Evans v The Information Commissioner and Others: CA 12 Mar 2014

Mr Evans had sought release under the 2000 Act of leers from the Prince of Wales to variou government ministers. The Upper Tribunal had allowed his appeal aganst refusal, but the Attorney had then issued a certificate that in his opinion, the information had been properly withheld. Mr Evans now appealed against refusal of judicial review of the certificate.
Held: The appeal succeeded. (i) the reasons given by the Attorney General were not capable of constituting ‘reasonable grounds’ within the meaning of section 53(2) of the FOIA 2000, and (ii) because the advocacy correspondence was concerned with environmental issues, the Certificate was incompatible with both Council Directive 2003/4/EC and article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Lord Dyson MR, Richards, Pitchford LJJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 253, [2014] Env LR 26, [2014] 3 All ER 682, [2014] 3 CMLR 12, [2014] 1 QB 855, [2014] WLR(D) 124, [2014] HRLR 12, [2014] 2 WLR 1334
Bailii, WLRD
Freedom of Information Act 2000 53(2), Council Directive 2003/4/EC, Charter of Fundamental Rights of te European Union 47, The Environmental Information Regulations 2004
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromEvans, Regina (on The Application of) v HM Attorney General and Another Admn 9-Jul-2013
The claimant had requested disclosure of correspondence between Prince Charles and assorted government departments. It had been refused, the Attorney General issuing a certificate under section 53(2) after the Upper tribunal had allowed the . .
See AlsoEvans v Information Commissioner UTAA 18-Sep-2012
The claimant journalist had requested copies of correspondence between Prince Charles and assorted public bodies.
Held: ‘The Upper Tribunal allows the appeals by Mr Evans. A further decision identifying information to be disclosed to Mr Evans, . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromEvans and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Attorney General SC 26-Mar-2015
The Attorney General appealed against a decision for the release under the Act and Regulations of letters from HRH The Prince of Wales to various ministers and government departments.
Held: The appeal failed (Majority). The A-G had not been . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information, Litigation Practice, European, Constitutional, Human Rights, Environment

Updated: 01 December 2021; Ref: scu.522384

AB v CD: CA 6 Mar 2014

The court was asked a point of principle about the proper approach to the grant of an interim injunction. It is trite law that such an injunction will not be granted if damages would be an adequate remedy for the wrong, if proved: indeed the same rule applies to final injunctions. But how does that apply in cases of an alleged breach of contract where the contract contains a provision limiting the recoverable damages to below what might otherwise have been awarded as a matter of general law ?

Laws, Ryder, Underhill LJJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 229
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromAB v CD QBD 3-Jan-2014
The parties were contracted to each other in respect of an internet based marketing system for metals and other resources. The claimant had contracted in effect to promote the system. The claimant sought an injunction to prevent termination of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 01 December 2021; Ref: scu.522108

Calor Gas Ltd v Stanford: ChD 13 Nov 2009

Judgment on the return date following a search order which had been successfully obtained without notice from Wyn Williams J. The claimant said that the defendant had been refilling the claimant’s Liquid Petroleum Gas cylinders with gas from other suppliers, and that this put the public at risk. Holroyd J quoted Wyn Williams J as saying: ‘Not without some hesitation, as has been obvious by virtue of the interchange between leading counsel and myself, I propose to make a suitable Search and Seizure Order in a moment. The principal reasons which have led me to that course are threefold. First of all, the cause of action appears unassailable, certainly on the information placed before me, but in all probability, the cause of action is unassailable. Secondly, the Respondent has previously given an undertaking to the court, admittedly 12 years ago, but the evidence put before me suggests that the Defendant is continuing a course of conduct which is in breach of that undertaking . . Thirdly, there is a public interest in the granting of this injunction since there is a risk that the misuse of the Claimant’s cylinders in the way described in the evidence could lead to real public safety concerns. On those grounds this draconian Order is justified.’

Holroyd J
Unreported, 13 November 2009
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedCalor Gas Ltd v Chorley Bottle Gas Ltd and Another QBD 22-Jul-2020
Search and Seizure – Concerns for Public Safety
The claimant supplied branded liquid gas containers and the gas, on condition that only its liquid gas would be used within the containers. The sought a search and seizure order against the defendants, saying that the public health and safety risks . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.654039

Flint v Lovell: CA 1934

The Court considered the conditions for it to interfere with an assessment of damages at first instance.
Greer LJ said: ‘I think it right to say that this Court will be disinclined to reverse the finding of a trial judge as to the amount of damages merely because they think that if they had tried the case in the first instance they would have given a lesser sum. In order to justify reversing the trial judge on the question of the amount of damages it will generally be necessary that this Court should be convinced either that the judge acted upon some wrong principle of law, or that the amount awarded was so extremely high or so very small as to make it, in the judgment of this Court, an entirely erroneous estimate of the damage to which the plaintiff is entitled.’

Greer LJ
[1935] 1 KB 354, 51 TLR 127, (1934) 152 LT 231, [1934] All ER 200, (1934) 104 LJKB 199
England and Wales
Cited by:
ApprovedRose v Ford HL 1937
Damages might be recovered for a loss of expectation of life. A claim for loss of expectation of life survived under the Act of 1934, and was not a claim for damages based on the death of a person and so barred at common law.
Lord Wright . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Litigation Practice

Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.654040

Bayerische Motoren Werke Ag (Bmw) v Premier Alloy Wheels (Uk) Ltd and Others: ChD 8 Jun 2018

Application for a search order, interim injunction and related relief. The claimant alleged the manufacture of fake BMW wheels by the defendant.
Mr Justice Henry Carr gave his reasons for granting a search order, interim injunction and related relief. He summarised the criteria: ‘A search and seizure order is an exceptional form of relief. The conditions that need to be satisfied are as follows. First, there must be a strong prima facie case of a civil cause of action. Suspicion is not enough; nor is it enough that there is a serious question to be tried. Second, the danger to the applicant to be avoided by the grant of the order must be serious, and if the order is to forestall the destruction of evidence, the evidence must be of major importance. Third, there must be clear evidence that the respondent has incriminating documents or articles in its possession. Fourth, there must be a real possibility of the destruction or removal of evidence. Fifth, the harm likely to be caused by the execution of the order on the respondent and his business affairs must not be out of proportion to the legitimate object of the order.’

