Category: Litigation Practice

Evans v Royal Wolverhampton Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust: QBD 8 Oct 2014

The court was asked whether a party who requires the court’s permission to withdraw a Part 36 offer may be granted such permission on the basis of information and for reasons not disclosed to the party to whom the offer was made.
Held: The Trust could not withdraw its part 36 offer to settle because the trust had refused to disclose any reasons for its decision.It had made the application without giving notice to he claimant. Leggatt J said that it would be ‘unlawful and improper’ for the court to receive evidence or argument from the defendant in support of a request for an adjournment without the claimant knowing the contents of that evidence and argument. Either the defendant serve the evidence and disclose its arguments to justify withdrawing the part 36 offer, or judgment be made in favour of the claimant.

Judges:

Leggatt J

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 3185 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Flynn v Scougall CA 13-Jul-2004
The defendant had made a payment into court. She then applied to reduce the amount paid in, but the claimant accepted the original sum before that application was heard. The defendant appealed saying that their application operated as a stay.
Cited – Baxter and others v Limb Group of Companies CA 30-Jun-1994
The claimants had been employed at Hull Docks. They went on strike, were warned that a continuation of the strike would lead to dismissal, and after failing to return were dismissed. The Employment tribunal had found them fairly dismissed but for . .
Cited – Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust HL 12-Jul-2006
Employer can be liable for Managers Harassment
The claimant employee sought damages, saying that he had been bullied by his manager and that bullying amounting to harassment under the 1997 Act. The employer now appealed a finding that it was responsible for a tort committed by a manager, saying . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.537426

Football Association Premier League Ltd and Others v QC Leisure (A Trading Name) and Others: ChD 13 Nov 2008

Football organisations applied to be joined to a case being remitted to the European Court for the purpose of giving their views on the questions raised. The European Court practice only allowed for states to act as interveners. The court had already recognised the significance of the question to be referred as to the licensing of programming rights for sports and outside sport within Europe.
Held: The rules allowed a party to be added in these circumstances, and it was desirable that the parties applying should be joined. Procedural orders and arrangements as to costs were made to reduce any procedural disadvantage to the respondents by addition of the new claimants.

Judges:

Kitchin J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 2897 (Ch), [2009] 1 WLR 1603, [2009] Eu LR 373

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 19.2(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Casagrande v Landeshauptstadt Munchen (Judgment) ECJ 3-Jul-1974
The question of whether or not a person is a party must be decided according to the criteria of national law. . .
Cited – Regina v Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food ex parte Anastasiou (P) Ltd ECJ 1-Aug-1994
Turkish Cypriot produce was not acceptable for import without a proper origin label. A certificate from a non-community country was not acceptable, there being no standards of control. . .
Cited – Ramondin and Ramondin Capsulas v Commission (State Aid) ECJ 11-Nov-2004
Where the European Courts has power to permit interventions in direct actions they exercise the power in a restrictive manner, and allow interventions only by those persons able to establish a direct interest in the ruling on the specific act whose . .
See Also – The Football Association Premier League Ltd v QC Leisure and others ChD 18-Jan-2008
The court considered interlocutory applications in an action for copyright infringement alleging the unauthorised broadcast of football matches. . .
See Also – Football Association Premier League Ltd and others v QC Leisure and others ChD 24-Jun-2008
Three actions were heard in which the claimants alleged copyright infringement in the use of decoder cards to broadcast foreign transmissions of live Premier League football matches. . .

Cited by:

See Also – Football Association Premier League Ltd and Others v QC Leisure and Others ChD 3-Feb-2012
The claimant complained that in using decoders imported from Greece, the defendants had infringed their copyrights. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, European, Litigation Practice

Updated: 21 October 2022; Ref: scu.374396

Cattley and Another v Pollard: ChD 6 Jul 2007

The estate had been defrauded by theis solicitor. The proceeds had been used toward the purchase of a property. The defendant had first been the solicitor’s secretary and had become his wife, and transferee of the property. She denied that she had known anything of the unlawful activity, but this was not accepted. The current executors, now claimants, assertes unlawful assistance, and sought recovery of the house. She now asserted that the clamiants had already been compenated by the solicitors’ insurers, and sought disclosure of related documents.

Judges:

Bragge M

Citations:

[2007] EWHC B16 (Ch), [2007] EWHC 5561 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Cattley and Another v Pollard and Another ChD 7-Dec-2006
The first defendant solicitor misappropriated money from an estate he was administering. The beneficiaries later commenced proceedings against his wife, alleging knowing assistance. She said that that claim was out of time. The claimant responded . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Equity, Litigation Practice

Updated: 21 October 2022; Ref: scu.346772

Starlight Shipping Co and Another v Tai Ping Insurance Co Ltd., Hubei Branch and Another: ComC 1 Aug 2007

In an application for an interim anti-suit injunction, Cooke J said: ‘Damages would, for all the reasons given in the authorities, be an inadequate remedy for breach of such a clause since its very nature requires the parties to have their disputes determined in arbitration. A party to such an agreement should not be put to the trouble of having disputes determined elsewhere in a manner contrary to the express contract between the parties.’

