Thetford Corporation And Others v Fiamma Spa And Others: ECJ 30 Jun 1988

The court considered a reference to the European Court on assumed facts where the domestic court had not yet established those facts.
Europa In the present state of Community law, characterized by the absence of harmonization of the patents legislation of the Member States, and in the absence of international conventions in force providing to the contrary, Article 36 of the Treaty must be interpreted as not precluding the application of a Member State’s legislation which recognizes the principle of relative novelty and provides that a patent granted for an invention may not be declared invalid by reason only of the fact that the invention in question appears in a patent specification filed more than 50 years previously. Where national law normally provides for the issue of an injunction to prevent any infringement, that measure is justified under Article 36 in so far as it aims to preserve the actual substance of the patent right.

Citations:

C-35/87, R-35/87, [1988] EUECJ R-35/87, [1987] 3 CMLR 266

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

CitedAttridge Law (A Firm of Solicitors) v Coleman and Law EAT 20-Dec-2006
The claimant asserted associative disability discrimination. She was the carer for her disabled son.
Held: To succeed the claimant would have to show that associative discrimination was prohibited by the directive and that the 1995 Act could . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Litigation Practice, Intellectual Property

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.134565

Dubai Bank v Galadari (No 6): ChD 22 Apr 1999

Morritt J said: ‘The rationale for the principle, and the decisions cited all pointed to the conclusion that communications in furtherance of a crime or fraud were not protected from disclosure if they were relevant to an issue in the action whether of not the plaintiff’s claim was founded on that crime or fraud.
Different considerations might apply to litigation privilege. It was plain from the authorities that litigation privilege was not displaced solely by virtue of the original fraud or crime: see R v Cox and Railton (at p 175); O’Rourke v Darbishire ([1920] AC 581, 622-3); R v Snaresbrook Crown Court, ex parte DPP ([1988] 1 QB 532, 537); and Francis and Francis . .
But none of those cases dealt with the situation where a client, having committed a fraud, sought to further that fraud by stifling it yet further after proceedings were anticipated or commenced by putting forward to his solicitors bogus defences.
The rationale behind the principle that by deceiving his solicitor the client deprived the communication of the necessary element of professional confidence was as applicable to communications after proceedings had been brought as to those which took place before.’

Judges:

Morritt J

Citations:

Times, 22 April 1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedOmar’s Trustees v Omar ChD 2000
A wife and mistress (D) had conspired, after the death of the husband, to remove money in bank accounts from his estate by taking the bearer shares in the company in whose name the accounts were held. The first action, in which D was legally . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Litigation Practice

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.622383

Holyoake and Another v Candy and Others: ChD 29 Apr 2016

Application for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendants from disposing, dealing or otherwise engaging in transactions with their assets in the sum of or to the value of more than 1m pounds without first giving the Claimants’ solicitors 7 days advance notice in writing.

Judges:

Nugee J

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 970 (Ch), [2018] Ch 297, [2016] WLR(D) 302, [2016] 2 All ER (Comm) 711, [2016] 3 WLR 357

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.564972

John Ruskin College v Harley: QBD 26 Nov 2013

A sum had been paid into court in 1997. Other sums were paid out, but this sum was left against costs liability. It was discovered much laterand paid out to the claimant. The former defendant now said that it had been paid out twice, and alleged dishonesty.
Held: The allegation of dishonesty was not well founded and should not have been made. Unjust enrichment was not made without proof of knowledge which was clearly not present here. However the court order in the defendant’s favour was administrative in nature, and the defendant could not rely upon it.

Judges:

Bean J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 3714 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Vexing legal scholarsMoses v Macferlan KBD 1760
An action for money had and received will only lie where it is inequitable for the defendant to retain the money. The defendant in an action for money had and received ‘can be liable no further than the money he has received’. . .
CitedMarriott v Hampton KBD 1775
The plaintiff paid for goods bought from the defendant. The defendant then brought an action for payment of the price alleging that he had not been paid. The claimant could not find his receipt for the first payment, and was ordered by the court to . .
CitedDon Nuno Alvares Pereira De Mello, Duke Of Cadaval, v Thomas Collins 27-Apr-1836
Piaintiff being a foreigner, ignorant of the English language, was arrested at Falmouth soon after his first arrival there from abroad, by defendant, for 10,0001. Defendant and plaintiff then signed an agreement, by which, in consideration of 5001. . .
CitedWilson v Ray 1-May-1839
Lord Denman CJ descirbed the pronciple establishedin Marriott: .that what a party recovers from another by legal process, without fraud, the loser shall never recover back by virtue of any facts which could have availed him in the former proceeding. . .
CitedDerry v Peek HL 1-Jul-1889
The House heard an action for damages for deceit or fraudulent misrepresentation.
Held: The court set out the requirements for fraud, saying that fraud is proved when it is shown that a false representation has been made knowingly or without . .
CitedLipkin Gorman (a Firm) v Karpnale Ltd HL 6-Jun-1991
The plaintiff firm of solicitors sought to recover money which had been stolen from them by a partner, and then gambled away with the defendant. He had purchased their gaming chips, and the plaintiff argued that these, being gambling debts, were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.518504

Northern Rock (Asset Management) Plc v Chancellors Associates Ltd: TCC 9 Dec 2011

The court considered the issue of the jurisdiction of a court of first instance to set aside a judgment obtained by a claimant following the lodging of an Acknowledgement of Service which contains an admission by the Defendant. A (not invariable) practice has grown up of the judgment being entered as if a judgment in default of Acknowledgement of Service or Defence, in effect as an administrative act by the relevant court office without the involvement of any judge.

Judges:

Akenhead J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 3229 (TCC), [2012] TCLR 1, [2012] 2 All ER 501, [2012] Bus LR D81

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.451491

International Bulk Shipping and Services Ltd v The Mineral and Metals Trading Company of India; International Bulk Shipping and Services Ltd v The President of India; Himoff Maritime Enterprises Ltd v The President of India: ComC 16 Feb 1994

cw Arbitration – award – limitation period – cause of action arising – implied promise to perform award – breach – RSC Order 15 r.6 – misjoinder and non-joinder of party – principles – RSC Order 15 r.6 – joinder of party – proceedings a nullity – no power

Judges:

Waller J

Citations:

16 February 1994, Unreported, [1996] 2 Lloyds Rep 474

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

AffirmedInternational Bulk Shipping and Services Ltd v President of India and Another CA 11-Dec-1995
Actions to enforce arbitration awards were brought, each in the name of a ship-owning company. At the time of the arbitrations the assets of each company had vested in a trustee in bankruptcy appointed under New York law, but the trustee had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Arbitration, Litigation Practice

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.182567

Greig Middleton and Company v Denderowicz and Olaleye-Oruene v London Guildhall University (No 1): CA 4 Jul 1997

Direction was given as to the circumstances allowing an appeal out of time after a change in the law affecting a decision after the judgment had been given. Corrections to Bannister v SGB plc made in respect of time calculations in County Court Rules in cases under Order 17 r 11. The rule led to actions being struck out where there had been no trial on the merits: ‘In other words, this is a quite different context in which to apply the general principle that there must be finality in litigation . . it is difficult to imagine circumstances more special than those which have flowed from the introduction of [the rule].’ An extension of time for appealing would not be given automatically. Among the factors which would strongly militate against the grant of such an extension four were lists. The first of these was any inexcusable delay in applying for an extension of time. The third was if ‘the respondent can demonstrate that he or his insurers have reasonably acted on the basis that the claim is at an end, and their affairs have been conducted on this basis or if prejudice has been suffered in any other way.’
The court emphasised the need to file an appeal within the time limit even if legal aid had not yet been granted.
The court discussed the difficulties caused by differing paragraph numbers in the reporting of judgments: ‘We authorised two versions of our judgment in Bannister to be published, one in hard copy transcript form and one on the Internet. Because the page numbering of these two versions differed and because those who downloaded the judgment from the Internet are likely to have different paging systems, we have inserted paragraph numbering into the main text of the original judgment (as opposed to its Schedules). In the Schedule to the present judgment we explain the paragraph numbering we have now adopted. It also seemed to us that it would be very much more convenient if we were to incorporate into the original text of our judgment the corrections and clarifications we have mentioned, and we have directed that it is this revised version of our judgment in Bannister, as clarified and corrected, which should appear in any official law report. We have also directed that the text of the judgment which currently appears on FELIX, the judges’ electronic communications system, and on the Internet on the website of the Lord Chancellor’s Department should be replaced by this revised version, and copies of this revised version should be sent to court administrators for distribution to judges as before. In addition, this judgment should itself be distributed on FELIX and the Internet, and to court administrators for distribution to judges.
We also believed that it would be helpful to practitioners if we were to include in our present judgment a summary of the new points decided by two-judge divisions of this court during the four weeks which followed our judgment in Bannister. Most of the cases they heard raised no new points of general interest, but a few of them did, and we are including a summary of these in the final part of this judgment.’

Judges:

Saville, Brooke, Waller LJJ

Citations:

Times 28-Jul-1997, [1997] EWCA Civ 2026, [1997] 4 All ER 181, [1998] 1 WLR 1164

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

County Court Rules 1981 Ord 17 R 11

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedBannister v SGB Plc and others and 19 Other Appeals CA 25-Apr-1997
Detailed guidance was given as to several different problems of interpretation of Order 17 r 11, dealing with automatic directions. Definitive guidelines were given for the interpretation of automatic directions and strike out provisions in the . .

Cited by:

CitedCockeril v Tambrands Limited CA 21-May-1998
Even if a case is quite unsuitable for automatic directions, the plaintiff has an obligation to apply instead for specific manual directions to stand in their stead. It would be wrong to allow a plaintiff to escape from the discipline of the . .
CitedCockerill v Tambrands Ltd; Prolaw Ltd v Adams; Jackson v Pinchbeck CA 21-May-1998
The court considered consolidated appeals relating to the use of Order 17 Rule 11. . .
See AlsoGreig Middleton and Co Ltd v Denderowicz (No 2) CA 28-Jul-1997
A claim for under pounds 3,000 in County Court is automatically referred to arbitration without the need for any order to that effect. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.142423

Autexpo v Commission C-82/87: ECJ 8 May 1987

Order – 1. As a condition for the grant of an interim measure suspending the operation of a decision, article 83(2) of the rules of procedure requires that an application for such a measure must state the factual and legal grounds establishing a prima facie case for the interim measure applied for and the circumstances giving rise to urgency. The urgency required in regard to an application for interim measures must be assessed in the light of the need to adopt such measures in order to avoid serious and irreparable damage to the party requesting those measures.
2. The issue of the admissibility of the main application should not, in principle, be examined in proceedings relating to an application for interim measures but should be reserved for the examination of the main application so as not to prejudge the substance of the case; however, where an objection is raised that the main application to which the application for interim measures is an adjunct is manifestly inadmissible, it is necessary to establish the existence of certain factors which support the conclusion that the main application is prima facie admissible.

Citations:

C-82/87, [1987] EUECJ C-82/87R

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Litigation Practice

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.134198

Buttercup Buildings Ltd v Avon Estates (London) Ltd and Others: UTLC 10 Dec 2020

LANDLORD AND TENANT – FTT PROCEDURE – whether applicant entitled to appoint a lay representative to conduct tribunal proceedings on its behalf – whether ‘conduct of litigation’ before the FTT a reserved legal activity – whether lay representative an exempt person – s.22, Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 – ss. 13, 14, 18 Legal Services Act 2007 – rule 14, Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 – appeal allowed

Citations:

[2020] UKUT 347 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant, Litigation Practice

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.656818

Libyan Investment Authority and Others v King and Others: CA 14 Dec 2020

whether the Court has power to permit the Claimants to amend so as to introduce new claims after the expiry of the limitation period – ‘In circumstances where the Court has struck out the entirety of the Claimants’ currently pleaded case, can the Court nevertheless subsequently permit new claims to be brought?’

Judges:

Lord Justice Nugee

Citations:

[2020] EWCA Civ 1690

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Limitation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.656771

Thomas v Edwards: 1834

Where the under-sheriff refuses to send his notes of the trial, a motion for a new trial must be made on affidavit of the facts.

