Category: Litigation Practice

Vestergaard Frandsen A/S and Others v Bestnet Europe Ltd and Others: ChD 15 Dec 2014

Application by the claimants to have struck out paragraphs in a defence witness statement on the basis that it referred to matters covered by a ‘without prejudice’ communication.
Held: There had been no waiver of privilege, and the paragraphs were struck out.

Judges:

Iain Purvis QC

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 4047 (Ch), [2015] 1 Costs LR 85

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs, Litigation Practice

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.550171

In Re Banco Nacional De Cuba: ChD 7 Jun 2001

Where it was alleged that shares in a UK company had been sold at an undervalue, so as to allow a challenge in insolvency proceedings, the leave of the court was still required if the pleadings were to be served abroad. When the court considered such an application, it had to look not just at the fact that the property to which the claim related is in the jurisdiction, but also at reality of the extent of the connection with the UK, and the difficulties if any of enforcement. Here the claimant had not demonstrated that the purpose of the transaction might be to defeat creditors, and one would, in its own jurisdiction, enjoy immunity from enforcement. Section 423 ‘extends to any claim for relief, whether for damages or otherwise, so long as it is related to property located within the jurisdiction’ and ‘the claim under section 423 relates to the shares and particularly the disposition of the shares.’ By CPR 6.20(10) the court may assume jurisdiction if the whole subject-matter of the claim relates to property situated in England.
Lightman J: ‘The critical differences between RSC, O 11, r 1(1)(g) and CPR 6.20(10) is the substitution for the words ‘land situate within the jurisdiction’ of the words ‘relates to property located within the jurisdiction’. The implications are that: (1) the rule is no longer limited to land and now extends to personal property; and (2) instead of the whole claim having to be confined to a claim to a proprietary or possessory interest, it is sufficient that the whole claim relates to property. The evident purpose of the new rule is to lay down a single rule in place of the three earlier rules which embraces and extends beyond the contents of those rules. It is to be noted that at p 128 of the Autumn 2000 Civil Procedure (‘White Book’) the comment is made on CPR 6.20(10): ‘This wide and new provision is no longer confined to land and the old cases are redundant.’ In my view on its proper construction the rule cannot be construed as confined to claims relating to the ownership or possession of property. It extends to any claim for relief (whether for damages or otherwise) so long as it is related to property located within the jurisdiction. This construction vests in the Court a wide jurisdiction, but since the jurisdiction is discretionary the Court can and will in each case consider whether the character and closeness of the relationship is such that the exorbitant jurisdiction against foreigners abroad should properly be exercised.’

Judges:

Lightman J

Citations:

Times 18-May-2001, Gazette 07-Jun-2001, [2001] 1 WLR 2039

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 6.20., Insolvency Act 1986 423

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Shahar v Tsitsekkos and others ChD 17-Nov-2004
The defendant wished to make a claim against another party outside the jurisdiction and was granted permission to serve documents which were headed ‘defence and counterclaim’. The proposed defendant argued that such a document could be served in . .
Cited – Islamic Republic of Pakistan v Zardari and others ComC 6-Oct-2006
The claimant alleged that the defendants had funded the purchase of various properties by secret and unlawful commissions taken by them whilst in power in Pakistan. They sought to recover the proceeds. They now sought permission to serve proceedings . .
Cited – Ashton Investments Ltd. and Another v OJSC Russian Aluminium (Rusal) and others ComC 18-Oct-2006
The claimants sought damages for breach of confidence saying that the defendants had hacked into their computer systems via the internet to seek privileged information in the course of litigation. The defendants denied this and said the courts had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

International, Civil Procedure Rules, Insolvency, Litigation Practice

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.81730

Football Dataco Ltd and Others v Smoot Enterprises Ltd and Another: ChD 14 Apr 2011

The claimant sought judgment in default, and an order for interim payment of damages. The court considered whether the claimants have a cause of action for part of the relief sought turns on a question of European law which is the subject both of an unresolved appeal to the Court of Appeal and of a reference by that court to the European Court of Justice.

Judges:

Briggs J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 973 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice, European

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.432783

Aquila Week’s Case: 1792

If a record in an action for an escape from execution recite the judgment to be of one term, arid in the Nisi Prius roll it be entered of another term, a venire de novo shall issue, although the misrecital was by misprision.

Citations:

[1792] EngR 123, (1792) Cro Car 203, (1792) 79 ER 779 (A)

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.358335

AMEC Group Ltd v Universal Steels (Scotland) Ltd: TCC 25 Mar 2009

The claimant sought an interlocutory injunction to require the defendant to deliver up Quality Assurance documentation.

Judges:

Coulson J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 560 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Nottingham Building Society v Eurodynamics Systems plc 1993
The court laid down tests for the granting of mandatory interim injunctions. The court should consider whether there was a high degree of confidence that the applicant would succeed in establishing his right at trial. The higher that confidence, the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Litigation Practice

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.324692

Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd and others: QBD 5 Mar 2009

The claimant police officer complained of an alleged defamation in an article published by the defendant. The defendant wished to obtain information from the IPCC to show that they were investigating the matter as a credible issue. The court considered applications relating to the disclosure of private materials given to the Independent Police Complaints Commission and the Metropolitan Police about a third party with reason to fear for his safety.
Held: The court identified issues which might define the need for disclosure to support a defence of justification, and heard representations on the documents sought. The defendant had not yet met the strict criteria requiring such disclosures in any of the categories sought. In relation to Part 31.17 applications, Eady J said: ‘In any event the court has a clear obligation to ensure, if necessary of its own motion, that this intrusive jurisdiction is not used inappropriately -even by consent. In exercising its responsibility the court may well be assisted by submissions made on behalf of any third party, the protection of whose interests require to be considered.’

Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

[2009] EMLR 18, [2009] EWHC 411 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Supreme Court Act 1981 34, Civil Procedure Rules 31.17

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Lucas-Box v News Group Newspapers Ltd; Polly Peck (Holdings) Plc v Trelford, Viscount De L’Isle v Times Newspapers Ltd CA 1986
Justification To be Clearly Set Out
The former practice which dictated that a defendant who wished to rely on a different meaning in support of a plea of justification or fair comment, did not have to set out in his defence the meaning on which he based his plea, was ill-founded and . .
Cited – Frankson and Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Johns v Same CA 8-May-2003
The claimants sought damages for injuries alleged to have been received at the hands of prison officers whilst in prison. They now sought disclosure by the police of statements made to the police during the course of their investigation.
Held: . .
Cited – Chase v Newsgroup Newspapers Ltd CA 3-Dec-2002
The defendant appealed against a striking out of part of its defence to the claim of defamation, pleading justification.
Held: The Human Rights Convention had not itself changed the conditions for a plea of justification based upon reasonable . .
Cited – Three Rivers District Council and Others, HM Treasury, v HM Treasury, The Governor and Company of the Bank of England (No 4) CA 7-Aug-2002
The claimants had suffered having lost deposits with the Bank of Credit and Commerce International. They claimed their losses from the respondents as regulators of the bank, for negligence and misfeasance in public office. The action was based upon . .
Cited – Wakefield v Outhwaite 1990
When seeking an order for a third party to disclose documents, the threshold condition cannot be circumvented by an order which puts upon the non-party the task of identifying those documents within a composite class which do, and those which do . .
Cited – American Home Products Corporation, Professor Roy Calne v Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Limited, Novartis Pharma AG CA 27-Jul-2000
The invention was a second medical use for a known drug rapamycin, which was found to have an immuno-suppressive effect. The court asked whether a claim to rapamycin should be construed to include derivatives.
Held: A person skilled in the art . .
Cited – In Re Howglen Ltd ChD 21-Apr-2000
Where a party applies for an order obliging a third party to discover all documents within a certain class of documents, the court must be satisfied that every document which might fall within the class also fell properly within the class of . .
Cited – Woolgar v Chief Constable of Sussex Police and UKCC CA 26-May-1999
The issue was the potential disclosure by the police to the nurses’ regulatory body of confidential information concerning the plaintiff, the matron of a nursing home. There had been insufficient evidence to charge the plaintiff with a criminal . .
Cited – Taylor and Others v Director of The Serious Fraud Office and Others HL 29-Oct-1998
The defendant had requested the Isle of Man authorities to investigate the part if any taken by the plaintiff in a major fraud. No charges were brought against the plaintiff, but the documents showing suspicion came to be disclosed in the later . .
Cited – Panayiotou and Others v Sony Music Entertainment (UK) Ltd ChD 21-Jul-1993
The rules do not limit the inherent jurisdiction of the court to make requests to foreign courts to ensure the production of documents from abroad. There is no logical reason why the principles by reference to which the court determines whether, and . .
Cited – Marcel v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis CA 1992
A writ of subpoena ad duces tecum had been issued requiring the production by the police for use in civil proceedings of documents seized during a criminal fraud investigation. The victim of the fraud needed them to pursue his own civil case.

Cited by:

See Also – Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd QBD 2-Oct-2009
The defendant had published a story in its newspaper. At that time it attracted Reynolds qualified privilege. After the circumstances changed, the paper offered an updating item. That offer was rejected as inadequate.
Held: The qualified . .
See Also – Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd CA 13-Jul-2010
The claimant police officer complained of an article he said was defamatory in saying he was being investigated for allegations of accepting bribes. The article remained on the internet even after he was cleared. Each party appealed interim orders. . .
Cited – Andrew v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Commissioner of the Police for the Metropolis ChD 18-Mar-2011
The claimant sought unredacted disclosure of documents by the second defendant so that he could pursue an action against the first, who, he said, were thought to have intercepted his mobile phone messages, and where the second defendant had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.320871

Paulin v Paulin: CA 17 Mar 2009

The court considered an application by the wife when, anticipating ancillary relief claims, the husband sought to have himself declared bankrupt, and she intervened to have the bankruptcy set aside. The husband now appealed.
Held: Wilson LJ set out examples of the application to particular facts of the jurisdiction to reverse an error prior to the perfection of a judgment. The jurisdiction does not exist so as to enable a party to re-argue points already argued orally or to advance points which were not argued before judgment was given.
Wilson LJ said: ‘Until 1972 the courts made no attempt to narrow the circumstances in which it would be proper for a judge to exercise his jurisdiction to reverse his decision prior to the sealing of the order’.

Judges:

Wilson, Longmore, Lawrence Collins LJJ

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 221, [2009] 2 FLR 3, [2009] BPIR 572, [2009] 3 All ER 88, [2009] Fam Law 567, [2009] 2 FCR 477

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Insolvency Act 1986 306

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Mohamed, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 5) Admn 16-Oct-2009
The claimant sought to assert that he had been tortured whilst held by the US Authorities. He sought publication of an unredacted report supplied by the US security services to the respondent. The respondent argued that the full publication was . .
Cited – Sheikh and Another v Dogan and Others ChD 17-Nov-2009
The judge had reserved his judgment, but had since received further voluminous representations from a party.
Held: None of the matters raised suggested a proper reason for exercising the jurisdiction given by In re Barrell. The claimant was . .
Cited – Re L and B (Children) SC 20-Feb-2013
The court was asked as to the extent to which a court, having once declared its decision, could later change its mind. Though this case arose with in care proceedings, the court asked it as a general question. The judge in a fact finding hearing in . .
Cited – TZ v General Medical Council Admn 17-Apr-2015
Appeal against decision of a Fitness to Practise Panel holding that the Appellant’s fitness to practise as a medical practitioner was impaired by reason of his misconduct. It directed that his name be erased from the Medical Register under section . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Insolvency, Litigation Practice

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.321828

Novus Aviation Ltd v Onur Air Tasimacilik As: CA 27 Feb 2009

The defendant appealed against a refusal to set aside the grant of leave to serve outside the jurisdiction granted to the claimant. Neither party conducted and business in England, and the contract was made in Switzerland, but was expressed to be subject to English law.
Held: The appeal failed.
Lawrence Collins LJ said: I accept that at this stage it is by no means clear that any substantial issues of English law will arise at trial, and that the use of English in the negotiations is only one of the factors to be taken into account in determining the most appropriate forum. But the judge did not treat the governing law of the putative contract or the use of English in the documents and in the negotiations as in any sense conclusive. In my judgment he was entitled to come to the conclusion that Novus had shown clearly that England was the appropriate forum, and I am entirely unable to detect any error of principle or other ground for interfering with the judge’s exercise of discretion.

