Category: Litigation Practice

Hawes v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary; S v S; S v S: CA 20 May 1993

Separate notices of appeal are not required for appeals against orders made in the same proceedings at the same trial or hearing. ‘There are three notices of appeal before us. Mr Hawes challenges three separate rulings of the judge during the course of the hearing. The fact that it was thought necessary to file three separate notices of appeal seemed curious. Counsel for Mr Hawes explained that the conventional view is that separate notices of appeal are required whenever separate orders are made at the same trial of one action. The understanding is apparently that if there are several rulings on, for example, objections to the admissibility of evidence which result in multiple orders there must be a separate notice of appeal in respect of each order. That view of the requirements of the rules is supported by a note in The Supreme Court Practice, 1993, Volume 1, at paragraph 59/1/1, which appears at page 910 of that volume. It read as follows: ‘Where two or more orders have been made by the court or tribunal below then separate notices of appeal will be required in respect of each order.’ Such a requirement seems unnecessary and wasteful. There is nothing in the wording of the rule which demands such a practice, and the rules ought to be construed in order to promote economical disposal of cases. There seems no good reason why this procedure should continue. I would hope that the ever vigilant editors of The Supreme Court Practice will find it possible to amend the note in a further supplement in order to make it clear that in respect orders made in one action at one hearing it is only necessary to file one notice of appeal.’

Judges:

Steyn LJ

Citations:

Times 20-May-1993

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Distinguished – Dixon v Allgood CA 14-Apr-1999
A party wishing to apply for leave to appeal against orders made on separate preliminary hearings within the same action need not issue one application for each order, but can combine them into one application. In this case the issues were related . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.81283

Grovewood Holding Plc v James Capel and Co Ltd: ChD 15 Aug 1994

A champertous arrangement is unlawful. The action was time barred. It was not an assignment of the cause of action. Such a claim by a liquidator will not be permitted to proceed. The court granted a stay in an action being funded pursuant to a champertous arrangement by the liquidator. He held that that, whether or not the expressions of opinion in Martell that, in a case of maintenance, a stay should not be ordered remained good law (see further below), there was no doubt that the court was free, in the case of a champertous agreement, to grant a stay on the basis that it constituted a continuing abuse of process which the court, as well as the defendants, had an interest in bringing to an end.
Lightman J said: ‘This ground ceases to have any force with the abolition of the crime of maintenance, and the recognition of so many grounds for a stay which do not constitute defences, e.g. absence of authority of the plaintiff’s solicitors, forum non conveniens or the fact that the action is brought for a collateral (improper) purpose.’

Judges:

Lightman J

Citations:

Independent 20-Sep-1994, Times 15-Aug-1994, [1995] Ch 80

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Martell v Consett Iron Co Ltd ChD 1955
In a case of maintenance (as opposed to champerty), a stay should not be ordered. The laws relating to maintenance and champerty must develop to accommodate to changing times. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Abraham and Another v Thompson and Others ChD 12-May-1997
The court may issue a stay of proceedings pending disclosure of the source of funding of an action, without there needing to be any suggestion of champerty or other illegality. The first plaintiff was ordered to disclose to the 5th and 6th . .
Cited – Abraham and Another v Thompson and Another CA 24-Jul-1997
The plaintiffs appealed an order that they should disclose who if any had funded their case. The case concerned failed business ventures in Portugal. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.81063

H J Banks and Co Ltd and Others v British Coal Corporation: QBD 10 Aug 1994

No cause of action could be pursued where the European Commission only can decide liability and no decision had yet been made. An action would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction rather than be stayed until the decision was made.

Judges:

Mance J

Citations:

Times 10-Aug-1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At ECJ – H J Banks and Co Ltd v British Coal Corporation ECJ 13-Apr-1994
The European Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over ECSC treaty disputes. The duty of sincere cooperation imposed the obligation on the national court to mitigate as far as possible in the interests of the Community the risk of a conflicting . .

Cited by:

See Also – Coal Authority v H J Banks and Company Ltd; H J Banks and Company Ltd v The Coal Authority and Anoher ComC 20-Dec-1996
ComC Summary judgment under RSC Order 14 – claim for royalties – previous decision of the European Commission – claim for damages for breach of article 4 European Coal and Steel Treaty. The defence to the Coal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Utilities, European

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.81098

Gulf Bank Ksc v Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd: QBD 24 Aug 1993

A foreign contract was within the purview of Order 11 of the Rules of the Supreme Court. The presence of an indemnity clause which was expressly subject to UK law made the rest of the contract also subject to UK law. The indemnity clause was still part of the contract despite government decree.

Citations:

Gazette 17-Nov-1993, Ind Summary 30-Aug-1993, Times 24-Aug-1993

Litigation Practice, International, Contract

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.81090

Habib Bank Ltd v Ahmed: QBD 2 Nov 2000

The fact that public policy would sometimes allow the refusal of registration of a foreign judgment did not provide an opportunity to a party here to re-litigate the issue when he had had an opportunity to do so before the foreign court and had failed to take it. Foreign judgments may not be registered if they could be shown to have been obtained by fraud. Here documents were prepared in accordance with Islamic practice, and there was no evidence that any such fraud existed.

Citations:

Times 02-Nov-2000, Gazette 09-Nov-2000

Statutes:

Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933

International, Litigation Practice

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.81110

Global Container Lines Ltd v Bonyad Shipping: QBD 14 Jul 1998

Where companies had amalgamated and one had been a party to litigation, it was possible for the court to order the retrospective substitution of the new company even though the original party had disappeared in law.

Citations:

Times 14-Jul-1998

Citing:

See Also – Global Container Lines Limited v State Black Sea Shipping Company; Amber Seatrade SA and Clifton Navigation SA CA 16-Dec-1997
. .
See Also – Global Container Lines ltd v State Black Sea Shipping and Ors ComC 11-Sep-1997
Agreement for exclusive selling rights over vessel – authority of president of parent company to enter into ratification- whether terms (relating to period etc) sufficiently certain to be enforceable. Repudiation – interlocutory instruction . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Global Container Lines Limited v Bonyan Shipping Company CA 9-Nov-1998
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.80874

Georgiou and Another v Commissioners of Customs and Excise: QBD 19 Oct 1995

The VAT tribunal may assess whether the Commissioner had acted on the basis of his best judgment. Evans LJ discussed appeals on fact disguised as appeals on law: ‘There is a well-recognised need for caution in permitting challenges to findings of fact on the ground that they raise this kind of question of law. That is well seen in arbitration cases and in many others. It is all too easy for a so-called question of law to become no more than a disguised attack on findings of fact which must be accepted by the courts. As this case demonstrates, it is all too easy for the appeals procedure to the High Court to be misused in this way. Secondly, the nature of the factual inquiry which an appellate court can and does undertake in a proper case is essentially different from the decision-making process which is undertaken by the tribunal of fact. The question is not, has the party upon whom rests the burden of proof established on the balance of probabilities the facts upon which he relies, but, was there evidence before the tribunal which was sufficient to support the finding which it made? In other words, was the finding one which the tribunal was entitled to make? Clearly, if there was no evidence, or the evidence was to the contrary effect, the tribunal was not so entitled.
It follows, in my judgment, that for a question of law to arise in the circumstances, the appellant must first identify the finding which is challenged; secondly, show that it is significant in relation to the conclusion; thirdly, identify the evidence, if any, which was relevant to that finding; and, fourthly, show that that finding, on the basis of that evidence, was one which the tribunal was not entitled to make. What is not permitted, in my view, is a roving selection of evidence coupled with a general assertion that the tribunal’s conclusion was against the weight of the evidence and was therefore wrong. A failure to appreciate what is the correct approach accounts for much of the time and expense that was occasioned by this appeal to the High Court.’

Judges:

Evans LJ

Citations:

Times 19-Oct-1995, [1996] STC 463

Statutes:

Value Added Tax Act 1994 83 84

Cited by:

Cited – Gaines-Cooper v HM Revenue and Customs ChD 13-Nov-2007
The parties disputed the domicile of the tax-payer. He had a domicile of origin in the UK, but asserted that he had acquired a domicile of choice in the Seychelles. The Special Commissioners had allowed, in assessing the domicile at any time, of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT, Litigation Practice

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.80799

Gidrxsime Shipping Co Ltd v Tantomar Transporters Maritimos Ltd: QBD 27 May 1994

The disclosure of papers which are outside the jurisdiction can be ordered within Mareva proceedings, and after judgment.

Citations:

Times 27-May-1994, Gazette 13-Jul-1994, [1995] 1 WLR 299

Cited by:

Cited – Parker v C S Structured Credit Fund Ltd and another ChD 12-Feb-2003
The claimant alleged a breach of a share sale agreement, and sought information in advance of discovery.
Held: The court’s power to order information to be provided in anticipation of discovery was not to be used as a fishing expedition. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Litigation Practice

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.80817

Formica Ltd v Export Credits Guarantee Department: ComC 19 Oct 1994

A guarantor was entitled to see documents created by the company in chasing a debt. Procedure – specific discovery – common interest relied upon by applicant for discovery – insurance – documents brought into existence in furtherance of a common interest.

Judges:

Colman J

Citations:

Times 19-Oct-1994

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Jones (Margaret), Regina v Milling and others HL 29-Mar-2006
Domestic Offence requires Domestic Defence
Each defendant sought to raise by way of defence of their otherwise criminal actions, the fact that they were attempting to prevent the commission by the government of the crime of waging an aggressive war in Iraq, and that their acts were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Litigation Practice

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.80635

Europa Property and Financial Services Ltd v Stubbert: CA 18 Mar 1992

Court has power to overturn Judge’s exercise of discretion to refuse summary judgment. If a defendant appealed against an Order 14 judgment, then on the question as to what order it was appropriate to make under Order 14, the judge in chambers had a completely free discretion and in those circumstances ought not to have declined to order summary judgment simply because there was no cross-appeal.

Citations:

Gazette 18-Mar-1992, Times 25-Nov-1991

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.80381

E D and F Man (Sugar) Ltd v Haryanto: ChD 24 Nov 1995

Enforcement by judgment on co-ordinate jurisdiction judgment is discretionary: ‘ . . having regard to the decision in Re A Debtor [1977] Ch 310 that s 24(1) of the 1980 Act bars after six years rights of action including proceedings in the form of bankruptcy proceedings, based on an earlier judgment.’