Henry Carr J
[2018] EWHC 1713 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedCalor Gas Ltd v Chorley Bottle Gas Ltd and Another QBD 22-Jul-2020
Search and Seizure – Concerns for Public Safety
The claimant supplied branded liquid gas containers and the gas, on condition that only its liquid gas would be used within the containers. The sought a search and seizure order against the defendants, saying that the public health and safety risks . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Litigation Practice

Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.619885

Hardy, Regina (On the Application of) v Milford Haven Port Authority and Others: CA 30 Nov 2007

Renewed application for permission to appeal against a refusal to give permission for judicial review of the respondent Port Authority’s refusal to disclose documents relevant to the safety of proposals for the construction and operation of two liquefied natural gas terminals at Milford Haven.

Lord Justice Toulson
[2007] EWCA Civ 1403
Bailii
England and Wales

Construction, Litigation Practice

Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.346262

Eclipse Film Partners No 35 Llp v Revenue and Customs: CA 26 Feb 2014

The court was asked whether the First-Tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) had jurisdiction to make an order that the costs of preparing hearing bundles for a substantive appeal by the appellant taxpayer should be shared equally between the taxpayer and the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. Held; The taxpayer’s appeal failed.

Moses, Black, Kitchin LJJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 184
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoEclipse Film Partners No 35 Llp v Revenue and Customs SCIT 17-Feb-2009
SCIT Closure notice – application for direction to close enquiry into tax return – limited liability partnership – s 28B Taxes Management Act 1970 – direction for closure within three months . .
See AlsoEclipse Film Partners No. 35 Llp v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 22-Sep-2010
FTTTx INCOME TAX – Applications by the parties for further directions – whether departure by HMRC unilaterally from the timetable for preparation for the appeal set down in agreed directions, causing additional . .
At FTTTxEclipse Film Partners No 35 Llp v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 22-Jun-2011
FTTTx Expert evidence – application for a direction to exclude expert evidence – whether expert evidence inadmissible on grounds that it is an opinion as to UK tax and therefore trespasses on the special . .
See AlsoEclipse Film Partners No 35 Llp v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 20-Apr-2012
FTTTx Income tax – limited liability partnership acquired licence to film rights and sub-licensed rights to distributor – complex financing arrangements involving loans to members of the partnership and . .
See AlsoHM Revenue and Customs v Eclipse Film Partners No35 Llp UTTC 22-Mar-2013
UTTC Procedure – costs – whether, in a case where the taxpayer has opted out of the Complex costs regime, the First-tier Tribunal has the power to order that the parties share the costs of the appellant complying . .

Cited by:
See AlsoEclipse Film Partners No 35 Llp v HM Revenue and Customs CA 17-Feb-2015
Appeal against closure notice. . .
At CAEclipse Film Partners No 35 Llp v Revenue and Customs SC 11-May-2016
The issue raised on this appeal concerns the extent to which the jurisdiction of the First-tier Tribunal to make an order for costs is fettered by the provisions of the Rules regulating the procedure of the Tribunal.
Held: With one exception, . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Costs

Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.521622

Associated Electrical Industries Ltd v Alstom UK: ComC 24 Feb 2014

The claimant was late in serving its particulars of claim. The defendant now requested the strike out of the claim for that default.
Held: The court applied the principles set out in Mitchell to refuse consent.

Andrew Smith J
[2014] EWHC 430 (Comm)
Bailii
Citing:
CitedMitchell MP v News Group Newspapers Ltd CA 27-Nov-2013
(Practice Note) The claimant brought defamation proceedings against the defendant newspaper. His solicitors had failed to file his costs budget as required, and the claimant now appealed against an order under the new Rule 3.9, restricting very . .

Cited by:
CitedKaneria v Kaneria and Others ChD 15-Apr-2014
The parties were embroiled in a company dispute with allegations of conduct prejudicial to minority shareholders. An application was now made for sanctions for a failure to comply with court directions.
Held: Unless and until a higher Court . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.521584

Summit Navigation Ltd and Another v Generali Romania Asigurare Reasigurare Sa Ardaf Sa and Another: ComC 21 Feb 2014

The commercial court will not encourage time wasting procedural applications. Leggatt J summarised the principles that should be applied on an application for relief from sanctions: ‘i) On an application for relief from a sanction under CPR 3.9, it is usually appropriate to start by considering the nature of the non-compliance. If the non-compliance can be regarded as trivial or insignificant, the court will usually grant relief provided that an application is made promptly.
ii) If the non-compliance cannot be so regarded, the court should consider why it occurred and will still be likely to grant relief if there is a good reason for it.
iii) Good reasons are likely to arise from circumstances outside the control of the party in default; by contrast, inefficiency or incompetence of a party’s solicitors – for example, where a deadline is simply overlooked – is unlikely to amount to a good reason.
iv) Where the non-compliance is not trivial and there is no good reason for it, the court is still required by CPR 3.9 to consider ‘all the circumstances of the case, so as to enable it to deal justly with the application’
However, relief should not usually be granted in such cases because the circumstances which should generally be given greatest weight are the two factors specifically mentioned in the rules.’
. . And ‘There remains, of course, the further consideration of the need to enforce compliance with rules, practice directions and court orders which, even on its own, must clearly be given substantial weight. But, as the Master of the Rolls emphasised in his lecture on the Jackson reforms in words approved by the Court of Appeal in Mitchell at [38], it is not the aim of the reforms to turn rules and rule compliance into ‘trip wires’, nor into ‘the mistress rather than the handmaid of justice’, nor to render compliance ‘an end in itself’. It seems to me that this would be precisely the result of refusing relief in a situation where, as here, there has been non-compliance with a rule or order but the objective which the insistence on compliance seeks to serve of ensuring that litigation is conducted efficiently and at proportionate cost has not been impaired.’