Judges:

Sir Stephen Brown, Wilson, Lawrence Collins LJJ

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 122, [2009] 1 CLC 850, [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 576

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd, The Spiliada HL 1986
Forum Non Conveniens Restated
The House reviewed the authorities on the principle of forum non conveniens and restated how to apply the principle where the defendant seeks a stay of proceedings on the ground that there is another more appropriate forum.
Held: ‘In the . .
Cited – BP Exploration Co (Libya) Ltd v Hunt 1976
The fact that the contract was governed by English law was the predominating factor to be borne in mind when deciding jurisdiction.
The court should be careful before describing as non-disclosure as material not included in an affidavit in . .
Cited – Amin Rasheed Shipping Corp v Kuwait Insurance Co HL 1983
A claimant must show good reason why service on a foreign defendant should be permitted. This head of jurisdiction was an exorbitant jurisdiction, one which, under general English conflict rules, an English court would not recognise as possessed by . .
Cited – du Pont du Nemours v Agnew CA 1987
An application was made to injunct the commencement of proceedings in England.
Held: The request failed. The court was asked whether the English claimants had shown a good argument for invoking the jurisdiction of the English court against . .
Cited – MacSteel Commercial Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Thermasteel V (Canada) Inc CA 1996
The South African and Canadian parties had contracted subject to the law of England. The Canadian company said that England remained inappropriate as the choice of forum.
Held: Jurisdiction was declined.
The distinction between the . .
Cited – Ilyssia Compania Naviera SA v Bamaodah ‘The Elli 2’ CA 1985
May LJ considered the creation of a contract by implication, saying: ‘no such contract should be implied on the facts of any given case unless it is necessary to do so: necessary, that is to say, in order to give business reality to a transaction . .
Cited – Mitsubishi Corp v Alafouzos 1988
Elements of English public policy may determine that an English Court is the appropriate forum to hear a case. Steyn J said: ‘one must keep constantly in mind that one is dealing with a head of public policy, which requires the Court to proceed with . .

Cited by:

Cited – VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp and Others SC 6-Feb-2013
The claimant bank said that it had been induced to create very substantial lending facilities by fraudulent misrepresentation by the defendants. They now appealed against findings that England was not clearly or distinctly the appropriate forum for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Jurisdiction

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.311759

Federal Republic of Nigeria v Santolina Investment Corporation and others: QBD 3 Dec 2007

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 3053 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

See Also – Nigeria v Santolina Investment Corp and others ChD 7-Mar-2007
The federal government sought to recover properties from the defendants which it said were the proceeds of corrupt behaviour by the principal defendant who had been State Governor of a province. The claimant sought summary judgment.
Held: . .

Cited by:

See Also – Nigeria v Santolina Investment Corp and others ChD 7-Mar-2007
The federal government sought to recover properties from the defendants which it said were the proceeds of corrupt behaviour by the principal defendant who had been State Governor of a province. The claimant sought summary judgment.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.296303

Gater Assets Ltd v Nak Naftogaz Ukrainiy: ComC 21 May 2008

Whether interest recoverable under 1838 Act

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 1108 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Judgments Act 1838 17

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Gater Assets Ltd v Nak Naftogaz Ukrainiy ComC 22-Mar-2007
Application for security for costs. . .
See Also – Gater Assets Ltd v Nak Naftogaz Ukrainiy CA 17-Oct-2007
The defendant resisted enforcement of a Moscow arbitration award saying it had been obtained by fraud, and sought security for costs.
The Court addressed the issue of security for the future costs of a challenge under section 103(3), which . .
See Also – Gater Assets Ltd v Nak Naftogaz Ukrainiy ComC 15-Feb-2008
Appeal against enforcement of interational arbitration award. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.267941

Lord 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 opponent. The judge had refused to excise the details surrounding the lie from his judgment.
Held: The Court of Appeal should not interfere ‘unless the judge has erred in principle or reached a conclusion that was plainly wrong or, put another way, was outside the ambit of conclusion which a judge could reasonably reach’. The appeal failed save only to the extent at the court said the judge should not have included the details of the way the appellant and his opponent had met. The court acknowledged that there is ‘potentially an important distinction between information which is made available to a person’s circle of friends or work colleagues and information which is widely published in a newspaper.’

Judges:

Sir Anthony Clarke MR, Buxton LJ, Keene LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 295, [2008] QB 103, [2007] EMLR 538, [2007] 3 WLR 289

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 39.2(2)

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 – Cream 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 . .
Cited – Regina v Broadcasting Standards Commission, Ex Parte British Broadcasting Corporation CA 6-Apr-2000
The Act protects the privacy of a corporate body. A television company which secretly filmed in a company’s store could be held to have infringed the privacy of the company by the Broadcasting Standards Commission. The Act went further than the . .
Cited – Douglas and others v Hello! Ltd and others (No 3) CA 18-May-2005
The principal claimants sold the rights to take photographs of their wedding to a co-claimant magazine (OK). Persons acting on behalf of the defendants took unauthorised photographs which the defendants published. The claimants had retained joint . .
Cited – Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd (MGN) (No 1) HL 6-May-2004
The claimant appealed against the denial of her claim that the defendant had infringed her right to respect for her private life. She was a model who had proclaimed publicly that she did not take drugs, but the defendant had published a story . .
Cited – Associated Newspapers Ltd v Prince of Wales CA 21-Dec-2006
The defendant newspaper appealed summary judgment against it for breach of confidence and copyright infringement having published the claimant’s journals which he said were private.
Held: Upheld, although the judge had given insufficient . .
Cited – Ash and Another v McKennitt and others CA 14-Dec-2006
The claimant was a celebrated Canadian folk musician. The defendant, a former friend, published a story of their close friendship. The claimant said the relationship had been private, and publication infringed her privacy rights, and she obtained an . .
Cited – Niemietz v Germany ECHR 16-Dec-1992
A lawyer complained that a search of his offices was an interference with his private life.
Held: In construing the term ‘private life’, ‘it would be too restrictive to limit the notion of an ‘inner circle’ in which the individual may live his . .
Cited – Amann v Switzerland ECHR 16-Feb-2000
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 8 with regard to interception of telephone call; Violation of Art. 8 with regard to creation and storing of information card; Preliminary objection . .
Cited – Stes Colas Est And Others v France ECHR 16-Apr-2002
. .
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 – Norfolk County Council v Webster and others FD 1-Nov-2006
The claimants wished to claim that they were victims of a miscarriage of justice in the way the Council had dealt with care proceedings. They sought that the proceedings should be reported without the children being identified.
Held: A judge . .
Cited – Bonnard v Perryman CA 2-Jan-1891
Although the courts possessed a jurisdiction, ‘in all but exceptional cases’, they should not issue an interlocutory injunction to restrain the publication of a libel which the defence sought to justify except where it was clear that that defence . .
Cited – Attorney-General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No 2) (‘Spycatcher’) HL 13-Oct-1988
Loss of Confidentiality Protection – public domain
A retired secret service employee sought to publish his memoirs from Australia. The British government sought to restrain publication there, and the defendants sought to report those proceedings, which would involve publication of the allegations . .
Cited – Greene 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 . .
Cited – Stephens v Avery ChD 1988
The parties had been friends and had discussed their sex lives. The defendant took the information to a newspaper and its editor, the second and subsequent defendants who published it. The plaintiff sought damages saying the conversations and . .
Cited – X and Y v Persons Unknown QBD 8-Nov-2006
The claimants sought an injunction against unknown persons who were said to have divulged confidential matters to newspapers. The order had been served on newspapers who now complained that the order was too uncertain to allow them to know how to . .
Cited – A v B C and D QBD 13-Jul-2005
The claimant sought an order restraining the defendant from publishing private matters saying that they should be considered to be confidential information. . .

Cited by:

Cited – 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 . .
Approved – A v Independent News and Media Ltd and Others CA 31-Mar-2010
The newspapers sought leave to report proceedings before the Court of Protection in connection with a patient unable to manage his own affairs. The patient retained a possible capacity to work as a professional musician. The family wanted the . .
Cited – ETK v News Group Newspapers Ltd CA 19-Apr-2011
The claimant appealed against refusal of an injunction to restrain the defendant newspaper from publishing his name in connection with a forthcoming article. The claimant had had an affair with a co-worker. Both were married. The relationship ended, . .
Cited – CTB v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Another (1) QBD 16-May-2011
A leading footballer had obtained an injunction restraining the defendants from publishing his identity and allegations of sexual misconduct. The claimant said that she had demanded money not to go public.
Held: It had not been suggested that . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Ferdinand v MGN Limited QBD 29-Sep-2011
The claimant, a famous footballer, complained that an article by the defendant relating an affair he had had, had infringed his right to privacy. The defendant relied on its right to freedom of expression. The claimant had at an earlier stage, and . .
Cited – McClaren v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 5-Sep-2012
The claimant had obtained an interim injunction to restrain the defendant publishing what he said was private information about a sexual encounter. He also sought an injunction under the 1997 Act.
Held: The claim succeeded: ‘there have been . .
Cited – AAA v Associated Newspapers Ltd CA 20-May-2013
An order had been sought for the claimant child for damages after publication by the defendant of details of her identity and that of her politician father. She now appealed against refusal of her claim for damages for publication of private . .
Cited – Google Inc v Vidal-Hall and Others CA 27-Mar-2015
Damages for breach of Data Protection
The claimants sought damages alleging that Google had, without their consent, collected personal data about them, which was resold to advertisers. They used the Safari Internet browser on Apple products. The tracking and collation of the claimants’ . .
Cited – ZXC v Bloomberg Lp CA 15-May-2020
Privacy Expecation during police investigations
Appeal from a judgment finding that the Defendant had breached the Claimant’s privacy rights. He made an award of damages for the infraction of those rights and granted an injunction restraining Bloomberg from publishing information which further . .
Cited – HRH The Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers Ltd ChD 11-Feb-2021
Defence had no prospect of success – Struck Out
The claimant complained that the defendant newspaper had published contents from a letter she had sent to her father. The court now considered her claims in breach of privacy and copyright, and her request for summary judgment.
Held: Warby J . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Media, Litigation Practice

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.251613

CI v NS: FD 19 Mar 2004

The executor sought to appeal an order made on behalf of a residuary beneficiary that he produce accounts in an estate. The order had been made in his absence, and with a costs order.
Held: To avoid a breach of natural justice, time should be extended to allow an appeal.

Judges:

Baron DBE J

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 659 (Fam)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Administration of Estates Act 1925 25

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Wills and Probate, Litigation Practice

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.195133

Hutcheson v Popdog Ltd and Another: CA 19 Dec 2011

The claimant had obtained an injunction to prevent the defendant publishing private materials regarding him. That injunction had been continued by consent but was no challenged by a third party news publisher.
Held: Leave to appeal was refused. The matter having been settled between the direct parties, it would be wrong to continue them for the benefit of a third party intervener.

Judges:

Lord Neuberger MR, Etherton, Gross LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 1580

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Attorney-General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No 2) (‘Spycatcher’) HL 13-Oct-1988
Loss of Confidentiality Protection – public domain
A retired secret service employee sought to publish his memoirs from Australia. The British government sought to restrain publication there, and the defendants sought to report those proceedings, which would involve publication of the allegations . .
See Also – Hutcheson (Formerly Known As ‘KGM’) v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Others CA 19-Jul-2011
The claimant appealed against the refusal of a privacy order, protecting his identity in his claim.
Held: The appeal was refused. That Article 8 was ‘engaged’ was not conclusive of the question whether the claimant enjoyed a reasonable . .
Applied – Practice Guidance: Interim Non-Disclosure Orders 20-May-2011
. .
Cited – Rolls-Royce plc v Unite the Union CA 14-May-2009
The parties disputed whether the inclusion of length of service within a selection matrix for redundancy purposes would amount to unlawful age discrimination. The court was asked whether it was correct to make a declaratory judgment when the case . .
Cited – Attorney-General v Newspaper Publishing Plc and Others CA 2-May-1997
A third party was in contempt of court if the proceedings had been significantly, and adversely, affected. It was not necessary that they had been frustrated entirely.
‘The law of contempt is of ancient origin yet of fundamental contemporary . .
Cited – Gawler v Raettig CA 3-Dec-2007
The parties had resolved their claims of negligence, but asked the court to set the level of contributory negligence even though the appeal was academic.
Held: The court refused leave to appeal, but stated that its judgment could be reported. . .
Cited – Bowman v Fels (Bar Council and Others intervening) CA 8-Mar-2005
The parties had lived together in a house owned in the defendant’s name and in which she claimed an interest. The claimant’s solicitors notified NCIS that they thought the defendant had acted illegally in setting off against his VAT liability the . .
Cited – Jockey Club v Buffham QBD 13-Sep-2002
A court had issued a final order with an injunction against the respondent against revealing matters becoming known to him during his employment by the claimant. The BBC sought a variation to allow it to broadcast material based upon that documents . .
Cited – Her Majesty’s Attorney General v Punch Limited and another HL 12-Dec-2002
A former MI5 agent, Mr Shayler, was to be prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act, and an injunction against publication was granted. The respondent published further works by Mr Shayler, and now appealed a finding that it had acted in contempt of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Media, Litigation Practice, Costs

Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.450107

Hutcheson (Formerly Known As ‘KGM’) v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Others: CA 19 Jul 2011

The claimant appealed against the refusal of a privacy order, protecting his identity in his claim.
Held: The appeal was refused. That Article 8 was ‘engaged’ was not conclusive of the question whether the claimant enjoyed a reasonable expectation of privacy

Judges:

Lord Neuberger MR, Etherton, Gross LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 808, [2012] EMLR 2

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – CTB v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Thomas (2) QBD 23-May-2011
The claimant had obtained a privacy injunction, but the name of the claimant had nevertheless been widey distributed on the Internet. The defendant newspaper now sought to vary the terms. The second defendant did not oppose the injunction. . .
See Also – KGM v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Others QBD 1-Dec-2010
The claimant had obtained an interim injunction to prevent the defendant newspapers from publishing stories about him, together with an order protecting his identity within the proceedings. The defendants now sought to have the injunctions set . .