Citations:

[1834] EngR 358, (1834) 1 CrM and R 382, (1834) 149 ER 1128 (A)

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.317035

Harcourt v FEF Griffin and others: QBD 27 Jun 2007

The claimant sought damages after being very severely injured whilst training in gymnastics at the defendant’s gym. The parties now disputed the existence of an obligation to discover to the claimant the nature and extent of insurance to cover the claim and its costs.
Held: The matter should be disclosed. This was a high value claim, and the existence of insurance was directly relevant to any award of interim damages.

Judges:

Irwin J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 1500 (QB), [2007] PIQR Q9

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Litigation Practice

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.271250

Long Beach Ltd and Another v Global Witness Ltd: QBD 26 Jul 2007

The claimants asked the court to withhold from publication reference to documents and a judgment between the parties in Hong Kong, which it said were confidential, and which the court in Hong Kong had protected.
Held: The request was not granted: ‘The Claimants sought an injunction restraining the Defendant from continuing to publish information and documents that had already been published, and which as a result of my refusal of their application it has presumably continued to publish. The great likelihood is that that information is no longer confidential.’ and ‘Comity requires this Court to respect any order of that Court, but it does not require this Court to observe an order made against a defendant which was not subject to its jurisdiction. Moreover, the Claimants have not been able to put forward any good reason, apart from the terms of the order itself, for excluding reference to that order in my principal judgment.’

Judges:

Stanley Burnton J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 1816 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedCream Holdings Limited and others v Banerjee and others HL 14-Oct-2004
On her dismissal from the claimant company, Ms Banerjee took confidential papers revealing misconduct to the local newspaper, which published some. The claimant sought an injunction to prevent any further publication. The defendants argued that the . .
CitedLord Browne of Madingley v Associated Newspapers Ltd CA 3-Apr-2007
The appellant sought to restrict publication by the defendants in the Mail on Sunday of matters which he said were a breach of confidence. He had lied to a court in giving evidence, whilst at the same time being ready to trash the reputation of his . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.258419

E v News International Ltd and others: QBD 22 Jul 2008

Application by person subject to civil proceeedings order for permission to bring claims for defamation and otherwise against the defendants.
Held: Leave was refused. The claims in relation to the hard copy articles have no real prospect of success and/or were an abuse of the process of the court, and claim in relation to the internet postings would fail for the same reasons, together with the additional reason that there is no evidence of publication.

Judges:

Coulson J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 1390 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Supreme Court Act 1981

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice, Defamation, Torts – Other

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.271043

Prince Radu of Hohenzollern v Houston and Another: QBD 7 Mar 2006

The claimant resided in Romania, and sought damages for libel. The magazine had obtained an order for security for costs. An offer had been made to cover the sum ordered, and no stifling could now happen.
Held: Any order for security costs in such a situation should be limited to a sum to represent the additional cost which will be incurred in the process of enforcement. Romania’s accession to the European Union, which would ease collection of any award, was not yet concluded. The proper level of security to be requested was andpound;80,000.

Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 231 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedM V Yorke Motors v Edwards HL 1982
A sale of a second hand Rolls Royce had gone wrong. The plaintiff was claiming damages of 23,250 pounds. The plaintiff sought Order 14 summary judgment. That was refused, and the Master gave leave to defend without any conditions. The plaintiff . .
CitedNasser v United Bank of Kuwait CA 21-Dec-2001
The claimant appealed against a decision to strike out her claim for want of prosecution, and a failure to pay a sum ordered as security for costs. She had put jewelry with the defendants for safe keeping, and alleged it had been stolen. The lock on . .
CitedAl-Koronky and Another v Time Life Entertainment Group Ltd and Another QBD 29-Jul-2005
The defendant to the defamation claim sought security for costs. There had been allegations of dishonesty on either side.
Held: The court should not, upon such an application, enter into the merits of the case in any detail, save in the . .
CitedTexuna International Ltd v Cairn Energy Plc ComC 17-May-2004
Where the court concludes that it may be effectively impossible to enforce an order for payment of costs, then this situation would provide ‘an objective justification for the court exercising its discretion to make an order for payment of the full . .
CitedLadd v Marshall CA 29-Nov-1954
Conditions for new evidence on appeal
At the trial, the wife of the appellant’s opponent said she had forgotten certain events. After the trial she began divorce proceedings, and informed the appellant that she now remembered. He sought either to appeal admitting fresh evidence, or for . .
CitedHammond Suddard, Solicitors v Agrichem International Holdings Limited CA 18-Dec-2001
The appellant sought staying the order for him to pay costs pending the results of an appeal, and the respondent sought security for costs in fighting the appeal, and a striking out in default of payment, and for security for payment of the . .
CitedContract Facilities Ltd v Estate of Rees(dec’d) and others CA 23-Jul-2003
Where a stay is sought, all the circumstances must be considered. The court must consider whether the appeal would be stifled. One must not only look at the means of the appellant himself but also consider whether the money could be raised from . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromRadu, Prince of Hohenzollern v Houston and Another CA 27-Jul-2006
. .
See AlsoPrince Radu of Hohenzollern v Houston and Another QBD 12-Oct-2007
. .
See AlsoPrince Radu of Hohenzollern v Houston and Another QBD 23-Nov-2007
. .
See AlsoPrince Radu of Hohenzollern v Houston and Another CA 15-Jul-2008
The defendant appealed from a decision that the occasion of publication was not privileged. He sought Reynolds protection.
Held: Appeal dismissed. . .
See AlsoPrince Radu of Hohenzollern v Houston and Another (No 4) QBD 4-Mar-2009
Orders were sought to strike out part of the defendants defence of justification to an allegation of defamation.
Held: Where there remains the possibility of a jury trial, it becomes especially important to identify the issues the jurors are . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.238934

Trunk Flooring Ltd v HSBC Asset Finance (Uk) Ltd: CANI 11 Nov 2015

Appeal by the second defendant from a decision acceding to the plaintiff respondent’s application for removal of a stay of proceedings granted to the appellant for referral of a dispute between the parties to arbitration.

Citations:

[2015] NICA 68

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Northern Ireland

Litigation Practice

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.560585

Landaur Limited v Cummings and Co: 4 May 1991

An inadvertent destruction of documents may have the same consequences visited on the party as a deliberate destruction.

Citations:

Unreported, 4 May 1991

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedBilta (Uk) Ltd v Nazir and Others ChD 24-Nov-2010
The company had been wound up by the Revenue on the basis that it had been used for a substantial VAT fraud. The liquidators now sued those said to have participated. A defendant denied the jurisdiction because of a disputed arbitration agreement. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.565822

De Gezamenlijke Steenkolenmijnen In Limburg v ECSC High Authority: ECJ 24 Mar 1960

(Order only) The government of the Federal Republic of Germany is, for the purpose of making its submissions in support of its conclusions during the written procedure, required to use the language of the case used in the main action, namely Dutch; but is authorized to use the german language for the oral procedure.

Citations:

C-30/59, [1960] EUECJ C-30/59, [1961] EUECJ C-30/59

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

European, Litigation Practice

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131607

Yukong Lines v Rendsburg Investment Corporation: CA 17 Oct 1996

An order for cross examination in an application for a Mareva order is exceptional, but permissible if it is just and convenient that such an order should be made. In applying the test of whether it would be ‘just and convenient’ to make the order, Phillips LJ said: ‘In my judgment the test is simply whether, in all the circumstances, it is both just and convenient to make the order. In applying this test the court will have regard to the fact that it is a very considerable imposition to subject a defendant to cross-examination and consider carefully whether or not alternative means of achieving the same end that are less burdensome. The Court has to weigh the various options in order to decide which best meet the dual requirements of justice and convenience.’

Judges:

Phillips LJ, Toulson J

Citations:

Times 22-Oct-1996, [1996] EWCA Civ 759, [1998] 1 WLR 294

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedKensington International Ltd v Republic of Congo and Another ComC 20-Jul-2006
The claimant sought leave to cross examine an officer of the defendant in connection with his affidavit sworn in search order proceedings. The case had a history of deceit and dishonest oral evidence.
Held: Though such an order would be . .
See AlsoYukong Lines Ltd v Rendsburg Investments Corporation and Others (No 2) QBD 23-Sep-1997
Repudiation by charterer: Funds were transferred by a charterer’s ‘alter ego’ to another company controlled by him with intent to defeat owner’s claim – whether ‘alter ego’ acting as undisclosed principal of charterer – whether permissible to pierce . .
CitedJSC BTA Bank v Mukhtar Ablyazov and Others QBD 16-Oct-2009
Application by the claimants for an order that the first defendant attend for cross-examination upon his affidavits as to assets and as to his answers to questions posed. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.90680

Worsley v Tambrands Ltd: CA 3 Dec 1999

The claimant sought damages following injury after the use of tampons. The matters were all defended. The judge, in an attempt to restrict the costs, agreed to hear a preliminary issue as to the adequacy of the warnings given.
Held: Such decisions should only be interfered with where clearly wrong, but in this case, the issues could not be taken out of order, and the issue of causation was not settled.

Judges:

Ebsworth J

Citations:

Gazette 17-Dec-1999, Times 11-Feb-2000, [1999] EWHC 273 (QB), [2000] PIQR P95

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Consumer Protection Act 1987 1 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice, Consumer, Personal Injury

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.90614

Sweetman v Shepherd and others: CA 24 Mar 2000

The rule that a claimant must bring his entire case in one action should not be extended to prevent a defendant from bringing a subsequent action against a former co-defendant for an indemnity or contribution, even though that claim might have been made in the first proceedings. The overriding objective of the court is to achieve justice for the parties.

Citations:

Times 29-Mar-2000, Gazette 06-Apr-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 91

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89656

Victor Chandler International v Commissioners of Customs and Excise and another: CA 8 Mar 2000

A teletext page can be a document for gaming licensing purposes. A bookmaker sought to advertise his services via a teletext page. His services were not licensed in this country, but the advertisements were. It was held that despite the insubstantial nature of a teletext broadcast, the page constituted, sufficiently for the Act, ‘an advertisement or other document . . issued circulated or distributed’ in the UK. The page held recorded information. The page was within the mischief contemplated. Chadwick LJ: The error in his reasoning, as it seems to me, was to regard the transmission of electronic impulses from one electronic database to another as the transmission of ‘information’ as if that were something distinct from the transmission of a ‘document’. The true analysis is that the transmission of electronic impulses is simply that: it is nothing more nor less than the transmission of electronic impulses. It is the combination of those impulses within co-ordinates and groups that may convey information. If the impulses are transmitted to a system which is capable of receiving and storing them in the same, or some derivative, combination – so that they can be analysed or ‘read’ – then it may be said that a document is created in or on the recipient database. It is as apt to describe the process as the transmission of a document as it is to describe it as the transmission of information. Indeed, it is now a matter of common parlance to talk of ‘sending a document’ from one computer to another. But what is really happening is that, by the transmission of electronic impulses in a combination, or ‘language’, which the recipient system can read, the sender is creating a document on the recipient database.

Judges:

Sir Richard Scott, Lord Justice Chadwick, Lord Justice Buxton

Citations:

Times 08-Mar-2000, Gazette 16-Mar-2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 299, [2000] 1 WLR 1296

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Betting and Gaming Duties Act 1981 9(1)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromVictor Chandler International v Commissioners of Customs and Excise and Another ChD 17-Aug-1999
A document is a material object. A form presented as a screen via Teletext did not constitute an ‘advertisement or document’ under the Act, and its circulation within the UK without a licence was not an offence. The prohibition was against . .
CitedDerby and Co Ltd And Others v Weldon And Others (No 9) ChD 25-Jul-1990
The court considered the application of rules relating to the discovery of documents to material held on computer: ‘the database of a computer, so far as it contained information capable of being retrieved and converted into readable form, and . .
CitedRollo v HM Advocate 1997
The court discussed the nature of a document as applied to an electronic notebook seized under the 1971 Act: ‘It seems to us that the essential essence of a document is that it is something containing recorded information of some sort. It does not . .
CitedRegina v Westminster City Council and others ex parte M, P, A and X CA 1997
Destitute asylum-seekers could derive benefit from section 21.
Held: ‘The destitute condition to which asylum-seekers can be reduced as a result of the 1996 Act coupled with the period of time which, despite the Secretary of State’s best . .
CitedRegina v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council, ex parte M; Regina v Similar Ex Parte P etc QBD 8-Oct-1996
Destitute asylum seekers who were not entitled to welfare benefits could be in need of care and attention within the meaning of section 21 of the 1948 Act although they were no longer entitled to housing assistance or other social security benefits . .
CitedFitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Association CA 23-Jul-1997
A homosexual partner of a deceased tenant was not a member of that tenant’s family so as to entitle him to inherit the Rent Act tenancy on the death of his partner. . .
CitedFitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Association Ltd HL 28-Oct-1999
Same Sex Paartner to Inherit as Family Member
The claimant had lived with the original tenant in a stable and long standing homosexual relationship at the deceased’s flat. After the tenant’s death he sought a statutory tenancy as a spouse of the deceased. The Act had been extended to include as . .
CitedAlliance and Leicester Building Society v Ghahremani and others 1992
The court rejected a submission that Mr Justice Vinelott’s view as to the scope of the word ‘document’ was restricted to questions of discovery under the rules of court. He applied the extended meaning of a document described to the question of . .

