calonne Construction Ltd v Dawnus Southern Ltd: CA 3 May 2019

The court was asked whether a Part 36 offer is valid if: it is made by a defendant in respect of both a claim and a proposed counterclaim which has yet to be pleaded; and it contains provision for interest to accrue at a particular rate after the expiry of the ‘Relevant Period’.

Citations:

[2019] EWCA Civ 754

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.636707

Nigel Smith v M: QBD 12 May 2008

The claimants sought disclosure of material which would lead to the identification of people who had made postings to a forum on the internet.
Held: The court had aready imposed a stay on the issuing of further proceedings, yet the claimant had continued to issue letters threatening action. The claimant would need to explain himself. The court noted also that civil restraint proceedings were being considered.
The claimant had issued many separate sets of proceedings, claiming defamation in internet bulletin boards.
Held: It was wrong to pursue related actions in separate proceedings.

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 1250 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Dow Jones and Co Inc v Jameel CA 3-Feb-2005
Presumption of Damage in Defamation is rebuttable
The defendant complained that the presumption in English law that the victim of a libel had suffered damage was incompatible with his right to a fair trial. They said the statements complained of were repetitions of statements made by US . .
See Also – Smith v ADVFN Plc QBD 13-Mar-2008
Order re case management application. The claimant said he had been defamed on an internet forum run by the defendants, and sought orders for disclosure of the identities of the posters to the website. The operator said that special software might . .

Cited by:

Cited – Smith v ADVFN Plc and others QBD 25-Jul-2008
The claimant had brought multiple actions in defamation against anonymous posters on an online forum. The claimant sought to lift the stay which had been imposed because of the number of actions. The claimant had not yet paid outstanding costs . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.271109

Hall and Another v Pertemps Group Ltd and Another: ChD 21 Nov 2005

It was alleged that in the course of mediation one party had made a threat against the other. The current application related to a report of the mediation made to a third party, and the court was asked to take account of that threat in assessing costs and whether or not to allow the withdrawal of a Part 36 offer.
Held: The conduct of a mediation was not in all circumstances ‘a no go area.’ The particular use which was now sought to be made of the statements was not within the purposes for which protection was given to without prejudice statements. The more closely the use sought to be made related to the issue sought to be resolved in a without prejudice mediation, the greater the likelihood that the court would grant protection from disclosure. The converse applied here, and the threat was not protected.

Judges:

Lewison J

Citations:

Times 23-Dec-2005, [2005] ADR LR 11/01

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Rush and Tomkins Ltd v Greater London Council HL 3-Nov-1988
The parties had entered into contracts for the construction of dwellings. The contractors sought payment. The council alleged shortcomings in the works. The principal parties had settled the dispute, but a sub-contractor now sought disclosure of the . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.238885

Scottish and Newcastle Plc v Raguz: ChD 27 Jul 2004

The claimant had previously assigned its interest in a lease to the defendant, who had in turn re-assigned it. The eventual tenant became insolvent, and the landlord had recovered sums from the claimant who now sought an indemnity under the covenant implied under section 24. The defendant now applied for the claim to be struck out, saying that the claimant had not complied with an order to disclosed details of actions it had agreed with the landlord and which had increaed the sums due.
Held: There had not been sufficient non-compliance to justify a striking out of the claim.

Judges:

Hart J

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 1835 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Land Registration Act 1925 24

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Scottish and Newcastle Plc v Raguz CA 24-Jul-2003
Leases had been granted. They had been assigned to the defendant who had assigned them again. The last assignee became insolvent and statutory demands were served on the claimant under the 1995 Act for rent. The claimant paid the sums due and now . .

Cited by:

See Also – Scottish and Newcastle Plc v Raguz ChD 11-Apr-2006
The defendant had taken assignments of the term of two underleases from the claimant, and then re-assigned them to a limited company with guarantors of the rent, and they in turn re-assigned the leases. The last company became insolvent. The . .
See Also – Scottish and Newcastle Plc v Raguz CA 6-Mar-2007
The claimant was the original tenant under two 99 year underleases granted in 1967, and assigned them to the defendant who then himself assigned them. The eventual assignee had become insolvent. The landlord recovered the rents from the claimant who . .
See Also – Scottish and Newcastle Plc v Raguz HL 29-Oct-2008
The lease had been assigned by the claimant to the defendant and on again to a tenant who became insolvent. The landlord had recovered sums said to be due from the claimant who now sought an indemnity from the defendant. The defendant said that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.226176

Coflexip Sa and Another v Stolt Comex Seaway Ms Ltd and others: ChD 5 Jan 2004

Judges:

Laddie J

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 3 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Coflexip S A and Another v Stolt Offshore Ms Ltd and others CA 27-Feb-2004
Proceedings had been brought by a third party in which the patent had been revoked. The Defendant in the first proceedings now sought release from an enquiry as to damages after being found, before the revocation, to have infringed the patent.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Litigation Practice

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.226159

Wright v Sullivan: CA 27 May 2005

The claimant had appointed a clinical case manager. She appealed an order requiring the case manager to report also to the court.
Held: The case manager’s duties were purely to the claimant, and an order requiring that manager to report also to any other party would be inimical to his task. Nevertheless any communication between the case manager and the claimant’s experts would not be protected by litigation privilege.

Judges:

Brooke LJ, Dyson LJ, Lloyd LJ

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 656, Times 24-Jun-2005

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Waugh v British Railways Board HL 12-Jul-1979
No Litigation Privilege without Dominant Purpose
An internal report had been prepared by two of the Board’s officers two days after a collision involving the death of a locomotive driver, whose widow brought the action and now sought its production.
Held: The court considered litigation . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Litigation Practice

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225328

HSS Hire Services Group Plc v BMB Builders Merchants Ltd and Another: CA 24 May 2005

