Category: Litigation Practice

Hanlon v The Law Society: HL 1981

The House considered the impact of the statutory charge under the 1974 Act in matrimonial proceedings.
Held: The costs in respect of which the statutory charge bit were the costs of the whole divorce proceedings and not just the financial relief aspect. For property to have been ‘recovered or transferred’ for this purpose, its ownership or transfer had to have actually been in issue in the proceedings.
The House gave guidance on the interpretation of Legal Aid Statutes: ‘The subsection, being an adaption for the benefit of the legal aid fund of Victorian legislation enacted for the benefit of solicitors, inevitably presents problems of interpretation. Two fall to be considered in this appeal. The first is to identify the proceedings to which the subsection applies. The second is to determine the meaning of the words ‘recovered or preserved” Lord Simon said: ‘property has been recovered or preserved if it has been in issue in the proceedings – recovered by the claimant if it has been the subject of a successful claim, preserved to the respondent if the claim fails. In either case it is a question of fact, not of theoretical ‘risk.’ In property adjustment proceedings, in my view, it is only property the ownership or transfer of which has been in issue which has been ‘recovered or preserved’ so as to be the subject of a legal aid charge. What has been in issue is to be collected as a matter of fact from pleadings, evidence, judgment and/or order. I can see no reason for extending the words to items of property the ownership or possession of which has never been questioned.’ As to the use of punctuation, Lord Lowry: ‘To ignore punctuation disregards the reality that literate people, such as parliamentary draftsmen, do punctuate what they write.’
Lord Lowry set out the circumstances in which a regulation made under a statutory power was admissible for the purpose of construing the statute under which it was made. Judges may look at the punctuation in order to interpret the meaning of legislation accepted by Parliament.
Lord Scarman said that in most cases a reference to the legal aid certificate would determine the extent of the charge. In two cases where this would not be appropriate – the inclusion in the certificate of proceedings which ought not to have been included such as proceedings for which legal aid was not available and the inclusion in one certificate of two sets of proceedings for which separate certificates should have been issued.

Judges:

Lord Scarman, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, Lord Lowry

Citations:

[1981] AC 124, [1980] 2 WLR 756, [1980] 2 All ER 199

Statutes:

Legal Aid Act 1974

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Morgan and Others v Legal Aid Board ChD 24-Apr-2000
The Legal Aid Board is entitled to a charge over property which is ‘recovered or preserved’ in proceedings in which the party is legally aided. Nevertheless, the charge could not be applied to property merely because it had been included within . .
Cited – Earl Cadogan, Cadogan Estates Limited v Search Guarantees Plc CA 27-Jul-2004
The tenant of a house had subdivided it and let off the flats. He sought to acquire the freehold.
Held: Where none of the subtenants themselves had qualifying leases, the head tenant could be in sufficient occupation to be able to buy the . .
Cited – A, Regina (on The Application of) v B; Regina (A) v Director of Establishments of the Security Service SC 9-Dec-2009
B, a former senior member of the security services wished to publish his memoirs. He was under contractual and statutory obligations of confidentiality. He sought judicial review of a decision not to allow him to publish parts of the book, saying it . .
Cited – MS (Palestinian Territories) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 16-Jun-2010
The claimant faced removal and return to Palestine, but he said that he would not be accepted if returned. He had no ID card, birth certificate or living parents. He appealed against the decision of the IAT and now again from the Court of Appeal . .
Cited – Revenue and Customs v Forde and McHugh Ltd SC 26-Feb-2014
The Court heard a number of appeals concerned with the interpretation of the phrase in section 6(1) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, ‘[w]here in any tax week earnings are paid to or for the benefit of an earner’ It was . .
Cited – The Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime v Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co (Europe) Ltd and Others SC 20-Apr-2016
The Court considered the quantification of damages to be awarded to a business suffering under riots under the 1886 Act, and in particular whether such recoverable losses included compensation for consequential losses, including loss of profits and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Aid, Litigation Practice

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.183331

Polock v Garle: 1898

Lord Lindley MR said: ‘The Bankers’ Books Evidence Acts were passed for the obvious purpose of getting over a difficulty and hardship as to the production of bankers’ books. If such books contained anything which would be evidence for either of the parties, the banker or his clerk had to produce them at the trial under a subpoena duces tecum, which was an intolerable inconvenience to bankers when the books were in daily use. The leading object of the Acts was to protect bankers from that inconvenience. This is accompanied by the first six sections of the Act of 1879, which enable bankers to send attested copies of entries in their books instead of producing the books.’ but ‘ . . when an account is the account of a person who has nothing to do with the litigation, the Court ought to look to the effect in practice of such an order on the rights of third parties, and to take care that this section is not made a means of oppression.’

Judges:

Lord Lindley MR

Citations:

[1898] 1 Ch 1

Statutes:

Bankers’ Books Evidence Act 1879 7

Cited by:

Considered – Douglas and others v The Right Honourable Sir Lynden Oscar Pindling PC 13-May-1996
(Bahamas) A commission investigating the activities of a company, sought disclosure of its bankers records. The committee held that this was not a constitutional issue, and that leave to appeal as of right did not exist, but special leave was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Banking, Litigation Practice

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.183479

Attorney-General v Times Newspapers Ltd: HL 1991

Injunctions had been granted to preserve the status quo in proceedings brought to prevent the publication of the book ‘Spycatcher’. The defendants published extracts, and now appealed a finding that they had acted in contempt.
Held: The contempt was established. The publication had the effect of prejudicing the purpose of the trial. The actus reus of interfering with the administration of justice had been complete, and the necessary elements of contempt were established. It was an independent contempt of court to do an act which deliberately interferes with the course of justice by frustrating the purpose for which the order was made.
Lord Oliver of Aylmerton said: ‘Once the conclusion is reached that the fact that the alleged contemnor is not party to or personally bound by the court’s order then, given the intention on his part to interfere with or obstruct the course of justice, the sole remaining question is whether what he has done has that effect in the particular circumstances of the case.’

Judges:

Lord Oliver of Aylmerton

Citations:

[1992] 1 AC 191, [1991] CLY 2809, [1991] 2 WLR 994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Attorney-General v Leveller Magazine Ltd HL 1-Feb-1979
The appellants were magazines and journalists who published, after committal proceedings, the name of a witness, a member of the security services, who had been referred to as Colonel B during the hearing. An order had been made for his name not to . .

Cited by:

Cited – Bloomsbury Publishing Group Ltd and J K Rowling v News Group Newspapers Ltd and others ChD 23-May-2003
The publishers had gone to great lengths to keep advance copies of a forthcoming book in the Harry Potter series secret. They became aware that some had been stolen from the printers and sought injunctions against the defendants and another unnamed . .
Cited – HM Customs and Excise v Barclays Bank Plc HL 21-Jun-2006
The claimant had served an asset freezing order on the bank in respect of one of its customers. The bank paid out on a cheque inadvertently as to the order. The Commissioners claimed against the bank in negligence. The bank denied any duty of care. . .
Cited – Jockey Club v Buffham QBD 13-Sep-2002
A court had issued a final order with an injunction against the respondent against revealing matters becoming known to him during his employment by the claimant. The BBC sought a variation to allow it to broadcast material based upon that documents . .
Cited – Steen v Her Majesty’s Attorney General; Attorney-General v Punch Ltd and Another CA 23-Mar-2001
The appellant appealed against a finding of contempt of court at common law as regards a report in Punch published when he had been its editor.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The A-G had failed to establish the mens rea of contempt in the . .
Cited – Jones, Re (Alleged Contempt of Court) FD 21-Aug-2013
The Solicitor General sought the committal of the respondent for alleged contempt of court. There had been repeated litigation between the respondent and her former husband as to whether the children should live in Spain with the father or in Wales . .
Cited – Regina v O’Brien SC 2-Apr-2014
The court considered how to apply the rule that an extradition may only be for trial on matters committed before the extradition if they have been the basis of the request to a defendant’s commission of contempt of court after conviction. After . .
Cited – HM Attorney General v Davey Admn 29-Jul-2013
The Attorney general sought the committal of the defendants for contempt of court alleging their misbehaviour as jurors. One had posted to a facebook account about the trial and lied about it to the judge. The second, in a different trial, had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contempt of Court, Media, Litigation Practice

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.183378

In re Mahmoud and Ispahami: 1921

A failure to plead an allegation in a later appeal where the facts at issue had been covered in the trial need not be fatal to that ground being added.

Citations:

[1921] 2 KB 716

Cited by:

Cited – David MacDonald v Geoffrey Myerson, John Callaghan, Derek A H Law CA 26-Jan-2001
The claimant had been involved in mortgage frauds, using the defendant firm of solicitors. He claimed an account following sales of the properties. At the time of the sales, the first defendant knew of the false identities used. The defendants . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.182955

Doorga v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 1990

The court contemplated the possibility of an appeal by an applicant whose leave granted ex parte had been subsequently discharged.

Judges:

Lord Donaldson MR

Citations:

[1990] Imm AR 98

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Kemper Reinsurance Company v The Minister of Finance and others PC 5-May-1998
(Bermuda) An appeal Court did have jurisdiction to hear an appeal against the discharge of leave to apply for certiorari order, since this was outside scope of the rule in Lane v Esdaille.
Lord Hoffmann said: ‘Nevertheless, the limited nature . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Litigation Practice

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.182914

Massey v Haynes: 1881

Where one party to a case resides out of the jurisdiction, then Order 11 r1(1) applies and he may be joined if there are several defendants and the result would depend upon one investigation involving all of them. The words ‘proper party’ includes any person who may be joined in proceedings in accordance with the rules as to joinder of parties.

