Category: Litigation Practice

JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov: SC 21 Oct 2015

The court was asked as to the interpretation and application of the standard form freezing order. In the course of long-running litigation between JSC BTA Bank and Mr Ablyazov the Bank had obtained a number of judgments against the respondent amounting in all to US$4.4 billion, none of which had been satisfied. The bank appealed against a finding that the funds available under the loan agreements were not assets within the freezing orders and were therefore available to the defendant to do with as he wished.
Held: The bank’s appeal succeeded. The funds available under the loan agreements were assets brought within the order by the extended definition of assets in paragrapgh 5 of the freezing order. The flexibility principle applied by the Court of Appeal had no place in this context. Earlier case law did not reflect the way that such orders had become extended in scope over recent years, and in this case the wording used was sufficient,

Lord Neuberger, President, Lord Mance, Lord Kerr, Lord Clarke, Lord Hodge
[2015] UKSC 64, [2016] 1 All ER 608, [2015] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 546, [2015] 1 WLR 4754, [2016] 1 All ER (Comm) 97, UKSC 2013/0203
Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary
England and Wales
Citing:
At first instance – JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov and Others ComC 4-Jul-2012
The bank had obtained a freezing order. The defendants had claimed four substantial loan agreements, but the Bank asserted that these were shams. The first defendant had been found guilty of contempt, and now seemed to have fled the country. . .
Appeal from – JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov CA 25-Jul-2013
The claimant bank had an asset freezing order in place over the assets of the defendant. The defendant had in place loan facilities allowing him to draw down substantial amounts as chosen. The claimant appealed from refusal of a declaration that the . .
Cited – Mareva Compania Naviera SA v International Bulkcarriers SA CA 1-Feb-1975
An ex parte order was sought by the plaintiff to restrain the defendant dispersing his assets.
Held: The court granted the ad personam order requested making use of the jurisdiction given to it by the 1925 Act: ‘A mandamus or an injunction may . .
Cited – Siskina (owners of Cargo lately on Board) v Distos Compania Naviera SA HL 1979
An injunction was sought against a Panamanian ship-owning company to restrain it from disposing of a fund, consisting of insurance proceeds, in England. The claimant for the injunction was suing the company in a Cyprus court for damages and believed . .
Cited – A v C (Note) ChD 1980
The plaintiffs said the first defendant had defrauded them of substantial sums, and implicated other defendants. They claimed against five defendants variously for conspiracy to defraud and deceit and for breach of warranty. They also sought to . .
Cited – A J Bekhor and Co Ltd v Bilton CA 6-Feb-1981
The plaintiff had applied for disclosure of assets under the Rules of the Supreme Court in support of a Mareva freezing order. The rules were held not to provide any such power: disclosure of assets could not be obtained as part of discovery as the . .
Cited – Mercedes Benz Ag v Leiduck PC 24-Jul-1995
Mareva relief is not available against a foreigner outside the UK in order to support a court action abroad. A Mareva injunction is not itself a substantive relief and so was not available to support foreign proceedings. A freezing order has to be . .
Cited – Camdex International Ltd v Bank of Zambia and Another CA 22-May-1996
Application by the defendant for leave to appeal and, should leave be granted, an appeal . .
Cited – Searose v Seatrain UK 1981
Third parties who are unconnected with a dispute but who incur expense in complying with an order may specifically be covered by a cross-undertaking as to their costs and otherwise. Robert Goff J said: ‘the banks in this country have received . .
Cited – Darashah v UFAC (UK) Ltd CA 1982
A Mareva order had been obtained. The order explicitly included goodwill as an asset of the company, but the defendant argued still that it was not covered as an asset for the injunction.
Held: The court rejected the assertion.
Lord . .
Cited – Federal Bank of the Middle East v Hadkinson and Others CA 16-Mar-2000
The Court had to decide whether an order in the standard form of freezing order was effective to cover assets which were held in the defendant’s name but which belonged beneficially to third parties.
Held: It did not. A Mareva injunction in . .
Cited – C Inc Plc v L and Another ComC 16-Mar-2001
The court was asked as to the scope of the court’s power to grant a freezing order over the assets of a person who is resident out of the jurisdiction and against whom no substantive claim had yet been brought by the Claimant. . .
Cited – Anglo Eastern Trust Ltd v Kermanshahgi ChD 2002
An asset freezing order restrains the defendent from dealing with his assets but does not prevent him from borrowing money, thereby increasing his overall indebtedness. . .
Cited – Cantor Index Ltd v Lister 2002
The court held that a defendant subject of an asset freezing order, who borrows money, does thereby increase his indebtedness but does not dispose of, deal with or diminish the value of his ‘assets’ within the meaning of the standard form of . .
Cited – Fourie v Le Roux and others HL 24-Jan-2007
The appellant, liquidator of two South African companies, had made a successful without notice application for an asset freezing order. He believed that the defendants had stripped the companies of substantial assets. The order was set aside for . .
Cited – JSC BTA Bank v Kythreotis and Others CA 14-Dec-2010
The court was asked as to the construction about the meaning of the words ‘his assets’ as they appear in the standard form of freezing order set out in Appendix 5 to the current edition of the Commercial Court Guide. In short, that issue is whether . .
Cited – Templeton Insurance Ltd v Thomas and Another CA 5-Feb-2013
The court was asked whether goodwill was to be regarded as an asset in the context of an asset freezig order. A third party company was subject to such and they were said to have broken the order by the purchase at an undervalue of the company . .
Cited – Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd v Su and Others CA 14-May-2014
The claimant had obtained a freezing order in standard form against the defendant company. The Director of the company had similar sole positions in three other companies. The claimant obtained a similar order against the assets of the other . .
Cited – JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank and Another v Pugachev CA 27-Feb-2015
The defendant appealed form an order requiring disclosure of the assets of a discretionary trust. He was subject to an asset freezing order and a beneficiary of the trust. . .
Cited – Regina v Kohn CACD 1979
An overdraft facility was property which could be the subject of a charge of theft. In the context of the presentation of a cheque, improperly presented to a bank but which the bank pays, it was a theft of a chose in action by the person who . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.553628

Sir Robert Gordon, of Gordonstoun, Bart v James Brodie of Brodie, Esq;: HL 8 Feb 1720

Process – Incident Diligence – In mutual actions relative to the property of a common, several witnesses on both sides, are examined upon an act and commission; and upon a second diligence others, who had not before appeared, are also examined: one of the parties gives in a new list of witnesses, praying a new act and commission, and to have some witnesses re-examined on commission who had already deponed before the Court; but his petition is refused.

[1720] UKHL Robertson – 259, (1720) Robertson 259
Bailii

Scotland, Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.553639

John Robertson of Goodlyburn v George Earl of Kinnoul: HL 16 Mar 1720

Trust – Oath of Party – A person who had conveyed his feu to his superior’s son, having contended that the conveyance was deposited with a trustee, till certain conditions were fulfilled: after obtaining the oath of the superior, is also allowed the oath of the son, the disponee.
Peer – A matter referred to a peer’s oath.