Judges:

Cooke J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 1893 (Comm), [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 230

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – ETI Euro Telecom International Nv v Republic of Bolivia and Another CA 28-Jul-2008
The parties were involved in an international investment dispute arbitration. An injunction had been sought to prevent repatriation of assets to Bolivia.
Held: The international system of arbitration was not subject to any national law and did . .
Cited – Sheffield United Football Club Ltd v West Ham United Football Club Plc ComC 26-Nov-2008
The claimant sought an order to prevent the defendant company from pursuing further an appeal against a decision made by an independent arbitator in their favour as regards the conduct of the defendant in the Premier League in 2006/2007.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

International, Litigation Practice

Updated: 21 October 2022; Ref: scu.258492

ITSA v Commission (Order): ECJ 2 Apr 2020

(Information) Appeal – Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court – Approximation of laws – Manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products and related products – Establishment and operation of a system for the traceability of tobacco products – Delegated regulation and implementing acts – Action for annulment – Admissibility – Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU – Lack of direct concern – Article 256, paragraph 1, second subparagraph, TFEU – Article 58, first paragraph, of the Statute of the Court of Justice of European Union – Article 168 (1) (d) and Article 169 (2),of the Rules of Procedure of the Court – Lack of precise identification of the points of grounds criticized in the judgment under appeal and of specific legal arguments in support of the appeal – Arguments seeking to obtain from the Court a simple re-examination of the arguments presented at first instance – Appeal manifestly inadmissible

Citations:

C-553/19, [2020] EUECJ C-553/19P, ECLI:EU:C:2020:248

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Litigation Practice

Updated: 21 October 2022; Ref: scu.660131

Ling, Carlton v Coopers and Lybrand, Charity Commissioners, HM Attorney-General: CA 24 Apr 1997

The applicant had appeared as a Mackenzie friend for the two applicants, in the latest of a long running series of actions challenging the management of a charitable foundation. The court warned him that, whilst they were prepared to hear him, he might run the risk of an order for costs against him personally if the application was felt to be frivolous. He applied for leave and appealed just that order when it was later made. The court granted leave. Whilst the court might not feel particular sympathy for the appellant, he had raised an issue which required clarification as to the power of the court to order costs against someone acting as a Mackenzie friend.

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Civ 1504

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs, Litigation Practice

Updated: 21 October 2022; Ref: scu.141900

Clift v Clarke: QBD 18 Feb 2011

The claimant sought disclosure of identities of posters to the defendant’s web-site.
Held: ‘In my view, the postings are clearly one or two-liners, in effect posted anonymously by random members of the public who do not purport, either by their identity or in what they say, to have any actual knowledge of the matters in issue. It is difficult to see in the context, and having regard to their content, how any reasonable, sensible reader could take either of them seriously, or indeed how they could conceivably have caused any damage to the Claimant’s reputation.’

Judges:

Sharp J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 1164 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Tamiz v Google Inc Google UK Ltd QBD 2-Mar-2012
The claimant sought damages in defamation against the defendant company offering internet search facilities. The words complained of had been published in a blog, and in comments published on the blog.
Held: Jurisdiction should be declined. . .
Cited – The Rugby Football Union v Consolidated Information Services Ltd SC 21-Nov-2012
The Union challenged the right of the respondent to resell tickets to international rugby matches. The tickets were subject to a condition rendering it void on any resale at above face value. They said that the respondent had advertised tickets in . .
Cited – Tamiz v Google Inc CA 14-Feb-2013
The respondent hosted a blogs platform. One of its user’s blogs was said by the appellant to have been defamatory. On discovery the material had been removed quickly. The claimant now appealed against his claim being struck out. He argued as to: (1) . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 21 October 2022; Ref: scu.439672

Guilford Borough Council v Smith: QBD 18 May 1993

An injunction had been obtained to enforce planning controls against the defendant gypsies, and the council now sought committal for breach.
Held: Committal was refused. Only a deliberate or wilful contempt attracted imprisonment and the failure to obey the injunction could not be so described because it was accepted that the gypsies had nowhere else to go. If he was wrong in that legal conclusion he would exercise his power not to impose a punitive order, not even a suspended sentence. Sedley J pointed out as an example, that one of the respondents was a seventy year old widow who had only her old age pension and occasional donations from her family on which to survive.