Citations:

[1881] 21 QBD 330

Cited by:

Cited – Owusu v Jackson, Mammee Bay Resorts Limited etc CA 19-Jun-2002
Defendants appealed against an order refusing an order to restrain service of the proceedings on certain defendants outwith the jurisdiction. The claimant was seriously injured holidaying at a resort managed by the several defendants in Jamaica in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.182807

Practice Direction (Duties and Functions of the Official Solicitor): 1991

Citations:

[1991] FLR 471

Cited by:

Cited – In Re M (A Minor) (Official Solicitor: Role) CA 8-Jul-1998
A judge had no power to extend or restrict powers and duties of the official solicitor and or local authorities exercising statutory functions. The Official Solicitor did not act as an agent of the court. A judge ordering the appointment of a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Litigation Practice

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.182854

Black and Decker Inc v Flymo: 1991

Legal professional privilege is a right to resist the compulsory disclosure of information. ‘It is not possible to assert a right to refuse to disclose in respect of a document which has already been disclosed. Once the document has passed into the hands of the other party the question is no longer one of privilege but of admissibility.’

Judges:

Hoffmann J

Citations:

[1991] 1 WLR 753

Cited by:

Cited – B and Others Russell McVeagh McKenzie Bartleet and Co v Auckland District Law Society, Gary J Judd PC 19-May-2003
(New Zealand) Solicitors resisted requests to disclose papers in breach of legal professional privilege from their professional body investigating allegations of professional misconduct against them.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Legal Professions

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.182249

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 is acted on; and the only point on which I have had some doubt in the present case is, whether the lapse of time has not been so considerable that it ought in our discretion to be in itself a bar to this application’ and ‘lapse of time becomes after a season a bar, as soon as the Court in its discretion sees that it has been such as must work prejudice.’ and ‘I think that, in the exercise of this discretion, time is of great importance.’

Judges:

Crompton J, Lord Campbell CJ

Citations:

(1855) 5 El and Bl 301, [1855] EngR 585, (1855) 119 ER 493

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

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 . .
Cited – S Kaprow and Co Ltd v Maclelland and Co Ltd CA 1948
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.182091

Bastick v James Lane (Turf Accountants) Ltd: 1979

The court considered an appeal against a refusal of an adjournment of proceedings before the industrial tribunal when criminal proceedings on the same issues were pending.
Held: The court refused to interfere with the exercise of his dicretion by the industrial tribunal chairman. Crane J said: ‘Now we think that when we, in this appellate tribunal, approach a consideration of the validity of a decision by an industrial tribunal, or by the appropriate officer of an industrial tribunal, upon a matter of discretion, we must look for two things, the discovery of either of which would be sufficient to entitle us to overturn the exercise of that discretion. Either we must find, in order so to do, that the tribunal, or its chairman, has taken some matter which it was improper to take into account or has failed to take into account some matter which it was necessary to take into account in order that discretion might be properly exercised; or, alternatively if we do not find that, that the decision which was made by the tribunal, or its chairman, in the exercise of its discretion, was so far beyond what any reasonable tribunal or chairman could have decided that we are entitled to reject it as perverse.’

Judges:

Crane J

Citations:

[1979] ICR 778

Cited by:

Cited – Dr Y R Teinaz v Wandsworth Borough Council CA 16-Jul-2001
The applicant had made a claim to the tribunal, but then applied for an adjournment on medical grounds, submitting a medical certificate.
Held: Where a refusal to exercise a discretion could lead to the loss of significant rights, a court . .
Cited – Mote v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Another CA 14-Dec-2007
The appellant was accused of having received income benefits to which he was not entitled. A prosecution was commenced and at the same time he appealed to the tribunal against the decision that there had been an overpayment. The authorities . .
Approved – Carter v Credit Change Ltd CA 2-Jan-1979
There are restricted circumstances in which the tribunal can interfere on appeal with the tribunal’s exercise of its discretion. Stephenson LJ said: ‘All the reasons which he gave seem to me to be good reasons for the decision to which he came; many . .
Cited – St Albans Girls School and Another v Neary CA 12-Nov-2009
The claimant’s case had been struck out after non-compliance with an order to file further particulars. His appeal was allowed by the EAT, and the School now itself appealed, saying that the employment judge had wrongly had felt obliged to have . .
Mentioned – Bull Information Systems Ltd v Joy and Rose EAT 13-Apr-1999
The claimants complained of unfair dismissal. The appellant company said that the contracts, as apprenticeships, did not give rise to continuous service accruals. The company appealed against a refusal of an adjournment of the hearing.
Held: . .
Cited – P v West Dorset General Hospital NHS Trust EAT 9-Jun-2004
EAT Practice and Procedure – Postponement or stay – Application for stay of ET proceedings pending GMC professional misconduct hearing refused. No error of law; if so; stay appropriate. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Litigation Practice

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.180696

AR v West London NHS Trust and The Secretary of State for Justice: UTAA 10 Sep 2020

On an application for a public hearing in a mental health case:
The capacity to conduct proceedings is to be assessed as a whole, provided the patient’s capacity is not fluctuating.
Guidance on the salient factors that the patient should understand in order to have capacity to apply for a public hearing.
There is power to hold a public hearing, even if the patient lacks capacity to have an informed view. AH v West London Mental Health Trust [2011] AACR 15 explained.

Citations:

[2020] UKUT 273 (AAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health, Litigation Practice

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.656579

Trustor Ab v Smallbone and others: CA 19 Jan 1999

Appeal against refusal to allow the defendant, subject to a Mareva injunction, to charge his house to pay his legal fees.

Citations:

[1999] EWCA Civ 609

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Trustor AB v Smallbone and others CA 9-May-2000
. .
See Also – Trustor Ab v Smallbone and Another (No 2) ChD 30-Mar-2001
Directors of one company fraudulently diverted substantial sums to another company owned by one of them. The defrauded company sought return of the funds, from the company and from the second director on the basis that the corporate veil should be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Company, Litigation Practice

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.145524

A Meredith Jones and Co Limited v Vangemar Shipping Co Limited (No 2): CA 12 Jun 1997

Use of tapes of court hearings to verify extent of argument in earlier hearing.

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Civ 1845

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – A Meredith Jones and Co Limited v Vangemar Shipping Co Limited CA 16-May-1997
. .

Cited by:

See Also – A Meredith Jones and Co Ltd v Vangemar Shipping Co Ltd (‘The Apostolis’) CA 11-Jul-2000
The proper construction of a contractual clause must not consider that clause in isolation, but must consider the clause in the context of the contract as a whole. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.142241

UCB Corporate Services Ltd (formerly UCB Bank plc) v Halifax (SW) Ltd: CA 6 Dec 1999

It was proper to strike out a claim for abuse of process where the party had been involved in a wholesale disregard of the Civil Procedure Rules and of court orders. The court has a range of remedies appropriate to the degree of such disregard. Where such disregard indicated that the party had no intention to seek to take the matter to a conclusion, and was properly seen as an abuse. Cases predating the CPR may still have relevance on court procedure.

Citations:

Times 23-Dec-1999, Gazette 07-Jan-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Arbuthnot Latham Bank Limited; Nordbanken London Branch v Trafalgar Holdings Limited; Ashton and Ashton CA 16-Dec-1997
The issue was the appropriateness of a Court striking an action out where there has been considerable delay if: (i) the cause of action relied upon by the plaintiff in the proceedings would be statute barred if the action were to be struck out, but . .

Cited by:

Cited – Nasser v United Bank of Kuwait CA 21-Dec-2001
The claimant appealed against a decision to strike out her claim for want of prosecution, and a failure to pay a sum ordered as security for costs. She had put jewelry with the defendants for safe keeping, and alleged it had been stolen. The lock on . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.90042

Vernon v Bosley (1): CA 8 Apr 1994

Though the judge had a right to exclude admissible evidence, it remained a balancing exercise which came down to being a matter of his discretion. Evidence might not be admitted which would involve ‘inconvenience, expense, delay or oppression’. The court approved the dictum of Sedley J at first instance, saying: ‘I think I would prefer ‘relevance’ to ‘literal admissibility’ but the general tenor of this passage expresses the principle which I have tried to explain in my own words, namely that in some cases a ruling on admissibility may involve weighing a degree of relevance against ‘other things’.’

Judges:

Hoffmann LJ

Citations:

Times 08-Apr-1994, [1994] PIQR 337

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Vernon v Bosley QBD 5-Aug-1994
The Judge may impose a schedule for the examination of witnesses if there is a severe overrun of the case at the hearing. . .
Cited – Wilkinson v West Coast Capital and others ChD 22-Jul-2005
A claim was to be made about actions of unfair prejudice by the directors against the minor shareholder. The court considered a preliminary issue as to the admissibility of evidence, including without prejudice correspondence.
Held: The . .
See Also – Vernon v Bosley (2) CA 29-Mar-1996
The defendant had been driving the plaintiff’s daughters, but negligently caused an accident from which they died. The plaintiff was called to the accident, and claimed to have suffered post traumatic stress. The defendant said that the effect was . .
See Also – Vernon v Bosley (3) CA 19-Dec-1996
The plaintiff claimed damages for acute stress after failing to rescue his two daughters in an accident caused by the defendant. After the accident, he became involved in family proceedings concerning custody of other children. Medical reports used . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Evidence, Litigation Practice

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.90156

Sullivan v Blanning: CA 27 Oct 1999

Where a court seal had been affixed to a document to show its receipt, but the document was not entered into the court records as received until later, when the application had become out of time, the only inference to be drawn by the court was that it had been received in time.