The claimant licensee alleged that the license contract had been repudiated by the defendant licensor. The claimant succeeded at the trial of liability. The defendant had made a payment into court. The judge was told of the payment but not of the amount. He ordered the defendant to pay the costs of the liability trial because they had spent money on the issue and had won.
Held: The appeal succeeded.
Waller LJ said: ‘In defending the judge’s approach and in answer to the question as to what apart from paying into court the defendants could do to protect themselves against an order for costs on the liability issue, Mr Dunning QC robustly argued, it was open to them to concede liability, and if they chose not to do so then liability for costs followed if they lost the issue. If that approach is right it seems to discourage the arguing of preliminary points.
The contrary approach is that parties should be encouraged to make Part 36 payments in and/or offers; they should also be encouraged to try preliminary points if that could lead to the saving of costs overall. If payments in are to be totally ignored at the conclusion of the trial of a preliminary issue, that will discourage applying for the trial of the same, and may even discourage Part 36 offers where preliminary issues have been ordered. The proper approach at the conclusion of a trial of a preliminary issue where there has been a Part 36 payment in or a Part 36 offer, should therefore normally be to adjourn the question of costs pending the resolution of all the issues including damages, at which stage the quantum of the Part 36 offer can be revealed and the discretion in relation to costs exercised in the knowledge of it.
I have no doubt that the provisions of Part 36 and of Part 44 encourage the latter approach. Mr Dunning strove manfully to argue that the provisions allowed the judge to take the view he did. He argued (1) even where there had been a payment in, there was no rule which expressly prevented the judge dealing with the costs of the trial of the issue of liability or which required him to reserve the question of costs until after the issue of damages had been resolved; (2) the modern approach was to encourage stage based orders; (3) it was the defendants who wanted a split trial and the claimants resisted it; (4) the defendants could have admitted liability but chose to fight it; (5) the claimants were entirely successful; (6) it was a case where the dispute was about what was said, and the evidence of HSS had been entirely accepted, and the witnesses of the defendants had been severely criticised – Mr Harrison was described as ‘disingenuous’ and Mr Sowton as ‘totally unreliable’, and reference was made to CPR 44.3 (4) under which it was material to take into account the conduct of the parties; (7) it is the judge who has heard the issue who is based placed to deal with the costs. Thus he argued that the judge having been correctly informed of the fact that there had been a payment in as he was entitled to be under CPR 36.19 (3)(c), was equally entitled to hold that it was immaterial.
CPR 36.19 is an important provision and some time was spent debating precisely what it meant. It provides as follows:- . .
The following points need consideration. Why is it provided that the fact that there has been a Part 36 payment is something that 36.19(3)(c) allows to be revealed to the trial judge where the issue of liability has been determined before the assessment of the money claimed? Why does (c)(ii) contemplate both that the fact that a payment has been made or the fact that one has not been made may be relevant to costs? Is what is contemplated as being disclosable to the trial judge simply the fact of payment in or would it be proper to disclose the actual amount? How does the provision fit with the obligation (the word in CPR 44.3 (4) is ‘must’) to take into account any payment into court or an admissible offer to settle?
At one moment it was being suggested in argument that at the end of a trial on liability it would be appropriate under Part 36.19(3)(c) to disclose both the fact of a payment in and the quantum thereof so that a judge could exercise his discretion in relation to the award of costs on the preliminary issue taking the view, for example, that the amount paid in was on any view too low. In that way it could be argued he could properly fulfil his obligation under 44.3(4) at that stage. Indeed Mr Dunning went so far as to offer to show us the terms of the payment in so that if we took the view the judge had erred we could exercise the discretion afresh.
In my view Part 36.19 does not allow for the disclosure of the amount of a payment in. On its language it allows simply the disclosure of the fact that there has been one or the fact that there has not. The consequences of that being the correct interpretation of Part 36.19 seem to me to be as follows. If the court is told that there has been no payment in, then the court is free to exercise its discretion to award costs in relation to the preliminary issue and there is no difficulty with Part 44.3(4)(c). If however it is told that there has been a payment in, then, in any but perhaps the most exceptional case, I find it very difficult to think that there could be circumstances where if the issue of damages remains to be decided, the judge can do otherwise than to reserve the question of costs until after the determination of that issue.
The points that Mr Dunning makes, for example in relation to the conduct of the witnesses, can be made at the later stage but until the court knows how generous or otherwise the payment in was, it would not, as I see it, normally be fair to exercise a discretion in relation to costs. In any event because the court was not allowed to know the quantum, it could not act as required under Part 44.3(4), at that stage.
In my view, accordingly, the judge was not entitled to deal with costs in the way he did. He should have reserved the same, pending determination of quantum, and his order should be reversed to reflect that finding.’

Judges:

Waller, Mance LJJ, Sir William Aldous

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 626, [2006] 2 Costs LR 213, [2005] 1 WLR 3158, [2005] 3 All ER 486

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 36

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Applied – Beasley v Alexander QBD 9-Oct-2012
The parties had disputed liability for personal injuries in a road traffic accident. The court had held the defendant liable, but held over the assessment of damages. The defendant sought to refer to the fact of his offer of settlement when . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Civil Procedure Rules, Litigation Practice

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225229

Dobbs v Triodos Bank Nv (No 1): CA 15 Apr 2005

The defendant a litigant in person sought to stay his appeal. He asked the court to stay his appeal so that he could get legal aid, and to encourage the LSC to grant legal aid.
Held: The court refused. The defendant asserted that courts would be biased toward any side where a lawyer was employed, and that litigants in person were accordingly never successful. In the face of such criticism, it might be tempting for a judge to recuse himself, but it would lead parties to be tempted to criticise judges in an attempt to secure one who might be favourable to them.
Chadwick LJ said in declining to recuse himself said: ‘It is always tempting for a judge against whom criticisms are made to say that he would prefer not to hear further proceedings in which the critic is involved. It is tempting to take that course because the judge will know that the critic is likely to go away with a sense of grievance if the decision goes against him. Rightly or wrongly, a litigant who does not have confidence in the judge who hears his case will feel that, if he loses, he has in some way been discriminated against. But it is important for a judge to resist the temptation to recuse himself simply because it would be more comfortable to do so. The reason is this. If judges were to recuse themselves whenever a litigant — whether it be a represented litigant or a litigant in person — criticised them (which sometimes happens not infrequently) we would soon reach the position in which litigants were able to select judges to hear their cases simply by criticising all the judges that they did not want to hear their cases. It would be easy for a litigant to produce a situation in which a judge felt obliged to recuse himself simply because he had been criticised — whether that criticism was justified or not. That would apply, not only to the individual judge, but to all judges in this court; if the criticism is indeed that there is no judge of this court who can give Mr Dobbs a fair hearing because he is criticising the system generally. Mr Dobbs’ appeal could never be heard.’

Judges:

Chadwick LJ, Neuberger LJ, Longmore LJ

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 468, Times 11-May-2005

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Triodos Bank, Dobbs, Acorn Televillages Limited v Dobbs and Others ChD 19-Apr-2004
. .
Appeal from – Triodos Bank Nv v Dobbs and Another ChD 8-Feb-2005
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Triodos Bank Nv v Dobbs (No 2) CA 24-May-2005
The bank sought payment under a guarantee given by the appellant. The appellant said that the original loan agreement had been varied so as to release him. The loan had been taken out to support a business venture. After the guarantee was signed a . .
Cited – Otkritie International Investment Management and Others v Urumov CA 14-Oct-2014
The claimants brought proceedings against several defendants. There had been a series of hearings conducted by a single judge leading to findings that several defendants had been involved in a fraud. The defendants sought recusal of that judge . .
Cited – Henry v London Metropolitan University EAT 19-Sep-2006
EAT The Appellant was found by the Tribunal to have been victimised and discriminated against in three respects; in two cases at the hands of Mr Williams who commenced disciplinary proceedings against him and in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.224781