Judges:

Sedley J

Citations:

Times 18-May-1993

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Broxbourne Borough Council v Robb and Others QBD 27-Jun-2011
The Council applied for the committal of the defendant for an alleged breach of a without notice injunction. Notice of the injunction had been placed at the site, requiring nobody to move caravans onto the land.
Held: The application . .
Cited – Broxbourne Borough Council v Robb and Others QBD 27-Jun-2011
The Council applied for the committal of the defendant for an alleged breach of a without notice injunction. Notice of the injunction had been placed at the site, requiring nobody to move caravans onto the land.
Held: The application . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Litigation Practice

Updated: 21 October 2022; Ref: scu.441229

OPQ v BJM and CJM: QBD 20 Apr 2011

The defendant was said to have attempted to blackmail the claimant by threatening to publish intimate photographs. The court had granted an injunction restraining publication and identification of the parties.
Held: As to the remedy of an injunction contra mundum, Eady J said: ‘the remedy is available, whenever necessary and appropriate, for the protection of Convention rights whether of children or adults’.

Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 1059 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – In re A (A Minor) FD 8-Jul-2011
An application was made in care proceedings for an order restricting publication of information about the family after the deaths of two siblings of the child subject to the application. The Sun and a local newspaper had already published stories . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Litigation Practice

Updated: 21 October 2022; Ref: scu.434899

Goodwin v News Group Newspapers Ltd: QBD 23 May 2011

The claimant had obtained orders restricting publication by the defendant of stories of his relationship with a woman. The order had also restrained publication of their names. The names had since been revealed under parliamentary prvilege, and the defendant sought the discharge of the order.
Held: This had not been a ‘superinjunction’, and there had been no restriction on relevant publications to the FSA.

Judges:

Tugendhat J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 1309 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – MNB v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 9-Mar-2011
The defendant resisted an order preventing disclosure of information said by the claimant to be private.
Held: At the start of the hearing before herself, she had been told that the application for an interim injunction was no longer opposed. . .

Cited by:

See Also – Goodwin v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 27-May-2011
An associated claimant alleged contempt against another newspaper for publishing matters so as to defeat the purposes of a privacy injunction granted to her.
Held: Even though the principle claimant had been subsequenty identified with the . .
See Also – Goodwin v NGN Ltd and VBN QBD 9-Jun-2011
The claimant had obtained an injunction preventing publication of his name and that of his coworker with whom he had had an affair. After widespread publication of his name elsewhere, the defendant had secured the discharge of the order as regards . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Media, Litigation Practice, Human Rights

Updated: 21 October 2022; Ref: scu.440086

4Eng Ltd v Harper and Others: ChD 26 Oct 2009

The claimant sought to set aside transactions entered into by the defendants which, it said were intended fraudulently to defeat claims by their creditors.
Held: When considering the extent of recovery available under the sections of the 1986 Act, the court should consider general principles applicable in all areas of law. The Act did not require any particular mental state in a recipient of assets to such an application. The orders were granted against the transferees.

Judges:

Sales J

Citations:

Times 06-Nov-2009, [2009] EWHC 2633 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Insolvency Act 1986 423

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice, Insolvency

Updated: 19 October 2022; Ref: scu.377211

Aldi Stores Ltd v Holmes Buildings Plc: CA 1 Dec 2003

What makes a claim a ‘new claim’ as defined in section 35(2) of the Limitation Act 1980 is not the newness of the case according to the type or quantum of the remedy claimed, but the newness of the cause of action that it involves. A cause of action is a set of facts that enable one person to obtain a remedy from another; as opposed to a form of action used as a convenient and succinct description of a particular category of factual situation.

Judges:

Auld, Hale and Dyson LJJ

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 1882

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 35(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Rhone-Poulenc Rorer International Holdings Inc and Another v Yeda Research and Development Co Ltd ChD 16-Feb-2006
The patent application had been presented to the European Patent Office and granted only after 13 years. The claimant now appealed refusal to allow amendment of its claim to allow a claim in its sole name. The defendant argued that it was out of . .
Cited – Dowson and Others v Northumbria Police QBD 30-Apr-2009
Nine police officers claimed damages for alleged harassment under the 1997 Act by a senior officer in having bullied them and ordered them to carry out unlawful procedures. Amendments were sought which were alleged to be out of time and to have . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Limitation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 October 2022; Ref: scu.191208