Citations:

Times 27-Oct-1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.89601

Shikari v Malik: CA 20 May 1999

Litigants who had begun proceedings before the new rules had come into effect could not rely upon previous allowances being continued, and the new rules should be applied strictly.

Citations:

Times 20-May-1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.89236

Sleeman v Highway Care Ltd: CA 3 Nov 1999

Where a court faced a situation where the time for oral submissions had overrun, it was open to him to order written submissions. He had the discretion whether or not to order sequential submissions or exchange, and could choose not to allow final oral submissions. Once having heard oral submissions, much was to be lost by delay in which the advantage of fresh impressions might be lost.

Citations:

Times 03-Nov-1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.89306

Sandry v Jones: CA 3 Aug 2000

In personal injury cases involving substantial damages claims, it was inappropriate for a district judge to seek assess the level of damages to be awarded. Cases involving a degree of complexity should be referred to a circuit judge. Even though in this case the award had been made by the district judge by consent of both parties, legal advisers should take care to protect their client’s interests.

Citations:

Times 03-Aug-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice, Personal Injury

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.89002

Fracis Times and Co v Carr: CA 1901

To accept that a foreign judgment was in rem, the judgment must relate to an item within (actually or constructively) the jurisdiction of the court issuing the judgment at the time the order was made.

Judges:

Williams LJ

Citations:

82 LT 698, 16 TLR 405

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Carr v Fracis Times and Co HL 1902
The House considered a claim following seizure of ammunition by British officers in Muscat under the authority of a proclamation of the absolute ruler, the Sultan of Muscat, whose word was law.
Held: The appeal succeeded. To found an action . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, International

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.634757

Triple Point Technology, Inc v PTT Public Company Ltd: TCC 7 Jun 2018

Application by Triple Point for an injunction restraining execution of a judgment that PTT attempted to enforce in the State of Connecticut in the United States in May 2018. A stay of execution had, prior to that date, already been ordered by the Court of Appeal in an order of Jackson LJ dated 22 February 2018. There is no dispute between the parties that the steps taken in respect of enforcement in Connecticut (by the US Marshal) should not have been taken, because the certified judgment obtained from the court in London should not have been obtained. However, there is a dispute about the terms of the order that should be granted on the injunction.

Judges:

Fraser J

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 1398 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Triple Point Technology, Inc v PTT Public Company Ltd TCC 23-Aug-2017
. .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Triple Point Technology, Inc v PTT Public Company Ltd CA 5-Mar-2019
Appeal by the supplier of a software system against a judgment of the Technology and Construction Court, dismissing its claim for payment and ordering it to pay substantial damages on the counterclaim. The main issue of principle which arises is how . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.620130

Rajski v Bainton: 1990

New South Wales – in respect of a party or a witness, a charge of misconduct should be made only where the party making it satisfies himself that there are grounds for making it. Fraud must be pleaded specifically and with particularity. If a person is to be charged with doing or writing something which will involve serious consequences, the person is not to be condemned casually or by ‘inexact proofs, indefinite testimony, or indirect inferences’

Judges:

Mahoney JA

Citations:

(1990) 22 NSWLR 125

Jurisdiction:

Australia

Cited by:

Cited – Dhir v Saddler QBD 6-Dec-2017
Slander damages reduced for conduct
Claim in slander. The defendant was said, at a church meeting to have accused the client of threatening to slit her throat. The defendant argued that the audience of 80 was not large enough.
Held: ‘the authorities demonstrate that it is the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.602121

Purefuture Ltd v Simmons and Simmons: CA 25 May 2000

Latham LJ said: ‘I can see that were delay to have occasioned prejudice short of an inability of the court to be able to provide a fair trial, then there would be or may be scope for the use of other forms of sanction. But where the conclusion that is reached is that the prejudice has resulted in an inability of the court to deal fairly with the case, there can only be one answer and one sanction; that is for the [proceedings] to be struck out’

Judges:

Latham LJ

Citations:

Unreported, 25 May 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.598325

Haynes v Davis: 1915

The court was asked as to the meaning of a person being in peril. Lush J (dissenting) set out three requirements for a person to be in peril – (1) the court was competent to try him for the offence (2) the trial was on a good indictment on which a conviction could be entered and (3) the acquittal was on the merits. He continued: ‘I quite agree that ‘acquittal on the merits’ does not mean that the jury or the magistrate must find as a matter of fact that the person charged was innocent; it is just as much an acquittal upon the merits if the judge or the magistrate were to rule upon the construction of an Act of Parliament that the accused was in law entitled to be acquitted as in law he was not guilty, and to that extent the expression ‘acquittal on the merits’ must be qualified, but in my view the expression is used by way of antithesis to a dismissal of the charge upon some technical ground which had been a bar to the adjudicating upon it. That is why this expression is important, however one may qualify it, and I think the antithesis is between an adjudication of not guilty upon some matter of fact or law and a discharge of the person charged on the ground that there are reasons why the Court cannot proceed to find if he is guilty.’

Judges:

Lush J

Citations:

[1915] 1 KB 332

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Dissenting judgment approved – Jelson Estates Ltd v Harvey CA 1983
Whilst accepting that a man may not be tried again for the same offence if he was in jeopardy on the first trial ‘in considering whether he was in jeopardy, one of the factors is whether the acquittal was on the merits, by verdict at the trial or, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.545458

Maclennan v Morgan Sindall (Infrastructure) Plc: QBD 17 Dec 2013

The defendant had applied for an order limiting the number of witnesses sought to be called by the claimant (43).
Held: The power to prohibit the calling of witnesses under CPR r 32.2(3) sat towards the more extreme end of the court’s powers and was a power to be considered after less intrusive measures had been considered and rejected.

Judges:

Green J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 4044 (QB), [2014] WLR(D) 509, [2014] 1 WLR 2462, [2013] WLR(D) 509

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 32.2(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.519049

Kagalovsky v Balmore Invest Ltd: QBD 2014

Turner J said: ‘There is no reason to doubt that the ratio of this decision [ie Robert] remains good law but the emphasis which Dyson LJ (as he then was) placed in that case upon the importance of the ingredient of prejudice occasioned by the delay in the exercise of the court’s discretion must now be seen in the light of the Jackson reforms. Furthermore the overriding objective applied in Robert has now been reformulated to include considerations calculated to achieve the enforcement of compliance with rules, practice directions and orders.’

Judges:

Turner J

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 108 (QB)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Litigation Practice

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.523880

Regina v Secretary of State for Home Affairs, Ex parte O’Brien: CA 1923

Mr O’Brien had been arrested in London under regulation 14B of the Restoration of Order in Ireland Regulations 1920 and deported to Ireland there to be interned until further order. A writ of habeas corpus was sought as against the governor of Mountjoy prison.
Held: The court accepted the affidavit evidence of the Home Secretary to the effect that Mr O’Brien was under the control of the governor that the governor was an official of the Irish Free State and not subject to the orders or directions of the Home Secretary or the British government. However, the writ of habeas corpus should issue. This was because the arrangements which existed between the Irish Free State and the United Kingdom provided grounds for believing that the Home Secretary could obtain the return of Mr O’Brien.
A statement had been made in the House of Commons on 19 March 1923 that the Irish Free State had given the British government a number of undertakings, one of which was to the effect that if it was decided that any person should not have been deported he would be released. There was therefore a reasonable prospect that the Home Secretary could exert sufficient control over the custody of Mr O’Brien to justify the issue of the writ.
Scrutton LJ said that if the court is satisfied that the body whose production is asked is not in the custody, power or control of the person to whom it is sought to address the writ, a writ of habeas corpus is not the proper remedy.

Judges:

Bankes, Scrutton, Atkin LJJ

Citations:

[1923] 2 KB 361

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Secretary of State for Home Affairs v O’Brien HL 1923
The Crown has no right of appeal against the grant of a discharge of a prisoner on a writ of habeas corpus.
The Home Secrtary appealed against the issue of a writ of habeas corpus against him in respect of a prisoner held in Mountjoy prison in . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs v Rahmatullah SC 31-Oct-2012
The claimant complained that the UK Armed forces had taken part in his unlawful rendition from Iraq by the US government. He had been detaiined in Iraq and transferred to US Forces. The government became aware that he was to be removed to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

International, Litigation Practice

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.470684

Customs and Excise Commissioners v Top Ten Promotions Limited: 1969

Lord Upjohn, discussing the construction of a statute, said: ‘It is highly dangerous, if not impossible, to attempt to place an accurate definition upon a word in common use; you can look up examples of its many uses if you want to in the Oxford Dictionary but that does not help on definition; in fact it probably only shows that the word normally defies definition. The task of the court in construing statutory language such as that which is before your Lordships is to look at the mischief at which the Act is directed and then, in that light, to consider whether as a matter of common sense and every day usage the known, proved or admitted or properly referred facts of the particular case bring the case within the ordinary meaning of the words used by Parliament.’

