Application to amend order drawn up and agreed

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 376

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Roadrunner Properties Ltd v Dean and Another CA 21-Nov-2003
Where an application is made under the 1996 Act, as to the issue of causation of damage, a court can properly take a reasonably robust approach where the damage to the adjoining owner’s property is of the sort one would expect to result from the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.195110

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 202 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.193731

Judges:

Gibson, Latham LJ, Sir Martin Nourse

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 1956

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Shawton Engineering Ltd v Dgp International Ltd (T/A Design Group Partnership) and Another CA 18-Nov-2005
There had been a very substantial construction project, in which certain facets of design were sub-contracted and sub-contracted again to the parties. There were substantial delays and a sub-contractor purported to terminate the contract for failing . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.193674

Failure to provide proper skeleton arguments.

Citations:

[1999] EWHC Ch 237

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.135844

The court considered the circumstances necessary to support an application to set a judgment aside: ‘Unless the court intervenes to relieve the plaintiffs from the position in which they are under their pleading, they will be deprived of the opportunity of putting forward their claim for loss of profit. There is, I think, no doubt that in a proper case and on proper terms the court may, in its discretion, relieve a party, who comes quickly, from the effect of his, or his legal advisers’ mistake; and this applies whether he is plaintiff or defendant.’

Judges:

Wrottesley LJ

Citations:

[1948] 1 KB 618

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Cannan v Reynolds 12-Jun-1855
The Court has jurisdiction to set aside a judgment on the ground of mistake if an application to do so is made within a reasonable time after the judgment has been acted on. ‘the application must be made within a reasonable time after the judgment . .

Cited by:

Cited – Crystal Eye Management (Pty) Limited v Entertainment Guarantees Limited and Broad CA 15-Jan-1997
The plaintiffs underwrote a film. The excesses for which they were liable were insured. The plaintiffs came to claim under the insurance, and Lloyds sought to intervene. The plaintiffs obtained judgement against the defendants by default. It later . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 09 June 2022; Ref: scu.193407

The claimant had been refused leave to join a group action, his claim having been brought out of time. He now sought to bring a separate action on his own account. He appealed an order striking out his claim as an abuse of process.
Held: The strike out was wrong, but the court could look to its case management powers to ensure efficiency. The judge had failed to recognise the difference between the claimant who had not been allowed to join the group action, and those who had joined but whose claims were then struck out for failiure to comply with directions.

Judges:

Lord Woolf, LCJ, Tuckey, Wall LJJ

Citations:

Times 28-Jan-2004, [2004] EWCA Civ 51

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 09 June 2022; Ref: scu.193419

Appeal against order to strike out proceedings as an abuse of the process of the court.

Citations:

[2019] EWCA Civ 505

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 09 June 2022; Ref: scu.635240

Judges:

Foskett J

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 2829 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 09 June 2022; Ref: scu.628221

Appeal against striking out of application to set aside General Civil Restraint Order

Judges:

Lord Justice Patten

Citations:

[2014] EWCA Civ 869

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 09 June 2022; Ref: scu.526991

Application by overseas non-party for removal of asset from scope of world wide freezing order

Judges:

Moore-Bick, Elias, Christopher Clarke LJJ

Citations:

[2014] EWCA Civ 602, [2015] 1 WLR 1287,, [2014] WLR(D) 221

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 09 June 2022; Ref: scu.525630

Application by HM Attorney General, pursuant to section 42 of the Supreme Court Act 1981, for a civil proceedings order against Mr Alexander. The basis of the claim is that Mr Alexander has habitually and persistently and any without reasonable ground instituted vexatious civil proceedings, and made vexatious applications within civil proceedings, whether instituted by himself or others.