Cited by:

CitedOxfordshire County Council v Oxford City Council and others HL 24-May-2006
Application had been made to register as a town or village green an area of land which was largely a boggy marsh. The local authority resisted the application wanting to use the land instead for housing. It then rejected advice it received from a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Media, Licensing, Litigation Practice

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.90161

UYB Ltd v British Railways Board: CA 15 Nov 2000

When disallowing interest on a claim, the judge refused to allow the admission of the plaintiff’s expert report on quantum, dated two years before the writ, in rebuttal of the respondent’s assertion, that they had not known of the amount claimed until immediately before the action.
Held: The draft had been marked without prejudice, and it was against public policy to discourage attempts to settle actions without litigation by allowing reference to such documents. The draft remained a draft, and the figures were in fact different from those ultimately disclosed. The judge was correct not to allow the report to be admitted.

Citations:

Times 15-Nov-2000, Gazette 02-Nov-2000, Gazette 09-Nov-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 265

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice, Damages

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.90095

Steele v Steele: ChD 5 Jun 2001

The court gave the following points for consideration as to whether to order determination of a preliminary issue. Could the determination of a preliminary issue dispose of the whole or any part of the case, or could it significantly reduce the costs? If it related to an issue of law, what was the extent of factual differences to be settled before that issue could be presented, or to what extent were the facts agreed? Would the process unreasonably fetter either party or the court later in the case? Might the enquiry increase costs, or delay, or lead to amendments in the pleadings, and was it just or right to order trial of the preliminary issue?

Citations:

Times 05-Jun-2001

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89533

Stevens v School of Oriental and African Studies and others: ChD 2 Feb 2001

It was not unfair or a denial of the applicant’s human rights, to strike out a second action which differed only marginally in the parties involved, from an earlier action already struck out by the court for delay, and where the claimant had not yet satisfied a costs order made against him arising from that earlier action.

Citations:

Times 02-Feb-2001

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Natural Justice, Litigation Practice, Human Rights

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89548

Starmer v Bradbury: CA 4 Apr 1994

District Judge holding arbitration has full discretion as to conduct of case. Validity of patent is res judicata – not to be re-opened. An appeal against a small claims arbitration must be for misconduct only and not on the facts.

Citations:

Times 11-Apr-1994, Ind Summary 04-Apr-1994, [1994] FSR 458

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89506

SmithKline Beecham Biologicals SA v Connaught Laboratories Inc: CA 7 Jul 1999

Changes in court procedure where judges now read rather more before hand to save court time could lead to confusion as to what of the paperwork before the court was now deemed to have been read in open court and therefore in the public domain. The change in practice should not change the law. Papers upon which a patent revocation was based were in the public domain even when not read out.
Lord Bingham CJ said: ‘Since the date when Lord Scarman expressed doubt in Home Office v Harman as to whether expedition would always be consistent with open justice, the practices of counsel preparing skeleton arguments, chronologies and reading guides, and judges pre-reading documents (including witness statements) out of court, have become much more common. These methods of saving time in court are now not merely permitted, but are positively required, by practice directions. The result is that a case may be heard in such a way that even an intelligent and well-informed member of the public, present throughout every hearing in open court, would be unable to obtain a full understanding of the documentary evidence and the arguments on which the case was to be decided.
In such circumstances there may be some degree of unreality in the proposition that the material documents in the case have (in practice as well as in theory) passed into the public domain. That is a matter which gives rise to concern . . As the court’s practice develops it will be necessary to give appropriate weight to both efficiency and openness of justice, with Lord Scarman’s warning in mind. Public access to documents referred to in open court (but not in fact read aloud and comprehensively in open court) may be necessary, with suitable safeguards, to avoid too wide a gap between what has in theory, and what has in practice, passed into the public domain.’

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill LCJ, Otton, Robert WalkerLJJ

Citations:

Times 13-Jul-1999, [1999] 4 All ER 498, [1999] EWCA Civ 1781, (2000) 51 BMLR 91, [1999] CPLR 505, [2000] FSR 1

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Patents Act 1977

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedChan v Alvis Vehicles Ltd and Another ChD 8-Dec-2004
The parties had had a part trial, and settled. The Gardian Newspaper now applied for disclosure of various documents to support a proposed news story. The parties had disputed payment to the claimant of commissions on the sales of military vehicles . .
CitedAlbion Plc v Walker Morris (A Firm) CA 19-Mar-2006
The court was asked whether defendant firm of solicitors should be prevented from acting for potential conflict of interest. They sought leave to appeal an order restraining them from acting. They had acted in two similar matters for the client . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89350

Cary v Commissioner of Police for The Metropolis Equality and Human Rights Commission: CA 17 Jul 2014

In a claim for sex discrimination by the police the court was asked whether the judge in the Central London County Court was right to overrule Mr Cary’s objection to a particular individual acting as an assessor on the ground that, for this type of case, an assessor is required to have specific experience and expertise in relation to issues of discrimination on the grounds of same sex sexual orientation.

Citations:

[2014] EWCA Civ 987, [2014] WLR(D) 320, [2014] CP Rep 42, [2015] ICR 71, [2014] Eq LR 707

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Discrimination, Litigation Practice

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.534415

Temporal v Temporal: 1990

A mandatory order is not enforceable by committal unless it specifies the time for compliance

Citations:

[1990] 2 FLR 98

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedJones, Re (Alleged Contempt of Court) FD 21-Aug-2013
The Solicitor General sought the committal of the respondent for alleged contempt of court. There had been repeated litigation between the respondent and her former husband as to whether the children should live in Spain with the father or in Wales . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contempt of Court, Litigation Practice

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.514939

North West Water Ltd v Binnie and Partners: 1990

In relation to court proceedings, it can be an abuse of process for a defendant to seek to reopen issues decided against it as defendant in previous court proceedings.

Citations:

[1990] 3 All ER 547

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedOMV Petrom Sa v Glencore International Ag ComC 7-Feb-2014
The claimant sought to have struck out as abuse of process parts of the defence, saying that the factual issues raised had already been resolved in arbitration proceedings, but as against a different oarty. The defendant replied that the arbitration . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.521109

Triebner v Soddy: 1837

A person who obtains goods on contract, not having the means nor the intention of paying for them, is a competent witness in an action of trover by the person of whom he obtained them, to recover possession of them from a person to whom he parted with them at a less price than he had engaged to pay for them.

Citations:

[1837] EngR 323, (1837) 7 Car and P 718, (1837) 173 ER 314

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice, Torts – Other

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.313440

Dubai Bank Ltd v Galadari (No 2): CA 1990

An ex parte Mareva injunction had been obtained. It was said that there had been material non-disclosure of important facts. The plaintiff bank had been under the control of the Galadaris between 1970 and 1985, when it was taken over by the Government of Dubai. The bank complained that large amounts of interest on certain deposits had been unlawfully diverted into their own pockets. The bank obtained an ex parte Mareva injunction and ancillary orders for disclosure of assets, but this was later discharged by Morritt J. on the grounds that important facts known to the Government of Dubai had not been disclosed.
Held: The court refused to interfere with his exercise of his discretion. It was submitted on behalf of the bank that even where there had been non-disclosure on an ex parte application, the court should only discharge an injunction or refuse to continue an injunction if the court was satisfied that the non-disclosure was a deliberate attempt to mislead the court or a wilful failure to inquire as to the obvious. The phrase ‘whose . . affidavits’ extends to any affidavit sworn by a deponent who is not a party, but which is procured by and filed or used on behalf of a party. A copy of an unprivileged document does not become privileged merely because the copy is made for litigious purposes.
Dillon LJ said: ‘It is now accepted in this Court that, even if there has been material non-disclosure, the Court has a discretion whether or not to discharge an order obtained ex parte and a discretion whether or not to grant fresh injunctive relief Discharge of the order is not automatic on any non-disclosure being established of any fact known to the applicant which is found by the Court to have been material.’
Staughton LJ said that the bank had put forward a good arguable case, and a prima facie case for likelihood of dissipation: ‘In any event there was also non-disclosure to be considered before the injunction was continued. The authorities show plainly that non-disclosure will, in an appropriate case, not only be a ground for discharging an ex parte order, but also a ground for refusing to make a fresh order inter partes. At least in one respect there was here non-disclosure which was in my view both serious and culpable. The Galadaris had specified what they said was their defence to the claim, and there can scarcely be any more important topic of disclosure than that. As to culpability, it is said the Dubai Bank did not know the facts, and that those whom they consulted in the Government of Dubai had forgotten them. But the letters were still in the Government’s possession . . Once serious and culpable non-disclosure was established, the Judge had a balancing task to perform. On the one hand if justice required that a fresh injunction should be granted (which in the Judge’s view it did not, but the contrary was arguable), it might be thought unjust to refuse one on the grounds of non-disclosure. On the other hand the Courts must uphold and enforce the duty of disclosure, as a deterrent to others, if they are not to be deceived on ex parte applications. The conflict between those principles is well illustrated in a passage from the judgment of Lord Justice Woolf in the Behbehani case.’

Judges:

Slade LJ, Dillon LJ

Citations:

[1990] 1 WLR 731, [1990] Ch 98, [1990] 1 Lloyds Rep 120

Statutes:

RSC (NI) Order Rulle 11

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedTweed v Parades Commission for Northern Ireland HL 13-Dec-2006
(Northern Ireland) The applicant sought judicial review of a decision not to disclose documents held by the respondent to him saying that the refusal was disproportionate and infringed his human rights. The respondents said that the documents were . .
CitedExpandable Ltd and Another v Rubin CA 11-Feb-2008
The defendant’s witness statement referred to a letter written to him by the defendant’s solicitor. The claimant appealed refusal of an order for its disclosure.
Held: The appeal failed. The letter was protected by legal professional . .
See AlsoDubai Bank Ltd v Galadari CA 1990
A document created with a view to its being submitted to solicitors for advice does not, despite its purpose, attract privilege, even though the ‘pre-existing documents, and even documents on public records, have been selected by a solicitor for the . .
CitedExpandable Ltd and Another v Rubin CA 11-Feb-2008
The defendant’s witness statement referred to a letter written to him by the defendant’s solicitor. The claimant appealed refusal of an order for its disclosure.
Held: The appeal failed. The letter was protected by legal professional . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Litigation Practice

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.247440

L v United Kingdom: ECHR 2000

The court coinsidered a claim for the privilege against self-incrimination: ‘As held in Saunders v. United Kingdom . . the right not to incriminate oneself is primarily concerned with respecting the will of the accused person to remain silent and does not extend to the use in criminal proceedings of material which may be obtained from the accused through the use of compulsory powers and which has an existence independent of the will of the accused . . eg documents, breath, blood, urine and tissue samples).’

Citations:

[2000] 2 FLR 322

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

CitedC Plc and W v P and Secretary of State for the Home Office and the Attorney General ChD 26-May-2006
The claimant sought damages from the first defendant for breach of copyright. An ex parte search order had been executed, with the defendant asserting his privilege against self-incrimination. As computer disks were examined, potentially unlawful . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Human Rights

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.242452

Clark v Braintree Clinical Services Ltd: QBD 9 Nov 2015

Claimant’s application for an order debarring the defendant from relying on the second report from their expert and the defendant’s application to withdraw its ‘admission’ in relation to breach of duty in para 5 of their defence.