Judges:

Lord Upjohn

Citations:

[1969] 1 WLR 1163, [1969] 3 All ER 85

Cited by:

Cited – Bauer and Others v The Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 22-Mar-2013
The appellants had entered Fortnum and Masons to demonstrate against tax avoidance. They appealed against convitions for aggravated trespass.
Held: The statutory question posed by s.68 is whether the prosecution can prove that the trespasser . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.472100

Will v Sneddon Campbell and Munro: SCS 1931

Lord Hunter said: ‘It is well settled, no doubt, that, if a man is bankrupt and if he is divested of his estate, he is not entitled to sue an action unless he finds caution. But that is only a general rule; there are exceptions even to that. On the other hand, there is no general rule to the effect that, unless a man has been rendered bankrupt and his estates have been sequestrated, he cannot be ordained by the court to find caution. Even short of bankruptcy, I think there may be circumstances in which a pursuer might be ordained to find caution.’
Lord Justice Clerk Alness said that the history of the litigation was an element which could be taken into consideration and that, while none of the considerations in that case might of itself have been sufficient, their cumulative effect seemed to him to justify the order.

Judges:

Lord Hunter, Lord Justice Clerk Alness

Citations:

1931 SC 164

Cited by:

Cited – Anderson v Shetland Islands Council and Another SC 29-Feb-2012
The claimant sought leave to appeal. Each party now sought security for costs against the other. Her action related to water damage to her house said to have been caused by road mprovements and building works erected by and with the approval of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Litigation Practice

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.452403

Attorney General v Matthews: PC 20 Oct 2011

(Trinidad and Tobago) The respondent, a prisoner, had issued a claim for assault against a prison officer. The appellant failed to serve a defence. The court dismissed the application for judgment in default and extended the time to serve a defence. The claimant succeeded on appeal, and the defendant now appealed.
Held: ‘ a defence can be filed without the permission of the court after the time for filing has expired. If the claimant does nothing or waives late service, the defence stands and no question of sanction arises. If, as in the present case, judgment has not been entered when the defendant applies out of time for an extension of time, there is no question of any sanction having yet been imposed on him. No distinction is drawn in rule 10.3(5) between applications for an extension of time before and after the period for filing a defence.’

Judges:

Lord Phillips, Lord Brown, Lord Kerr, Lord Dyson, Sir Patrick Coghlin

Citations:

[2011] UKPC 38

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.445859

Webster v James Chapman and Co: 1989

An expert’s report prepared for the plaintiff was by mistake enclosed along with a letter to the defendant’s solicitors. When informed of the mistake the plaintiff’s solicitors sought its return with an undertaking to make no use of it. The plaintiff’s solicitors subsequently received a revised report which was more favourable to his position, which was disclosed to the defendant’s solicitors as being a report which would be relied on at trial.
Held: Once a privileged document or a copy came to the party, prima facie the benefit of the privilege was lost and the party who had obtained the document then had in his hands evidence which could be used at trial. However, if the privileged document was also confidential, it retained protection as such against unauthorised disclosure or use. Where protection of confidential information was sought the court was required to exercise its discretion by balancing the legitimate interests of the plaintiff in seeking to keep the confidential information suppressed and the legitimate interests of the defendant in seeking to make use of it. In that balancing exercise the circumstances in which the information came into the hands of the defendant, the issues in the action, the relevance of the document and whether it would in one way or another have to be disclosed, together with the privileged nature of the document, were all highly relevant.
In this case the conduct of the defendant’s case would be seriously embarrassed if the defendant was not able to make use of the report, since it had come into the possession of its solicitors without fault and since there would be no injustice to the plaintiff if the report were in evidence, together with the revised report, the plaintiff would be refused relief.
Scott J said: ‘Suppose a case where the privileged document has come into possession of the other side because of carelessness on the part of the party entitled to keep the document confidential and has been read by the other party, or by one of his legal advisers, without realizing that a mistake has been made. In such a case the future conduct of the litigation by the other party would often be inhibited or made difficult were he to be required to undertake to shut out from his mind the contents of the document. It seems to me that it would be thoroughly unfair that the carelessness of one party should be allowed to put the other party at a disadvantage.’ and
‘The law regarding confidential information is . . now relatively well settled. The court must, in each case where protection of confidential information is sought, balance on the one hand the legitimate interests of the plaintiff in seeking to keep the confidential information suppressed and on the other hand the legitimate interests of the defendant in seeking to make use of the information. There is never any question of an absolute right to have confidential information protected . . Whether the unauthorised use of confidential information or of confidential documents will be restrained is essentially discretionary and must . . be dependent on the particular circumstances of the particular case. The privileged nature of the document in question is bound to be a highly material factor but would not . . exclude from the scales other material factors.’
Scott J refused to follow Nourse LJ’s view in Goddard v. Nationwide Building Society [1987] QB 670, 685, that once it is established that confidentiality is established, there is no discretion in the court to refuse to exercise the equitable jurisdiction according to its view of the materiality of the communication, the justice of admitting or excluding it or the like. Scott J said that he did not think that statement represented the ratio of the case.

Judges:

Scott J

Citations:

[1989] 3 All ER 939

Citing:

Cited – Goddard v Nationwide Building Society CA 1986
A solicitor had acted for both purchaser and lender in a purchase transaction. The purchaser later sought to recover from the defendant for a negligent valuation. The solicitor had however discussed the issue with the plaintiff before the purchase, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.445849

Ealing London Borough Council v El Isaac: CA 1980

Templeman LJ said: ‘I do not for myself understand how a debt payable with interest until actual repayment can be merged in a judgment without interest or with a different rate of interest payable thereafter.’

Judges:

Templeman LJ

Citations:

[1980] 1 WLR 932

Cited by:

Cited – Director General of Fair Trading v First National Bank Plc CA 15-Sep-1999
A bank had a clause in its standard terms which provided that it could continue to recover interest at the contract rate after judgment for default. The clause was an unfair term. The clause allowed a bank to impose an arrangement for repayment by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Litigation Practice

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.445465

C v D: CA 27 May 2011

The court was asked ‘what it means in a purported CPR Part 36 offer to say that the offer is ‘open for 21 days’. On one view it means that the offer is not open after 21 days. On another view it means, in its context, that the offer will not be withdrawn for 21 days. That would reflect the terms of Part 36.’
Held:

Judges:

Rix, Rimer,Stanley Burnton LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 646

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 36

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Civil Procedure Rules, Litigation Practice

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.440216

Re B (Disclosure to other parties): FD 2001

There was a dispute as to whether one of the fathers involved in the proceedings should have access to certain documents, including psychiatric reports, relating to the mother, her husband and the children. Munby J considered the effect of human rights law on the disclosure procedures in children proceedings.
Held: Whilst an entitlement to a fair trial under ECHR Article 6 is absolute, this does not mean that a party has an absolute and unqualified right to see all the documents. With the advent of the 1998 Act, it was no longer true that the only interests capable of denying a litigant access to documents are the interests of children involved in the litigation. Anyone else who is involved, whether as victim, party or witness and who can demonstrate that their ECHR Article 8 rights are sufficiently engaged, can also have that interest. A limited qualification of the right to see the documents may be acceptable if directed towards a clear and proper objective. Non-disclosure must be limited to what the situation imperatively demands and is justified only when the case is compelling or strictly necessary, with the court being rigorous in its examination of the feared harm and any difficulty caused to the litigant counterbalanced by procedures designed to ensure a fair trial.

Judges:

Munby J

Citations:

[2001] 2 FLR 1017

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 6, Human Rights Act 1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Chief Constable and Another v YK and Others FD 6-Oct-2010
The court gave directions in Forced Marriage Protection order applications. An order had been made at the request of the police on behalf of A, and the court had declined to discharge it on A’s own application.
Held: Special advocates were not . .
Cited – Durham County Council v Dunn CA 13-Dec-2012
The claimant wished to begin a claim alleging historic sexual abuse while he had been at an institution run by the defendants. The claimant sought pre-trial disclosure of various documents and the court now considered the principle applicable, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Human Rights, Litigation Practice

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.424968

Infabrics Ltd v Jaytex Ltd: 1985

Where a party fails to preserve documents after the commencement of proceedings, the defaulting party risks ‘adverse inferences’ being drawn for such ‘spoliation’. Because the defendant had not preserved documents affecting the quantum of damage, the maxim ‘omnia praesummuntur contra spoliatorem’ was applied against it. It was not enough for solicitors merely to give instructions not to destroy documents, and they should ensure that active steps for their preservation are taken.

Judges:

Julian Jeffs QC

Citations:

[1985] FSR 75

Citing:

See Also – Infabrics Ltd v Jaytex Shirt Co Ltd 1978
Section 5(2) of the 1956 Act provided that ‘Copyright in a . . work is infringed by any person who . . imports an article . . if to his knowledge the making of that article constituted an infringement of that copyright, or would have constituted . .

Cited by:

Cited – Earles v Barclays Bank plc Merc 8-Oct-2009
earles_barclaysQBD2009
The claimant had lost his claim against the bank, but resisted the amount of costs claimed.
Held: The trial had been of a simple factual dispute, and the bank had failed adequately to disclose electronically held material in its possession. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.427355

General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation Limited v Tanta: QBD 1984

Hobhouse J gave guidance on the extent of waiver given when a document was accidentally disclosed.