Cited by:

Cited – Ferdinand v MGN Limited QBD 29-Sep-2011
The claimant, a famous footballer, complained that an article by the defendant relating an affair he had had, had infringed his right to privacy. The defendant relied on its right to freedom of expression. The claimant had at an earlier stage, and . .
See Also – Hutcheson v Popdog Ltd and Another CA 19-Dec-2011
The claimant had obtained an injunction to prevent the defendant publishing private materials regarding him. That injunction had been continued by consent but was no challenged by a third party news publisher.
Held: Leave to appeal was . .
Cited – PJS v News Group Newspapers Ltd SC 19-May-2016
The appellants had applied for restrictions on the publication of stories about their extra marital affairs. The Court of Appeal had removed the restrictions on the basis that the story had been widely spread outside the jurisdiction both on the . .
Cited – Candy v Holyoake and Others QBD 2-Mar-2017
Mr Candy claimed remedies for what he alleged were completed or threatened wrongs in the form of breach of confidence, misuse of private information, and breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 (‘DPA’) against five defendants, one of whom had filmed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Media

Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.441955

AC Ward and Son v Catlin (Five) Ltd and Others: CA 10 Sep 2009

The defendant insurers appealed against refusal of summary judgment in its favour in defending a claim under a policy. The claimants premises had been burgled. The insurer said that the claimant had failed to respect warranties given by it as to security. The insurers had said they were conditions, breach of which suspended the cover. They judge had rejected that argument.
Held: The appeal failed. To be treated as warranties, the provisions had to be clear, and the claimants ad a proper argument that the provisions were not clear: ‘The Claimant has a real prospect of successfully contending that its interpretation gives the Policy a more reasonable commercial meaning and one more likely to be that intended by the parties, by limiting the ‘protections provided for the safety of the insured property’ to those in the Original Proposal, and any burglar alarm system within the BAMW to a burglar alarm stated in the Schedule and which was approved by the Defendants, and by limiting the Warranties, as the Judge was inclined to do, to defects within the knowledge or reasonably capable of being within the knowledge of the Claimant and its agents.’

Judges:

Wilson, Etherton, Sullivan LJJ

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 1098, [2010] Lloyds Rep IR 301

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – F L Schuler AG v Wickman Machine Tools Sales Limited HL 4-Apr-1973
The parties entered an agreement to distribute and sell goods in the UK. They disagreed as to the meaning of a term governing the termination of the distributorship.
Held: The court can not take into account the post-contractual conduct or . .
Cited – Pratt v Aigaion Insurance Company SA (‘the Resolute’) CA 27-Nov-2008
The court considered the interpretation of a term in a contract of insurance to the effect that ‘Warranted Owner and/or Owner’s experienced skipper on board and in charge at all times and one experienced crew member.’, asking whether ‘at all times’ . .
Approved – Easyair Ltd (T/A Openair) v Opal Telecom Ltd ChD 2-Mar-2009
Principles Applicable on Summary Judgment Request
The court considered an application for summary judgment.
Held: Lewison J set out the principles: ‘the court must be careful before giving summary judgment on a claim. The correct approach on applications by defendants is, in my judgment, as . .
Cited – ICI Chemicals and Polymers Ltd v TTE Training Ltd CA 13-Jun-2007
The Defendant had applied for summary judgment under CPR Part 24. One argument was a short point of construction. The Judge suggested the parties agree that he should decide the point as a preliminary issue. They were unwilling so he proceeded on . .

Cited by:

Cited – Bhayani and Another v Taylor Bracewell Llp IPEC 22-Dec-2016
Distinction between reputation and goodwill
The claimant had practised independently as an employment solicitor. For a period, she was a partner with the defendant firm practising under the name ‘Bhayani Bracewell’. Having departed the firm, she now objected to the continued use of her name, . .
See Also – AC Ward and Son Ltd v Catlin (Five) Ltd and Others ComC 3-Dec-2009
. .
Cited – CXZ v ZXC QBD 26-Jun-2020
Malicious Prosecution needs court involvement
W had made false allegations against her husband of child sex abuse to police. He sued in malicious prosecution. She applied to strike out, and he replied saying that as a developing area of law a strike out was inappropriate.
Held: The claim . .
Cited – HRH The Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers Ltd ChD 11-Feb-2021
Defence had no prospect of success – Struck Out
The claimant complained that the defendant newspaper had published contents from a letter she had sent to her father. The court now considered her claims in breach of privacy and copyright, and her request for summary judgment.
Held: Warby J . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Litigation Practice

Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.377305

Supperstone v Hurst and Another: ChD 8 Jun 2009

The making of three wholly unmeritorious claims or applications were sufficient to support an application for a civil restraint order against the respondent.

Judges:

Bernard Livesey QC

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 1271 (Ch), [2009] 1 WLR 2306, [2009] BPIR 1291, [2009] NPC 75

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Kumar, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs CA 13-Jul-2006
The scheme of Civil Restraint Orders faithfully reproduced the scheme set out in Bhamjee. The statutory CRO regime it was sufficient that the previous claims or applications were totally without merit, and that the litigant persisted in making them. . .

Cited by:

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

Litigation Practice

Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.346871

Zipher Ltd v Markem Systems Ltd and Another: CA 10 Feb 2009

In earlier proceedings, Zipher had given an undertaking not to pursue their claim over and above a certain level. The defendant now sought to hold them to that undertaking. The claimants replied that the undertaking had lapsed when that action had been lost, and was not resurrected when they won their appeal.
Held: An undertaking should be construed restrictively. It could be effective without being written down, but in this case it had lapsed on the adverse finding.

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 44

Links:

Bailii, Times

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Markem Corporation and Another v Zipher Ltd CA 22-Mar-2005
A patent which was applied for as a result of a breach of confidence may be capable of giving the victim of the breach the benefit of an interest in the patent. In the UK at least the basis of an entitlement claim must be a breach of the claimant’s . .
See Also – Zipher Ltd v Markem Systems Ltd PatC 16-Jan-2007
. .
Appeal From – Zipher Ltd v Markem Systems Ltd and Another PatC 25-Jun-2008
. .
Appeal From – Zipher Ltd v Markem Systems Ltd and Another PatC 1-Sep-2008
This judgment deals with the issue of the scope of the injunction to which Markem should be entitled in support of the undertaking given to HHJ Fysh QC. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Intellectual Property

Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.282609

Compagnie Noga D’Importation et D’Exportation Sa v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd. and others: CA 31 Jul 2002

If the court wishes to enable a party to appeal against a particular finding contained in the judgment, it may make a declaration embodying that finding.

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 1142, [2003] 1 WLR 307, [2003] CP Rep 5

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Compagnie Noga D’Importation Et D’Exportation Sa v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd and others ComC 18-Nov-2004
Langley J held a ‘nominal claimant’ to be ‘one whose name is used to bring a claim in which he does not have any or at least any significant legal or beneficial interest’. . .
See Also – Compagnie Noga D’Importation Et D’Exportation Sa and Another v Australian and New Zealand Banking Group and others ComC 24-Mar-2006
. .
See Also – Compagnie Noga D’Importation Et D’Exportation Sa v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd ComC 26-Jan-2007
. .
See Also – Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd v Compagnie Noga D’Importation Et D’Exportation Sa and Another ComC 21-Feb-2007
Non-payment of bills of exchange – construction of settlement agreement. It was said that the compromise agreement ws unenforceable as being against public policy in restraining one party.
Held: The restraint ‘does not affect the course of . .
Cited – Office of Communications and Another v Floe Telecom Ltd CA 10-Feb-2009
The court was asked to accept an appeal against not the order made by the tribunal, but the terms of the reasoned judgment.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The Tribunal had made findings which were unnecessary to its judgment, and which were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.282651

In re T (A Child: contact): CA 24 Oct 2002

The court considered an appeal in care proceedings, where it was felt that the judge’s reasons for his findings were inadequately set out. Arden LJ pointed out that the principles in Emery Reimbold applied also in care proceedings, and set out counsel’s duties on receiving what might be a deficient draft judgment: ‘In a complex case, it might well be prudent, and certainly not out of place, for the judge, having handed down or delivered judgment, to ask the advocates whether there are any matters which he has not covered. Even if he does not, as a matter of courtesy at least, to draw the judge’s attention to any material omission of which he is then aware or then believes exists. It is well-established that it is open to a judge to amend his judgment, if he thinks fit, at any time up to the drawing of the order. In many cases, the advocate ought to raise the matter with the judge in pursuance of his duty to assist the court to achieve the overriding objective (CPR 1.3, which does not as such apply to these proceedings); and in some cases, it may follow from the advocate’s duty not to mislead the court that he should raise the matter rather than allow the order to be drawn. It would be unsatisfactory to use an omission by a judge to deal with a point in a judgment as grounds for an application for appeal if the matter has not been brought to the judge’s attention when there was a ready opportunity so to do. Unnecessary costs and delay may result. I should make it clear that there are general observations for assistance in future cases, and that I make no criticisms of counsel in this case’.

Judges:

Thorpe, Rix, Arden LJJ

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 1736, [2003] 1 FLR 531, [2003] 1 FCR 303

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – English v Emery Reimbold and Strick Ltd; etc, (Practice Note) CA 30-Apr-2002
Judge’s Reasons Must Show How Reached
In each case appeals were made, following Flannery, complaining of a lack of reasons given by the judge for his decision.
Held: Human Rights jurisprudence required judges to put parties into a position where they could understand how the . .

Cited by:

Cited – J K Bansi v Alpha Flight Services EAT 3-Feb-2004
EAT Redundancy – Collective consultation and information. Serota QC J said: ‘In English v Emery Reimbold and Strick Ltd . . the Court of Appeal gave guidance as to the circumstances in which a Judge might be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Litigation Practice

Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.282654

Masri v Consolidated Contractors (Oil and Gas) Company Sal: CA 6 Feb 2009

Appeal from order with regard to management of receivership.

Judges:

Mummery LJ, Rimer LJ, Sullivan LJ

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 36, [2009] 1 CLC 82

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International (UK) Ltd ComC 17-May-2005
. .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International (UK) Ltd CA 24-Oct-2005
The defendants who were resident in Greece appealed a decision that the English court had jurisdiction over them, by virtue of a close connection of the matter with earlier proceedings heard here.
Held: The fact that the defendants were all . .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International UK Ltd and Another ComC 28-Jul-2006
. .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International UK Ltd and Another ComC 14-Mar-2007
Judgment on quantum. . .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International (UK) Ltd and others ComC 25-May-2007
Application for an order to prevent some defendants pursuing action in other jurisdictions. . .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another CA 11-Jul-2007
. .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another CA 4-Apr-2008
The court was asked whether the Commercial Court had international jurisdiction to make an order for the appointment of a receiver by way of equitable execution, and a freezing order, in relation to the judgment debtors’ interest in the concession . .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another ComC 23-May-2008
Application for interpretation of a receivership order. . .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another (No 3) CA 6-Jun-2008
The court was asked whether the English court has jurisdiction following judgment to grant an anti-suit injunction against foreign judgment debtors (one of whom has a domicile in a Brussels I Regulation State) restraining them from pursuing . .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another ComC 21-Oct-2008
The court heard matters relating to the recovery by the claimant of $63,000,000. . .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Co Sal and others CA 13-Nov-2008
The creditors sought leave to appeal against orders made in the course of proceedings to recover a very substantial debt from a foreign resident company. . .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another ComC 20-Dec-2007
. .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International (UK) Ltd and Another ComC 17-Jun-2008
Application for further order of payment of costs of action on account. . .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and others CA 28-Jul-2008
The judgment creditor appealed an order refusing to oblige the defendant company to attend court and provide information about its means. . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Co Sal and Others HL 30-Jul-2009
The claimant sought to enforce a judgment debt against a foreign resident company, and for this purpose to examine or have examined a director who lived abroad. The defendant said that the rules gave no such power and they did, the power was outside . .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Others ComC 6-Oct-2010
The third respondent sought to strike out an application for his committal for failure to comply with orders made in support of proceedings to enforce a substantial judgment. . .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal ComC 21-Oct-2010
The court held a case management conference with regard to an intended application for committal for contempt of one of the defendants. . .
See Also – Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another v Masri CA 21-Jan-2011
. .
See Also – Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another v Masri CA 3-Feb-2011
. .
See Also – Masri and Another v Consolidated Contractors International Co Sal and Others ComC 3-Mar-2011
On notice hearing with regard to without notice receivership order. . .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Others ComC 5-May-2011
The applicant, and judgment creditor sought orders for committal for contempt by the defendant companies and officers after failing to comply with court orders. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.280493

Tarn Insurance Services Ltd v Kirby and others: CA 27 Jan 2009

Claim by company in administration against former directors for excess payments alleged to have been taken by them. There was now alleged a wilful failure to comply wih court orders for disclosure..
Held: Once non-compliance with an unless order was established, what is required in order to grant relief from sanctions is a material change in circumstances: ‘to relieve someone against such a default was sending ‘entirely the wrong message to those who face allegations of fraud’, and ‘In a case of deliberate and persistent non-compliance with orders to provide information and deliver documents made in order to safeguard proprietary claims, a proper administration of justice requires that, save in very exceptional circumstances, sanctions imposed should take effect. There were no exceptional circumstances in the present case.’