Judges:

Burrell QC HHJ

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 3181 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice, Professional Negligence

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.555024

Omar’s Trustees v Omar: ChD 2000

A wife and mistress (D) had conspired, after the death of the husband, to remove money in bank accounts from his estate by taking the bearer shares in the company in whose name the accounts were held. The first action, in which D was legally represented, had proceeded to judgment. The second action was a claim for fraud against D and others which was ongoing. Soon after the second action was commenced, D became bankrupt on her own petition. An order had been made for D’s private examination. Her trustee in bankruptcy had obtained possession of all the papers held by D’s previous solicitors. The trustee applied to the court for a direction that he be permitted to provide any documents he had received, including documents in respect of which D claimed privilege, to the administrators for the purposes of (i) the private examination and (ii) the second action. Two issues arose: whether the proposed uses of the documents, and in particular the use in the second action, was for the proper purposes of the bankruptcy, and whether the fraud exception to privilege applied.
Held: Jacob J answered ‘Yes’ to both questions, and ordered disclosure of documents used by the mistress’s previous lawyers for the advancement of her defence at the trial because she had been using her lawyers, who were innocent of any dishonesty, to advance a fraudulent defence in the course of which she perjured herself.
Although using to section 311(1), the trustee had taken possession of ‘papers in respect of which D claimed privilege, or more accurately, would have claimed privilege if they had not passed to the trustee’, and referred to ‘documents which, but for the bankruptcy, would be the subject of privilege’, the court did not find that the benefit of the privilege had passed to the trustee. Jacob J proceeded on the basis that, although it was no answer to the trustee’s claim for possession of the documents, D would continue to be entitled to maintain her privilege, and in particular to do so in the second action, unless the fraud exception applied: ‘Thus, if the matter had stood as simply between the administrators and Diana, I would have required disclosure. That being so, there is no reason for the court to say that the trustee should not do that which he thinks is best in the administration of his office.’

Judges:

Jacob J

Citations:

[2000] BCC 434

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedChandler v Church 1987
(New Zealand) Disclosure was sought of papers said to be protected by litigation privilege on the basis of an exception because of alleged fraud.
Hoffmann J said: ‘The principle on which the plaintiffs seek disclosure is that laid down in the . .
CitedDubai Bank v Galadari (No 6) ChD 22-Apr-1999
Morritt J said: ‘The rationale for the principle, and the decisions cited all pointed to the conclusion that communications in furtherance of a crime or fraud were not protected from disclosure if they were relevant to an issue in the action whether . .

Cited by:

CitedKuwait Airways Corporation v Iraqi Airways Company (No 6) CA 16-Mar-2005
The defendant company appealed against an order allowing inspection of documents for which litigation privilege had been claimed. It was said that the defendants had been involved in perjury in previous proceedings between the parties.
Held: . .
CitedShlosberg v Avonwick Holdings Ltd and Others ChD 5-May-2016
Application by a bankrupt, for an order directing that the Second Respondent should cease acting as solicitors for both the First Respondent (‘Avonwick’) and the Third Respondents, Moore Stephens LLP, his joint trustees in bankruptcy.
Held: . .
CitedDadourian Group International Inc and others v Simms and others ChD 25-Jul-2008
Applications arising from disclosure of documents . .
CitedJSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov and Others ComC 8-Aug-2014
The Claimant sought disclosure from the First and Second Respondents of documents relating to their assets which would attract legal professional privilege unless falling within the iniquity exception to such privilege, and which are currently held . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Legal Professions

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.224370

Chandler v Church: 1987

(New Zealand) Disclosure was sought of papers said to be protected by litigation privilege on the basis of an exception because of alleged fraud.
Hoffmann J said: ‘The principle on which the plaintiffs seek disclosure is that laid down in the classic judgment of Stephen J in R v. Cox and Railton (1884) 14 QBD 153, namely that privilege does not attach to a communication between a client and his legal adviser ‘intended to facilitate or to guide the client in the commission of a crime or fraud’. This principle applies not only when the legal adviser is party to the crime or fraud but also when he is ignorant of the purpose for which his advice or assistance is being asked. As Stephen J said, in neither case can the client have been consulting his adviser in a confidential professional capacity: ‘The client must either conspire with his solicitor or deceive him.”

Judges:

Hoffmann J

Citations:

(1987) 177 NLJ 451

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina v Cox and Railton 1884
(Court for Crown Cases Reserved) The defendants were charged with conspiracy to defraud a judgment creditor of the fruits of a judgment by dishonestly backdating a dissolution of their partnership to a date prior to a bill of sale given by Railton . .

Cited by:

CitedKuwait Airways Corporation v Iraqi Airways Company (No 6) CA 16-Mar-2005
The defendant company appealed against an order allowing inspection of documents for which litigation privilege had been claimed. It was said that the defendants had been involved in perjury in previous proceedings between the parties.
Held: . .
CitedOmar’s Trustees v Omar ChD 2000
A wife and mistress (D) had conspired, after the death of the husband, to remove money in bank accounts from his estate by taking the bearer shares in the company in whose name the accounts were held. The first action, in which D was legally . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Legal Professions

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.224369

Williams and Humbert Ltd v W and H Trade Marks (Jersey) Ltd: HL 1986

There had been an expropriation by Spanish decrees of shares in a Spanish company whose English subsidiary had rights in trade marks which it had sold to a Jersey company. The Spanish and English companies sought certain relief in relation to the trade marks, but the dispossessed proprietors sought to argue that the Spanish decrees should not be recognised because they were penal or confiscatory. The defence was rejected on the ground that the claimants’ case did not depend on the Spanish decrees, but arose under the general law. The House considered the rule that an English court could not be used to enforce the collection of foreign taxes. Lord Mackay looked at the authorities: ‘From the decision in the Buchanan case [1955] AC 516 counsel for the appellants sought to derive a general principle that even when an action is raised at the instance of a legal person distinct from the foreign government and even where the cause of action relied upon does not depend to any extent on the foreign law in question nevertheless if the action is brought at the instigation of the foreign government and the proceeds of the action would be applied by the foreign government for the purposes of a penal revenue or other public law of the foreign State relief cannot be given. It has to be observed that in the Buchanan case the action was being pursued by a person whose title as liquidator of the company depended on his having been appointed by a petition to the court in Scotland on behalf of the Inland Revenue, that the ground of action was that the transactions being attacked in the proceedings in Dublin were ultra vires and dishonest because there existed at the time that they were effected in Scotland a claim by the Inland Revenue which the transactions were designed to defeat, and that if no such claim existed the defendant would have been entitled to retain the subject matter of the claim. Most important there was an outstanding revenue claim in Scotland against the company which the whole proceeds of the action apart from the expenses of the action and the liquidation would be used to meet. No other interest was involved. That this was regarded as of critical importance appears from what was said in the decision on appeal by Maguire CJ, at p.533
Having regard to the questions before this House in Government of India v Taylor [1955] AC 491 I consider that it cannot be said that any approval was given by the House to the decision in the Buchanan case except to the extent that it held that there is a rule of law which precludes a state from suing in another state for taxes due under the law of the first state. No countenance was given in Government of India v Taylor , in Rossano’s case [1963] 2 QB 352 nor in Brokaw v Seatrain UK Ltd. [1971] 2 QB 476 to the suggestion that an action in this country could be properly described as the indirect enforcement of a penal or revenue law in another country when no claim under that law remained unsatisfied. The existence of such unsatisfied claim to the satisfaction of which the proceeds of the action will be applied appears to me to be an essential feature of the principle enunciated in the Buchanan case [1955] AC 516 for refusing to allow the action to succeed.’
Lord Templeman said: ‘This rule with regard to revenue laws may in the future be modified by international convention or by the laws of the European Economic Community in order to prevent fraudulent practices which damage all States and benefit no State. But at present the international law with regard to the non-enforcement of revenue and penal laws is absolute.’
Lord Templeman said that the striking out of a pleading was discretionary, and: ‘if an application to strike out involves a prolonged and serious argument, the judge should, as a general rule, decline to proceed with the argument unless he not only harbours doubts about the soundness of a pleading but, in addition, is satisfied that striking out will obviate the necessity for a trial, or will substantially reduce the burden of preparing for a trial, or the burden of the trial itself.’

Judges:

Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Lord Templeman

Citations:

[1986] AC 368, [1986] 1 All ER 129, [1986] 2 WLR 24

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedPeter Buchanan Limited and Macharg v McVey 1954
(Supreme Court of Ireland) The plaintiff was a company registered in Scotland put into compulsory liquidation by the revenue under a substantial claim for excess profits tax and income tax. The liquidator was really a nominee of the revenue. The . .
CitedGovernment of India v Taylor HL 1955
The Government of India sought to prove in the voluntary liquidation of a company registered in the United Kingdom but trading in India for a sum due in respect of Indian income tax, including capital gains tax, which arose on the sale of the . .

Cited by:

CitedQRS 1 APS and others v Frandsen CA 21-May-1999
The appellants were all Danish companies put into liquidation for asset stripping in contravention of Danish law. The respondent was resident in the UK and had owned them. The Danish tax authorities issued tax demands and the liquidators now sought . .
CitedMbasogo, President of the State of Equatorial Guinea and Another v Logo Ltd and others CA 23-Oct-2006
Foreign Public Law Not Enforceable Here
The claimant alleged a conspiracy by the defendants for his overthrow by means of a private coup d’etat. The defendants denied that the court had jurisdiction. The claimants appealed dismissal of their claim to damages.
Held: The claims were . .
CitedBelhaj and Another v Straw and Others SC 17-Jan-2017
The claimant alleged complicity by the defendant, (now former) Foreign Secretary, in his mistreatment by the US while held in Libya. He also alleged involvement in his unlawful abduction and removal to Libya, from which had had fled for political . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Taxes Management, International, Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.225458

Regina v Lichfield District Council and Another; Ex Parte Lichfield Securities Ltd: CA 30 Mar 2001

The rules required a judge at trial on a judicial review case to consider the issue of whether there had been any undue delay in bringing the case. Nevertheless, where this issue had already been fully argued at a preliminary hearing, the judge could properly exclude a further attempt to argue the point. The judge’s duties as case manager required him to consider whether new material was to be introduced, or a different aspect was to be put, some relevant matter had been overlooked by the first judge, or he had said that it might be reconsidered at trial.

Citations:

Times 30-Mar-2001, Gazette 26-Apr-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 304

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromRegina v Lichfield District Council Christopher John Nanscawen Williams and ex parte Lichfield Securities Limited Admn 1-Apr-1999
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Litigation Practice, Planning

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.88537

Regina v Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council, ex parte McCarthy and Stone (Developments) Ltd: HL 14 Nov 1991

A Local Authority was not able to impose charge for inquiries as to speculative developments and similar proposals, or for consultations, and pre-planning advice. There was no statutory authority for such a charge, and it was therefore unlawful and ultra vires. A power to charge did not arise by necessary implication. The words ‘necessary implication’ imposed a test more rigorous than that which would be satisfied by what is reasonable, conducive, or incidental.

Judges:

Lord Lowry

Citations:

Gazette 22-Jan-1992, [1992] 2 AC 48, [1989] UKHL 4, [1991] 3 WLR 941

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Local Government Act 1972 111(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedAttorney-General v Wilts United Dairies Ltd CA 1921
The Food Controller had been given power under the Defence of the Realm Acts to regulate milk sales. In granting the dairy a licence to buy milk in Cornwall, Devon, Dorset and Somerset, the Food Controller required the Dairy to pay 2d. per imperial . .
Appeal fromThe London Borough of Barnet v Secretary of State for the Home Department, McCarthy and Stone (Developments) Ltd Admn 23-Aug-2001
The applicant sought to quash a decision letter. It had wanted to create a development, but the local authority considered it had not met the requirement to include affordable housing. It was agreed that a need existed for affordable housing, and . .