Judges:

Maurice Kay, MacKay JJ

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 3076 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Supreme Court Act 1981 42

Litigation Practice

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.191211

Citations:

[1837] EngR 897, (1837) 2 My and Cr 452, (1837) 40 ER 712

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.314014

Citations:

[1837] EngR 894, (1837) 7 Sim 521, (1837) 58 ER 937 (A)

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.314011

The judge allowed the defendant’s submission of no case to answer without putting them to their election and again the claimant’s appeal succeeded. The trial judge had been persuaded that the rule in Alexander -v- Rayson had been altered by the Civil Procedure Rules ‘and that as a general rule a judge was not required to put defence counsel to his election, although there might be exceptional circumstances in which he would do so’.
Held: The Civil Procedure rules did not change the rule: ‘Since the judge determined the point there has been a decision of this court on the point. It is called Boyce -v- Wyatt Engineering and Others . In paragraphs 4 to 6 of the judgment, Mance LJ (with which the other members of the court agreed) said that, on the contrary, the general rule was as stated in Alexander -v- Rayson. There were good reasons for that rule and it should be, as a general rule, adopted unless there are circumstances which indicate the contrary. It is unnecessary to refer to what Mance LJ said in any more detail, it can be read by those who wish to do so. I have no doubt that if the judge had had the benefit of that authority, rather than the authority to which he was referred, he would have come to the conclusion that he should put the defendants’ counsel to his election. What he would have elected to do we do not know. But it seems to me that there is really nothing in this point bearing on the appeal because the judge made his decision. If he was right on the question of causation, then the appeal fails: if he was wrong on that point, then the appeal succeeds and there will have to be a new trial or continuation of this trial by Judge Cooke.’

Judges:

Sir Murray Stuart-Smith, Aldous, Chadwicj LJJ

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 1529

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Alexander v Rayson CA 1936
The action was for arrears of rent. The evidence at trial was that the plaintiff granted a lease to the defendant at a rent of andpound;1200 and contracted that certain services in connection with the flat would be performed. The plaintiff sent the . .
Cited – Boyce v Wyatt Engineering and Others CA 1-May-2001
The discretion of a judge to deal with a case at the close of the claimant’s case, and without putting the defendants to their respective election was only to be exercised with the greatest caution. There was a risk that, if the claimant appealed . .

Cited by:

Cited – Benham Limited v Kythira Investments Ltd and Another CA 15-Dec-2003
The appellant complained that the judge had accepted a case of no case to answer before the close of the claimant’s case and without putting them to their election. The claimant estate agents sought payment of their account. The defendants alleged a . .
Cited – Neina Graham v Chorley Borough Council CA 21-Feb-2006
The defendant had submitted after the close of the claimant’s case that it had no case to answer. The judge did not put the defendant to its election as to whether to call evidence, but instead decided to accede to the submission. The claimant now . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.188852

The judge below acceded to a submission of no case to answer without putting the defendant to his election.
Held: ‘At the time of this trial it was, it seems, common ground between counsel for both parties and the judge that under the CPR there was no need for a party making a submission of no case to answer to be put to his election. This has now been clarified by this Court in Boyce -v- Wyatt Engineering and Others [2001] EWCA 692 per Mance LJ, so that certain limits are set on that proposition. But it is clear that on the basis of the learned judge’s judgment he concluded that in this case, in the light of the evidence given by the claimant, nothing in the defendants’ evidence could affect the view he had taken (see per Mance LJ at para 5 and the learned judge’s judgment at p.15D-F). In any event, the question of further evidence from the defendants never arose because the learned judge found that there was no case to answer. We have to decide whether that conclusion was right.’

Judges:

Burton J

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 1724, [2001] EWCA Civ 692

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Mullen v Birmingham City Council QBD 29-Jul-1999
Under the new rules, judges were required to take greater control over court proceedings, and accordingly had the power to entertaining a submission of no case to answer at the close of the claimant’s case and without first requiring the defendant . .