Farrell v Alexander: HL 24 Jun 1976

The House considered the construction of a consolidation Act.
Held: It is ordinarily both unnecessary and undesirable to construe a consolidation Act by reference to statutory antecedents, but it is permissible to do so in a case where the consolidation Act is unclear, or cannot be resolved by classical methods of construction. Self-contained statutes, whether consolidating previous law or so doing with amendments, should be interpreted, if reasonably possible, without recourse to antecedents, and that the recourse should only be had when there is a real and substantial difficulty or ambiguity which classical methods of construction cannot solve.
Lord Wilberforce said: ‘self-contained statutes, whether consolidating previous law, or so doing with amendments, should be interpreted, if reasonably possible, without recourse to antecedents, and that the recourse should only be had when there is a real and substantial difficulty or ambiguity which classical methods of construction cannot resolve.’
Lord Wilberforce said: ‘I would agree and endorse the principle that it is quite wrong that, in every case where a consolidation Act is under consideration, one should automatically look back through the history of its various provisions, and the cases decided upon them, and minutely trace the language from Act to Act – a process which, incidentally, has led to an argument of four days’ length in this House.’
Lord Simon of Glaisdale said: ‘This does not mean that the initial approach to the construction of a ‘pure’ consolidation Act must be via the statutes it has replaced. On the contrary, it is the consolidation Act itself which falls for interpretation. The initial judicial approach is the same as with the interpretation of any other statute. The judge places himself, as the saying goes, in the draftsman’s chair. He will ascertain what facts were within the draftsman’s knowledge, and what statutory objective he had both generally and as to the particular provision to be construed. The facts available to the draftsman of a consolidation Act will be all those which had been available to the draftsmen of the enactments to be consolidated. These facts and (closely related) the statutory objectives will generally be obvious from the statute falling for construction itself; but the court may, in default or by way of supplement or confirmation, have recourse to matters of which judicial notice may be taken or to official reports in the light of which any part of the legislation has been framed . . . The judge will then ascertain and tune in to the linguistic register of the statute: see Maunsell v. Olins [1975] A.C. 373, 391-392. Having done all this the judge will be in a position to read the statutory language in the primary and most natural sense which it bears in its context. Since the draftsman will himself have endeavoured to express the parliamentary meaning by words used in the primary and most natural sense which they bear in that same context, the court’s interpretation of the meaning of the statutory words used should thus coincide with what Parliament meant to say.
‘There is one rare situation in which it is permissible for – indeed, incumbent on – the court to construe a consolidation Act at this primary stage of construction by reference to a consolidated enactment. This is where the purpose of a statutory word or phrase can only be grasped by examination of the social context in which it was first used. George Hensher Ltd. v. Restawile Upholstery (Lancs.) Ltd.[1976] A.C. 64 provides an example. The phrase ‘work of artistic craftsmanship’ in the Copyright Act 1956 could only be properly understood by investigating the social and aesthetic circumstances in which it was first used in the Copyright Act 1911. (The Act of 1956, though not a consolidation Act, was relevantly in pari materia).’

Judges:

Lord Wilberforce, Lord Simon of Glaisdale

Citations:

[1977] AC 59, [1976] UKHL 5, [1976] 2 All ER 721

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Remmington v Larchin CA 1921
The word ‘person’ in the Act, was interpreted to mean ‘landlord’. When dealing with a penal section, if there are two reasonably possible meanings, the court should adopt the more lenient one: ‘where an equivocal word or ambiguous sentence leaves a . .

Cited by:

Cited – A v Hoare; H v Suffolk County Council, Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs intervening; X and Y v London Borough of Wandsworth CA 12-Apr-2006
Each claimant sought damages for a criminal assault for which the defendant was said to be responsible. Each claim was to be out of the six year limitation period. In the first claim, the proposed defendant had since won a substantial sum from the . .
Cited – Pirabakaran v Patel and Another CA 26-May-2006
The landlord had wanted possession. The tenant said that the landlord had been harassing him. The landlord said that the tenancy was a mixed residential and business tenancy and that the 1977 Act did not apply.
Held: The 1977 Act applied. A . .
Cited – Goodes v East Sussex County Council HL 16-Jun-2000
The claimant was driving along a road. He skidded on ice, crashed and was severely injured. He claimed damages saying that the Highway authority had failed to ‘maintain’ the road.
Held: The statutory duty on a highway authority to keep a road . .
Cited – Associated Newspapers Ltd v Wilson; Associated British Ports v Palmer HL 31-Mar-1995
The Daily Mail had recognised the Union to which their journalists belonged. They wanted to end this arrangement, and offered a better rate of pay to non-members. The union said this was an unlawful action taken because of union membership. Similar . .
Cited – Regina v Heron; Regina v Storey; Regina v Thomas HL 25-Mar-1982
The defendants appealed against their convictions for conspiracy to counterfeit gold coins. They said no evidence had been brought to suggest their intention to commit any dishonest act. The House was asked whether the offence was one of specific or . .
Cited – Scottish Widows Plc v Revenue and Customs SC 6-Jul-2011
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 . .
Cited – Houldsworth and Another v Bridge Trustees Ltd and Another SC 27-Jul-2011
The court was asked as to the dividing line, for regulatory purposes, between defined benefit (normally earnings-related) schemes and defined contribution (or money purchase) schemes. The Secretary of State asserted that some methods used to . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions and another, ex parte Spath Holme Limited HL 7-Dec-2000
The section in the 1985 Act created a power to prevent rent increases for tenancies of dwelling-houses for purposes including the alleviation of perceived hardship. Accordingly the Secretary of State could issue regulations whose effect was to limit . .
Cited – Belhaj and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions and Another SC 4-Jul-2018
Challenge to decision not to prosecute senior Intelligence Service officials for alleged offences in connection with his unlawful rendition and mistreatment in Libya. The issue here was whether on the hearing of the application for judicial review, . .
Cited – London Borough of Southwark and Another v Transport for London SC 5-Dec-2018
Question as to the meaning of the GLA Roads and Side Roads (Transfer of Property etc) Order 2000. When the highway was transferred was only the working surfaces, the road surface and the airspace and subsoil necessary for the operation, maintenance . .
Cited – Lalchan, Regina v CACD 27-May-2022
Conviction withoiut required Consent was Unsafe
Whether a conviction for an offence which requires the consent of the Attorney General before the proceedings are instituted can stand when no such consent was obtained.
Held: The appellant’s arguments were well-founded and his conviction on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Leading Case

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.240377

Botham v Ministry of Defence: CA 14 Mar 2005

Leave given for appeal to the House of Lords

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 400

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – J Botham v Ministry of Defence EAT 1-Nov-2004
EAT Practice and Procedure – Appellate jurisdiction/Reasons/Burns-Barke. . .

Cited by:

Leave to appeal – Serco Ltd v Lawson; Botham v Ministry of Defence; Crofts and others v Veta Limited HL 26-Jan-2006
Mr Lawson was employed by Serco as a security supervisor at the British RAF base on Ascension Island, which is a dependency of the British Overseas Territory of St Helena. Mr Botham was employed as a youth worker at various Ministry of Defence . .
See also – Botham v The Ministry of Defence QBD 26-Mar-2010
The claimant had been employed by the MOD. He was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct, and he was then placed on the list of persons unsuitable for work with children. He succeeded at the Tribunal in a claim for unfair and wrongful dismissal. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Employment

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.224511

Scammell and others v Dicker: CA 14 Apr 2005

The parties had settled a boundary dispute in 1994 with a consent order, but the terms of the order had been difficult to implement. The respondent appealed an order declaring the consent order void for uncertainty.
Held: The appeal succeeded. There was no authority for declaring a consent order void. To be avoided it would have to be legally or practically impossible to give to the agreement any sensible content. The Scammells had not done anything to challenge the order and not sought to try to clarify the order but had sought straight away to have it set aside. It was clear that this was mere regret at their bargain.