Judges:

Waller LJ VP, Thomas LJ, Sir John Chadwick

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 19, [2009] CP Rep 22

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Applied – Thevarajah v Riordan and Others ChD 9-Aug-2013
The court was asked first whether the defendants had complied with an unless order made with respect to the disclosure of information required to be provided in aid and in order to ensure the proper release of a freezing order which had previously . .
Cited – Thevarajah v Riordan and Others ChD 10-Oct-2013
The court allowed the application of the first, second and fourth respondents for relief from sanction under CPR 3.9. . .
Cited – Thevarajah v Riordan and Others CA 16-Jan-2014
Defendants appealed against an order allowing the application of the first, second and fourth respondents for relief from sanction under CPR 3.9. The relief sought had previously been refused by Hildyard J, so this was the respondents’ second . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insolvency, Company, Litigation Practice, Torts – Other

Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.280416

Taranissi, Regina (on the Application of) v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority: Admn 14 Jan 2009

The BBC sought permission to inspect a class of documents on the court file in judicial review proceedings. The reason for the application was that the documents were likely to contain information relevant to a libel action in which Mr Taranissi was suing the BBC and in which the BBC wished to advance a plea of justification. Saunders J said: ‘In their application, the BBC have identified the general class of document that they wish to see. I am satisfied that this is not an exercise to look through the whole of the court file to see if there is anything in it which might possibly assist which could probably be described as a fishing expedition. The reason for the application is not directly concerned with obtaining publication in the public interest or in pursuit of the principle of open justice; it is clearly to assist the BBC in their libel action. Indirectly it is concerned with the public interest because that public interest is the basis of the plea of justification in the libel action. In any event, I am satisfied on the authorities to which I have been referred that an application for disclosure for the purposes of collateral litigation does not mean in any sense that the order cannot be made.’

Judges:

Saunders J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 130 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – ABC Ltd v Y ChD 6-Dec-2010
There had been proceedings as to the misuse of confidential information. X, a non-party, now sought disclosure of papers used in that case. The case had been settled by means of a Tomlin Schedule, and that, subject to further order, non-parties . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health Professions, Media, Litigation Practice

Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.280425

Farm Assist Ltd v Secretary of State for Environment Food and Rural Affairs: TCC 12 Dec 2008

The claimant, now in liquidation, sought to have set aside for economic duress the mediated settlement of its dispute with the defendant. The defendant sought disclosure of legal and similar advice given to the claimant.
Held: Paragon Finance overruled the whole of the decision in Hayes v. Dowding and that the commentary in Phipson more correctly states English law. The test of fairness is not a test which is applied generally in English law when deciding whether there has been an implied waiver of privilege; the privilege which attaches is absolute and is not overridden as a matter of policy. It is only waived in the limited circumstances set out in Lillicrap v. Nalder and Paragon Finance. There had been no waiver of legal advice privilege by FAL by pleading economic duress and putting in issue the material fact of Mr Hepworth’s state of mind.

Judges:

Ramsey J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 3079 (TCC), [2009] PNLR 16, [2009] PNLR 16, 25 Const LJ 308, [2009] BLR 80

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – DSND Subsea Ltd v Petroleum Geo Services Asa TCC 28-Jul-2000
Dyson J set out the principles applicable in establishing a pleading of commercial duress:
(i) Economic pressure can amount to duress, provided it may be characterised as illegitimate and has constituted a ‘but for’ cause inducing the claimant . .
Cited – Hearn v Rhay 1975
(United States District Court, Eastern District of Washington) Neill CJ said: ‘All of these established exceptions to the rules of privilege have a common denominator; in each instance, the party asserting the privilege placed information protected . .
Cited – Lillicrap v Nalder CA 1993
A property developer sued his solicitor for negligent advice on the purchase of a property. The solicitor wished to rely on previous retainers, in which the developer had ignored advice, so as to challenge the developer’s assertions that, with . .
Cited – Nederlandse Reassurantie Groep Holding NV v Bacon and Woodrow Holding 1995
A Dutch corporation had obtained advice from lawyers and other professionals before purchasing share capital in insurance companies. After the purchase the corporation discovered that it was exposed to large losses and began proceedings in . .
Cited – Hayes v Dowding 1996
Disputes over the running of a private company had been compromised by the plaintiffs’ solicitors. The plaintiffs sought to upset the compromise on the basis that they had been induced by a misrepresentation. The Defendants sought disclosure of . .
Cited – Wardrope v Dunne 1996
(Queensland) Where in his pleadings a party relies upon his state of mind and it would be unfair to permit that party to maintain privilege in respect of communications passing between them and their legal advisers which might bear upon the . .
Cited – Paragon Finance Plc (Formerly Known As National Home Loans Corporation Plc); etc v Freshfields (a Firm) CA 11-Mar-1999
A client who sues his former solicitor, waives his legal privilege protection, as regards that legal relationship, but that does not require a waiver also, of other privilege with later solicitors instructed in related matters. Lord Bingham LCJ . .
Cited – X Corporation v Y 16-May-1997
Legal professional privilege might be taken to be waived if it would be unfair to allow a client to maintain it. . .
Cited – Three Rivers District Council and others v Governor and Company of the Bank of England (No 6) HL 11-Nov-2004
The Bank anticipated criticism in an ad hoc enquiry which was called to investigate its handling of a matter involving the claimant. The claimant sought disclosure of the documents created when the solicitors advised employees of the Bank in . .

Cited by:

See Also – Farm Assist Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (No 2) TCC 19-May-2009
The mediator who had acted in attempting to resolve the dispute between the parties sought to have set aside a witness summons issued by the claimant who sought to have the mediated agreement set aside for economic duress.
Held: In this case . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Arbitration, Litigation Practice

Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.279959

Anderson v Lambie: HL 25 Jan 1954

As the result of a mistake, a disposition of property conveyed the entirety of an estate which consisted mainly of a farm, but also included other property. The preceding missives of sale were capable of more than one meaning as to the extent of the subjects to be conveyed. The evidence established that the missives had themselves been preceded by an oral agreement for the sale of the farm alone.
Held: The appeal succeeded and the decision of the First Division reversed. Such problems with this type of mistake in expression could not be resolved by construing the document as it stood, unlike a mistake in expression which was obvious on the face of the document. Neither was this a situation where an agreement was vitiated by error: ‘in the present case the error only arose after the parties had reached agreement’. There must nevertheless be a remedy.
However, it was incompetent under Scots law for a defectively expressed document to be corrected by the court so as to give effect to the true agreement between the parties.
Lord Keith of Avonholm said that reduction was available in the event of a conveyance or contract ‘being expressed as regards essentials in different terms from what the parties really intended and had agreed between them’.
As to the remedy of reduction, Lord Reid said: ‘But, when it is sought to reduce a deed, it is necessary to go behind the deed and discover the real facts. The fact that the parties agreed to the missives is important evidence but it is not the only competent evidence. The question is not what the missives mean: if that were the question, the ordinary rule would apply that the meaning of a document must be found from its terms. The question is whether the real facts are such that the disposition must be reduced, and the existence of the missives does not alter the nature of the inquiry.’

Judges:

Lord Reid, Lord Keith of Avonholm

Citations:

[1954] UKHL 3, [1954] 1 WLR 303, [1954] 3 All ER 157 (Note), 1954 SLT (Notes) 22, 1954 SLT 73, 1954 SC (HL) 43

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Krupp v John Menzies Ltd SCS 16-May-1907
kruppSCS1907
The court considered whether there had been an error in the contract and how it should be dealt with. Lord President Dunedin said: ‘it is a very delicate matter to interfere with a written contract expressed in clear terms, and that parole proof . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Land, Litigation Practice, Contract

Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.279713

Errington v Wilson: SCS 16 Jun 1995

The court considered the need for a party to be given opportunity to cross examine witnesses: ‘In the present case the prejudice which resulted from the refusal to allow cross examination is self evident. There was a difference of opinion between experts on points which were crucial to a sound determination of the questions which the justice had to decide. The result of her refusal to allow cross examination was that the evidence of the second respondents’ witnesses could not be challenged in the only manner which was likely to be effective in a case of such difficulty. So I consider that the Lord Ordinary was well founded in his decision that by refusing to allow cross examination in these circumstances the justice disabled herself from reaching a fully informed conclusion upon the evidence. This amounted to a denial of natural justice to the petitioner, as her duty to act fairly in this case required her to permit cross examination of the second respondents’ witnesses.
The answer to that question must in the end depend upon the circumstances. In my opinion it is clear from the facts in this case that the justice could not decide whether the cheese failed to comply with food safety requirements without examining the evidence of the expert witnesses. We were not referred in detail to their evidence, but the documents which were shown to us indicate that important questions were raised by the petitioner’s expert about the reliability of the evidence of the second respondents’ witnesses. The nature of these questions was such that they could not be answered without a detailed study and understanding of the witnesses’ evidence. Counsel for the second and third respondents submitted that the point which was being made by these witnesses was a simple one. There were no statutory guidelines, but they said that the matter could be decided by the application of the PHLS Guidelines which did not give rise to any questions of difficulty. But the application of those guidelines to this case was disputed, and the justice could not decide that issue fairly between the parties without examining the detail of their evidence.

In a case of this difficulty there was an obvious risk of unfairness if the second respondents’ witnesses were not open to cross examination on the detail of their evidence. There was a risk that defects in that evidence would lie undetected, and that the justice would not be informed about the issues which she had to decide. It is no answer to this point to say that she put both parties on an equal footing by denying to both of them the opportunity of cross examining each other’s witnesses. Nor is it an answer to say that the public have an interest in food safety. The consequences for the petitioner and his business were likely to be very serious if the case went against him, and he had a right under the statute to attend and to call witnesses. The issues which the petitioner’s representative wished to raise in cross examination were issues on which the petitioner wished to be heard. These were issues which he wished to raise by way of challenge to the evidence of the second respondents’ expert witnesses. The unfairness to him lay in the denial to him of the opportunity of opening up these issues by putting questions about them directly to the second respondents’ expert witnesses.’

Judges:

Lord President (Hope), Lord Allanbridge and Lord Clyde

Citations:

[1995] ScotCS CSIH – 2, 1995 SC 550, 1995 SLT 1193, 1995 SCLR 875

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Litigation Practice, Natural Justice

Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.279579

The Morgan Crucible Company Plc v Hill Samuel and Co Ltd and others: CA 19 Oct 1990

Appeal from refusal of leave to amend statement of claim.