Cited by:

Cited – Miller (T/A Waterloo Plant) v Cawley CA 30-Jul-2002
At the end of the claimant’s case the defendant wished to submit that there was no case for her to answer. The judge then put the defendant to an election as to whether or not she would call any evidence. She appealed.
Held: It is not . .
Cited – Benham Limited v Kythira Investments Ltd and Another CA 15-Dec-2003
The appellant complained that the judge had accepted a case of no case to answer before the close of the claimant’s case and without putting them to their election. The claimant estate agents sought payment of their account. The defendants alleged a . .
Cited – Neina Graham v Chorley Borough Council CA 21-Feb-2006
The defendant had submitted after the close of the claimant’s case that it had no case to answer. The judge did not put the defendant to its election as to whether to call evidence, but instead decided to accede to the submission. The claimant now . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.188853

Appeal against case management directions.

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 1964

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See also – T and N Limited, Associated Companies of T and N Ltd (In Administration) v Royal and Sun Alliance Plc, and others ChD 9-May-2003
T and N had exposure to asbestosis claims; these claims were insured by Lloyd’s but on terms that if payments were to be made, T and N should make certain reimbursements to Lloyd’s. T and N then insured with a captive company known as Curzon their . .

Cited by:

See also – T and N Limited, Associated Companies of T and N Ltd (In Administration) v Royal and Sun Alliance Plc, and others ChD 9-May-2003
T and N had exposure to asbestosis claims; these claims were insured by Lloyd’s but on terms that if payments were to be made, T and N should make certain reimbursements to Lloyd’s. T and N then insured with a captive company known as Curzon their . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.189023

The parties had gone into business together. After a breakdown, they had now spent very considerable sums in litigation. At the trial, the judge allowed an amendment of the claim after the close of evidence. He considered that it related to matters dealt with in great detail already, and gave judgment.
Held: The judge had not made his decision and therefore a Barrell test was not necessary. Nevertheless, he should have allowed the defendant to address with the pleadings as amended. The judgment must be set aside.

Judges:

Lord Justice Brooke Mr Justice Holman Lord Justice Kennedy

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 1161, Gazette 16-Oct-2003

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – In re Barrell Enterprises CA 1972
A judge has power to reconsider a judgement which he has delivered before the order consequent upon it has been sealed, but the judge should only exercise this power if there are strong reasons for doing so. When oral judgments have been given the . .
Cited – Stewart v Engel, BDO Stoy Hayward CA 17-May-2000
A judge may reopen a case even after he has delivered his final judgment. A judge invited counsel to amend his pleading to incorporate an improvement, but in the face of his repeated failure to take up the invitation, entered final judgment against . .
Cited – Cobbold v London Borough of Greenwich CA 9-Aug-1999
The tenant had sought an order against the council landlord for failure to repair her dwelling. The defendant appealed refusal of leave to amend the pleadings in anticipation of the trial, now due to start on the following day.
Held: Leave was . .

Cited by:

Cited – Iggleden v Fairview New Homes (Shooters Hill) Ltd TCC 1-Jun-2007
The claimants bought a newly built home from the defendants. Defects were alleged and admitted, but the defendants said the claimants had failed to mitigate their losses or accept offers to have work done. The claimants now sought leave to add . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.184916

Enforcement here of judgments obtained in Malaya

Judges:

Pepperall J

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 2970 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.628225

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 2528 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.625519

Citations:

[1837] EngR 901, (1837) 2 Y and C Ex 584, (1837) 160 ER 529 (A)

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.314018

The defendant sought to set aside judgment entered in his absence.
Held: The right of a defendant to have set aside a judgment where he had not known of the proceedings did not necessarily apply where, as here, he had attended one hearing, but did not attend a later hearing because he had not been notified of it.
It was necessary to clear up the issues undecided in White v Weston. Once a defendant knew of proceedings, the court had attained a jurisdiction over him, and the CPR applied. The CPR largely reproduced former practice. The new part of the rule gave the absent party opportunity to establish that he had a reasonable prospect of success, and a right of appeal, and balanced the interests of the opponent. The new rule was appropriate and had been applied correctly.