Leggatt J
[2014] EWHC 398 (Comm), [2014] WLR(D) 104
Bailii, WLRD
Civil Procedure Rules 3.9
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedMitchell MP v News Group Newspapers Ltd CA 27-Nov-2013
(Practice Note) The claimant brought defamation proceedings against the defendant newspaper. His solicitors had failed to file his costs budget as required, and the claimant now appealed against an order under the new Rule 3.9, restricting very . .

Cited by:
CitedRattan v UBS Ag, London Branch ComC 12-Mar-2014
rattan_ubsComC0314
The claimant had sought an order limiting the defendant’s costs after alleged non-compliance with directions, and failing to file a costs budget.
Held: The application was rejected. The Commercial Court will firmly discourage the taking of . .
CitedKaneria v Kaneria and Others ChD 15-Apr-2014
The parties were embroiled in a company dispute with allegations of conduct prejudicial to minority shareholders. An application was now made for sanctions for a failure to comply with court directions.
Held: Unless and until a higher Court . .
AppliedAmerichem Europe Ltd v Rakem Ltd TCC 13-Jun-2014
americhem_rakemTCC0614
Complaint was made that a costs estimate had been signed not by a solicitor, but by a costs draftsman.
Held: The rules required the estimate to have been signed by a ‘senior legal representative’. A costs draftsman whose involvement in the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.521586

Abouraya v Sigmund and Others: ChD 13 Feb 2014

Application for permission to continue this action against the first defendant as a derivative claim on behalf of and for the benefit of the second and third defendants. Permission is also sought pursuant to CPR 6.36 to serve the claim form out of the jurisdiction on the second defendant at its registered office in Hong Kong.

David Richards J
[2014] EWHC 277 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.521241

The Bank of Ireland and Another v Philip Pank Partnership: TCC 12 Feb 2014

It is an irregularity for a costs budget to fail to set out the Statement of truth in full.

Stuart-Smith J
[2014] EWHC 284 (TCC)
Bailii
Cited by:
CitedAmerichem Europe Ltd v Rakem Ltd TCC 13-Jun-2014
americhem_rakemTCC0614
Complaint was made that a costs estimate had been signed not by a solicitor, but by a costs draftsman.
Held: The rules required the estimate to have been signed by a ‘senior legal representative’. A costs draftsman whose involvement in the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Costs

Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.521246

European Platform Against Windfarms v European Commission: ECFI 21 Jan 2014

ECFI Action for annulment – Legal person governed by private law – Absence of proof of existence in law – Article 44(5)(a) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court – Manifest inadmissibility

M.E. Martins Ribeiro, P
T – 168/13, [2014] EUECJ T – 168/13
Bailii

European, Litigation Practice

Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.521179

Clark and Another v Trip Advisor Llc: SCS 6 Feb 2014

(Outer House) The petitioners complained of reviews of their guest house business carried by the respondent web-site operators which were said to be defamatory. The petitioners sought an order from the court ordaining the respondents to disclose the names, addresses and other such information that they have as to the identity of those persons who posted the said reviews

[2014] ScotCS CSOH – 20, 2014 SLT 418, 2014 GWD 7-138
Bailii
Scotland

Defamation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.521143

Shahid v The Scottish Ministers: SCS 31 Jan 2014

The appellant was serving a long term of imprsonment, and now complained that he had been held in segregation for over 4 years, saying that this was ahgainst the Prison Rules and against his human rights.
Held: The Extra Division refused the appeal from a rejection of the claim.

Lord Drummond Young
[2014] ScotCS CSIH – 18A, [2014] CSIH 18A, 2014 GWD 6-131, 2014 SLT 335, 2014 SC 490
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 3 8, Prisons and Young Offenders Institutions (Scotland) Rules 1994
Scotland
Citing:
Appeal fromShahid v Scottish Ministers SCS 18-Nov-2011
(Outer House Court of Session) The petitioner complaine dthat whilst serving a very long term of imprisonment, he had been held in segregation for almost five years, and that this contravened the Prison Rules and his human rights.
Held: The . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromShahid v Scottish Ministers (Scotland) SC 14-Oct-2015
The appellant convicted of a racially-aggravated vicious murder. Since conviction he had spent almost five years in segregation from other prisoners. The appellant now alleged that some very substantial periods of segregation had been in breach of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons

Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.521142

Practice Guidance (Transparency In The Court of Protection): CoP 16 Jan 2014

[2014] EWHC B2 (COP)
Bailii
Citing:
See AlsoCommittal for Contempt of Court (Practice Guidance) COP 3-May-2013
The court gave guidance on the practice to be followed on applications for committal for contempt of court in the Court of Protection, particularly as to the requirements for decisions to be made in public. . .

Cited by:
See AlsoPractice Guidance (Transparency In The Court of Protection) CoP 16-Jan-2014
. .
See AlsoPractice Guidance (Transparency In The Family Courts) FD 16-Jan-2014
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Health

Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.521130

Hegazy and Others v The Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis: QBD 10 Feb 2014

The claimants alleged false imprisonment, assault and race discrimination
Several claimants made assorted claims against the police, and sought to have admitted various events as similar fact evidence.

Sir David Eady
[2014] EWHC 235 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales

Police, Torts – Other, Litigation Practice

Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.521122

Thevarajah v Riordan and Others: CA 16 Jan 2014

Defendants appealed against an order allowing the application of the first, second and fourth respondents for relief from sanction under CPR 3.9. The relief sought had previously been refused by Hildyard J, so this was the respondents’ second application for the same relief. The defendants had, before the second application complied with the unless order.
Held: The judge had been wrong to rehear the application on its merits. As Hildyard J had already rejected the appellants’ first relief application, CPR 3.1(7) applied and the Deputy Judge could not properly have acceded to the second relief application unless there had been ‘a material change of circumstances’ since Hildyard J’s decision, and there had been no such change.