[1720] UKHL Robertson – 287, (1720) Robertson 287
Bailii

Scotland, Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.553646

Shah v London Borough of Barnet: QBD 14 Dec 2021

Judgment on:
(i) an application brought by the defendant to resile from admissions made prior to the commencement of proceedings and
(ii) An application brought by the claimant to enter judgement upon those admissions (which is contingent upon the outcome of the defendant’s application)
The claim is for damages for serious injuries sustained by the (now) 68 year old claimant when he tripped and fell on an uneven pavement in a residential street maintained by the defendant highway authority. The pavement had become uneven because of raised tree roots which had grown through the surface pushing up the slabs.

Master Stevens
[2021] EWHC 2631 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales

Personal Injury, Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.670552

John Goddard, Gentleman v Sir John Swinton, Baronet: HL 30 Aug 1715

Foreign Decree – The effect of a judgment of the Court of King’s Bench, when founded upon by a pursuer against a defender in the Court of Session.
Homologation – The defender had in England been surrendered by his bail, who were discharged ; and the defender executed an instrument, importing that the judgment should not be released by such discharge; this instrument found not to homologate the judgment.

[1715] UKHL Robertson – 162, (1715) Robertson 162
Bailii

Scotland, Litigation Practice

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.553488

Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Emmott: CA 14 Oct 2015

Appeal against a finding that payments made by the appellant were made in the ordinary course of business and not in breach of a freezing injunction.

Black, Lewsion, Gloster LJJ
[2015] EWCA Civ 1028
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Emmott v Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd CA 12-Mar-2008
The court considered the implication of the obligation of confidentiality in banking contracts or in arbitration agreements. It is ‘really a rule of substantive law masquerading as an implied term’. . .
See Also – Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Emmott ComC 6-Nov-2008
Challenge to jurisdiction of arbitration proceedings. . .
See Also – Emmott v Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd ComC 12-Jan-2009
The claimant, a party to an arbitration, sought first an order requiring the defendant to comply with an order made by the arbitrator for the transfer of certain shares, and second an asset freezing order.
Held: The conditions for a peremptory . .
See Also – Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Emmott ComC 8-Jun-2011
The claimant challenged an arbitration award made concerning the agreement under which the defendant had been admitted to partnership. MWP contended that the Tribunal were guilty of a large number of serious irregularities in their conduct of the . .
See Also – Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Sinclair and Others ComC 21-Sep-2012
The claimant company alleged that the defendants had variously received assests (shares and cash) acquired by a former partner in the claimant company and held on his behalf, in breach of his obligations to the caimant partnership. The defendants . .
See Also – Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Sinclair and Others CA 16-Jan-2013
Application to stay order for costs. . .
See Also – Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Sinclair and Others CA 23-Jul-2015
. .

Cited by:
See Also – Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Emmott CA 11-Dec-2015
The court considered a residual jurisdiction to set aside an arbitrator’s award after a first appeal. . .
See Also – Emmott v Michael Wilson and Partners ComC 24-Nov-2016
Application for an anti-suit injunction against the defendant to restrain it from taking any further steps in ongoing proceedings in New South Wales and from commencing or pursuing any other substantive claims against the claimant on the ground that . .
See Also – Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Sinclair and Another CA 13-Jan-2017
The appellant company sought to recover assets which, it said, had been acquired by a former partner in breach of his obligations under the partnership agreement, but which had been taken in the names of some of the respondents. There had been an . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.553440

JSM Construction Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 24 Sep 2015

PROCEDURE – categorisation of appeals – application by Appellant for case to be re-allocated as a Complex case -rule 23(3) and (4) Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009 considered – application refused

[2015] UKFTT 474 (TC)
Bailii
Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009
England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.553147

The Financial Reporting Council Ltd v Frasers Group Plc: ChD 5 Oct 2020

‘This application raises the question whether 3 documents in the hands of the Respondent are privileged from production to the Applicant on the grounds of litigation privilege.’

Nugee LJ
[2020] EWHC 2607 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Financial Reporting Council Ltd v Frasers Group Plc ChD 8-Oct-2020
Consequential matters – permission to appeal and costs. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.654537

Clarke v Edinburgh and District Tramways Co Ltd: HL 14 Mar 1919

Observations per curiam on the importance to be attached by appellate courts in cases involving the determination of questions of fact, to the conclusion come to by the judge who saw and heard the witnesses.

Lord Buckmaster, Lord Atkinson, Lord Shaw, Lord Parmoor, and Lord Wrenbury
[1919] UKHL 303, (1919) SC (HL) 35, 56 SLR 303
Bailii
Scotland

Litigation Practice

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.632771

Sala (EFMS: Right of Appeal : Albania): UTIAC 19 Aug 2016

UTIAC There is no statutory right of appeal against the decision of the Secretary of State not to grant a Residence Card to a person claiming to be an Extended Family Member. Because decisions concerning ‘extended family members’ involve, not only a determination as to whether a person falls within the definition of extended family member, but also the exercise of a discretion whether to admit or grant a residence card to that person, they did not concern that person’s ‘entitlement’ to either.

[2016] UKUT 411 (IAC), [2017] Imm AR 141
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Wrongly Decided – Khan v Secretary of State for The Home Department and Another CA 9-Nov-2017
The Secretary of State had refused to grant a residence card to the Pakistani nephew of a German national. The Court was asked whether there is jurisdiction for the First-tier Tribunal to hear an appeal from a refusal by the Secretary of State for . .
Cited – SM (Algeria) v Entry Clearance Officer, UK Visa Section SC 14-Feb-2018
The Court was asked two questions, first as to its jurisdiction according to the meaning of an ‘EEA Decision’ within the 2006 Regulations, and second as to the position under the Directive of a child who is a third country national but has been . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Litigation Practice

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.570460

UXA v Merseycare NHS Foundation Trust: QBD 21 Dec 2021

Use of, and access to, court documents in circumstances where there has been the ‘judicial act’ (see ss10 below) of the Court determining an issue of substance, but this was done without a hearing, there being an agreed final order. The court documents whose use is in issue had all been filed with the Court for reliance by the parties in the proceedings.

Mr Justice Fordham
[2021] EWHC 3455 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.670658

Lloyds TSB Bank Plc v Crowborough Properties Ltd and Others: CA 12 Feb 2013

The court was asked whether Lloyds TSB Bank Plc was entitled to rectify the terms of a compromise embodied in the schedule to a Tomlin order.