Judges:

Ward, Rix LJJ

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 405, Times 27-Apr-2005

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Scammell and Nephew Ltd v HJ and JG Ouston HL 1941
There was an agreement for a purchase on ‘hire-purchase terms’ It was challenged as being too uncertain.
Held: There were many possible forms of such an agreement. The agreement was void for uncertainty. Lord Wright: ‘There are in my opinion . .
See Also – Scammell and Others v Dicker CA 21-Dec-2000
A part 36 offer can be withdrawn at any time before it is accepted or expires. The rules can not force an offer to be left open. Clear words would have been required within the rules to impose such an obligation. The actual words referred to offers . .
Cited – Mamidoil-Jetoil Greek Petroleum Company SA v Okta Crude Oil Refinery Ad Cross CA 22-Mar-2001
The court always leans against a conclusion which will leave parties who clearly intended to contract without a legally binding contract, and that this is the more so where they have acted as though they were bound. The court strains to supply . .

Cited by:

See Also – Scammell and Others v Dicker CA 21-Dec-2000
A part 36 offer can be withdrawn at any time before it is accepted or expires. The rules can not force an offer to be left open. Clear words would have been required within the rules to impose such an obligation. The actual words referred to offers . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Litigation Practice

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.224255

Pratley v Surrey County Council: CA 16 Oct 2002

Application for leave to appeal

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 1552

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Full Appeal – Pratley v Surrey County Council CA 25-Jul-2003
The claimant sought damages for personal injury namely stress suffered in the course of her work as a care manager. She said that she had been overworked, and suffered depression when a proposal for reducing the work load remained unimplemented. The . .

Cited by:

Application for leave – Pratley v Surrey County Council CA 25-Jul-2003
The claimant sought damages for personal injury namely stress suffered in the course of her work as a care manager. She said that she had been overworked, and suffered depression when a proposal for reducing the work load remained unimplemented. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.217735

AP (UK) Ltd v West Midlands Fire and Civil Defence Authority: CA 16 Nov 2001

Whether, if it is right to require a claimant to put up security for the costs of an action, it may be appropriate that the security given should be by way of a charge on the claimants’ own property in favour of the defendant and, if so, in what circumstances.

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 1917

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs, Litigation Practice

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.201462

Lewis v Eliades and Others: QBD 1 Feb 2002

The claimant sought judgment in the USA, and obtained an ex parte world-wide asset freezing order in the UK. When he applied for the order to be extended, the application was withdrawn.
Held: Those advising foreign litigants to apply for such orders here, should remember, and respect, the particular difficulties involved. In particular the legal obligations may be different, and in what were usually very complicated situations financially, the UK lawyer taking a case on needs to take and be given the opportunity and time to assimilate the case properly.

Judges:

McCombe J

Citations:

Times 28-Feb-2002

Statutes:

Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 25

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

International, Litigation Practice

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.167669

Derby and Co v Weldon (No2): ChD 19 Oct 1988

The claimant sought a world-wide Mareva injunction against the assets of the defendant abroad.
Held: The injunction was refused. A Mareva injunction should only operate within the jurisdiction.

Citations:

Unreported, 19 October 1988

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Derby and Co v Weldon (No2) CA 2-Jan-1989
The plaintiff appealed against the refusal of a world-wide Mareva injunction.
Held: The appeal succeeded. Lord Donaldson of Lymington MR said: ‘We live in a time of rapidly growing commercial and financial sophistication and it behoves the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.449765

Omar and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs: Admn 26 Jun 2012

The claimants sought the production of evidence by the respondent for their use in the courts of Uganda. Some evidence had been by a closed procedure, the claimants alleging involvement in illegal rendition.

Judges:

Sir Roger Laugharne Thomas, Burnett J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 1737 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.460878

CDE and Another v MGN Ltd and Another: QBD 16 Dec 2010

In considering a request for injunction restraining publication of private matters, the court may consider also the effect of publication on a child of the claimant’s family.

Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 3308 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – TSE and ELP v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 23-May-2011
The claimants had obtained an injunction preventing publication of details of their private lives and against being publicly named. The newspaper had not attempted to raise any public interest defence. Various publications had taken place to breach . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Media, Litigation Practice

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.428325

Vaidya v General Medical Council: QBD 16 Nov 2010

Adjourned application to set aside a general civil restraint order. One issue was as to a claim brought upon a letter to the GMC. The judge said: ‘It appears to me to be clear beyond argument that this letter is protected by absolute privilege since it was written to an official of an investigatory body (the GMC) in order to complain about the conduct of Dr Vaidya.’

Judges:

Nicola Davies J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 2873 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Vaidya v General Medical Council Admn 18-Sep-2008
The claimant sought, and was refused, permission to pursue judicial review of the defendant’s disciplinary proceedings against him. . .
See Also – Vaidya v General Medical Council QBD 2010
Sir Charles Gray said: ‘It appears to me to be clear beyond argument that this letter is protected by absolute privilege since it was written to an official of an investigatory body (the GMC) in order to complain about the conduct of Dr Vaidya.’ . .

Cited by:

Cited – White v Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust and Another QBD 1-Apr-2011
The claimant doctor sued in defamation for letters written by the defendants to the Fitness to Practice Directorate. She now sought to appeal against a finding that she could not rely upon one letter which had come to her attention through . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.425975

EMI v Pandit: ChD 3 Dec 1974

The making of an order allowing the plaintiff’s to execute a search on the other party’s premises is in effect part of the process of discovery. Templeman J discussed the making of such orders ex parte: ‘if it appears that the object of the plaintiffs’ litigation will be unfairly and improperly frustrated by the very giving of the notice which is normally required to protect the defendant, there must be exceptional and emergency cases in which the Court can dispense with the notice and, either under power in the rules to dispense with notice or by the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction make such a limited Order, albeit ex paste, as will give the plaintiffs the relief which they would otherwise be unable to obtain. In the present case I am satisfied that, if notice were given to the defendant, that would almost certainly result in the immediate destruction of the articles and information to which the plaintiffs are entitled . .
I think it right to stress that, in my judgment the kind of order which is sought now can only be justified by a very strong case on the evidence and can only be justified where the circumstance are exceptional to this extent, that it plainly appears that justice requires the intervention of the Court in the manner which is sought and without notice, otherwise the plaintiffs may substantially be deprived of a remedy . .
it must be shown that irreparable harm will accrue, or that there is a high probability that irreparable harm may accrue to the plaintiffs, unless the particular form of relief now sought is granted to them’.