Richards, Aikens, Davis LJJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 14, [2014] CP Rep 19, [2014] 1 Costs LR 163
Bailii
Civil Procedure Rules 3.9
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromThevarajah v Riordan and Others ChD 10-Oct-2013
The court allowed the application of the first, second and fourth respondents for relief from sanction under CPR 3.9. . .
See AlsoThevarajah v Riordan and Others ChD 9-Aug-2013
The court was asked first whether the defendants had complied with an unless order made with respect to the disclosure of information required to be provided in aid and in order to ensure the proper release of a freezing order which had previously . .
CitedTarn Insurance Services Ltd v Kirby and others CA 27-Jan-2009
Claim by company in administration against former directors for excess payments alleged to have been taken by them. There was now alleged a wilful failure to comply wih court orders for disclosure..
Held: Once non-compliance with an unless . .

Cited by:
See AlsoThevarajah v Riordan and Others CA 4-Feb-2015
The court was asked whether the judge at first instance had been right to attribute an agreement which he had not made to the defendants.
Held: The defendants were liable to pay 2.205 million pounds. . .
Appeal fromThevarajah v Riordan and Others SC 16-Dec-2015
The defendants had failed to comply with an ‘unless’ order requiring disclosure, and had been first debarred from defending the cases as to liability. They applied to a second judge who granted relief from sanctions after new solicitors had complied . .
See AlsoThevarajah and Another v Riordan and Others ChD 21-Mar-2014
The parties disputed the arrangements for the intended acquisition by the Claimant of three properties, or more accurately of all or part of the shares in their owning companies. Following a failure to comply with ‘unless’ orders fr disclsure of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.521037

A Local Authority v DG and Others: FD 24 Jan 2014

Keehan J condemned ‘the wholesale failure of the parties’ in these care proceedings to comply with case management directions which had been given on a number of occasions over the previous four months, and said: ‘The conduct of the parties in this matter and the wholesale failure to comply with case management directions is lamentable. Family practitioners must wake up to the fact that, whatever the difficulties presented by public funding issues and/or the pressure of work, the court will no longer tolerate the failure of parties to comply timeously with court orders. Those failures simply lead to unacceptable delays in the proceedings which are wholly inimical to the welfare of the children involved.’

Keehan J
[2014] EWHC 63 (Fam)
Bailii
Cited by:
CitedIn re W (Children) FD 25-Jul-2014
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Litigation Practice

Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.520751

Irving v Hiddleston: OHCS 1998

Courts are moving more and more to requiring parties to settle all issues in one action.

Lord Macfadyen
1998 SCLR 350
Scotland
Cited by:
CitedMark George Thomson v Michael Coutts ScSf 1-Jun-2001
The pursuer sought damages, and the defender asserted res judicata, in that this was in effect an attempt by the pursuer to recover his damages in instalments. Following an accident, damages had been awarded. The pursuer now sought to recover his . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.181288

London Borough of Havering and Others v Persons Unknown and Others: QBD 4 Oct 2021

Defendants complained that the local Authorities had obtained an interim ‘traveller’ injunction, and another, but then failed to take the claim forward was an abuse of process of the court.
Held: Abuse was found in some cases but not all.

The Honourable Mr Justice Nicklin
[2021] EWHC 2648 (QB), [2021] WLR(D) 520
Bailii, WLRD
Human Rights Act 1998
England and Wales

Human Rights, Litigation Practice

Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.669706

Webb v East: CA 21 Jan 1880

A party cannot protect himself from producing a document on the ground that its production would tend to criminate him unless he pledges his oath that, to the best of his belief, its production would tend to criminate him.
Whether a party can*protect himself from producing a document on the ground that its production would tend to criminate him, quaere.
A letter written in answer to inquiries about the character of a servant is privileged in this sense only, that although it contains defamatory statements it will not support an action for libel unless malice is shewn; hut it is not privileged in the sense of being privileged from production, such privilege being confined to communications with the legal advisers of the party.

(1879-1880) 5 ExD 108, [1880] UKLawRpExch 1
Commonlii
England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.670117

Webb Resolutions Ltd v E-Surv Ltd: QBD 20 Jan 2014

A party in default seeking an out-of-time extension for making a renewed application for permission to appeal (under CPR r 52.3(5)) would have to satisfy the same tests as were applied to the default in Mitchell.

Turner J
[2014] EWHC 49 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedMitchell MP v News Group Newspapers Ltd CA 27-Nov-2013
(Practice Note) The claimant brought defamation proceedings against the defendant newspaper. His solicitors had failed to file his costs budget as required, and the claimant now appealed against an order under the new Rule 3.9, restricting very . .

Cited by:
CitedKaneria v Kaneria and Others ChD 15-Apr-2014
The parties were embroiled in a company dispute with allegations of conduct prejudicial to minority shareholders. An application was now made for sanctions for a failure to comply with court directions.
Held: Unless and until a higher Court . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 28 November 2021; Ref: scu.520134

Practice Guidance (Transparency In The Family Courts): FD 16 Jan 2014

[2014] EWHC B3 (Fam)
Bailii
Citing:
See AlsoCommittal for Contempt of Court (Practice Guidance) COP 3-May-2013
The court gave guidance on the practice to be followed on applications for committal for contempt of court in the Court of Protection, particularly as to the requirements for decisions to be made in public. . .
See AlsoPractice Guidance (Transparency In The Court of Protection) CoP 16-Jan-2014
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Family

Updated: 28 November 2021; Ref: scu.520129

M A Lloyd and Sons Ltd (T/A KPM Marine) v PPC International Ltd (T/A Professional Powercraft): QBD 20 Jan 2014

[2014] EWHC 41 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedMitchell MP v News Group Newspapers Ltd CA 27-Nov-2013
(Practice Note) The claimant brought defamation proceedings against the defendant newspaper. His solicitors had failed to file his costs budget as required, and the claimant now appealed against an order under the new Rule 3.9, restricting very . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 28 November 2021; Ref: scu.520132

Deeds v Various Respondents: CA 28 Nov 2013

The appellant challenged a general civil restraint order made against him. He said that he should have been granted opportunity to make oral representations.
Held: Permission was granted for an appeal at which the appellant be given opportunity to make oral representations.