Judges:

Slade, Mustill, Nicholls LJJ

Citations:

[1990] EWCA Civ 4, [1991] Ch 259

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Morgan Crucible Company Plc v Hill Samuel and Co Ltd ChD 24-Jul-1990
The court laid down the procedure on a strike out application: ‘On an application to strike out a pleading under RSC Ord.18, r.19(1)(a) no evidence is admissible and since it is only the pleading itself which is being examined, the court is required . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Company

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.248041

Miliangos v George Frank (Textiles) Ltd: CA 1975

The court looked at what makes a case decided per incuriam: ‘a case is not decided per incuriam because counsel have not cited all the relevant authorities or referred to this or that rule of court or statutory provision.’ (Lord Denning MR)

Judges:

Lord Denning MR

Citations:

[1975] QB 487

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Young v The Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd CA 28-Jul-1944
Court of Appeal must follow Own Decisions
The claimant was injured and received compensation. He then sought to recover again, alleging breach of statutory duty by his employers.
Held: The Court of Appeal was in general bound to follow its own previous decisions. The court considered . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Miliangos v George Frank (Textiles) Ltd HL 1975
The issue was whether an English court was able to award damages in Sterling only.
Held: The House distinguished clearly between the substance of the debtor’s obligations and the effect of English procedural law when a debt in a foreign . .
Cited – Desnousse 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.242933

Hughes v Paxman: CA 4 Jul 2006

Brief order

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 887

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Hughes v Paxman CA 23-Jun-2006
The parties were co-proprietors of a patent. Mr Hughes appealed a decision confirming an order that the patent must be exploited.
Held: The comptroller had the power to make such an order. Parliament could not have intended a deadlock . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Litigation Practice

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.242967

Attorney General of the Cayman Islands v Cleaver and others: PC 6 Jun 2006

(The Cayman Islands) The Attorney General sought to intervene after the Court of Appeal had decided that court approval of an insolvency practitioner’s fees was not required.
Held: On a matter of public concern such as this where the court had made a decision inconsistent with a stautory scheme, the Attorney General had sufficient standing to appeal. His appeal succeeded.

Citations:

[2006] UKPC 28, Times 29-Jun-2006

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Commonwealth

Litigation Practice

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.242919

Doncaster Pharmaceuticals Group Ltd and Others v The Bolton Pharmaceutical Company 100 Ltd: CA 26 May 2006

Appeals were made against interlocutory injunctions for alleged trade mark infringement.
Held: The court should hesitate about making a final decision for summary judgment without a trial, even where there is no obvious conflict of fact at the time of the application, where reasonable grounds exist for believing that a fuller investigation into the facts of the case would add to or alter the evidence available to a trial judge and so affect the outcome of the case.
Mummery LJ warned against the risk of injustice: ‘Summary judgment procedures, which are designed for the swift disposal of straight forward cases without trial, are only available where the applicant demonstrates that the defence (or the claim, as the case may be) has no ‘real’ prospect of success and if there is no other compelling reason why the case or issue should be disposed of at a trial: CPR Part 24.2 . Thus, without the assistance of pre-trial procedures, such as disclosure of documents, and without the benefit of trial procedures, such as cross examination, the court’s function is to decide whether the defendant’s prospect of successfully establishing the facts relied on by him is ‘real’, that is more than ‘fanciful’ or ‘merely arguable.’ and
‘ I also wish to say a few words about the litigation expectations and tactics of claimants and defendants. Claimants start civil proceedings (including intellectual property actions) in the expectation that they will win and often in the belief that the defendant has no real prospect of success. So the defence put forward may be seen as a misconceived, costly and time-wasting ploy designed to dodge an inevitable judgment for as long as possible. There is also a natural inclination on the part of optimistic claimants to go for a quick judgment, if possible, thereby avoiding the trouble, expense and delay involved in preparing for and having a trial.
Everyone would agree that the summary disposal of rubbishy defences is in the interests of justice. The court has to be alert to the defendant, who seeks to avoid summary judgment by making a case look more complicated or difficult than it really is.
The court also has to guard against the cocky claimant, who, having decided to go for summary judgment, confidently presents the factual and legal issues as simpler and easier than they really are and urges the court to be ‘efficient’ ie produce a rapid result in the claimant’s favour.
In handling all applications for summary judgment the court’s duty is to keep considerations of procedural justice in proper perspective. Appropriate procedures must be used for the disposal of cases. Otherwise there is a serious risk of injustice.’

Judges:

Mr Justice Longmore Lord Justice Mummery Mr Justice Lewison

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 661, [2007] FSR 3, [2006] ETMR 65

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 24.2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Nigeria v Santolina Investment Corp and others ChD 7-Mar-2007
The federal government sought to recover properties from the defendants which it said were the proceeds of corrupt behaviour by the principal defendant who had been State Governor of a province. The claimant sought summary judgment.
Held: . .
Cited – Pegasus Management Holdings Sca and Another v Ernst and Young (A Firm) and Another ChD 11-Nov-2008
The claimants alleged professional negligence in advice given by the defendant on a share purchase, saying that it should have been structured to reduce Capital Gains Tax. The defendants denied negligence and said the claim was statute barred.
Cited – Mexfield Housing Co-Operative Ltd v Berrisford ChD 5-Oct-2009
The claimant appealed against refusal of a summary order for possession of the defendant tenant’s house for arrears of rent. The arrears arose through delay in payment of Housing Benefit, and all arrears had been cleared by the hearing of the . .
Cited – Pink Floyd Music Ltd and Another v EMI Records Ltd ChD 11-Mar-2010
The claimant sought summary judgment for a claim under Licensing agreements under which the defendants had marketed and sold the claimant’s products. The remaining disputes concerned differences as to royalties from digital downloads sold through . .
Cited – Sel-Imperial Ltd v The British Standards Institution ChD 23-Apr-2010
The defendant had developed a draft standard for automotive body repairs. It included a requirement that any replacement parts must be either the manufacturer’s own or certified under a recognised conformity certification scheme. The claimant . .
Cited – Parties Named In Schedule A v Dresdner Kleinwort Ltd and Another QBD 28-May-2010
The defendant merchant banks resisted two group claims for annual bonuses for 2008 made by the employee claimants. They now sought summary judgment against the claims. The employer had declared a guaranteed minimum bonus pool available to make the . .
Cited – Meakin v British Broadcasting Corporation and Others ChD 27-Jul-2010
The claimant alleged that the proposal for a game show submitted by him had been used by the various defendants. He alleged breaches of copyright and of confidence. Application was now made to strike out the claim. . .
Cited – Allen v Bloomsbury Publishing Plc and Another ChD 14-Oct-2010
The claimant sought damages alleging breach of copyright by the defendant author saying she had copied large parts of the claimant’s work in her book ‘Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire’. The defendant now sought summary judgment, saying the action . .
Cited – Easyair Ltd (T/A Openair) v Opal Telecom Ltd ChD 2-Mar-2009
Principles Applicable on Summary Judgment Request
The court considered an application for summary judgment.
Held: Lewison J set out the principles: ‘the court must be careful before giving summary judgment on a claim. The correct approach on applications by defendants is, in my judgment, as . .
Cited – Guthrie v Morel and Others ChD 5-Nov-2015
The will had failed clearly to identify a property in Spain the subject of a bequest.
Held: Summary judgment was given. ‘It seems to me to be clear that the deceased intended by his Will to deal with his entire estate and that he intended the . .
Cited – Bhayani and Another v Taylor Bracewell Llp IPEC 22-Dec-2016
Distinction between reputation and goodwill
The claimant had practised independently as an employment solicitor. For a period, she was a partner with the defendant firm practising under the name ‘Bhayani Bracewell’. Having departed the firm, she now objected to the continued use of her name, . .
Cited – HRH The Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers Ltd ChD 11-Feb-2021
Defence had no prospect of success – Struck Out
The claimant complained that the defendant newspaper had published contents from a letter she had sent to her father. The court now considered her claims in breach of privacy and copyright, and her request for summary judgment.
Held: Warby J . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Litigation Practice

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.242215

Morgan Crucible Company Plc v Hill Samuel and Co Ltd: ChD 24 Jul 1990

The court laid down the procedure on a strike out application: ‘On an application to strike out a pleading under RSC Ord.18, r.19(1)(a) no evidence is admissible and since it is only the pleading itself which is being examined, the court is required to assume that each and every one of the facts pleaded (unless manifestly incapable of proof) is true and will be capable of proof at the trial. In some instances, the court may regard the assumption as somewhat unrealistic, but it nevertheless has to be made.’ The court set out the main principles under which a party can be liable for economic loss in negligence.

Judges:

Hoffmann J

Citations:

[1991] Ch 295

Statutes:

Rules of the Supreme Court Ord.18, r.19(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Bank of Credit and Commerce International (Overseas) Limited (In Liquidation); BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg) SA (In Liquidation); Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA (In Liquidation) v Price Waterhouse CA 13-Feb-1998
The special relationship between an auditor and a bank, meant that a duty of care could extend even to a second bank with its own auditors. In determining whether there had been an assumption of responsibility, the the relevant factors would include . .
Cited – HM Customs and Excise v Barclays Bank Plc HL 21-Jun-2006
The claimant had served an asset freezing order on the bank in respect of one of its customers. The bank paid out on a cheque inadvertently as to the order. The Commissioners claimed against the bank in negligence. The bank denied any duty of care. . .
Appeal from – The Morgan Crucible Company Plc v Hill Samuel and Co Ltd and others CA 19-Oct-1990
Appeal from refusal of leave to amend statement of claim. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Negligence

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.185216

Assam Railways and Trading Co Ltd v Commissioners of Inland Revenue: HL 1935

Parties questioned the admissibility before the House of recommendations of a Royal Commission on Income Tax which had preceded an Act and which counsel for the appellants sought to cite as part of the context of intention of Parliament in relation to a particular section of the Act.
Held: Counsel could not make that reference. Lord Wright: ‘It is clear that the language of a Minister of the Crown in proposing in Parliament a measure which eventually becomes law is inadmissible and the Report of Commissioners is even more removed from value as evidence of intention, because it does not follow that their recommendations were accepted.’

Judges:

Lord Wright

Citations:

[1935] AC 445

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart HL 26-Nov-1992
Reference to Parliamentary Papers behind Statute
The inspector sought to tax the benefits in kind received by teachers at a private school in having their children educated at the school for free. Having agreed this was a taxable emolument, it was argued as to whether the taxable benefit was the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.180559

Habib Bank Limited v Gulzar Haider Jaffer; Habib Bank Limited v Haider Ladhu Jaffer: CA 5 Apr 2000

A major litigation action was characterised by persistent delay on behalf of the plaintiffs. They had failed to follow advice given to them by their solicitors regarding the need to make progress. In the circumstances, the delay could only be interpreted as deliberate, and an abuse of process. The claim was to be struck out accordingly.

Citations:

Gazette 28-Apr-2000, Times 05-Apr-2000, [1999] EWCA Civ 1620

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Panamax Star Owners and or Bailees of The Cargo of The Ship) v Auk (Owners of The Ship) AdCt 18-Dec-2013
A strike out was sought alleging gross delay and an abuse of process.
Held: The strike out was granted both as to the claim and counter claims.
Hamblen J discussed first the issues surrounding delay: ‘In summary, the authorities provide . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.81113

Pirelli Cables Ltd and Others v United Thai Shipping Corporation Ltd and Others: QBD 5 Apr 2000

A writ was issued under the old rules. An application for relief to extend time for service was lodged within the four months but heard outside the limit under the old rules, but, again, inside the time limit under the new rules. It was held that for a writ issued under the old rules, should be judged under the old rules. An exclusive jurisdiction clause applied and the matter must be dealt with in accordance with it.

Citations:

Gazette 18-May-2000, [2000] EWHC 195 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.84742

Laserpoint Ltd v The Prime Minister of Malta and Others: QBD 20 Jul 2016

Appeal from the order declaring that a judgment in the Civil Court in Malta may be enforced in England and Wales against Laserpoint Limited the appellant.

Judges:

Patterson DBE J

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 1820 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Negligence, Litigation Practice

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.567291

Deutsche Bank Ag and Others v Unitech Global Ltd and Others: CA 3 Mar 2016

Second interlocutory appeal in the battle between Deutsche Bank and other creditors who have brought two actions in the Commercial Court to recover amounts due under loan or swap agreements which used LIBOR as a reference rate in the calculation of interest.

Judges:

Longmore, Christopher Clarke, Sales LJJ

Citations:

[2016] WLR(D) 119, [2016] EWCA Civ 119, [2016] 2 All ER (Comm) 689, [2016] 1 WLR 3598

Links:

WLRD, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Deutsche Bank Ag and Others v Unitech Global Ltd and Others ComC 28-Feb-2013
Applications for leave to amend pleadings. . .
See Also – Deutsche Bank Ag and Others v Unitech Global Ltd and Another ComC 20-Sep-2013
Defendant’s request for summary dismissal of claims saying that they had no real prospect fo success. The claimant said the applications were an abuse of process. . .
Appeal fom – Deutsche Bank Ag and Others v Unitech Global Ltd and Others ComC 3-Oct-2014
. .