Mummery, Rimer, Lewison LJJ
[2013] EWCA Civ 107
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Swainland Builders Ltd v Freehold Properties Ltd CA 2002
Swainland Builders Ltd owned the freehold of a block of flats. It had granted 99-year leases at ground rents of all the flats except numbers 11 and 18. It had intended to sell the block subject to the retention of flats 11 and 18 which it initially . .
Cited – Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd and Others HL 1-Jul-2009
Mutual Knowledge admissible to construe contract
The parties had entered into a development contract in respect of a site in Wandsworth, under which balancing compensation was to be paid. They disagreed as to its calculation. Persimmon sought rectification to reflect the negotiations.
Held: . .
Cited – Harlow Development Corporation v Kingsgate (Clothing Productions) Ltd 1973
The parties to a lease discussed the terms upon which the landlord would carry out substantial improvement works on the demised property in turn for an increase in rent. The parties had forgotten than the tenant had an option to acquire a long lease . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Contract

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.551919

Winch and Others, Re The Persons Formerly Known As (Application for A Contra Mundum Injunction): QBD 3 Dec 2021

Claim for a Venables injunction: an order against the world, conferring lifelong anonymity on an adult by prohibiting the publication of information that would be likely to lead to the disclosure of their identities.

Lord Justice Warby,
Mr Justice Johnson
[2021] EWHC 3284 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.670312

Regina v Wandsworth County Court ex parte Lotun: Admn 21 Oct 1997

Leave to appeal refused.

[1997] EWHC Admin 906
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal – Regina v Wandsworth County Court ex parte Lotun CA 2-Jul-1998
The applicant sought judicial review of a refusal by the County Court to provide a transcript or note of the County Court judge’s judgement.
Held: The court had no such record. It was for the parties in the County Court to make their own note. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.137851

Arcadia Group Brands Ltd and Others v Visa Inc and Others: CA 5 Aug 2015

Appeal by the claimants from the order of Simon J by which he ordered on summary judgment applications by the defendants that (1) the claimants are not entitled to rely on section 32(1)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980; and the claims are time barred pursuant to sections 2 and 9 of the 1980 Act insofar as they seek damages or restitution in respect of a period earlier than six years prior to the commencement of the proceedings and are dismissed; and (2) references to any earlier claims, dates and periods are struck out pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a) or amended pursuant to CPR 17.1(2).

Sir Terence Etherton Ch, Richards, Patten LJJ
[2015] EWCA Civ 883, [2015] WLR(D) 35
Bailii, WLRD
Limitation Act 1980 3291)(b), Civil Procedure Rules 3.4(2)(a) 17.1(2)
England and Wales

Limitation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.551018

Van Collem and Others v Van Collem and Others: ChD 22 Jul 2015

Requests for an adjournment of the trial and for an order setting aside the order striking out the Defence ‘based on medical grounds in support of preliminary evidence brought forward now.’

Asplin DBE J
[2015] EWHC 2184 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
See Also – Van Collem and Others v Van Collem and Others ChD 29-Jul-2015
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.550605

Ewing v News International Ltd and Others: CA 14 Jul 2010

The claimant appealed against an order for costs made on rejection of his application, as a vexatious litigant, for leave to bring defamation proceedings.
Held: The appeal was allowed. A defendant was not a party to an application by a vexatious litigant for leave to bring proceedings.

[2010] EWCA Civ 942
Bailii
Senior Courts Act 1981 42(3)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Jones v Vans Colina CA 15-Aug-1996
An ex parte order allowing an action by a vexatious litigant is not appealable by the prospective defendant to the action permitted. Such a defendant to proceedings by a vexatious litigant against whom a civil proceedings order had been made was . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.421551

Celltech R and D Ltd v Medimmune Inc: Patc 18 Jun 2004

With the consent of the parties, the court tried two questions of US patent law – file wrapper estoppel and argument estoppel, neither of which exists under our domestic law – without needing to receive expert evidence of US law.

Laddie J
[2004] EWHC 1522 (Pat)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Oxonica Energy Ltd v Neuftec Ltd PatC 5-Sep-2008
The parties disputed the meaning of an patent and know how licence. The parties disputed whether the agreement referred to IP rights before formal patents had been granted despite the terms of the agreement.
Held: ‘The secret of drafting legal . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Litigation Practice

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.227180

Hoddinott and others v Persimmon Homes (Wessex) Ltd: CA 21 Nov 2007

The claimant had issued proceedings and the defendant filed an acknowledgement, and then argued that the court had no jurisdiction. The claimant appealed against an order declining jurisdiction.
Held: Where a party filed an acknowledgement, that was an acceptance of the court’s jurisdiction unless at the same time it was made clear that the acknowledgement was subject to a protest as to jurisdiction. The defendant not having done this, jurisdiction had been accepted by the defendant, and the appeal was allowed.

Sir Anthony Clarke MR, Dyson, Jacob LJJ
[2007] EWCA Civ 1203, Times 28-Dec-2007, [2008] 1 WLR 806, [2008] CP Rep 9
Bailii
Civil Procedure Rules 11(1)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Aktas v Adepta CA 22-Oct-2010
The court was asked whether, when a claim was issued towards the very end of a limitation period, but was then not served, and the claim was struck out, CPR Part 7.5(1) gave a further four months in which it could be resurrected at the discretion of . .
Cited – Venulum Property Investments Ltd v Space Architecture Ltd and Others TCC 22-May-2013
The claimant sought an extension of time to serve the Particulars of Claim. The solicitors said that they had misread the relevant Rules.
Held: The solicitors had acted on the basis of the former practice, but the rules had been substantially . .
Cited – Caine v Advertiser and Times Ltd and Another QBD 14-Jan-2019
Appeal against an order staying permanently the claim for libel, raising a point about the procedure by which a defendant should challenge a failure to serve proceedings in time. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Civil Procedure Rules, Litigation Practice

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.261453

Watson v Eversheds Llp: QBD 17 Jul 2015

The claimant sought an interim injunction against the defendant solicitors to prevent alleged molestation in seeking to enforce a mortgage possession order which, she said had been obtained by fraud.
Held: The application failed, being totally without merit because it could not possibly result in any order being made.

Edis J
[2015] EWHC 2078 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.550580

Miaris v The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Others: Admn 17 Jul 2015

The grant of a permission to appeal on a second occasion was not to be quashed under the 1999 Act.

John Howell QC HHJ
[2015] EWHC 2094 (Admin), [2015] WLR(D) 319, [2015] 1 WLR 4333
Bailii, WLRD
Access to Justice Act 1999 55(1), Town and Country Planning Act 1990 289(6)

Planning, Litigation Practice

Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.550380

AMEC Foster Wheeler Group Ltd v Morgan Sindall Professional Services Ltd and Others: TCC 29 Jun 2015

Part 8 proceedings, in which the claimant sought declarations against the defendants that they were bound to provide certain information and documentation arising out of two sets of arbitration proceedings in which the defendants were involved. AMEC also seek delivery up of the documents.