Cited by:

CitedSPH (Scotland) Ltd v Edinburgh City Council OHCS 25-Jun-2003
The respondent council was regularly asked to provide information by way of search information, and sought to charge a fee for the purpose.
Held: The provision of the information was discretionary and not in pursuance of any explicit power. . .
CitedRoberts 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: . .
CitedDixon and Another, Regina (on the application of ) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs QBD 10-Apr-2002
The applicants were farmers. Their cattle were destroyed after contracting foot and mouth disease. Their land was used for the burning of the carcasses of their animals, and of animals from neighbouring farms. They were compensated inter alia for . .
CitedFeakins and Another v Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Civ 1513) CA 9-Dec-2005
The department complained that the defendants had entered into a transaction with their farm at an undervalue so as to defeat its claim for recovery of sums due. The transaction used the grant of a tenancy by the first chargee.
Held: The . .
CitedO’Brien and others v Independent Assessor HL 14-Mar-2007
The claimants had been wrongly imprisoned for a murder they did not commit. The assessor had deducted from their compensation a sum to represent the living costs they would have incurred if living freely. They also appealed differences from a . .
CitedNational Secular Society and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Bideford Town Council Admn 10-Feb-2012
The claimant challenged the placing of a prayer on the agenda of the respondent’s meetings.
Held: The claim succeeded. The placing of such elements on the Agenda was outside the powers given to the Council, and the action was ultra vires: . .
CitedDillner, Regina (on The Application of) v Sheffield City Council Admn 27-Apr-2016
The claimant challenged the policy of the respondent council to replace many established trees along streets in the City.
Held: Permission to apply for review was refused: ‘Some concern has been expressed by objectors to the scheme that, in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Local Government, Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.87631

Re Palmer (A Deceased Debtor), Palmer v Palmer: CA 6 Apr 1994

Property had been conveyed to the deceased and the appellant, his widow, to be held as joint tenants. The deceased dies whilst under investigation for defalcations as a solicitor, and an insolvency administration order was obtained in the estate. The wife argued that by the doctrine of survivorship the house was already hers. The administrator said that the effect of the order was backdated so as to have severed the joint tenancy before the death, and that therefore the deceased’s interest passed into the administration.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The rule that a judicial act takes effect from the first moment of the day on which it is made is not universal. ‘the time has come to say the fiction should have no place when the true facts are known, at least in cases where the court’s jurisdiction is concerned. . . The respondent’s submission in the present case is that the insolvency administration order which was made on the 17th August 1991 is deemed by paragraph 12 of the 1986 Order (Sch.1 Part II) to take effect for the purposes of the vesting of property in the trustee as if it had been made on 22 November 1990, the date of Mr Palmer’s death. To this statutory fiction, it is submitted, must be added the common law fiction that the Order was made at the earliest moment of that day, and therefore whilst Mr Palmer was alive.’ The submission failed.

Judges:

Balcomve LJ, Evans LJ, Roch LJ

Citations:

Independent 06-Apr-1994, [1994] EWCA Civ 15

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Insolvency Act 1986 421

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromIn Re Palmer, Deceased (A Debtor) ChD 25-Mar-1994
The court considered the effect of the doctrine of relation back on a property of which the bankrupt was formerly a joint tenant where the bankrupt had died after the act of bankruptcy but before adjudication.
Held: A deceased’s share in . .
CitedWilliams v Hensman 10-Jun-1861
A fund of money was bequeathed on trust to be invested so as to generate an income payable to A ‘the principal to go to her children at her death’.
Held: The will created a joint tenancy. The court set out three ways in which a joint tenancy . .
CitedBurgess v Rawnsley CA 15-Apr-1975
. .
CitedWright v Mills 1859
A judgment was signed when the Court’s offices opened at 11 am but the defendant had died at 9.30 the same morning. The Court held that the judgment was regular, applying the rule that judicial acts, being acts of the Crown, have precedence over . .
CitedEdwards v Regina CExc 1854
The process of execution in respect of a Crown debt prevailed over the transfer of the personal estate of a bankrupt to an official assignee which took place earlier on the same day. Significantly, the Court’s judgment added that even if the . .
CitedShelley’s case; Wolfe v Shelley 1581
If it is possible to do so, every word in a deed must be given effect. A judgment and the process known as recovery were effective even though the defendant had died in the early morning of the day on which, after his death, the court orders were . .
CitedClarke v Bradlaugh CA 1881
The defendant had sat and voted in parliament without taking the statutory oath. The writ was issued on the same day. The defendant argued that since the writ was deemed to have been issued at the start of the day, the events on which the claim was . .
CitedClarke v Bradlaugh CA 1881
The defendant had sat and voted in parliament without taking the statutory oath. The writ was issued on the same day. The defendant argued that since the writ was deemed to have been issued at the start of the day, the events on which the claim was . .
CitedRe Seaford Dec’d CA 1968
A decree of divorce was made absolute by the court on the same day as, but some hours later than, the husband respondent had died. The court considered the general rule that a judicial act takes effect at the start of the day on which it is made. . .
CitedTabernacle Permanent Building Society v Knight 1892
The court considered (obiter) it’s lack of jurisdiction to make an order directing arbitrators to state their award in the form of a special case, at a time when the award had already been published earlier on the same day and the arbitrators . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Land

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85849

Regina (Tshikangu) v Newham London Borough Council: QBD 15 Feb 2001

Where a party applying for judicial review had received the practical decision he sought from the defendant, but wished the review to go ahead as a test case, it was necessary and appropriate for him to seek the agreement first of the defendant, and then of the court. The court should proceed with such academic investigations only with great care, and in this case, had the claimant done as suggested, his leave to apply would have been revoked.

Judges:

Stanley Burnton J

Citations:

Times 27-Apr-2001, [2001] EWHC Admin 92

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing, Judicial Review, Litigation Practice, Judicial Review, Housing

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.86016

Regina v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Ex Parte Eastaway: HL 8 Nov 2000

Where the Court of Appeal had refused permission to apply for judicial review after a similar refusal by a judge, that decision was also, by implication, a refusal to grant permission to appeal against the judge’s decision, and there was no scope for a further appeal to the House of Lords. It is not the role of the highest court to correct errors in the application of settled law.

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Steyn Lord Hoffmann Lord Clyde Lord Millett

Citations:

Times 08-Nov-2000, Gazette 30-Nov-2000, [2000] UKHL 56, [2000] 1 WLR 2222, [2000] 1 All ER 27

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 6, Supreme Court Act 1981 18(1A) 31(3), Access to Justice Act 1999 54, Civil Procedure (Amendment Rules) 2000 (SI 221/2000), Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876 3

Citing:

CitedPractice Direction (Judicial Review: Appeals) CA 1982
The Court gave a practice direction on recourse to the Court of Appeal following refusal of leave to apply for judicial review by a Divisional Court or a single judge, describing such a refusal as ‘appealable to the Court of Appeal’. . .
CitedPractice Direction (Court of Appeal) (Civil Division) CA 19-Apr-1999
As part of the modernisation and reform of civil procedure, all the principal Court of Appeal practice directions are consolidated now into this one document handed down by the court.
‘2. Permission to appeal
2.1 When is permission . .
CitedLane v Esdaile HL 5-May-1891
The court considered the extent of the House’s jurisdiction as an appellate court. Section 3 of the 1876 Act provided that an appeal should lie to the House of Lords from ‘any order or judgment of . . Her Majesty’s Court of Appeal in England’. The . .
CitedKemper Reinsurance Company v The Minister of Finance and others PC 5-May-1998
(Bermuda) An appeal Court did have jurisdiction to hear an appeal against the discharge of leave to apply for certiorari order, since this was outside scope of the rule in Lane v Esdaille.
Lord Hoffmann said: ‘Nevertheless, the limited nature . .
CitedIn re Housing of the Working Classes Act 1890, Ex parte Stevenson CA 1892
A party had applied to a judge for what in effect amounted to leave to appeal and had been refused.
Held: Wherever power is given to a legal authority to grant or refuse leave to appeal, the decision of that authority is, from the very nature . .
CitedIn re Poh HL 1983
The applicant had unsuccessfully applied to the Divisional Court for leave to apply for judicial review and renewed his application, equally unsuccessfully, to the Court of Appeal. He then petitioned for leave to appeal to the House of Lords.

Cited by:

See AlsoSecretary of State for Trade and Industry v Eastaway CA 6-Apr-2001
. .
See AlsoSecretary of State for Trade and Industry v Eastaway; Re Blackspur Group (No 3), Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Davies and Others (No 2) CA 13-Sep-2001
. .
See AlsoEastaway v The United Kingdom ECHR 20-Jul-2004
The applicant had been proceeded against after the collapse of companies in which he was involved with very substantial debts. The proceedings had begun in July 1990, and lasted nearly nine years.
Held: Where proceedings could be expected to . .
See AlsoIn Re Blackspur Group Plc; Secretary of State v Eastaway ChD 21-Jun-2001
The director was amongst a group against whom a director disqualification order was sought. He offered an undertaking, but the Secretary of State refused to accept this unless it was accompanied by a statement as to the factual basis on which it was . .
See AlsoEastaway v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and similar ChD 2-Mar-2006
. .
See AlsoEastaway v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry CA 10-May-2007
The applicant had been subject to company director disqualification proceedings. Eventually he gave an undertaking not to act as a company director, but then succeeded at the ECHR in a complaint of delay. He now sought release from his undertaking . .
CitedCooper v HM Attorney General QBD 30-Sep-2008
The claimant sought damages from the court saying that it had failed to properly apply European law. It had rejected his applications for judicial review.
Held: Any failure by the court was not sufficiently manifest to bring the case within . .
CitedCoke-Wallis, Regina (on The Application of) v Institute of Chartered Accountants In England and Wales SC 19-Jan-2011
The appellant chartered accountant had been convicted in Jersey after removing documents from his offices relating to a disputed trust and in breach of an order from his professional institute. The court now considered the relevance and application . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Judicial Review

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85546

Regina v Bow County Court Ex parte Pelling: QBD 8 Mar 1999

Mr Pelling sought to act as a McKenzie friend. On being refused he sought judicial review of he decision to exclude him.
Held: Review was refused. A McKenzie friend has himself no locus to challenge a decision by a county court judge not to allow him to be present in a chambers appointment; that right belongs to the litigant only. A judge in chambers can exclude a McKenzie friend, but not when in open court.

Judges:

Otton LJ, Steel J

Citations:

Times 08-Mar-1999, [1999] EWHC Admin 181

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

CitedCollier v Hicks 7-Jun-1831
Trespass for assaulting, and turning plaintiff out of a police office. Plea, that two of the defendants, being justices of the peace, were assembled in a police office to adjudicate upon an information against AB for an offence against a penal . .
CitedMcKenzie v McKenzie CA 10-Jul-1970
Mr McKenzie was a litigant in person who wished to be assisted by a young Australian barrister, gratuitously, in the conduct of his case by sitting beside the husband in Court and prompting him. The hearing was in open Court . The friend’s conduct . .
CitedRe G (Chambers Proceedings: McKenzie friend) CA 10-Jul-1991
A proposed McKenzie friend was a solicitor who was to be paid, but did not wish to be on the record. H appealed a refusal to allow him to be present in chambers. The Judge had taken the view that the proceedings were of a highly confidential nature . .
CitedRe G (Chambers Proceedings: McKenzie friend) CA 10-Jul-1991
A proposed McKenzie friend was a solicitor who was to be paid, but did not wish to be on the record. H appealed a refusal to allow him to be present in chambers. The Judge had taken the view that the proceedings were of a highly confidential nature . .
Not bindingIn Re H (A Minor) (Chambers Proceedings: Mckenzie Friend) CA 6-May-1997
A father sought ex parte, permission to appeal against orders in the county court. The first had refused to allow him to have a McKenzie friend in an application for contact to his daughter. The Recorder had taken the view that because the . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Brind HL 7-Feb-1991
The Home Secretary had issued directives to the BBC and IBA prohibiting the broadcasting of speech by representatives of proscribed terrorist organisations. The applicant journalists challenged the legality of the directives on the ground that they . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromRegina v Bow County Court, Ex Parte Pelling CA 17-Dec-1999
Access to the court given to a McKenzie Friend should normally be given in matters in open court, but when it came to matters being heard in chambers, the judge had discretion as to who he would hear. The right is in any event that of the litigant, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85131

Regina v Bow County Court, Ex Parte Pelling: CA 17 Dec 1999

Access to the court given to a McKenzie Friend should normally be given in matters in open court, but when it came to matters being heard in chambers, the judge had discretion as to who he would hear. The right is in any event that of the litigant, and not of the McKenzie friend, who must remember the division between friend and advocate. A judge should normally give reasons for refusing to allow a friend to attend.
The court summarised its conclusions: ‘(1) In relation to proceedings in public, a litigant in person should be allowed to have the assistance of a McKenzie friend unless the judge is satisfied that fairness and the interests of justice do not require a litigant in person to have the assistance of a McKenzie friend. (2) The position is the same where the proceedings are in chambers unless the proceedings are in private. (3) Where the proceedings are in private then the nature of the proceedings which make it appropriate for them to be heard in private may make it undesirable in the interests of justice for a McKenzie friend to assist. (4) A judge should give reasons for refusing to allow a litigant in person the assistance of a McKenzie friend. (5) The assistance of a McKenzie friend is available for the benefit of the litigant in person and whether or not a McKenzie friend is paid or unpaid for his services, he has no right to provide those services; the court is solely concerned with the interests of the litigant in person.’