Canada Trust Company and others v Stolzenberg and others: CA 28 Apr 1997

(Oral judgment, Millett LJ) The question was whether it is a proper exercise of discretion to refuse to make an order for the production of documents at an interlocutory hearing on the sole ground that they are wanted in order to establish the jurisdiction of the Court.
Held: Jurisdiction depended on whether one defendant was domiciled in England, for purposes of the Lugano Convention, at the time when the writ had been served on certain other defendants. That in turn raised the question of the standard to be applied in determining that issue.
Waller LJ explored the development of the law, and said: ‘It is I believe important to recognise, as the language of their Lordships in Vitkovice Horni a Hutni Tezirstvo v Korner [1951] AC 869 demonstrated, that what the court is endeavouring to do is to find a concept not capable of very precise definition which reflects that the plaintiff must properly satisfy the court that it is right for the court to take jurisdiction. That may involve in some cases considering matters which go both to jurisdiction and to the very matter to be argued at the trial, eg the existence of a contract, but in other cases a matter which goes purely to jurisdiction, eg the domicile of the defendant. The concept also reflects that the question before the court is one which should be decided on affidavits from both sides and without full discovery and/or cross-examination, and in relation to which therefore to apply the language of the civil burden of proof applicable to issues after full trial is inapposite. Although there is power under Ord 12, r 8(5) to order a preliminary issue on jurisdiction, as Staughton LJ pointed out in Attock Cement Co Ltd v Romanian Bank for Foreign Trade [1989] 1 WLR 1147, 1156D, it is seldom that the power is used because trials on jurisdiction issues are to be strongly discouraged. It is also important to remember that the phrase which reflects the concept ‘good arguable case’ as the other phrases in Korner’s case ‘a strong argument’ and ‘a case for strong argument’ were originally employed in relation to points which related to jurisdiction but which might also be argued about at the trial. The court in such cases must be concerned not even to appear to express some concluded view as to the merits, eg as to whether the contract existed or not. It is also right to remember that the ‘good arguable case’ test, although obviously applicable to the ex parte stage, becomes of most significance at the inter partes stage where two arguments are being weighed in the interlocutory context which, as I have stressed, must not become a ‘trial’. ‘Good arguable case’ reflects in that context that one side has a much better argument on the material available. It is the concept which the phrase reflects on which it is important to concentrate, ie of the court being satisfied or as satisfied as it can be having regard to the limitations which an interlocutory process imposes that factors exist which allow the court to take jurisdiction.’

Judges:

Nourse LJ, Millett LJ, Ward LJ

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Civ 1545, [1997] 1 WLR 1582, [1997] CLC 1083, [1998] ILPr 30

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Canada Trust Company and others v Stolzenberg and others (2) CA 29-Oct-1997
The court looked at questions relating to domicile and jurisdiction; standard of proof, date to be determined and duties before service.
Held: The court is endeavouring to find an imprecise concept which reflects that the plaintiff must . .
See Also – The Canada Trust Co and Others v Stolzenberg and Others ChD 10-Nov-1997
A foreign resident defendant failing to comply with an order for discovery should be barred from defending after having been given notice. . .
See Also – Canada Trust Co and Others v Stolzenberg and Others (No 4) CA 14-May-1998
When appealing against fully argued refusal of jurisdiction, parties may not bring in additional evidence at that appeal save in exceptional circumstances. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 October 2022; Ref: scu.141941

Williams v Attridge Solicitors (a Firm): CA 8 Jul 1997

The solicitor-defendants were seeking to prove a negative and to show at the very outset of the proceedings that the claim should be struck out without the need for any further inquiry. The court considered the admission of new evidence on an appeal against a summary strike out.
Held: The Ladd v Marshall criteria need not be satisfied in an application to admit fresh evidence where a case had been struck out pursuant to Order 18, rule 19.

Judges:

Brooke LJ

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Civ 2049

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Ladd 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 – Langdale v Danby HL 1982
Summary judgment had been given under Order 86. A solicitor had acted gratuitously and in good faith for the other party in the sale of a cottage, subject to an option to repurchase the cottage at the same price after 21 years. He obtained summary . .

Cited by:

Cited – Rudra v National and Provincial Building Society; Stickley and Kent (Risk Management Unit) Ltd CA 22-Aug-1997
Before the auction, the estate agents had signed a contract to sell the house to the claimant. The Society, as mortgagees, said that the agents did not have authority to bind it, and that the contract did not sufficiently identify the property so as . .
Cited – Rudra v Abbey National Plc and Stickley and Kent (Risk Management Unit) Limited CA 26-Feb-1998
The parties disputed whether a contract had been entered into for the sale of land, and whether new evidence could be entered on an appeal against a strike out. The estate agents had signed a contract as agents for the mortgagee in possession, but . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Evidence, Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 October 2022; Ref: scu.142446

Berezovsky v Hine and Others (1776): ChD 7 Jul 2011

The claimant requested the court to make an order requiring the parties to rely upon an expert’s report as to contemporary Russian history.

Judges:

Mann, Gloster JJ

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 1776 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Berezovsky v Hine and Others (1777) ComC 7-Jul-2011
Claimant’s application for an order requiring the parties to rely at trial on an expert report as to contemporary Russian history. . .

Cited by:

See also – Berezovsky v Hine and Others (1716) ChD 7-Jul-2011
The court heard the defendant’s application to strike out certain elements of the claimant’s pleadings. . .
See Also – Berezovsky v Hine and Others (1718) ComC 7-Jul-2011
The court heard an application to strike out a claim against the fourth defendant. . .
See Also – Berezovsky v Hine and Others CA 7-Oct-2011
The claimant appealed against an order for the disclosure to and use by the defendants of certain documents. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 17 October 2022; Ref: scu.441638

Phillips and Co and Another v Whatley: PC 2 May 2007

(Gilbraltar) The respondent had made a claim against his former lawyers, the appellants, alleging that he had lost out on a very significant personal injury claim for their failure to issue a writ in time.