Coulson J
[2015] EWHC 2012 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.550209

The London Taxi Corporation Ltd (T/A The London Taxi Company) v Frazer-Nash Research Ltd and Another: ChD 3 Jul 2015

Application by the Claimant for permission (a) to adduce in evidence the results of a pilot survey for the purposes of establishing its case on passing off, (b) to carry out a full survey in the form of that pilot survey and to adduce in evidence the results of that full survey for the same purposes, and (c) to rely upon evidence from respondents to both those surveys by adducing as their witness evidence the signed completed questionnaires of such respondents as the Claimant may identify to the Defendants suitably in advance of the trial.

Richard Spearman QC
[2015] EWHC 1840 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales

Intellectual Property, Litigation Practice

Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.550040

S v S: 2002

Bracewell J considered the first of the conditions suggested by Lord Brandon in Barder for allowing an appeal against an order made by consent – that the circumstances giving rise to the appeal should be such as to undermine the order. He said that the first condition imports the requirement that the new event be not only unforeseen but unforeseeable, since if it was foreseeable at the time, it cannot be the kind of extraneous supervening event which can be said to destroy the basis of the original order.

Bracewell J
[2002] 3 WLR 1372
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – CS v ACS and Another FD 16-Apr-2015
Rule Against Appeal was Ultra Vires
W had applied to have set aside the consent order made on her ancillary relief application accusing the husband of material non-disclosure. She complained that her application to have the order varied had been refused on the ground that her only . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.545940

S v S (Ancillary Relief: Consent Order): FD 4 Mar 2002

An order for ancillary relief had been made by consent. Later the House of Lords issued a judgment which changed the law which had been the basis of the decision to accept the settlement. The wife now sought to set aside the consent order, and appealed refusal to allow this.
Held: The four tests in Barder still applied. A mistake of law was not a supervening event which would make a consent order void ab initio. A foreseeable event was not a supervening event. In this case there was neither the promptness, nor the evidence that the change was so significant as to make it necessary to set aside the consent order. ‘It is my opinion that the House of Lords decision is specific to the law of restitution and was not intended to apply across the board of every branch of Law’ and ‘mistake of law as a vitiating factor ab initio has no place in consent orders for ancillary relief. In any event there would be public policy considerations against setting aside a consent order on such a basis by reason of the floodgates opening for all the orders made in the last quarter of a century or more. The principle that there should be an end to litigation must prevail.’
Bracewell J said: ‘The authorities cited before me demonstrate that the grounds for setting aside a consent order fall into two categories. (1) cases in which it is alleged there was at the date of the order an erroneous basis of fact eg misrepresentations or misunderstanding as to the position or assets. (2) cases in which there has been a material or unforeseen change in circumstances after the order so as to undermine or invalidate the basis of the consent order, as in Barder v Barder [1988] AC 20, and known as a supervening event.
In many of the decided authorities, contractual terms such as ‘fraud’ and ‘misrepresentation’ are used, but it is important to remember that court orders for financial provisions in matrimonial proceedings derive their authority not from the agreement of the parties but from the approval of the court and the resulting consent order: see Jenkins v Livesey [1985] AC 424 and Xydhias v Xydhias [1999] 2 All ER 386.’

Mrs Justice Bracewell
Gazette 11-Apr-2002, [2002] 3 WLR 1372, [2003] Fam 1, [2002] 1 FLR 992, [2002] IDS Pensions Law Reports 219
England and Wales
Citing:
Approved – Barder v Barder; Barder v Caluori HL 1988
Later Event no ground to appeal from consent order
The matrimonial home had been owned jointly by the husband and wife. In divorce proceedings, an order was made by consent that the husband should transfer his interest in the home to the wife within 28 days. Before the order had been executed, the . .
Distinguished – Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln City Council etc HL 29-Jul-1998
Right of Recovery of Money Paid under Mistake
Kleinwort Benson had made payments to a local authority under swap agreements which were thought to be legally enforceable when made. Subsequently, a decision of the House of Lords, (Hazell v. Hammersmith and Fulham) established that such swap . .
Cited – Jenkins v Livesey (formerly Jenkins) HL 1985
The parties had negotiated through solicitors a compromise of ancillary relief claims on their divorce. They agreed that the house should be transferred to the wife in consideration of her release of all other financial claims. The wife however . .
Cited – Xydhias v Xydhias CA 21-Dec-1998
The principles of contract law are of little use when looking at the course of negotiations in divorce ancillary proceedings. In the case of a dispute the court must use its own discretion to determine whether agreement had been reached. Thorpe LJ . .

Cited by:
Cited – Margaret Brennan v Bolt Burdon, London Borough of Islington, Leigh Day and Co QBD 30-Oct-2003
The claimant had sought relief for the injury to her health suffered by condition of her flat. The legal advisers had settled the matter, thinking that the claim had not been timeously served. The defendant appealed an order that the compromise was . .
Approved – Ram, Regina (on the Application Of) v Parole Board Admn 12-Jan-2004
The claimant had won an action for damages against the respondent. He was however released on licence, and subsequently became unlawfully at large. The question was whether the damages continued to be payable to him. The defendant insisted that the . .
Cited – Brennan v Bolt Burdon and Others, London Borough of Islington, Leigh Day and Co CA 29-Jul-2004
The claimant sought damages for injury alleged to have been suffered as tenant of a house after being subjected to carbon monoxide poisoning, and also from her former solicitors for their delay in her claim. The effective question was whether the . .
Cited – The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Jonkler and Another ChD 10-Feb-2006
The applicant had given an undertaking to the court to secure discontinuance of company director disqualification procedings. He now sought a variation of the undertaking.
Held: The claimant had given an undertaking, but in the light of new . .
Cited – Williams v Thompson Leatherdale (A Firm) and Another QBD 10-Nov-2008
The claimant sought damages from her legal advisers. They had allowed her to settle an ancillary relief application knowing that the case of White v White had been referred to the House of lords, and the settlement proved to have been on . .
Cited – Community Care North East (A Partnership) v Durham County Council QBD 29-Apr-2010
ccne_durhamCA10
The parties had settled their dispute and sealed it in a Tomlin Order. The court now asked as to its power to vary such an order. The order required the defendant to reopen a tendering process, but other tenderers now objected, and the council felt . .
Cited – Rapisarda v Colladon (Irregular Divorces) FC 30-Sep-2014
The court considered applications to set aside some 180 petitions for divorce on the grounds that they appeared to be attempts to pervert the course of justice by wrongfully asserting residence in order to benefit from the UK jurisdiction.
Family, Litigation Practice

Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.170041

P and O Developments Ltd, the Guy’s and St Thomas’ National Health Service Trust v The Guy’s and St Thomas’ National Health Service Trust, P and O Developments Ltd, Austen Associates (A Firm), Austen Associates Ltd: TCC 15 Oct 1998

a trial of Preliminary Issues.