Richards, Lewison, Coleridge LJJ
[2013] EWCA Civ 1678
Bailii
England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 28 November 2021; Ref: scu.520102

HM Attorney-General v Ebert: Admn 21 Sep 2001

The defendant had instituted over 80 fruitless actions over years. He had been made subject to a vexatious litigant order, but the Attorney General now requested additional injunctive relief. This was a very extreme instance of extreme litigation. He had since applied for permission over 150 times to begin different kinds of proceedings. He had come to conclude that one judge was corrupt and biased against him, and his actions had led to his being requested to leave the courts. He was interrupting the smooth administration of justice. Every citizen has a right of access to a court both at common law and pursuant to ECHR Article 6. This right of access is not absolute. There is a distinction between controlling the issue of proceedings, and physical disturbances of court proceedings. An injunction in precise terms was to be granted to exclude the defendant from the Royal Courts of Justice save as provided.

Lord Justice Brooke, Mr Justice Harrison
[2001] EWHC Admin 695, [2002] 2 All ER 789, [2002] 2 All ER 789
Bailii
Supreme Court Act 1981 42
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedGrepe v Loam; Bulteel v Grepe CA 1887
The court was asked for an order restricting the right of a group of litigants be restrained from beginning further court actions without first obtaining the court’s consent, they having been accused of issuing vexatious proceedings.
Held: The . .
CitedEbert v Venvill (Trustee In Bankruptcy); Woolf; Midland Bank Plc and Rabinowicz (a Solicitor) CA 5-Jul-1999
The court refused leave to appeal from the High Court. It would be absurd if, when an order was made restricting commencement of proceedings by a vexatious litigant, that the High Court should not have power to restrain by the same order also . .

Cited by:
CitedCourtman v Ludlam and Another; In re Ludlam (Bankrupts) ChD 6-Aug-2009
The applicant trustee in bankruptcy sought an extended civil restraint order against the respondents, saying that they had made unmeritorious claims in the proceedings.
Held: The rules required there to be shown that person had ‘persistently . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Human Rights

Updated: 28 November 2021; Ref: scu.166182

Abdule and Others v The Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Others: QBD 21 Dec 2018

Application by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for a declaration under Justice and Security Act 2013 (‘JSA 2013’) s.6 that a closed material application may be made to the Court in these proceedings.

Nicol J
[2018] EWHC 3594 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 28 November 2021; Ref: scu.632209

British American Tobacco (UK) Ltd and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Health: Admn 20 Dec 2018

Application under CPR 5.4(C)(2) for disclosure from the Court records of certain documents relied upon by the parties in the series of claims for judicial review brought by the tobacco industry and by certain manufacturers of tobacco papers.

[2018] EWHC 3586 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 28 November 2021; Ref: scu.632094

Dar Al Arkan Real Estate Development Company (C) and Another v Al-Sayed Bader Hashim Al-Refai and Others: QBD 20 Dec 2013

The defendants sought an order for the committal of officers of the clamant for having failed to comply with court orders and a preservation undertaking, saying that the claimant had destroyed evidence.
Held: The claimants said that such an order was not available where the company’s officers were not within the jurisdiction.

Andrew Smith J
[2013] EWHC 4112 (QB), [2014] WLR(D) 9
Bailii, WLRD
Citing:
See AlsoDar Al Arkan Real Estate Development Company v Al Refai and Others ComC 12-Dec-2012
The defendants applied to set aside an earlier order made without notice, saying that the claimants had not make full and frank disclosure and misled the court in their evidence and submissions and had not complied with an associated undertaking to . .

Cited by:
See AlsoDar Al Arkan Real Estate Development Company and Another v Al-Sayed Bader Hashim Al Refai and Others ComC 11-Apr-2014
Applications as to management of committal application. Andrew Smith J had ruled in favour of the applicant/defendant that without notice orders made against them should be discharged because the claimants had misled the court and failed to comply . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Natural Justice, Litigation Practice, Contempt of Court

Updated: 28 November 2021; Ref: scu.519768

Baker Tilly (A Firm) v Makar: QBD 27 Mar 2013

The claimant accountants had represented the defendant in a dispute with former employees. They sought payment of their costs, but the claim was stayed until the defendant had the opportunity to to seek representation by a MacKenzie friend after the taxing master became concerned for her health and as to her ability to conduct proceedings. They now appealed against that stay.
Held: Sir Raymond Jack saaid: ‘the Master put more weight on the incident of 18th July than it could bear and that he should have taken into account Miss Makar’s appearances before other judges. I also bear in mind that I have a more complete description of the incident than was before the Master. In all the circumstances he should not have concluded that it was established that Miss Makar lacked capacity and he should not have stayed the assessment pending the appointment of a litigation friend for Miss Makar. There is then no bar to Baker Tilly’s application for an interim costs certificate

Sir Raymond Jack
[2013] EWHC 759 (QB), [2013] 3 Costs LR 444
Bailii
Mental Capacity Act 2005 2, Civil Procedure Rules 21
Citing:
CitedCarmarthenshire County Council v Lewis CA 16-Dec-2010
Renewed application for leave to appeal against tenancy possession order. The respondent argued that as a result of his suffering Asperger’s syndrome, the court should have adjourned the proceedings to see whether he was a protected party in need of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Litigation Practice, Health

Updated: 28 November 2021; Ref: scu.519762

Vaughan v London Borough of Lewisham and Others: QBD 20 Dec 2013

The claimant had undertaken a series of nine actions against the several defendants making allegations of discrimination and similar. They had each failed, she had been ordered to pay substantial sums in costs, and was now foamally bankrupt. In these proceedings she alleged defamation in SOSR (Some Other Substantial Reason) hearings. She had stayed other proceedings in order to ensure that these proceedings could proceed, but now appealed against a stay of these proceedings.
Held: The claim was bound to fail and was struck out.