Judges:

Templeman J

Citations:

[1975] 1 WLR 302

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Anton Piller v Manufacturing Processes Ltd CA 8-Dec-1975
Civil Search Orders possible
The plaintiff manufactured and supplied through the defendants, its English agents, computer components. It had reason to suspect that the defendant was disclosing its trade secrets to competitors. The court considered the effect of a civil search . .
Cited – A J Bekhor and Co Ltd v Bilton CA 6-Feb-1981
The plaintiff had applied for disclosure of assets under the Rules of the Supreme Court in support of a Mareva freezing order. The rules were held not to provide any such power: disclosure of assets could not be obtained as part of discovery as the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.416370

Deepak Fertilisers and Petrochemical Limited v Davy McKee (UK) London Limited: CA 12 Jul 2002

‘The general rule in adversarial proceedings, as between the parties, is that one party should not be entitled to impugn the evidence of another party’s witness if he has not asked appropriate questions enabling the witness to deal with the criticisms that are being made. This general rule is stated in Phipson on Evidence 15th Ed at para 11-26 in the following terms: ‘As a rule a party should put to each of his opponent’s witnesses in turn so much of his own case as concerns that particular witness, or in which he had a share, eg if the witness has deposed a conversation, the opposing counsel should put to the witnesses any significant differences from his own case. If he asks no questions he will generally be taken to accept the witness’s account and will not be permitted to attack it in his final speech … Failure to cross-examine will not, however, always amount to acceptance of the witness’s testimony, if for example the witness has had notice to the contrary beforehand, or the story itself is of an incredible or romancing character’.’

Judges:

Latham LJ

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 1396

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Flaherty v National Greyhound Racing Club Ltd CA 14-Sep-2005
The club regulated greyhound racing. The claimant had complained that its disciplinary proceedings had been conducted unfairly. He said that a panel member had an interest as veterinary surgeon in the proceedings at the stadium at which the alleged . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.230098

Lonergan v Lewes Crown Court and Another: Admn 23 Mar 2005

The defendant appealed the terms of an anti-social behaviour order, saying that the curfew imposed as one of the conditions of the order was unlawful being mandatory rather than prohibitory, and tantamount to a penal sanction.
Held: The substance of the order had to be prohibitory rather than mandatory, but the curfew, being a restriction on movement, met that test. It was implicit from McCann that since the purpose of an anti-social behaviour order was preventative rather that by way of punishment, it was not proper to try to compare what sentence might be imposed for a similar criminal offence. The appeal was dismissed.

Judges:

Maurice Kay LJ, Moses J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 457 (Admin), Times 25-Apr-2005, [2005] 1 WLR 2570, [2005] 2 All ER 362

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Crime and Disorder Act 1998 1, Powers of the Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000

Cited by:

Cited – Boness v Regina; Regina v Bebbington etc CACD 19-Aug-2005
Each defendant had commited a substantive offence, and when sentenced, his sentence hd been accompanied by an anti-social behaviour order. In some cases orders had been made in a form similar to football banning orders, but such orders were not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Crime

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.223854

West Tankers Inc v Ras Riunione Adriatica Di Sicurta Spa and Another (“The Front Comor”): ComC 21 Mar 2005

Appeal against anti-suit order. The court ordered that since the question of whether an anti-suit injunction could be made to restrain proceedings abroad had been decided in Through Transport, that issue could go straight to the House of Lords.

Judges:

Mr Justice Colman

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 454 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

EC Regulation 44/2001, Administration of Justice Act 1969 12, Supreme Court Act 1981 37(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Through Transport Mutual Insurance Association (Eurasia) Ltd v New India Assurance Association Company Ltd CA 2-Dec-2004
. .

Cited by:

Appeal from – West Tankers Inc v Ras Riunione Adriatica Di Sicurta Spa and others (The Front Comor) HL 21-Feb-2007
A ship had foundered, and the owners disputed their insurance claim. The policy provided for arbitration in London, and one party sought an order to prevent the other commencing proceedings in another EU state in breach of the arbitration agreement. . .
See Also – West Tankers Inc v Ras Riunione Adriatica Sicurta Spa and Another ComC 2-Oct-2007
. .
At High Court – Allianz Spa (Anciennement Riunione Adriatica Di Sicurta) v West Tankers Inc (‘the Front Comor’) ECJ 10-Feb-2009
ECJ (Judgment) A West Tankers ship damaged a jetty in Syracuse. An agreement provided for an arbitration in London. The insurers having paid out brought a subrogated action in Italy. West Tankers sought an order . .
At High Court – Allianz Spa (Anciennement Riunione Adriatica Di Sicurta) v West Tankers Inc (Judgments Convention/Enforcement of Judgments) (‘the Front Comor’) ECJ 4-Sep-2008
Europa (Opinion) Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 Scope Arbitration Order restraining a person from commencing or continuing proceedings before the national courts of another Member State instead of before an arbitral . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Insurance, Arbitration, European

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.223752

Stephens and Another v Cannon and Another: CA 14 Mar 2005

The claimants had purchased land from the defendants. The contract was conditional on a development which did not take place. The master had been presented with very different valuations of the property.
Held: The master was not entitled to resort to the burden of proof in the manner in which he did so. The appeal was allowed and the award of damages was aside. The valuation and price issue was remitted for rehearing.
Wilson J said: ‘(a) The situation in which the court finds itself before it can despatch a disputed issue by resort to the burden of proof has to be exceptional.
(c) The exceptional situation which entitles the court to resort to the burden of proof is that, notwithstanding that it has striven to do so, it cannot reasonably make a finding in relation to a disputed issue.
(d) A court which resorts to the burden of proof must ensure that others can discern that it has striven to make a finding in relation to a disputed issue and can understand the reasons why it has concluded that it cannot do so. The parties must be able to discern the court’s endeavour and to understand its reasons in order to be able to perceive why they have won and lost. An appellate court must also be able to do so because otherwise it will not be able to accept that the court below was in the exceptional situation of being entitled to resort to the burden of proof.
(e) In a few cases the fact of the endeavour and the reasons for the conclusion will readily be inferred from the circumstances and so there will be no need for the court to demonstrate the endeavour and to explain the reasons in any detail in its judgment. In most cases, however, a more detailed demonstration and explanation in judgment will be necessary.’

Judges:

Auld, Arden LJJ, Wilson J

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 222, Times 02-May-2005, [2005] CP Rep 31

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Rhesa Shipping Co SA v Edmonds (The Popi M) HL 16-May-1985
The Popi M sank in calm seas and fair weather as a result of a large and sudden entry of water into her engine room through her shell plating. The vessel’s owners claimed against her hull and machinery underwriters, contending that the loss was . .
Cited – Cooper v Floor Cleaning Machines Ltd and Another CA 20-Oct-2003
The judge had heard the evidence from two drivers involved in a road traffic incident. He had declared that he could find no way to prefer the evidence of one over the other. Accordingly neither had proved his or her case on the balance of . .
Cited – Sewell v Electrolux Limited CA 8-Oct-1997
There had been an accident at work the claimant suffered substantial back pain and the recorder had to decide whether it was caused by the accident or by a pre-existing condition. Orthopaedic surgeons gave conflicting evidence. Unlike the master in . .
Cited – Lloyds TSB Bank Plc v Hayward CA 12-Dec-2002
The parties disputed, inter alia, what had been agreed at a meeting. A note, prepared after the meeting, was claimed to record it. The judge had declined to make a finding in relation to the date when a note had been written, saying only that, since . .
Cited – Ashraf v Akram CA 22-Jan-1999
The parties had had a fight and claimed against each other for assault. The judge had to identify which party had started the fight. Having heard their evidence and that of the claimant’s son, the judge warned counsel that he could not decide the . .
Cited – English v Emery Reimbold and Strick Ltd; etc, (Practice Note) CA 30-Apr-2002
Judge’s Reasons Must Show How Reached
In each case appeals were made, following Flannery, complaining of a lack of reasons given by the judge for his decision.
Held: Human Rights jurisprudence required judges to put parties into a position where they could understand how the . .
Cited – Emaco Limited, Aktiebolaget Electrolux v Dyson Appliances Ltd PatC 26-Jan-1999
A company which was using a competitor’s trade mark in the context of an advert, which made misleading and derogatory comparisons, failed the ‘honest practice’ test, and was abusing the rights to use the other company’s mark under the Act. In this . .