Judges:

Lord Woolf MR, Brooke and Robert Walker LJJ

Citations:

Times 18-Aug-1999, Gazette 17-Dec-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 2004, [1999] 1 WLR 1807, [1999] 2 FLR 1126

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

ExplainedMcKenzie v McKenzie CA 10-Jul-1970
Mr McKenzie was a litigant in person who wished to be assisted by a young Australian barrister, gratuitously, in the conduct of his case by sitting beside the husband in Court and prompting him. The hearing was in open Court . The friend’s conduct . .
See AlsoRegina v Bow County Court ex parte Dr Pelling Admn 30-Jun-1998
Dr Pelling applied for leave to challenge a refusal of permission to him to assist an applicant as a McKenzie friend. . .
Appeal fromRegina v Bow County Court Ex parte Pelling QBD 8-Mar-1999
Mr Pelling sought to act as a McKenzie friend. On being refused he sought judicial review of he decision to exclude him.
Held: Review was refused. A McKenzie friend has himself no locus to challenge a decision by a county court judge not to . .
CitedIn Re H (A Minor) (Chambers Proceedings: Mckenzie Friend) CA 6-May-1997
A father sought ex parte, permission to appeal against orders in the county court. The first had refused to allow him to have a McKenzie friend in an application for contact to his daughter. The Recorder had taken the view that because the . .

Cited by:

CitedNoueiri v Paragon Finance Plc (Practice Note) CA 19-Sep-2001
Courts should be careful before allowing unqualified persons to represent other parties at court. Pleadings and similar documents must be signed by the party or their qualified legal representative. Others signing them may be in contempt of court . .
CitedO and others (Children); In re O (Children), In re W-R (a Child), In re W (Children) CA 22-Jun-2005
In each case litigants in person had sought to be allowed to have the assistance and services of a Mackenzie friend in children cases. In one case, the court had not allowed confidential documents to be disclosed to the friend.
Held: The . .
See AlsoPelling, Regina (on the Application Of) v Bow County Court CA 22-Jan-2001
Application for permission to appeal from refusal of leave to bring judicial review. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85133

Practice Statement (Companies Court): ChD 19 Jan 2000

From January 2000, applications in company matters need not be heard only by a companies judge, and matters which had previously been listed on Mondays for this purpose need no longer be so listed. Urgent applications would also be dealt with by the applications judge.

Citations:

Times 19-Jan-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Company, Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.84999

Practice Statement (Supreme Court: Judgments) (No 2): LCJ 2 Dec 1998

Reserved judgments handed down should be marked as such when subject to revision, and could be copied and published freely and without charge once the embargo on copies delivered to parties had been lifted.

Citations:

Times 02-Dec-1998, [1999] 1 WLR 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRobinson v Fernsby, Scott-Kilvert CA 19-Dec-2003
The judge had drafted his judgment and sent the drafts to the parties for comment. He then received additional written representations from one party, from which he realised that he had made an error, and issued a corrected judgment which a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85005

Practice Note (Chancery Division: Civil Procedure Rules): ChD 4 May 1999

The procedures set down by the new CPR Part 23 should be followed in the interim applications and companies courts. Those appearing should also make themselves aware of the amendments in the new Guide to Chancery Practice.

Citations:

Times 04-May-1999

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules Part 23

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.84977

Poplar Housing and Regeneration Community Association Ltd v Donoghue: CA 27 Apr 2001

The defendant resisted accelerated possession proceedings brought for rent arrears under his assured shorthold tenancy, by a private housing association who was a successor to a public authority.
Held: Once the human rights issue was raised, the judge had an obligation to deal with it. He did not have an obligation to examine housing policy in detail. The landlord was exercising a public function, and was subject to the Act, which for this purpose should be construed widely. There had to be a procedure for recovering possession, and the restricted powers of the court were legitimate and proportionate, and did not interfere with the defendant’s right to family life. The court should first ascertain if there was any breach of the convention before seeking to interpret a statute to comply with the Act.
The fact that there may be hard cases as a result of a measure does not mean that that measure is incompatible with any convention rights.

Judges:

Lord Woolf CJ, May and Jonathan Parker LJJ

Citations:

Gazette 11-May-2001, Gazette 07-Jun-2001, Times 21-Jun-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 595, [2002] QB 48, [2001] All ER (D) 210

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Human Rights Act 1998 3 6 8, Housing Act 1988 21(4)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedGhaidan v Godin-Mendoza CA 5-Nov-2002
The applicant sought to succeed to the tenancy of his deceased homosexual partner as his partner rather than as a member of his family.
Held: A court is bound by any decision within the normal hierachy of domestic authority as to the meaning . .
CitedWilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry; Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (No 2) HL 10-Jul-2003
The respondent appealed against a finding that the provision which made a loan agreement completely invalid for lack of compliance with the 1974 Act was itself invalid under the Human Rights Act since it deprived the respondent lender of its . .
CitedLondon Borough of Harrow v Qazi HL 31-Jul-2003
The applicant had held a joint tenancy of the respondent. His partner gave notice and left, and the property was taken into possession. The claimant claimed restoration of his tenancy saying the order did not respect his right to a private life and . .
CitedHampshire County Council v Beer (T/A Hammer Trout Farm); Regina (Beer) v Hampshire Farmers’ Market Ltd CA 21-Jul-2003
The applicant had been refused a licence to operate within the farmer’s market. It sought judicial review of the rejection, but the respondent argued that it was a private company not susceptible to review.
Held: The decisions of the Farmers . .
CitedPay v Lancashire Probation Service EAT 29-Oct-2003
The appellant challenged refusal of his claim for unfair dismissal. A probation officer, he had business interests in fire breathing and bondage merchandising which the service said were incompatible with his duties, and dismissed him. He complained . .
CitedKay and Another v London Borough of Lambeth and others; Leeds City Council v Price and others and others HL 8-Mar-2006
In each case the local authority sought to recover possession of its own land. In the Lambeth case, they asserted this right as against an overstaying former tenant, and in the Leeds case as against gypsies. In each case the occupiers said that the . .
CitedDesnousse v London Borough of Newham and others CA 17-May-2006
The occupier had been granted a temporary licence by the authority under the homelessness provisions whilst it made its assessment. The assessment concluded that she had become homeless intentionally, and therefore terminated the licence and set out . .
CitedCoombes, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another Admn 8-Mar-2010
The landlord council brought proceedings for possession. The tenant (C) had remained in possession after his mother’s death, but enjoyed no second statutory succession. He had lived there since 1954 when he was six. C sought a declaration of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Litigation Practice, Housing

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.84800

Petch v Gurney (Inspector of Taxes): CA 8 Jun 1994

The thirty day time limit for the forwarding of a case stated is mandatory. The Court of Appeal has no discretion to extend the time limit. Millett LJ analysed the position by reference to the traditional dichotomy of directory or mandatory provisions, saying: ‘The question whether strict compliance with a statutory requirement is necessary has arisen again and again in the cases. The question is not whether the requirement should be complied with; of course it should: the question is what consequences should attend a failure to comply. The difficulty arises from the common practice of the legislature of stating that something ‘shall’ be done (which means that it ‘must’ be done) without stating what are to be the consequences if it is not done. The Court has dealt with the problem by devising a distinction between those requirements which are said to be ‘mandatory’ (or ‘imperative’ or ‘obligatory’) and those which are said to be merely ‘directory’ (a curious use of the word which in this context is taken as equivalent to ‘permissive’). Where the requirement is mandatory, it must be strictly complied with; failure to comply invalidates everything that follows. Where it is merely directory, it should still be complied with, and there may be sanctions for disobedience; but failure to comply does not invalidate what follows.’ and ‘The taxpayer’s argument, therefore, comes to this: that the requirement that the Case Stated be transmitted to the High Court is mandatory; but the requirement that this be done within thirty days is not. This is not an easy proposition to accept. Where statute requires an act to be done in a particular manner, it may be possible to regard the requirement that the act be done as mandatory but the requirement that it be done in a particular manner as merely directory. In such a case the statutory requirement can be treated as substantially complied with if the act is done in a manner which is not less satisfactory having regard to the purpose of the legislature in imposing the requirement. But that is not the case with a stipulation as to time. If the only time limit which is prescribed is not obligatory, there is no time limit at all. Doing an act late is not the equivalent of doing it in time . . This probably cannot be laid down as a universal rule, but in my judgment it must be the normal one. Unless the Court is given a power to extend the time, or some other and final mandatory time limit can be spelled out of the statute, a time limit cannot be relaxed without being dispensed with altogether; and it cannot be dispensed with altogether unless the substantive requirement itself can be dispensed with.’

Citations:

Ind Summary 11-Jul-1994, Gazette 13-Jul-1994, Times 08-Jun-1994, [1994] 3 All ER 731, [1994] EWCA Civ 27, [1994] STC 689

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Taxes Management Act 1970 56(4)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited7 Strathay Gardens Ltd v Pointstar Shipping and Finance Ltd and Another CA 15-Dec-2004
The tenants served a notice on the landlord to enfanchise their properties. The landlord’s counter-notice failed to state whether any estate management scheme existed. The tenants said the counter-notice was invalid.
Held: The landlord’s . .
CitedJJB Sports Plc, Regina (On the Application of) v Telford and Wrekin Borough Council Admn 5-Nov-2008
The authority’s demand notice was served later than was practicable. The company now appealed against a liability order.
Held: The ratepayer’s appeal by way of Case Stated was dismissed. ‘demand notices must be served by the relevant authority . .
CitedMatheson v Mazars Solutions Ltd EAT 16-Dec-2003
EAT Practice and Procedure – Application. The application had been presented timeously at the ET in Edinburgh, but was out of time when retransmitted to Glasgow. The tribunal had found the Edinburgh office to be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax, Litigation Practice, Taxes Management

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.84684

Murrell v Healy and Another: CA 5 Apr 2001

Documents held by an insurance company after settling a personal injuries claim by the same claimant but as regards a later unconnected claim were admissible, since they went to an issue in the later case, namely the nature and extent of the injury from the first occasion. They were admissible even though they had been used as part of without prejudice negotiations.

Judges:

Waller, Dyson LJJ

Citations:

Times 01-May-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 486, [2001] 4 All ER 345, [2002] RTR 2

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice, Personal Injury, Damages

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.84140

Nanglegan v Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust: CA 23 Jan 2001

The requirement is that documents must be served at the address nominated for this purpose by the prospective defendant under the rules. Where a solicitor was so nominated, it was not open to the claimant to serve papers at a different address. In this case, the claimant solicitors having noticed their mistake had not done whatever was in their power to correct the situation, and the claim was properly struck out. Rule 6.8 dealt with the idea of substituted service, and not with the correction of errors in service.

