Category: Litigation Practice

Hamilton v Al Fayed (2): CA 13 Oct 2000

A third party who financially supported a court action had no right to be joined as a party even at hearings at which decisions would be made which might affect his potential liabilities. Those who financially support proceedings must acknowledge the risks they run in doing so, and to decide otherwise would provide an unacceptable way for partied to buy themselves into a litigation process. Simon Brown LJ said: ‘There is ample authority’ and ‘no dispute’ but that ‘proof of causation is a necessary pre-condition to the making of a section 51 order against a non-party’ before concluding, as a further ground for rejecting the application made in that case for costs against non-party funders, that some at least of the contributions ‘plainly did not cause Mr Al Fayed to incur any costs which he would not otherwise have incurred’.
The court considered an application to admit new evidence to support an allegation that the original judgment had been obtained by fraud: ‘Often the fresh evidence relied upon demonstrates that perjured evidence was given at the trial. In such circumstances, provided that the requirements of Ladd v Marshall are satisfied, the practice of the Court of Appeal has been to order a new trial without resolving the issue of whether the alleged fraud in fact occurred. That issue is best resolved on the retrial.’ and Lord Phillips MR: ‘We consider that under the new, as under the old, procedure special grounds must be shown to justify the introduction of fresh evidence on appeal . . That question must be considered in light of the overriding objective of the new CPR. The old cases will nonetheless remain powerful persuasive authority, for they illustrate the attempts of the courts to strike a fair balance between the need for concluded litigation to be determinative of disputes and the desirability that the judicial process should achieve the right result. The task is one which accords with the overriding objective.’
As to the significance of former cases under the new CPR: ‘That question must be considered in the light of the overriding objective of the new CPR. The old cases will, nonetheless, remain powerful persuasive authority, for they illustrate the attempts of the courts to strike a fair balance between the need for concluded litigation to be determinative of the disputes and the desirability that the judicial process should achieve the right result. That task is one which accords with the overriding objective.’ and ‘A party who seeks to set aside a judgment or verdict by adducing fresh evidence to show that the court was fraudulently deceived can adopt one of two alternative procedures. He can appeal to the Court of Appeal and seek, on appeal, to adduce the fresh evidence, or he can bring a fresh action in which the relief sought is the setting aside of the judgment fraudulently obtained. Where the fresh evidence, or its effect is hotly contested, the latter procedure may prove to be the more satisfactory . . .’ and ‘Because the Court of Appeal alone has power to order a new trial on the ground of fresh evidence, it has been the rule rather than the exception that parties seeking to overturn a judgment on the grounds that it was obtained by fraud have appealed to the Court of Appeal. Lord Buckmaster’s strictures have been generally disregarded. We are inclined to think that because the Court of Appeal has much wider powers to do justice in such a situation, including the power to order issues of fact to be tried, the prevalent practice is one attuned to the overriding objective.’ This was not a case where the judgment had been obtained by fraud.

Judges:

Lord Phillips MR, Simon Brown LJ

Citations:

Times 13-Oct-2000, Gazette 26-Oct-2000, [2001] EMLR 15, [2002] 3 All ER 641

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Jonesco v Beard HL 1930
The plaintiff was a race horse trainer. He had made two claims against the defendant owner alleging first that the defendant had agreed to give him a share in some horses and second that the plaintiff had sold two horses to him but not been paid for . .
Cited – Ladd v Marshall CA 29-Nov-1954
Conditions for new evidence on appeal
At the trial, the wife of the appellant’s opponent said she had forgotten certain events. After the trial she began divorce proceedings, and informed the appellant that she now remembered. He sought either to appeal admitting fresh evidence, or for . .

Cited by:

Cited – Couwenbergh v Valkova CA 27-May-2004
The deceased’s family lived in Europe. The defendant had moved in as tenant and had become confidante and friend over many years. A will had been prepared leaving everything to the defendant. That will had been challenged alleging incorrect . .
Considered – Sohal v Sohal CA 30-Jul-2002
It was alleged that a verdict upholding a will had been obtained by fraud. Permission was sought to appeal.
Held: It is possible to seek to establish that a judgment was obtained by fraud by adducing fresh evidence on an appeal: ‘There is no . .
Cited – Dymocks Franchise Systems (NSW) Pty Ltd v Todd and others (No. 2) PC 21-Jul-2004
PC (New Zealand) Costs were sought against a non-party, following an earlier determination by the Board.
Held: Jurisdiction to make such an order was not complete. Where the order sought was against a . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Paulin ChD 13-May-2005
The director sought to appeal an order disqualifying him form acting as a company director.
Held: The disqualification proceedings were properly charactised as insolvency proceedings and therefore there was no requirement for permission to . .
Cited – Couwenbergh v Valkova CA 28-Jan-2005
The will was challenged as to its due execution. Statements had been produced that the two witnesses had not been present when the will was signed, but those witnesses now said that they and not signed the statements.
Held: The evidence met . .
Cited – Riyad Bank and others v Ahli United Bank (Uk) Plc CA 23-Nov-2005
A renewed application for leave to appeal was made as regards a valuation element of the judgment. New expert evidence was sought to be admitted.
Held: Leave was refused: ‘the Court of Appeal should be particularly cautious where what is . .
Cited – Capital Bank Plc v Mcdiarmid CA 7-Feb-2006
The defendant was said to have guaranteed a hire purchase agreement. The principle, a company, had become insolvent. He denied having signed the document.
Held: Leave to appeal should not be granted. The court considered further evidence. That . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.81191

Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council v Hill: CA 25 Apr 1994

A possession warrant issued under a secure tenancy of a dwelling-house may not be set aside after its execution, unless the possession order itself was set aside for example as having been obtained by fraud. If a possession order has been made, there was no need to notify the tenant that the warrant was issued on a further breach.

Judges:

Nourse LJ

Citations:

Ind Summary 02-May-1994, Gazette 08-Jun-1994, Times 25-Apr-1994, [1994] 27 HLR 368

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 85(2), County Court Rules Ord 37 8(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Jephson Homes Housing Association v Moisejevs and Another CA 1-Nov-2000
A possession warrant, properly issued and executed in ignorance of a payment into court by the tenant was not an abuse of process. The tenant had paid funds into court in the mistaken belief that this would be effective to set aside the warrant. She . .
Cited – Chater v Mortgage Agency Services Number Two Ltd CA 3-Apr-2003
The plaintiff mortgagee had had his warrant for possession executed. He now appealed against an order re-instating the mortgagor to possession.
Held: The wife had been unaware of the charge, and had not been made party to the proceedings. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Housing, Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.81203

Greening and Another (Trading As Automania) v Williams: CA 10 Dec 1999

In order to establish a plea of tender before, the defendant had, in addition to making the actual payment into court, also to serve on the claimant the formal notice required under the rules to say that the payment had been made. In the absence of such, he achieved no protection form an award of costs. Notification by means of the pleadings in the action was not sufficient.

Citations:

Times 10-Dec-1999

Statutes:

Rules of the Supreme Court Ord 18 R 16

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice, Costs

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.81012

Gnitrow Ltd v Cape Plc: CA 18 Jul 2000

Where a main contractor had agreed through its insurers levels of compensation to be paid to workers affected by asbestosis, and sought to recover those damages from a sub-contractor, justice could only be served if the compensation agreement was disclosed to the defendant. If not then the defendant would be needlessly in the dark when considering a payment in. The judge need not however know of the terms of the agreement until an appropriate point in the trial.

Citations:

Times 18-Jul-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice, Damages

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.80886

Hamblin v Field: CA 26 Apr 2000

Parties appearing in court should resist the temptation to quote too many cases. Where the reference was to a summary, and where it was not clear that the words in the summary were those of the judge or of a reporting practitioner, particular care must be taken, and such summaries should not be used in court.

Citations:

Times 26-Apr-2000, Gazette 25-May-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.81184

Farah and Others v Home Office, British Airways Plc and Another: CA 6 Dec 1999

The applicants claimed in negligence against the Home Office after its advisers had wrongly advised the first defendants that the claimants’ travel documents were not valid. The claim was struck out, and the claimants appealed. The strike out was wrong in principle, because such a claim required first for certain facts to be established or denied, and that required other steps to be taken before a strike out application could properly be determined. Such a representation arguably founded a negligence action because there was arguably a sufficient degree of proximity between the Home Office and the passenger to give rise to a duty of care. The strike out was premature.

Judges:

Lord Woolf MR and Chadwick LJ

Citations:

Times 26-Jan-2000

Statutes:

Immigration (Carriers Liability) Act 1987

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Equitable Life Assurance Society v Ernst and Young CA 25-Jul-2003
The claimant sought damages from its accountants, saying that had they been advised of the difficulties in their financial situation, they would have been able to avoid the loss of some 2.5 billion pounds, or to sell their assets at a time when . .
Cited – Chagos Islanders v The Attorney General, Her Majesty’s British Indian Ocean Territory Commissioner QBD 9-Oct-2003
The Chagos Islands had been a British dependent territory since 1814. The British government repatriated the islanders in the 1960s, and the Ilois now sought damages for their wrongful displacement, misfeasance, deceit, negligence and to establish a . .
Cited – Binod Sutradhar v Natural Environment Research Council CA 20-Feb-2004
The defendant council had carried out research into a water supply in India in the 1980s. The claimant drank the water, and claimed damages for having consumed arsenic in it.
Held: There is a close link between the tests in law for proximity . .
Cited – Quickson (South and West) Limited v Stephen Mark Katz, John Stephen Kelmanson (As Joint Liquidators of Buildlead Limited) ChD 25-Aug-2004
Various applications were made in the insolvency, including for removal of the liquidators and declarations that certain payments were a fraudulent preference on the creditors.
Held: No prejudice had been shown by any procedural irregularity. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Negligence

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.80467

Foxen v Scotsman Publications Ltd and Another: QBD 17 Feb 1994

A transfer for forum conveniens reasons is not possible between jurisdictions within the UK, and an action in England would not be stayed to allow an intended action in Scotland to proceed on that basis.

Citations:

Ind Summary 28-Mar-1994, Times 17-Feb-1994

Defamation, Litigation Practice, Jurisdiction

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.80652

Fenland District Council v Reuben Roae (Properties) Ltd: CA 6 Apr 2000

The owner of a listed building obtained consent for certain works, but the local authority failed to notify the Secretary of State. Later the works were to be started, and the authority claimed that the consent was void, and sought an injunction. It was held that the injunction was capable of being granted under the clear words of the Act, and it was the clear duty of the authority in the circumstances to seek an injunction. The fact that they were at fault did not absolve them of that duty.

Citations:

Gazette 06-Apr-2000

Statutes:

Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning, Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.80499

Fryer v Pearson and Another: CA 4 Apr 2000

Courts and lawyers appearing before them should avoid the use of legal maxims in Latin, which could not be expected to be understood by the population at large. In this case a gas fitter had knelt on a carpet, and suffered when a needle in the carpet was driven into his knee. He failed in a claim for personal injuries.

Citations:

Times 04-Apr-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.80697

Forrest and Another v Towry Law Financial Services Ltd and Others: CA 25 Nov 1999

Once a writ had been issued, the Ombudsman had no standing to hear a complaint. The applicant wished to preserve his rights against the defendant in negligence but to pursue a complaint first. It was held that the writ having been issued, it would first have to be stayed, adjourned or discontinued, before the Ombudsman could accept jurisdiction on the complaint.

Citations:

Gazette 25-Nov-1999, Times 03-Dec-1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Administrative, Litigation Practice, Financial Services

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.80638

Ebert v Birch and Another; Ebert v Verivil and Another: CA 12 May 1999

The court retains an inherent power to prohibit vexatious proceedings in addition to its statutory powers. The court would only do so for clear reason, and the claimant who was prohibited in this way remained protected because he retained the right to apply for leave to issue proceedings.

Citations:

Gazette 12-May-1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.80241

Curi v Colina: CA 14 Oct 1998

A chance of ‘serious . . disease or deterioration’ must be a measurable risk rather than merely fanciful. There must be a possibility of deterioration, but there is no need to show more than a possibility.

Citations:

Times 14-Oct-1998

Statutes:

County Courts Act 1984 51

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

approved – Wilson v Ministry of Defence 1991
The court was asked to look at three events envisaged, and to consider whether, if they did occur, they should be described as constituting serious deterioration.
Held: ‘First of all the development of arthritis to the extent that surgery is . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.79713

Darragh and Others v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police: CA 20 Oct 1998

Judge was correct to direct trial by judge only where the assessment of damages would involve assessment of medical evidence. Such evidence required ‘scientific investigation’ displacing need for trial by jury in false imprisonment and like cases.

Citations:

Times 20-Oct-1998

Statutes:

Supreme Court Act 1981 69(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.79811

Dearman v Simpletest Ltd: CA 14 Feb 2000

Notes in the White Book were procedural rather than black letter law, and a claim for possession was not to be defeated only because the claimant had failed to join in all the parties listed in the note. Such notes were intended to be of assistance to practitioners, and not to create a compulsory requirement.

Citations:

Times 14-Feb-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.79862

Countryside Residential (North Thames) Ltd v Tugwell: CA 4 Apr 2000

A company was granted a licence to enter on land, for surveys and technical investigations, with a view eventually to its purchase. The land was occupied by protesters, and the company sought an injunction to exclude them. It was held that the licence did not give a right to occupy the land to the exclusion of others, and therefore, they had insufficient degree of occupation of the land to found an application to exclude the protesters. Something beyond just the right to enter the land is required. ‘he places emphasis on the fact that the right is to enter and occupy. It seems to me that there is a clear difference between a licence granted for the purpose of access, which does not provide effective control over the land, and a license to occupy which does.’

Judges:

Aldous and Waller LJJ and Rougier J

Citations:

Gazette 28-Apr-2000, Times 04-Apr-2000, (2001) 81 PandC R 10

Statutes:

Rules of the Supreme Court Order 113

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Manchester Airport Plc v Dutton; Longmire; Stoddard; Maile and Persons Unknown CA 4-Mar-1999
The claimant wished to construct a new runway on its own land, and it was necessary to carry out works, namely, that trees on nearby land should be lopped or felled so that they would not constitute an obstruction to the flight path. The claimant . .