Sir David Eady
[2013] EWHC 4118 (QB)
Bailii

Defamation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 28 November 2021; Ref: scu.519778

Barta And Drajko v Hungary: ECHR 17 Dec 2013

Article 46-2
Execution of judgment
Measures of a general character
Respondent State required to provide genuine effective relief for violations of the right to trial within a reasonable time
Facts – In 2006 and 2008, respectively, the applicants were interrogated as suspects on charges of tax fraud. In 2008 criminal proceedings were initiated against them for tax fraud and other related crimes. The first hearing was held in 2011. Two further hearings were held in the same year and one in 2012. In 2012 a district court found the applicants guilty as charged and fined them, respectively, approximately EUR 2,000 and EUR 1,000. Before the European Court the applicants complained that the criminal proceedings against them had been excessively long.
Law – Article 6-1
(a) Admissibility
(i) Exhaustion of domestic remedies – The Government argued that the applicants had failed to exhaust domestic remedies as they had not made a complaint under section 262/B of the Code of Criminal Procedure to expedite the proceedings. The Court recalled that, as the effectiveness of a remedy to accelerate proceedings could depend on whether it had a significant effect on the length of proceedings as a whole, where proceedings included a substantial period during which there was no possibility of accelerating them, such remedy could not be considered effective. In the applicant’s case, criminal proceedings included a substantial period during which, according to the law in force, there had been no possibility to accelerate them by making a complaint. Furthermore, the Code of Criminal Procedure did not provide specific time-limits for the key phases of criminal proceedings, with the exception of cases of particular importance. Moreover, as the Government had not demonstrated that the legal avenue referred to was indeed capable of accelerating the proceedings or securing compensation for delays already occurred, the effectiveness of the remedy in question remained uncertain. Finally, since a complaint for accelerating the proceedings had no binding effect on the court concerned, nor was its eventual rejection subject to an appeal, it could not have any significant effect on expediting the proceedings as a whole. In light of the above, the remedy suggested by the Government could not be regarded as an effective one to be exhausted in cases of protracted criminal proceedings.
Conclusion: preliminary objection dismissed (unanimously).
(ii) Victim status – The Government referred to the fact that the district court had taken the long duration of the proceedings into consideration as a mitigating circumstance in sentencing the applicants. In this regard, the Court noted that the district court’s judgment had not stated the elements that had been taken into consideration in sentencing or whether – and if so, how – the duration of the proceedings had been taken into account as a mitigating factor. Therefore, even assuming that the imposition of mere fines had corresponded to the undue length of the criminal proceedings, the measure did not fulfil the other requirement for removal of the applicants’ victim status, namely the acknowledgement of a breach of Article 6-1 of the Convention. Consequently, the applicants could still claim to be victims of an alleged violation of Article 6-1.
Conclusion: preliminary objection dismissed (unanimously).
(b) Merits: The Court observed that the applicants’ proceedings lasted, respectively, six years and three months and four years and three months for one level of jurisdiction. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considered that the length of the proceedings had been excessive and failed to meet the ‘reasonable time’ requirement.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 46: The violation of the applicants’ right to a trial within a reasonable time constituted a systemic problem in Hungary resulting from inadequate legislation and inefficiency in the administration of justice. Although it was in principle not for the Court to determine what remedial measures could be appropriate to satisfy the respondent State’s obligations under Article 46 of the Convention, in view of the systemic situation which it had identified, general measures at national level, which must take into account the large number of persons affected, were undoubtedly called for in execution of the present judgment. In this regard, in order to assist the respondent State to comply with its obligations under Article 46, the Court reiterated that it had already clarified States’ obligations with regard to the characteristics and effectiveness of legal avenues created to remedy complaints concerning excessive length of judicial proceedings. To prevent future violations of the right to a trial within a reasonable time, the respondent State was therefore encouraged to take all appropriate steps, preferably by amending the existing range of legal remedies or creating new ones, to secure genuinely effective redress for violations similar to the present one.
Article 41: EUR 3,000 to the first applicant and EUR 2,000 to the second applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

35729/12 – Chamber Judgment, [2013] ECHR 1293, 35729/12 – Legal Summary, [2013] ECHR 1364
Bailii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights

Human Rights, Litigation Practice

Updated: 28 November 2021; Ref: scu.519691

AB v CD: QBD 3 Jan 2014

The parties were contracted to each other in respect of an internet based marketing system for metals and other resources. The claimant had contracted in effect to promote the system. The claimant sought an injunction to prevent termination of services pending arbitration. The court now gave its reasons for refusing the injunction.

Stuart-Smith J
[2014] EWHC 1 (QB)
Bailii
Arbitration Act 1996 44
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedAmerican Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd HL 5-Feb-1975
Interim Injunctions in Patents Cases
The plaintiffs brought proceedings for infringement of their patent. The proceedings were defended. The plaintiffs obtained an interim injunction to prevent the defendants infringing their patent, but they now appealed its discharge by the Court of . .
CitedEvans Marshall and Co Ltd v Bertola SA CA 1973
Lord Justice Sachs considered whether damages were an adequate remedy for the refusal of an injunction, and said: ‘The standard question in relation to the grant of an injunction, Are damages an adequate remedy?’ might perhaps, in the light of the . .
CitedParker v Schuller CA 1901
The plaintiffs had obtained leave to serve a writ out of the jurisdiction under Order 11, r 1(e) of the RSC on the ground that the claim was for breach of a contract within the jurisdiction. The breach alleged was of a CIF contract, and the . .
CitedMetall und Rohstoff AG v Donaldson Luftkin and Jenrette Inc CA 1991
. .
CitedComninos v Prudential Assurance Company Ltd (The Ikarian Reefer no 2) CA 12-Oct-1999
Mr Comninos challenged the jurisdiction of the court to have made an order for costs made against him. . .
CitedED and F Man Sugar Ltd v Lendoudis ComC 10-Oct-2007
. .