Judges:

Lord Justice Brooke Lord Justice Kennedy Mr Justice Holman

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 1037, Gazette 18-Sep-2003, [2003] 1 WLR 2602

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 39.3(5)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – White v Weston CA 1968
A county court summons was purportedly served on the defendant at a previous address and he did not receive it.
Held: The court treated the case as one in which the defendant had not been duly served with process. Judgment was given against . .

Cited by:

Cited – Southern and District Finance Plc v Turner CA 7-Nov-2003
The defendant sought to assert that the agreement under which possession of her house was sought was an extortionate credit bargain. She had to obtain leave to appeal out of time.
Held: The rules required an application to be supported by . .
Cited – Nelson and Another v Clearsprings (Management) Ltd CA 22-Sep-2006
The defendant did not appear at the trial and now appealed the judgment. The claim form and court papers had been served by post at the wrong address. The question was whether a defendant wanting to set aside a judgment was required to persuade the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.184768

Where the correctness of a finding of primary fact or of inference is in issue (on appeal), it cannot be a matter of simple discretion how an appellate court approaches the matter. Once the appellant has shown a real prospect (justifying permission to appeal) that a finding or inference is wrong, the role of an appellate court is to determine whether or not this is so, giving full weight of course to the advantages enjoyed by any judge of first instance who has heard oral evidence. The appellate court should not interfere with a judge’s findings of primary fact where they are based on oral evidence unless it is satisfied that the judge was plainly wrong.
Mance LJ said: ‘Once the appellant has shown a real prospect (justifying permission to appeal) that a finding or inference is wrong, the role of an appellate court is to determine whether or not this is so, giving full weight of course to the advantages enjoyed by any judge of first instance who has heard oral evidence. In the present case, therefore, I consider that (a) it is for us if necessary to make up our own mind about the correctness or otherwise of any findings of primary fact or inferences from primary fact that the judge made or drew and the claimants challenge, while (b) reminding ourselves that, so far as the appeal raises issues of judgment on unchallenged primary findings and inferences, this court ought not to interfere unless it is satisfied that the judge’s conclusion lay outside the bounds within which reasonable disagreement is possible. In relation to (a) we must, as stated, bear in mind the important and well-recognised reluctance of this court to interfere with a trial judge on any finding of primary fact based on the credibility or reliability of oral evidence.’

Judges:

Mance LJ, Thorpe LJ, Neuberger J

Citations:

[2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 293, [2002] EWCA Civ 509, [2002] 2 All ER (Comm) 97

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Fishing Vessel (Safety Provisions) Rules 1975 (SI 1975 No. 330) 16

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – X (Minors) v Bedfordshire County Council; M (A Minor) and Another v Newham London Borough Council; Etc HL 29-Jun-1995
Liability in Damages on Statute Breach to be Clear
Damages were to be awarded against a Local Authority for breach of statutory duty in a care case only if the statute was clear that damages were capable of being awarded. in the ordinary case a breach of statutory duty does not, by itself, give rise . .

Cited by:

Cited – Merer v Fisher and Another CA 13-May-2003
A right of pre-emption had misdescribed the property when it was registered. The land was transferred without regard to the right of pre-emption. It was found as a fact that no money passed for the transfer, and the claimants said the unregistered . .
Cited – Rowland v The Environment Agency CA 19-Dec-2003
The claimant owned a house by the river Thames at Hedsor Water. Public rights of navigation existed over the Thames from time immemorial, and its management lay with the respondent. Landowners at Hedsor had sought to assert that that stretch was now . .
Cited – Agulian and Another v Cyganik CA 24-Feb-2006
The question was whether the deceased had lost his domicile of birth and acquired one of choice when living and working in the UK for 43 years. He had retained land in Cyprus, but lived here.
Held: He had retained his domicile of birth: . .
Cited – London Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm and Disability Rights Commission CA 25-Jul-2007
The court was asked, whether asked to grant possession against a disabled tenant where the grounds for possession were mandatory. The defendant was a secure tenant with a history of psychiatric disability. He had set out to buy his flat, but the . .
Cited – Morrison Sports Ltd and Others v Scottish Power SC 28-Jul-2010
A fire caused substantial damage to buildings. It arose from a ‘shim’ placed in a fuse box which then overheated. The parties disputed whose employee had inserted the shim. The Act under which the Regulations had been made was repealed and replaced . .
Cited – Fortune and Others v Wiltshire Council and Another CA 20-Mar-2012
The court considered the contnuation of public rights of way against the new system of the ending of certain unrecorded rights.
Held: he appeal failed. ‘As a matter of plain language, section 67(2)(b) does not, in our judgment, require the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.183368