Cited by:

Cited – Ultraframe (UK) Ltd v Fielding and others ChD 27-Jul-2005
The parties had engaged in a bitter 95 day trial in which allegations of forgery, theft, false accounting, blackmail and arson. A company owning patents and other rights had become insolvent, and the real concern was the destination and ownership of . .
Cited – Point Solutions Ltd v Focus Business Solutions Ltd and Another ChD 16-Dec-2005
It was claimed that the defendant’s computer software infringed the copyright in software owned by the claimant. A declaration was sought beacause of allegations that assertions about infringement had been made to third parties.
Held: The . .
Cited – Verlander v Devon Waste Management and Another CA 27-Jun-2007
Auld LJ commented on the analysis in Stephens of the need for a judge to decide the evidence before him: ‘Perhaps I can, without damage to that analysis, summarise it by reducing it to two main propositions. First, a judge should only resort to the . .
Cited – Bates v Malyon QBD 10-Oct-2008
The defendant had driven into the rear of the claimant’s car. The claimant appealed dismissal of his claim by the judge who said he had not discharged the burden of proof of negligence.
Held: The appeal failed. The judge had reached a . .
Cited – Baxter v Mannion ChD 18-Mar-2010
B appealed against an order for rectification against him of the land register returning ownership to M. B had obtained registration with possessory title, claiming to have kept horses on the field for many years in adverse possession of it. M had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.223584

Beazer Homes Ltd v Stroude: CA 17 Mar 2005

Mr S asserted a right as against the builders under a section 106 agreement. The builder said that evidence of what had occurred as a background to the agreement should be admitted. The parties had requested the judge to decide as a preliminary issue on the admissibility of that evidence.
Held: It was rarely wise to decide to the admissibility of evidence as a preliminary matter. It should be decided at trial by the judge who would be hearing the case and have a better grasp of the facts.
Mummery LJ said: ‘In general, disputes about the admissibility of evidence in civil proceedings are best left to be resolved by the judge at the substantive hearing of the application or at the trial of the action, rather than at a separate preliminary hearing. The judge at a preliminary hearing on admissibility will usually be less well informed about the case. Preliminary hearings can also cause unnecessary costs and delays.’

Judges:

Mummery LJ

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 265, Times 28-Apr-2005

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 106

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning, Contract, Litigation Practice

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.223629

Armstrong and Another v First York: CA 17 Jan 2005

The claimant sought damages after a road traffic accident. The judge heard evidence from the claimant’s in person and from a conflicting expert’s report. He preferred the evidence of the claimants which he found to be blameless and honest. The defendant appealed.
Held: There was no rule requiring the court to accept an expert’s evidence over that of a lay witness. Our system is one of trial by judge, not by expert witness. The judge had been open and clear as to why he made his findings.

Judges:

Brooke VP CA, Arden, Longmore LJJ

Citations:

Times 19-Jan-2005, [2005] EWCA Civ 277, [2005] 1 WLR 2751

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice, Personal Injury, Road Traffic

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.223680

King v Brandywine Reinsurance Company: CA 10 Mar 2005

Excess of Loss reinsurance. In the civil courts of England and Wales is that (with one obvious exception) expert evidence on the domestic law is inadmissible.

Judges:

Waller, Rix LJJ, Sir Martin Nourse

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 235, [2005] 1 Lloyds Rep 655

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – King and others v Brandywine Reinsurance Co (UK) Ltd QBD 11-May-2004
. .

Cited by:

Cited – SP, Regina (on The Application of) v The Lord Chancellor Admn 12-Dec-2013
The claimant sought judicial review of a decision not to give prior approval to the claimant’s solicitors, a well-known firm of immigration lawyers, to instruct Bindmans LLP, another well-known firm of immigration lawyers, to provide ‘expert’ advice . .
Cited – Vizcaya Partners Ltd v Picard and Another PC 3-Feb-2016
No Contractual Obligation to Try Case in New York
(Gibraltar) The appellant had invested in a fraudulent Ponzi scheme run by Bernard Madoff. They were repaid sums before the fund collapsed, and the trustees now sought repayment by way of enforcement of an order obtained in New York.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Litigation Practice

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.223359

Gray v Going Places Leisure Travel Ltd: CA 7 Feb 2005

Appeal against wasted costs order.

Judges:

Neuberger LJ

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 189

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Drew v Whitbread CA 9-Feb-2010
The personal injury claimant sought to raise on taxation, matters not put to the trial judge when making the costs order. The personal injuries case had been allocated to the multi-track. The judge at trial had awarded costs on the standard basis, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Litigation Practice

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.223229

Re U (A Child): CA 24 Feb 2005

The applicant sought a second appeal saying there was fresh evidence.
Held: Applying Taylor -v- Lawrence, a second appeal could only be entertained where it was shown that the earlier judicial process had been critically undermined. It must be shown at least that there was a powerful possibility that an erroneous result had in fact been perpetrated. That test might be met where it was shown that the process was corrupted. It was not met only where it was shown that a wrong result might have been arrived at. Neither situation applied here, and the application was misconceived in principle.
Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss P siad:
Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss P said: ‘ In our judgment it must at least be shown, not merely that the fresh evidence demonstrates a real possibility that an erroneous result was arrived at in the earlier proceedings (first instance or appellate), but that there exists a powerful probability that such a result has in fact been perpetrated. That, in our view, is a necessary but by no means a sufficient condition for a successful application under CPR 52.17(1). It is to be remembered that apart from the requirement of no alternative remedy, ‘[t]he effect of reopening the appeal on others and the extent to which the complaining party is the author of his own misfortune will also be important considerations’ (Taylor v Lawrence, 547). Earlier we stated that the Taylor v Lawrence jurisdiction can only be properly invoked where it is demonstrated that the integrity of the earlier litigation process, whether at trial or at the first appeal, has been critically undermined. That test will generally be met where the process has been corrupted. It may be met where it is shown that a wrong result was earlier arrived at. It will not be met where it is shown only that a wrong result may have been arrived at.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Laws The President Lord Justice Thorp

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 52, [2005] 1 WLR 2398, [2005] 2 FLR 444, [2005] Fam Law 449, [2005] 1 FCR 583, [2005] 3 All ER 550

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Taylor v Lawrence CA 4-Feb-2002
A party sought to re-open a judgment on the Court of Appeal after it had been perfected. A case had been tried before a judge. One party had asked for a different judge to be appointed, after the judge disclosed that he had been a client of the firm . .

