Category: Litigation Practice

London Corporation v Cusack-Smith: HL 1955

The House considered a purchase notice under section 19(1), Town and Country Planning Act 1947, which turned on the second limb of the definition of ‘owner’ because the land in question was not let at a rack rent. Lord Reid considered a chain of leases and subleases where several were at a rack rent and was of the opinion that more than one person could be in receipt of a rack rent at one time.
Held: Where Parliament has continued to use words of which the meaning has been settled by decisions of the court, it is to be presumed that it intends the words to continue to have that meaning.
Lord Reid said: ‘A, the freeholder, may let to B for a rent of pounds 100 which is a rack-rent at the date of B’s lease, and later B may sublet to C for a rent of pounds 200 which is a rack-rent at the date of C’s lease. It appears to me that then both A and B are entitled to receive a rack-rent of the land. . . I am therefore of opinion that there can be more than one ‘owner’ under the first limb of the definition, and that if the freeholder lets at a rack-rent he is and remains an ‘owner’ no matter what his tenant may do.

Judges:

Lord Reid

Citations:

[1955] AC 337

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1947 19(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Gallagher (Valuation Officer) v Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints HL 30-Jul-2008
The House considered whether certain properties of the Church were subject to non-domestic rating. Various buildings were on the land, and the officer denied that some fell within the exemptions, and in particular whether the Temple itself was a . .
Cited – Rakusen v Jepsen UTLC 11-Nov-2020
Rent Repayment Order From Superior Landlord
Housing – Rent Payment – Whether A Rent Repayment Order May Be Made against A Superior Landlord – – application to strike out claim for rent repayment order – ss. 40, 41 Housing and Planning Act 2016 – appeal dismissed
‘the FTT does have . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 01 April 2022; Ref: scu.272217

Rakusens Ltd v Baser Ambalaj Plastik Sanayi Ticaret AS: CA 11 Oct 2001

A company had sought and obtained leave to serve proceedings on a foreign based company, by serving documents on a local agent. The local agent was an independent contractor, who received and transmitted orders to the company, but who, themselves, had no authority to bind the company in contract.
Held: The section allowed service at a ‘place of business’ within the jurisdiction. As a commission agent, unable to conclude business for the defendants, the address was not a place of business of the defendants. The claim was not validly served.

Judges:

Buxton, Arden, LJJ, Bodey J

Citations:

Gazette 01-Nov-2001, Times 09-Nov-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1820, [2002] 1 BCLC 104

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Companies Act 1985 695(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Adams v Cape Industries plc CA 2-Jan-1990
Proper Use of Corporate Entity to Protect Owner
The defendant was an English company and head of a group engaged in mining asbestos in South Africa. A wholly owned English subsidiary was the worldwide marketing body, which protested the jurisdiction of the United States Federal District Court in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Company

Updated: 01 April 2022; Ref: scu.166723

The Welsh Ministers v Price and Another: CA 7 Nov 2017

The Court was asked a point of practice as to the circumstances in which it is permissible and, where permissible, appropriate to join a third party to proceedings for restoration of a dissolved company to the register of companies.

Judges:

Sir Terence Etherton MR, Longmore, Irwin LJJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 1768

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Company, Litigation Practice

Updated: 01 April 2022; Ref: scu.599379

Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills v The Interim Executive Board of Al-Hijrah School: CA 7 Nov 2017

Judgment on application by third party for leave to intervene to appal to Supreme Court.

Judges:

Sir Terence Etherton MR, Gloster VP, Beatson LJJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 1787

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 01 April 2022; Ref: scu.599369

Wilmot v Maughan: CA 27 Oct 2017

The husband appeals from Mostyn J’s order of 13th January 2016 by which he dismissed the husband’s deemed application to set aside all orders made in the proceedings since 2010. The substantive proceedings are financial remedy proceedings in which the wife has made a number of enforcement applications.

Judges:

Black, Sales, Moylan LJJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 1668

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Family, Litigation Practice

Updated: 01 April 2022; Ref: scu.598469

Salzgitter Mannesmann Handel Gmbh v SC Laminorul SA: ECJ 26 Sep 2013

Area of freedom, security and justice – Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Article 34(3) and (4) – Recognition of a judgment given in another Member State – Situation whereby that judgment is irreconcilable with an earlier judgment given in that Member State involving the same cause of action and between the same parties

Citations:

[2013] EUECJ C-157/12, [2013] WLR(D) 362, [2014] ILPr 6, [2014] 1 WLR 904, ECLI:EU:C:2013:597, [2014] CEC 500

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 44/2001

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

Opinion – Salzgitter Mannesmann Handel Gmbh v SC Laminorul SA ECJ 16-May-2013
ECJ Opinion – Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Enforcement of a judgment given in another Member State – Grounds for refusing enforcement – Previous decision from the same . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 31 March 2022; Ref: scu.598324

New Media Distribution Company Sezc Ltd v Kagalovsky: ChD 26 Sep 2017

Preliminary issue as to whether the defendant is estopped from making various allegations in his defence or whether the same amount to an abuse of process (and should accordingly be struck out).