The claimant sought damages from the police for the manner of her arrest. At the civil trial, the jury had been undecided, and the court directed the jury as to resolution. The respondents appealed saying that the judge had put too much pressure on the jury.
Held: The learned judge should have given a Watson direction and he did not do so. The suggestion of retiring again came from the jury itself, and without pressure from the judge. The decision stood.

Judges:

The Master Of The Rolls (Lord Phillips) Lord Justice Brooke Lord Justice Laws

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 271

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Juries Act 1974 17(4)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Watson CACD 1988
The court indicated how a jury might be directed in the event of an apparent deadlock, given two public interests which tend to pull in opposite directions: (i) the imperative that a jury should be put under no pressure; and (ii) the desirability of . .
Cited – Regina v Buono CACD 1992
. .
Cited – Regina v Morgan CACD 26-Mar-1997
A failure to five a jury warning in the precise form suggested in Watson need not make the trial unfair. . .
Cited – Regina v Tarlock Singh (Deceased) CACD 4-Jun-1998
A departure from a Watson direction will not necessarily make a jury verdict unsafe. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.181135

Statements had been obtained from a witness by the claimants, but not included amongst the evidence. At a point during the trial, a defendant asked for and was given leave to include the evidence. He now appealed leave given to the claimant to cross examine the witness having taken the statement themselves.
Held: One purpose of the new rules was to remove excess technicality. The judge could be relied upon to ensure that any further difficulties which migt arise as a result of allowing cross examination, could be dealt with.

Judges:

The Lord Woolf Of Barnes, Lord Justice Kennedy And Lord Justice Scott Baker

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 332

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 32

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.181142

In a claim aganst the police, it had become apparent that some parts of the trial would require the examination of detailed documents. The defendant appealed a refusal of its request for the matter to be heard without a jury.
Held: The Act and the Rules explicitly acknowledged the possibility of splitting a trial between jury and non-jury elements, but the judge had erred in his assessment by failing to recognise the different context of a civil as opposed to a criminal trial. In many cases, once it became clear that some issue would require judge alone trial, the rest of the trial should follow, for example issues of credibility of the same witness fell within both sections. A court should ask, would there be a prolonged examination of documents, could that be made by a jury, and if not should the court nevertheless use its discretion to order jury trial. The court should have ordered trial by judge alone.

Judges:

Phillips MR, Rix LJ, Scott Baker LJ

Citations:

Times 02-Apr-2003, [2003] EWCA Civ 382, Gazette 29-May-2003

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Supreme Court Act 1981 69, Civil Procedure Rules