Judges:

Patten J

Citations:

Times 24-Nov-1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed to – ED and F Man (Sugar) v Haryanto CA 17-Jul-1996
An action may be brought on a judgment to enforce it, if it is still within the relevant limitation period: ‘Suing on a judgment, at all events for the first time, cannot be said to defeat legislative policy. That is plain from the very language of . .
Cited – Re A Debtor 1977
Corporate insolvency proceedings based on a statutory demand for monies due under a previous judgment are an ‘action on a judgment’ within s 24 rather than a method of enforcing or executing the judgment. They are barred by s 24 if brought more than . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – ED and F Man (Sugar) v Haryanto CA 17-Jul-1996
An action may be brought on a judgment to enforce it, if it is still within the relevant limitation period: ‘Suing on a judgment, at all events for the first time, cannot be said to defeat legislative policy. That is plain from the very language of . .
Cited – Bennett v The Governor and Company of the Bank of Scotland CA 23-Jul-2004
The bank had obtained judgment against the defendant, but had failed to act upon it, and the judgment became unenforceable. It then began later proceedings on the original debt (still within the applicable limitation period). The defendant said this . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.80204

Deeny and Others v Littlejohn and Co (A Firm): ChD 19 Jan 1995

Lloyds litigation could properly be brought on Chancery rather than QBD.

Citations:

Times 19-Jan-1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Deeny v Littlejohn and Co and Others QBD 23-Feb-1995
All future Lloyds litigation to begin in QBD commercial court for efficiency. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.79877

Deeny v Littlejohn and Co and Others: QBD 23 Feb 1995

All future Lloyds litigation to begin in QBD commercial court for efficiency.

Citations:

Times 23-Feb-1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Deeny and Others v Littlejohn and Co (A Firm) ChD 19-Jan-1995
Lloyds litigation could properly be brought on Chancery rather than QBD. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.79879

Dagnell and Another v J L Freedman and Co and Others: HL 5 Apr 1993

The plaintiffs, trustees of the will, sued the solicitors who had prepared it in negligence. They issued the writ some 7 months before the limitation date for their claim, but did not then serve it. They were advised first to make an application to the court (a Beddoe application, see In re Beddoe [1893] 1 Ch 547 (CA)) to safeguard their position as to costs. They issued their application a few weeks before the expiry of the limitation period and some months later obtained an ex parte extension of the validity of the writ, subsequently further extended, in order to cover actual service, which was finally effected some 9 months after limitation expired. In those days a writ was valid for an initial 12 months. The defendant solicitors challenged those extensions and were initially unsuccessful (Hoffmann J) and then succeeded by a majority in this court.Delays arising from the need to make a Beddoe application do not justify a delay in the service of a writ nor an extension of time for service.
Lord Browne-Wilkinson stated that the starting point of any consideration of extension of the period for service must be that a defendant has a right to be sued, if at all, by means of a writ issued within the limitation period and served within the period of its initial validity.

Judges:

Lord Browne-Wilkinson

Citations:

Ind Summary 05-Apr-1993, Gazette 23-Jun-1993, [1993] 1 WLR 388

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – In re Beddoe, Downes v Cottam CA 1893
In case of doubt as to the desirability of the intended proceedings (whether as plaintiff or defendant), trustees may apply to the court for directions. This will protect the trustees from adverse costs orders. If given leave to sue or defend by the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.79779

C T Bowring and Co (Insurance) Ltd v Corsi and Partners Ltd: CA 28 Jun 1994

The plaintiff had obtained a Mareva injunction, later discharged by agreement. The defendant sought an inquiry as to damages on the cross-undertaking given when the injunction was granted, alleging that it had suffered substantial loss. The hearing of that application was expected to last some 5 days and the plaintiff applied under s726 for an order for security on the grounds that the defendant would be unable to pay any costs awarded against him.
Held: Order 23 (together with s726) provided a complete and exhaustive code as regards the award of security and excluded the possibility of relying on inherent jurisdiction to award security against a defendant. It stated also that, if another category of case emerged in which it was felt that security should be available, it had to be provided for by legislation. A court might be persuaded to impose a term requiring the giving of security as an earnest of good faith if it were in real doubt as to the genuineness of the defendant’s claim, but that this possibility would only be available in an extreme case and should not be regarded as letting in by the back door a general inherent jurisdiction to order security which does not exist.

Judges:

Dillon LJ, Millett LJ

Citations:

Independent 14-Jul-1994, Gazette 07-Sep-1994, Times 28-Jun-1994, [1994] 2 Lloyds Rep 567

Statutes:

Companies Act 1985 726(1), RSC Order 23

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Abraham and Another v Thompson and Another CA 24-Jul-1997
The plaintiffs appealed an order that they should disclose who if any had funded their case. The case concerned failed business ventures in Portugal. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.79704

Cooper v P and O Stena Line Ltd: AdCt 8 Feb 1999

A party, defending a personal injury claim, who wished to assert that the plaintiff was malingering, must accept that this is akin to an allegation of fraud, and it must be specifically pleaded. It should not be for the Plaintiff to trawl through the expert reports, filed by the defendant, to discover such allegations.

Citations:

Times 08-Feb-1999

Statutes:

Rules of the Supreme Court Order 18 r 8(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Litigation Practice

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.79482

Chiron v Murex: CA 18 Oct 1993

It was for a judge to identify the real issues, and he may strike out parts of the defence and refuse amendments.

Citations:

Ind Summary 18-Oct-1993

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Chiron v Murex CA 24-May-1993
The Court of Appeal will not usually overturn a judge’s striking out of a patent action defence. . .

Cited by:

See Also – Chiron v Murex CA 24-May-1993
The Court of Appeal will not usually overturn a judge’s striking out of a patent action defence. . .
See Also – Chiron Corporation v Organon Teknika Ltd; Same v Murex Diagnostics (No 7) ChD 17-Feb-1994
The issue of loss in a prior patent challenge is res judicata in later proceedings despite the presence of experimental difficulties leading to ipossibly severe time limits. A patent applicant has no duty to inform the Patent Office of matters . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.79100

Cheltenham and Gloucester Building Society v Grant: CA 23 May 1994

The District Judge is to exercise his discretion informally on suspending possession, and need not apply the rules of evidence rigidly. He may consider that the defendant has sufficent means to support a clearance of the arrears over a reasonable period of time and thus to suspend the rder for possession, without taking direct evidence from him.

Citations:

Ind Summary 23-May-1994, Times 09-May-1994

Statutes:

Administration of Justice Act 1970, Administration of Justice Act 1973 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing, Litigation Practice, Land, Evidence

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.79010

Antigua and Barbuda Enterprises Ltd v Attorney General of Antigua and Barbuda: PC 9 Jun 1993

(Antigua and Barbuda) An action was not to be dismissed under Order 34, rule 11(1)(b) for a failure to apply to set it down.

Citations:

Gazette 09-Jun-1993, [1993] 1 W LR 1052

Jurisdiction:

Commonwealth

Cited by:

Mentioned – Lewis v Henry St Hillaire and others PC 22-May-1996
(Saint Vincent and The Grenadines) A writ was issued, but little progress was made. The respondent applied for a declaration that the action had been abandoned and was incapable of being revived.
Held: The provision was one local to the home . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.77816

A B and Others v John Wyeth and Brothers Ltd and Others: CA 15 Dec 1993

Proceedings claiming damages for the prescription of benzodiazepine were set aside where the possible benefit to the Plaintiffs, even if they succeeded, was vastly outweighed by the costs to the Defendant of defending the action. The court may use a cost benefit analysis to decide on striking out claims. ‘The court is concerned to see that its proceedings are not used in any way that is oppressive and vexatious to the other party or which involves serious injustice to him. If the court is satisfied that the proceedings do have that effect, it has power to strike out on the grounds that they are vexatious and an abuse of process.’

Judges:

Stuart-Smith LJ

Citations:

Gazette 16-Feb-1994, Independent 15-Dec-1993, Gazette 26-Jan-1994, Times 01-Dec-1993, [1994] 5 Med LR 149

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Herbert George Snell and others v Robert Young and Co Limited and others CA 21-Nov-2002
The claimants had sought damages for poisoning from organophosphates used in sheep dipping. Evidence linking the injuries to the use of the chemicals had not been found, and the actions struck out as an abuse of process. The group litigation had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Costs

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.77572

Gross v Lewis Hillman Ltd: CA 1970

Where there has been no misdirection on an issue of fact by the trial judge the presumption is that his conclusion on issues of fact is correct. The Court of Appeal will only reverse the trial judge on an issue of fact when it is convinced that his view is wrong. In such a case, if the Court of Appeal is left in doubt as to the correctness of the conclusion, it will not disturb it.

Judges:

Cross LJ

Citations:

[1970] Ch 445

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – DEG-Deutsche Investitions und Entwicklungsgesellschaft mbH v Koshy and Other (No 3); Gwembe Valley Development Co Ltd (in receivership) v Same (No 3) CA 28-Jul-2003
The company sought to recover damages from a director who had acted dishonestly, by concealing a financial interest in a different company which had made loans to the claimant company. He replied that the claim was out of time. At first instance the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.187434

The Iran Nabuvat: CA 1990

The full Court of Appeal will not interfere with an order of a Single Lord Justice granting leave unless the applicant can show a factor not considered by the Lord Justice which would have the effect of rendering the appeal in respect of which leave has been given bound to fail. Examples are given in the judgment of such a factor.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington MR said: ‘If a Lord Justice of Appeal, having studied the matter on paper, is satisfied that there is an arguable case and grants leave, I think it would require some very cogent reasons for disagreeing with his decision and it would certainly not be a reason that the court who was asked to reconsider his decision did not itself think that the matter was arguable.
But the point I am making is that if one Lord Justice thinks an appeal is arguable, it is really necessary in my view for anybody seeking a reconsideration of that to be able to point fairly and unerringly to a factor which was not drawn to the Lord Justice’s attention because perhaps it did not feature in the documents which had been studied or to the fact that he has overlooked some statutory provision which is decisive or some authority which is decisive, in the sense that the appeal will inevitably fail. That is really what leave to appeal is directed at – screening out appeals which inevitably fail.’