Citations:

Times 14-Feb-2001, [2002] 1 WLR 1043, [2001] EWCA Civ 127

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 6.5(4)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedCranfield and Another v Bridgegrove Ltd; Claussen v Yeates etc CA 14-May-2003
In each case claims had been late in being served and extensions in time were sought and refused.
Held: The recent authorities were examined. The words ‘has been unable to serve’ in CPR 7.6(3)(a) include all cases where the court has failed to . .
AppliedFirstdale Ltd v Quinton ComC 5-Aug-2004
In the course of a long dispute, the defendant’s solicitors had indicated that they would accept service of proceedings. Just before the limitation period expired, the papers were served directly in the client. The defendants solicitors said that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.84161

Memory Corporation v Sidhu (No 2): CA 3 Dec 1999

Where a party applied to court for an ex parte order, counsel had direct duties to the court, and also the supporting legal team and clients had continuing and overlapping duties. There was little to be gained by trying to analyze these things too closely to apportion blame. Here counsel had applied to and misadvised the court on the practice, and documents produced were unreliable and possibly from an unlawful source. Where a defending party risked contempt proceedings, and was ordered to file affidavit evidence in respect of that matter, any claim for privilege against self-incrimination should be made before the affidavit is made. It was inappropriate to be asked first to file the affidavit, and then to ask the court to inspect and decide. The privilege was available to be exercised in contempt proceedings within the same proceedings as the main action.
Mummery LJ said that: ‘It cannot be emphasised too strongly that in an urgent without notice hearing for a freezing order as well as for a search order or any other form of interim injunction, there is a high duty to make full, fair and accurate disclosure of material information to the court and to draw the court’s attention to significant factual, legal and procedural aspects of the case. It is the particular duty of the advocate to see that the correct legal procedures and forms are used, that a written skeleton argument and properly drafted order are prepared by him personally and lodged with the court before the oral hearing, and that at the hearing the court’s attention is drawn by him to unusual features of the evidence adduced, to the applicable law and to the formalities and procedure to be observed.’
Robert Walker LJ discussed the apparent gathering of evidence by unlawful means and said that this has not in general led to its exclusion under the English law of evidence. It was far from obvious that concerns of this nature ‘should be added to the heavy responsibilities already undertaken by lawyers who are making a without notice application, except perhaps in circumstances where the evidence in question is of central importance to the application’. Even when the evidence is of central importance, for example evidence relating to the sale of contraband goods in a case of piracy of intellectual property rights, trap orders and other conduct involving impersonation or deception have been commonplace in the Chancery Division for a century or more, and do not seem to have attracted censure.

Judges:

Mummery LJ, Robert Walker LJ

Citations:

Times 15-Feb-2000, Gazette 27-Jan-2000, Times 03-Dec-1999, [2000] EWCA Civ 9, [2000] 1 WLR 1443

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

On Appeal fromMemory Corporation Plc and Another v Sidhu ChD 21-May-1999
Where counsel proposing an asset freezing order fails to mention a case relevant to the issue, the order need not thereby be discharged. This is as against a failure to disclose a material fact, which would lead to a discharge of the order. . .
ApprovedDubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Al Alawi and Others ComC 3-Dec-1998
The claimants had brought proceedings against their former sales manager for accepting bribes and secret commission from outsiders. In support of their claim the claimants had obtained a search and seizure order and a worldwide freezing injunction, . .

Cited by:

See AlsoMemory Corporation Plc, Datrontech Hong Kong Limited v Sukhbir Singh Sidhu, Sunsar Limited ChD 3-Nov-1999
. .
CitedJohn Louis Carter Fourie v Allan Le Roux and others CA 7-Mar-2005
The defendant’s company in South Africa had become insolvent and the claimant had recovered judgment for arrears of rent. They obtained a freezing order against the defendant. The defendant appealed saying the court did not have jurisdiction, and . .
CitedFourie 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 . .
CitedFranses v Al Assad and others ChD 26-Oct-2007
The claimant had obtained a freezing order over the proceeds of sale of a property held by solicitors. The claimant was liquidator of a company, and an allegation of wrongful trading had been made against the sole director and defendant. The . .
CitedTchenguiz and Others v Imerman CA 29-Jul-2010
Anticipating a refusal by H to disclose assets in ancillary relief proceedings, W’s brothers wrongfully accessed H’s computers to gather information. The court was asked whether the rule in Hildebrand remained correct. W appealed against an order . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Litigation Practice, Human Rights, Contempt of Court

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.83628

Lonhro Plc and Others v Fayed and Others (No 5): CA 6 Oct 1993

The plaintiff sought to amend a conspiracy claim, based on arrangements to publish defamatory statements, by adding a claim for damage to reputation and feelings.
Held: Such a claim could not be made in conspiracy. A Plaintiff’s motives in commencing proceedings, as to whether they constituted an abuse of process, are only assessable by the judge at trial, and not on an interlocutory application. The action was re-instated. ‘[N]o one has a right to a reputation which is unmerited. Accordingly one can only suffer an injury to reputation if what is said is false. In defamation the falsity of the libel or slander is presumed; but justification is a complete defence.’
Dillon LJ said: ‘In my judgment, if the plaintiffs want to claim damages for injury to reputation or injury to feelings, they must do so in an action for defamation, not in this very different form of action. Injury to reputation and to feelings is, with very limited exceptions, a field of its own and the established principles in that field are not to be side-stepped by alleging a different cause of action. Justification, truth, is an absolute defence to an action for defamation and it would, in my judgment, be lamentable if a plaintiff could recover damages against defendants who had combined to tell the truth about the plaintiff and so had destroyed his unwarranted reputation. But that would be the consequence if damages for injury to reputation and injury to feelings could be claimed in a ‘lawful means’ conspiracy action. To tell the truth would be wrongful. I see no difference in this regard between general reputation and commercial or business reputation.’

Judges:

Stuart-Smith, Dillon LJ

Citations:

Gazette 06-Oct-1993, Gazette 29-Sep-1993, [1993] 1 WLR 1489

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedFoaminol Laboratories Ltd v British Artide Plastics Ltd 1941
There is no justification for artificially excising from the damages recoverable for breach of contract that part of the financial loss which might or might not be the subject of a successful claim in defamation. A claim for mere loss of reputation . .

Cited by:

CitedGreene v Associated Newspapers Ltd CA 5-Nov-2004
The claimant appealed against refusal of an order restraining publication by the respondent of an article about her. She said that it was based upon an email falsely attributed to her.
Held: ‘in an action for defamation a court will not impose . .
CitedAshley and Another v Sussex Police CA 27-Jul-2006
The deceased was shot by police officers raiding his flat in 1998. The claimants sought damages for his estate. They had succeeded in claiming damages for false imprisonment, but now appealed dismissal of their claim for damages for assault and . .
CitedHannon and Another v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Another ChD 16-May-2014
The claimants alleged infringement of their privacy, saying that the defendant newspaper had purchased private information from police officers emplyed by the second defendant, and published them. The defendants now applied for the claims to be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Defamation, Torts – Other

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.83189

Lowsley and Another v Forbes (Trading As I E Design Services): HL 29 Jul 1998

The plaintiffs, with the leave of the court, had obtained garnishee and charging orders nisi against the debtor 11 and a half years after they had obtained a consent judgment.
Held: An application by the judgment debtor to set aside the orders on the ground that they were statute barred under section 24(1) should be refused. A judgment can be enforced after six years, but not any claim for interest on that judgment. Execution was not a fresh action and so was not caught by the statutory restriction. Execution has historically been treated other than as a separate action. s24(1) does not apply to proceedings by way of execution of a judgment in the same action: the expression ‘action upon any judgment’ in s24(1) means, as it did in s2(4) of the 1939 Act, bringing a ‘fresh action’ upon a judgment for another judgment. It did not include the execution of an existing judgment, which could proceed despite the expiration of more than 6 years from the judgment.

Judges:

Lord Lloyd of Berwick

Citations:

Times 24-Aug-1998, Gazette 16-Sep-1998, [1998] UKHL 34, [1998] 3 All ER 897, [1998] 3 WLR 501, [1999] 1 AC 329

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 24(1) 24(2), Supreme Court of Judicature (1873) Amendment Act 1875

Citing:

Appeal fromLowsley and Another v Forbes CA 21-Mar-1996
The statutory time limit under the Limitation Act applied only to the right to take substantive proceedings and had nothing whatever to do with the procedural machinery for enforcing a judgment when one was obtained. The Act of 1875 brought about a . .
CitedW T Lamb and Sons v Rider CA 1948
The judge at first instance had rescinded the master’s order giving leave to the judgment creditor to proceed to levy execution although six years had passed since the judgment. On appeal the judgment creditor challenged the validity of the rule of . .
CitedBlack-Clawson International Ltd v Papierwerke Waldhof Aschaffenburg AG HL 5-Mar-1975
Statute’s Mischief May be Inspected
The House considered limitations upon them in reading statements made in the Houses of Parliament when construing a statute.
Held: It is rare that a statute can be properly interpreted without knowing the legislative object. The courts may . .

Cited by:

CitedRidgeway Motors (Isleworth) Ltd v Alts Ltd CA 10-Feb-2005
The company appelaed a refusal of the judge to strike out a winding up petition. They said the petition was based upon a judgment which was now time barred. The petitioner replied that such a petition was not an action under the section.
Held: . .
CitedA v Hoare; H v Suffolk County Council, Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs intervening; X and Y v London Borough of Wandsworth CA 12-Apr-2006
Each claimant sought damages for a criminal assault for which the defendant was said to be responsible. Each claim was to be out of the six year limitation period. In the first claim, the proposed defendant had since won a substantial sum from the . .
CitedHarding v Wealands HL 5-Jul-2006
Claim in UK for Accident in Australia
The claimant had been a passenger in a car driven by his now partner. They had an accident in New South Wales. The car was insured in Australia. He sought leave to sue in England and Wales because Australian law would limit the damages.
Held: . .
CitedYorkshire Bank Finance Ltd v Mulhall and Another CA 24-Oct-2008
The bank had obtained a judgement against the defendant, and took a charging order. Nothing happened for more than twelve years, and the defendant now argued that the order and debt was discharged.
Held: The enforcement of the charging order . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.83230

Kapadia v Lambeth London Borough Council: CA 4 Jul 2000

The claimant asserted disability discrimination, and consented to a medical report for the purpose of the claim. He was then to be obliged to consent to its release to the other party. To order otherwise would be contrary to the need for expeditious and efficient litigation.

Judges:

Pill, Schiemann LJJ, Sir Murray Stuart-Smith

Citations:

Times 04-Jul-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ B1, [2000] IRLR 699

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedKapadia v London Borough of Lambeth EAT 19-Nov-1998
The Tribunal lifted the stay of the claimant’s claim of disability discrimination. . .
Appeal fromKapadia v London Borough of Lambeth EAT 27-May-1999
The claimant appealed against rejection of his claim for disability discrimination which had been on the ground that his condition did not amount to a disability within section 1(1). He suffered from anxiety, stress, tension and depression.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Employment

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.82670

Jolly v Hull and Others, Jolly v Jolly: CA 21 Jan 2000

The requirement that a penal notice must have been endorsed upon an order before an application is made to commit the respondent for contempt, was not absolute. In exceptional and clear cases only, as here, such an order could be made, but this should be discouraged.

Citations:

Times 10-Mar-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 4

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

County Court Rules 1981 Order 29 Rule 1(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedHydropool Hot Tubs Ltd v Roberjot and Another ChD 4-Feb-2011
The parties disputed ownership of a customer database. An interim order had been made prohibiting the defendants’ from its use pending trial. A mandatory order had been made for the disclosure of a list of contacts made, and the claimant complained . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Contempt of Court

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.82578

In Re W (Minors) (Social Worker: Disclosure); Re W (Disclosure to Police): CA 26 Mar 1998

A social worker may disclose admissions made during investigation into child abuse, to the police without the court’s permission, where the information had not been incorporated in the welfare report filed at the court. The rule (against disclosure) applies only to documents which have actually been filed with the court and ‘protects only the pieces of paper and not the contents’.

Judges:

Butler-Sloss LJ, Mummery LJ, Judge LJ

Citations:

Times 08-Apr-1998, [1998] 2 FLR 135, [1998] EWCA Civ 553, [1999] 1 WLR 205, [1998] 2 All ER 801, [1998] 2 FCR 405, [1998] Fam Law 387

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Family Proceedings Rules 1991 4.23

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedKent County Council v The Mother, The Father, B (By Her Children’s Guardian); Re B (A Child) (Disclosure) FD 19-Mar-2004
The council had taken the applicant’s children into care alleging that the mother had harmed them. In the light of the subsequent cases casting doubt on such findings, the mother sought the return of her children. She applied now that the hearings . .
CitedDoctor A and Others v Ward and Another FD 8-Jan-2010
Parents wished to publicise the way care proceedings had been handled, naming the doctors, social workers and experts some of whom had been criticised. Their names had been shown as initials so far, and interim contra mundum orders had been made . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.82278

Hertfordshire Investments Ltd v Bubb and Another: CA 25 Jul 2000

When considering an application for a re-hearing of a County Court action in order to consider and admit new evidence, the county court and High Court practice is now the same and the judge should consider the list of questions in Ladd v Marshall, although the new procedural environment required that they be implemented less rigorously. The new evidence should not have been available at the time of the original trial, should be significant in its effect, and credible.
Hale LJ said: ‘The power to reopen a case after final judgment because of fresh evidence should be the same whatever the procedural route adopted. It would be most unjust if a party to county court proceedings could reopen matters when a party to High Court proceedings could not.’