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.180128

The claimant appealed against an order refusing an extension of time for service of her particulars of claim. She had made the application before the period expired.
Held: The rules made a clear distinction between applications made before time expired and those made afterwards. For the latter the rules laid down a checklist. It was not appropriate to look to the same list when considering timeous applications, because a difference in principle applied. The court should look at the prejudice to the defendant which arose from the particular delay contemplated, and not at any pre-existing prejudice. An in-time application for an extension of time (in this case for service of the particulars of claim) was not, and should not be treated as, an application for relief from sanctions.
Dyson LJ (with whom all members of the court agreed) held that when the application to the court for an extension of time was made before the expiry of the time there was no reason to import the Part 3.9(1) checklist, but that the discretion of the court: ”It is clear that Brooke LJ treated Sayers as a relief from sanctions case, or at least closely analogous to such a case. That is because the time for appealing had already expired when the application for an extension of time was made. I see no reason to import the rule 3.9(1) check lists by implication into rule 3.1(2)(a) where an application for an extension of time is made before the expiry of the relevant time limit. There is a difference in principle between on the one hand seeking relief from a sanction imposed for failure to comply with a rule, practice direction or court order, where such failure has already occurred, and on the other hand seeking an extension of time for doing something required by a rule, practice direction or court order before the time for doing it has arrived. The latter cannot sensibly be regarded as, or even closely analogous to, a relief from sanctions case. If the draftsman of the rule had intended that the check list set out in rule 3.9(1) should be applied when the court is exercising its discretion under CPR 3.1(2)(a) in such a case, then he could and, in my judgment, would have said so. By not spelling out a check list in rule 3.1(2)(a), it seems to me that the draftsman was intending that the discretion should be exercised by simply having regard to the overriding objective of enabling the court to deal with cases justly including, so far as practicable, the matters set out in rule 1.1(2).’

Judges:

Sir Andrew Morritt VC, Hale, Dyson

Citations:

Times 13-Feb-2003, Gazette 10-Apr-2003, [2003] EWCA Civ 299, [2003] 1 WLR 1577

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 3.1(2)(a) 3.9(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Totty v Snowden; Hewitt v Wirral and West Cheshire Community NHS Trust CA 31-Jul-2001
Where a party had served a claim form, but then failed to serve the particulars of claim within the appropriate time limit, the court had full discretion to allow an extension of time for service. It had been argued that the same rules applied both . .

Cited by:

Cited – Caterpillar Logistics Services (UK) Ltd v Huesca De Crean QBD 2-Dec-2011
The claimant sought an order to prevent the defendant, a former employee, from misusing its confidential information said to be held by her. Her contract contained no post employment restrictions but did seek to control confidential and other . .
Cited – Kaneria v Kaneria and Others ChD 15-Apr-2014
The parties were embroiled in a company dispute with allegations of conduct prejudicial to minority shareholders. An application was now made for sanctions for a failure to comply with court directions.
Held: Unless and until a higher Court . .
Cited – Hallam Estates Ltd and Another v Baker CA 19-May-2014
‘The paying parties appeal against a decision of the High Court reversing a decision of the costs judge, whereby he declined to set aside his earlier order granting an extension of time for serving the points of dispute. The principal issues in this . .
Cited – Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd and Others QBD 29-Jun-2015
Orders allowing extension of time for service of the Particulars of Claim. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.179122

The claimants sought an order striking out the defendants’ defence on the grounds that, by destroying documents, the possibility of a fair trial had been prejudiced.
Held: Refusing the order, save as to certain paragraphs of the defence, the court must distinguish between documents destroyed before action was commenced, and the destruction of documents after an action had been commenced in order to prejudice a trial. There was nothing here to suggest the latter, and no contempt of court had been established. To establish a contempt, the issues were whether the court rules had been transgressed, and whether a fair trial remained achievable. THe correct test is whether the destruction of documents amounted to an attempt to pervert the course of justice.

Judges:

Sir Andrew Morritt V-C

Citations:

Times 31-Jan-2003, [2003] EWHC 55 (Ch), Gazette 20-Mar-2003, [2003] 1 All ER 1087, [2003] EMLR 29