Judges:

Hobhouse J

Citations:

[1984] QB 100

Cited by:

Appeal from – General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation v Tanter (‘The Zephyr’) 1984
When considering the extent to which a court should order partial disclosure of legally privileged advice, the test is one of fairness in the conduct of the trial. It should be left to the trial judge to determine whether a party in the evidence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.430536

Blair v Haycock Cattle Co: 1917

Judges:

Lord Finlay LC

Citations:

(1917) 34 TLR 39

Cited by:

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: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.416377

Siebe Gorman and Co Limited v Pneupac Limited: CA 1982

Lord Denning MR discussed the meaning of ‘consent order’ saying: ‘There are two meaning to the words ‘by consent’. One meaning is this: the words ‘by consent’ may evidence a real contract between the parties. In such a case the court will only interfere with such an order on the same grounds as it would with any other contract. The other meaning is this: the words ‘by consent’ may mean ‘the parties hereto not objecting’. In such a case there is no real contract between the parties. The order can be altered or varied by the court in the same circumstances as any other order that is made by the court without the consent of the parties.’

Citations:

[1982] 1 WLR 185

Cited by:

Cited – Ropac Ltd v Inntrepreneur Pub Co and Another ChD 7-Jun-2000
There had been a consent order in the terms of an unless order giving the landlord an order for possession unless the tenant paid sums by a certain date, time being of the essence. The order was not complied with and the tenant applied for a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.412294

Cristel v Cristel: CA 1951

H and W settled a dispute with an agreement for possession of the matrimonial home to be suspended until H provided suitable alternative accommodation. The order gave liberty to apply. H wished to vary the order as to the type of accommodation which had to be provided.
Held: The liberty to apply did not allow for the variation of the order in the manner applied for.
Sommervell LJ spoke as to the scope of the express liberty to apply: ”Liberty to apply’ is expressed, and if not expressed will be implied, where the order drawn up is one which requires working out, and the working out involves matters on which it may be necessary to obtain the decision of the court. Prima facie, certainly, it does not entitle people to come and ask that the order itself shall be varied.’
Denning LJ said: ‘If there were an unforeseen change of circumstances, for instance, if the wife were left by will another house, or if she took an adulterer to live with her in this house, I should have thought that the ‘Liberty to apply’ would enable the court to remedy the position.’

Judges:

Sommervell LJ, Denning LJ

Citations:

[1951] 2 KB 725

Cited by:

Cited – Community Care North East (A Partnership) v Durham County Council QBD 29-Apr-2010
The parties had settled their dispute and sealed it in a Tomlin Order. The court now asked as to its power to vary such an order. The order required the defendant to reopen a tendering process, but other tenderers now objected, and the council felt . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.412295

Weddell v JA Pearce and Major: 1988

A cause of action in negligence was assigned in February 1986. The writ was issued by the assignee alone on 2 May 1986, at which time no notice of the assignment had been given to the defendants. It was argued that the action was a nullity.
Held: It was not: ‘[A]n equitable assignee can sue in his own name. He cannot, however, recover damages or a perpetual injunction without joining as a party the assignor in whom legal title to the chose in action is vested. The same would apply to recovery of a debt. The reason for this is, however, a pragmatic one. The debtor must not be at risk of suit by the legal owner of the chose. To put the point another way, the debtor must, if he is adjudged liable, be in a position to obtain a complete discharge from his liability by paying the plaintiff, the equitable assignee.’

Judges:

Scott J

Citations:

[1988] Ch 26

Citing:

Cited – Performing Right Society Limited v London Theatre of Varieties Limited HL 1924
The parties, the plaintiff who was the equitable assignee of performing rights and the infringing defendant, joined specific issue on the absence of the legal owner of the rights.
Held: His absence was critical. PRS failed to obtain a . .

Cited by:

Cited – Roberts v Gill and Co Solicitors and Others SC 19-May-2010
The claimant beneficiary in the estate sought damages against solicitors who had acted for the claimant’s brother, the administrator, saying they had allowed him to take control of the assets in the estate. The will provided that property was to be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.416014

Barnardiston v Soam (No 3): 1685

Offly for the plaintiff, that debt lieth pending error n 22 H, 6, 38, being a new original, which the Court agreed ; and a respondeas ouster ; and notwithstanding it was affirmed that judgment in debt pending error here was reversed in Exchequer Chamber.

Citations:

[1685] EngR 217, (1685) 3 Keb 586, (1685) 84 ER 894 (A)

Links:

Commonlii

Citing:

See Also – Barnardiston v Soam (No 1) 1685
. .
See Also – Barnardiston v Soam (No 2) 1685
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Barnardiston v Soam (No 4) 1685
. .
See Also – Barnardiston v Soame 1702
On the death of Sir Henry North, one of the knights for Suffolk ; a writ was issued forth for the election of a new member, and Sir Samuel Barnardiston and my Lord Huntingtowre were the two candidates ; but Sir Samuel carried it by 78 voices, and . .
See Also – Sir William Soames v Sir Sam Barnardiston 1826
Action on the case lies not against a sheriff for making a double return to a Parliamentary writ. . .
See Also – Sir Samuel, Barnardiston v Sir Will Soames 1826
Whether an action on the case lies at common law against the sheriff for maliciously making a double return upon a writ to elect a member of Parliament. . .
See Also – Sir Samuel Barnardiston v Soames 1826
Case lies against the sheriff at common law for making a double return to a Parliamentary writ falsely, maliciously, and with intent to put the pIaintiff to expense. Disseni, Rainsford J . .
See Also – Barnardiston v Soames 1826
Case lies against the sheriff at common law for making a double return to a Parliamentary writ falsely, maliciously, and with intent to put the pIaintiff to expense. Disseni, Rainsford J . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.396992

Taylor v Anderson and Taylor Brothers Plant Hire Ltd: CA 2002

Chadwick LJ said: ‘proceedings ought not to be struck out unless an unequivocal affirmative answer can be given to the question: is there a substantial risk that a fair trial is impossible?’

Judges:

Chadwick LJ

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 1680

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Litigation Practice

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.402563

Benwell v Black: 12 May 1790

If the defendant bring a writ of error, and the plaintiff bring another action on the judgment, and recover, he cannot sue out execution on the second judgment till the writ of error be determined.

Citations:

[1790] EngR 2362, (1790) 3 TR 643, (1790) 100 ER 780 (A)

Links:

Commonlii

Litigation Practice

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.365415

Dickson v Neath and Brecon Railway Co: 1869

Citations:

(1869) LR 4 Ex 87

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Mentioned – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Co Sal and Others HL 30-Jul-2009
The claimant sought to enforce a judgment debt against a foreign resident company, and for this purpose to examine or have examined a director who lived abroad. The defendant said that the rules gave no such power and they did, the power was outside . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.372590

Regina v Secretary of State for Transport ex-parte Factortame and Others: CA 1988

The Secretary of State was willing to make legal advice given to him available on the grounds that privilege had been waived, but not advice after a particular cut off date. The claimants were dubious as to whether the privilege had been properly claimed and sought an order for disclosure of edited documents in order to determine that question.
Held: Auld LJ referred to Nea Karteria and said: ‘Of course, the scope for unfairness depends on the breadth of the matter in issue or their severability if more than one, and on the exact relationship and/or relevance to such issue(s) of the documents respectively disclosed and sought to be withheld. It may or may not be that partial disclosure of documents going to a matter or matters in issue, say in an exchange of correspondence with legal advisers, would be unfair.
Much depends on whether the party making partial disclosure seeks to represent by so doing that the disclosed documents go to part or the whole of an ‘issue in question’, the expression used by Mustill J in the passage from his judgment in Nea Karteria that I have cited. The issue may be confined to what was said or done in a single transaction or it may be more complex than that and extend over a series of connected events or transactions. In each case the question for the court is whether the matters in issue and the document or documents in respect of which partial disclosure has been made are respectively severable so that the partially disclosed material clearly does not bear on matters in issue in respect of which the material is withheld. . . .’

Judges:

Auld LJ, Popplewell LJ

Citations:

[1989] 2 CMLR 353

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Nea Karteria Maritime Co Ltd v Atlantic and Great Lakes Steamship Corporation (No 2) 11-Dec-1978
The court considered disclosure of a legally privileged note of an interview: ‘I believe that the principle underlying the rule of practice exemplified by Burnell v British Transport Commission is that, where a party is deploying in court material . .

Cited by:

Cited – Brennan and others v Sunderland City Council Unison GMB EAT 16-Dec-2008
No Waiver for disclosure of Advice
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Admissibility of evidence
The claimant sought disclosure of certain legal advice on the basis that its effect, and a summary of its contents, had been put before the court and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Constitutional

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.344016

MacMurdo v Birch, Mackay, And Laugiion Radgliffe And Another v Same: 12 Feb 1818

A plaintiff having arrested two of the partners on a quo minus, and proceeded against an absent third by ven. fac. Ad. resp. under which issues, and increased issues, had been levied on the partnership goods – the Court refused, on cause shewn against a rule for that purpose, to set aside the proceedings, and order the money levied to be restored, and the effects to be delivered up, although it was sworn, on the part of the absent defendant, that he was absent on his business of mariner, and not for the purpose of avoiding proceedings. – N. – Such a rule discharged with costs.

Citations:

[1818] EngR 233, (1818) 5 Price 522, (1818) 146 ER 682

Links:

Commonlii

Litigation Practice

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.332233

The King v The Justices of The West Riding of Yorkshire(In The Matter of The Aire And Calder Navigation, And Lake Lock Railway Companies): 29 May 1834

A River Navigation Act provided that no proceeding to be taken in pursuance thereof should be removed by certiorari. By a subsequent statute for improving the same navigation, it was enacted, that all the powers, provisions, exemptions, rules, remedies, regulations, penalties, forfeitures, articles, matters, and things whatsoever, contained in the former Act, should be in full force, and extend to and be applied and enforced as to that Act and the matters therein contained, in as full a manner to all intents and purposes as if therein re-enacted: Held, that these were sufficient words to take away the certiorari on proceedings under the latter Act.