Judges:

Lord Donaldson of Lymington MR

Citations:

[1990] 1 WLR 1115

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Nathan v Smilovitch and Another CA 13-May-2002
Application to set aside leave to appeal.
Held: It is a rare case in which, once permission to appeal has been granted it is appropriate to set it aside. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.187196

Baker v Market Harborough Co-Operative Society Ltd: CA 1953

There was a collision in the centre of a road between two vehicles driven in opposite directions. In two hearings, judges had taken different views of the facts.
Held: The court was sympathetic to the judge who had found that the cause of the accident was so speculative on the meagre facts available that the plaintiff, who was an innocent third party, had failed to prove her case. However, the court took the view of the other judge that blame should be apportioned equally as between the two drivers. Romer LJ stated that a finding to that effect was: ‘the reasonable and probable inference to draw from the facts as found . .’

Judges:

Romer LJ

Citations:

[1953] 1 WLR 1472, 97 Sol Jo 861

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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 – Puffett (A Minor) v Hayfield CA 16-Dec-2005
The defendant appealed from a finding that she had been driving too quickly when a child ran out between parked cars in front of her and was hit. The judge found that she must have been driving at 28mph or more.
Held: ‘I am not prepared to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Negligence

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.187187

ABC Ltd and Another v HM Revenue and Customs: CA 7 Jul 2017

Temporary approval pending appeal was preferred

The company challenged refusal of fit and proper approval for registration as wholesaler of duty paid alcohol.
Held: The appeals were allowed in part. HMRC, having once concluded that the applicant was not fit and proper was not free to approve them pending their appeal. Better was a temporary approval under the 1979 Act.
Burnett LJ said: ‘A claimant seeking an injunction would need compelling evidence that the appeal would be ineffective. It would call for more than a narrative statement from a director of the business speaking of the dire consequences of delay. The statements should be supported by documentary financial evidence and a statement from an independent professional doing more than reformulating his client’s stated opinion. Otherwise, a judge may be cautious about taking prognostications of disaster at face value. It should not be forgotten that a trader who sees ultimate failure in the appeal would have every incentive to talk up the prospects of imminent demise of the business, in an attempt to keep going pending appeal. Equally, material would have to be deployed which provided a proper insight into the prospects of success in an appeal. There is no permission filter for an appeal to the F-tT. The High Court would not intervene in the absence of a detailed explanation of why the decision of HMRC was unreasonable. It must not be overlooked that the F-tT is not exercising its usual appellate jurisdiction in these types of case where it makes its own decision. Finally, there would have to be detailed evidence of the attempts made to secure expedition in the F-tT and the reasons why those attempts failed. Whilst the jurisdiction exists to grant interim relief in this way, its use is likely to be sparing because steps (i) and (ii) identified above should provide practical relief in cases which justify it and the circumstances in which it would be appropriate for injunctive relief to issue will be rare.’

Judges:

Patten, King, Burnett LJJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 956, [2017] WLR(D) 463, [2018] 1 WLR 1205

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979 88C, Commissioners of Revenue and Customs Act 2005 9, Finance Act 2015

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – CC and C Ltd v Revenue and Customs CA 19-Dec-2014
This appeal arises in the context of the regime which permits wholesale trading in alcoholic drinks and other dutiable goods which are held in, or moved between, excise warehouses without giving rise to an ‘excise duty point’ and thus attracting . .
Cited – Harley Development Inc. And, Trillium Investment Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue Co PC 14-Mar-1996
Hong Kong – ‘Their Lordships consider that, where a statute lays down a comprehensive system of appeals procedure against administrative decisions, it will only be in exceptional circumstances, typically an abuse of power, that the courts will . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – OWD Ltd (T/A Birmingham Cash and Carry) and Another v Revenue and Customs SC 19-Jun-2019
The wholesalers sought approval from the respondent for the wholesale supply of duty-paid alcohol. Approval was refused, but the parties sought a means of allowing a temporary approval pending determination by the FTT. The two questions considered . .
Cited – JJ Management Consulting Llp and Others v Revenue and Customs CA 22-Jun-2020
HMRC has power to conduct informal investigation
The taxpayer, resident here, but with substantial oversea business interests, challenged the conduct of an informal investigation of his businesses under the 2005 Act, saying that HMRC, as a creature of statute, are only permitted to do that which . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Licensing, Litigation Practice

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.588986

Bray v Palmer: CA 1953

The plaintiff was driving his motorcycle. The defendant drove a motor car on the same road in the opposite direction. Each said that they were driving at acceptable speed when the two vehicles collided in the centre of the road. The trial judge dismissed the plaintiff’s claim and the defendant’s counterclaim for he could not determine who was negligent.
Held: Lord Evershed MR said: ‘I can borrow from the observations of my two brethren to put the point quite briefly. My Brother Morris observed, quoting from one of the last passages I have read: ‘The judge is saying ‘Both stories are wildly improbable and yet one of them happened.’ If they are so wildly improbable, I am not satisfied that the judge was justified in excluding the possibility of the truth lying somewhere between the two, so that perhaps each would be less wildly improbable, or at least in excluding the possibility (which it seems to me was open) of both being wrong.’ I now come to the observation by my Brother Jenkins: ‘Unless that was so, the judge seems to me to have stated the case and his conclusions in such a way that one party or the other or both must have suffered an injustice.’ Whether that is so or not is perhaps another matter, but, if the result appears to be so, then, as it seems to me, it is not satisfactory to leave it thus, but this court ought to order a new trial.
I need not say that it is most regrettable that such a course should be followed because, after all, this accident happened more than two years ago and the recollections of the witnesses will have been either blurred or perhaps, by over-thinking, crystallised somewhat sharply in the interval. But still I have come to the conclusion, with the utmost respect for the judge and acknowledging his difficulty and his experience, that to have stated the matter as he did does involve either a real flaw, or something that looks so like it that it would not be right to leave the matter thus. I think, therefore, that this appeal must be allowed and a new trial ordered.’

Judges:

Lord Evershed MR

Citations:

[1953] 1 WLR 1455

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Litigation Practice, Road Traffic

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.187186

OWD Ltd (T/A Birmingham Cash and Carry) and Another v Revenue and Customs: SC 19 Jun 2019

The wholesalers sought approval from the respondent for the wholesale supply of duty-paid alcohol. Approval was refused, but the parties sought a means of allowing a temporary approval pending determination by the FTT. The two questions considered were: (1) What power does HMRC have to permit a person to carry on trading pending the determination of an appeal to the FTT? (2) If HMRC does not have such a power or refuses to exercise it, what interim relief can the High Court grant? HELD HMRC’s appeal against
Held: HMRC’s appeal succeeded. It was not permissible to use section 88C of the 1979 Act. The wholesaler’s appeal failed. HMRC did have power to make its decision under section 9 of the 2005 Act.

Judges:

Lady Hale, President, Lord Kerr, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hodge, Lady Black, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Sales

Citations:

[2019] UKSC 30, UKSC 2017/0157, UKSC 2017/0156

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC 2018 Jul 12 am Video, SC 2018 Jul 12 pm Video

Statutes:

Finance Act 2015, Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979 88C, Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 9, The Wholesaling of Controlled Liquor Regulations 2015

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – ABC Ltd and Another v HM Revenue and Customs CA 7-Jul-2017
Temporary approval pending appeal was preferred
The company challenged refusal of fit and proper approval for registration as wholesaler of duty paid alcohol.
Held: The appeals were allowed in part. HMRC, having once concluded that the applicant was not fit and proper was not free to . .
Cited – CC and C Ltd v Revenue and Customs CA 19-Dec-2014
This appeal arises in the context of the regime which permits wholesale trading in alcoholic drinks and other dutiable goods which are held in, or moved between, excise warehouses without giving rise to an ‘excise duty point’ and thus attracting . .
Cited – Hazell v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council HL 1991
Swap deals outwith Council powers
The authority entered into interest rate swap deals to protect itself against adverse money market movements. They began to lose substantial amounts when interest rates rose, and the district auditor sought a declaration that the contracts were . .
Cited – Wilkinson, Regina (on the Application Of) v Inland Revenue HL 5-May-2005
The claimant said that the widows’ bereavement tax allowance available to a wife surviving her husband should be available to a man also if it was not to be discriminatory.
Held: Similar claims had been taken before the Human Rights Act to the . .
Cited – Harley Development Inc. And, Trillium Investment Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue Co PC 14-Mar-1996
Hong Kong – ‘Their Lordships consider that, where a statute lays down a comprehensive system of appeals procedure against administrative decisions, it will only be in exceptional circumstances, typically an abuse of power, that the courts will . .
Cited – Tre Traktorer Aktiebolag v Sweden ECHR 7-Jul-1989
An alcohol licence for a restaurant was withdrawn with immediate effect because of financial irregularities, with the result that the restaurant business collapsed.
Held: ‘The government argued that a licence to sell alcoholic beverages could . .
Cited – Airey v Ireland ECHR 9-Oct-1979
Family law proceedings such as judicial separation do give rise to civil rights. In complex cases article 6 might require some provision for legal assistance, the precise form being a matter for the member state. The Court reiterated the importance . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Licensing, Litigation Practice

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.638488

AMDC v AG and Another: CoP 18 Nov 2020

Guidance for Expert Witnesses on Capacity

The court was asked as to the preparation and use of expert reports as to the capacity of a patient litigant.
Held: Poole J discussed what was need of expert witness in such cases: ‘it will benefit the court if the expert bears in mind the following:
a. An expert report on capacity is not a clinical assessment but should seek to assist the court to determine certain identified issues. The expert should therefore pay close regard to (i) the terms of the Mental Capacity Act and Code of Practice, and (ii) the letter of instruction.
b. The letter of instruction should, as it did in this case, identify the decisions under consideration, the relevant information for each decision, the need to consider the diagnostic and functional elements of capacity, and the causal relationship between any impairment and the inability to decide. It will assist the court if the expert structures their report accordingly. If an expert witness is unsure what decisions they are being asked to consider, what the relevant information is in respect to those decisions, or any other matter relevant to the making of their report, they should ask for clarification.
c. It is important that the parties and the court can see from their reports that the expert has understood and applied the presumption of capacity and the other fundamental principles set out at section 1 of the MCA 2005.
d. In cases where the expert assesses capacity in relation to more than one decision,
i. broad-brush conclusions are unlikely to be as helpful as specific conclusions as to the capacity to make each decision;
ii. experts should ensure that their opinions in relation to each decision are consistent and coherent.
e. An expert report should not only state the expert’s opinions, but also explain the basis of each opinion. The court is unlikely to give weight to an opinion unless it knows on what evidence it was based, and what reasoning led to it being formed.
f. If an expert changes their opinion on capacity following re-assessment or otherwise, they ought to provide a full explanation of why their conclusion has changed.
g. The interview with P need not be fully transcribed in the body of the report (although it might be provided in an appendix), but if the expert relies on a particular exchange or something said by P during interview, then at least an account of what was said should be included.
h. If on assessment P does not engage with the expert, then the expert is not required mechanically to ask P about each and every piece of relevant information if to do so would be obviously futile or even aggravating. However, the report should record what attempts were made to assist P to engage and what alternative strategies were used. If an expert hits a ‘brick wall’ with P then they might want to liaise with others to formulate alternative strategies to engage P. The expert might consider what further bespoke education or support can be given to P to promote P’s capacity or P’s engagement in the decisions which may have to be taken on their behalf. Failure to take steps to assist P to engage and to support her in her decision-making would be contrary to the fundamental principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 ss 1(3) and 3(2).’