Cited by:

Cited – Alamo Housing Co-operative Ltd v Meredith and others CA 4-Apr-2003
The local authority had let a row of houses to the claimant who then sublet the individual houses to the defendant tenants. The authority obtained possession under the head lease for redevelopment, but the tenants resisted giving possession, saying . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.79535

Clarkson v Gilbert and Others: CA 4 Jul 2000

A litigant in person seeking permission for the use of an advocate must give reasons for the request, and satisfy the court that it was appropriate. Where the court granted such a right, the litigant in person should normally herself be present throughout. The objections which naturally arose against an unqualified person providing an advocacy service being granted such rights need not apply to a family member offering support.

Citations:

Times 04-Jul-2000

Statutes:

Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 27(2)(c)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.79210

Clive Brooks and Co Ltd v Baynard and Others: CA 30 Apr 1998

An order requiring a party to provide security for costs should stay all proceedings till satisfied and specify a time limit. There was no obligation on a party subject to such an order to warn the other party that it was unlikely to meet order for security.

Citations:

Times 30-Apr-1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.79229

Beeforth v Beeforth and Others: CA 17 Sep 1998

Though courts should seek to enforce ‘unless’ orders, they had to be sure that the sanction was proportionate to the offence. The Order which had not complied with, had been complicated, and the non-compliance was not wilful.

Citations:

Times 17-Sep-1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.78317

Barclays Bank Plc v Ellis and Another: CA 24 Oct 2000

If counsel wished to raise at trial an argument about an infringement of the Convention, it behove him to be prepared with a full argument and to have available any material in terms of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights upon which they or the court could rely.

Citations:

Times 24-Oct-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Human Rights, Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.78198

Attorney-General v Barker: CA 16 Feb 2000

An order that someone be denied access to the courts save with consent of a judge was a challenge to that individual’s constitutional rights, and should only be made if the statutory pre-conditions are fulfilled. It had to be shown that the litigant had habitually and persistently and without reasonable ground instituted vexatious civil proceedings. Without fulfillment of that pre-condition, no discretion lay in the judge to make an order. That precondition was not satisfied in this case, and an order was refused.
Lord Bingham CJ: ”Vexatious’ is a familiar term in legal parlance. The hallmark of a vexatious proceedings is in my judgment that it has little or no basis in law (or at least no discernible basis); that whatever the intention of the proceeding may be, its effect is to subject the defendant to inconvenience, harassment and expense out of all proportion to any gain likely to accrue to the claimant; and that it involves an abuse of the process of the court, meaning by that a use of the court process for a purpose or in a way which is significantly different from the ordinary and proper use of the court process.’ and
‘From extensive experience of dealing with applications under section 42 the court has become familiar with the hallmark of persistent and habitual litigious activity. The hallmark usually is that the plaintiff sues the same party repeatedly in reliance on essentially the same cause of action, perhaps with minor variations, after it has been ruled upon, thereby imposing on defendants the burden of resisting claim after claim; that the claimant relies on essentially the same cause of action, perhaps with minor variations, after it has been ruled upon, in actions against successive parties who if they were to be sued at all should have been joined in the same action; that the claimant automatically challenges every adverse decision on appeal; and that the claimant refuses to take any notice of or give any effect to orders of the court. The essential vice of habitual and persistent litigation is keeping on and on litigating when earlier litigation has been unsuccessful and when on any rational and objective assessment the time has come to stop.’

Judges:

Lord Bingham CJ

Citations:

Times 07-Mar-2000, Gazette 09-Mar-2000, [2001] 1 FLR 759

Statutes:

Supreme Court Act 1981 42(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – HM Attorney-General v Ian Richard Flack Admn 29-Nov-2000
A civil proceedings order was sought against the respondent. The respondent had commenced many actions against a particular company, which it was claimed were vindictive in nature.
Held: Though the earliest proceedings had been vexatious it . .
Cited – HM Attorney General v Pepin Admn 27-May-2004
Civil proceedings order. The defendant had commenced ten sets of proceedings which the court held amounted to serial and repeated litigation of the same points.
Held: The fact that new details had emerged which might throw new light on the . .
Cited – HM Attorney General v Foden Admn 7-Apr-2005
Application for Civil Proceedings Order.
Held: ‘This defendant has become a compulsive litigant who has lost touch with reality. Her remorseless pursuit of litigation is wholly without merit, is clearly vexatious and has perpetrated a waste of . .
Cited – Attorney General v Perotti Admn 10-May-2006
The respondent had been subject first to a Grepe v Loam order and then to an extended civil restraint order. The court had still faced many hopeless applications. An order was now sought that any future application for permission to appeal be heard . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional, Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.77976

Adam Phones Ltd v Goldschmidt and Others: CA 17 Aug 1999

Especially given the new emphasis on proportionality, a party who brought contempt proceedings, in the case of an inadvertent breach of an injunction, with a view solely to creating costs for the other party, could expect to face those costs themselves. It was unwise to execute a complex search and seize order on a Saturday when the defendant would not have access to legal advice, and with no supervising solicitor. The mental element required of a contemnor is not that he either intends to breach or knows that he is breaching the court order or undertaking, but only that he intended the act or omission in question, and knew the facts which made it a breach of the order.
Jacob J, applying Bhimji, said: ‘Since that judgment the Civil Procedure Rules have come into force. Their emphasis on proportionality and on looking at the overall conduct of the parties emphasises the point that applications for committal should not be seen as a way of causing costs when the defendant has honestly tried to obey the court’s order.’

Judges:

Jacob J

Citations:

Times 17-Aug-1999, [1999] 4 All ER 486

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Bhimji v Chatwani 1991
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Sectorguard Plc v Dienne Plc ChD 3-Nov-2009
The claimant alleged misuse of confidential information in the form of its customer list, and its charges to them. The defendant company was run by former employees of the claimant. A later allegation was made of accessing the defendant’s private . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Contempt of Court

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.77636

Aadan v Brent London Borough Council: CA 3 Dec 1999

On a day when the court office is closed, the time for filing documents is accordingly extended by one day, if the expiring day would otherwise have been that day. A request for an appeal was due to be filed within 21 days. The last day was a day on which the court was closed. This made filing impossible for that day.

Citations:

Times 03-Dec-1999, (1999) 32 HLR 848

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Pritam Kaur v S Russell and Sons Ltd CA 2-Jun-1972
The plaintiff sought damages following the death of her husband when working for the defendant. The limitation period expired on Saturday 5 September 1970. The writ was issued on the Monday following.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The writ was . .

Cited by:

Cited – Van Aken v Camden London Borough Council CA 11-Oct-2002
The appellant sought to appeal a review of his application for housing. The appeal was lodged at court after close of business on the last day of the statutory time limit. The court decided it was delivered out of time.
Held: The Act required . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.77592

In re Field: 1971

The plaintiff had an order for maintenance against the deceased’s estate. She brought proceedings in her own name against an insurance company which had wrongly paid a claim to the widow and not to the estate. The insurer sought a strike out. The court had previously refused to order the administrators to sue or alternatively that she should be at liberty to sue in her own name in the new proceedings. The personal representatives were already joined as formal defendants.
Held: The court rejected the argument that a beneficiary could only sue where a court would direct the executor to sue. That test was not a definition of the circumstances in which the beneficiary could sue in his or her name. This was not such a case, because the widow was the only beneficiary apart from the plaintiff. Though the strike out was refused. the fact that an asset belonging to the estate could only be got in if the plaintiff sued the company could not, by itself, be a special circumstance ‘because, if it were, it would wholly abrogate the rule that special circumstances have to be shown.’
There were special circumstances for the reason that the alleged asset had been paid to the widow on the footing that it was not part of the estate. The widow could not be expected to litigate this question. The circumstances were similar to the case where the cause of action was held on a bare trust. The relevance of that was that this court had held that a beneficiary under a bare trust could bring proceedings in his own name and where the trustees refused to sue, joining the other beneficiaries as defendants: Harmer v Armstrong [1934] Ch 65.
Goff J said: ‘She does not and, indeed, cannot ask for payment to herself, but she asks for payment to the administrators who are added as defendants for the purpose of regularising the proceedings and, by her writ and statement of claim, she expressly disclaims any relief as against them.’
Held: There were special circumstances entitling the former wife to make the claim, particularly because there were no other beneficiaries and the alleged asset had been paid to the widow on the footing that it was not part of the estate. Consequently ‘justice requires that the plaintiff, who is the only other person interested, should be allowed to have this question properly tried by the court.’

Judges:

Goff J

Citations:

[1971] 1 WLR 555

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Harmer v Armstrong CA 1934
The court considered the position where the assignor of a contract was required to attend court as a party when the assignee sought to enforce the debt.
Held: A beneficiary under a bare trust could bring proceedings in his own name and, where . .

Cited by:

Cited – Roberts v Gill and Co and Another CA 15-Jul-2008
The claimant sought damages in negligence against solicitors who had advised the executors in an estate of which he was a beneficiary. He now sought to amend his claim to make a claim in his personal and in derivative capacities. Sums had been paid . .
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.

Wills and Probate, Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.279802

Abbey National Plc v Frost (Stephen Leonard) Solicitors Indemnity Fund Intervening: CA 19 Mar 1998

The Court may not allow substituted service on a fund indemnifying defendant where the chosen method of service will not bring the proceedings to the attention of actual proposed defendant.

Citations:

Times 19-Mar-1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Abbey National Plc v Frost (Stephen Leonard), Solicitors Indemnity Fund Ltd Intervening ChD 5-Feb-1998
A plaintiff alleging negligence against a solicitor who had subsequently disappeared, could have substituted service on his professional insurers despite the fact that it was unlikely that that would bring the writ to his attention. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.77599

Yeatman v Yeatman: 1877

An action was brought by a residuary legatee against her mother-in-law’s executors and another member of the family, who it was alleged, had failed to account for partnership monies to the mother-in-law.
Held: A beneficiary of a trust could not sue in the name of the trustee merely because the trustee had refused to sue, but if in a case where the trustee refused to sue the court was satisfied that it would have given liberty to the trustee to bring proceedings even though there was no certainty that the proceedings would be successful, these would in general be special circumstances in which the beneficiary could sue in his own name.

Judges:

Hall VC

Citations:

(1877) 7 Ch D 201

Cited by:

Cited – Roberts v Gill and Co and Another CA 15-Jul-2008
The claimant sought damages in negligence against solicitors who had advised the executors in an estate of which he was a beneficiary. He now sought to amend his claim to make a claim in his personal and in derivative capacities. Sums had been paid . .
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, Trusts

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.279800

Gosset v Howard: 1845

Sequestrators, as officers of the court who act under the order of the court, are entitled to immunity from suit.

Citations:

(1845) 10 QB 35

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Tombstone Ltd v Raja and Another; Raja v Van Hoogstraten and others (No 9) CA 17-Dec-2008
The claimant complained of an irregularly obtained judgment. The defendant had obtained an amendment to a writ of sequestration in the course of a bitterly fought dispute bewteen the defendant and the owner of the claimant. The judge had found the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.279789

Lancaster v Evors: 1841

A creditor of the deceased’s estate could enforce a cause of action vested in an estate which the executors were not willing to enforce.

Citations:

(1841) 4 Beav 158

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Roberts v Gill and Co and Another CA 15-Jul-2008
The claimant sought damages in negligence against solicitors who had advised the executors in an estate of which he was a beneficiary. He now sought to amend his claim to make a claim in his personal and in derivative capacities. Sums had been paid . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Wills and Probate

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.279799

McLeod v Glasgow Western Hospitals: 1954

Judges:

Lord President Cooper

Citations:

1954 SC 453

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Cited – Flood v The University Court of the University of Glasgow OHCS 8-Jul-2008
The pursuer, a college lecturer claimed damages for stress related injury suffered as a result of overwork. She had communicated with her managers many times about the overload. Other staff had resigned for similar reasons.
Held: The pursuer . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.279108

President’s Guidance: McKenzie Friends: FD 14 Apr 2008

‘A court may grant an unqualified person a right of audience in exceptional circumstances and after careful consideration. If the litigant in person wishes the MF to be granted a right of audience or the right to conduct the litigation, an application must be made at the start of the hearing.’

Judges:

Sir Mark Potter P

Citations:

[2008] 2 FLR 110

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – In Re N (A Child) FD 20-Aug-2008
There had been several hearings and the father had been assisted by a McKenzie friend permitted to address the court. The father now objected to the mother’s McKenzie friend being given similar leave.
Held: Whilst Dr Pelling might make a . .
See Also – Practice Guidance: McKenzie Friends (Civil and Family Courts) 2010
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.276257

Carter Holt Forests Ltd v Sunnex Logging Ltd: 2001

(Court of Appeal of New Zealand) Lawyers had acted for a claimant in mediation proceedings with a defendant and had signed a comprehensive confidentiality agreement. The mediation resulted in a settlement. They were then instructed by another claimant in respect of a very similar dispute against the same defendant.
Held: There was a risk that the lawyers would make use of confidential information acquired in the earlier proceedings in the subsequent action, and they should not be permitted to continue to act.
Blanchard J said: ‘Certainly a party seeking the exclusion of the other side’s legal adviser must first show that there is an appearance of risk, going beyond the remote or merely fanciful, of conscious or unconscious use or disclosure by the lawyer of something relevant to the current dispute of which the lawyer gained knowledge as a result of participation in an earlier mediation. But if that threshold is reached, it is then for the lawyer to demonstrate that in fact no such risks exists or that, if it does, no damage, other than de minimis, could possibly result from use or disclosure.’

Judges:

Blanchard J

Citations:

[2001] 3 NZLR 343

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – British Sky Broadcasting Group Plc and Another v Virgin Media Communications Ltd and others CA 6-Jun-2008
The parties were involved in litigation concerning allegations of anti-consumer practices. It was agreed that commercially sensitive documents should be exchanged, but the terms protecting the confidences could not be agreed. The parties were also . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Litigation Practice, Legal Professions

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.268776

Morris v The Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association (Amendment of Claim): 2002

Whether party should be allowed to amend pleadings shortly before a trial.