Cited by:

Cited – IPCO (Nigeria) Ltd v Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation SC 1-Mar-2017
The court was asked whether the appellant NNPC, should have to put up a further USD 100m security (in addition to USD 80m already provided) in respect of a Nigerian arbitration award which the respondent, had been seeking since November 2004 to . .
Cited – Deutsche Bank Ag and Others v Unitech Global Limited and Others ComC 15-Apr-2019
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Banking, Litigation Practice

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.560615

Cruz City 1 Mauritius Holdings v Unitech Ltd and Others: ComC 2 Oct 2014

Application by the claimant under section 37 of the 1981 Act for the appointment of receivers by way of equitable execution over certain assets of the first defendant and the second defendant attempting to enforce a London arbitration award.

Judges:

Males J

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 3131 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Senior Courts Act 1981 37

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.537327

Cruz City 1 Mauritius Holdings v Unitech Ltd and Others: ComC 11 Nov 2014

The court was asked whether an English court has jurisdiction to make a freezing order in aid of enforcement of a London arbitration award against subsidiaries of the award debtor against whom no substantive claim is asserted and who have no presence or assets within the jurisdiction.

Judges:

Males J

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 3704 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Jurisdiction, Litigation Practice

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.538688

Cruz City 1 Mauritius Holdings v Unitech Ltd and Others: ComC 23 May 2013

Application under s. 37(1)[1] of the Senior Courts Act 1981 for an order compelling the Defendants to provide disclosure verified by an affidavit of a proper officer of all their assets worldwide.

Judges:

Field J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 1323 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.510037

Huscroft v P and O Ferries Ltd: CA 21 Dec 2010

Second appeal against order requiring sum for security for costs to be paid into court and in default for the claim to be struck out.
Held: The Court considered its jurisdiction to make an order for security for costs under rule 3.1 and, importantly, the relationship of that jurisdiction to the jurisdiction conferred by Part 25. After referring Olatawura v Abiloye, Moore-Bick LJ (with whom Elias LJ and Sedley LJ) agreed, emphasised that litigants should not regard rule 3.1 as providing a way of circumventing the requirements of Part 25: ‘It is clear from paragraph 26 of the judgment in Olatawura v Abiloye that the court was viewing the matter though the prism of an unsuccessful application for summary judgment, but the warning against making exorbitant applications in misguided attempts to obtaining a conditional order for security for costs is of more general application. It would be wrong, in my view, to encourage litigants to regard rule 3.1(3) as providing a convenient means of circumventing the requirements of Part 25 and thereby of providing a less demanding route to obtaining security for costs. In my view, when the court is asked to consider making an order under rule 3.1(3) or 3.1(5) which is, or amounts to, an order for security for costs, or when it considers doing so of its own motion, it should bear in mind the principles underlying rules 25.12 and 25.13. These include the principle that a personal claimant who is resident within the jurisdiction or in one of the other member states of the European Union cannot be required to provide security for costs just because he is impecunious, even though his conduct of the proceedings may be open to criticism. Although it might be argued that the defendant in such a case should be entitled to obtain protection against the risk of being unable to enforce a judgment for costs, a policy decision has been taken to the contrary. This suggests that an order of that kind should not be made in the exercise of the power under rule 3.1(3) unless one or more additional factors are present which make it appropriate to impose a burden of that kind on one party and a corresponding benefit on the other.’ and
‘In both Olatawura v Abiloye and Ali v Hudson the court appears to have been concentrating primarily on the court’s power to order a payment into court under rule 3.1(5), although it may be fair to say that in neither case was it at pains to draw a clear distinction between the two rules. However, they are distinct and directed to different situations. In particular, rule 3.1(3) is deliberately drafted in quite general terms and I think that this court should be reluctant to lay down any hard and fast rules about the circumstances or manner in which the power can be exercised. Experience shows that cases are infinitely variable and the rule does not place any limit on the nature of the conditions that may be imposed or the circumstances in which the power may be invoked, other than providing that a condition may be imposed as an adjunct to an order. However, two matters seem to me to provide support for the view that the power to attach conditions to an order is intended, as Mr. Myerson submitted, to enable the court to exercise a degree of control over the future conduct of the litigation. The first is the existence of rule 3.1(5), which is clearly intended to give the court power to punish a party who without good reason fails to comply with the established procedural code, including the pre-action protocols. Although such an order may well have a beneficial influence on the future conduct of the litigation, it is directed more to what has gone on in the past than what will go on in the future. To that extent it is quite different in nature from a condition of the kind contemplated by rule 3.1(3) which, combined with a sanction for failure to comply, usually of a stringent nature, is designed to control the future conduct of the party on whom it is imposed. The second is the language of the rule itself. The very fact that it allows the court to make an order subject to conditions is sufficient to show that the rule is concerned with the basis on which the proceedings will be conducted in the future, and that remains the case even when the condition is imposed in order to make good the consequences of some kind of previous misconduct.
Having said that, I think it is also necessary to recognise that rule 3.1(3) does not give the court a general power to impose conditions on one or other party whenever it happens to be making an order and if District Judge Babbington thought that it did, he was in my view wrong. When the rule speaks about the court’s making an order it is referring to a direction that a party act in a certain way or that a certain state of affairs should exist, not to the instrument used to give effect to one or more such directions. The court has ample powers under rules 3.1(2)(m) and 3.3 to make whatever orders are needed for the proper management of the proceedings. The purpose of rule 3.1(3) is to enable the court to grant relief on terms and when the power is exercised the condition ought properly to be expressed as part of the order granting the specific relief to which it relates. The order in the present case did not do that. Paragraph 1 was framed as a free-standing order that Mr. Huscroft pay money into court as security for costs; it was not expressed as a condition of obtaining any relief that he was seeking. Paragraph 2 imposed the sanction of striking out his claim in default of compliance. Those were orders of a kind that one might expect to see following an application for security for costs under Part 25 or even an unsuccessful application by one or other party for judgment under Part 24, but not as conditions attaching to a wide-ranging group of relatively routine procedural directions given at a case management conference. I accept that, as Rimer LJ pointed out when refusing permission to appeal on this point, it would be wrong to elevate form over substance, but it seems to me that expressing the relevant order as subject to the condition in question is the right way to exercise the power. It also has the advantage of requiring the court to focus attention on whether the condition (and any supporting sanction) is a proper price for the party to pay for the relief being granted . .’

Judges:

Sedley, Moore-Bick, Elias LLJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 1483, [2011] 2 All ER 762, [2011] 1 WLR 939, [2011] CP Rep 16

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Application for leave – Huscroft v P and O Ferries Ltd CA 16-Jun-2010
Renewed application for permission to appeal. . .
Cited – Olakunle O Olatawura v Alexander O Abiloye CA 17-Jul-2002
The claimant challenged an order requiring him to give security for costs before proceeding. The judge had felt he was unreasonable in the way he was pursuing his claim. He appealed saying the order was made outside the scope of Part 25.
Held: . .

Cited by:

Cited – Allen v Bloomsbury Publishing Plc and Another ChD 18-Mar-2011
Further applications in defendant’s application for summary judgment and or security for costs in the claimant’s claim alleging copyright infringement.
Held: The claimant was ordered to pay a sum of andpound;50,000 as security for costs.
Cited – Allen v Bloomsbury Publishing Ltd and Another CA 14-Jul-2011
The claimant appealed against an order requiring him to deposit a substantial sum as security for costs for the bringing of his action for copyright infringement in respect of the Harry Potter series of books.
Held: The appeal failed. The . .
Cited – Carlton Advisors v Dorchester Holdings Ltd ComC 29-Aug-2014
The court considered a request to order the defendants to pay a sum of money into court having defaulted in compliance with directions.
Held: The court does have the power under 3.1(5) to order a party to pay a sum of money into court if that . .
Cited – IPCO (Nigeria) Ltd v Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation SC 1-Mar-2017
The court was asked whether the appellant NNPC, should have to put up a further USD 100m security (in addition to USD 80m already provided) in respect of a Nigerian arbitration award which the respondent, had been seeking since November 2004 to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.427366

Belmont Laundry v Aberdeen Steam Laundry: SCS 4 Nov 1898

(Inner House) The pursuer sought recovery of its losses from two defenders jointly and severally as a result of an employee leaving without giving sufficient notice. The pursuer claimed the employee left as the result of the second defender, Abderdeen Steam Laundry Company, having induced him to break his employment agreement.
Held: Although the grounds pleaded against each of the two defenders were different, the action was competent in that both defenders were alleged to have contributed to the one wrong of which the pursuer had complained.
Lord Adam stated: ‘No doubt the ground of action against each defender is different — that against Innes being breach of contract, and that against the Aberdeen Steam Laundry Company the doing of a wrongous and illegal act — but they both contributed to produce the one wrong of which the pursuers complain, and therefore I think that they are conjunctly and severally liable in the consequences’.

Judges:

Lord Adam

Citations:

[1898] ScotCS CSIH – 2, (1898) 6 SLT 192, (1898) 1 F 45

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Litigation Practice

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.279248

H v L and R: FD 7 Dec 2006

A male litigant in person wished to cross-examine a young adult woman whom he was alleged to have abused sexually when she was a child. The young woman in question was a borderline anorexic and a suicide risk. In criminal proceedings, section 34A of the 1988 Act and sections 34 and 35 of the 1999 Act would forbid a defendant from cross-examining a child witness personally.
Held: No such provisions applied in the Family Courts. The Attorney-General , at the court’s urgent request, agreed, exceptionally, to provide an advocate.
Wood J concluded: ‘I would invite urgent attention as to creating a new statutory provision which provides for representation in such circumstances, analogous to the existing statutory framework governing criminal proceedings as set out in the 1999 Act. Such a statutory provision should also provide that the costs of making available to the court an advocate should fall on public funds. I can see no distinction in policy terms between the criminal and the civil process. Logic strongly suggests that such a service should be made available to the family jurisdiction. If it is inappropriate for a litigant in person to cross-examine such a witness in the criminal jurisdiction, why not in the family jurisdiction? This is my judgment’.

Judges:

Wood J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 3099 (Fam), [2007] 2 FLR 162, [2007] 1 FCR 430

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 34 35, Criminal Justice Act 1988 34A

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Approved – Chief Constable and Another v YK and Others FD 6-Oct-2010
The court gave directions in Forced Marriage Protection order applications. An order had been made at the request of the police on behalf of A, and the court had declined to discharge it on A’s own application.
Held: Special advocates were not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Litigation Practice

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.279030

Tombstone Ltd v Raja and Another; Raja v Van Hoogstraten and others (No 9): CA 17 Dec 2008

The claimant complained of an irregularly obtained judgment. The defendant had obtained an amendment to a writ of sequestration in the course of a bitterly fought dispute bewteen the defendant and the owner of the claimant. The judge had found the irregularity proved, but declined to set the order aside. The claimant now said that the judge did not have a discretion not to set the order aside.
Held: The claimant knew of the fault in the order but had not complained of it at later hearings when that suited it.
The court’s inherent powers ‘are complementary to its powers under rules of court; one set of powers supplements and reinforces the other’. The court approved the statement that ‘the inherent jurisdiction may supplement but cannot be used to lay down procedure which is contrary to or inconsistent with a valid rule of the Supreme Court’. This applies in relation to the CPR in the same way that it applied when the previous rules, the RSC, were in force.
The intervener sought to set aside an order made which affected it as to the alleged irregularity of an order obtained.
Held: The primary objective was to obtain a just result. Applications to set aside orders made without notice were subject to rule 23.10. That rule gave a discretion to the judge. Where a third party was affected the normal consequence would be a setting aside of the order obtained, but where the interests of justice required it in an exceptional case, the order might not be set aside. The court’s inherent jurisdiction should not be used where the issue was covered by the rules, and it should not be used to obtain a different conclusion.

Judges:

Mummery LJ, Dyson LJ, Maurice Kay LJ

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 1444, [2009] 1 WLR 1143

Links:

Bailii, Times

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 23.9 23.10

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Gosset v Howard 1845
Sequestrators, as officers of the court who act under the order of the court, are entitled to immunity from suit. . .
Cited – Smith v Sydney 1871
A sequestration order, while in force, was a valid order providing legal protection to those who had obtained it and acted upon it. The court made a distinction between acts of the court and the acts of the parties. . .
Cited – Isaacs v Robertson PC 13-Jun-1984
(St Vincent and The Grenadines) Where the point at issue before the Board was as to a point of procedure with no direct comparable provision in UK law, the Board of the Privy Council should be reluctant to depart from the interpretation set down by . .
Cited – Regina v Collins; Pathfinder Mental Health Services NHS Trust and St Georges Health Care NHS Trust ex parte M S CA 3-Jul-1997
The hospital authorities applied ex parte and were granted a declaration which dispensed with the applicant’s consent to medical treatment.
Held: Her appeal was allowed. A declaration (especially one affecting an individual’s personal . .
Cited – Nelson and Another v Clearsprings (Management) Ltd CA 22-Sep-2006
The defendant did not appear at the trial and now appealed the judgment. The claim form and court papers had been served by post at the wrong address. The question was whether a defendant wanting to set aside a judgment was required to persuade the . .
Appeal from – Raja v Van Hoogstraten and others (No 9) ChD 26-Jul-2007
The court had set aside an sequestration order made following a finding of contempt when the contempt order was incorrectly made. The intervener which had been prejudiced by the sequestration order now sought to argue that the sequestration order . .