Judges:

Poole J

Citations:

[2020] EWCOP 58

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Sheffield City Council v E; Re E (An Alleged Patient) FD 2-Dec-2004
The council sought an order to prevent E, a patient from contracting a marriage which it considered unwise. As a preliminary issue the parties sought guidance as to the questions to be put to the expert as to capacity.
Held: The woman suffered . .
Cited – LBL v RYJ and Another CoP 22-Sep-2010
Whether RYJ lacked capacity to litigate.
Held: For such capacity the person must understand the salient information but not necessarily all the peripheral detail. . .
Cited – Cheshire West and Chester Council v P and Another COP 14-Jun-2011
The patient, an adult without capacity and with Down’s syndrome and cerebral palsy complained of his treatment, when in order to prevent his habit of eating his nappy, they dressed him in an adult babygrow costume. The court was asked whether the . .
Cited – PH v A Local Authority CoP 30-Jun-2011
The Court was asked whether PH, a forty-nine year old man, suffering from Huntingdon’s Disease had capacity to make decisions about his residence, care and treatment. . .
Cited – London Borough of Tower Hamlets v NB (Consent to Sex) CoP 16-Jul-2019
The Court considered the capacity of the patient to consent to sexual relations.
Held: The criteria by which capacity is evaluated on any particular issue should not be confined within artificial or conceptual silos but applied in a way which . .
Cited – London Borough of Tower Hamlets v PB CoP 3-Jul-2020
Whether PB had capacity to litigate.
Held: Hayden J gave guidance as to the general approach to be taken by the court when determining an issue of capacity: ‘i. The obligation of this Court to protect P is not confined to physical, emotional . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Health

Updated: 07 April 2022; Ref: scu.656017

Wheat v Alphabet Inc / Google Llc and Another: ChD 26 Mar 2018

The parties contested leave to serve the defendant out of the jurisdiction.

Judges:

Marsh CM

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 550 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice, Intellectual Property

Updated: 07 April 2022; Ref: scu.608333

Designers Guild Ltd v Russell Williams (Textiles) Ltd (Trading As Washington DC): HL 28 Nov 2000

Copyright Claim: Was it Copied, and How Much?

The claimant sought to enforce its copyright in artwork for a fabric design Ixia, saying the defendant’s design Marguerite infringed that copyright. Two issues faced the House. Just what had been copied and if any, then did this amount amount to the whole or a substantial part the design.
Held: Where a court of first instance considered a claim of breach of copyright, it must consider both the question of whether copying had taken place, and if so whether what had been copied was substantial. An appellate court should recognise that both are questions of fact and degree, and should be very careful not to usurp the function of the court of first instance by reversing such a decision on appeal. Claims for infringement of artistic copyright differ from other infringement cases in that the result of infringement might or might not look like the original, and the fact of copying was more important. The line was very difficult to draw. Although in this case not the smallest part of a fabric design had been reproduced with anything approaching photographic fidelity, the copying of certain of the ideas expressed in that design which, in their conjoined expression, had involved original artistic skill and labour, constituted the copying of a substantial part of the artistic work.
Lord Hoffmann said: ‘Generally speaking, in cases of artistic copyright, the more abstract and simple the copied idea, the less likely it is to constitute a substantial part. Originality, in the sense of the contribution of the author’s skill and labour, tends to lie in the detail with which the basic idea is presented. Copyright law protects foxes better than hedgehogs. ‘
Lord Millett said: ‘The first step in an action for infringement of artistic copyright is to identify those features of the defendant’s design which the plaintiff alleges have been copied from the copyright work. The court undertakes a visual comparison of the two designs, noting the similarities and the differences. The purpose of the examination is not to see whether the overall appearance of the two designs is similar, but to judge whether the particular similarities relied on are sufficiently close, numerous or extensive to be more likely to be the result of copying than of coincidence. It is at this stage that similarities may be disregarded because they are commonplace, unoriginal, or consist of general ideas.’

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hoffmann Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Millett Lord Scott of Foscote

Citations:

Gazette 18-Jan-2001, Times 28-Nov-2000, [2000] UKHL 58, [2001] 1 All ER 700, [2000] 1 WLR 2416, [2001] FSR 113, [2001] ECDR 10, [2001] FSR 11

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 16(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Designers Guild Ltd v Russell Williams (Textiles) Ltd CA 26-Mar-1999
The claimant alleged copying of designs. The defendant appealed a finding that copying had taken place.
Held: The rejection of the dissection test in Ladbroke was as to the subsistence of copyright and not as to infringement. Evidence of those . .
Cited – LB (Plastics) Ltd v Swish Products Ltd HL 3-Jan-1979
Access and Similarity base proof of Copying
Copyright is intended to protect one person against his work being copied by another. One person must not be permitted to appropriate the result of another’s labour; it is for the plaintiff to establish and prove as a matter of fact that copying has . .
Cited – Ladbroke (Football) Ltd v William Hill (Football) Ltd HL 1964
What is substantial copying
The plaintiff alleged copying of their football pools coupons and copyright infringement. The issues were as to the extent of copying required to establish infringement, and whether it was proper to look at the several parts of the work separately. . .
Cited – Kenrick and Co v Lawrence and Co 1890
Ideas expressed by a copyright work may not be protected because, although they are ideas of a literary, dramatic or artistic nature, they are not original, or are so commonplace as not to form a substantial part of the work. . .
Cited – Kleeneze Ltd v DRG (UK) Ltd 1984
However strikingly original is a work, copyright law alone will not prevent others expressing the same idea themselves, even if the result is similar. . .
Cited – Mehdi Norowzian v Arks Ltd and Guinness Brewing Worldwide Limited (No 2) CA 11-Nov-1999
The claimant film artist showed a film to an advertising agency, who did not make use of it, but later appeared to use techniques and styles displayed in the film in subsequent material sold to third parties.
Held: A film was protected as a . .
Cited – Pro Sieben Media AG v Carlton Television Ltd and Another CA 7-Jan-1999
The defendant was accused of infringing copyright in a TV programme relating to the pregnancy of a woman with eight foetuses. The defendant claimed fair dealing, but that defence was rejected by the trial judge.
Held: The decision was . .
Cited – Francis Day and Hunter Ltd v Bron CA 1963
The test of substantial similarity in copyright infringement cases is an objective one. That assessment is for the court with such assistance from the evidence and parties as it can muster. To be an infringement there must be ‘some causal . .
Cited – Warwick Film Producers Ltd v Eisinger 1969
Although, in a claim for copyright infringement, the features alleged to have been copied from a work must be a substantial part of the plaintiff’s work, they do not need to form a substantial part of the defendant’s work to found a claim for . .
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 . .
At First Instance – Designers Guild Limited v Russell Williams (Textiles) Limited PatC 14-Jan-1998
The defendant denied that it had copied the plaintiff’s designs.
Held: There was sufficient evidence of copying. It was wrong to dissect a work, but rather the court should look at the matter as a whole. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Seb SAa v Societe De’Longhi Spa CA 4-Jul-2003
The claimant’s action for patent infringement had been dismissed on the basis that the patent was invalid for obviousness.
Held: There was material before the judge on which he could properly conclude as he did on the presence of common . .
Cited – A Fulton Company Limited v Totes Isotoner (UK) Limited CA 4-Nov-2003
The defendants appealed a finding that they had infringed the claimant’s unregistered design rights in collapsible umbrellas. The defendants said the law protected only the design as a whole, and that only part had been copied.
Held: Authority . .
Cited – Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd v Marks and Spencer Plc HL 12-Jul-2001
The respondent company subscribed to a cuttings service, but redistributed the cuttings within its offices. The cuttings agency claimed that the re-distribution infringed their rights in the typographical arrangement. The cuttings did not give any . .
Cited – Navitaire Inc v Easyjet Airline Co and Another ChD 30-Jul-2004
The claimant alleged infringement of its copyright in a software system which dealt with airline reservations. It was not said that any code had been copied, but merely that an express requirement of the defendant ordering the system was that it . .
Cited – IPC Media Ltd v Highbury-Leisure Publishing Ltd ChD 21-Dec-2004
The claimant magazine publisher alleged breach of copyright by the defendant in their magazine, as to the cover page designs used. It was not clear just which cover was said to have been copied.
Held: The first step in a copyright action is . .
Cited – Baigent and Another v The Random House Group Ltd (The Da Vinci Code) ChD 7-Apr-2006
The claimants alleged infringement of copyright by the defendant publishers and author in the plot and otherwise in the book ‘The Da Vinci Code’. They said that their own work had been copied substantially, using themes and copying language. The . .
Cited – Nova Productions Ltd v Mazooma Games Ltd and others CA 14-Mar-2007
The defendant appealed against a finding of copyright infringement in a computer game.
Held: The appeal failed. The court must identify the artistic work relied upon and then decide whether it has been reproduced by copying of the work as a . .
Cited – Nova Productions Ltd v Mazooma Games Ltd and others ChD 20-Jan-2006
The claimant alleged copyright infringement in respect of computer games in the coin operated video market. It was said not that the games copied bitmap graphics, but rather the composite frames which appeared on the screen.
Held: The games . .
Cited – Baigent and Another v The Random House Group Ltd CA 28-Mar-2007
The claimants appealed against a decision that the defendant’s book, the Da Vinci Code, had not infringed their copyright. The judge had found some copying, but not so much that a substantial part had been copied.
Held: Mummery LJ said: ‘In . .
Cited – Grobbelaar v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Another CA 18-Jan-2001
The claimant had been awarded andpound;85,000 damages in defamation after the defendant had wrongly accused him of cheating at football. The newspaper sought to appeal saying that the verdict was perverse and the defence of qualified privilege . .
Cited – Allen v Bloomsbury Publishing Plc and Another ChD 14-Oct-2010
The claimant sought damages alleging breach of copyright by the defendant author saying she had copied large parts of the claimant’s work in her book ‘Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire’. The defendant now sought summary judgment, saying the action . .
At HL – Designers Guild Ltd v Russell Williams (Textiles) Ltd (T/A Washington DC) (No 2) SCCO 20-Feb-2003
The appellant had been successful at first instance, had lost (unanimously) in the Court of Appeal and its appeal was allowed (unanimously) in the House of Lords.
Held: The general principles as to taxation of costs apply equally in the House . .
Cited – Temple Island Collections Ltd v New English Teas Ltd and Another PCC 12-Jan-2012
The claimant asserted infringement of their copyright in a photograph. It showed the Houses of Parliament in black and white with a London bus in red. The original action had been settled and the proposed image withdrawn as a copy. The defendants . .
Cited – Lantana Ltd v The Comptroller General of Patents, Design and Trade Marks CA 13-Nov-2014
The inventor company appealed against rejection of its application for a patent for a computer program.
Held: The appeal failed: ‘on the facts found by the Hearing Officer, the invention is no more than the computerisation of a process which . .
Cited – PMS International Group Plc v Magmatic Ltd SC 9-Mar-2016
Overall Impression of Design is a Judgment
The respondent had alleged infringement of its registered design in the ‘Trunki’, a ride-on children’s suitcase. At first instance, the judge had held that the surface decorations were to be ignored. On appeal it had been held that the judge had . .
Cited – Sheeran and Others v Chokri and Others ChD 6-Apr-2022
Insufficient Evidence to say Song was Copied
S sought a declaration that he had not copied the defendant’s song with his own. The court examined the musical details of both songs.
Held: The song was not copied. The defendant had not shown that the claimant knew anything of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Intellectual Property