Judges:

Davis-White QC HHJ

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 2334 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 31 March 2022; Ref: scu.597462

Kershaw v Roberts (Representative of The Estate of Jones) and Another: ChD 10 Apr 2014

The parties were involved in litigation under the 1976 Act. The claiant now appealed against an order penalising him for failing to provide a costs budget. He said that it had not been a case management conference at which one was to be filed.

Judges:

Hickinbottom J

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 1037 (Ch), [2014] WLR(D) 168

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Inheritance (Provision for Family and Defendants) Act 1975, Civil Procedure Rules 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 31 March 2022; Ref: scu.523660

OCO Ltd and Toughglaze (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 4 Aug 2017

Procedure : Other – PROCEDURE- whether FTT has power to reconsider decision in principle relation to PAYE Regulation 80 determination and NICs s8 decision applying ex p Hay and Larner v Warrington (cases decided prior to inception of current tribunal framework set in TCEA 2007 and Tribunal Rules) – yes – whether power should be exercised to take account of caselaw not before the tribunal – no – taking account of provisions for review in current tribunal framework – application to reconsider refused

Citations:

[2017] UKFTT 603 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 30 March 2022; Ref: scu.595442

Kalma and Others v African Minerals Ltd and Others: QBD 29 Jan 2018

A threshold of seriousness was required before the court will undertake a balance of the competing interests to decide whether to make an order for anonymity.

Judges:

Mr Justice Turner

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 120 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Kalma and Others v African Minerals Ltd and Others QBD 14-Feb-2017
. .

Cited by:

Cited – XXX v Camden London Borough Council CA 11-Nov-2020
Anonymity in Court Proceedings – No two stage test
XXX appealed against the refusal to make orders anonymising her name and redacting certain details from published judgments. The appeal raised a point about the proper approach to applications for anonymisation under CPR 39.2. She brought . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Litigation Practice

Updated: 30 March 2022; Ref: scu.605792

Newland Shipping and Forwarding Ltd v Toba Trading Fzc and Others: ComC 16 Jun 2017

Dual application by the Fifth Defendant Shaikh Ahmad Saqer Mohamed Alqasemi firstly for relief from sanctions under CPR 3.9 and secondly to dispute jurisdiction under CPR 11.

Judges:

Sara Cockerill QC

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 1416 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Jurisdiction, Litigation Practice

Updated: 30 March 2022; Ref: scu.594589

Wilton UK Ltd v Shuttleworth and Others: ChD 4 Sep 2017

The Court was asked as to the validity, potential validity, or otherwise, of service of a claim form and particulars of claim in a CPR Part 7 claim. Service took place in proceedings brought as a derivative claim pursuant to Chapter 1 of Part 11 of the Companies Act 2006

Judges:

Davis-White QC HHJ

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 2195 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Company, Litigation Practice

Updated: 30 March 2022; Ref: scu.594588

John Wilson, Collector of His Majesty’s Customs At Stockton, In The County of Durham; and Richard Swanston, Solicitor of Customs, His Attorney v Robert Burnton, and James Chalmers, Both Merchants In Edinburgh: HL 20 Feb 1758

Foreign Decree. –
Effect of foreign decree in seeking its execution in the Courts of this country.

Citations:

[1758] UKHL 2 – Paton – 11

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Litigation Practice, Customs and Excise

Updated: 29 March 2022; Ref: scu.558245

Kalma and Others v African Minerals Ltd and Others: QBD 14 Feb 2017

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 226 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Kalma and Others v African Minerals Ltd and Others QBD 29-Jan-2018
A threshold of seriousness was required before the court will undertake a balance of the competing interests to decide whether to make an order for anonymity. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Litigation Practice

Updated: 29 March 2022; Ref: scu.575246

W v M (TOLATA Proceedings: Anonymity): FD 25 Jun 2012

Proceedings in the Family Division were anonymised after the proceedings had been compromised, even though an earlier application for anonymity had been refused.