His Honour Judge Bowsher QC
[1998] EWHC Technology 295, [1999] BLR 3, 62 Con LR 38
Bailii
England and Wales

Litigation Practice, Construction

Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.201760

Seals and Another v Williams: ChD 15 May 2015

The parties lawyers had proposed a Early Neutral Evaluation of the case anticipating mediation. The parties disputed inheritance challenges to the will.
Held: ‘The advantage of such a process over mediation itself is that a judge will evaluate the respective parties’ cases in a direct way and may well provide an authoritative (albeit provisional) view of the legal issues at the heart of the case and an experienced evaluation of the strength of the evidence available to deploy in addressing those legal issues. The process is particularly useful where the parties have very differing views of the prospect of success and perhaps an inadequate understanding of the risks of litigation itself.’ and ‘The proposed directions have been carefully crafted so as to afford the Settlement Judge the opportunity to make non-binding recommendations as to the outcome and to state short reasons for that recommendation without in any sense attempting a provisional judgment. Indeed, the Settlement Judge will not be further involved in the proceedings at all. The directions also provide that, in the light of the recommendations, the parties may agree a Consent Order.’

Norris J
[2015] EWHC 1829 (Ch)
Bailii
Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975
England and Wales

Wills and Probate, Litigation Practice

Updated: 01 January 2022; Ref: scu.549481

Cole v Howlett and Others: ChD 16 Jun 2015

The claimant wished to sue for breach of copyright. Many years ago, he had been bankrupt and he now sought leave to amend his pleadings to add an assignment of the cause of action from his trustee.

Peter Smith J
[2015] EWHC 1697 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales

Litigation Practice, Intellectual Property, Insolvency

Updated: 01 January 2022; Ref: scu.549004

Re X (Court of Protection Practice): CA 16 Jun 2015

This appeal concerns the practice and procedure to be adopted in applications to the Court of Protection in deprivation of liberty cases.

[2015] EWCA Civ 599, [2016] 1 FCR 65, [2015] COPLR 582, [2016] 1 WLR 227, [2015] WLR(D) 257, [2016] 1 All ER 533
Bailii
England and Wales

Health, Human Rights, Litigation Practice

Updated: 01 January 2022; Ref: scu.548999

Hayden and Another v Charlton: CA 7 Jul 2011

Appeal from order striking out defamation claims for failure to comply with court orders.

Pill, Toulson, Sullivan LJJ
[2011] EWCA Civ 791
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal From – Hayden and Another v Charlton QBD 1-Dec-2010
Action for defamation struck out after repeated failure by claimants to comply with court orders. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 01 January 2022; Ref: scu.441535

Webb v Webb: ECJ 17 May 1994

A Convention action must be based upon a right in rem not in personam. An action for a declaration that a person holds immovable property as a trustee and for an order requiring that person to execute such documents as are required to vest legal ownership under the lex situs in the plaintiff does not involve rights in rem within the meaning of Article 16(1). It was irrelevant that the plaintiff wanted to obtain ownership of an immovable; what is important is whether rights in rem are the object of the proceedings. Since the plaintiff did not claim that he already enjoyed rights directly relating to the property which were enforceable as against the whole world, but sought only to assert rights against the defendant, the action was not a right in rem within the meaning of Article 16(1), but an action in personam.

Times 27-Jun-1994, C-294/92, [1994] ECR I-1717, [1994] EUECJ C-294/92
Bailii
Brussels Convention 1968 16(1)
European
Cited by:
Cited – R Griggs Group Ltd and others v Evans and others (No 2) ChD 12-May-2004
A logo had been created for the claimants, by an independent sub-contractor. They sought assignment of their legal title, but, knowing of the claimant’s interest the copyright was assigned to a third party out of the jurisdiction. The claimant . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 01 January 2022; Ref: scu.160957

Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No 1): SC 19 Jun 2013

Closed Material before Supreme Court

Under the 2009 order, the appellant Bank had been effectively shut down as to its operations within the UK. It sought to use the appeal procedure, and now objected to the use of closed material procedure. The Supreme Court asked itself whether it was possible for the Supreme Court to use any such procedure, and if so, how and whether such a procedure should be adopted in this case.
Held: (Majority, Hope, Kerr and Reed LL dissenting) It was possible for the Supreme Court to adopt a closed material procedure on an appeal, and that it was appropriate for such a procedure in this case. The fact that any case might be appealed to the Supreme court implied that it could hear a case based in part on material not disclosed to all parties.
Lord Neuberger PJSC described the principle of open justice as ‘fundamental to the dispensation of justice in a modern, democratic society’ . . ‘However, it has long been accepted that, in rare cases, a court has inherent power to receive evidence and argument in a hearing from which the public and the press are excluded, and that it can even give a judgment which is only available to the parties. Such a course may only be taken (i) if it is strictly necessary to have a private hearing in order to achieve justice between the parties, and, (ii) if the degree of privacy is kept to an absolute minimum – see, for instance A v Independent News and Media Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 343, [2010] 1 WLR 2262, and JIH v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 42, [2011] 1 WLR 1645. Examples of such cases include litigation where children are involved, where threatened breaches of privacy are being alleged, and where commercially valuable secret information is in issue.’