Leading Case

Updated: 07 April 2022; Ref: scu.79935

PSJC Commercial Bank Privatbank v Kolomoisky and Others: ChD 12 Mar 2018

The claimant bank sought disclosure of information from the sixth to eighth defendants on the grounds that those defendants have not complied with a worldwide freezing order’s disclosure provisions, alternatively on the grounds that it would be just and convenient to order disclosure.

Judges:

Miss Joanna Smith QC

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 482 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 06 April 2022; Ref: scu.606432

Minera Las Bambas Sa and Another v Glencore Queensland Ltd and Others: ComC 21 Feb 2018

Claimants’ application under CPR 31.19(5) for a determination as to whether the Defendants are entitled to assert litigation privilege in circumstances where the right is said to have arisen out of proceedings to which the Defendants are not a party. The Claimants are seeking an order for inspection of 25 documents.

Judges:

Moulder J

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 286 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 06 April 2022; Ref: scu.606414

GFH Capital Ltd v Haigh and Others: ComC 8 Dec 2017

Application to set aside order – allegation of judge who had since retired and joined a set of barristers with a connection to a party, and was sitting at an international court.
Held: Rejected

Judges:

Leggatt J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 3631 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 06 April 2022; Ref: scu.606393

CMOC Sales and Marketing Ltd v Person(s) Unknown and Others: ComC 17 Nov 2017

Continuation of existing injunctive relief

Judges:

Waksman QC HHJ

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 3602 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – CMOC v Persons Unknown ComC 23-Oct-2017
Application for worldwide freezing relief against persons unknown. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 06 April 2022; Ref: scu.606388

Flota Petrolera Ecuatoriana v Petroleos De Venezuala Sa: ComC 17 Nov 2017

Application made by the defendant to set aside an order granting the claimant permission under CPR r.6.15 to serve an arbitration claim form on the defendant by an alternative method consisting of service on its London solicitors.

Judges:

Leggatt J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 3630 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 06 April 2022; Ref: scu.606389

Dow Jones and Co Inc v Jameel: CA 3 Feb 2005

Presumption of Damage in Defamation is rebuttable

The defendant complained that the presumption in English law that the victim of a libel had suffered damage was incompatible with his right to a fair trial. They said the statements complained of were repetitions of statements made by US authorities. The claimant had asserted that no more than five people had read the article complained of.
Held: The presumption of damage was well established in UK law, but the presumption is not irrebuttable. The presumption is not incompatible with Article 10 of the Convention.
It can be an abuse of process to pursue litigation where the value to the litigant of a successful outcome is so small as to make the exercise pointless, viewed against the expenditure of court time and the parties’ time and money engaged by the undertaking: ‘We accept that in the rare case where a claimant brings an action for defamation in circumstances where his reputation has suffered no or minimal actual damage, this may constitute an interference with freedom of expression that is not necessary for the protection of the claimant’s reputation. In such circumstances the appropriate remedy for the defendant may well be to . . seek to strike out the action as an abuse of process.’
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers MR said: ‘in the rare case where a claimant brings an action for defamation in circumstances where his reputation has suffered no or minimal actual damage, this may constitute an interference with freedom of expression that is not necessary for the protection of the claimant’s reputation. In such circumstances the appropriate remedy for the defendant may well be to challenge the claimant’s resort to English jurisdiction or to seek to strike out the action as an abuse of process . . An abuse of process is of concern not merely to the parties but to the court. It is no longer the role of the court simply to provide a level playing-field and to referee whatever game the parties choose to play upon it. The court is concerned to ensure that judicial and court resources are appropriately and proportionately used in accordance with the requirements of justice.
There have been two recent developments which have rendered the court more ready to entertain a submission that pursuit of a libel action is an abuse of process. The first is the introduction of the new Civil Procedure Rules. Pursuit of the overriding objective requires an approach by the court to litigation that is both more flexible and more proactive. The second is the coming into effect of the Human Rights Act 1998. Section 6 requires the court, as a public authority, to administer the law in a manner which is compatible with Convention rights, in so far as it is possible to do so. Keeping a proper balance between the article 10 right of freedom of expression and the protection of individual reputation must, so it seems to us, require the court to bring to a stop as an abuse of process defamation proceedings that are not serving the legitimate purpose of protecting the claimant’s reputation, which includes compensating the claimant only if that reputation has been unlawfully damaged . . It would be an abuse of process to continue to commit the resources of the English court, including substantial judge and possibly jury time, to an action where so little is now seen to be at stake. Normally where a small claim is brought, it will be dealt with by a proportionate small claims procedure. Such a course is not available in an action for defamation where, although the claim is small, the issues are complex and subject to special procedure under the CPR’.
‘There have always been strong pragmatic reasons for proceeding on the premise that a defamatory publication will have caused the victim some damage rather than opening the door to the claimant and the defendant each marshalling witnesses to say that, respectively, they did or did not consider that the article damaged the claimant’s reputation.’

Judges:

Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers MR, Lord Justice Sedley And Lord Justice Jonathan Parker

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 75, Times 14-Feb-2005, [2005] EMLR 16, [2005] QB 946, [2005] 2 WLR 1614, [2005] EMLR 353

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 1.1(2), European Convention on Human Rights 10

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Shevill and Others v Presse Alliance SA HL 26-Jul-1996
A libel case against a French paper was rightly brought in UK despite the small (250 copies nationally and 5 in the plaintiff’s local area (Yorkshire)) circulation here. The Brussels Convention allows a claim for defamation in UK though the main . .
Cited – Multigroup Bulgaria Holding AD v Oxford Analytica Ltd 2001
An article defaming an identifiable individual would give rise to a cause of action even where no one reading the article had prior knowledge of the victim. It could not seriously be suggested that ‘under English law an individual human being has to . .
Cited – Berezovsky v Forbes Inc and Michaels; Glouchkov v Same HL 16-May-2000
Plaintiffs who lived in Russia sought damages for defamation against an American magazine with a small distribution in England. Both plaintiffs had real connections with and reputations in England. A judgment in Russia would do nothing to repair the . .
No longer Good law – Duke of Brunswick v Harmer QBD 2-Nov-1849
On 19 September 1830 an article was published in the Weekly Dispatch. The limitation period for libel was six years. The article defamed the Duke of Brunswick. Seventeen years after its publication an agent of the Duke purchased a back number . .
Cited – Morgan v Odhams Press Ltd HL 1971
The plaintiff claimed in defamation. The defence was that the words did not refer to the plaintiff and could not be understood to refer to him.
Held: The question as to what meaning words are capable of bearing has been described as a question . .
Cited – Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd, The Spiliada HL 1986
Forum Non Conveniens Restated
The House reviewed the authorities on the principle of forum non conveniens and restated how to apply the principle where the defendant seeks a stay of proceedings on the ground that there is another more appropriate forum.
Held: ‘In the . .
Cited – Handyside v The United Kingdom ECHR 7-Dec-1976
Freedom of Expression is Fundamental to Society
The appellant had published a ‘Little Red Schoolbook’. He was convicted under the 1959 and 1964 Acts on the basis that the book was obscene, it tending to deprave and corrupt its target audience, children. The book claimed that it was intended to . .
Cited – Zana v Turkey ECHR 25-Nov-1997
Turkey – prison sentence imposed by Diyarbakir National Security Court on account of a statement to journalists (Articles 168 and 312 of the Criminal Code) – accused unable to appear at hearing in that court (Article 226 – 4 of the Code of Criminal . .
Cited – Prager And Oberschlick v Austria ECHR 26-Apr-1995
Article 10 requires that journalists be permitted a good deal of latitude in how they present their material and that a degree of exaggeration must also be accepted. The media have a special place in any democratic society as purveyor of information . .
Cited – The Sunday Times v The United Kingdom (No 2) ECHR 26-Nov-1991
Any prior restraint on freedom of expression calls for the most careful scrutiny. ‘Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society subject to paragraph (2) of Article 10. It is applicable not only to . .
Cited – The Sunday Times (No 1) v The United Kingdom ECHR 26-Apr-1979
Offence must be ;in accordance with law’
The court considered the meaning of the need for an offence to be ‘in accordance with law.’ The applicants did not argue that the expression prescribed by law required legislation in every case, but contended that legislation was required only where . .
Mentioned – E Hulton and Co v Jones HL 1910
An article was written by a correspondent of an English newspaper reporting that at a large and well attended motor vehicle show in France there on the terraces was ‘Artemus Jones with a woman not his wife who must be you know – the other thing.’ . .
Cited – Kroch v Rossell CA 1937
The plaintiff brought libel proceedings against the publishers of French and Belgian newspapers. He obtained permission to serve each defendant out of the jurisdiction on the ground that a small number of copies of each newspaper had been published . .
Cited – Wallis v Valentine and others CA 5-Mar-2002
The court dismissed an appeal by the claimant against the striking out of his claim as an abuse of process. That was an extreme case where the judge had found that even if the claimant succeeded his damages would be very modest, perhaps nominal, and . .
Cited – Loutchansky v The Times Newspapers Ltd and Others (Nos 2 to 5) CA 5-Dec-2001
Two actions for defamation were brought by the claimant against the defendant. The publication reported in detail allegations made against the claimant of criminal activities including money-laundering on a vast scale. They admitted the defamatory . .
Cited – Schellenberg v British Broadcasting Corporation QBD 2000
The claimant had settled defamation actions against the Guardian and the Sunday Times on disadvantageous terms, when it seemed likely that he was about to lose. He then pressed on with this almost identical action against the BBC.
Held: A . .
Cited – Hough v London Express CA 1940
The court looked at whether it was necessary to show actual damage to a reputation in a defamation case: ‘If words are used which impute discreditable conduct to my friend, he has been defamed to me, although I do not believe the imputation and may . .
Cited – Chadha and Osicom Technologies Inc v Dow Jones and Co Inc CA 14-May-1999
All the parties were resident in the United States. The alleged libel consisted in an article published in an American magazine. The total sales of the edition in question were 294,346 of which 283,520 were sold in the United States, 408 were sent . .
Cited – Hulton and Co v Jones HL 6-Dec-1909
The defendant newspaper published an article describing the attendance at a motor race at Dieppe. It described the antics, intending to refer to a fictitious person, of one Artemus Jones, and said of him that he was ‘with a woman who is not his . .