Cited by:

Cited – Business Environment Bow Lane Ltd v Deanwater Estates Ltd ChD 31-Jul-2009
The court was asked ‘Where a claimant has picked up one or more costs orders in its favour on the way to a trial, but fails very badly at the trial (for example due to exaggeration), can the costs judge assess those costs at nil on the footing that . .
Cited – Bancoult, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2) SC 29-Jun-2016
Undisclosed Matter inadequate to revisit decision
The claimant sought to have set aside a decision of the House of Lords as to the validity of the 2004 Order, saying that it had been based on a failure by the defendant properly to disclose matters it was under a duty of candour to disclose.
Cited – Bancoult, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2) SC 29-Jun-2016
Undisclosed Matter inadequate to revisit decision
The claimant sought to have set aside a decision of the House of Lords as to the validity of the 2004 Order, saying that it had been based on a failure by the defendant properly to disclose matters it was under a duty of candour to disclose.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Litigation Practice

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.222953

Morgan Est (Scotland) Ltd v Hanson Concrete Products Ltd: CA 17 Feb 2005

The defendant appealed an order adding two new claimants.
Held: Cases decided under the old RSC were not apposite for matters covered by the new Civil Procedure Rules. The court was not bound by the Sardinia Sulcis rules: ‘The Sardinia Sulcis should be allowed to sink back to the ocean bottom. It would muddy the waters.’ If service is dispensed with, no prejudice will have been suffered by the defendant other than that it will not be able to rely upon an unmeritorious limitation defence, and that is no prejudice at all. Jacob LJ spoke of the difference between the 1939 and 1980 Acts: ‘the 1980 Act had the obvious intention of liberalising the position from that under the Limitation Act 1939.’

Judges:

Jacob, Hooper LJJ

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 134, Times 28-Feb-2005, [2005] 1 WLR 2557

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules, Limitation Act 1980, Limitation Act 1939

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

On appeal from – Morgan EST (Scotland) Ltd v Hanson Concrete Products Ltd TCC 22-Jul-2004
. .
Cited – The Sardinia Sulcis CA 1991
The power to change a party after the expiry of a limitation period can be exercised where a party has been wrongly identified, but ‘it was possible to identify the intending claimant or intended defendant by reference to a description which was . .
Cited – Gregson v Channel Four Television Corporation CA 11-Jul-2000
It was possible to amend pleadings outside of the limitation period, where the alteration to identify the correct party was genuine and the mistake had not mislead any party. In this case there was no reasonable doubt about who had been intended to . .

Cited by:

Appealed to – Morgan EST (Scotland) Ltd v Hanson Concrete Products Ltd TCC 22-Jul-2004
. .
Cited – Asia Pacific (Hk) Ltd. and others v Hanjin Shipping Co Ltd (Hanjin Pennsylvania) ComC 7-Nov-2005
Various cargo owners sought damages against the owners of the ship which had suffered an explosion with the loss of the cargo. The defendants asserted limitation. Some claimants had agreed an extension of time. Proceedings were then issued but . .
Cited – Adelson and Another v Associated Newspapers Ltd CA 9-Jul-2007
The claimant sought to add the name of a further claimant. The defendant objected, saying that it was after the expiry of the limitation period.
Held: The claimant was seeking to use the rules for substitution of parties to add a party. In . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Litigation Practice

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.222729

Polanski v Conde Nast Publications Ltd: HL 10 Feb 2005

The claimant wished to pursue his claim for defamation against the defendant, but was reluctant to return to the UK to give evidence, fearing arrest and extradition to the US. He appealed refusal of permission to be interviewed on video tape. Held (Majority): The appeal succeeded, and the judge’s order allowing the evidence to be given was re-instated. As between the parties to the action, the situation would allow the evidence to be given as directed: ‘The power conferred by the rules is intended to be exercised whenever justice so requires. Seeking a VCF order is not seeking an ‘indulgence’.’ Countries with mutual extradition treaties have a joint interest in ensuring that parties cannot flee the jurisdiction of the court, but a fugitive from justice is not, as such, precluded from seeking redress from a court. The court would not be bound to refuse to admit as hearsay written statements submitted in evidence should the claimant not be permitted to appear by video link.

Judges:

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Hope of Craighead, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Carswell

Citations:

Times 11-Feb-2005, [2005] UKHL 10, [2005] 1 WLR 637, [2005] 1 All ER 945, [2005] EMLR 287

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 33.2, Civil Evidence Act 1995 1(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Polanski v Conde Nast Publications Limited CA 11-Nov-2003
The claimant sought damages for defamation. He feared arrest and extradition to the US if he came to England, and was granted an order allowing him to give evidence by video link. The defendant appealed that order.
Held: There was no absolute . .
Cited – Hadkinson v Hadkinson CA 1952
The courts adopt an approach similar to that of the United States courts where there has been a significant contempt on the part of a party to litigation. Denning LJ said: ‘Those cases seem to me to point the way to the modern rule. It is a strong . .
Cited – Motorola Credit Corporation v Uzan and others (No 2) CA 12-Jun-2003
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 . .
Cited – X Ltd v Morgan-Grampian (Publishers) Ltd HL 1990
In a case where a contemnor not only fails wilfully and contumaciously to comply with an order of the court but makes it clear that he will continue to defy the court’s authority if the order should be affirmed on appeal, the court must have a . .
Cited – Arab Monetary Fund v Hashim and Others CA 21-Mar-1997
When a person in contempt of court asks to be heard by the court before his contempt is purged, the preferable approach is to ask: ‘whether, in the circumstances of an individual case, the interests of justice are best served by hearing a party in . .
Cited – Tinsley v Milligan HL 28-Jun-1993
Two women parties used funds generated by a joint business venture to buy a house in which they lived together. It was vested in the sole name of the plaintiff but on the understanding that they were joint beneficial owners. The purpose of the . .
Cited – Re Evans HL 7-Oct-1994
Justices were not to hear evidence on extradition of effect law of requesting country. Countries which are parties to an extradition treaty or the like have a mutual interest in seeing that persons who commit crimes in one country do not escape . .
Cited – Rowland v Bock 2002
Mr Norgren claimed andpound;250,000 due under an agreement with Mr Brock. Mr Norgren had earlier introduced Mr Bock to Mr (Tiny) Rowland, and this dispute formed part of a much larger one. When Mr Norgren’s case came on for trial, he was arrested on . .
Cited – O’Brien v Chief Constable of the South Wales Police CA 23-Jul-2003
The claimant sought damages for malicious prosecution, and sought to adduce similar fact evidence. The defendant appealed an order admitting the evidence.
Held: Comparisons between admission of similar fact evidence in civil and criminal . .
Cited – Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police HL 19-Nov-1981
No collateral attack on Jury findigs.
An attempt was made to open up in a civil action, allegations of assaults by the police prior to the making of confessions which had been disposed of in a voir dire in the course of a criminal trial. The plaintiffs had imprisoned having spent many . .
Cited – Phillips v Symes CA 2003
Courts should be reluctant to exclude altogether evidence merely because it is written. If the purpose of the order sought was to trace assets it would be wrong to permit cross-examination which was designed to show that there had been a contempt of . .
Cited – Spring v Guardian Assurance Plc and Others HL 7-Jul-1994
The plaintiff, who worked in financial services, complained of the terms of the reference given by his former employer. Having spoken of his behaviour towards members of the team, it went on: ‘his former superior has further stated he is a man of . .
Cited – A v The United Kingdom ECHR 17-Dec-2002
The applicant complained that the absence of legal aid to allow a challenge what had been said about her in Parliament by way of defamation, violated her right of access to court.
Held: The right to absolute parliamentary privilege was within . .
Cited – McElhinney v Ireland; Al-Adsani v United Kingdom; Fogarty v United Kingdom ECHR 21-Nov-2001
Grand Chamber – The first applicant said he had been injured by a shot fired by a British soldier who had been carried for two miles into the Republic of Ireland, clinging to the applicant’s vehicle following an incident at a checkpoint.
Held: . .
Cited – Eliazer v The Netherlands ECHR 16-Oct-2001
The Court dismissed an application from a person who had been convicted in absentia on an appeal and refused a hearing by the Netherlands Supreme Court because no appeal lay against proceedings in absentia: ‘The Court recalls that the right to a . .