Citations:

[2002] EWCA (Civ) 425

Cited by:

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

Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.263203

Reichal v Magrath: 1889

The court has an inherent jurisdiction to strike out all proceedings before it which are obviously frivolous or vexatious or an abuse of its process.

Citations:

(1889) 14 AC 665

Cited by:

Cited – Brown v HM Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, the Executors of the Estate of and others FD 5-Jul-2007
The plaintiff sought the unsealing of the wills of the late Queen Mother and of the late Princess Margaret, claiming that these would assist him establishing that he was the illegitimate son of the latter.
Held: The application was frivolous. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.254493

Kooltrade v XTS Ltd: 2001

The court refused an application by the claimant, made after judgment, to add additional defendants. It was no longer possible to re-open the judgment, and the capacity of the purported additional defendants to defend had been prejudiced.

Citations:

[2001] IPD 25018

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.251813

Snelling v John Snelling: 1973

It can be an abuse of process for a party to bring proceedings on a cause against a defendant already released from liability for consideration.

Citations:

[1973] 1 QB 79

Cited by:

Cited – Barrett v Universal-Island Records Ltd and others ChD 15-May-2006
The claimant was entitled to share in the copyright royalties of Bob Marley and the Wailers, and claimed payment from the defendants. The defendants said that the matters had already been settled and that the claim was an abuse of process, and also . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.251607

Teign Valley Mining Co. Ltd, v Woodcock: 22 Jul 1899

A company claimed for money owed upon calls upon its shares. The defendant, Woodcock, admitted liability to the company but claimed against a Captain Rising that he held the shares as his nominee. The judge admitted in evidence terms of the negotiation between the plaintiffs and Captain Rising in which Captain Rising admitted ownership of the shares standing in the name of the nominee. The judge expressed doubts whether he should have admitted the evidence and said he did so because he had been pressed to do so by counsel. The protection afforded by ‘without prejudice’ does not extend to third parties.

Judges:

Darling J

Citations:

Times 22-Jul-1899

Cited by:

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

Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.253693

Attorney-General v Colchester Corporation: 1955

Lord Goddard said: ‘No authority has been quoted to show that an injunction will be granted enjoining a person to carry on a business, nor can I think that one ever would be, certainly not where the business is a losing concern.’

Judges:

Lord Goddard CJ

Citations:

[1955] 2 QB 207

Cited by:

Cited – Co-Operative Insurance Society Ltd v Argyll Stores HL 21-May-1997
The tenants of a unit on a large shopping centre found the business losing money, and closed it in contravention of a ‘keep open’ clause in the lease. They now appealed from a mandatory injunction requiring them to keep the store open.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.247888

Atlantic Shipping and Trading Co v Louis Dreyfus and Co: HL 1921

Lord Dunedin said: ‘My Lords in these commercial cases it is I think of the highest importance that authorities should not be disturbed and if your lordships find that a certain doctrine has been laid down in former cases and presumably acted upon you will not be disposed to alter that doctrine unless you think it clearly wrong.’

Judges:

Lord Dunedin

Citations:

[1921] 2 AC 250, [1922] 10 Ll Rep 703

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – The ‘Nukila’ CA 1987
Hobhouse LJ said: ‘Turning to the authorities it must at the outset be recognised that, whether or not they are strictly binding on us, they must, insofar as they represent the existing authoritative statements of the law only be departed from if . .
Cited – Transfield Shipping Inc of Panama v Mercator Shipping Inc of Monrovia ComC 1-Dec-2006
The owners made substantial losses after the charterers breached the contract by failing to redliver the ship on time as agreed.
Held: On the facts found the Owners’ primary claim is not too remote. To the knowledge of the Charterers, it was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Damages

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.246867

LT Piver Sarl v S and J Perfume Co Ltd: 1987

A plaintiff’s representative saw an article on premises which he was inspecting pursuant to an Anton Piller order which he thought infringed the rights of third parties.
Held: He was at liberty to report this to the third party concerned.

Citations:

[1987] FSR 159

Cited by:

Cited – Director of the Assets Recovery Agency v Szepietowski and others Admn 29-Sep-2006
The respondent had objected that the appointment of an interim receiver had been based upon information obtained in the course of investigations undertaken in connection with different proceedings and allegations.
Held: The enforcement agency . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.247611

Dunford v McAnulty: HL 1883

Lord Blackburn: ‘in ejectment, where a person was in possession those who sought to turn him out were to recover upon the strength of their own title ; and consequently possession was at law a good defence against anyone, and those who sought to turn the man in possession out must shew a superior legal title to his .’

Judges:

Lord Blackburn

Citations:

(1883) 8 AC 456

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Manchester Airport Plc v Dutton and others CA 23-Feb-1999
The claimant sought an order requiring delivery of possession of land occupied by the respondent objectors. They needed to remove trees from the land in order to construct a runway on their own adjacent land. The claimant had been granted a licence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.247618

XXX v YYY: CA 2004

Buxton LJ: ‘The first and most important rule of the law of evidence, though one that is not always perceived or observed, is that evidence is only admissible if it indeed is relevant to an issue between the parties.’

Judges:

Buxton LJ

Citations:

[2004] IRLR 471, [2004] EWCA Civ 231

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Amwell View School v Dogherty EAT 15-Sep-2006
amwell_dogherty
The claimant had secretly recorded the disciplinary hearings and also the deliberations of the disciplinary panel after their retirement. The tribunal had at a case management hearing admitted the recordings as evidence, and the defendant appealed, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Employment

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.245187

Phillips and Another v Symes and Others (No 6): CA 19 May 2006

Proceedings were issued in England for service on the defendant in Switzerland, but because of an error by the Swiss Court were not properly served. Proceedings were then issued in Sitzerland, and seisin was claimed for the Swiss Court. The claimant applied to have service dispensed with in order to obtain priority for the English proceedings.
Held: The order should not be made. It was wrong to try to manipulate court rules to gain seisin of a case and thus priority of jurisdiction.

Judges:

Pill LJ, Neuberger LJ, Wilson LJ

Citations:

Times 17-Jul-2006

Statutes:

Lugano Convention

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Phillips, Harland (Suing As Administrators of the Estate of Christo Michailidis) v Symes (A Bankrupt), Nussberger, Galerie Nefer Ag, Geoff Rowley ChD 19-Aug-2005
The court allowed the appellant’s application to dispense with service of a claim form under the rule. The High Court became seised of the matter as at 19 January 2005. Further directions were given. . .
See Also – Phillips and Another v Robin James Symes and Robin Symes Ltd ChD 9-Jul-2001
English proceedings were issued to claim against a partnership. Simultaneously proceedings were issued in Greece, but the Greek proceedings were served on the London parties first. The plaintiffs in Greece asked the English court to issue a stay of . .
See Also – Phillips v Symes CA 2003
Courts should be reluctant to exclude altogether evidence merely because it is written. If the purpose of the order sought was to trace assets it would be wrong to permit cross-examination which was designed to show that there had been a contempt of . .
See Also – Phillips, Harland (Administrators of the Estate of Michailidis), Papadimitriou; Symes (A Bankrupt), Robin Symes Limited (In Administrative Receivership), Domercq etc ChD 30-Jul-2004
Under the Ciivil Procedure Rules, experts have acquired greater responsibilities to the court. Those responsibilities transcend their perceived obligations to the parties whom they give evidence. . .
See Also – Phillips, Harland (Suing As Administrators of the Estate of Christo Michailidis), Papadimitriou v Symes (A Bankrupt) Robin Symes Limited (In Administrative Receivership) Jean-Louis Domercq ChD 20-Oct-2004
Dr Z had given expert evidence in the principal proceedings. It was now said that that evidence had not been given in the proper way, and a remedy was now sought in costs.
Peter Smith J had held that: ‘It seems to me that in the administration . .
See Also – Phillips, Harland (Suing As Administrators of the Estate of Christo Michailidis), Papadimitriou v Symes (A Bankrupt) Robin Symes Limited (In Administrative Receivership) Jean-Louis Domercq etc ChD 20-Oct-2004
. .
See Also – Symes v Phillips and others CA 6-May-2005
. .
See Also – Symes v Phillips and others CA 19-May-2005
The applicant was in contempt of court. He successfully appealed a sentence of two years imprisonment, with the sentence being reduced to one year. Legally aided, he sought his costs from the claimant. The claimant replied that their part was only . .

Cited by:

See Also – Phillips and others v Symes and others ChD 12-Jul-2006
. .
See Also – Phillips and others v Symes and others ChD 16-Oct-2006
. .
See Also – Phillips and Another v Symes and others HL 23-Jan-2008
Various parties had sought relief in the English courts and in Switzerland after an alleged fraud. There had been a mistake in service of the proceedings in England. The high court had dispensed with service an backdated the effect of the order to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.244720

Liverpool Roman Catholic Archdeacon Trustees Inc v Goldberg (No 2): 2001

The claimant brought proceedings for professional negligence against a barrister specialising in tax. The Defendant wished to rely upon the expert evidence of another tax barrister in the same set of chambers as him, who was a friend of many years’ standing. In his expert report, the proposed expert said that he did not believe his relationship with the defendant would affect his evidence, but accepted that his personal sympathies were engaged to a greater degree than would probably be normal with an expert witness.
Held: The court may take a different view from that of the parties as to whether an expert has a conflict of interest which might lead the court to reject the independence of his opinion. By the admission that his personal sympathies were engaged to a greater degree than would probably be normal with an expert witness, the expert had rendered his evidence unacceptable on the grounds of public policy that justice must be seen to be done as well as done.
Evans Lombe J said: ‘However, in my judgment, where it is demonstrated that there exists a relationship between the proposed expert and the party calling him which a reasonable observer might think was capable of affecting the views of the expert so as to make them unduly favourable to that party, his evidence should not be admitted however unbiased the conclusions of the expert might probably be. The question is one of fact, namely the extent and nature of the relationship between the proposed witness and the party.’

Judges:

Evans Lombe J

Citations:

[2001] 1 WLR 2337, [2001] 4 All ER 950, [2001] Lloyds Rep Prosecution 518

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Toth v Jarman CA 19-Jul-2006
The claimant appealed dismissal of his claim for damages for nervous shock, associated with the alleged negligence of the defendant doctor in treating his son. It was said that the medical expert had not disclosed a conflict of interest.
Held: . .
Cited – Armchair Passenger Transport Ltd v Helical Bar Plc and Another QBD 28-Feb-2003
Objection was made to the use of an expert witness who had formerly been a senior employee of the defendant.
Held: The court set out criteria for testing the independence of a proposed expert witness: ‘i) It is always desirable that an expert . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.244629

Amec Developments Limited v Jury’s Hotel Management (UK) Limited: 2001

A hotel had been built so as to encroach across a building line in breach of covenant, allowing the hotel to have 25 more rooms than it would otherwise have enjoyed. The court considered conflicting evidence as to the capital value of the additional rooms.
Held: The court set out in detail its approach to the hypothetical negotiation for a licence to breach the covenant in great detail, including a preference for Amec’s method of arriving at the incremental value of the additional rooms, and awarded andpound;375,000, nearly 20 per cent of the increased value on that view. The correct date for assessing damages is normally the date before the building works in question are started.

Judges:

Anthony Mann QC

Citations:

[2001] EGLR 81

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Small v Oliver and Saunders (Developments) Ltd ChD 25-May-2006
The claimant said his property had the benefit of covenants in a building scheme so as to allow him to object to the building of an additional house on a neighbouring plot in breach of a covenant to build only one house on the plot. Most but not all . .
Cited – WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature) and Another v World Wrestling Federation Entertainment Inc CA 2-Apr-2007
The parties had disputed use of the initals WWF, with a compromise reached in 1994 allowing primary use by the Fund with restricted use by the Federation. The Federation now appealed an award of damages made after a finding of a breach of the . .
Cited – Tamares (Vincent Square) Ltd. v Fairpoint Properties (Vincent Square) Ltd ChD 8-Feb-2007
The defendant had been found liable for infringing the claimant’s right of light. The court considered the proper measure of damages.
Held: The court should ask what might be the fair result of a hypothetical negiation for the sale of the . .
Cited – Harris v Williams-Wynne ChD 11-Feb-2005
The parties agreed in sale agreement for a plot of land that the buyer would not erect any additional building. He did so, and when he came to try to sell it the original vendor objected. The purchaser’s solicitors registered the agreement for sale. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Damages

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.242395

Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co v Johnson and Johnson: 1976

The court will normally only refuse a stay pending appeal against the award of an injunction if the successful injunctor is willing to give a cross-undertaking in damages should the appeal be successful

Citations:

[1976] RPC 671

Cited by:

Cited – Smithkline Beecham Plc Glaxosmithkline UK Ltd and Another v Apotex Europe Ltd and others (No 2) CA 23-May-2006
The parties to the action had given cross undertakings to support the grant of an interim injunction. A third party subsequently applied to be joined, and now sought to take advantage of the cross undertakings to claim the losses incurred through . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.242617

Gangway Ltd v Caledonian Park Investments (Jersey) Ltd: 2001

The purpose of an asset freezing order is not to give a claimant security for his claim or give him any proprietary interest in the assets restrained.

Judges:

Colman J

Citations:

[2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 715

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.242683

Charlesworth v Road Relay: 2001

It will generally only be in rare cases that the judge will exercise his discretion to admit new evidence after judgment has been handed down.

Judges:

Neuberger J

Citations:

[2001] 1 WLR 230

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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

Cited by:

Cited – Parker v Synder, Siddons, Price CA 1-Nov-2005
Application for leave to appeal, and to adduce further evidence. The claim alleged that the defendants had purchased his company for a nominal down payment, but then run the company down.
Held: The appeal against the refusal to admit new . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.237742

Parker v Synder, Siddons, Price: CA 1 Nov 2005

Application for leave to appeal, and to adduce further evidence. The claim alleged that the defendants had purchased his company for a nominal down payment, but then run the company down.
Held: The appeal against the refusal to admit new evidence failed. The appeal against the judge’s factual findings failed. The judge had been entitled to make the findings he did.