Cited by:

Cited – McBride v The Body Shop International Plc QBD 10-Jul-2007
The claimant sought damages for libel in an internal email written by her manager, accusing her of being a compulsive liar. The email had not been disclosed save in Employment Tribunal proceedings, and the claimant sought permission to use the email . .
Cited – Steinberg v Pritchard Englefield (A Firm) and Another CA 3-Mar-2005
The defendant appealed dismissal of his defence to an action in defamation.
Held: The court proceeded in his absence, discerning two grounds of appeal from the papers. He had suggested that he awaited pro bono representation but was by . .
Cited – Nigel Smith v M QBD 12-May-2008
The claimants sought disclosure of material which would lead to the identification of people who had made postings to a forum on the internet.
Held: The court had aready imposed a stay on the issuing of further proceedings, yet the claimant . .
Cited – Bunt v Tilley and others QBD 10-Mar-2006
The claimant sought damages in defamation in respect of statements made on internet bulletin boards. He pursued the operators of the bulletin boards, and the court now considered the liability of the Internet Service Providers whose systems had . .
Cited – Adelson and Another v Associated Newspapers QBD 19-Feb-2008
Complaint was made that an article was defamatory of the owner of Manchester United. The defendant now argued that the game was not worth the candle. The costs vastly exceeded any possible recovery, and it had openly offered vindication, and that . .
Cited – Mardas v New York Times Company and Another QBD 17-Dec-2008
The claimant sought damages in defamation. The US publisher defendants denied that there had been any sufficient publication in the UK and that the court did not have jurisdiction. The claimant appealed the strike out of the claims.
Held: The . .
Cited – Haji-Ioannou v Dixon, Regus Group Plc and Another QBD 6-Feb-2009
The defendants sought to strike out the defamation claim on the basis that it was an abuse of process. It was brought by the founder of Easyjet against senior officers of a company in a new venture. The claimant had alleged misuse of confidential . .
Cited – White v Withers Llp and Dearle CA 27-Oct-2009
The claimant was involved in matrimonial ancillary relief proceedings. His wife was advised by the defendants, her solicitors, to remove his private papers. The claimant now sought permission to appeal against a strike out of his claim against the . .
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 . .
Cited – Budu v The British Broadcasting Corporation QBD 23-Mar-2010
The defendant sought to strike out the claimant’s action in defamation. It had reported that the police had withdrawn an employment offer to claimant after doubting his immigration status.
Held: The claims should be struck out. The articles . .
Cited – Baturina v Times Newspapers Ltd QBD 31-Mar-2010
The claimant sought damages in defamation in respect of an article published by the defendant newspaper. She was the wife of the Mayor of Moscow, and was required to disclose on a public list assets held by her. The defendant said that she owned a . .
Cited – Hays Plc v Hartley QBD 17-May-2010
Mr Hartley operated a news agency, and provided to the publisher of the Sunday Mirror, MGN Ltd, allegations of racism that had been levelled at the claimant company by former employees. The allegations were reported in an article headed ”KKK . .
Applied – Kaschke v Osler QBD 13-May-2010
The claimant sued in defamation as regards the defendant’s comments in his internet blog on her historical left wing political connections. She complained that they made a connection with terrorist activities. The defendant said that the article was . .
Cited – Brady v Norman QBD 26-May-2010
The claimant appealed against refusal of the Master to extend the 12 month limitation period in his proposed defamation claim. The allegations related to a dispute at an Aslef barbecue, and later of forgery. The claimant was a former General . .
Cited – Henderson v London Borough of Hackney and Another QBD 5-Jul-2010
The claimant alleged defamation by the defendant in a referral letter sent to a third party. She had been dismissed from a non-teaching post after having been found using school computers to access pornography. The letter had reported the findings . .
Cited – Kaschke v Gray and Another QBD 23-Jul-2010
The claimant sought damages in defamation saying that the defendants had published a web page which falsely associated her with a terrorist gang in the 1970s. The defendants now sought a strike out of her claim as an abuse saying that a similar . .
Cited – Lonzim Plc and Others v Sprague QBD 11-Nov-2009
The court asked whether any damages recovered by the claimant might be so small as to be totally disproportionate to the very high costs that any libel action involves.
Held: Tugendhat J said: ‘It is not enough for a claimant to say that a . .
Cited – Williams v MGN Ltd QBD 2-Dec-2009
The claimant, who had been convicted of murder, complained that an article defamed him by calling him a ‘grass’ or police informer. The defendant asked that the claimant’s defamation action be struck out as an abuse.
Held: While the suggestion . .
Cited – Baturina v Times Newspapers Ltd CA 23-Mar-2011
The claimant appealed against directions given in her defamation action against the defendant. It had been said that she owned a house, and the defendant said that this was not defamatory. The claimant said that as the wife of the Mayor of Moscow . .
Cited – Cook v Telegraph Media Group Ltd QBD 29-Mar-2011
The claimant, an MP, complained in defamation of the defendant’s description of his rejected expenses claim regarding an assistant’s charitable donation. The paper pleaded a Reynolds defence. The claimant said that when published the defendant knew . .
Cited – Lewis v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis and Others (Rev 1) QBD 31-Mar-2011
The defendant sought a ruling on the meaning of the words but using section 69(4) of the 1981 Act. The claimant solicitor was acting in complaints as to the unlawful interception of celebrity voicemails by agents of the press. There had been debate . .
Cited – Wright v Caan QBD 27-Jul-2011
The claimant sought damages in defamation and malicious falsehood and in respect of a conversation with a journalist and the defendant’s website. The defendant had made offers of support to her business venture in a television program. After she . .
Cited – Morrissey v McNicholas and Another QBD 26-Oct-2011
The claimant musician alleged defamation, saying that the defendant had accused him of being a right wing racist. The defendant now applied to strike out the claim as an abuse of process because of the claimant’s delay.
Held: The application . .
Cited – Tilbrook v Parr QBD 13-Jul-2012
The claimant, chair of a political party, the English Democrats, said that a blog written and published on the Internet by the defendant was defamatory and contained malicious falsehoods. The blog was said to associate the claimant’s party with . .
Cited – Tamiz v Google Inc Google UK Ltd QBD 2-Mar-2012
The claimant sought damages in defamation against the defendant company offering internet search facilities. The words complained of had been published in a blog, and in comments published on the blog.
Held: Jurisdiction should be declined. . .
Cited – Makudi v Baron Triesman of Tottenham In London Borough of Haringey QBD 1-Feb-2013
The claimant, former chairman of the Thailand Football Association, claimed in defamation against the defendant who had been chairman of the English Football Association. The defendant asked the court to strike out the claim, saying that some of the . .
Applied – Citation Plc v Ellis Whittam Ltd CA 8-Mar-2013
The parties competed in providing employment law services. The claimant complained of slanderous comments said to have been made by the defendant in discussions with a firm of solicitors seeking to select a firm. The claimant now appealed against . .
Cited – McGrath and Another v Dawkins and Others CA 5-Feb-2013
The claimant appealed against a finding that the defendant Amazon was bound to succeed in its defence under the 2002 Regulations against the claim in defamation, and that the claim should be dismissed as an abuse of process under Jameel. He had . .
Cited – Hannon and Another v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Another ChD 16-May-2014
The claimants alleged infringement of their privacy, saying that the defendant newspaper had purchased private information from police officers emplyed by the second defendant, and published them. The defendants now applied for the claims to be . .
Cited – Jeeg Global Ltd v Hare QBD 29-Mar-2012
The claimant had obtained an order restricting the defendant from asserting any kind of insolvency in the claimant. The defendant now sought the strike out of the claim as an abuse of process. He said that any such disclosure had been on one . .
Cited – Reed Elsevier Uk Ltd (T/A Lexisnexis) and Another v Bewry CA 30-Oct-2014
Appeal from a decision granting the claimant’s application made pursuant to section 32A of the Limitation Act 1980 to disapply the limitation period in his proceedings for libel and dismissing the defendants’ application to strike out the claimant’s . .
Cited – Tamiz v Google Inc CA 14-Feb-2013
The respondent hosted a blogs platform. One of its user’s blogs was said by the appellant to have been defamatory. On discovery the material had been removed quickly. The claimant now appealed against his claim being struck out. He argued as to: (1) . .
Cited – Bode v Mundell QBD 19-Oct-2016
The court considered issues about the application of the rules on pleading and proof of publication in defamation, the serious harm requirement in s 1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013, and the abuse of process doctrine in Jameel (Yousef) v Dow Jones . .
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 – Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd and Another SC 12-Jun-2019
Need to Show Damage Increased by 2013 Act
The claimant alleged defamation by three publishers. The articles were held to have defamatory meaning, but the papers argued that the defamations did not reach the threshold of seriousness in section 1(1) of the 2013 Act.
Held: The appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Human Rights, Litigation Practice

Leading Case

Updated: 06 April 2022; Ref: scu.222167

Cunningham v Police Service of Northern Ireland: CANI 19 Dec 2016

This is an appeal by way of a Case Stated concerning the transfer from the County Court to the High Court of proceedings involving the issue of a Public Interest Immunity Certificate.