Citations:

[1834] EngR 781, (1834) 1 Ad and E 563, (1834) 110 ER 1322

Links:

Commonlii

Litigation Practice

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.317457

Tasker v Small And Matilda, His Wife, Charles S Ashford, B R Baker, Thomas Mann, Thomas Phillips, Joseph Wakeford, Thomas Hawkins, And Sarah Baker: 18 Nov 1837

One Defendant appeals. Order made thereupon dismissing bll upon grounds equally applicable to other Defendants who did not join in the appeal. Such other defendants can have no benefit of such order, although it renders the decree useless.

Citations:

[1837] EngR 1060, (1837) CP Coop 255, (1837) 47 ER 494 (B)

Links:

Commonlii

Citing:

Appeal from – Tasker v Small 3-Jun-1836
The words in a Settlement to raise Money by ‘Mortgage, Annuity or otherwise,’ authorises a Sale of a reversionary Estate.
Lord Cottenham LC said that the rule by which a purchaser becomes in equity the owner of the property sold ‘applies only . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.314177

Batho v Dickman: 14 Jun 1848

It is no ground for setting aside a distringas, that the affidavit on which it was obtained, states that the calls and appointments were made ‘at the place of residence of the defendant; ‘ or that it states briefly that the defendant has not appeared, without adverting to any search ; or that it does not state when, or where, or whether, the copy of the writ of summons reached the hands of the defendant – Where no objection has been taken to a writ of summons, in which the defendant is described by initials, it is too late to object to the distringas on that ground.

Citations:

[1848] EngR 614 (A), (1848) 6 CB 260

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.300164

Talbot v Marshfield: 15 Jun 1865

Trustees took counsel’s opinion as to whether they should exercise a discretionary power to advance part of their trust fund for the benefit of some of the cestuis que trust: and others of the cestuis que trust having filed a bill to restrain them from exercising such discretion, they took a second opinion as to their defence in the suit.
Upon summons for production by the Plaintiffs :
Held, that, the first case and opinion having reference to the dealings with the trust estate, all the cestuis que trust had a right to inspection, and the Court ordered them to be produced ; but that the second case and opinion being after suit instituted, the Plaintiffs had no right to production.

Citations:

[1865] EngR 589, (1865) 2 Dr and Sm 549, (1865) 62 ER 728

Links:

Commonlii

Citing:

See Also – Talbot v Marshfield 17-Nov-1864
Payment into Curt. Discretionary Power in Trustees Over Fund, – Although the mere existence of a discretionary power in trustees over a fund affords no reason why the Court should not order payment of the fund into Court, unless such payment into . .

Cited by:

Cited – Dawson-Damer and Others v Taylor Wessing Llp and Others ChD 6-Aug-2015
The clamants sought orders under the 1998 Act for disclosure of documents about them by the defendant solicitors and others. The defendants said that the request would require the consideration of a very large number of documents, considering in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Trusts, Litigation Practice, Legal Professions

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.281501

Regina v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry Ex Parte Trades Union Congress: CA 17 Oct 2000

Where a court referred an issue to the European Court, it was for that court in its discretion to decide whether interim relief might be granted, and an appellate court should not normally interfere in that exercise. The considerations for such a grant of interim relief pending a reference had been fully set out by the House of Lords in Factortame, being the threshold condition, the existence of a serious case to be tried, the balance of convenience, the strength of the case on the reference, and the potential losses incurred according to the grant or refusal of interim relief. Referring to a speech from Lord Goff in Factortame (2): ‘I venture to draw from that latter passage that Lord Goff was recognising that there may be an unusual – I infer in Lord Goff’s view it would be a very unusual case – where there was no strong prima facie case that the law was invalid, but where, nevertheless, it would be appropriate because of the weight of other factors to grant interim relief. But that case apart, Lord Goff in my judgment appears to regard the importance of not restraining a public authority by interim injunction except in a case such as that he refers to at the end of the passages I have cited as being, not a paramount factor, but an important threshold principle to which the court that is being asked to consider interim relief must direct its attention in the first instance.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Buxton

Citations:

Times 17-Oct-2000, (2000) IRLR 565

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame (No 2) HL 11-Oct-1990
The validity of certain United Kingdom legislation was challenged on the basis that it contravened provisions of the EEC Treaty by depriving the applicants of their Community rights to fish in European waters, and an interlocutory injunction was . .
Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, ex parte Trades Union Congress Admn 23-May-2000
. .

Cited by:

Cited – International Transport Workers’ Federation and Another v Viking Line Abp and Another CA 3-Nov-2005
An order had been made restraining the defendant trades unions from taking industrial action. The unions said the UK court had no jurisdiction.
Held: ‘It is at first sight surprising that the English Commercial Court should be the forum in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, European

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.87956

R H Tomlinson (Trowbridge) Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment and Another: CA 31 Aug 1999

Under the CPR, a company could now appear at court in person and without a legal representative. The old rule has not been carried forward. However the old rule had been clear and in a case under those rules, the order that the company was not properly before the court was properly made.

Citations:

Times 31-Aug-1999

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 1998 No 3132

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.85633

Regina v Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council and Another, Ex Parte JC (A Child): CA 10 Aug 2000

The restrictions placed upon the maximum class sizes in turn restricted the rights of parents to appeal against refusal of a school place. It is for the parent to satisfy the original admissions committee and the appeal committee of the need for a place. There are two only grounds of appeal. An application to judicially review the decision of the education authority should be normally in the name of the parent, not the child.
Parents whose child has not been admitted to the school of their preference have a right of appeal to an appeals committee. Kennedy LJ said: ‘I am satisfied that where a parent wishes to challenge a local education authority or an appeals committee in relation to the handling of a parent’s expression of preference as to the school at which his or her child should attend it is the parent and not the child who should mount the challenge. I accept that the child may have a sufficient interest to mount a challenge, and in some exceptional cases it may be appropriate for the child to make the application for permission to apply for judicial review, but normally, as it seems to me, the only reason why the application is made in the name of the child is to obtain legal aid, and to enable the parents to protect themselves in relation to costs. That I regard as an abuse. Our legal system works upon the basis that those who seek a remedy should expose themselves in relation to costs. If the device is used in future, permission to apply for judicial review may well be refused on that ground.’
Ward LJ commented that it is the parents’ appeal, not the child’s, he said: ‘The system is open to abuse if the child applies for legal aid and that abuse must be curtailed.’

Judges:

Kennedy, Wardd LJJ

Citations:

Times 10-Aug-2000, Gazette 31-Aug-2000, [2001] ELR 21, [2001] LGR 146

Statutes:

Education Act 1996 41

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina v Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council, Ex Parte C (A Child) QBD 26-Apr-2000
An appeal to the local education authority against a decision not to grant a place at the parents choice of primary school, because it would require additional resources to provide for larger class sizes, is by way of review, and not by way of a . .

Cited by:

Cited – B and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Leeds School Organisation Committee QBD 13-Sep-2002
The applicants sought through their litigation friends to oppose the decision of the respondent to close their junior school. The respondent said the proceedings were an abuse, having been brought in the children’s names solely to obtain legal aid. . .
Appealed to – Regina v Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council, Ex Parte C (A Child) QBD 26-Apr-2000
An appeal to the local education authority against a decision not to grant a place at the parents choice of primary school, because it would require additional resources to provide for larger class sizes, is by way of review, and not by way of a . .
Cited – Edwards and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Environment Agency and Others (No 2) SC 11-Dec-2013
The court considered the consequences of a finding that the UK was in breach of the Aarhus Convention, as regards the ‘prohibitively expensive’ cost of proceedings. The Agency had given permission for the change of fuel for a cement works to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Education, Litigation Practice

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.85460

Practice Note (Court of Appeal Civil Division: Assessment of Costs): CA 26 Apr 1999

The Court of Appeal will normally identify in advance those cases where it expected to apply a summary assessment of costs and at which a statement of costs would be required, though parties may propose such an assessment.

Citations:

Times 26-Apr-1999

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules Part 44

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.84979

Practice Note (Court of Appeal, Civil Division: Disposal of Bundles): CA 30 Jun 1999

Parties to proceedings before the Court of Appeal must appreciate that, in general documents left with the Court for a hearing, will be destroyed after 21 days after the hearing is concluded. Parties are reminded to use copies when supplying the court, and when original documents are handed in, the return of these documents must be requested at the end of the hearing.

Citations:

Times 30-Jun-1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.84980

Practice Direction (Court of Appeal, Civil Division: Leave to Appeal and Skeleton Arguments): CA 23 Nov 1998

Court set new requirements for procedures on appealing in civil matters, including extending to all applications the need to apply for leave to appeal, usually from the court of first instance. Also extended the duties of filing skeleton arguments.

Citations:

Times 23-Nov-1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.84860

Parker v Law Society: CA 8 Dec 1998

Memoranda prepared by judge’s assistants which set out to identify issues and list relevant authorities were not to be disclosed to the parties in the case. But the court should warn the parties if it intended to allow for any question they had not raised.