Lord Neuberger, President, Lord Hope, Deputy President, Lady Hale, Lord Kerr, Lord Clarke, Lord Dyson, Lord Sumption, Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath
[2013] UKSC 38, UKSC 2011/0040, [2013] WLR(D) 244, [2014] AC 700, [2013] 4 All ER 495, [2013] 3 WLR 179, [2013] Lloyds Rep FC 580
Bailii, SC Summary, SC, WLRD, Bailii Summary
Financial Restrictions (Iran) Order 2009, Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, Constitutional Reform Act 2005 40(2)
England and Wales
Citing:
At first instance – Bank Mellat v HM Treasury QBD 11-Jun-2010
The respondent had made an order under the Regulations restricting all persons from dealing with the the claimant bank. The bank applied to have the order set aside. Though the defendant originally believed that the Iranian government owned 80% of . .
Appeal from – Bank Mellat v HM Treasury CA 13-Jan-2011
Under the 2009 Order, the appellant Bank’s UK operations had been shut down. It appealed against the Order, but the respondent had brought evidence, closed save to the respondent, and the order had been confirmed.
Held: The bank’s appeal . .
Cited – Re D (Minors) (Adoption Reports: Confidentiality) HL 1-Sep-1995
The House considered whether it was right for a tribunal to see and rely upon papers not disclosed to the parties. Lord Mustill said: ‘a first principle of fairness that each party to a judicial process shall have an opportunity to answer by . .
Cited – Chahal v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Nov-1996
Proper Reply Opportunity Required on Deportation
(Grand Chamber) The claimant was an Indian citizen who had been granted indefinite leave to remain in this country but whose activities as a Sikh separatist brought him to the notice of the authorities both in India and here. The Home Secretary of . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte Pierson HL 24-Jul-1997
The Home Secretary may not later extend the tariff for a lifer, after it had been set by an earlier Home Secretary, merely to satisfy needs of retribution and deterrence: ‘A power conferred by Parliament in general terms is not to be taken to . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for The Home Department Ex Parte Simms HL 8-Jul-1999
Ban on Prisoners talking to Journalists unlawful
The two prisoners, serving life sentences for murder, had had their appeals rejected. They continued to protest innocence, and sought to bring their campaigns to public attention through the press, having oral interviews with journalists without . .
Cited – Regina v Special Commissioner And Another, ex parte Morgan Grenfell and Co Ltd HL 16-May-2002
The inspector issued a notice requiring production of certain documents. The respondents refused to produce them, saying that they were protected by legal professional privilege.
Held: Legal professional privilege is a fundamental part of . .
Cited – Roberts v Parole Board HL 7-Jul-2005
Balancing Rights of Prisoner and Society
The appellant had been convicted of the murder of three police officers in 1966. His tariff of thirty years had now long expired. He complained that material put before the Parole Board reviewing has case had not been disclosed to him.
Held: . .
Cited – RB (Algeria) and Another v Secretary of State for the Home Department; OO (Jordan) v Same; MT (Algeria) v Same HL 18-Feb-2009
Fairness of SIAC procedures
Each defendant was to be deported for fear of involvement in terrorist activities, but feared that if returned to their home countries, they would be tortured. The respondent had obtained re-assurances from the destination governments that this . .
Cited – A and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 19-Feb-2009
(Grand Chamber) The applicants had been subjected to severe restrictions. They were foreign nationals suspected of terrorist involvement, but could not be deported for fear of being tortured. The UK had derogated from the Convention to put the . .
Cited – A and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 19-Feb-2009
(Grand Chamber) The applicants had been subjected to severe restrictions. They were foreign nationals suspected of terrorist involvement, but could not be deported for fear of being tortured. The UK had derogated from the Convention to put the . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF AN and AE (No 3) HL 10-Jun-2009
The applicants complained that they had been made subject to non-derogating control orders as suspected terrorists, but that the failure to inform them of the allegations or evidence against them was unfair and infringed their human rights. The . .
Cited – A v Independent News and Media Ltd and Others CA 31-Mar-2010
The newspapers sought leave to report proceedings before the Court of Protection in connection with a patient unable to manage his own affairs. The patient retained a possible capacity to work as a professional musician. The family wanted the . .
Cited – JIH v News Group Newspapers Ltd CA 31-Jan-2011
Principles on Request for Anonymity Order
The defendant appealed against an order granting the anonymisation of the proceeedings.
Held: The critical question is whether there is sufficient general public interest in publishing a report of proceedings which identifies a party by name, . .
Cited – Home Office v Tariq SC 13-Jul-2011
(JUSTICE intervening) The claimant pursued Employment Tribunal proceedings against the Immigration Service when his security clearance was withdrawn. The Tribunal allowed the respondent to use a closed material procedure under which it was provided . .
Cited – Al Rawi and Others v The Security Service and Others SC 13-Jul-2011
The claimant pursued a civil claim for damages, alleging complicity of the respondent in his torture whilst in the custody of foreign powers. The respondent sought that certain materials be available to the court alone and not to the claimant or the . .
Cited – AT v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 7-Feb-2012
The claimant challenged a non-derogation control order. . .

Cited by:
See Also – Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No 2) SC 19-Jun-2013
The bank challenged measures taken by HM Treasury to restrict access to the United Kingdom’s financial markets by a major Iranian commercial bank, Bank Mellat, on the account of its alleged connection with Iran’s nuclear weapons and ballistic . .
Cited – MX v Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust and Others CA 17-Feb-2015
Application was made for approval of a compromise of a claim for damages for personal injury for the child. The court now considered whether an order should be made to protect the identity of the six year old claimant.
Held: An order should . .
Cited – A v British Broadcasting Corporation (Scotland) SC 8-May-2014
Anonymised Party to Proceedings
The BBC challenged an order made by the Court of Session in judicial review proceedings, permitting the applicant review to delete his name and address and substituting letters of the alphabet, in the exercise (or, as the BBC argues, purported . .
Cited – Steinfeld and Keidan, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for International Development (In Substitution for The Home Secretary and The Education Secretary) SC 27-Jun-2018
The applicants, an heterosexual couple wished to enter into a civil partnership under the 2004 Act, rather than a marriage. They complained that had they been a same sex couple they would have had that choice under the 2013 Act.
Held: The . .
Cited – JP Whitter (Water Well Engineers) Ltd v Revenue and Customs SC 13-Jun-2018
The taxpayers registration under the Construction Industry Scheme had been withdrawn. The Court was now asked whether HMRC are obliged, or at least entitled, to take into account the impact on the taxpayer’s business of the cancellation of its . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Evidence

Leading Case

Updated: 31 December 2021; Ref: scu.510914

Sun Alliance and London Assurance Co Ltd v Hayman: CA 1975

The two-sided act of giving and receiving of a notice may be deemed to be done by some act other than actual receipt of the notification by the recipient.
Lord Salmon said: ‘Statutes and contracts often contain a provision that notice may be served on a person by leaving it at his last known place of abode or by sending it to him there through the post. The effect of such a provision is that if notice is served by any of the prescribed methods of service, it is, in law, treated as having been given and received.’
and
‘According to the ordinary and natural use of English words, giving a notice means causing a notice to be received. Therefore, any requirement in a statute or a contract for the giving of a notice can be complied with only by causing the notice to be actually received – unless the context or some statutory or contractual provision otherwise provides . . ‘

Lord Salmon, Stephenson LJ and McKenna J
[1975] 1 WLR 177
Landlord and Tenant Act 1954
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v Haywood SC 25-Apr-2018
Notice of dismissal begins when received by worker
The court was asked: ‘If an employee is dismissed on written notice posted to his home address, when does the notice period begin to run? Is it when the letter would have been delivered in the ordinary course of post? Or when it was in fact . .
Cited – UKI (Kingsway) Ltd v Westminster City Council SC 17-Dec-2018
Short issue as to the requirements for valid ‘service’ of a completion notice so as to bring a newly completed building within liability for non-domestic rates. The notice had been served by email where no statutory authority existed for this.
Litigation Practice, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 31 December 2021; Ref: scu.666009

Crest Nicholson Operations Ltd and Another v Grafik Architects Ltd and Another: TCC 10 Nov 2021

Application to strike out a claim pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 3.4(2) on the basis that it discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim and/or because it is an abuse of process.