Judges:

Weatherup LJ, Deeny J and Maguire J

Citations:

[2016] NICA 58

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Northern Ireland

Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.605155

Dana Gas PJSC v Dana Gas Sukuk Ltd and Others: ComC 13 Oct 2017

The court was asked what was to happen in a forthcoming trial where one of the parties was injuncted by a foreign nation’s courts (United Arab Emirates) from participating in that trial.

Judges:

Leggatt J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 2605 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.598321

Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd (2): CA 12 Sep 2017

The court was asked whether the defendants and their solicitors may retain and make use of information contained in documents which are said by the claimant to be confidential and the subject of legal professional privilege

Judges:

Lord Justice Davis

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 1327

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd and Others QBD 29-Jun-2015
Orders allowing extension of time for service of the Particulars of Claim. . .
See Also – Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd QBD 30-Jul-2015
The claimant brought defamation claims as to articles making allegations said to imply that the claimant had mistreated his wife. The defendant contended that, while inferences might sometimes suffice, s.1 (1) nevertheless required a claimant to . .
See Also – Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd QBD 11-Mar-2015
Judgment as to meaning of certain of the phrases founding the defamation action.
Held: The articles were held to have meant (inter alia) that Mr Lachaux had been violent and abusive towards his wife during their marriage, had hidden Louis’ . .
See Also – Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd QBD 1-Apr-2015
The claimant alleged defamation by the three defendant news organisations. The defendants now sought trial of certain preliminary issues, and particularly whether the claimant had suffered any serious harm to his reputation.
Held: The court . .
See Also – Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd/ Evening Standard Ltd QBD 18-Dec-2015
In each of these libel actions the Claimant applied for an order for the delivery up of documents which he claimed were the subject of legal professional privilege but which have been obtained by the Defendants from his former wife, Ms Lachaux, in . .
See Also – 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 by:

See Also – 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 – Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd and Another SC 12-Jun-2019
Need to Show Damage Increased by 2013 Act
The claimant alleged defamation by three publishers. The articles were held to have defamatory meaning, but the papers argued that the defamations did not reach the threshold of seriousness in section 1(1) of the 2013 Act.
Held: Section 1 of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Intellectual Property, Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.594989

JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank and Another v Pugachev and Others (No 4): ChD 13 Jul 2017

The claimant bank alleged and had judgment in Russia against the defendants and sought to enforce that judgment. The bank now challenged trusts established to protect assets.

Judges:

Birss J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 1847 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Insolvency, Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.591429

Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd/ Evening Standard Ltd: QBD 18 Dec 2015

In each of these libel actions the Claimant applied for an order for the delivery up of documents which he claimed were the subject of legal professional privilege but which have been obtained by the Defendants from his former wife, Ms Lachaux, in breach of what he alleged was a duty of confidentiality owed to him by her, and by the Defendants. He also sought an injunction to restrain the Defendants from using the information in the Documents, in particular using it in these two libel actions.
Held: The application for an injunction was granted.

Judges:

Sir Michael Tugendhat

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 3677 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd QBD 30-Jul-2015
The claimant brought defamation claims as to articles making allegations said to imply that the claimant had mistreated his wife. The defendant contended that, while inferences might sometimes suffice, s.1 (1) nevertheless required a claimant to . .
See Also – Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd QBD 11-Mar-2015
Judgment as to meaning of certain of the phrases founding the defamation action.
Held: The articles were held to have meant (inter alia) that Mr Lachaux had been violent and abusive towards his wife during their marriage, had hidden Louis’ . .
See Also – Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd QBD 1-Apr-2015
The claimant alleged defamation by the three defendant news organisations. The defendants now sought trial of certain preliminary issues, and particularly whether the claimant had suffered any serious harm to his reputation.
Held: The court . .
See Also – Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd and Others QBD 29-Jun-2015
Orders allowing extension of time for service of the Particulars of Claim. . .

Cited by:

See Also – 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 . .
See Also – Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd (2) CA 12-Sep-2017
The court was asked whether the defendants and their solicitors may retain and make use of information contained in documents which are said by the claimant to be confidential and the subject of legal professional privilege . .
See Also – Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd and Another SC 12-Jun-2019
Need to Show Damage Increased by 2013 Act
The claimant alleged defamation by three publishers. The articles were held to have defamatory meaning, but the papers argued that the defamations did not reach the threshold of seriousness in section 1(1) of the 2013 Act.
Held: Section 1 of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Litigation Practice, Legal Professions

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.557320

Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd: QBD 1 Apr 2015

The claimant alleged defamation by the three defendant news organisations. The defendants now sought trial of certain preliminary issues, and particularly whether the claimant had suffered any serious harm to his reputation.
Held: The court set out principles to be applied where a party being a litigant in person did not attend the hearing.

Judges:

Nicola Davies J

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 915 (QB), [2015] CN 617

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Defamation Act 2013 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd QBD 11-Mar-2015
Judgment as to meaning of certain of the phrases founding the defamation action.
Held: The articles were held to have meant (inter alia) that Mr Lachaux had been violent and abusive towards his wife during their marriage, had hidden Louis’ . .

Cited by:

Cited – Decker v Hopcraft QBD 30-Apr-2015
The claimant, a litigant in person, was absent from the hearing of a defamation action arising from a dispute between the parties in their capacities as committee members of the Crawley Boxing Club.
Held: The court gave its reasons for . .
See Also – Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd and Others QBD 29-Jun-2015
Orders allowing extension of time for service of the Particulars of Claim. . .
See Also – Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd QBD 30-Jul-2015
The claimant brought defamation claims as to articles making allegations said to imply that the claimant had mistreated his wife. The defendant contended that, while inferences might sometimes suffice, s.1 (1) nevertheless required a claimant to . .
See Also – Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd/ Evening Standard Ltd QBD 18-Dec-2015
In each of these libel actions the Claimant applied for an order for the delivery up of documents which he claimed were the subject of legal professional privilege but which have been obtained by the Defendants from his former wife, Ms Lachaux, in . .
See Also – 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 . .
See Also – Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd (2) CA 12-Sep-2017
The court was asked whether the defendants and their solicitors may retain and make use of information contained in documents which are said by the claimant to be confidential and the subject of legal professional privilege . .
Ar first instance – Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd and Another SC 12-Jun-2019
Need to Show Damage Increased by 2013 Act
The claimant alleged defamation by three publishers. The articles were held to have defamatory meaning, but the papers argued that the defamations did not reach the threshold of seriousness in section 1(1) of the 2013 Act.
Held: Section 1 of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.545351

Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd and Others: QBD 29 Jun 2015

Orders allowing extension of time for service of the Particulars of Claim.

Judges:

Nicol J

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 1847 (QB), [2015] CN 1308

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Totty v Snowden; Hewitt v Wirral and West Cheshire Community NHS Trust CA 31-Jul-2001
Where a party had served a claim form, but then failed to serve the particulars of claim within the appropriate time limit, the court had full discretion to allow an extension of time for service. It had been argued that the same rules applied both . .
Cited – Steedman, Clohosy, Smith, Kiernan, Newman, Creevy, Anderson v The British Broadcasting Corporation CA 23-Oct-2001
The claimants had issued defamation proceedings. The defendant said they were out of time, having begun the action more than one year after the alleged publication, but accepted that they had not been prejudiced in their defence. The court refused . .
Cited – Robert v Momentum Services Ltd CA 11-Feb-2003
The claimant appealed against an order refusing an extension of time for service of her particulars of claim. She had made the application before the period expired.
Held: The rules made a clear distinction between applications made before . .
Cited – Lincolnshire County Council v Mouchel Business Services Ltd and Another TCC 21-Feb-2014
. .
Cited – Hallam Estates Ltd and Another v Baker CA 19-May-2014
‘The paying parties appeal against a decision of the High Court reversing a decision of the costs judge, whereby he declined to set aside his earlier order granting an extension of time for serving the points of dispute. The principal issues in this . .
Cited – Denton and Others v TH White Ltd and Others CA 4-Jul-2014
(De Laval Ltd, Part 20 defendant) (Practice Note) Several parties applied for relief from sanctions, having been refused at first instance:
Held: The court identified a three stage process. It should first calculate the seriousness and or . .
See Also – Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd QBD 11-Mar-2015
Judgment as to meaning of certain of the phrases founding the defamation action.
Held: The articles were held to have meant (inter alia) that Mr Lachaux had been violent and abusive towards his wife during their marriage, had hidden Louis’ . .
See Also – Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd QBD 1-Apr-2015
The claimant alleged defamation by the three defendant news organisations. The defendants now sought trial of certain preliminary issues, and particularly whether the claimant had suffered any serious harm to his reputation.
Held: The court . .