Judges:

Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Lord Mance

Citations:

[2007] UKPC 28, [2007] PNLR 27, [2007] Lloyd’s Rep PN 34

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Channon (T/A Channon and Co) v Ward QBD 12-May-2015
The claimant had lost significant sums through his accountancy practice, but now claimed that his insurance broker, the defendant had negligently failed to renew his professional indemnity policies, even though he had supplied policy numbers to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Professional Negligence, Litigation Practice

Updated: 17 October 2022; Ref: scu.251627

Matthews, Regina (on the Application of) v Employment Tribunal: Admn 6 Dec 2004

The applicants sought to challenge the practice of employment tribunals not to record their proceedings. They wished to allege perjury by a witness but had found that no prosecution would flow without a record.
Held: the application for judicial review was unarguable and failed. ‘Article 6 requires that the claimant should have had a full and public fair hearing, where his rights were in issue, as they were. The absence of recording equipment is, however, entirely irrelevant to whether the hearing itself is fair or not. ‘

Judges:

Hughes J

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 3385 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 6

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Litigation Practice, Human Rights

Updated: 17 October 2022; Ref: scu.226936

Hurndell v Hozier and Others: ChD 18 Feb 2011

Judges:

Morgan J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 321 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Hurndell v Hozier and Another ChD 19-Mar-2008
. .
See Also – Hurndell v Hozier and Another CA 12-Feb-2009
A company sought a public listing, but too many shares were held in private hands. Shares were to be transferred by the claimant, but he now denied having signed any transfer. He now appealed against rejection of his claim saying that the judge had . .
Principal Judgment – Hurndell v Hurndell and Others ChD 17-Dec-2010
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Litigation Practice

Updated: 15 October 2022; Ref: scu.429655

JP Morgan Europe Ltd v Primacom Ag and Another: ComC 5 Apr 2005

The claimant in England sought to recover a loan made pursuant to a facility agreement; the claimant in Greece sought a declaration that the facility agreement was invalid. The defendants sought a stay of the action brought against them here.
Held: The application succeeded in part. The proceedings involved the same cause of action.
There was an identity of ’cause of action’ – the term bearing an independent and autonomous meaning in European law divorced from any criteria of national law. In particular:
‘Fundamentally, it is the rights and obligations of the parties in relation to the same facts which, in my judgment, matters here. Each court will be concerned with the respective rights and obligations of the parties, however those are classified and determined by the national courts of each country. . . The way the claim is framed and the arguments in support of it may fall to be taken into account, but ultimately, the question must be seen broadly in terms of the judgment sought and not in terms of the issues raised on the way.’
Cooke J also rejected a proposition that the test in a lis pendens case was ‘to ask whether a decision in one set of proceedings would be a conclusive answer to the questions raised in the other’. The fact that the German court would be addressing questions of public policy which would not arise in this jurisdiction, and would therefore be approaching one aspect of the enforceability of the loan agreement in a different way, was not a relevant factor: it was in the nature of an issue raised on the way. The key point was that the enforceability of the loan agreement, and the reciprocal rights and obligations of the parties under it, was the common theme both in Germany and here. The examination must be of ‘the basic facts (whether in dispute or not) and the basic claimed rights and obligations of the parties to see if there is coincidence between them’.

Judges:

Cooke J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 508 (Comm), [2005] 1 CLC, [2005] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 665

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Television Autonomica Valenciana, Sa v Imagina Contenidos Audiovisuales, Sl ChD 8-Feb-2013
The defendant sought a stay of these proceedings pending the outcome of related proceedings in Spain. The claimant sought a declaration that a contract was terminated and damages for such breach. The Spanish proceedings were first in time.
Cited – Starlight Shipping Co v Allianz Marine and Aviation Versicherungs Ag and Others CA 20-Dec-2012
The Alexander T, owned by the appellant and insured by the respondents was a total loss. The insurers resisted payment, the appellant came to allege improperly, and the parties had settled the claim on full payment under a Tomlin Order. The owners . .
Cited – Wright v Granath QBD 16-Jan-2020
Defamation across borders – Jurisdiction
The claimant began an action for defamation in an online publication. The Norwegian resident defendant had begun an action there seeking a declaration negating liability. The Court was now asked by the defendant whether under Lugano, the UK action . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Jurisdiction

Updated: 14 October 2022; Ref: scu.279048

Attorney General v Bhamjee: Admn 8 Dec 2003

Civil Restraint Order

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 3114 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Supreme Court Act 1981 42