Judges:

Gage J, Sir Peter Gibson

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 1416

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Ladd v Marshall CA 29-Nov-1954
Conditions for new evidence on appeal
At the trial, the wife of the appellant’s opponent said she had forgotten certain events. After the trial she began divorce proceedings, and informed the appellant that she now remembered. He sought either to appeal admitting fresh evidence, or for . .
Cited – Charlesworth v Road Relay 2001
It will generally only be in rare cases that the judge will exercise his discretion to admit new evidence after judgment has been handed down. . .
Cited – Biogen Plc v Medeva Plc HL 31-Oct-1996
The claim patented sought to protect a genetic molecule rather than a whole mouse namely that the molecule would, if inserted into a suitable host cell, cause the cell to make antigens of the Hepatitis B virus. A recombinant method of making the . .
Cited – Fuller v Strum CA 7-Dec-2001
The appellant challenged a finding that only part of a will was valid. The part made a gift to his son, ‘albeit very grudgingly’, saying ‘I hate him like poison, that Irish bastard.’
Held: The onus on the propounder of a will to show that it . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.236052

Director of Assets Recovery Agency v Creaven and Others: QBD 8 Nov 2005

The defendant had been acquitted of criminal charges and had an order for costs made in his favour. The claimant pursued a civil recovery order. The defendant sought a variation of the interim order.
Held: When considering such an application, the court should treat the issues as under property law so as to protect the proper aims of the agency. However in this case the assets freezing orders would be varied to allow payment of outstanding costs and fees for an MBA course he wished to follow. The freezing order did not create a proprietary interest. A defendant would be permitted to make payments towards his legal costs out of a fund subject to a proprietary claim only if he could show that no other funds were available for that purpose.
Stanley Burnton J said in relation to the interim (non-statutory) freezing order sought against the defendant to a Part 5 claim: ‘the principles applicable should be similar to those applicable to proprietary claims, but with allowance made for the fact that any depletion of the property frozen by the order will not be recoverable from any property of the defendant that is free from any claim under the Act. I say this because the clear policy of the Act is to deprive defendants of property obtained through unlawful conduct (unless they can establish one of the defences provided in the Act, which involve acting without notice that the property is recoverable property), and for that property to be transferred for the benefit of the community.’

Judges:

Stanley Burnton J

Citations:

Times 16-Nov-2005, [2006] 1 WLR 622, [2005] EWHC 2726 (Admin)

Statutes:

Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 Part 5

Citing:

Cited – Ostrich Farming Corportation Limited v Ketchell CA 10-Dec-1997
The court considered the principles to be applied on injunction applications within proprietary claims.
Held: Millett LJ explained the difference between a proprietary injunction and a Mareva freezing injunction: ‘The courts have always . .

Cited by:

Cited – Serious Organised Crime Agency v Szepietowski and Others (No 2) ChD 1-Jul-2009
The Agency asked to have set aside four orders allowing the defendant to have excluded from his assets subject to an interim receiving order to allow payment of his legal expenses.
Held: There was no rule that assets once excluded from an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.235004

P B J Davis Manufacturing Co Ltd v Fahn: 1967

Interpleader proceedings

Citations:

[1967] 1 WLR 1059

Cited by:

Applied – TSP Group Ltd v Globemark (UK) Ltd QBD 2-Nov-2005
The claimant interpleader appealed summary dismissal of its claim.
Held: The appeal was upheld. Despite the Civil Procedure Rules, the old case law on interpleader retained value. Although under the new rules, the precise formulation of an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.235501

Vernon v Bosley (1): QBD 1993

The court discussed the extent to which a judge had control over the admission of otherwise admissible evidence: ‘A point comes at which literal admissibility has to yield to the constraints of proportionality . . such proportionality may in any one case depend on issues of remoteness, fairness, usefulness, the ratio of cost benefit in terms of time or money and other things besides.’

Judges:

Sedley J

Citations:

Unreported 1993, [1998] PIQR 146

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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 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. . .
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.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.228982

Chesterfield v North Derbyshire Royal Hospital NHS Trust: CA 2004

A claim was brought on behalf of a child with cerebral palsy, said to result from clinical negligence at the time of the child’s birth. Each side had permission to call one expert consultant obstetrician but the claimant had sought permission to call a second such expert, saying this was necessary to avoid an inequality of arms in the circumstances of the particular case. Those circumstances were that the two medical witnesses who would be giving evidence of fact in relation to the birth of the claimant were now consultant obstetricians of some note. The application to call an additional expert was refused.
Held: The decision was reversed.
Brooke LJ said: ‘Above all, however, for a case of this importance, high monetary value and complexity the parties will not be on an equal footing if Master Ungley’s order is to stand. The master appreciated that it was inevitable that a witness who happened to be a professional will give evidence of his actions based upon his or her professional expertise, but he thought that it was possible to isolate this evidence from the evidence on the ‘vital question of whether those decisions fell short of the required standard’, on which he was permitting only one expert on each side. In my judgment he was clearly wrong to do this on the facts of this case.
Anybody watching the trial would be bound to be impressed by the fact that there was only one consultant obstetrician giving evidence for the claimant, while there would be three giving evidence for the defendant hospital trust, and those three would cover a much wider spectrum of personal experience than the single expert permitted to the claimant. It is not as if the medical witness of fact for the defendants is a junior hospital doctor.’

Judges:

Brooke LJ

Citations:

[2004] Lloyds Rep Med 90

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Heyward v Plymouth Hospital NHS Trust CA 20-Jun-2005
The claimant appealed an order refusing him permission to rely upon an additional report from a consultant occupational psychologist in supprt of hs claim for damages in negligence after alleging stress at work. The case management conference had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.229650

Regina v Chief Registrar Friendly Societies, ex parte Newcross Building Society: 1984

Judges:

Sir John Donaldson MR

Citations:

[1984] QB 177

Citing:

Discussed – Scott v Scott HL 5-May-1913
Presumption in Favour of Open Proceedings
There had been an unauthorised dissemination by the petitioner to third parties of the official shorthand writer’s notes of a nullity suit which had been heard in camera. An application was made for a committal for contempt.
Held: The House . .

Cited by:

Cited – Three Rivers District Council and others v The Bank of England CA 14-Jul-2005
A long hearing was to be interrupted by the long vacation. The Bank sought an order to restrict publication of the part evidence given by one witness until his evidence had been concluded.
Held: Though the witness was only such and not a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.230910

Whitwood Chemical Co v Hardman: 1891

The court looked to an appointment for a 10 year term as a manufacturing chemist as manager of the plaintiff company’s works.
Held: If negative injunctive relief was granted ‘the man must either be idle, or specifically perform the agreement into which he has entered’. He categorised the contract as being for personal services. He also said that there was ‘no very definite line’.

Judges:

Lindley LJ

Citations:

[1891] 2 CH. 416

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Lady Navigation Inc v Lauritzencool Ab and Another CA 17-May-2005
The shipowner appealed the award against them of an injunction requiring them not to act inconsistently with a time charterparty. The company said that such a form of order was improper.
Held: The existence of the contract to do what was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.225448

Re H (McKenzie Friend: Pre-Trial Determination): CA 2002

The judge had refused a father’s application to be assisted by a McKenzie friend (a Dr Pelling) on the ground that, having listened to and observed the proposed McKenzie friend, he felt that, with the father on his own, the hearing would be fairer, as well as less adversarial and legalistic.
Held: The court allowed the father’s appeal.
Thorpe LJ said: the presumption in favour of permitting a McKenzie friend was a strong one. The argument in the court below had necessarily been an adversarial and legalistic one and, since it was unusual for a respondent to oppose an application for McKenzie assistance, as the mother had done vehemently, it was possible that she had contributed to the adversariality.

Judges:

Thorpe LJ

Citations:

[2002] 1 FLR 39, [2001] EWCA Civ 1444

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – O and others (Children); In re O (Children), In re W-R (a Child), In re W (Children) CA 22-Jun-2005
In each case litigants in person had sought to be allowed to have the assistance and services of a Mackenzie friend in children cases. In one case, the court had not allowed confidential documents to be disclosed to the friend.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Litigation Practice

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.227953

Williams v Home Office (No 2): 1981

Tudor-Evans J said: ‘In my judgment, the sentence of the court and the provisions of section 12(1) always afford a defence to an action of false imprisonment. The sentence justifies the fact of imprisonment and the subsection justifies the confinement of a prisoner in any prison. How then can it be unjustifiable and unlawful to confine him there? I accept the submission . . that the sentence of the court and the provisions of section 12(1) provide a defence to this action, subject to the arguments based on the Bill of Rights and natural justice . . The next question is whether the lawfulness of the detention can be affected by the conditions of the detention. I do not think so. The question of the conditions of imprisonment is a matter for the Secretary of State. The check or safeguard against unacceptable conditions . . lies in the prisoner’s rights under the rules to complain to the governor or the Secretary of State.’

Judges:

Tudor-Evans J

Citations:

[1981] 1 All ER 1151

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Williams v Home Office (No 2) 2-Jan-1981
The plaintiff prisoner had been transferred from ordinary prison to a special control unit which had been established at the prison as a means of containing and controlling prisoners who were considered to be troublemakers and inducing them to . .

Cited by:

See Also – Williams v Home Office (No 2) 2-Jan-1981
The plaintiff prisoner had been transferred from ordinary prison to a special control unit which had been established at the prison as a means of containing and controlling prisoners who were considered to be troublemakers and inducing them to . .
See Also – Home Office v Hariette Harman HL 11-Feb-1982
The defendant had permitted a journalist to see documents revealed to her as in her capacity as a solicitor in the course of proceedings.
Held: The documents were disclosed under an obligation to use them for the instant case only. That rule . .
Cited – Middleweek v The Chief Constable of Merseyside (Note) CA 1990
The plaintiff had been awarded damages for false imprisonment by the jury on the basis that his otherwise lawful detention at a police station had been made unlawful because it was unreasonable in the circumstances to keep him in a police cell.
Cited – Regina v Deputy Governor of Parkhurst Prison, Ex parte Hague, Weldon v Home Office HL 24-Jul-1991
The prisoner challenged the decision to place him in segregation under Prison Rule 43. Under rule 43(1) the initial power to segregate was given to ‘the governor’. The case arose from the fact that the governor of one prison had purported to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Torts – Other

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.223347

Stevens v Newey: CA 12 Jan 2005

The parties had lived together but were now separated and sought orders as to their property. A presumption of undue influence arose because of a trust deed executed without having taken independent advice.
Held: Nothing had been put forward to rebut the presumption of undue influence, and the appeal succeeded. The designated civil judge should consider the nature of a case and the issues which arose before allocating such a case to a district judge.

Citations:

Times 14-Jan-2005

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice, Undue Influence

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.222847

Barton v William Low and Co Ltd: 1968

The court was asked the question as to whether it was competent for a party who had been brought into the action under the third party procedure to challenge the relevancy of averments which the pursuer, who made no case against the third party, was seeking to incorporate in her pleadings as part of her case against the defenders.
Held: Lord Stott said: ‘The third parties have been convened into the process by the defenders, and the pursuer makes no case against them. The defenders, however, have set out in their pleadings what is, in effect, a right of relief against the third parties. The third parties have therefore a clear interest in the success or failure of the pursuer’s case against the defenders, and one of the objects of third party procedure, as I see it, is to enable the third parties to be heard on any matter in which they have a relevant interest in relation to the case between pursuer and defender. The question of whether the pursuer has made a competent or relevant case against the defenders is such a matter, and in my opinion the third parties are entitled to take a plea to the relevancy of the pursuer’s pleadings and to be heard upon that plea.’

Judges:

Lord Stott

Citations:

1968 SLT (Notes) 27

Cited by:

Cited – Moy v Pettman Smith (a firm) and another HL 3-Feb-2005
Damages were claimed against a barrister for advice on a settlement given at the door of the court. After substantial litigation, made considerably more difficult by the negligence of the solicitors, the barrister had not advised the claimant at the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Litigation Practice

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.222550

Baldock v Webster and Others: CA 21 Dec 2004

The claimant alleged negligence against his solicitors in having failed to challenge an order made ultra vires by a county court judge.
Held: The common law doctrine of de facto jurisdiction validated the decision of the judge. The recorder had a colourable title to hear the case, and could assume that the case had been validly listed before him.

Judges:

Kennedy, Laws, Arden, LJJ

Citations:

Times 13-Jan-2005

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Curtin v Barton 1893
(New York) ‘When a court with competent jurisdiction is duly established, a suitor who resorts to it for the administration of justice and the protection of private rights should not be defeated or embarrassed by questions relating to the title of . .
Cited – Fawdry and Co (A Firm) v Murfitt CA 14-May-2002
The judge at first instance who was ticketed to sit as a judge in the Technology and Construction Court, had been asked to sit as a judge of the High Court to take this case. The appellant said she was acting outside her powers.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.221427

Chanel Ltd v F W Woolworth and Co: CA 1981

On an interlocutory application by the claimant for relief in respect of alleged infringement of trademark and passing off the defendant gave undertakings until judgment or further order. Shortly thereafter the Court of Appeal in another case upheld the validity of a defence to the action which had been open to the defendants at the time of the application. The defendants thereupon applied for the discharge of an injunction, relying on the Court of Appeal’s decision and filed evidence to establish that defence.
Held: The court refused to discharge the injunction. The court treated the consent order as having contractual force: ‘In my judgment, an order or undertaking to the court expressed to be until further order by implication gives a right to the party bound by the order or undertaking to apply to the court to have the order or undertaking discharged or modified if good grounds for doing so are shown.’
Buckley LJ said: ‘Even in interlocutory matters a party cannot fight over again a battle which has already been fought unless there has been some significant change of circumstances, or the party has become aware of facts which he could not reasonably have known, or found out, in time for the first encounter.’