Citations:

Times 08-Dec-1998, Gazette 13-Jan-1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.84579

Practice Direction (Court of Appeal) (Civil Division): CA 19 Apr 1999

As part of the modernisation and reform of civil procedure, all the principal Court of Appeal practice directions are consolidated now into this one document handed down by the court.
‘2. Permission to appeal
2.1 When is permission required?
2.1.1. Most appeals require the permission of the court below (the court which made the decision which is challenged) or of the Court of Appeal to bring an appeal.
2.1.2 Since 1 January 1999, permission has been required for all appeals except appeals against: (a) committal orders; (b) refusals to grant habeas corpus; and (c) secure accommodation orders made pursuant to section 25 of the Children Act 1989: see RSC, Ord. 59 r. 1B(1)(a)-(c).
2.1.3 The experience of the Court of Appeal is that many appeals and applications for permission to appeal are made which are quite hopeless. They demonstrate basic misconceptions as to the purpose of the civil appeal system and the different roles played by appellate courts and courts below. The court below has a crucial role in determining applications for permission to appeal. This guidance indicates how applicants, and courts, should approach the matter.’
‘Renewed applications for permission to apply for judicial review
2.7.1 The applicant’s advocate (and where any respondent will be represented at the Court of Appeal hearing, that party’s advocate) must file four copies of their skeleton arguments with the Civil Appeals Office with the application bundles.
2.7.2 This applies only to renewed applications for permission to apply for judicial review. Where permission to apply has been granted and the substantive application for judicial review has been dealt with in the High Court, any application to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal against that decision will be governed by the general provisions for such applications.’

Judges:

Lord Woolf MR

Citations:

Times 26-Apr-1999, [1999] 1 WLR 1027

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Mahomed and Another v Morris and Others CA 17-Feb-2000
An application for leave to appeal was refused on a paper hearing by one judge, but later allowed after oral argument before a different judge. There was no rule which suggested that the first judge should recuse himself from acting on the full . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Ex Parte Eastaway HL 8-Nov-2000
Where the Court of Appeal had refused permission to apply for judicial review after a similar refusal by a judge, that decision was also, by implication, a refusal to grant permission to appeal against the judge’s decision, and there was no scope . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.84922

On Demand Information Plc and Another v Michael Gerson (Finance) Plc and Another: CA 19 Sep 2000

The power to grant relief from forfeiture in finance leases was real, but ceased to be available after property repossessed by the finance company had been contracted for sale by the applicants. The application for relief was in its nature, an application to permit the continuation of the lease, which could not be the basis where the property was to be sold.

Citations:

Times 19-Sep-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed to – On Demand Information Plc and others v Michael Gerson (Finance) Plc and others HL 18-Apr-2002
The claimant took equipment under leases. After the initial period the rentals would be renewed without substantial further rental payments. The company went into administration after or toward the end of the initial period, and the lessors sought . .
Applied – Transag Haulage Ltd (In Admin Receivership) v Leyland Daf Finance Plc and Another ChD 31-Jan-1994
Hire-purchase agreements for the hire of three lorries were entered into by Transag, a haulier, between January and May 1991. The price for the three lorries was andpound;177,333, with down payments totalling andpound;69,333 and the balance (for . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – On Demand Information Plc and others v Michael Gerson (Finance) Plc and others HL 18-Apr-2002
The claimant took equipment under leases. After the initial period the rentals would be renewed without substantial further rental payments. The company went into administration after or toward the end of the initial period, and the lessors sought . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Financial Services, Litigation Practice

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.84455

Oxford Gene Technology Ltd v Affymetrix Inc and Another: CA 5 Dec 2000

In the course of a challenge to a patent, the patentee sought to amend the patent.
Held: He was not obliged when doing so to disclose documents in a manner which would allow their use on a wider basis than for the consideration of the amendment application. Revealing such documents beyond what was required to show the good faith of the assertion of privilege would lead to the loss of that privilege abroad. There was no obligation in modern litigation on a patentee to waive privilege in respect of all such documents. The decision whether to waive privilege was the patentee’s, and the court’s job was then to decide whether in fact privilege is waived.

Citations:

Times 05-Dec-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property, Litigation Practice

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.84508

Molins Plc v G D Spa: CA 29 Mar 2000

In a case where the national court which would deal with a matter was the court first seised of the matter, a stay could only be awarded where the proceedings until the proceedings were definitively pending in that court. Documents could be served by fax only if the party being served had explicitly consented to service by fax. Publication of a fax number on stationery was not sufficient to amount to consent. This rule contrasts directly with that applied to service by post.
Aldous LJ: ‘I have no doubt that service is a requirement of Italian law before proceedings become definitively pending before an Italian court. I accept that irregular service can under Italian law be validated either by appearance or an order of the judge and that such validation would be retrospective; but until such validation has been achieved the Italian court cannot be seised, as during the interim period the proceedings could not be definitively pending before the Italian court.’ and ‘In my view, seisin cannot depend upon what will happen in the future. This court is concerned to decide whether proceedings in Italy were definitively pending prior to 30 July 1999, the date when the English court was seised of the cause of action. As of that date no validation had taken place.
nce it is established, as it is, that service is required for proceedings to be definitively pending under Italian law, then the decision as to whether service took place depends upon whether service was effected as required by article IV of the Protocol to the Brussels Convention.’

Judges:

Aldous, Potter and Nourse LJJ

Citations:

Times 29-Mar-2000, [2000] 1 WLR 1741

Statutes:

Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil and Comercial Matters 1965 Cmd 3986

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Molins Plc v G D Spa ChD 24-Feb-2000
In a dispute between an Italian company and British one, each sought to have the case heard in its own country. The British company asserted that the case begun in Italy had been begun after at best misrepresentation by the other company, and sought . .

Cited by:

Cited – Nussberger and Another v Phillips and Another (No 4) CA 19-May-2006
A claim was issued in London in December 2004, and then served in part in Switzerland in January 2005. One copy was removed from the bundle by a Swiss official, seeing that it had been marked ‘Nor for service out of the jurisdiction.’ That marking . .
Cited – Brown and Others v InnovatorOne Plc and Others ComC 19-Jun-2009
The claimants served proceedings by fax. The defendants denied that it was effective saying that they had not confirmed that they were instructed to accept service or that as required by the rules they had confirmed that they would accept service by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, International

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.83799

Nascimento v Kerrigan: CA 23 Jun 1999

The Practice Direction requiring Skeleton Arguments to be prepared on applications for leave to appeal was not ultra vires, and correctly described the test to be applied by the court where an application for leave to appeal was made after leave to appeal had been refused at first instance.

Citations:

Times 23-Jun-1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Practice Direction (Court of Appeal: Skeleton Arguments and Case Management) CA 7-Nov-1997
Steps taken by intervention of judges to ensure proper management of appeals and lodging of skeleton arguments. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.84170

Morris and Others v Bank of America National Trust and Others: CA 20 Jan 2000

The defendant applied to strike out the claimant’s statement of case as disclosing no reasonable cause of action. The points of claim ran to 228 paragraphs, and they said that they repeated matters covered in the evidence filed in support. On appeal against dismissal of the application, it was held that there were circumstances where pleadings might have to quote extensively from such materials. Such an application should succeed only if no cause of action could be made out, and a full trial might be avoided.

Citations:

Times 25-Jan-2000, Gazette 20-Jan-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Morris and others v Bank of America and National Trust Savings Association and others CA 25-Mar-2002
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.83843

Manchester City Council v Mclaughlin and Another: CA 5 Apr 2000

Proceedings were taken to commit a litigant for failure to obey a mandatory injunction for the demolition of property erected in breach of planning legislation. A mistake had been made as to the date of the order on which notice of motion was based. The notice had been corrected. It was held that the motion and committal remained valid. The meaning of the order had not been altered, and was quite clear. The original date was actually the date from which the order had in any event begun.

Citations:

Times 05-Apr-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice, Contempt of Court

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.83370

Lonrho Plc v Fayed and Others (No 4 ): CA 27 Oct 1993

Public interest immunity does not attach to documents in the hands of a taxpayer and his advisers. They are not in any event discloseable. (Bingham) ‘a claim made by the revenue to withhold documents relating to a taxpayer’s tax affairs from production without his consent is properly to be regarded as a claim for public interest immunity. But what matters more than the label is the practice, . . . the courts will give very great weight to preserving the confidentiality of such documents in the hands of the revenue. They will override that confidentiality only if, according to settled principles, the applicant shows very strong grounds for concluding that on the facts of the particular case the public interest in the administration of justice outweighs the public interest in preserving the confidentiality of the documents.’

Judges:

Sir Thomas Bingham MR, Leggatt LJ

Citations:

Ind Summary 20-Dec-1993, Times 27-Oct-1993, [1994] QB 775

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Lonrho Plc v Fayed and Others (No 4 ) QBD 13-Jul-1993
Tax documents for an individual were subject to a public interest immunity – but could still be ordered to be produced. . .
Cited – Conway v Rimmer HL 28-Feb-1968
Crown Privilege for Documents held by the Polie
The plaintiff probationary police constable had been investigated, prosecuted and cleared of an allegation of theft. He now claimed damages for malicious prosecution, and in the course of the action, sought disclosure of five documents, but these . .