Judges:

Mostyn J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 1679 (Fam)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 14

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – XXX v Camden London Borough Council CA 11-Nov-2020
Anonymity in Court Proceedings – No two stage test
XXX appealed against the refusal to make orders anonymising her name and redacting certain details from published judgments. The appeal raised a point about the proper approach to applications for anonymisation under CPR 39.2. She brought . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Trusts, Litigation Practice

Updated: 29 March 2022; Ref: scu.470752

Apotex Europe Ltd and others v Beecham Group Plc and Another: Patc 6 Jun 2003

Application by Apotex, to have the trial of an application for declarations of non-infringement heard at the same time as the trial of two other proceedings.

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 1395 (Pat)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Patents At 1977 71

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Smithkline Beecham Plc, Glaxosmithkline UK Limited v Apotex Europe Limited, Neolab Limited, Waymade Healthcare Plc PatC 28-Nov-2002
Claim for patent infringement – grant of interim injunction to prevent sales by the defendants of a drug pending trial of the action. . .
See Also – Smithkline Beecham Plc and Another v Apotex Europe Ltd and others Patc 4-Feb-2003
. .
See Also – Smithkline Beecham Plc and Another v Apotex Europe Ltd and others CA 14-Feb-2003
Patent infringement claim. . .
See Also – Apotex Europe Ltd and others v Smithkline Beecham Plc and Another Patc 11-Mar-2003
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Litigation Practice

Updated: 29 March 2022; Ref: scu.227192

Hazlett v Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council: QBD 2 Dec 1999

The need for a party claiming his costs to give evidence to prove his entitlement to costs rather than relying on the presumption in his favour, will not arise if the defendant simply puts the complainant to proof of his entitlement to costs. The complainant can rely on the presumption in his favour. The defendant must raise a genuine issue as to whether the complainant is liable for his solicitors’ costs before the complainant has to adduce evidence to show that his entitlement. The complainant is presumed to be personally liable for his solicitors’ costs and it should not normally be necessary for the complainant to have to adduce evidence to that effect.
Harrison J said: ‘there is normally a presumption that the complainant will be personally liable for his solicitors’ costs and it should not normally be necessary for the complainant to have to adduce evidence to that effect.’ and
‘Where, however, there is a genuine issue raised by the defendant as to whether the complainant has properly incurred costs in the proceedings, the position will be different. A defendant may, for instance, have grounds for believing that the complainant will not be liable to pay his solicitor’s costs, whether because he has entered into an unlawful and unenforceable conditional fee arrangement with his solicitor or for any other reason. In those circumstances, where the defendant has raised a genuine issue as to whether the complainant has properly incurred costs in the proceedings, the complainant will be at risk if he continues to rely on the presumption that he is liable for his solicitor’s costs. If he does not then adduce evidence to prove that he has properly incurred costs in the proceedings and the defendant can show by evidence or argument, that he has not, he would be most unlikely to succeed in recovering his costs.
The need for a complainant to give evidence to prove his entitlement to costs rather than relying on the presumption in his favour will not, however, arise if the defendant simply puts the complainant to proof of his entitlement to costs. The complainant would be justified in relying on the presumption in his favour. It would be necessary for the defendant to raise a genuine issue as to whether the complainant is liable for his solicitors’ costs before the complainant would be called upon to adduce evidence to show that he is entitled to his costs. It will be for the trial judge to decide whether or not the defendant has raised an issue which calls for proof by the complainant of his liability to costs. Prior notice of the issue to be raised by the defendant should be given to the complainant in sufficient time before the hearing to enable the complainant to deal with it properly at the hearing and to avoid the necessity of an adjournment at the defendant’s expense.’ and
‘the mere non-acceptance by a defendant that an agreement between the complainant and his solicitor is a proper private fee agreement would not of itself be sufficient to call for evidence from the complainant. The defendant must show that there is a genuine reason for believing that it is not a proper private fee agreement before the complainant should need to consider adducing evidence to support the presumption in his favour.’

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill CJ and Harrison J

Citations:

[2000] 4 All ER 887, [2001] 1 Costs LR 89

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Hollins v Russell etc CA 22-May-2003
Six appeals concerned a number of aspects of the new Conditional Fee Agreement.
Held: It should be normal for a CFA, redacted as necessary, to be disclosed for costs proceedings where a success fee is claimed. If a party seeks to rely on the . .
Cited – Kenneth L Kellar Carib West Limited v Stanley A Williams PC 24-Jun-2004
(Turks and Caicos Islands) The appellant had failed in his action but argued that he should not be called upon to pay the costs of the respondent because there had been an unlawful conditional fee agreement. The bill had referred to one factor as . .
Cited – Pepin v Watts and Another CA 26-Jun-2002
Application for permission to appeal out of time (2 years) on an issue in costs. . .
Cited – Pepin v Watts and Another CA 30-Oct-2002
. .
Cited – Burstein v Times Newspapers Ltd (No 2) CA 28-Nov-2002
The defendant complained that the agreement under which the claimant’s solicitors had continued to act on his behalf, despite any realistic prospect of him ever being able to pay their costs, was a sham, and requested a full hearing to determine . .
Cited – Hollins v Russell CA 25-Jun-2003
The court considered whether a successful party should be refused his costs to the extent of the costs associated with a particular argument they had lost.
Held: In a weighty matter the court should not disallow the costs of arguments which . .
Cited – Ghannouchi v Houni Limited, Ahmed Salhin El-Houni, Al Arab Publishing House Limited SCCO 4-Mar-2004
. .
Cited – Ilangaratne v British Medical Association ChD 9-May-2007
. .
Cited – Gower Chemicals Group Litigation v Gower Chemicals Ltd and Another QBD 17-Apr-2008
. .
Cited – Dranez and others v Hayek and others SCCO 28-Apr-2008
. .
Cited – Tranter v Hansons (Wordsley) Ltd SCCO 18-Jun-2009
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Litigation Practice, Legal Professions

Updated: 29 March 2022; Ref: scu.182520

Ghadami v Bloomfield and Others: ChD 2 Aug 2017

Application by Claimant (a) that no order should be drawn up on an application brought by him determined in October 2016 (having decided a recusal application before delivering judgment) and (b) that the original conclusion should be altered or alternatively that the entire hearing should be re-opened.

Judges:

Norris J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 2020 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 28 March 2022; Ref: scu.591436

Re D (Appeal : Failure of Case Management): FD 24 Jul 2017

Appeal from a case management decision: ‘The case raises issues about judicial case management and, in particular, the court’s approach to the cross-examination of an alleged victim by an alleged abuser.’

Judges:

Peter Jackson J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 1907 (Fam)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children, Litigation Practice

Updated: 28 March 2022; Ref: scu.591442

Cameron Developments (UK) Ltd v National Westminster Bank Plc and Another: QBD 26 Jul 2017

The defendants seek strikeout/summary judgment of the claims asserted in respect of the review carried out by the defendants into a swap sold by the first defendant to the claimant on the basis that any such claims were compromised by a settlement agreement.

Judges:

Moulder HHJ

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 1884 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Banking, Litigation Practice

Updated: 28 March 2022; Ref: scu.591303

J H Shannon v Country Casuals Holdings Plc: QBD 21 May 1997

A witness who was answering a sub poena ad duces tecum, is entitled to his costs incurred in complying with the order over and above just the conduct money. Such an order can lead to real additional costs.

Citations:

Times 16-Jun-1997, Gazette 21-May-1997

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice, Costs

Updated: 28 March 2022; Ref: scu.89189

Ernst and Young Llp and Others v Coomber and Another: QBD 8 Nov 2010

The claimants, Coomber, claimed in conspiracy, and the defendants claimed in defamation. Various applications were made. The claimants had promoted a development project, but their bankers went into administration. The bank being unable to promise further funds, required repayment of the sums already advanced, and in due course sold the property. The claimants alleged a conspiracy between the several professionals involved to deprive them of the property. The claimants’ first conspiracy claim was dismissed summarily as irrational and fantastical. The defendants issued proceedings for defamation after the claimant persisted in publishing their allegations on the web. The claimants said they wished to counterclaim for conspiracy, but then decided not to defend the defamation action.
Held: Judgment should be entered against the claimant on the defamation action despite differences as to the facts, and the interim injunction against republication should be continued. Judgment was also entered against them on the conspiracy claim.
Ample grounds had been shown for the making of a civil restraint order, and one was made accordingly.

Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 2837 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Defamation Act 1996

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Downtex v Flatley CA 2-Oct-2003
The claimants sought damages for defamation and breach of contract. The claimants had purchased a business from the defendant, which contract included a clause requiring the defendant to say nothing damaging about the business. The defendant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Defamation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 28 March 2022; Ref: scu.425807

Immigration Law Practitioners Association, Regina (on The Application of) v Tribunal Procedure Committee and Another: Admn 15 Feb 2016

Challenge to change in rules in immigration cases as to admission of evidence not available to both parties.
Held: The application for review was refused. The change was in order to bring practice in the IAC into line with other tribunals.

Judges:

Blake J

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 218 (Admin), [2016] 1 WLR 3519, [2016] ACD 71, [2016] Imm AR 693, [2016] WLR(D) 77

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Tribunal Procedure (First-Tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Litigation Practice

Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.559868

Mountford v Cooper: 19 Jan 1837

A cause, upon the counsel for the Plaintiff undertaking to certify that it was proper to be heard as a short cause, was directed to be put into the next paper of short causes without the concurrence of the Defendant’s solicitor.
Inexpediency of the rule requiring such concurrence, where it is withheld merely for the purpose of delaying the taking of accounts in the Master’s office.