Judges:

Buckley LJ

Citations:

[1981] 1 WLR 485, [1981] 1 All ER 745

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Collins Stewart Ltd and Another v The Financial Times Ltd QBD 20-Oct-2004
The claimants sought damages for defamation. The claimed that the article had caused very substantial losses (andpound;230 million) to them by affecting their market capitalisation value. The defendant sought to strike out that part of the claim. . .
Cited – The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Jonkler and Another ChD 10-Feb-2006
The applicant had given an undertaking to the court to secure discontinuance of company director disqualification procedings. He now sought a variation of the undertaking.
Held: The claimant had given an undertaking, but in the light of new . .
Cited – Thevarajah v Riordan and Others SC 16-Dec-2015
The defendants had failed to comply with an ‘unless’ order requiring disclosure, and had been first debarred from defending the cases as to liability. They applied to a second judge who granted relief from sanctions after new solicitors had complied . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.220037

Babbings v Kirklees Metropolitan Council: CA 11 Oct 2004

The court refused leave to appeal, but commented that counsel had travelled from Manchester to London for a half hour hearing. The court said that the new system of video links would do much to reduce the costs of such applications, and in future, the court might look to see whether counsel had weighed up the relative costs of a video link hearing.

Judges:

Brooke LJ, Dyson LJ

Citations:

Times 04-Nov-2004

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.219425

Amon v Raphael Tuck and Sons Ltd: 1956

The court analysed the circumstances under which additional parties might be joined to an action by a defendant, applying a narrow interpretation. The court considered whether a defendant may be added against the parties’ wishes: ‘There are two views about its scope; an authority can be cited for both. One is that it gives a wide power to the court to join any party which has a claim which relates to the subject matter of the action . . If that is right, it really kills any submission about jurisdiction. The court is hardly likely in the exercise of its discretion to join as a party somebody who has no claim relating to the subject matter of the action: and if its powers extend to joining anyone who has, the question whether the particular intervenor should be joined becomes virtually one of discretion.’

Judges:

Devlin J

Citations:

[1956] 1 QB 357

Statutes:

Order 15 R13

Cited by:

Disapproved – Gurtner v Circuit CA 1968
The Court described the gap in provision for the recovery of damages for injury where the driver of a vehicle was uninsured: ‘if (a) the defendant was not insured at the time of the accident or (b) his policy of insurance was avoided in the . .
Cited – Balkanbank v Naser Taher and Others QBD 13-Feb-1995
The plaintiff had obtained a worldwide Mareva injunction, giving an undertaking for damages. On its discharge, the defendants sought to make a counterclaim. The defendant company and its subsidiaries sought to counterclaim for their damages suffered . .
Cited – Autologic Holdings Plc and others v Commissioners of Inland Revenue HL 28-Jul-2005
Taxpayer companies challenged the way that the revenue restricted claims for group Corporation Tax relief for subsidiary companies in Europe. The issue was awaiting a decision of the European Court. The Revenue said that the claims now being made by . .
Cited – In re Vandervell’s Trusts (No 1); Vandervell Trustees Limited v White and Others HL 15-Jul-1970
Practice – Parties – Joinder – Proceedings between subjects raising issues material to income tax – Joinder of Commissioners of Inland Revenue – Income Tax Act 1952 (15 and 16 Geo. 6 and 1 Eliz. 2, c.10), ss. 52 and 64 ; Income Tax Management Act . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.200493

The Tasmania: 1890

The court described how to deal with issues of law raised only on appeal. Lord Herschell said: ‘My Lords, I think that a point such as this, not taken at the trial, and presented for the first time in the Court of Appeal, ought to be most jealously scrutinised. The conduct of a cause at the trial is governed by, and the questions asked of the witnesses are directed to, the points then suggested. And it is obvious that no care is exercised in the elucidation of facts not material to them. It appears to me that under these circumstances a Court of Appeal ought only to decide in favour of an appellant on a ground put forward for the first time, if it be satisfied beyond doubt, first, that it has before it all the facts bearing upon the new contention, as completely as would have been the case if the controversy had arisen at the trial; and next, that no satisfactory explanation could have been offered by those whose conduct is impugned if an opportunity for explanation had been afforded them when in the witness box.’

Judges:

Lord Heschell

Citations:

(1890) 15 App Cas 223

Cited by:

Cited – Pittalis v Grant CA 1989
A point was raised for the first time on appeal.
Held: Though an appellate court could exclude a pure question of law which had not been raised at first instance from being raised on appeal, the usual practice was to allow it to be taken where . .
Cited – New Zealand Meat Board and Another v Paramount Export Ltd and Another PC 26-Jul-2004
(New Zealand) Two meat exporting companies complained that the appellant’s failures had led to their own financial failures. The Board had changes its quota allocation system, which failed to allow any export quotas to the company.
Held: There . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.200244

Re Hooker’s Settlement: 1955

Citations:

[1955] Ch 55

Cited by:

Cited – Sargeant, and Sargeant v Macepark (Whittlebury) Limited ChD 8-Jun-2004
The landlord granted the tenant a licence to make alterations to the property, but imposed conditions on the use to be made of the resulting premises. The tenant objected.
Held: The landlord was entitled when granting consent to take into . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.199276

Macdougall v Knight: 1889

Practice where an issue of law is raised for the first time on appeal.

Citations:

(1889) 14 App Cas 194

Cited by:

Cited – Pittalis v Grant CA 1989
A point was raised for the first time on appeal.
Held: Though an appellate court could exclude a pure question of law which had not been raised at first instance from being raised on appeal, the usual practice was to allow it to be taken where . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.200243

Capital and Suburban Properties v Swycher: CA 1976

Although in certain procedural decisions, reasons need not be given, they otherwise must be. Buckley LJ said: ‘Litigants are entitled to know on what grounds their cases are decided. It is of importance that the legal profession should know on what grounds cases are decided, particularly when questions of law are involved. And this Court is entitled to the assistance of the Judge at first instance by an explicit statement of his reasons for deciding as he did.’

Judges:

Buckley LJ

Citations:

[1976] Ch 319

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – AA069062014 and Others AIT 30-Aug-2017
Several appellants, all from the same judge, complained of his handling of their cases.
Held: The complaints about the decisions were entirely well-founded: ‘Nobody reading them could detect how the judge reached the conclusion he did, acting . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.595471

Wallingford v Mutual Society: HL 1880

Lord Hatherley said: ‘Now I take it to be as settled as anything well can be by repeated decisions, that the mere averment of fraud, in general terms, is not sufficient for any practical purpose in [a pleading]. Fraud may be alleged in the largest and most sweeping terms imaginable. What you have to do is, if it be matter of account, to point out a specific error, and bring evidence of that error, and establish it by that evidence. Nobody can be expected to meet a case, and still less to dispose of a case, summarily upon mere allegations of fraud without any definite character being given to those charges by stating the facts upon which they rest.’
Lord Selbourne LC said: ‘With regards to fraud, if there be any principle which is perfectly well settled, it is that general allegations, however strong may be the words in which they are stated, are insufficient even to amount to an averment of fraud of which any Court ought to take notice. And here I find nothing but perfectly general and vague allegations of fraud. No single material fact is condescended upon; in a manner which would enable any Court to understand what it was that was alleged to be fraudulent.’

Judges:

Lord Hatherley, Lord Selbourne LC, (Lord Blackburn

Citations:

(1880) 5 App Cas 685

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Cavendish Square Holding Bv v Talal El Makdessi; ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis SC 4-Nov-2015
The court reconsidered the law relating to penalty clauses in contracts. The first appeal, Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi, raised the issue in relation to two clauses in a substantial commercial contract. The second appeal, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Litigation Practice, Torts – Other

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.592688

Marriott v Hampton: KBD 1775

The plaintiff paid for goods bought from the defendant. The defendant then brought an action for payment of the price alleging that he had not been paid. The claimant could not find his receipt for the first payment, and was ordered by the court to pay again. He then found the receipt and brought an action for money had and received to recover the second payment.
Held: Where money has been wrongly paid under the compulsion of legal process it cannot be recovered back in action for money had and received to the payer’s use.
Lord Kenyon said: ‘I am afraid of such a precedent. If this action could be maintained I know now that cause of action could ever be at rest. After a recovery by process of law there must be an end to litigation, otherwise there would be no security for any person.’

Judges:

Lord Kenyon CJ

Citations:

[1775-1802] All ER Rep 631

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Applied – Wilson v Ray 1-May-1839
Lord Denman CJ descirbed the pronciple establishedin Marriott: .that what a party recovers from another by legal process, without fraud, the loser shall never recover back by virtue of any facts which could have availed him in the former proceeding. . .
Cited – John Ruskin College v Harley QBD 26-Nov-2013
A sum had been paid into court in 1997. Other sums were paid out, but this sum was left against costs liability. It was discovered much laterand paid out to the claimant. The former defendant now said that it had been paid out twice, and alleged . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Equity, Litigation Practice

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.593141

Holtby v Hodgson: CA 1889

A clear distinction is to be made between pronouncing judgment, that is, the giving of formal orders, and subsequently entering judgment. Entry of judgments or orders in the registry of the court achieves finality by bringing the litigation to an end.
Lord Esher MR said: ‘and the intention of the rule clearly is that, from the moment when the judge has pronounced judgment, and entry of the judgment has been made, the judgment is to take effect, not from the date of entry, but from the date of its being pronounced; it is an effective judgment from the day when it is pronounced by the judge in court.’ He went on to contrast common law judgments with those given in Chancery (‘without the verdict of a jury’), and then with those generally given after the Judicature Act, when, as he said, it was desired to make the relevant procedures identical, so that ‘power is given to the judge at nisi prius to do what he could not have done before, to direct judgment to be entered according to verdict, which is the same thing as giving him power to give or pronounce judgment’

Judges:

Lord Esher MR

Citations:

(1889) 24 QBD 103, (1889) 38 WR 68, (1889) 61 LT 297

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.591413

Darashah v UFAC (UK) Ltd: CA 1982

A Mareva order had been obtained. The order explicitly included goodwill as an asset of the company, but the defendant argued still that it was not covered as an asset for the injunction.
Held: The court rejected the assertion.
Lord Denning MR said: ‘Every businessman knows that goodwill is a valuable commodity’. Lord Denning cited, as typical examples of goodwill assets, ‘a list of customers but also the established connections with them’.

Judges:

Lord Denning MR

Citations:

[1982] WL 222281, Times 30-Mar-1982

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Templeton Insurance Ltd v Thomas and Another CA 5-Feb-2013
The court was asked whether goodwill was to be regarded as an asset in the context of an asset freezig order. A third party company was subject to such and they were said to have broken the order by the purchase at an undervalue of the company . .
Cited – JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov SC 21-Oct-2015
The court was asked as to the interpretation and application of the standard form freezing order. In the course of long-running litigation between JSC BTA Bank and Mr Ablyazov the Bank had obtained a number of judgments against the respondent . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.591724

Cantor Index Ltd v Lister: 2002

The court held that a defendant subject of an asset freezing order, who borrows money, does thereby increase his indebtedness but does not dispose of, deal with or diminish the value of his ‘assets’ within the meaning of the standard form of freezing order. By borrowing money and spending the borrowed money the defendant may reduce his net asset position but that is not what he is restrained from doing by the standard form of wording.

Judges:

Neuberger J

Citations:

[2002] CP Rep 25

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov SC 21-Oct-2015
The court was asked as to the interpretation and application of the standard form freezing order. In the course of long-running litigation between JSC BTA Bank and Mr Ablyazov the Bank had obtained a number of judgments against the respondent . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.591722

J v J: FD 1955

Sachs J set out the disclosure required in ancillary relief cases: ‘In cases of this kind, where the duty of disclosure comes to lie upon the husband; where a husband has – and his wife has not – detailed knowledge of his complex affairs; where a husband is fully capable of explaining, and has the opportunity to explain, those affairs, and where he seeks to minimise the wife’s claim, that husband can hardly complain if when he leaves gaps in the court’s knowledge, the court does not draw inferences in his favour. On the contrary, when he leaves a gap in such a state that two alternative inferences may be drawn, the court will normally draw the less favourable inference – especially where it seems likely that his able legal advisers would have hastened to put forward affirmatively any facts, had they existed, establishing the more favourable alternative.’
. . And ‘ . . it is as well to state expressly something which underlies the procedure by which husbands are required in such proceedings to disclose their means to the court. Whether that disclosure is by affidavit of facts, by affidavits of documents or by evidence on oath (not least when that evidence is led by those representing the husband) the obligation of the husband is to be full, frank and clear in that disclosure’

Judges:

Sachs J

Citations:

[1955] 2 All ER 85, [1955] P 215, [1955] 2 WLR 973

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Robinson v Robinson (Disclosure) Practice Note CA 1982
The court considered the duty of parties in finacial relief proceedings to give full disclosure.
Held: In proceedings for ancillary relief, there was a duty, both under the rules and by authority, on the parties to make full and frank . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Litigation Practice

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.591353

Federal Steam Navigation Co Ltd v Department of Trade and Industry: HL 1974

The normal meaning of the word ‘or’ is disjunctive, although in a suitable context it can be read as equivalent to ‘and’, or as expressing a non-exclusionary alternative equivalent to ‘and/or’

Judges:

Lord Reid, Lord Wilberforse

Citations:

[1974] 1 WLR 505, [1974] 2 All ER 97

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Shahid v Scottish Ministers (Scotland) SC 14-Oct-2015
The appellant convicted of a racially-aggravated vicious murder. Since conviction he had spent almost five years in segregation from other prisoners. The appellant now alleged that some very substantial periods of segregation had been in breach of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.591351

C v C: FD 2012

The court considered the application of the test of materiality when a party gave disclosure in family proceedings.

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 3788 (Fam)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – S v S FD 29-Apr-2013
W sought to re-open a sttlement of the financial arrangement on her divorce, saying that there had been substantial non-disclosure by H.
Held: ‘any order which would have been made if proper disclosure had taken place would not have been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Litigation Practice

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.591355

BG and Others v HMTQ in Right of BC: 22 Jun 2004

Court of Appeal fro British Columbia – Teachers had been accused of historical sexual abuse. An order was made for their anonymisation pending conclusion of those civil proceedings. The proceedings had now been dismissed. The Court now considered whether the anonymisation of the complainants had been correctly dischatrged.
Held: Finch CJ cited substantial authority in support of his proposition that ‘replacing the names of certain parties with initials relates only to ‘a sliver of information’ and minimally impairs the openness of judicial proceedings’.