Cited by:
Appeal fromAB v CD CA 6-Mar-2014
The court was asked a point of principle about the proper approach to the grant of an interim injunction. It is trite law that such an injunction will not be granted if damages would be an adequate remedy for the wrong, if proved: indeed the same . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Arbitration, Litigation Practice

Updated: 28 November 2021; Ref: scu.519432

Official Receiver v Meade-King and Another: CA 30 Jan 2001

The appeals raise a point of some general importance in relation to the powers of the official receiver; namely, whether, at a time when the official receiver is pursuing disqualification proceedings against a former director, the court has jurisdiction to make an order, on an application made by the official receiver under section 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986, requiring third parties to disclose documents and provide information to him in circumstances where the sole purpose of the application is to obtain evidence for use in the disqualification proceedings.

Lord Justice Kennedy, And,
Lord Justice Chadwick
[2001] EWCA Civ 1227, [2002] Ch 239, [2001] 4 All ER 588, [2001] 2 BCLC 555, [2002] BCC 11, [2002] 2 WLR 20
Bailii
Insolvency Act 1986 2236, Access to Justice Act 1999 55(1)
England and Wales

Evidence, Litigation Practice, Insolvency

Updated: 28 November 2021; Ref: scu.147415

Tradition (UK) Ltd, Tradition Bond Brokers Limited, Howard, Harland v Cantor Fitzgerald International: ChD 15 Apr 1999

When deciding whether a copying of a computer program was substantial, the test was not whether the program would run without that code. It had to be looked at as a whole allowing for the skill and labour which had gone into different sections of code. The court emphasised the particular importance of experts being scrupulously independent in highly technical cases like computer cases.

Pumfrey J
Times 19-May-1999
Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 3(1)(b)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedNational Justice Compania Naviera S A v Prudential Assurance Company Ltd (‘The Ikarian Reefer’) 1993
Cresswell J spoke of the nature of the duty owed by expert witnesses: ‘The duties and responsibilities of expert witnesses in civil cases include the following:

1. Expert evidence presented to the Court should be, and should be seen to be, the . .

Cited by:
CitedAnglo Group Plc, Winther Brown and Co Ltd v Winter Brown and Co Ltd, BML (Office Computers) Ltd, Anglo Group Plc, BML (Office Computers) Ltd TCC 8-Mar-2000
Contract – Contract for provision of computer services – purchaser contract with finance company – duty of co-operation to be implied in computer contracts – practice – responsibilities of expert witnesses generally – whether computer company liable . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Litigation Practice

Updated: 27 November 2021; Ref: scu.136045

SP, Regina (on The Application of) v The Lord Chancellor: Admn 12 Dec 2013

The claimant sought judicial review of a decision not to give prior approval to the claimant’s solicitors, a well-known firm of immigration lawyers, to instruct Bindmans LLP, another well-known firm of immigration lawyers, to provide ‘expert’ advice on her immigration status, and instead to indicate that the work would be funded in another way and at a different rate.
Held: The court order under which the advice was required referred to the advice of counsel, and the application named the firm and not an individual expert: ‘Providing an expert’s report for the assistance of the court is a personal task: it is the responsibility of a named individual. A firm of solicitors cannot act as an expert: in the same way, if the court orders an expert accountant to provide a report, that report has to be provided by an individual, not by ‘Arthur Anderson’ or ‘Deloittes’.’

Coulson J
[2013] EWHC 4011 (Admin)
Bailii
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 32, The Civil Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedKing v Brandywine Reinsurance Company CA 10-Mar-2005
Excess of Loss reinsurance. In the civil courts of England and Wales is that (with one obvious exception) expert evidence on the domestic law is inadmissible. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Aid, Litigation Practice

Updated: 27 November 2021; Ref: scu.519014

Phones 4U Ltd v EE Ltd and Others: CA 2 Feb 2021

‘These appeals raise questions as to the jurisdiction and the discretion of the court in relation to disclosure provided under CPR Part 31,[1] where senior officers, employees and ex-employees of companies have or may have used their personal electronic devices to send and receive work-related messages and emails.’

Sir Geoffrey Vos MR, Asplin, Green LJJ
[2021] EWCA Civ 116, [2021] WLR(D) 75, [2021] 1 WLR 3270, [2021] ICR 1279
Bailii, WLRD, Judiicary
Civil Procedure Rules 31.5(8)
England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 27 November 2021; Ref: scu.657396

Norseman Holdings Ltd v Warwick Court (Harold Hill) Management Company Ltd: QBD 4 Dec 2013

The claimant appealed against a dismissal of its appeal against an award of costs.
Held: There was no clear appointment of any solicitor to act for the company. The appeal was against an order based upon an undertaking given by consent by the claimant, and was hopeless. The court deprecated ‘ the terrible waste of money represented by this case. This appeal epitomises that waste. It is precisely the sort of disproportionate incurring of costs that the Costs Review, and the subsequent changes to the CPR, were designed to address.’

Coulson J
[2013] EWHC 3868 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 26 November 2021; Ref: scu.518921

Ipcom Gmbh and Co Kg v HTC Europe Co Ltd and Others: CA 21 Nov 2013

The court was asked as to the circumstances in which it is appropriate for a court in this jurisdiction considering combined patent infringement and revocation proceedings to grant a stay of its proceedings pending the outcome of co-pending opposition proceedings in the European Patent Office.

Patten, Rafferty, Floyd LJJ
[2013] EWCA Civ 1496
Bailii
England and Wales

Intellectual Property, Litigation Practice

Updated: 26 November 2021; Ref: scu.518321

Mireskandari v Centaur Media Plc: QBD 19 Nov 2013

The Defendant sought an order that the libel action be struck out under CPR 3.4 (2)(a) and/or (b), or that summary judgment be entered against the Claimant on the whole claim, pursuant to CPR 24.2, on the ground that the claim had no real prospect of success.

Tugendhat J
[2013] EWHC 3551 (QB)
Bailii

Defamation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 26 November 2021; Ref: scu.518335

Raayan Al Iraq Co Ltd and Others v Trans Victory Marine Inc and Others: ComC 23 Aug 2013

Application for extension of two days to service of particulars of claim. The defendants resisted saying that the court should apply sanctions against the claimant. The claimants applied for relief under rule 3.9.
Held: The new rules were against a background where it was recognised that courts had been too ready to grant relief. The judge acknowledged that the list of circumstances that was itemised in the earlier version of the rule had gone. Nevertheless, he proceeded ‘somewhat reluctantly’ to apply the old checklist of factors, and the ‘overriding objective demands that relief be granted and I grant it’.