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Arrow Nominees Inc and Another v Blackledge and Others CA 22-Jun-2000
A petition had been lodged alleging unfair prejudice in the conduct of the company’s affairs. The defendants alleged that when applying for relief under section 459, the claimants had attempted to pervert the course of justice by producing forged or . .
See Also – Douglas, Zeta Jones, Northern and Shell Plc v Hello! Limited (No 1) CA 21-Dec-2000
The first two claimants sold exclusive rights to photograph their wedding to the third claimant. A paparrazzi infiltrated the wedding and then sold his unauthorised photographs to the defendants, who now appealed injunctions restraining them from . .
Cited – Cordoba Shipping Co Ltd v National State Bank, Elizabeth, New Jersey (The Albaforth) CA 1984
A negligent misrepresentation was made in a telex sent from the United States but received and acted upon in England. The judge had set aside leave to serve the document out of the jurisdiction.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The transmission was . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Douglas, Zeta-Jones, Northern and Shell Plc v Hello! Limited, Hola SA, Junco, The Marquesa De Varela, Neneta Overseas Limited, Ramey CA 12-Feb-2003
The claimants claimed infringement of the privacy of their wedding celebrations. They requested permission for service out of the jurisdiction to join Mr Ramey as defendant, saying he had been the one who had taken some of the photographs in New . .
Cited – Douglas and others v Hello! Ltd and others (No 3) CA 18-May-2005
The principal claimants sold the rights to take photographs of their wedding to a co-claimant magazine (OK). Persons acting on behalf of the defendants took unauthorised photographs which the defendants published. The claimants had retained joint . .
Cited – KJO v XIM QBD 7-Jul-2011
The claimant had, some 20 years previously, been convicted and sentenced for forgery of a will. The defendants, relatives, had ever since written to those with whom he had dealings to tell them of the conviction and facts. The claimant, unable to . .
Cited – Bilta (Uk) Ltd v Nazir and Others ChD 24-Nov-2010
The company had been wound up by the Revenue on the basis that it had been used for a substantial VAT fraud. The liquidators now sued those said to have participated. A defendant denied the jurisdiction because of a disputed arbitration agreement. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Contempt of Court

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.178794

Where a party has deliberately stayed away such a party cannot, in the absence of special reasons to justify his absence, expect to be allowed a rehearing even if he has an arguable defence.

Citations:

Times 04-Jan-1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.220688

Brief ruling as to dismissal of claim for want of jurisdiction. The Court had insufficient information to make that decision.

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 1071

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.175192

The applicants were local authority secure tenants. Possession orders had been made, but they sought delay in the order after they had already surrendered possession.
Held: Parliament had given wide discretion to the courts to find a balance between the need for local authorities to recover possession where their tenants were in breach, and the needs of tenants. The discretion did not however extend once possession had been recovered, and the appeal against postponement succeeded.
A secure tenant subject to a possession order but left in possession has a right to revive his tenancy by obtaining an order either for postponement of the date set by the order for possession or even for the discharge or rescission of the order itself pursuant to section 85(2)(b) or (4) of the Act. This right is lost not only when the order for possession is executed against the tolerated trespasser (as provided by section 85(2)) but also when execution is no longer required to give effect to the order.
Chadwick LJ said: ‘It cannot be right to attribute to Parliament an intention that the extended discretionary powers conferred by section 85(2) of the Act should continue to be exercisable once the former tenant had given up possession. The extended discretionary powers were conferred so that the court could maintain the former tenant in possession; once possession had been given up, there was no need for those extended powers.’
Hale LJ suggested that the words ‘execution of the order’ in section 85(2) were themselves apt to cover the voluntary giving up of possession on the part of the tolerated trespasser so that the subsection needed no such wider, purposive interpretation.

Judges:

Lord Justice Waller, Lord Justice Chadwick and Lady Justice Hale

Citations:

Times 05-Sep-2002, Gazette 12-Sep-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 1137, [2003] 15 HLR 154

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 79(1) 85(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Lee v Leeds City Council; Ratcliffe and Others v Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council CA 21-Jan-2002
The claimants were tenants who sought damages from their local authority landlords, for failing to remedy defects such as mould, mildew, and condensation in the dwellings let to them. The defects were a result of the design of the building. They . .

Cited by:

Cited – Jones v London Borough of Merton CA 16-Jun-2008
The court was asked ‘If a former secure tenant of a dwelling-house who has become a ‘tolerated trespasser’ in it decides to cease to occupy it, does his liability to pay mesne profits to his former landlord in respect of the dwelling-house cease . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Litigation Practice

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.174787