Cited by:

Cited – Mount Murray Country Club Ltd and others v Commission of Inquiry Into Mount Murray and Another (1) PC 7-Jul-2003
(Isle of Man) The company appealed an order requiring disclosure of their tax documents to an enquiry. The enquiry into possible corruption had been ordered by the Tynwald.
Held: The provisions of the Act protecting tax documents from . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Taxes Management

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.83195

Limb v Union Jack Removals Let and Another; Mcgivern v Brown; Partington v Turners Bakery; Pyne Edwards v Moore Large and Co Ltd: CA 17 Feb 1998

An admission of fault, without acceptance of liability, was not enough to be an admission which could set the 12 month strike out clock running.

Citations:

Times 17-Feb-1998, Gazette 11-Mar-1998

Statutes:

County Court Rules 1981 Order 9 Rule 10(I)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.83068

Macharia v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 25 Nov 1999

The Immigration Appeal Tribunal does not have discretion, whether implied or otherwise, to admit new or further evidence without notice having first been given. The Rules explicitly required advance notice to be given, and nor was it proper for the tribunal itself to introduce evidence. The absence of a rule against such admission of evidence was not conclusive.

Citations:

Times 25-Nov-1999, Gazette 01-Dec-1999

Statutes:

Asylum (Appeals) Procedure Rules 1996 No 2070

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Litigation Practice, Administrative

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.83275

Keith v CPM Marketing Ltd: CA 30 Aug 2000

Where a party applied for an extension of time in order to comply with a directions order, and it was clear that he would want some alternative order if the extension of time was not granted, the court could, in pursuance of the courts over-riding objective, make such an alternative order as if an explicit request had been made. This could include a relief from sanctions for non-compliance.

Citations:

Times 30-Aug-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.82701

Johnson v Valks: CA 23 Nov 1999

A person requiring leave to issue proceedings as a vexatious litigant, had also to obtain leave again before entering an appeal to the Court of Appeal. The entering of an appeal is either the institution of new proceedings, or an application requiring leave as an application in any civil proceedings instituted in any court.
Sir Richard Scott, Vice-Chancellor observed: ‘As a general principle, if a judge of the High Court, to whom application is made by a vexatious litigant for permission to institute proceedings, grants that permission, the leave that is granted franks the proceedings. Every judgment at first instance now requires permission to appeal for the case to be taken further. An application for that permission will receive the attention of either the first instance judge or, as it maybe, the Court of Appeal. A vexatious appeal will not be permitted. So once the High Court has given permission for proceedings to be instituted, a further application to the High Court for permission to institute an appeal is, as it seems to me, superfluous. As at present, however, there is no escape from the requirement that a further application for permission to appeal must be made to the High Court. I propose, the point having come to my attention via Mr Johnson’s proposed appeal, to raise the question with the Rules Committee and see whether we are able to amend the Rules so as to make it clear that no further application under s. 42 of the 1981 Act is needed once permission to institute proceedings has been granted.’

Judges:

Robert Walker LJ, Swinton Thomas LJ

Citations:

Times 23-Nov-1999, Gazette 01-Dec-1999, [2000] 1 WLR 1502, [2000] 1 All ER 450

Statutes:

Supreme Court Act 1981 42(1A)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Common Professional Examination Board, Ex Parte Mealing-Mcclead CA 19-Apr-2000
A party was required to pay money into court before pursuing an appeal. She borrowed money for this purpose but on the express condition that it should be used for this purpose only and was not to become part of her general assets. The money was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Human Rights

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.82564

Jackson and Others v Pinchbeck and Others: CA 4 Jun 1998

When case staid for non-prosecution, a defence delivered during the stay did not become delivered upon the lifting of the stay. Defendant could still argue that action struck out automatically.

Citations:

Gazette 17-Jun-1998, Times 04-Jun-1998

Statutes:

County Court Rules 1981 Order 17 Rule 11

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.82461

Infante v Rai-Radiotelevisione Italiana Spa: CA 11 Mar 1999

An appeal lies against the terms of a court order, not the reasoned judgment which underlay it. If a party wished to appeal and required an amendment to the order to make this possible he should apply on notice before appealing, and without delay.

Citations:

Times 11-Mar-1999, Gazette 17-Mar-1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.82325

International Asset Control Ltd (Trading As Iac Films) v Films Sans Frontieres Sarl: CA 26 Oct 1998

A court could grant conditional leave to defend in a summary judgement application with an order for assessment of damages, where there is a triable issue as to quantum. The power stems from the words of Order 14.

Citations:

Times 26-Oct-1998

Statutes:

Rules of the Supreme Court Order 14

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.82398

In R H (A Minor) (Court Bundles: Disallowance of Fees): CA 6 Jun 2000

The court’s practice direction on the provision of bundles and the specification of what the bundles should contain in Family Division cases, a warning to practitioners that they would have little by way of answer to a wasted costs order. The shorter the appointment the greater the need for appropriate bundles, and the judge should not be expected to have to rely upon the court papers.

Citations:

Times 06-Jun-2000, Gazette 15-Jun-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Practice Direction (Family Proceedings: Court Bundles) 10-Mar-2000
There should at be lodged with the court a summary of the background to the hearing; a statement of the issue or issues to be determined; a summary of the order or directions sought by each party; a chronology; and skeleton arguments. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Litigation Practice, Legal Professions

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.81612

In Re B (A Child) (Split Hearings: Jurisdiction): CA 17 Dec 1999

There had been a split hearing with regard to an application for a child to be committed to the care of the local authority. At the hearing to look into the facts, the court preferred the evidence of a lay witness over medical evidence as to the timing of injuries. The local authority appealed against the findings of fact, and it was held that such an appellate jurisdiction to hear an appeal on the facts where they were determinative under the Act, and the judge had here failed to give reasons to support the decision to reject the expert opinion.

Citations:

Gazette 17-Dec-1999, Times 18-Jan-2000

Statutes:

County Courts Act 1984 77

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice, Children

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.81704

Hunt v Peasegood: CA 20 Oct 2000

Where permission to appeal had been granted, an application to set aside that permission had to be considered only where there existed compelling reason for that reconsideration. The issues for the grant were the overriding objective of litigation and whether an appeal offered a real prospect of success. If that existed, permission was to be granted. If not then it should be refused. The cases of Iran Nabuvat [1990] 1 WLR and Smith v Cosworth Casting Processes Ltd ([1997] 4 All ER 840) remained applicable.

Citations:

Times 20-Oct-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice, Insolvency

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.81531

Heffer and Another v Tiffin Green (A Firm): CA 17 Dec 1998

The plaintiff had sued the defendant accountants for negligently understating their business profits by inflating the figure for creditors. As a result, further tax had to be paid. The plaintiffs claimed the penalties and interest on tax paid exacted by the Inland Revenue Department. The plaintiff appealed a finding that he knew of the overstatement of creditors.
Held: Where a trial judge had merely rehearsed the evidence without putting it into a coherent narrative or listing issues and stating and weighing the facts found, and the case was a complex and difficult one, the only proper remedy was to order a re-trial. The judge had failed to to put in place ‘the building blocks of the reasoned judicial process’
Henry LJ noted that whilst Mr Heffer had obviously been an attractive and persuasive witness, ‘it was crucial to test his evidence against the objective facts, the contemporaneous documents, the motives of those involved, or the lack of them, and the overall probability.’ The trial Judge had not done this: ‘there was no proper reasoned reappraisal of the Judge’s initial view of credibility against the commercial probabilities, and no proper examination of the issues raised by the contemporary documents’. The documents had been looked at, but they had not been given a consideration which was ‘proper, detailed, and dispassionate.’

Judges:

Henry LJ

Citations:

Times 28-Dec-1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – White v White CA 21-Jun-2001
A family had occupied a council house. They purchased the property under the right to buy scheme, with financial assistance from a son, who having paid the mortgage was to allow his parents to live in the house, but then it was to become his. The . .
Cited – Pharmacy Care Systems Limited v The Attorney General 16-Aug-2004
(Court of Appeal of New Zealand) The claimant had settled a dispute with a Health Authority which alleged it had overclaimed for pharmacy supplies. It now claimed that the settlement should be set aside as having been entered into under duress. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.81303

Horizon Technologies International Ltd v Lucky Wealth Consultants Ltd Hong Kong: PC 15 Jan 1992

(Hong Kong) The fact that some but not all of the terms of an agreement were also contained in a Tomlin order did not prevent the party referring to the deed for protection, in an action to enforce the Tomlin Order.

Citations:

Gazette 15-Jan-1992, [1992] 1 WLR 24

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.81471

HFC Bank Plc v HSBC Bank Plc (Formerly Midland Bank Plc): CA 26 Apr 2000

Following a trial, and before the judgment was delivered, the parties arranged to meet and settled their dispute. The judges and the court were not advised and continued to take the trouble of preparing the now nugatory judgment. The legal representatives had a clear duty to inform the court of such happenings in order to avoid wasting judicial time also fell upon the parties themselves, and is now an express duty laid down in the Civil Procedure Rules.

Citations:

Times 26-Apr-2000, Gazette 11-May-2000, [2000] FSR 176

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules Rule 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – HFC Bank Plc v Midland Bank Plc ChD 28-Sep-1999
Mere confusion of identity was insufficient to establish the tort of passing off. The tort is not dependent upon intention. A claimant must establish that it has a goodwill capable of being damaged, that the confusion caused was such as to amount to . .

Cited by:

Cited – Global Projects Management Ltd v Citigroup Inc and Others ChD 17-Oct-2005
GPM had acquired an internet domain name ‘citigroup.co.uk’. Citigroup alleged passing off and trade mark infringement. The claimant complained of an unjustified threat. The defendant counterclaimed, and sought summary judgment.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.81358