Cited by:

See Also – Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd QBD 30-Jul-2015
The claimant brought defamation claims as to articles making allegations said to imply that the claimant had mistreated his wife. The defendant contended that, while inferences might sometimes suffice, s.1 (1) nevertheless required a claimant to . .
See Also – Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd/ Evening Standard Ltd QBD 18-Dec-2015
In each of these libel actions the Claimant applied for an order for the delivery up of documents which he claimed were the subject of legal professional privilege but which have been obtained by the Defendants from his former wife, Ms Lachaux, in . .
See Also – 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 . .
See Also – Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd (2) CA 12-Sep-2017
The court was asked whether the defendants and their solicitors may retain and make use of information contained in documents which are said by the claimant to be confidential and the subject of legal professional privilege . .
See Also – Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd and Another SC 12-Jun-2019
Need to Show Damage Increased by 2013 Act
The claimant alleged defamation by three publishers. The articles were held to have defamatory meaning, but the papers argued that the defamations did not reach the threshold of seriousness in section 1(1) of the 2013 Act.
Held: Section 1 of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Costs, Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.549563

Patel and Others v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 1 Jun 2012

Where a first instance judge is faced with a point on which there are two previous inconsistent decisions from judges of co-ordinate jurisdiction, then the second of those decisions should be followed in the absence of cogent reasons to the contrary

Judges:

Lord Neuberger MR, Hallett VP QBD, Stanley Burnton LJJ

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 741, [2012] INLR 485, [2012] WLR(D) 174, [2013] 1 WLR 63, [2012] Imm AR 898, [2012] 4 All ER 94

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Not Followed – Mirza and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 23-Feb-2011
The Secretary of State’s failure to make a removal decision at the same time as, or shortly after, the decision to refuse leave to remain was unlawful. . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Patel and Others v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 20-Nov-2013
The court was asked as to the respective duties of the Secretary of State and the First-tier Tribunal, on an appeal against refusal of an application to vary leave to enter or remain under the Immigration Act 1971, and more particularly as to the . .
Cited – Willers v Joyce and Another (Re: Gubay (Deceased) No 2) SC 20-Jul-2016
The Court was asked whether and in what circumstances a lower court may follow a decision of the Privy Council which has reached a different conclusion from that of the House of Lords (or the Supreme Court or Court of Appeal) on an earlier occasion. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.459864

Gardiner v Houghton: QBD 1862

Citations:

(1862) 2 Band S 743

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Ellis v M’Henry CCP 1871
A debt or liability arising in any country may be discharged by the laws of that country, and such a discharge, if it extinguishes the debt or liability, and does not merely interfere with the remedies or course of procedure to enforce it, will be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.183533

Minister of Pensions v Higham: KBD 15 Apr 1948

The court considered the application of the doctrine of stare decisis when faced with conflicting earlier decisions.
Held: Denning J said that the ‘general rule’ is that: ‘where there are conflicting decisions of courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction, the later decision is to be preferred, if it is reached after full consideration of the earlier decision.’

Judges:

Denning J

Citations:

[1948] 2 KB 153, [1948] 1 All ER 863

Statutes:

War Pensions (Naval Auxiliary Personnel) Scheme 1946, Pensions (Mercantile Marine) Act 1942

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Colchester Estates (Cardiff) v Carlton Industries plc ChD 30-Mar-1984
If a decision of a court has been reached after full consideration of an earlier decision which went the other way, it should not be open to review on a third occasion when the same point arose for decision.
Nourse J said: ‘There must come a . .
Cited – In re Lambeth Cemetery ConC 28-Jul-2020
Resolution of Conflicts in Court decisions.
The petitioner sought the exhumation of his still born son so that he could be buried alongside his wife who had died several years later.
Held: There had been conflicting decisions as to what amounted to a good and proper reason for an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.655680

Solanki v Intercity Telecom Ltd: CA 9 Feb 2018

The claimant appealed from orders refusing an adjournment of a hearing and for costs.
Held: The judge had not given proper weight to the medical evidence produced by the claimant, and the costs claimed had been excessive and may have referred to matters beyond the proper scope of the questions at issue. Both appeals succeeded. The orders were set aside and a retrial ordered.

Judges:

Gloster VP CA, Singh LJJ

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 101

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Intercity Telecom Ltd and Another v Solanki Merc 27-Feb-2015
Claim for damages for breach of contract and database rights, delivery up of confidential information and injunctive relief against Mr Solanki, a former employee of the Claimants.
Held: The court having refused a request for adjournment . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 04 April 2022; Ref: scu.604210

Appleby Global Group Llc v British Broadcasting Corporation and Another: ChD 26 Jan 2018

Claim by international firm of lawyers for breach of confidence against publishers who had received and published that information. The court now considered which division of the High Court should hear the claim.
Held: Rose J considered the creation of the M and CL and observed: ‘the starting point is, as I have said, that the claimant can generally speaking choose in which Division to start the claim. Inroads have been made into a claimant’s ability to choose by the allocation of particular subjects to particular Divisions, by the creation of specialist lists about the grant of a specific power to the judges of a specialist list to control the cases that are heard in it. The CPR restricts the definition of a specialist list to a list created by a rule or Practice Direction because that ensures that before a specialist list is created, the lengthy oversight procedures and broad consultations that precede the making of a new rule or the issue of a new Practice Direction will have been followed. The M and CL is in its early stages and is proceeding by incremental steps. As Warby J stated in the ‘Conclusions and next steps’ section of the report on the consultation, it was too early in the process to formulate any firm proposals for submission to the Civil Procedure Rules Committee. That committee would need to consider whether and, if so, how any changes to the CPR or any new Practice Direction should be taken forward. In my judgement, the creation of the M and CL in its current form does not mean that media cases wherever commenced should now be transferred into that list, against the wishes of the claimant.’

Judges:

Rose J

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 104 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – NATL Amusements (UK) Ltd and Others v White City (Shepherds Bush) Ltd Partnership and Another TCC 16-Oct-2009
Application for transfer of claim from QBD to TCC. Akenhead J considered an application to transfer a claim from the Chancery Division to the Technology and Construction Court. After reviewing the authorities, he said: ‘It is probably unnecessary to . .

Cited by:

Cited – Mezvinsky and Another v Associated Newspapers Ltd ChD 25-May-2018
Choice of Division and Business Lists
Claim that the publication of pictures of the young children of the celebrity claimants had been published by the defendant on-line without consent and without pixelation, in breach of their human rights, of data protection, and right to privacy. . .
Cited – Mezvinsky and Another v Associated Newspapers Ltd ChD 25-May-2018
Choice of Division and Business Lists
Claim that the publication of pictures of the young children of the celebrity claimants had been published by the defendant on-line without consent and without pixelation, in breach of their human rights, of data protection, and right to privacy. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Litigation Practice

Updated: 04 April 2022; Ref: scu.604188

Kimathi and Others v Foreign and Commonwealth Office: QBD 28 Nov 2017

Application to admit contents of book into evidence.

Judges:

Stewart J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 3054 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Kimathi and Others v Foreign and Commonwealth Office QBD 26-Nov-2015
Reasns on decisions on applications for exclusion of certain witness statements . .
See Also – Kimathi and Others v Foreign and Commonwealth Office QBD 16-Dec-2015
. .
See Also – Kimathi and Others v Foreign and Commonwealth Office QBD 18-Mar-2016
Ruling in relation to Defendant’s application for an order ‘directing that the issues of double actionability and limitation be heard and determined as preliminary issues’ . .
See Also – Kimathi and Others v Foreign and Commonwealth Office QBD 31-Oct-2017
Third judgment in respect of amendments to the individual Particulars of Claim . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 03 April 2022; Ref: scu.602676

Colchester Estates (Cardiff) v Carlton Industries plc: ChD 30 Mar 1984

If a decision of a court has been reached after full consideration of an earlier decision which went the other way, it should not be open to review on a third occasion when the same point arose for decision.
Nourse J said: ‘There must come a time when a point is normally to be treated as having been settled at first instance. I think that should be when the earlier decision has been fully considered, but not followed, in a later one. Consistently with the modern approach of the judges of this court to an earlier decision of one of their number . . I would make an exception only in the case, which must be rare, where a third judge is convinced that the second was wrong in not following the first.’

Judges:

Justice Nourse

Citations:

[1986] Ch 80, [1984] 2 All ER 601

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Minister of Pensions v Higham KBD 15-Apr-1948
The court considered the application of the doctrine of stare decisis when faced with conflicting earlier decisions.
Held: Denning J said that the ‘general rule’ is that: ‘where there are conflicting decisions of courts of co-ordinate . .

Cited by:

Cited – In re Cromptons Leisure Machines Ltd ChD 13-Dec-2006
The section gave the court a jurisdiction to authorise payments to people would be preferred creditors in a winding up. . .
Cited – Futter and Another v Futter and Others ChD 11-Mar-2010
Various family settlements had been created. The trustees wished to use the rule in Hastings-Bass to re-open decisions they had made after receiving incorrect advice.
Held: The deeds were set aside as void. The Rule in Hastings-Bass derives . .
Cited – Milebush Properties Ltd v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council and Others ChD 13-May-2010
The claimant sought a delaration that it had a right of way over an access road. The defendants said that the agreement fell foul of the 1989 Act.
Held: The claimant was not entitled to the declaration. Agreements under the 1990 Act are . .
Cited – In re Lambeth Cemetery ConC 28-Jul-2020
Resolution of Conflicts in Court decisions.
The petitioner sought the exhumation of his still born son so that he could be buried alongside his wife who had died several years later.
Held: There had been conflicting decisions as to what amounted to a good and proper reason for an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 03 April 2022; Ref: scu.247762

Byers and Another (Joint Official Liquidators Saad Investments Co Ltd) v Samba Financial Group (2411): ChD 23 Jul 2020

Judges:

Fancourt J

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 2411 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Byers and Another (Joint Official Liquidators Saad Investments Co Ltd) v Samba Financial Group (2380) ChD 23-Jul-2020
Application by the Claimants, heard at the pre-trial review, for permission to amend the particulars of claim. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 03 April 2022; Ref: scu.654520

Utilise TDS Ltd v Davies and Others: ChD 24 Feb 2014

The court was asked, as against the background of Mitchell, ‘if the breach of a court order attracting sanctions, considered in isolation, can be viewed as trivial, can another trivial breach of the same order result in the first breach being viewed as a non-trivial one? ‘

Judges:

Hodge QC HHJ

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 834 (Ch), [2014] 3 Costs LO 417

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 03 April 2022; Ref: scu.523721

Couper v Irwin Mitchell Llp and Others: ChD 13 Dec 2017

The claimant sought a declaration that proceedings against its former lawyers were not covered by an extended civil restraint order.
Held: The claim was within the ambit of the order, and was to be struck out, but permission was given for new proceedings subject to any limitation issues which might then apply.

Judges:

Arnold J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 3231 (Ch), [2017] WLR(D) 826

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Professional Negligence, Litigation Practice

Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.601829

Glaxo Wellcome UK Ltd (T/A Allen and Hanburys) and Another v Sandoz Ltd and Others: ChD 15 Dec 2017

Application by the claimants for permission to adduce survey evidence in passing off proceedings arising out of the colour and get-up of ‘Seretide’ combination inhalers.

Judges:

Birss J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 3196 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Glaxo Wellcome Uk Ltd (T/A Allen and Hanburys) and Another v Sandoz Ltd and Others ChD 28-Jun-2017
Expert evidence in trade mark infringement claim. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Litigation Practice

Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.601833

Salekipour and Another v Parmar: CA 15 Dec 2017

Whether the County Court has jurisdiction to set aside a final order made in other County Court proceedings and to order a new trial in those proceedings on the ground that an important witness gave perjured evidence under pressure from the successful party.

Judges:

Sir Terence Etherton MR

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 2141, [2018] 2 WLR 1090

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.601454