Judges:

Finch CJ, MacKenzie, Lowry JJ

Citations:

2004 BCCA 345, [2004] BCJ No 1235 (QL), [2004] CarswellBC 1359, 200 BCAC 223, 242 DLR (4th) 665

Links:

Canlii

Jurisdiction:

Canada

Cited by:

Cited – PNM v Times Newspapers Ltd and Others SC 19-Jul-2017
No anonymity for investigation suspect
The claimant had been investigated on an allegation of historic sexual abuse. He had never been charged, but the investigation had continued with others being convicted in a high profile case. He appealed from refusal of orders restricting . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Media, Litigation Practice

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.590536

BG and Others v HMTQ: 7 Oct 2002

Supreme Court of British Columbia. The Court prohibited, until the conclusion of the proceedings, identification of school staff accused of abusing boys in an action brought by them in later life against the school.
Held: The protection of innocent people was a social value of superordinate importance which, were they to suffer irreparable harm to their reputation, would justify overriding the general principle of open justice; that, accused of being paedophiles, the staff had been put in the category of persons most condemned and reviled by society; and that, were they to be publicly identified, they would suffer irreparable harm before they had had any opportunity to rebut the accusations.

Judges:

Wong J

Citations:

2002 BCSC 1417, 221 DLR (4th) 751, [2002] CarswellBC 2395, [2002] BCJ No 2246 (QL), [2002] BCTC 1417

Links:

Canlii

Jurisdiction:

Canada

Cited by:

Cited – PNM v Times Newspapers Ltd and Others SC 19-Jul-2017
No anonymity for investigation suspect
The claimant had been investigated on an allegation of historic sexual abuse. He had never been charged, but the investigation had continued with others being convicted in a high profile case. He appealed from refusal of orders restricting . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Media, Litigation Practice

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.590535

Re Hotchkiss Trusts: 1869

‘In this case, if the words of the will had been the same as the words in In re Potter’s Trust, I should, without expressing any opinion of my own, simply have followed the decision of Vice-Chancellor Sir R.Malins in that case; because I do not think it seemly that two branches of a Court of co-ordinate jurisdiction should be found coming to contrary decisions upon similar instruments, and encouraging as it were a race, by inducing persons who wish for one construction to go to one court and those who wish for another construction to go to another. I should simply have affirmed the Vice-Chancellor’s decision, with the intimation of my wish that the whole matter should be brought before a Court of Appeal.’

Judges:

Sir William James V-C

Citations:

(1869) 8 Eq 643

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Trusts, Litigation Practice

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.191952

Glasier v Rolb: 1889

A finding by a judge that a party is innocent of fraud should only reluctantly be disturbed.

Citations:

(1889) 42 Ch D 436

Cited by:

Cited – Akerhielm v De Mare PC 1959
A company prospectus contained the following: ‘About a third of the capital has already been subscribed in Denmark.’ Though the directors believed this to be true, it was not true at the time the prospectus was issued.
Held: The statement was . .
Cited – The Ikarian Reefer CA 1995
The court reversed the decision of the trial judge that the plaintiff insured shipowners had not deliberately scuttled their vessel or cast her away: ‘(1) The burden of showing that the trial Judge was wrong lies on the appellant . . (2) When . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.187259

Cooper v Floor Cleaning Machines Ltd and Another: CA 20 Oct 2003

The judge had heard the evidence from two drivers involved in a road traffic incident. He had declared that he could find no way to prefer the evidence of one over the other. Accordingly neither had proved his or her case on the balance of probabilities, and both claims were dismissed.
Held: A court might very exceptionally find itself in the position the judge said applied here, but it would be particularly rare in road traffic cases. Examining the evidence the court found for the appellant. Before resorting to the burden of proof, a court should, as in Ashraf, raise with counsel the possibility that such a course might have to be taken. The judge erred in failing to analyse the evidence and that, had he done so, he would have found that the defendants had discharged the burden of proof.

Judges:

Ward. Scott-Baker, Thomas LJJ

Citations:

Gazette 13-Nov-2003, Times 24-Oct-2003

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Morris v London Iron and Steel Co Ltd CA 1987
In exceptional cases, a judge conscientiously seeking to decide the issues between the parties might have to conclude ‘I just do not know’. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Stephens and Another v Cannon and Another CA 14-Mar-2005
The claimants had purchased land from the defendants. The contract was conditional on a development which did not take place. The master had been presented with very different valuations of the property.
Held: The master was not entitled to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Road Traffic

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.187184

Scott Paper Co v Drayton Paper Works Ltd: 1927

Parties to litigation should ‘be encouraged fully and frankly to put their cards on the table.’

Judges:

Clauson J

Citations:

[1927] 44 RPC 151

Cited by:

Cited – Cutts v Head and Another CA 7-Dec-1983
There had been a trial of 35 days regarding rights of way over land, which had proved fruitless, and where some orders had been made without jurisdiction. The result had been inconclusive. The costs order was now appealed, the plaintiff complaining . .
Cited – Prudential Insurance Company of America v Prudential Assurance Company Ltd CA 31-Jul-2003
The appellant sought to restrain the use in proceedings in New Zealand and elsewhere of ‘without prejudice’ documents discovered in court proceedings here.
Held: It was not sensible to elide the distinction between the two sources of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Evidence, Litigation Practice

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.186459

Perry v Raleys Solicitors: SC 13 Feb 2019

Veracity of a witness is for the court hearing him

The claimant, a retired miner, had sued his former solicitors, alleging professional negligence in the settlement of his claim for Vibration White Finger damages under the government approved scheme for compensation for such injuries. At trial, the judge found the claimant’s evidence unreliable, and that in any event his losses were reduced, being not entitled to a services award. Raleys now appealed the reversal of the damages award.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The judge at first instance not only was entitled to assess the veracity of the claimant as a witness, but had a duty to do so, and having reached a conclusion, to apply it. The credibility of a witness was properly a matter for the judge hearing that evidence, and not for an appellate court. The claimant had failed to establish that, properly advised, he would have been able to present a case for the services award.
‘It is a very strong thing for an appellate court to say, from a review of the paper records of a trial , that the trial judge was irrational in concluding that witnesses were not telling the truth, all the more so when the trial judge gives detailed reasons for that conclusion in a lengthy reserved judgment, and those reasons do not disclose any failure by him to consider relevant materials, or any disabling failure properly to understand them. The credibility (including honesty) of oral testimony is, of all things, a matter for the trial judge.’

Judges:

Lady Hale, President, Lord Wilson, Lord Hodge, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Briggs

Citations:

[2019] UKSC 5, UKSC 2017/0092, [2019] PNLR 17, [2019] 2 WLR 636, [2020] AC 352, [2019] 2 All ER 937

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, SC Summay Video, SC 2018 11 27 am Video, SC 2018 11 27 pm

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Allied Maples Group Ltd v Simmons and Simmons CA 12-May-1995
Lost chance claim – not mere speculative claim
Solicitors failed to advise the plaintiffs sufficiently in a property transaction. A warranty against liability for a former tenant’s obligations under leases had not been obtained. The trial judge held that, on a balance of probabilities, there was . .
Cited – Hanif v Middleweeks (a firm) CA 19-Jul-2000
The client was the co-owner of a nightclub which had been destroyed by fire. The insurers had issued proceedings for a declaration of non-liability, on the ground (among others) that the fire had been started deliberately by Mr Hanif’s co-owner. Mr . .
Cited – Gregg v Scott HL 27-Jan-2005
The patient saw his doctor and complained about a lump under his arm. The doctor failed to diagnose cancer. It was nine months before treatment was begun. The claimant sought damages for the reduction in his prospects of disease-free survival for . .
Cited – Kitchen v Royal Air Force Association CA 1958
The plaintiff’s husband, a member of the RAF, was electrocuted and killed in the kitchen of his house. A solicitor failed to issue a writ in time and deprived the plaintiff of the opportunity to pursue court proceedings.
Held: Damages were not . .
Cited – Brown v KMR Services Ltd CA 26-Jul-1995
Allied Maples had made a corporate takeover of assets and businesses within the Gillow group of companies, during which it was negligently advised by the defendant solicitors in relation to seeking protection against contingent liabilities of . .
Cited – Mount v Barker Austin (a Firm) CA 18-Feb-1998
The plaintiff sought damages for professional negligence from his former solicitors in respect of their conduct of a claim on his behalf. He succeeded, but was awarded no damages because the judge had found that his action would be bound to fail. He . .
Cited – Sharif and Others v Garrett and Co CA 31-Jul-2001
The applicants sought damages from the defendant solicitors who had failed to prosecute properly a claim for damages. Their building was damaged by fire, but they had not been insured. The action was against the brokers. The court had awarded them . .
Cited – Dixon v Clement Jones Solicitors (A Firm) CA 8-Jul-2004
The defendant firm had negligently allowed a claim for damages against a firm of accountants to become statute barred. The defendants said the claim was of no or little value, since the claimant would have proceeded anyway.
Held: The court had . .
Cited – McGraddie v McGraddie and Another (Scotland) SC 31-Jul-2013
The parties were father and son, living at first in the US. On the son’s wife becoming seriously ill, the son returned to Scotland. The father advanced a substantal sum for the purchase of a property to live in, but the son put the properties in his . .
Cited – Housen v Nikolaisen 28-Mar-2002
Supreme Court of Canada – Torts – Motor vehicles – Highways – Negligence – Liability of rural municipality for failing to post warning signs on local access road — Passenger sustaining injuries in motor vehicle accident on rural road — Trial judge . .
Cited – Re B (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Threshold Criteria) SC 12-Jun-2013
B had been removed into care at birth. The parents now appealed against a care order made with a view to B’s adoption. The Court was asked as to the situation where the risks were necessarily only anticipated, and as to appeals against a finding of . .
Cited – Henderson v Foxworth Investments Limited and Another SC 2-Jul-2014
It was said that land, a hotal and gold courses, had been sold at an undervalue and that the transaction was void as against the seller’s liquidator.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The critical issue was whether ‘the alienation was made for . .
At CA – Perry v Raleys Solicitors CA 28-Apr-2017
Appeal against dismissal of claim against the claimant’s former solicitors. Negligence was found, but no loss was proved in his personal injury claim. He had claimed a settlement at an undervalue of his claim of Vibration White Finger. The judge at . .
Cited – Fage UK Ltd and Another v Chobani UK Ltd and Another CA 28-Jan-2014
Lewison LJ said: ‘Appellate courts have been repeatedly warned, by recent cases at the highest level, not to interfere with findings of fact by trial judges, unless compelled to do so. This applies not only to findings of primary fact, but also to . .

Cited by:

Cited – Edwards v Hugh James Ford Simey Solicitors SC 20-Nov-2019
The claimant sought damages saying that the defendant solicitors had failed to secure the incremental award of compensation under the vibration white finger scheme. The central issue was whether evidence which only became available later, but which . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Professional Negligence, Litigation Practice

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.633293

Westminster City Council v Great Portland Estates plc: HL 31 Oct 1984

The House was asked whether the 1971 Act permitted the relevant authorities, by resort to their development plans, to support the retention of traditional industries or was the ambit of the Act such as to permit only ‘land use’ aims to be pursued? The court considered also the relevance of personal considerations in planning matters.
Held: Lord Scarman considered what was a material consideration: ‘The test, therefore, of what is a material ‘consideration’ in the preparation of plans or in the control of development (see section 29(1) of the Act of 1971 in respect of planning permission: section 11(9) and Schedule 4 paragraph 11(4)) in respect of local plans) is whether it serves a planning purpose: see Newbury District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment [1981] AC 578, 599 per Viscount Dilhourne. And a planning purpose is one which relates to the character of the use of the land.’
Lord Scarman drew attention to the relevance to planning decisions, on occasion, of personal considerations, saying: ‘Personal circumstances of an occupier, personal hardship, the difficulties of businesses which are of value to the character of a community are not to be ignored in the administration of planning control.’ and
‘However, like all generalisations Lord Parker’s statement has its own limitations. Personal circumstances of an occupier, personal hardship, the difficulties of businesses which are of value to the character of a community are not to be ignored in the administration of planning control. It would be inhuman pedantry to exclude from the control of our environment the human factor. The human factor is always present, of course, indirectly as the background to the consideration of the character of land use. It can, however, and sometimes should, be given direct effect as an exceptional or special circumstance. But such circumstances, when they arise, fall to be considered not as a general rule but as exceptions to a general rule to be met in special cases. If a planning authority is to give effect to them, a specific case has to be made and the planning authority must give reasons for accepting it. It follows that, though the existence of such cases may be mentioned in a plan, this will only be necessary where it is prudent to emphasise that, notwithstanding the general policy, exceptions cannot be wholly excluded from consideration in the administration of planning control.’
On the other hand: ‘It is a logical process to extend the ambit of Lord Parker LCJ’s statement so that it applies not only to the grant or refusal of planning permission and to the imposition of conditions, but also to the formulation of planning policies and proposals. The test, therefore, of what is a material consideration in the preparation of plans or in the control of development in respect of planning permission and in local plans, is whether it serves a planning purpose, and a planning purpose is one which relates to the character of the use of the land.’
Lord Scarman discussed the extent of reasons needed to be given, saying that once there is an explicit requirement on a public authority to provide reasons then they must be proper, adequate and intelligible.
If no new point however was raised by the Inspector, the reasons given by the authority may be a simple repetition of those given to the Inspector.

Judges:

Lord Scarman

Citations:

[1985] AC 661, [1984] 3 WLR 1035, [1984] 3 All ER 744, [1984] UKHL 10, (1985) 50 P and CR 34

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1971 29(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – East Barnet Urban District Council v British Transport Commission CA 1962
Lord Parker CJ said that when considering whether there has been a change of use of land ‘what is really to be considered is the character of the use of the land, not the particular purpose of a particular occupier.’ . .
Approved – Edwin H Bradley and Sons Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment 1982
Reasons given for a decision may be brief, whilst still following Poyser. The fact that a procedure is not in the nature of a judicial or quasi-judicial hearing between parties may mean that the requirement to give a party full opportunity to . .
Cited – Newbury District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment HL 1980
Issues arose as to a new planning permission for two existing hangars.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The question of the validity of conditions attached to planning permissions will sometimes be a difficult one. To be valid, a condition must be . .
Approved – Re Poyser and Mills’ Arbitration 1963
The section at issue imposed a duty upon a tribunal to which the Act applies or any minister who makes a decision after the holding of a statutory inquiry to give reasons for their decision, if requested. A record of the reasons for a decision must . .