Cited by:

Appealed to – Polanski v Conde Nast Publications Limited CA 11-Nov-2003
The claimant sought damages for defamation. He feared arrest and extradition to the US if he came to England, and was granted an order allowing him to give evidence by video link. The defendant appealed that order.
Held: There was no absolute . .
Cited – Welsh v Stokes and Another CA 27-Jul-2007
The claimant sued a riding stables after she was badly injured on being thrown from the horse provided. Her claim in negligence failed, but she succeeded under strict liabiilty under the 1971 Act, after the judge relied upon hearsay evidence.
Cited – R, Regina v CACD 4-Apr-2008
The defendant appealed his conviction for rape, saying that the complainant’s evidence had wrongfully been allowed to be given over a remote video link. Provisions to allow such means of giving evidence had been intended to be phased in only as . .
Cited – Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 24-Jul-2008
The defendant published a film showing the claimant involved in sex acts with prostitutes. It characterised them as ‘Nazi’ style. He was the son of a fascist leader, and a chairman of an international sporting body. He denied any nazi element, and . .
Cited – Mardas v New York Times Company and Another QBD 17-Dec-2008
The claimant sought damages in defamation. The US publisher defendants denied that there had been any sufficient publication in the UK and that the court did not have jurisdiction. The claimant appealed the strike out of the claims.
Held: The . .
Cited – Sher and Others v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police and Others Admn 21-Jul-2010
The claimants, Pakistani students in the UK on student visas, had been arrested and held by the defendants under the 2000 Act before being released 13 days later without charge. They were at first held incognito. They said that their arrest and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.222689

Pople v Evans: ChD 1969

The court discussed the doctrine of res judicata: ‘ . . the title relied on to establish such privity must arise after the judgment on which the res judicata is based, or at any rate after the commencement of the proceedings in which that judgment was made’ But he immediately continued ‘and such title as Mrs Pople might have here arose before relevant proceedings were commenced.’

Judges:

Ungoed-Thomas J

Citations:

[1969] 2 Ch 255

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Wiltshire v Powell and others CA 7-May-2004
The claimant sought a declaration as to the ownership of an aircraft. Saying he had bought it in good faith from E H and S, who in turn similarly claimed to have bought it from Ebbs. The defendant had obtained a judgment that he was owner as against . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.198731

Claimants under the Loss Relief Group Litigation Order v Inland Revenue Commissioners: ChD 3 Mar 2004

Various claimants sought to have issues of law on group relief and other issues settled under a group litigation order.
Held: The High Court had no jurisdiction to hear such matters until they had first been raised in ordinary tax appeals before the special or general commissioners. Courts do not decide questions of principle which went as to liability. Such questions were for the commissioners first. The application was refused.

Judges:

Park J

Citations:

Times 10-Mar-2004, Gazette 25-Mar-2004

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Glaxo Group Ltd and Others v Inland Revenue Commissioners ChD 21-Nov-1995
A tax adjustment can be made by the Inland Revenue on an open assessment following transfer pricing enquiry and direction, even after many years. The court considered that the jurisdiction of the special and the general commissioners to determine . .
Cited – Regina v Her Majesty’s Commissioners of Inland Revenue ex parte Bishopp (for and on Behalf of Partners In Price Waterhouse (a Firm)) Admn 27-Apr-1999
A court cannot answer questions in abstract form. An accountancy practice seeking an answer to how it would be taxed if incorporated as a limited partnership off-shore could not rely upon the court to answer a hypothetical question. . .
See Also – NEC Semi-Conductors Limited and Other Test Claimants v The Commissioners of Inland Revenue ChD 24-Nov-2003
UK companies were subsidiaries of companies resident abroad, and complained that they were unable to make group income elections.
Held: The prohibition infringed non-discrimination provisions of double taxation agreements – non-discrimination . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Loss Relief Group, Test Claimants In v Inland Revenue CA 28-May-2004
The taxpayers sought determination by the court of their various claims for group tax relief. The High Court had declined jurisdiction.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The judge’s attitude was one which would perhaps appeal to most lawyers . .
See Also – NEC Semi-Conductors Limited and Other Test Claimants v The Commissioners of Inland Revenue ChD 24-Nov-2003
UK companies were subsidiaries of companies resident abroad, and complained that they were unable to make group income elections.
Held: The prohibition infringed non-discrimination provisions of double taxation agreements – non-discrimination . .
At First Instance – Autologic Holdings Plc and others v Commissioners of Inland Revenue HL 28-Jul-2005
Taxpayer companies challenged the way that the revenue restricted claims for group Corporation Tax relief for subsidiary companies in Europe. The issue was awaiting a decision of the European Court. The Revenue said that the claims now being made by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Taxes Management, Corporation Tax

Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.194525

Cowan and Sons v Duke of Buccleuch: HL 1876

Lord Chancellor Cairns said: ‘In matters of procedure and practice, and still more in matters of discretion, and, above all, where the Judges of the Court below are unanimous as to a matter of procedure and practice, the uniform practice of your Lordships’ House has been not to differ from that opinion unless your Lordships are perfectly satisfied that it is founded upon erroneous principles.’

Judges:

Cairns LC

Citations:

(1876) 4 R (HL) 14

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Ruddy v Chief Constable, Strathclyde Police and Another SC 28-Nov-2012
The pursuer said that he had been assaulted whilst in the custody of the responder’s officers. He began civil actions after his complaint was rejected. He repeated the allegation of the assault, and complained also as to the conduct of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.466929

London and County Securities Ltd v Caplin: ChD 26 May 1978

The court made a Mareva order with ancillary disclosure orders for the purpose of enabling the plaintiffs to trace property acquired by the defendant and so take steps to seize that property if it derived from their assets.

Judges:

Templeman J

Citations:

Unreported, 26 May 1978

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – A v C (Note) ChD 1980
The plaintiffs said the first defendant had defrauded them of substantial sums, and implicated other defendants. They claimed against five defendants variously for conspiracy to defraud and deceit and for breach of warranty. They also sought to . .
Cited – A J Bekhor and Co Ltd v Bilton CA 6-Feb-1981
The plaintiff had applied for disclosure of assets under the Rules of the Supreme Court in support of a Mareva freezing order. The rules were held not to provide any such power: disclosure of assets could not be obtained as part of discovery as the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.416374