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Bhamjee v Forsdick and others CA 14-May-2003
. .
See Also – Bhamjee v Forsdick and Others (No 2) CA 25-Jul-2003
The Court set out the range of remedies available to protect court processes from abuse by litigants who persist in making applications totally devoid of merit. The courts are facing very serious contemporary problems created by the activities of . .
See Also – Bhamjee v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transpost and the Regions and Another Admn 23-Jan-2001
. .
See Also – Bhamjee, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions and Another CA 29-Jun-2001
. .
See Also – Bhamjee, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transpost and the Regions and Another Admn 9-Nov-2001
. .
See Also – Bhamjee, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and Regions and Another CA 28-Feb-2002
. .
See Also – Bhamjee v Norwich Union General Insurance CA 22-Apr-2002
Application for permission to appeal – rejected . .
See Also – Bhamjee v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions and Another CA 21-Jun-2002
. .
See Also – Bhamjee v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions and Another CA 21-Jun-2002
. .
See Also – Bhamjee, Re an Application for Permission Admn 14-Jul-2003
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 14 October 2022; Ref: scu.191218

C v D and D2: ChD 16 Nov 2010

The claimant sought a declaration that an offer earlier given to settle the action was no longer open for acceptance not having been accepted.

Judges:

Warren J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 2940 (Ch), [2010] 47 EG 140, [2011] 1 WLR 331, [2011] 3 EG 84

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 3(1)(m) 36

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 13 October 2022; Ref: scu.426060

Medina Housing Association v Case: CA 16 Dec 2002

The claimant had obtained an order for possession against the defendant for her repeated anti-social behaviour. The court granted in addition to the possession order an injunction restraining the defendant from coming near the premises for a further five years.
Held: The jurisdiction to make such an injunction lasted only as long as did the contract underlying it. Once possession was taken, the contract came to an end, and so did the jurisdiction for an injunction. The order had been wrongly made and was discharged. Kaly LJ: ‘Parliament has itself recognised the problems that this situation can cause and has made provision in some circumstances to deal with the problems that arise. Section 152(1) of the Housing Act 1996 permits the grant of an injunction to prohibit antisocial behaviour but only to a local authority, and such an application therefore could not be made by the respondent. Parliament has not seen fit to give any wider statutory power than that which is contained in section 152(1), which would enable the housing authority to take action in circumstances such as this. That is why they have had to seek to rely on the common law and simply to seek an injunction as part of their contractual rights. Those rights extend up to the termination of the contract but no further than that.’

Judges:

Kaly LJ

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 2001, [2003] HLR 37, [2003] 1 All ER 1084

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1996 152(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Moat Housing Group-South Ltd v Harris and Another CA 16-Mar-2005
The defendant family was served without notice with an anti-social behaviour order ordering them to leave their home immediately, and making other very substantial restrictions. The evidence in large part related to other people entirely.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Litigation Practice

Updated: 13 October 2022; Ref: scu.189013

Adebolado v Ministry of Justice: QBD 2017

Application for anonymity order

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 3568 (QB)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Imam, Regina (on The Application of) v The London Borough of Croydon (Anonymity request) Admn 26-Mar-2021
Anonymity Not Necessary under CPR 3.92.
Judgment on the Claimant’s application for an order under CPR 39.2(4) that her name be anonymised in these proceedings by the use of a cipher and that restrictions should be imposed on the reporting of her identity. She said that publication of her . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 13 October 2022; Ref: scu.660070

Yalland and Others v Secretary of State for Exiting The European Union (629): Admn 3 Feb 2017

Application for anonymity order – challenge to constitutionality of proposed steps in leaving the EU.
Held: Granted for those applying for it.
The common law rights of the public and press to know about court proceedings are also protected by article 10 of the ECHR

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 629 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Yalland and Others v Secretary of State for Exiting The European Union (630) Admn 3-Feb-2017
Renewed applications for permission to apply for judicial review of the decision taken to leave the EU: ‘The thrust of the claim is that the UK Government has allegedly already decided that an automatic consequence of the United Kingdom leaving the . .
Cited – XXX v Camden London Borough Council CA 11-Nov-2020
Anonymity in Court Proceedings – No two stage test
XXX appealed against the refusal to make orders anonymising her name and redacting certain details from published judgments. The appeal raised a point about the proper approach to applications for anonymisation under CPR 39.2. She brought . .
Cited – Imam, Regina (on The Application of) v The London Borough of Croydon (Anonymity request) Admn 26-Mar-2021
Anonymity Not Necessary under CPR 3.92.
Judgment on the Claimant’s application for an order under CPR 39.2(4) that her name be anonymised in these proceedings by the use of a cipher and that restrictions should be imposed on the reporting of her identity. She said that publication of her . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Media, Human Rights

Updated: 13 October 2022; Ref: scu.628714

MBR v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: SCS 17 May 2013

Application: ‘to hold [the procedural judge’s] interlocutor of 12 February 2013 pro non scripto and, in any event, for determination of the application for leave by a quorum of three judges of the Inner House’.