Cited by:

Cited – Al Rawi and Others v The Security Service and Others CA 4-May-2010
Each claimant had been captured and mistreated by the US government, and claimed the involvement in and responsibility for that mistreatment by the respondents. The court was asked whether a court in England and Wales, in the absence of statutory . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.278823

Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Co Sal and others: CA 13 Nov 2008

The creditors sought leave to appeal against orders made in the course of proceedings to recover a very substantial debt from a foreign resident company.

Judges:

Collins LJ, Goldring LJ

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 1367

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International (UK) Ltd ComC 17-May-2005
. .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International (UK) Ltd CA 24-Oct-2005
The defendants who were resident in Greece appealed a decision that the English court had jurisdiction over them, by virtue of a close connection of the matter with earlier proceedings heard here.
Held: The fact that the defendants were all . .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International UK Ltd and Another ComC 28-Jul-2006
. .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International UK Ltd and Another ComC 14-Mar-2007
Judgment on quantum. . .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International (UK) Ltd and others ComC 25-May-2007
Application for an order to prevent some defendants pursuing action in other jurisdictions. . .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another CA 11-Jul-2007
. .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another CA 4-Apr-2008
The court was asked whether the Commercial Court had international jurisdiction to make an order for the appointment of a receiver by way of equitable execution, and a freezing order, in relation to the judgment debtors’ interest in the concession . .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another ComC 23-May-2008
Application for interpretation of a receivership order. . .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another (No 3) CA 6-Jun-2008
The court was asked whether the English court has jurisdiction following judgment to grant an anti-suit injunction against foreign judgment debtors (one of whom has a domicile in a Brussels I Regulation State) restraining them from pursuing . .
Appeal from – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another ComC 21-Oct-2008
The court heard matters relating to the recovery by the claimant of $63,000,000. . .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another ComC 20-Dec-2007
. .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International (UK) Ltd and Another ComC 17-Jun-2008
Application for further order of payment of costs of action on account. . .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and others CA 28-Jul-2008
The judgment creditor appealed an order refusing to oblige the defendant company to attend court and provide information about its means. . .

Cited by:

See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors (Oil and Gas) Company Sal CA 6-Feb-2009
Appeal from order with regard to management of receivership. . .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Co Sal and Others HL 30-Jul-2009
The claimant sought to enforce a judgment debt against a foreign resident company, and for this purpose to examine or have examined a director who lived abroad. The defendant said that the rules gave no such power and they did, the power was outside . .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Others ComC 6-Oct-2010
The third respondent sought to strike out an application for his committal for failure to comply with orders made in support of proceedings to enforce a substantial judgment. . .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal ComC 21-Oct-2010
The court held a case management conference with regard to an intended application for committal for contempt of one of the defendants. . .
See Also – Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another v Masri CA 21-Jan-2011
. .
See Also – Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another v Masri CA 3-Feb-2011
. .
See Also – Masri and Another v Consolidated Contractors International Co Sal and Others ComC 3-Mar-2011
On notice hearing with regard to without notice receivership order. . .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Others ComC 5-May-2011
The applicant, and judgment creditor sought orders for committal for contempt by the defendant companies and officers after failing to comply with court orders. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.278671

Jacobs UK Ltd v Skidmore Owings and Merrill Llp: TCC 21 Nov 2008

The claimant sought summary judgment, but the parties submitted very large volumes of material for consideration. Coulson J said: ‘ It might be said that a case which involves so much material and so much evidence cannot possibly be suitable for a claim under CPR Part 24, and that the application should have been dismissed without further ado. In some types of dispute, there may be force in such an observation. However, until the court has been through the material, no matter how detailed, it may not be possible to say whether the defence that is revealed there meets the test of ‘real prospect of success’ required under CPR Part 24 or, even if it does, whether the defence raised can only be described as ‘possible’, with the result that a conditional order may be appropriate under r24.6.’

Judges:

Coulson J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 2847 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.278531

Ough v King: CA 1967

A claim was made for breach of a right to light. The defendant relied on Waldram diagrams to demonstrate that the new extensions did not reduce the amount of adequate light remaining available below the 50% threshold. The relevant room had a floor area of 156.5ft2; before the construction 100.25ft2 had been adequately lit; after the construction 80.25ft2 remained adequately lit. The adequately lit area had declined from 64.05% to 51.27%. The county court judge found that an actionable infringement had occurred.
Held: The defenedant’s appeal failed.
Danckwerts LJ referred to the ‘more demanding standards at the present time in the modern situation’.
Diplock LJ referred to the 50:50 rule as ‘a convenient rule of thumb’ in the 1920s ‘and perhaps later’.
Lord Denning MR: ‘I think the judge was entitled to have regard to the higher standards expected for comfort as the years go by. . . . In these days I would not myself be prepared to regard the 50:50 rule of Mr. Waldram as a universal rule. In some cases a higher standard may reasonably be required.’

Judges:

Lord Denning MR, Danckwerts LJ, Diplock LJ

Citations:

[1967] 1 WLR 1547

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Deakins v Hookings CC 1994
(County Court) Judge Cooke considered a claim for an alleged breach of a right of light. The well-lit area in the living room was 51% of the floor area before the development, reduced to 41% afterwards.
Held: There had been an actionable . .
Cited – Regan v Paul Properties DPF No 1 Ltd and others ChD 27-Jul-2006
The claimant sought an injunction claiming that new building works were a nuisance in breaching his rights of light.
Held: The claim for an injunction failed. Whatever may be the position in cases of other wrongful conduct, in the case of an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Nuisance, Litigation Practice

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.244242

Regina v Mid Glamorgan Family Health Services and Another, ex parte Martin: QBD 2 Jun 1993

The Access to Health Records Act 1990 did not give retrospective rights of access to records which had been created before it was brought into effect.

Citations:

Times 02-Jun-1993, Gazette 14-Jul-1993, Independent 08-Jun-1993

Statutes:

Access to Health Records Act 1990

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina v Mid Glamorgan Family Health Services Authority, ex parte Martin CA 7-Sep-1994
A doctor may deny a patient access to his health records if it is in the patient’s best interests to do so. There is no common law right for a patient to see his own medical records, and the Act is not retrospective. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Health Professions

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.87334

Kine v Jolly: CA 1905

The court refused an injunction in respect of an infringement of the right to light to a dwelling house, restricting the plaintiff to a remedy in damages. Cozens-Hardy LJ: ‘I think it is impossible to doubt that the tendency of the speeches in the House of Lords in Colls v. Home Electric Stores Ltd, is to go a little further than was done in Shelfer v. City of London Electric Lighting Co., and to indicate that as a general rule the Court ought to be less free in granting mandatory injunctions than it was in years gone by.’

Judges:

Cozens-Hardy LJ, Vaughan Williams LJ, Romer LJ

Citations:

[1905] 1 Ch 480

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Company, Meux’s Brewery Co v Same CA 1895
The plaintiff sought damages and an injunction for nuisance by noise and vibration which was causing structural injury to a public house.
Held: The court set out the rules for when a court should not grant an injunction for an infringement of . .
Cited – Colls v Home and Colonial Stores Ltd HL 2-May-1904
The courts below had concluded that the defendant had infringed the plaintiff’s right to light, and had awarded an injunction.
Held: the appeal succeeded. The House set out the requirements for establishing the existence of a right to light. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regan v Paul Properties DPF No 1 Ltd and others ChD 27-Jul-2006
The claimant sought an injunction claiming that new building works were a nuisance in breaching his rights of light.
Held: The claim for an injunction failed. Whatever may be the position in cases of other wrongful conduct, in the case of an . .
Cited – Coventry and Others v Lawrence and Another SC 26-Feb-2014
C operated a motor racing circuit as tenant. The neighbour L objected that the noise emitted by the operations were a nuisance. C replied that the fact of his having planning consent meant that it was not a nuisance.
Held: The neighbour’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Land

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.244244

Roberts Petroleum Ltd v Bernard Kenny Ltd (in liquidation): CA 1982

The plaintiffs had supplied petrol to the defendant who owned two filling stations. The defendant prepared a statement of affairs ready to hold a meeting of creditors. The plaintiffs took their claim to judgement and obtained a charging order nisi to secure it. The defendant sought to prevent the order being made absolute so as to prevent the plaintiff obtaining an unfair advantage in the winding up.
Held: The charging order was re-instated. The impending insolvency of the defendant was not a good or sufficient reason for it not to make the charging order absolute.

Judges:

Lord Brandon of Oakbrook, Cumming-Bruce LJ, Lane D

Citations:

[1982] 1 WLR 301, [1982] 1 All ER 685, [1981] EWCA Civ 10

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Burston Finance Ltd v Spierway Ltd ChD 1974
The lender took a charge over a property held by a company which subsequently became void because it was not registered within the required period at Companies House.
Held: A voidable charge is a valid charge unless and until set aside: . .
Cited – Glass (Cardiff) v Jardean Properties 1976
. .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Roberts Petroleum Ltd v Bernard Kenny Ltd HL 2-Jan-1983
The plaintiff supplied petrol to the defendant but had not been paid. Anticipating the defendant winding up, the plaintiff got judgment and a charging order nisi. The defendant appealed against that order being made absolute, saying that this gave . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Insolvency

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.278206

Chantry Estates (South East) Ltd v Anderson and Another: ChD 3 Oct 2008

The claimant sought specific performance of a contract for the sale of land. The purchase was under an option agreement. The option was exercisable on the grant of planning permission within a certain period, extensible in the case of an appeal.
Held: The contract did not impose much by way of obligation on the buyer and was one sided. There was no reasonable prospect of the defendant succeeding, and summary judgment was granted.

Judges:

Morgan J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 2457 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 24

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice, Contract, Land

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.277022

Equitas Ltd and Another v Horace Holman and Company Ltd and Another: ComC 3 Oct 2008

The court considered the addition of a defendant under the 1981 Act after the main judgment had been unsatisfied on the insolvency of the first defendant.

Judges:

Andrew Smith J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 2287 (Comm), [2009] 1 BCLC 662

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Supreme Court Act 1981 51

Citing:

Cited – Equitas Ltd and Another v Horace Holman and Company Ltd ComC 27-Apr-2007
A principal or employer is entitled to delivery up of original documents (or other property) retained or removed by an agent or employee and relating to transactions done as agent. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.277030

IPCO (Nigeria) Ltd v Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation: ComC 17 Apr 2008

The court considered its power to enforce a New York Convention award in circumstances where a challenge to the validity of the award is pending before the supervisory court.

Judges:

Tomlinson J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 797 (Comm), [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 59, [2008] Bus LR D105, [2008] 1 CLC 738

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – IPCO (Nigeria) Ltd v Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation ComC 27-Apr-2005
A Nigerian arbitration award between two Nigerian companies was first subject to proceedings in Nigeria to set aside the award and subsequently to enforcement proceedings in England.
Held: Gross J refused to consider immediate enforcement. He . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation v IPCO (Nigeria) Ltd CA 21-Oct-2008
The court was asked ‘Can part of a New York Convention arbitration award be enforced? How should sequential applications for enforcement of such an award be approached? ‘
Held: A foreign arbitration award could be enforced within the UK only . .
See Also – IPCO (Nigeria) Ltd v Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation ComC 14-Mar-2014
IPCO applied to have enforced here a substantial arbitration award. NNPC replied that the award had been inflated by fraud.
Held: The fraud challenge was made bona fide. NNPC had a good prima facie case that IPCO practised a fraud on the . .
See Also – IPCO (Nigeria) Ltd v Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (Costs) CA 10-Nov-2015
Challenge to order for payment of security for costs.
Christopher Clarke LJ said: ‘In the present case it seems to us that in reality it is NNPC, the Award debtor, which sought the continuance of the adjournment in the face of IPCO’s attempt to . .
See Also – IPCO (Nigeria) Ltd v Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation CA 10-Nov-2015
The court was asked whether the court below had been right to decline to enforce an arbitration award made in Nigeria in October 2004 and, instead, to continue an adjournment of the enforcement proceedings begun subsequently in this jurisdiction. . .
See Also – IPCO (Nigeria) Ltd v Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation SC 1-Mar-2017
The court was asked whether the appellant NNPC, should have to put up a further USD 100m security (in addition to USD 80m already provided) in respect of a Nigerian arbitration award which the respondent, had been seeking since November 2004 to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Arbitration, Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.266999

AB and others v British Coal Corporation (Department of Trade and Industry): QBD 27 Jun 2007

The parties disputed the effect of the Claims Handling Agreement (CHA) which regulated claims for compensation for respiratory diseases incurred by people working for the defendant as regards the circumstances for claimants with chronic bronchitis. The claimants said that they need only establish having had the disease whilst working at a mine. The DTI said they had additionally to show that the disease was caused by the employment.
Held: the overall object of the CHA was to compensate claimants for injury caused by negligent exposure to mining dust and fumes. To this end, the MAP was designed to identify the respiratory condition(s) from which the miner was suffering or had suffered. The documentaion ‘is, in my view, very strongly indicative of an intention on the part of the parties that, whereas cases of exacerbation of asthma and late onset CB should be evaluated for a causal link with the miner’s work, the same should not be so in cases of CB where the symptoms developed during a period when the miner was working underground.’