Cited by:

Cited – Wrexham County Borough Council v Berry; South Buckinghamshire District Council v Porter and another; Chichester District Council v Searle and others HL 22-May-2003
The appellants challenged the refusal to grant them injunctions to prevent Roma parking caravans on land they had purchased.
Held: Parliament had given to local authorities exclusive jurisdiction on matters of planning policy, but when an . .
Cited – South Buckinghamshire District Council and Another v Porter (No 2) HL 1-Jul-2004
Mrs Porter was a Romany gipsy who bought land in the Green Belt in 1985 and lived there with her husband in breach of planning control. The inspector gave her personal permission to continue use, and it had been appealed and cross appealed on the . .
Cited – Sainsburys Supermarkets Ltd, Re Judicial Review SCS 9-Oct-2009
. .
Cited – Brentwood Borough Council v Ball and Others QBD 8-Oct-2009
The court refused the local authority an injunction to remove gypsies occupying land in beach of planning controls. . .
Cited – FSH Airport (Edinburgh) Services Ltd v City of Edinburgh Council SCS 6-Dec-2007
. .
Cited – MR Dean and Sons (Edgware) Ltd v First Secretary of State, West End Green (Properties) Ltd Admn 11-Jan-2007
. .
Cited – Secondsite Property Holdings Ltd v Borough of Poole Admn 22-Oct-2004
Objection to allocation of land to employment pool under local planning policy. . .
Cited – Pembrokeshire County Council v National Assembly for Wales, Re the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Admn 16-Mar-2005
. .
Cited – Bow Street Mall Ltd and Others, Regina (on the Application Of) QBNI 10-May-2006
QBNI Judicial review – application for planning permission for a large development at Sprucefield – application of article 31 of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 to the application – decision by . .
Cited – The Fairfield Partnership v Huntingdonshire District Council Admn 23-Oct-2003
. .
Cited – Grant-Nicholas, Regina (on the Application Of) v Bromsgrove District Council Admn 14-Jun-2004
Application to quash district plan . .
Cited – Land and Property Ltd v Restormel Borough Council LT 9-Aug-2004
LT COMPENSATION – modification of planning permission by deletion of retail use from permitted development – depreciation in land value – no approval of reserved matters at valuation date – basis of valuation – . .
Cited – Porter, Searle and Others, Berry and Harty v South Buckinghamshire District Council, Chichester District Council, Wrexham County Borough Council, Hertsmere Borough Councilt CA 12-Oct-2001
Local authorities had obtained injunctions preventing the defendants from taking up occupation, where they had acquired land with a view to living on the plots in mobile homes, but where planning permission had been refused. The various defendants . .
Cited – Tesco Stores Ltd for Judicial Review of A Purported Decision of the Scottish Ministers SCS 30-Jan-2002
. .
Cited – J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Oxford City Council CA 30-Jul-2002
The company appealed against refusal of an application for an order quashing the decision of the Council to adopt Supplementary Planning Guidance on social housing, an order declaring that the Council was not entitled to adopt policies contained in . .
Cited – South Bucks District Council v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and Linda Porter CA 19-May-2003
The applicant, a gipsy had occupied land she had bought. Her occupation was in breach of planning control. The inspector found exceptional cirumstances for allowing her to continue to live there. The authority appealed.
Held: The inspector had . .
Cited – Peel Investments Limited v Bury Metropolitan Borough Council Admn 21-Apr-1998
. .
Cited – British Alcan Aluminium Plc v Secretary of State for Environment, Chiltern District Council Admn 27-Apr-1998
. .
Cited – Jackson v Daventry District Council Admn 1-May-1998
. .
Cited – Powys County Council v National Assembly for Wales, and Johnathan Hanson Admn 30-Mar-2000
. .
Cited – Regina v Vale of Glamorgan District Council ex parte David Adams Admn 12-Apr-2000
. .
Cited – Al Wood-Robinson v Secretary of State for Environment and Council of London Borough of Wandsworth Admn 3-Apr-1998
. .
Cited – William Cook Estates and Northern Land Management Limited v Secretary of State for Environment and Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council and Somerfield Stores Limited CA 18-Mar-1998
. .
Cited – Wheeler and Another v JJ Saunders Ltd and Others CA 19-Dec-1994
The existence of a planning permission did not excuse the causing of a nuisance by the erection of a pighouse. The permission was not a statutory authority, and particularly so where it was possible it had been procured by the supply of inaccurate . .
Cited – Regina v Westminster City Council Ex Parte Ermakov CA 14-Nov-1995
The applicant, having moved here from Greece, applied for emergency housing. The Council received no reply to its requests for corroboration sent to Greece. Housing was refused, but the officer later suggested that the real reason was that the . .
Cited – Mobil Oil Company Limited v Secretary of State for Environment; Wycombe District Council and Safeway Stores Plc Admn 9-Jul-1996
. .
Cited – Swan v Secretary of State for Environment; Rhys Evans; Barry George Evans and Rhian Elizabeth Marilyn Jones Admn 22-Nov-1996
. .
Cited – Edwin Alan Woodfield v Secretary of State for Environment Admn 20-Jan-1997
. .
Cited – Miller and others v Wycombe District Council CA 27-Feb-1997
Challenge to adoption of a local plan . .
Cited – Land at 34 Manor Road, Pawlett, Bridgewater, Arlidge v Secretary of State for Environment and Sedgemoor District Council CA 9-Jun-1997
. .
Cited – Newport County Borough Council v Secretary of State for Wales and Browning Ferris Environmental Services Ltd CA 18-Jun-1997
. .
Cited – MJT Securities Limited v Secretary of State for Environment CA 30-Jul-1997
. .
Cited – West Midlands Probation Committee v Secretary of State for Environment and Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council CA 7-Nov-1997
Fears of local residents about application for bail hostel were relevant when deciding planning application; impact on neighbours. . .
Cited – Western Aggregates v Hereford and Worcester County Council Admn 28-Nov-1997
. .
Cited – Rexworthy and others v Secretary of State for Enviroment and Leominister District Council Admn 23-Jan-1998
. .
Cited – Cala Homes (South) Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another Admn 7-Feb-2011
The claimant sought judicial review of a statement and letter by the respondent making a material consideration for planning authorities the intended revocation by the Respondent of Regional Spatial Strategies. The effect would be to allow the . .
Cited – Uprichard v Scottish Ministers and Another (Scotland) SC 24-Apr-2013
The appellants challenged the adequacy of the reasons given by the respondents in approving planning policies, in particular the structure plan, adopted by Fife Council for the future development of St Andrews. An independent expert’s report had . .
Cited – Dover District Council v CPRE Kent SC 6-Dec-2017
‘When a local planning authority against the advice of its own professional advisers grants permission for a controversial development, what legal duty, if any, does it have to state the reasons for its decision, and in how much detail? Is such a . .
Cited – Wright, Regina (on The Application of Wright) v Resilient Energy Severndale Ltd and Another SC 20-Nov-2019
W challenged the grant of planning permission for the change of use of agricultural land to allow erection of a wind turbine, saying that the authority had taken into account a promise by the land owner to run the scheme as a community development . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Litigation Practice

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.182493

Bwllfa and Merthyr Dare Steam Collieries (1891) Ltd v Pontypridd Waterworks Co: HL 1903

A coalmine owner claimed statutory compensation against a water undertaking which had, under its statutory authority, prevented him mining his coal over a period during which the price of coal had risen. The House was asked whether the coal should be valued as at the beginning of the period or at its value during the currency of the period.
Held: Any decision maker should make the assessment on the best evidence, and that is the most up to date information available at the date of the hearing. The coalowner was entitled to ‘full compensation.’ The House upheld the latter measure, but emphasised that this might not apply to cases involving a sale or property transfer.
Lord Macnaghten said: ‘In order to enable the arbitrator to come to a just and true construction it is his duty I think to avail himself of all information at hand at the time of making his award which may be laid before him. Why should he listen to conjecture on a matter which has become an accomplished fact? Why should he guess when he can calculate? With the light before him why should he shut his eyes and grope in the dark?’

Judges:

Lord Halsbury LC, Lord Macnaghten, Lord Robertson

Citations:

[1903] AC 426

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – McKinnon and another v E Survey Ltd (formerly known as GA Valuation and Survey Ltd) ChD 14-Jan-2003
The claimants purchased a house relying upon a survey by the defendants. Although the defendants reported long standing movement of the property, the defendants failed to report that to be saleable, a long investigation would be required, reducing . .
Cited – Mohammed Aslam v South Bedfordshire District Council CA 21-Dec-2000
The claimant appealed an award of the Lands Tribunal of compensation for an order discontinuing his use as a slaughterhouse of premises of which he held a long lease. The tribunal had applied a discount for wastage on sheep carcasses of 25%, but had . .
Cited – In re Bradberry; National Provincial Bank Ltd v Bradberry ChD 1942
The parties disputed the date of valuation of an annuity during the course of the administration of an estate.
Held: The principle in Bwlfa was applied: ‘where facts are available they are to be preferred to prophecies’, and ‘Why should the . .
Cited – Golden Strait Corporation v Nippon Yusen Kubishka Kaisha (‘The Golden Victory’) HL 28-Mar-2007
The claimant sought damages for repudiation of a charterparty. The charterpary had been intended to continue until 2005. The charterer repudiated the contract and that repudiation was accepted, but before the arbitrator could set his award, the Iraq . .
Cited – Richmond Adult Community College v McDougall CA 17-Jan-2008
The claimant had been offered and had accepted a job subject to satisfactory health clearance. When that was not received her offer was withdrawn. She had suffered a condition which would affect her daily activities, but had recovered from that . .
Cited – Latchman v Reed Business Information Ltd EAT 7-Dec-2001
EAT The EAT considered the expression ‘likely to last’ in paragraph 2(1)(b) of the Act, and stated: ‘It is always tempting to accord, and is often appropriate, when it is charged with finding out what at some . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Defence v Lance Corporal (Now Corporal) Duncan and Another CA 12-Oct-2009
The servicemen had challenged the awards made to them for injuries suffered in service. The SSD now appealed.
Held: The awards had been increased when it became clear that the SD had failed to take account of some elements of the injuries . .
Cited – McDougall v Richmond Adult Community College EAT 13-Jul-2007
EAT Disability discrimination – Disability
Compulsory admission of a patient under the Mental Health Act is not automatically a disability under the DDA 1995. In the circumstances of this case the severity . .
Cited – Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd (1) CA 12-Sep-2017
Defamation – presumption of damage after 2013 Act
The claimant said that the defendant had published defamatory statements which were part of a campaign of defamation brought by his former wife. The court now considered the requirement for substantiality in the 2013 Act.
Held: The defendant’s . .
Cited – Edwards v Hugh James Ford Simey Solicitors SC 20-Nov-2019
The claimant sought damages saying that the defendant solicitors had failed to secure the incremental award of compensation under the vibration white finger scheme. The central issue was whether evidence which only became available later, but which . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Litigation Practice

Leading Case

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.181246

Regina v Lord Chancellor ex parte Lightfoot: Admn 31 Jul 1998

The applicant wanted to present a petition so as to obtain a declaration of bankruptcy from the court but, being in debt to the tune of nearly pounds 60,000, she could not afford the deposit required by the court of pounds 250.
Held: The claim failed. There was no constitutional right for a debtor to petition the court to achieve his or her own bankruptcy. However, the more fundamental the right affected by a Regulation, the less likely it was that Parliament would have authorised its impairment and the greater would be the court’s need to be satisfied that such indeed was Parliament’s true intention.

Judges:

Simn Brown LJ

Citations:

[1998] EWHC Admin 827, [2000] QB 597

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – A, K, M, Q and G v HM Treasury Admn 24-Apr-2008
The applicants were suspected of terrorist associations. Their bank accounts and similar had been frozen. They challenged the Order in Council under which the orders had been made without an opportunity for parliamentary challenge or approval.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Constitutional

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.138948

Heap v Ind Coope and Allsopp Ltd: 1940

MacKinnon LJ said: ‘The law as it stands does permit me to give effect to common-sense and decency.’

Judges:

MacKinnon LJ

Citations:

[1940] KB 476

Cited by:

Cited – Mannai Investment Co Ltd v Eagle Star Assurance HL 21-May-1997
Minor Irregularity in Break Notice Not Fatal
Leases contained clauses allowing the tenant to break the lease by serving not less than six months notice to expire on the third anniversary of the commencement date of the term of the lease. The tenant gave notice to determine the leases on 12th . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.185090

Pemberton v Chappell: 12 Dec 1986

Court of Appeal of New Zealand – The question on a summary judgment application is whether the defendant has no defence to the claim; that is, that there is no real question to be tried.