Judges:

Lord Carloway. Lord Justice Clerk

Citations:

[2013] ScotCS CSIH – 66

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Immigration, Litigation Practice

Updated: 13 October 2022; Ref: scu.512060

JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov and Others: ComC 28 Mar 2011

The Third Defendant sought a stay of the claims against it pursuant to section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996, and the Seventh Defendant asked for a stay of the claims against it on case management grounds.

Judges:

Christopher Clarke J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 587 (Comm), [2011] ArbLR 6

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice, Arbitration

Updated: 12 October 2022; Ref: scu.431652

Tibbs v London Borough of Islington: CA 8 Mar 2002

Application for leave to appeal against refusal to allow amendment to pleadings. She sought damages. The council had pursued her to bankruptcy for substantial sums of alleged arrears of Council Tax, but those claims were rejected by the trustee. Both the bankruptcy and the extension of it were caused by the council’s wrongful claims.
Held: New evidence substantially changed the prospects of success, and the appeal should proceed.

Judges:

Tuckey LJ

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 362

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice, Local Government, Torts – Other

Updated: 12 October 2022; Ref: scu.216992

The Civil Aviation Authority v Jet2Com Ltd, Regina (on The Application of): CA 28 Jan 2020

This appeal raises important issues concerning Legal Advice Privilege, notably:
i) whether, for a communication to fall within the scope of that privilege, it must have had the dominant purpose of seeking or giving legal advice; and
ii) in the light of the answer to (i), the proper approach to determining the privileged status of email communications between multiple parties where one of the senders or recipients is a lawyer.
It also potentially raises issues concerning the proper approach to the collateral waiver of privilege in respect of documents otherwise non-disclosable, as the result of the voluntary disclosure of other privileged documents.

Judges:

Lord Justice Hickinbottom

Citations:

[2020] EWCA Civ 35

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Legal Professions, Litigation Practice

Updated: 12 October 2022; Ref: scu.646342

Regina (on the application of C) v Secretary of State for Justice: SC 27 Jan 2016

The applicant was a convicted murderer who had been held in a high security mental hospital. His application for unescorted leave had been refused, and he wished to challenge the decisions. Anonymity in the subsequent proceedings had been refused to him, but retained pending the appeal.
Held: His appeal was allowed: ‘an anonymity order is necessary in the interests of this particular patient. His regime before he left hospital, involving escorted leave in the community, demonstrated the need for anonymity and the case is even stronger now.’
‘The central issue was the interests of the patient, and, although there is no presumption of anonymity for mental patients that element was one element.
In this case the identity of the person involved was central to the point of public interest, but was outweighed by the public interest in the administration of justice. The conduct of the case would require disclosure of sensitive and highly personal clinical data as to psychiatric patients serving sentences of imprisonment, which would have undermined confidential clinical relationships and thereby reduced the efficacy of the system for judicial oversight of the Home Secretary’s decisions.
Lady Hale said: ‘The principle of open justice is one of the most precious in our law. It is there to reassure the public and the parties that our courts are indeed doing justice according to law. In fact, there are two aspects to this principle. The first is that justice should be done in open court, so that the people interested in the case, the wider public and the media can know what is going on. The court should not hear and take into account evidence and arguments that they have not heard or seen. The second is that the names of the people whose cases are being decided, and others involved in the hearing, should be public knowledge. ‘
and: ‘The question in all these cases is that set out in CPR 39.2(4): is anonymity necessary in the interests of the patient? It would be wrong to have a presumption that an order should be made in every case. There is a balance to be struck. The public has a right to know, not only what is going on in our courts, but also who the principal actors are. This is particularly so where notorious criminals are involved. They need to be reassured that sensible decisions are being made about them. On the other hand, the purpose of detention in hospital for treatment is to make the patient better, so that he is no longer a risk either to himself or to others. That whole therapeutic enterprise may be put in jeopardy if confidential information is disclosed in a way which enables the public to identify the patient. It may also be put in jeopardy unless patients have a reasonable expectation in advance that their identities will not be disclosed without their consent. In some cases, that disclosure may put the patient himself, and perhaps also the hospital, those treating him and the other patients there, at risk. The public’s right to know has to be balanced against the potential harm, not only to this patient, but to all the others whose treatment could be affected by the risk of exposure.’