Her Honour Judge Sarah Watson
[2021] EWHC 2948 (TCC)
Bailii
Civil Procedure Rules 3.4(2)
England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 31 December 2021; Ref: scu.670709

Hastie and Jenkerson v McMahon: CA 11 Jan 1990

The Court accepted that service of a list of documents by fax was valid service for the purposes of a consent order in civil proceedings under the Rules of the Supreme Court.
Woolf LJ said: ‘. . are there any legal reasons why advantage should not be taken of the progress in technology which fax represents to enable documents to be served by fax, assuming that this is not contrary to any of the Rules of the Supreme Court? The purpose of serving a document is to ensure that its contents are available to the recipient and whether the document is served in the conventional way or by fax the result is exactly the same. [Counsel] on behalf of the defendant submits that what is transmitted by fax is not the document but an electronic message. However, this submission fails to distinguish between the method of transmission and the result of the transmission by fax. What is produced by the transmission of the message by fax, admittedly using the recipient’s machine and paper, is the document which the other party intended should be served. . What is required is that a legible copy of the document should be in the possession of the party to be served. This fax achieves. I therefore conclude that service by fax can be good service subject to any requirement of the order requiring service of a particular document and any requirement of the Rules of the Supreme Court.’

Woolf LJ , Glidewell LJ , Lloyd LJ
[1990] 1 WLR 1575
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – UKI (Kingsway) Ltd v Westminster City Council SC 17-Dec-2018
Short issue as to the requirements for valid ‘service’ of a completion notice so as to bring a newly completed building within liability for non-domestic rates. The notice had been served by email where no statutory authority existed for this.
Litigation Practice

Updated: 31 December 2021; Ref: scu.670802

PNC Telecom plc v Thomas: 2003

A letter sent by fax constituted a validly ‘deposited’ notice to convene an extraordinary general meeting under section 368 of the Companies Act 1985. The Vice-Chancellor noted that by that time the Electronic Communications Act 2000 enabled specific modifications to be made to authorise communication by electronic means under existing statutes, including the Companies Act. Some such modifications had been made, but not in respect of section 368. Counsel before him had been unable to indicate the basis on which some of these provisions had been singled out for amendment but others not. The 2000 Act could not be regarded as designed to introduce fax as a permitted means of communication ‘for that had been done on a case-by-case basis over the preceding 30 years or so’

Sir Andrew Morritt V-C
[2003] BCC 202
Companies Act 1985 368, Electronic Communications Act 2000
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – UKI (Kingsway) Ltd v Westminster City Council SC 17-Dec-2018
Short issue as to the requirements for valid ‘service’ of a completion notice so as to bring a newly completed building within liability for non-domestic rates. The notice had been served by email where no statutory authority existed for this.
Litigation Practice

Updated: 31 December 2021; Ref: scu.670803

Lock v Ravi-Shankar: QBD 8 Nov 2021

Application for a full and complete list with a statement of truth in relation to disclosure, together with a witness statement attesting to the searches that had been made. It was further sought that there should be amended particulars of claim and further witness statements.

Mr Justice Martin Spencer
[2021] EWHC 3247 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 31 December 2021; Ref: scu.670309

Ogunbiyi, Regina (on The Application of) v Southend County Court and Another: Admn 19 Mar 2015

Application for judicial review of a decision of a Circuit Judge at the County Court, (a) refusing permission to appeal again the judgment of a Deputy District Judge following a trial of the claim for damages again the claimant under a hire purchase agreement and (b) determining that the District Judge’s decision was within the permissible grounds of his discretion.
Held: In the absence of a right of appeal, the court was faced with an application for judicial review. The question is whether the decision reached was a fair one, not whether it was the only fair conclusion. As in many other situations, although particular weight must be given to a claimant’s Article 6 rights, reasonable tribunals may differ as to the correct outcome, and ‘The question is whether the decision reached was a fair one, not whether it was the only fair conclusion. As in many other situations, although particular weight must be given to a claimant’s Article 6 rights, reasonable tribunals may differ as to the correct outcome.’
On examining the authorities: ‘the hurdles surmounting the claimant today are formidable. This is not enough to demonstrate that the Circuit Judge got it ‘extremely wrong’. In order to succeed on this application the claimant has to demonstrate something truly egregious or outrageous as to amount to a complete abrogation of the judicial process in the context of the right to a fair trial.’

Jay J
[2015] EWHC 1111 (Admin)
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 6
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Andreou v Lord Chancellor’s Department CA 22-Jul-2002
The Claimant had requested a postponement of the tribunal hearing on the basis of a medical certificate which stated that she was unfit to attend work. It therefore adjourned the proceedings for one week with directions that a medical report be . .
Cited – Terluk v Berezovsky CA 25-Nov-2010
Sedley LJ considered the position faced by an appellate court on a complaint of unfairness by a lower court, saying: ‘We would add that the question whether a procedural decision was fair does not involve a premise that in any given forensic . .
Cited – Strickson, Regina (On the Application of) v Preston County Court and Others CA 8-Oct-2007
The court was required to revisit the circumstances in which the High Court may properly entertain a judicial review of orders made by a judge in the county court.
Laws LJ said: ‘How should such a defect be described in principle? I think a . .
Cited – National Westminster Bank v Daniel CA 1993
The defence contained two contradictory grounds, and the defendant’s evidence again contradicted the defences. The plaintiff sought summary judgment.
Held: A judge, when considering whether a claim should be determined then or allowed to . .
Cited – Mahon, Regina (on the Application of) v Taunton County Court Admn 13-Dec-2001
Application for leave to apply for judicial review of a decision of a county court judge. The claim was as to the refusal of a licence to the claimant to work as a taxi driver.
Held: Leave was refused.
Hooper J said: ‘This case and . .
Cited – Cart and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Upper Tribunal and Others Admn 1-Dec-2009
The court was asked whether the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court, exercisable by way of judicial review, extends to such decisions of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) and the Upper Tribunal (UT) as are not amenable to any . .
At Admn – O v The Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 3-Apr-2012
The claimant sought judicial review of the Secretary of State’s continued detention pending deportation of her after her diagnosis with a medical condition.
Held: Lang J refused her permission to apply for judicial review. She had to decide: . .

Cited by:
Cited – O, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 27-Apr-2016
The appellant failed asylum seeker had been detained for three years pending deportation. She suffered a mental illness, and during her detention the medical advice that her condition could be coped with in the detention centre changed, recommending . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Litigation Practice, Human Rights

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.547506

Tardios and Another v Linton (Aka Carpenter): QBD 21 May 2015

Judgment had been entered by default against persons unknown. The claimant then identified the proposed correct defendant and applied to amend the name to show that discovered. The court was now asked whether it was possible to add a name after entry of judgment.

Dingemans J
[2015] EWHC 1429 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.547125

Petter v EMC Europe Ltd and Another: QBD 22 May 2015

‘Two applications before the Court: (i) the Second Defendant (EMC Corporation) applies to challenge the Court’s jurisdiction over the claimant’s (Mr Petter’s) claim against it (the Part 11 Application); and (ii) Mr Petter applies for an interim anti-suit injunction against EMC Corporation restraining, pending determination of Mr Petter’s claim, further prosecution of its proceedings against him in Massachusetts (the Massachusetts Proceedings) (the Anti-Suit Application). ‘

Cooke J
[2015] EWHC 1498 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales

Jurisdiction, Litigation Practice

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.547124

Allen v Cornwall Council: QBD 20 May 2015

The claimant was injured riding his bicycle, and alleged failure by the respondent highway authority. The court now considered an application for leave to appeal against an order allowing the production of evidence of an expert in cycling skills and safety. The claimant’s report had been served but remained sealed pending the outcome of the application. He said it was in answer to the defendant’s plea of contributory negligence.
Held: Leave to appeal was refused.