Judges:

Swift DBE J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 1407 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Whitworth Street Estates (Manchester) Ltd v James Miller and Partners Ltd HL 1970
The parties disagreed as to the curial law of an arbitration agreement. The proper law of the building contract and the arbitration agreement was English but the reference was conducted in Scotland.
Held: Evidence of behaviour after a contract . .
Cited – Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society HL 19-Jun-1997
Account taken of circumstances wihout ambiguity
The respondent gave advice on home income plans. The individual claimants had assigned their initial claims to the scheme, but later sought also to have their mortgages in favour of the respondent set aside.
Held: Investors having once . .
See Also – AB and others v British Coal Corporation and Coal Mining Contractor Defendants QBD 22-Jun-2004
. .
See Also – AB and others v Department of Trade and Industry S/A British Coal Corporation CA 21-Dec-2005
. .
See Also – AB and others v British Coal Corporation and others CA 19-Oct-2006
A collective compensation agreement, which required affected persons to submit their claims, along with medical evidence, through authorised solicitors to be compensated on the basis of agreed damages formula, was introduced. . .
See Also – AB and others v British Coal Corporation and Another ComC 18-May-2007
. .

Cited by:

See Also – AB and others v British Coal Corporation (Department of Trade and Industry) (Costs) QBD 27-Jun-2007
. .
See Also – AB and others v British Coal Corporation (Rulings Appended) QBD 13-Aug-2007
. .
See Also – AB and others v British Coal Corporation ComC 15-Jan-2008
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.253714

Keen Phillips (A Firm) v Field: CA 26 Oct 2006

The claimant had failed to file a document at court, and omitted to apply for an extension of time to file it. The defendant now appealed the grant by the court of that extension of time notwithstanding.
Held: The appeal failed. The rules did not remove the judge’s discretion to make such an order.

Judges:

Lord Justice Jonathan Parker Lord Justice Moore-Bick

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 1524, Times 07-Dec-2006, [2007] 1 WLR 686

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 3.891)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.247319

Chicago Holdings Ltd v Cooper and Another: ChD 5 Dec 2005

Application for specific disclosure of documents which would otherwise be privileged, in the hands of the liquidators, who are respondents to an application for their removal on the ground, inter alia, that the company.

Judges:

Lawrence Collins J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 3466 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Insolvency, Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.263704

Global Multimedia International Ltd v ARA Media Services and Others: ChD 21 Jul 2006

The defendant sought to resist the jurisdiction of the court, and said that employees had been in breach of duties implied into their employment contracts.
Held: A party seeking to rely upon a foreign law had a duty to specify which law was to be applied, and provide supporting confirmation. Foreign law is generally a matter of fact to be pleaded and proved by the party seeking to rely upon it.

Judges:

Sir Andrew Morritt Ch

Citations:

Times 01-Aug-2006, [2006] EWHC 3612 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Ascherberg, Hpwood and Crew Ltd v Casa Musicale Sonzogno di Petro Ostall SNC 1971
A party seeking to rely upon foreign law has a duty to plead it. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Jurisdiction

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.244187

Dardana Ltd v Yukos Oil Company: CA 18 Apr 2002

The court was asked as to the appropiateness of making a split order.

Judges:

Thorpe, Mance, Neuberger LJJ

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 584

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Yukos Oil Company v Dardana Ltd CA 6-Jul-2001
The applicant had sought to have set aside an arbitral award given in Sweden. In the meantime the defendant had applied for its enforcement on an ex parte basis, and the applicant now sought leave to appeal. . .
Appeal from – Dardana Ltd v Yukos Oil Company QBD 21-Dec-2001
The defendant sought to challenge the enforcement here of a foreign arbitration award. It sought security for costs.
Held: The action was not a challenge to the award itself, but rather to challenge an attempt to enforce it in England. The . .

Cited by:

Cited – Yukos Oil Company v Dardana Ltd CA 18-Apr-2002
The claimant sought to enforce an arbitration award made in Sweden, even though it had yet to give its final adjudication on the defence under the New York Convention argued by the defendant.
Held: The Act cannot have been intended to give the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.217037

Curtis v Curtis: CA 8 Mar 2001

The mother sought leave to call in evidence in proceedings for contact, an affidavit sworn by the father’s previous solicitors when applying to be removed from the record, which related the contents of telephone calls from the father to their offices. The affidavit had been served by mistake on the mother’s solicitors. It showed the husband to have a violent nature.
Held: The evidence was to be admitted. The communications with the solicitors were not part of any attempt to obtain legal advice and were not privileged, and in the course of the conversations the father had committed offences under the 1984 Act.

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 469

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Telecommunications Act 1984

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina 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 – Balabel v Air India CA 1988
When considering claims for legal professional privilege, the court should acknowledge the ‘continuity of communications’. However, where the traditional role of a solicitor had expanded, the scope of legal professional privilege should not be . .
Cited – Regina v Manchester Crown Court ex parte Rogers (Legal Professional Privilege) Admn 2-Feb-1999
The police had sought disclosure from the applicant’s solicitors of records of the time at which the applicant arrived at the solicitors’ premises on a particular date and like documents.
Held: Such records are not privileged because they did . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.200873

Practice Note: CA 1986

The Court of Appeal emphasised that an order that prescribes unpleasant consequences unless a particular act is done is an order that ‘requires a person to do an act’ within the meaning of RSC Ord. 42,r.2.
(2) Rule 2(1) requires that (subject to important exceptions mentioned in paragraph 7 below) such an order must make clear to the party against whom it is made the precise period within which the act is to be done. A common form of such order provides that ‘unless’ the act is done the unpleasant consequences are to follow, and is usually called an ‘unless order’.
(3) To comply with rule 2(1) such an order must either (a) specify the time after service of the order within which the act is to be done or (b) specify some other time for this purpose.
(4) Accordingly, an ‘unless’ order should be worded either (a):
‘unless within [14] days of service of this order [the defendant serves his list of documents the defence be struck out and judgment entered for the plaintiff with costs (of as may be)]’.
This wording must be used if the affected party is not present or represented.
Or (b): ‘Unless by [4 p.m. on Friday, 13 June 1986] (continue as above).’ This is the clearest form but is suitable only where the affected party is present or represented and so has notice of the order. It is also suitable for consent orders. An alternative wording, which has been approved, and can be used where the party is present or represented is: ‘unless within [14] days from today (etc).’ But this sometimes leads to argument how the time is to be reckoned, and is not suitable for consent orders.
The same principles apply to the other form of peremptory order in common use and having the same effect. By it the party is, first, ordered to do the act and there is then added a clause that, in default of compliance, specified consequences will follow. That part that directs the act to be done must use wording (a) or (b) above, thus:
[it is ordered that] the [defendant] do within [14] days of service of this order [do the required act or do by [4 p.m. on Friday, 13 June 1986] do that act].’
6. If an order of these types is made that does not fulfil either of these requirements a supplementary order should be obtained, fixing the time; until this is done the order cannot be enforced.
7. The exceptions to the foregoing provisions are set out in rule 2(2) and are judgments or orders: (a) to pay money to any person; (b) to give possession of land; (c) to deliver any goods. In these cases the judgment or order may be enforced immediately unless the court (as it may) specifies a time for compliance or unless additional requirements for enforcement are imposed by some other rule (e.g. Ord. 45,r.3 relating to possession of land).

Citations:

[1986] 1 WLR 948

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Frederic J Whyte and Partners (a Firm) v IAF Properties Limited CA 5-Nov-1996
The plaintiff had failed to comply with an ‘unless’ order.
Held: It was a clear requirement that the party should be known to have been aware of the content of an unless order. The order as drafted was fatally irregular and should be set . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.194981

EMI Records v Riley: ChD 1981

The defendant to an action for an injunction by the plaintiff on behalf of the British Phonographic Industry Copyright Society, said that the company did not properly represent the members of the Society.
Held: It could be inferred that all relevant members of a copyright society would wish to suppress counterfeit goods, and so they had a sufficient common interest to allow a representative action by the society acting through the plaintiff. Allowing a representative action would avoid substantial and unnecessary complications of each member of the class pursuing a separate action.

Judges:

Dillon J

Citations:

[1981] 1 All ER 838, [1981] 1 WLR 923

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Distinguished – Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v Newman Industries Ltd ChD 1979
Members of the defendant company had approved in general meeting, of an acquisition of the assets of another company in which its directors were substantially interested. The shareholders’ approval was given on the basis of a circular. The action . .

Cited by:

Cited – Independiente Ltd and others v Music Trading On-Line (HK) Ltd and others ChD 13-Mar-2003
The claimants claimed damages for the sale by the defendants in the UK of CD’s manufactured for sale only in the far East. The defendants challenged the right of a claimant phonographic society to have the right to sue on behalf of its members.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.179755

Wakefield v Duke of Buccleugh: 1865

The practice of taking undertakings from a party at an interlocutory hearing: ‘aided the court in doing that which was its great object, viz. abstaining from expressing any opinion upon the merits of the case until the hearing.’

Citations:

(1865) 12 LT 628

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd HL 5-Feb-1975
Interim Injunctions in Patents Cases
The plaintiffs brought proceedings for infringement of their patent. The proceedings were defended. The plaintiffs obtained an interim injunction to prevent the defendants infringing their patent, but they now appealed its discharge by the Court of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.181813

Liverpool Borough Bank v Turner: 1860

The court considered how to decide what would be the consequences of failing to comply with a statutory requirement. Lord Campbell CJ said that the court should look at the importance of the provisions in question and to look at the real intention of the legislature in deciding what the consequences of non-compliance were intended to be: ‘No universal rule can be laid down . . It is the duty of courts of justice to try to get at the real intention of the legislature by carefully attending to the whole scope of the statute to be construed.’

Judges:

Lord Campbell CJ

Citations:

(1860) 30 LJ Ch 379, (1860) 2 De GFandJ 502, [1860] 45 ER 715

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Sekhon, etc v Regina CACD 16-Dec-2002
The defendants appealed against confiscation orders on the basis that in various ways, the Crown had failed to comply with procedural requirements.
Held: The courts must remember the importance of such procedures in the fight against crime, . .
Applied – Regina v Price CACD 6-Nov-1985
The defendant appealed saying that after committal, the trial had proceeded on the basis of a voluntary bill of indictment, and he had been convicted on his own plea. He now appealed saying that the bill had not been signed as required.
Held: . .
Approved – Clarke, Regina v; Regina v McDaid HL 6-Feb-2008
An indictment had not been signed despite a clear statutory provision that it should be. The defects were claimed to have been cured by amendment before sentence.
Held: The convictions failed. Sections 1(1) and 2(1) of the 1933 Act which . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.180117

Shears v Mendeloff: 1914

The defendant, an infant professional boxer, contracted with the plaintiff to act as his sole manager on commission.
Held: The contract was not enforceable against the plaintiff. It was a trading contract, and as such was not to be enforced against him.
After the jury had brought in their verdict for the plaintiff, having on further consideration come to the conclusion the judge ought not to have left the case to them, entered judgment for the defendant.

Judges:

Avory J

Citations:

(1914) 30 TLR 342

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Contract, Children, Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.640529

Bacon v Automattic Inc: QBD 2011

Tugendhat J set out the reasons why the existence of a jurisdiction to provide for service out of the jurisdiction, was previously considered doubtful but rightly considered that Cecil v Bayat has now settled the matter, because CPR 6.37(5)(b)(i) which is in Section IV of Part 6 dealing with service out of the jurisdiction provides: ‘(5) Where the court gives permission to serve a claim out of the jurisdiction . . (b) it may . . (i) give directions about the method of service.’

Judges:

Tugendhat J

Citations:

[2011] 2 All ER Comm 852

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Vidal-Hall and Others v Google Inc QBD 16-Jan-2014
The claimants alleged misuse of their private information in collecting information about their internet useage when using Google products. Google now applied for an order setting aside consent for service out of the jurisdiction.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.523731