Judges:

Somers, Casey, Hillyer JJ

Citations:

[1987] 1 NZLR 1 CA, (1986) 1 PRNZ 183, CA123/86, [1986] NZCA 112

Links:

Nzlii

Cited by:

Cited – John Andrew Bagnall, Andrew John Maher v Mobile Oil New Zealand Limited (Appeal No 23 of 2001) PC 11-Dec-2001
(New Zealand) The respondent sponsored motor racing events in New Zealand. The company had failed to deliver the races agreed, and went into liquidation. The appellants had guaranteed its obligations. Summary judgement had been sought but refused, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Litigation Practice

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.183279

Chief Constable of Kent v V: 1982

In order to obtain an injunction with respect to property in the possession of a defendant, the right sought to be enforced need not be a proprietary right of the claimant, nor a right for the benefit of the claimant itself. (Slade LJ dissenting)

Judges:

Lord Justice Donaldson, Lord Denning MR, Slade LJ

Citations:

[1982] CLY 2495, [1983] QB 34

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Bonalumi v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 1985
In the course of extradition proceedings, an order was obtained under the 1879 Act. The defendant sought to appeal against the order, and applied to the Court of Appeal.
Held: The procedure under the 1879 Act was in the course of criminal . .
Cited – Worcestershire County Council v Tongue and others ChD 6-Aug-2003
The defendants had been convicted of offences involving mistreatment of animals, and debarred from having custody of animals. They were now in breach of that order, and the council sought a civil order allowing it access to their land to remove any . .
Cited – Chief Constable of Hampshire v A Ltd CA 1984
The court explained Chief Constable of Kent -v- V: ‘jurisdiction to grant an injunction on the application of the Chief Constable in that case existed only if he could be found to have a sufficient interest in making the application, and they appear . .
Cited – Worcestershire County Council v Tongue, Tongue, and Tongue CA 17-Feb-2004
The defendants had been convicted of animal welfare offences, and banned from keeping animals. The claimant sought to enter the premises to remove animals, but were denied entry.
Held: The court had no power to make an order to allow access . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition, Local Government, Litigation Practice

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.183550

Richardson v Richardson: KBD 1927

A bank owed debts to a judgment debtor customer on accounts held both in London and in Africa. It was accepted that the former were subject to a garnishee order. The dispute concerned the latter.
Held: The bank is no doubt indebted to the judgment debtor and the bank is within the jurisdiction. The Order deals with the case where ‘any other person is indebted to the judgment debtor and is within the jurisdiction’. But both in principle and upon authority, that means ‘is indebted within the jurisdiction and is within the jurisdiction’. The debt must be properly recoverable within the jurisdiction. In principle, attachment of debts is a form of execution, and the general power of execution extends only to property within the jurisdiction of the Court which orders it. A debt is not [properly] within the jurisdiction if it cannot be recovered here. The court was accordingly of opinion that moneys held by the bank to the credit of the judgment debtor at the African branches cannot be made the subject of a garnishee order, for they are not a debt recoverable within the jurisdiction.’ The court went on to hold that, if he was wrong in that conclusion, he would exercise his discretion against the making of an order.

Judges:

Hill J

Citations:

[1927] P 228,

Cited by:

Distinguished – SCF Finance Co Ltd v Masri (No 3) 1987
The court accepted that in a case where the garnishee was not indebted within the jurisdiction that might be relevant to the exercise of the court’s discretion. Since, in this case, the debt in question was an English debt, the court’s jurisdiction . .
No Longer good law – Interpool Ltd v Galani CA 1988
The debtor appealed against an order to answer questions and disclose documents relating to any debts owed to him or other property or means belonging to him outside the jurisdiction. The court looked at the examination of a judgment debtor under . .
Cited – Societe Eram Shipping Company Limited and others v Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corp Ltd, Compagnie Internationale de Navigation HL 12-Jun-2003
The appeal concerned a final third party debt order (formerly a garnishee order). A judgment in France was registered here for enforcement. That jurisdiction was now challenged.
Held: A third party debt order is a proprietary remedy operating . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Jurisdiction

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.183542

Montgomery, Jones and Co v Liebenthal and Co: 1898

The court rejected the argument that the rules of court prohibited an agreement between the parties to adopt an arrangement for service which did not comply with the rules.

Citations:

[1898] 1 QB 487

Cited by:

Cited – Kenneth Allison Ltd v AE Limehouse Ltd HL 1992
If one party, knowing that another wishes to serve process upon him, requests or authorises the other to do so in a particular way which is outside the Rules and the other does so, then, unless the Rules themselves prohibit consensual service, the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.182216

Frankson and Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Johns v Same: CA 8 May 2003

The claimants sought damages for injuries alleged to have been received at the hands of prison officers whilst in prison. They now sought disclosure by the police of statements made to the police during the course of their investigation.
Held: The court ordered the police to disclose witness statements obtained during a criminal investigation, because that was necessary in order to dispose fairly of a civil action about the same subject matter.
Disclosure against third parties should be regarded as the exception rather than the rule and not simply ordered by way of routine. the balance was between the confidence that existed in statements made to the police for the purposes of an investigation on the one hand and disclosure necessary to dispose fairly of a civil action against the Home Office in respect of alleged assaults on prisoners on the other hand. In this case the balance fell in favour of disclosure.
Scott Baker LJ said: ‘The court has in cases such as the present a difficult balancing exercise to perform between the two conflicting public interests. For my part I would not put interviews under caution of suspects into any special category. It seems to me all who make statements to or answer questions by the police do so in the expectation that confidence will be maintained unless (1) they agree to waive it, or (2) it is overridden by some greater public interest. The weigh to be attached to the confidence will vary according to the particular circumstances with which the court is dealing. In the present case the countervailing public interest is one which in my judgment is of very great weight and one which outweighs the desirability of maintaining confidentiality. In conducting the balancing exercise the judge had clearly in mind the need to maintain the confidences so far as it was possible to do so. To that end he imposed stringent conditions on the extent and manner of disclosure. This is in my view a course which should always be followed in similar cases where the court decides that disclosure is required.’

Judges:

Pill LJ, Scott Baker LJ, Wilson J

Citations:

Times 12-May-2003, [2003] 1 WLR 1952, [2003] EWCA Civ 655

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 31.17

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Woolgar v Chief Constable of Sussex Police and UKCC CA 26-May-1999
The issue was the potential disclosure by the police to the nurses’ regulatory body of confidential information concerning the plaintiff, the matron of a nursing home. There had been insufficient evidence to charge the plaintiff with a criminal . .
Cited – Attorney-General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No 2) (‘Spycatcher’) HL 13-Oct-1988
Loss of Confidentiality Protection – public domain
A retired secret service employee sought to publish his memoirs from Australia. The British government sought to restrain publication there, and the defendants sought to report those proceedings, which would involve publication of the allegations . .

Cited by:

Cited – Banks and Another v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Admn 15-Mar-2004
The claimant sought a review of the respondent’s failure to deal fairly with him by not making proper disclosure of information upon which it had relied in making a movement restriction notice as regarded the claimant’s herd of beef cattle. Trading . .
Cited – Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd and others QBD 5-Mar-2009
The claimant police officer complained of an alleged defamation in an article published by the defendant. The defendant wished to obtain information from the IPCC to show that they were investigating the matter as a credible issue. The court . .
Cited – Phillips v Newsgroup Newspapers Ltd and Others ChD 17-Nov-2010
The claimant had been assistant to a well known publicist. The defendant had settled an action brought by her principal for hacking his mobile telephone, in the course of which it appeared that the claimant’s phone had also been hacked. She now . .
Cited – Clifford v NGN Ltd and Mulcaire ChD 3-Feb-2010
There are three steps in every case where a party seeks disclosure from a third party: ‘(1) First it has to be shown that the documentation is likely to support the case of the applicant or adversely affect the case of the respondent. The word . .
Cited – Andrew v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Commissioner of the Police for the Metropolis ChD 18-Mar-2011
The claimant sought unredacted disclosure of documents by the second defendant so that he could pursue an action against the first, who, he said, were thought to have intercepted his mobile phone messages, and where the second defendant had . .
Cited – Tchenguiz v Director of The Serious Fraud Office and Others CA 31-Oct-2014
The appellant challenged an order of the Commercial Court refusing permission for documents disclosed in English litigation to be used in litigation proceedings in Guernsey. The principal issue is whether the judge correctly weighed up the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Civil Procedure Rules, Police

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.182171

Practice Note (Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Listing windows and hear-by dates): CA 10 Mar 2003

The court announced that hear-by dates had been considerably reduced, and the longest now was 10 months. For appeals filed after 1 March 2003, the longest would now be 9 months, with many shorter.

Judges:

Phillips of Worth Matravers MR

Citations:

Times 14-Mar-2003

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.180100

Compagnia Italiana Alcool Sas di Mario Mariano and Co v Commission of the European Communities: ECJ 19 Dec 1990

ECJ Vinous alcohol – Special sale by tender. Application for interim measures – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial damage – Damage which cannot be wholly recouped – Weighing up of all the interests in question (EEC Treaty, Art. 186; Rules of Procedure, Art. 83(2)) The urgency of an application for interim measures must be assessed in relation to the necessity for an order granting interim relief in order to prevent serious and irreparable damage to the party requesting the interim measures. Damage of a financial nature is not in principle considered to be serious and irreparable unless it could not be wholly recouped if the applicant were to be successful in the main action. Even assuming that the alleged damage could not be made good entirely by an award of damages, the commercial interests which the applicant seeks to protect should be weighed against the interests of the Community.

Citations:

C-358/90

Statutes:

EEC Treaty 186, Rules of Procedure 83(2)

Cited by:

See Also – Compagnia Italiana Alcool v Commission ECJ 7-Apr-1992
ECJ The urgency of an application for interim measures must be assessed in relation to the necessity for an order granting interim relief in order to prevent serious and irreparable damage to the party requesting . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Litigation Practice

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.160608

In re Medicaments and Related Classes of Goods (No 4): CA 26 Jul 2001

The parties had expended very considerable sums preparing for a hearing. The hearing became abortive when it was questioned whether a member of the court had given the appearance of bias. The parties sought payment of their wasted costs from the Lord Chancellor, as the person responsible for providing the court, on the basis that their right to a fair trial had been infringed.
Held: The application was refused. One party as a representative body was not a victim, even though no representative order had been made. The court had remedied the defect by later providing an impartial tribunal before which the parties’ rights could be settled, and there had been no loss of the right to a fair trial.

Judges:

Phillips MR, Brooke LJ, Walker LJ

Citations:

Times 06-Aug-2001, Gazette 06-Sep-2001

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 6.1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See also – In Re Medicaments and Related Classes of Goods RPC 14-Apr-1999
Before granting leave to review the exemption of a class of goods from the resale price maintenance prohibition, there must be established prima facie evidence of a material change in circumstances, which might have led the earlier court to a . .
See also – In Re Medicaments and Related Classes of Goods (No 2) RPC 17-Nov-2000
Part way into a trial, one of the judges in a case applied for a position with a company. She discovered that a director of that company was due to give evidence. She brought the circumstances to the attention of the remaining court and parties. She . .
See also – In Re Medicaments and Related Classes of Goods (No 2); Director General of Fair Trading v Proprietary Association of Great Britain and Proprietary Articles Trade Association CA 21-Dec-2000
The claimants alleged that a connection between a member of the Restrictive Practices Court, who was to hear a complaint and another company, disclosed bias against them. She had not recused herself.
Held: When asking whether material . .

Cited by:

Cited – Taylor v Williamsons (a Firm) CA 17-Jul-2002
The judge concluded hearing evidence, and requested counsel to make their submissions before a certain date. Before that date, and forgetful of his request, he issued his judgement. On realizing his mistake, he withdrew his judgment. The claimant . .
Cited – Sengupta v Holmes and Others, Lord Chancellor intervening CA 31-Jul-2002
The appellant had applied for leave to appeal to a single judge, who had refused the application. He appealed and was granted leave by two judges. He then objected when the single judge who had refused leave was included in the panel of judges to . .
Cited – AA Lawal v Northern Spirit Limited CA 9-Aug-2002
The appellant had had his case considered by the Employment Appeal Tribunal. He complained that his opponent had been represented in court by an advocate who himself sat part time in the EAT, and that this would lead to undue weight and respect . .
Cited – Davidson v Scottish Ministers (No 3) HL 31-Jul-2003
Application for permission to appeal to the House.
Held: Rejected because it seeks to proceed without the prior leave of the Inner House, and ‘ In any event, the effect of the interlocutor of 11 September 2002 is that there is for the time . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Litigation Practice

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.159496

Fieldman and Another v Markovitch and Another: CA 4 Jul 2001

Where a judge, on an oral application, gave leave to appeal, but limited it to certain issues, it was not for the party on the later substantive appeal to try again to re-open issues which that judge had considered and excluded. Once leave to appeal had been granted after first written and then oral submissions, it was not for a brother judge to re-open the questions decided. The judge hearing the appeal which had been permitted did not himself have jurisdiction to revisit the earlier leave application.

Judges:

Morritt VC

Citations:

Times 31-Jul-2001

Statutes:

Access to Justice Act 1999 54, Civil Procedure Rules Part 52 52.1(1) and 52.3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.136161

SMC Engineering (Bristol) Ltd v Fraser and Another: CA 26 Jan 2001

In a County Court case, one party complained that the solicitors representing the other party, a corporation, had previously acted for them. The court made an order requiring the corporate litigant to appoint another firm of solicitors. The corporation appealed. The order was lifted. Its form was objectionable in that it positively required the appointment of a different firm. A proper order was merely an order that the solicitors should not continue to represent that litigant.

Citations:

Times 26-Jan-2001

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice, Legal Professions

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.89308

Regina v Secretary of State for Education and Employment ex parte Amraf Training plc: CA 28 Jun 2001

On a complaint in public law, if a party wishes to raise allegations of victimisation in the nature of malice, ill will, or undisclosed ulterior motive, in the course of proceedings, these matters had to be raised clearly and explicitly. It was inappropriate to raise such issues clearly only on appeal. Here the judge could not be criticised for taking the evidence as it was presented to him. Evidence as to victimisation introduced only at that later stage would not be admitted.

Citations:

Times 28-Jun-2001

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice, Administrative, Judicial Review

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.88605

Interoute Telecommunications (UK) Ltd v Fashion Gossip Ltd and Others: ChD 10 Nov 1999

Where a party to litigation made an ex parte application, there was a clear duty on the legal representative attending to make full notes of the hearing so that, if the opposing party sought in any way to challenge what had happened, a record would be available to assist the court in considering the challenge. He must also supply a copy of the notes to the other party.

Judges:

Lightman J

Citations:

Times 10-Nov-1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Thane Investments Ltd and Another v Tomlinson ChD 6-Dec-2002
The claimants had obtained an ex parte freezing order. The respondent complained that they had failed to provide full notes of the hearing as required.
Held: It was vital that those obtaining ex parte relief should comply with the . .
Cited – W v H (Family Division: without notice orders) FD 10-Jul-2000
Munby J considered the practice to be followed in the Family Division when injunctions are granted ex parte and without notice against third parties in ancillary relief cases.
Held: The court traced the history of undertakings in damages give . .
Cited – Kelly (A Minor) v British Broadcasting Corporation FD 25-Jul-2000
K, aged 16, had left home to join what was said to be a religious sect. His whereabouts were unknown. He had been made a ward of court and the Official Solicitor was appointed to represent his interests. He had sent messages to say that he was well . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.89762