Andrew Smith J
[2013] EWHC 2696 (Comm)
Bailii
Civil Procedure Rules 3.9
Cited by:
CitedMitchell MP v News Group Newspapers Ltd CA 27-Nov-2013
(Practice Note) The claimant brought defamation proceedings against the defendant newspaper. His solicitors had failed to file his costs budget as required, and the claimant now appealed against an order under the new Rule 3.9, restricting very . .
CitedKaneria v Kaneria and Others ChD 15-Apr-2014
The parties were embroiled in a company dispute with allegations of conduct prejudicial to minority shareholders. An application was now made for sanctions for a failure to comply with court directions.
Held: Unless and until a higher Court . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 26 November 2021; Ref: scu.518009

Gulati and Others v MGN Ltd: ChD 6 Nov 2013

The claimants alleged that the defendant newspaper group had directly or through agents hacked their mobile phones. They suggested that articles published by the defendants could only have come from such activities. The defendants now sought summary judgment striking out two claims, and striking out elements of all four claims.
Held: The applications failed.

Mann J
[2013] EWHC 3392 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
See AlsoGulati and Others v MGN Limited ChD 21-May-2015
The claimants each claimed that their mobile phones had been hacked by or on behalf of the defendant newspaper group. The claims had now in substance been admitted, and the court set out to assess the damages (and aggravated damages) to be paid.
Media, Crime, Litigation Practice, Torts – Other

Updated: 26 November 2021; Ref: scu.517767

Wyche v Careforce Group Plc: ComC 25 Jul 2013

The defendant had failed to comply in all respects with an ‘unless’ order.
Held: The court gave relief under CPR 3.9 for two failures which the court described as ‘material in the sense that they were more than trivial’. They were ‘unintentional and minor failings in the course of diligently seeking to comply with the order’.
Walker J said: ‘The culture which the court seeks to foster is a culture in which both sides take a common sense and practical approach, minimising interlocutory disputes and working in an orderly and mutually efficient manner towards the date fixed for trial. It would be the antithesis of that culture if substantial amounts of time and money are wasted on preparation for and conduct of satellite litigation about the consequences of truly minor failings when diligently seeking to comply with an ‘unless’ order.’

Walker J
[2013] EWHC 3282 (Comm)
Bailii
Civil Procedure Rules 3.9
Cited by:
CitedMitchell MP v News Group Newspapers Ltd CA 27-Nov-2013
(Practice Note) The claimant brought defamation proceedings against the defendant newspaper. His solicitors had failed to file his costs budget as required, and the claimant now appealed against an order under the new Rule 3.9, restricting very . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 23 November 2021; Ref: scu.517348

Sky Blue Sports & Leisure Ltd and Others v Coventry City Council and Others: Admn 1 Nov 2013

The court was asked whether an order for specific disclosure should be made in the judicial review application even before permission has been granted and where permission has been refused on paper.

Silber J
[2013] EWHC 3366 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Judicial Review, Litigation Practice

Updated: 23 November 2021; Ref: scu.517342

Holliday v Lawes: 31 Jan 1837

An affidavit to hold to bail need not shew the connection between the deponent and the creditor.
The objection, that a second arrest for the same cause of action has taken place without a Judge’s order, is waived by an undertaking to put in bail.

[1837] EngR 464, (1837) 3 Bing NC 541, (1837) 132 ER 519
Commonlii
England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 23 November 2021; Ref: scu.313581

Vernon v Vernon: 3 Feb 1837

Where a Plaintiff inserts two Averments in his Bill, one favourable to himself, and another against himself ; the Defendant, for the purpose of demurrer, has a right to take that Averment which operates against the Plaintiff.

[1837] EngR 478, (1837) Donn Eq 184, (1837) 47 ER 309
Commonlii
England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 23 November 2021; Ref: scu.313595

Boyer v Warbey: CA 1953

The tenant had vacated without notice, whereas he was bound to give three months’ notice. The landlord did re-let, and sued for the rent due up to the date of the re-letting (some three months) which the tenant resisted, claiming that the landlord should have re-let more quickly.
Held: Denning LJ said: ‘He [the tenant] went out of possession, it is true, and thereupon the landlords would have been entitled to recover possession if they had so wished. But they did not so wish. They were not bound to accept possession whenever the tenant chose to offer it. They were entitled to hold him to the tenancy until he gave a valid three months’ notice to quit. Very sensibly they did try to re-let; and as soon as they re-let the statutory tenancy came to an end by surrender by operation of law. But until it came to an end by valid notice to quit or by surrender they were entitled to hold the tenant liable for rent.’
Romer LJ said: ‘A tenant who goes out of possession without giving due notice has no right to dictate to his landlord how he shall deal with his property; and why the landlords here should have disposed of the flat in a manner disadvantageous to themselves in order to save the tenant from the full consequences of his wrongful act I am at a loss to conceive.’
Denning LJ held that the law in England had developed to a point which warranted a different conclusion: ‘I know that before the Judicature Act 1873, it was said that the doctrine of covenants running with the land only applied to covenants under seal and not to agreements under hand: see Elliott v Johnson. But since the fusion of law and equity the position is different. The distinction between agreements under hand and covenants under seal has been largely obliterated. There is no valid reason nowadays why the doctrine of covenants running with the land – or with the reversion – should not apply equally to agreements under hand as to covenants under seal; and I think we should so hold, not only in the case of agreements for more than three years which need the intervention of equity to perfect them, but also in the case of agreements for three years or less which do not . .’

Denning LJ, Romer LJ
[1953] 1 QB 234
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedReichman and Another v Beveridge CA 13-Dec-2006
The defendants were tenants of the claimant. They vacated the premises and stopped paying the rent. The claimant sought payment of the arrears of rent. The defendants said that the claimants should have taken steps to reduce their damages by seeking . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 23 November 2021; Ref: scu.247623