Judges:

Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Clarke, Lord Wilson, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hughes

Citations:

[2016] UKSC 2, [2016] HRLR 7, [2016] WLR(D) 34, [2016] EMLR 13, 149 BMLR 1, (2016) 149 BMLR 1, (2016) 19 CCL Rep 5, [2016] 1 WLR 444, UKSC 2014/0210

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 6(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Scott v Scott HL 5-May-1913
Presumption in Favour of Open Proceedings
There had been an unauthorised dissemination by the petitioner to third parties of the official shorthand writer’s notes of a nullity suit which had been heard in camera. An application was made for a committal for contempt.
Held: The House . .
Cited – M, Regina (on The Application of) v The Parole Board and Another Admn 22-May-2013
(Jan 2013) The court was asked whether an order for anonymity made in the course of proceedings for judicial review should be discharged upon the application of media and other interested parties. Various newspapers had applied for the order to be . .
Cited – B v The United Kingdom; P v The United Kingdom ECHR 24-Apr-2001
The procedures in English law which provided for privacy for proceedings involving children did not in general infringe the human right to family life, nor the right to a public hearing. Where relatives more distant than immediate parties were . .
Cited – In re S (a Child) (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) HL 28-Oct-2004
Inherent High Court power may restrain Publicity
The claimant child’s mother was to be tried for the murder of his brother by poisoning with salt. It was feared that the publicity which would normally attend a trial, would be damaging to S, and an application was made for reporting restrictions to . .
Cited – Attorney General’s Reference No 3 of 1999: Application By the British Broadcasting Corporation To Set Aside or Vary a Reporting Restriction Order HL 17-Jun-2009
An application was made to discharge an anonymity order made in previous criminal proceedings before the House. The defendant was to be retried for rape under the 2003 Act, after an earlier acquittal. The applicant questioned whether such a order . .
Cited – In re Guardian News and Media Ltd and Others; HM Treasury v Ahmed and Others SC 27-Jan-2010
Proceedings had been brought to challenge the validity of Orders in Council which had frozen the assets of the claimants in those proceedings. Ancillary orders were made and confirmed requiring them not to be identified. As the cases came to the . .
Cited – A v British Broadcasting Corporation (Scotland) SC 8-May-2014
Anonymised Party to Proceedings
The BBC challenged an order made by the Court of Session in judicial review proceedings, permitting the applicant review to delete his name and address and substituting letters of the alphabet, in the exercise (or, as the BBC argues, purported . .
Cited – Mersey Care NHS Trust, Regina (on the Application of) v Mental Health Review Tribunal and others Admn 22-Jul-2004
Proceedings before the Mental Health Review Tribnal had been very nearly all held in private. The patient, Ian Brady sought to have his hearing in public.
Held: Beatson J approved the Tribunal’s reasons forfind that their privacy rules were a . .
Cited – M, Regina (on The Application of) v The Parole Board and Another Admn 22-May-2013
(Jan 2013) The court was asked whether an order for anonymity made in the course of proceedings for judicial review should be discharged upon the application of media and other interested parties. Various newspapers had applied for the order to be . .
Cited – C v Secretary of State for Justice Admn 2014
The claimant sought to challenge a refusal to him, as a long standing convicted murderer of unsupervised leave from prison as part of a path to release. He was detained in a secure mental hosptal. The court now considered whether the claimant and . .
Cited – Regina v East London and the City Mental Health NHS Trust and Another ex parte Von Brandenburg (Aka Hanley) HL 13-Nov-2003
The patient was ordered to be discharged and released from hospital. The tribunal making the order had not accepted the medical recommendations. His release was deferred pending the finding of accommodation, but in the meantime, a social worker . .
Cited – AH v West London MHT UTAA 29-Jul-2010
Prisoner in secure hospital – application for public hearig of request for discharge – refused . .
Cited – AH v West London MHT (J) UTAA 17-Feb-2011
Order for public hearing of detention review under Mental Health Act – at request of AH. . .

Cited by:

Cited – PNM v Times Newspapers Ltd and Others SC 19-Jul-2017
No anonymity for investigation suspect
The claimant had been investigated on an allegation of historic sexual abuse. He had never been charged, but the investigation had continued with others being convicted in a high profile case. He appealed from refusal of orders restricting . .
Cited – XXX v Camden London Borough Council CA 11-Nov-2020
Anonymity in Court Proceedings – No two stage test
XXX appealed against the refusal to make orders anonymising her name and redacting certain details from published judgments. The appeal raised a point about the proper approach to applications for anonymisation under CPR 39.2. She brought . .
Cited – Imam, Regina (on The Application of) v The London Borough of Croydon (Anonymity request) Admn 26-Mar-2021
Anonymity Not Necessary under CPR 3.92.
Judgment on the Claimant’s application for an order under CPR 39.2(4) that her name be anonymised in these proceedings by the use of a cipher and that restrictions should be imposed on the reporting of her identity. She said that publication of her . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Media, Health, Human Rights

Updated: 12 October 2022; Ref: scu.559351

Smillie v Southend on Sea Borough Council: CA 27 Mar 2002

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 516

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Smillie v Southend on Sea Borough Council CA 13-Mar-2002
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Smillie, Regina (on the Application of) v Southend-On-Sea Borough Council CA 2-May-2002
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 11 October 2022; Ref: scu.216985