Citations:

[1837] EngR 408, (1837) 1 Keen 464, (1837) 48 ER 385 (A)

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.313525

Secretary of State for Health and Others v Norton Healthcare Ltd and Others: ChD 24 Jul 2003

The defendant sought a stay of a civil action against them, saying that the claimant’s own action in pursuing criminal proceedings deprived it of access to former employees who might provide evidence to allow them to defend the claim.
Held: It was not an abuse of process or an infringement of the defendant’s right to a fair trial to allow the case to proceed. The fact that it was the clainmant’s own action in taking the prosecution did not sufficiently distinguish this case from others. Witness co-operation is an inherent risk in all litigation. Each such case had to be considered on its own merits.

Judges:

Lloyd J

Citations:

Times 26-Aug-2003, [2003] EWHC 1905 (Ch)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Mote v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Another CA 14-Dec-2007
The appellant was accused of having received income benefits to which he was not entitled. A prosecution was commenced and at the same time he appealed to the tribunal against the decision that there had been an overpayment. The authorities . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.186092

Lakhani and Another v Mahmud and Others: ChD 5 Jul 2017

Appeal by the defendants from an order dismissing the defendants’ application for relief from the sanctions provided for by CPR 3.14 in respect of the failure to comply with one of the case management orders relating to the filing of costs budgets

Judges:

Daniel Alexander QC

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 1713 (Ch), [2017] WLR(D) 455

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs, Litigation Practice

Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.589959

Richard v British Broadcasting Corporation and Another: ChD 26 May 2017

The court heard an application to read out a statement agreed between the claimant and first defendant, the terms of which were objected to by the BBC.
Held: A statement in the form drafted by the claimant with amendments suggested by the defendant was to be appended to the judgment and read out as required. Morse J set out the principles applicable: ‘(i) A party making a statement should not be allowed to abuse a privilege which attaches to a statement in open court and the publicity which it is doubtless intended to attract. Unfair statements about a third party or another defendant would be an example of an abuse.
(ii) The court must be live to the fact that a statement in open court is intended to attract publicity and ensure that fairness, or unfairness, to a third party or another defendant is viewed in that light.
(iii) It seems to me the parties are generally entitled to state their respective cases in such a statement and their respective admissions. A conceding party is entitled to express its objections in terms which it wishes to use, particularly if they have been agreed with the claimant as part of a settlement. If there are objections as between a third party or another party then that is very likely to be of little consequence.
(iv) Short of an apparent abuse, a statement should be allowed against the objections of a third party or another defendant unless it is sufficiently unfair to require the court to refuse to approve it.
(v) Causing prejudice to a fair trial involving others would be an obvious unfairness. However, unless the trial is a jury trial, it is hard to see how a statement in open court can prejudice that trial given that the trial judge can be expected to ignore such non-evidential material, even if that judge is aware of it. The Barnet case demonstrates that even if there is to be a jury trial the same may still apply.
(vi) Any unfairness which is relied on should be significant and the statement should not be disallowed because of what might be debatable and/or slightly unfair or nit-picking.
(vii) If the case of a non-settling party is referred to in the statement in open court by way of a proper summary, without setting out all the details, that is highly unlikely to be unfair. The case of a non-settling party, if referred to in the statement, does not have to be set out extensively.’

Judges:

Mann J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 1648 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Barnet v Crozier CA 1987
The court considered an application by a third party to proceedings to prevent a statement being read out in open court in defamation proceedings. Justification had originally been pleaded by both defendants but, as part of a settlement with the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Litigation Practice, Torts – Other

Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.589939

Emojevbe v Secretary of State for Transport: CA 7 Jul 2017

The claimant appealed against the refusal of adjournment of the trial of his action on the basis of his medical ability to attend.

Judges:

Lloyd Jones, King, LJJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 934

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 39.3(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.588990

ICICI Bank UK Plc v Mehta and Others: ComC 8 May 2017

Adjourned return date of the application by the Claimant bank for worldwide freezing orders against the Defendants. Interim freezing orders had been granted following a without notice hearing.

Judges:

Waksman QC HHJ

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 1030 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.588916

Glencore Energy UK Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Leave to appeal): Admn 29 Jun 2017

The parties disputed the power of the court to grant leave to appeal against its own decision.

Judges:

Green J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 1587 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Glencore Energy UK Ltd v Revenue and Customs Admn 29-Jun-2017
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.588879