Judges:

Swinton Thomas LJ, Sedley LJ, Hale LJ

Citations:

Times 31-Aug-2000, [2000] 1 WLR 2318, [2000] CPLR 588, [2001] CP Rep 38, [2000] EWCA Civ 3013

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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

Cited by:

CitedZarvos v Pradhan and another CA 7-Mar-2003
The landlord had occupied the premises as a restaurant, but subsequently let it to the respondents. The landlord opposed renewal of the tenancy saying that it intended to recommence trading, and now appealed a finding in favour of the tenant.
CitedSecretary of State for Trade and Industry v Paulin ChD 13-May-2005
The director sought to appeal an order disqualifying him form acting as a company director.
Held: The disqualification proceedings were properly charactised as insolvency proceedings and therefore there was no requirement for permission to . .
CitedAl-Koronky and Another v Time-Life Entertainment Group Ltd and Another CA 28-Jul-2006
The claimants sought damages after publication of articles alleging severe mistreatment of a servant. One defendant had settled and apologised, but the defendant publisher and author had persisted with the allegation. The claimants who lived in . .
CitedAli v Lane and Another CA 21-Nov-2006
The parties disputed the boundary between their neighbouring plots of land.
Held: In the modern law the conveyance (parchment or not) is undoubtedly the starting point. Where information contained in the conveyance is unclear or ambiguous, it . .
CitedJudge v Judge and others CA 19-Dec-2008
The wife appealed against an order refusing to set aside an earlier order for ancillary relief in her divorce proeedings, arguing that it had been made under a mistake. The sum available for division had had deducted an expected liabiliity to the . .
CitedPritchard Englefield (A Firm) and Another v Steinberg QBD 11-Feb-2011
The defendant sought to set aside summary judgment against him in a defamation action relating to a publication on the internet. The action had been heard over several years with the defendant being unrepresented, ill or abroad.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.81341

Haq v Singh and Another: CA 25 May 2001

The claimant had been made bankrupt, and when she sued the defendant, was challenged as to her standing. She obtained an assignment of the right of action from her trustee in bankruptcy. She then sought to amend her pleadings under the rule. It was held that ‘capacity’ in this context required some alteration from one representative capacity to another. Here the alteration was not in fact a change in capacity, and accordingly she could not use the rule as a basis for amending her pleadings.

Judges:

Arden LJ

Citations:

Times 10-Jul-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 957, [2001] 1 WLR 1594

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 17.4(4)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRoberts v Gill and Co Solicitors and Others SC 19-May-2010
The claimant beneficiary in the estate sought damages against solicitors who had acted for the claimant’s brother, the administrator, saying they had allowed him to take control of the assets in the estate. The will provided that property was to be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Insolvency

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.81224

Haiselden v P and O Properties Ltd: CA 28 May 1998

Where one party was a litigant in person and the other was legally represented, the legal advisers had a duty to inform the court and the other party where a patent mistake had been made. The small claim had been referred to full hearing by mistake and not to arbitration. The claim for andpound;1000 by the LIP was mistakenly tried rather than arbitrated as a small claim, the award of costs against plaintiff should be set aside. It was wrong of a legally assisted party to take advantage.

Judges:

Thorpe, Mantell LJJ

Citations:

Times 16-Jul-1998, Gazette 28-May-1998, [1998] EWCH Civ 773

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice, Personal Injury

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.81137

Hamilton v Al-Fayed and Others (No 3): QBD 13 Jul 2001

Where a person funded another’s court action as an act of charity, it should be exceptional to order that third party to contribute to the costs of the successful opponent. Nevertheless there could be no absolute rule against such orders. There is a clear distinction between those who act in this way as pure funders, and those who funded litigation from some contractual obligation. Another relevant consideration was whether the funder had information to suggest that the claimant had a reasonable prospect of success, or whether he acted as some quixotic philanthropist.

Judges:

The Hon Mr Justice Morland

Citations:

Times 25-Jul-2001, [2001] EWHC QB 389

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 4(1)

Costs, Defamation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.81197

FAI General Insurance Company Ltd v Godfrey Merrett Robertson Ltd and Others: CA 21 Dec 1998

A non-party applied to inspect written submissions and documents forming part of the evidence, including witness statements which had been referred to in open court but not read out. The application was refused at first instance.
Held: The appeal was allowed in part. Historically there had been no right, and there was no current provision, enabling a member of the public to see, examine or copy a document on the basis that it had been referred to in court or read by the judge. No recent development in court procedures justified the court in contemplating such an exercise under its inherent jurisdiction. On the other hand, the arguments for such an exercise in respect of the written submissions of counsel were stronger. A non-party to an action is entitled to inspect and copy written opening submissions and skeletons referred to by the judge during the trial, but not to documents merely referred to in the judge’s reading list and in affidavits.
Potter LJ said: ‘If, as in the instant case, an opening speech is dispensed with in favour of a written opening (or a skeleton argument treated as such) which is not read out, or even summarised, in open court before the calling of the evidence, it seems to me impossible to avoid the conclusion that an important part of the judicial process, namely the instruction of the judge in the issues of the case, has in fact taken place in the privacy of his room and not in open court. In such a case I have no doubt that, on an application from a member of the press or public in the course of the trial, it is within the inherent jurisdiction of the court to require that there be made available to such applicant a copy of the written opening or skeleton argument submitted to the judge.’

Judges:

Butler-Sloss, Potter LJJ, Sir Patrick Russell

Citations:

Times 13-Jan-1999, Gazette 10-Feb-1999, [1998] EWCA Civ 3538, [1999] WLR 984

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80840

Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Al Alawi and Others: ComC 3 Dec 1998

The claimants had brought proceedings against their former sales manager for accepting bribes and secret commission from outsiders. In support of their claim the claimants had obtained a search and seizure order and a worldwide freezing injunction, apparently using their agents to impersonate the defendant in order to discover information about his Swiss bank accounts. This was in breach both of Swiss law and an offence under section 5(6) of the 1984 Act. The defendant applied to discharge the order and the freezing injunction and also applied for disclosure of reports and associated documents relating to the investigation of his affairs by the claimants’ agents. The claimants said the documents were privileged.
Held: A document obtained unlawfully or even criminally by investigators appointed by solicitors, was so tainted that it could not benefit from legal professional privilege and so was discoverable. There was a ‘strong prima facie case of criminal or fraudulent conduct’ by the claimants’ investigative agents: ‘But it seems to me that criminal or fraudulent conduct for the purpose of acquiring evidence in or for litigation cannot properly escape the consequence that any documents generated by or reporting on such conduct and which are relevant to the issues in the case are discoverable and fall outside the legitimate area of legal professional privilege . . . Ultimately, it seems to me that criminal or fraudulent conduct undertaken for the purpose of litigation falls on the same side of the line as advising on or setting up criminal or fraudulent transactions yet to be undertaken, as distinct from the entirely legitimate professional business of advising and assisting clients on their past conduct, however iniquitous’

Judges:

Rix J

Citations:

Times 06-Jan-1999, [1999] 1 WLR 1964, [1998] EWHC 1202 (Comm), [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 478, [1999] 1 All ER 703, [1999] 1 All ER (Comm) 1

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Data Protection Act 1984 5(6)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

ConfirmedKuruma v The Queen PC 8-Dec-1954
(Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa) The defendant appealed against his conviction for unlawful possession of ammunition, saying that the evidence had been obtained by unlawful means, and should not have been admitted against him.
Held: Lord . .
See AlsoDubai Aluminium Company Ltd v Salaam and Others QBD 17-Jul-1998
A partner is vicariously liable for the acts of his partner in equity as well as in tort. Where a partner acted as accessory to a breach of trust he acted as a constructive trustee. A settlement of and action on this basis was enforceable in a later . .

Cited by:

ApprovedKuwait Airways Corporation v Iraqi Airways Company (No 6) CA 16-Mar-2005
The defendant company appealed against an order allowing inspection of documents for which litigation privilege had been claimed. It was said that the defendants had been involved in perjury in previous proceedings between the parties.
Held: . .
CitedHughes v Carratu International Plc QBD 19-Jul-2006
The claimant wished to bring an action against the defendant enquiry agent, saying that it had obtained unlawful access to details of his bank accounts, and now sought disclosure of documents. The defendant denied wrongdoing, and said it had . .
ApprovedMemory Corporation v Sidhu (No 2) CA 3-Dec-1999
Where a party applied to court for an ex parte order, counsel had direct duties to the court, and also the supporting legal team and clients had continuing and overlapping duties. There was little to be gained by trying to analyze these things too . .
AppliedTchenguiz and Others v Imerman CA 29-Jul-2010
Anticipating a refusal by H to disclose assets in ancillary relief proceedings, W’s brothers wrongfully accessed H’s computers to gather information. The court was asked whether the rule in Hildebrand remained correct. W appealed against an order . .
See AlsoDubai Aluminium Company Limited v Salaam and others CA 7-Apr-2000
The liability of a firm for the wrongful acts of one partner is not limited to tortious acts creating liability in common law, but includes all wrongful acts or omissions, including a knowing assistance in a fraudulent scheme. A solicitor who . .
See AlsoDubai Aluminium Company Limited v Salaam and Others HL 5-Dec-2002
Partners Liable for Dishonest Act of Solicitor
A solicitor had been alleged to have acted dishonestly, having assisted in a fraudulent breach of trust by drafting certain documents. Contributions to the damages were sought from his partners.
Held: The acts complained of were so close to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80147

Dubai Bank Ltd and Another v Galadari and Others: ChD 19 Feb 1992

Photocopies of documents are discoverable even if they may not be themselves good evidence of the documents of which they are copies.

Citations:

Gazette 19-Feb-1992

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoDubai Bank Ltd v Galadari CA 1990
A document created with a view to its being submitted to solicitors for advice does not, despite its purpose, attract privilege, even though the ‘pre-existing documents, and even documents on public records, have been selected by a solicitor for the . .
See AlsoDubai Bank Ltd v Galadari and Others (No 5) 25-Jun-1990
A British court can legitimately decide whether a foreign plaintiff company was lawfully incorporated. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80150

Don King Productions Inc v Warren King and Another (No 2): ChD 18 Jun 1998

An application for a Mareva injunction made ex parte was exceptionally justified when a partner failed to explain unaccounted for receipts after a full opportunity had been given, and there was no logical or innocent basis for the concealment of receipts.

Citations:

Times 18-Jun-1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoDon King Productions Inc v Warren and Others ChD 13-Apr-1998
Where partnership terms required benefit of all contracts to be assigned to the partnership, this included unassignable personal contracts which were to be held in trust for partnership, unless stated otherwise.
Lightman J said: ‘The existence . .
See AlsoDon King Productions Inc v Warren; Roberts; Centurion Promotions Limited (Formerly Sports Network Limited); Sports Network Usa, Inc; Time Warner Entertainment Company, Lp and Sport International, Inc CA 19-Nov-1998
Contracts between the members of a firm and third parties, and which were subject to the partnership contract, but which were expressed to be personal and incapable of assignment, were still held on trust for the partnership, and renewals made . .

Cited by:

See AlsoDon King Productions Inc v Warren; Roberts; Centurion Promotions Limited (Formerly Sports Network Limited); Sports Network Usa, Inc; Time Warner Entertainment Company, Lp and Sport International, Inc CA 19-Nov-1998
Contracts between the members of a firm and third parties, and which were subject to the partnership contract, but which were expressed to be personal and incapable of assignment, were still held on trust for the partnership, and renewals made . .
See AlsoDon King Productions Inc v Warren and Others ChD 13-Apr-1998
Where partnership terms required benefit of all contracts to be assigned to the partnership, this included unassignable personal contracts which were to be held in trust for partnership, unless stated otherwise.
Lightman J said: ‘The existence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80094