Green J
[2015] EWHC 1461 (QB)
Bailii
Highways Act 1980 41
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Liddell v Middleton CA 17-Jul-1995
A husband and wife crossed a road. The wife, appreciating that the danger from the traffic, ran across. The husband stood in the middle of the road and then went ahead, but was struck by a vehicle and injured. He was significantly affected by . .
Cited – Walbrook Trustee (Jersey) Ltd and others v Fattal and others CA 11-Mar-2008
Applications between consortium members as to management of apartment block.
Lawrence Collins LJ said: ‘ . . an appellate court should not interfere with case management decisions by a judge who has applied the correct principles and who has . .
Cited – Liddell v Middleton CA 1996
The Court was concerned with a traditional road traffic accident in which a pedestrian was injured by a moving car. A question arose as to the admissibility of an expert.
Held: Stuart-Smith LJ stated of the test of admissibility laid down in . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.547005

Chodiev and Others v Stein: ComC 20 May 2015

A new action was brought to set aside an earlier judgment now said to have been brought about by fraud.
Held: The action could not proceed. The new evidence could have been available for the first action with appropriate diligence.

[2015] EWHC 1428 (Comm), [2015] WLR(D) 235
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.546998

AP Racing Ltd v Alcon Components Ltd: IPEC 15 May 2015

The application by the Defendant asked the court: ‘where a claimant has succeeded in establishing infringement of his patent by reference to particular articles considered by the court, to what extent can he subsequently raise a further allegation of infringement of the same patent in relation to other articles? The further allegation could arise either in an inquiry or account following trial or in a second action’

Hacon J
[2015] EWHC 1371 (IPEC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Intellectual Property, Litigation Practice

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.546832

IBM United Kingdom Holdings Ltd and Another v Dalgleish and Others: ChD 5 May 2015

‘This judgment is written to deal with a disagreement between the parties, principally the RBs and the Trustee, about who should have conduct of the various matters on which permission to appeal or cross-appeal is sought. ‘

Warren J
[2015] EWHC 1241 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.546291

McTaggart v McTaggart: 1948

Evidence was admitted from a probation officer who had been present at a without prejudice interview between a divorcing couple.
Held: This was only possible because the wife had not objected to the husband giving evidence as to what transpired at the interview.

[1948] 2 All ER 754
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Brown v Rice and Another ChD 14-Mar-2007
The parties, the bankrupt and her trustee, had engaged in a mediation which failed at first, but applicant said an agreement was concluded on the day following. The defendants denied this, and the court as asked to determine whether a settlement had . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.269956

Home Office v Tariq: CA 4 May 2010

The claimant began proceedings against his employer, the Immigration Service after his security clearance was withdrawn. He complained that the respondent had been allowed by the Tribunal to present evidence he was not himself allowed to see and challenge. The EAT had approved this use of a closed material procedure.
Held: The appeal succeeded. Every party to litigation has the right to be given sufficient information about the evidential case against him, so as to enable him to give effective instructions in relation to that case.

Neuberger MR, Maurice Kay, Sullivan LJJ
[2010] EWCA Civ 462, [2010] UKHRR 793, [2010] IRLR 1065, [2010] ICR 1034
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal From – Tariq v The Home Office EAT 16-Oct-2009
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Disclosure
HUMAN RIGHTS
(1) The procedure sanctioned by rule 54 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure, and by the Employment Tribunals (National Security) Rules . .
Cited – Chahal v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Nov-1996
Proper Reply Opportunity Required on Deportation
(Grand Chamber) The claimant was an Indian citizen who had been granted indefinite leave to remain in this country but whose activities as a Sikh separatist brought him to the notice of the authorities both in India and here. The Home Secretary of . .

Cited by:
Cited – Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury CA 4-May-2010
The claimants sought damages after being made subject of orders under the 2009 Order. Both parties appealed against an order (partly closed) allowing some but restricting other disclosure and use against the claimants in court of evidence which they . .
Cited – Al Rawi and Others v The Security Service and Others CA 4-May-2010
Each claimant had been captured and mistreated by the US government, and claimed the involvement in and responsibility for that mistreatment by the respondents. The court was asked whether a court in England and Wales, in the absence of statutory . .
Appeal from – Home Office v Tariq SC 13-Jul-2011
(JUSTICE intervening) The claimant pursued Employment Tribunal proceedings against the Immigration Service when his security clearance was withdrawn. The Tribunal allowed the respondent to use a closed material procedure under which it was provided . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Employment, Human Rights

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.409220

Webb v Chapman and others: CA 20 Jan 2009

Renewed application for permission to appeal following a provisional refusal.
Held: Notwithstanding the criticism, the appeal should not be allowed to go ahead.

Thorpe, Aikens, Bennett LJJ
[2009] EWCA Civ 55
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Ganesmoorthy v Ganesmoorthy CA 16-Oct-2002
The parties had divorced. The wife alleged a serious assault against her husband, and instructed a claims firm to recover damages from him. Her ancillary relief claim in the divorce was compromised with her having sought to rely upon the assault, . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.291774

Society of Lloyd’s v Laws and others: ComC 24 Apr 2003

Cooke J
[2003] EWHC 873 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Thomas-Everard and Others v Society of Lloyd’s ChD 18-Jul-2003
The claimant appealed refusal to set aside a statutory demand made by the respondent society. The proposed defence had been already been dismissed by the courts.
Held: Such a consideration was very relevant, but not necessarily determinative. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Litigation Practice

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.181326

Wani Llp v The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc: ChD 29 Apr 2015

‘two applications by the claimant . . brought pursuant to an application notice . . By the first application, the claimant asks for permission to make extensive amendments to its particulars of claim; by the second, the claimant asks for permission to adduce two short supplemental witness statements (to which a third was subsequently added, but without amendment of the application notice: no technical objection is taken on that point). The second application is opposed only in so far as the new evidence which the claimant wishes to adduce relates to the proposed amendments which form the subject matter of the first application. The primary focus of the hearing was therefore on the application to amend.’

Henderson J
[2015] EWHC 1181 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.546167

Ipsos Sa v Dentsu Aegis Network Ltd: ComC 29 Apr 2015

Application for summary strike out of claim: ‘Ipsos, as buyer, has brought a claim for damages for breach of a warranty in a share sale and purchase agreement against Aegis, as seller; and Aegis contends that Ipsos failed to comply with a contractual notification requirement for such a claim.’

Simon J
[2015] EWHC 1171 (Comm)
Bailii

Litigation Practice

Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.546184