Category: Litigation Practice

Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd and Another: TCC 19 Mar 2008

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 569 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd v Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd TCC 31-Aug-2005
A third party television company sought access to the particulars of claim and other pleadings.
Held: HH Judge Wilcox said: ‘There can be no legitimate distinction drawn between decisions made in interlocutory proceedings and those at final . .
See Also – Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd TCC 5-Jun-2006
. .
See Also – Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd and Another CA 20-Dec-2006
. .
See Also – Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd (No. 2) TCC 31-Jan-2007
. .
See Also – Multiplex Construction (Uk) Ltd v Honeywell Control Systems Ltd TCC 8-Feb-2007
Application for permission to appeal. Jackson J considered whether permission to appeal should have been requested at the hearing: ‘It seems to me that I have got to interpret the provisions of Rule 52.3 and the provisions of the Practice Direction . .
See Also – Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Honeywell Control Systems Ltd (No. 2) TCC 6-Mar-2007
. .
See Also – Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd (No 3) TCC 12-Mar-2007
. .
See Also – Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd and Another v Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd CA 27-Apr-2007
The court construed an agreement supplemental to a construction contract. . .
See Also – Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd and Another CA 21-Dec-2007
. .
See Also – Multiplex Construction Ltd v Cleveland Bridge Ltd and Another CA 6-Feb-2008
. .
See Also – Multiplex Construction (Uk) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd and Another TCC 7-Feb-2008
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd and Another TCC 29-Sep-2008
. .
See Also – Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd and Another (No 7) TCC 29-Sep-2008
Last stage of the Wembley stadium construction dispute. Jackson J, interpreting Carver said that it set out: ‘how the court ought to approach the matter in circumstances where: (a) one party has made an offer which was nearly but not quite . .
See Also – Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd and Another v Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd CA 19-Feb-2010
. .
See Also – Cleveland Bridge Uk Ltd and Another v Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd CA 31-Mar-2010
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.266687

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 and the revenues which they may earn from it. It also involves the purely English law question whether a receivership order can be made by way of equitable execution in relation to future debts.

Judges:

Collins LJ

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 303, Times 22-Apr-2008, [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 128, [2008] BPIR 531, [2008] 2 All ER (Comm) 1099, [2008] CP Rep 28, [2009] Bus LR 168, [2008] ILPr 37, [2009] 2 WLR 621, [2008] 1 CLC 657, [2009] QB 450

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Societe Eram Shipping Company Limited and others v Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corp Ltd, Compagnie Internationale de Navigation HL 12-Jun-2003
The appeal concerned a final third party debt order (formerly a garnishee order). A judgment in France was registered here for enforcement. That jurisdiction was now challenged.
Held: A third party debt order is a proprietary remedy operating . .
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
. .
Cited – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another CA 11-Jul-2007
. .
Appeal from – 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 UK Ltd and Another ComC 14-Mar-2007
Judgment on quantum. . .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another ComC 20-Dec-2007
. .

Cited by:

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 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. . .
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 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 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 (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 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 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.

International, Litigation Practice

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.266454

Emmott v Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd: CA 12 Mar 2008

The court considered the implication of the obligation of confidentiality in banking contracts or in arbitration agreements. It is ‘really a rule of substantive law masquerading as an implied term’.

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 184, [2008] Bus LR 1861

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Vizcaya Partners Ltd v Picard and Another PC 3-Feb-2016
No Contractual Obligation to Try Case in New York
(Gibraltar) The appellant had invested in a fraudulent Ponzi scheme run by Bernard Madoff. They were repaid sums before the fund collapsed, and the trustees now sought repayment by way of enforcement of an order obtained in New York.
Held: The . .
See Also – Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Emmott ComC 6-Nov-2008
Challenge to jurisdiction of arbitration proceedings. . .
See Also – Emmott v Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd ComC 12-Jan-2009
The claimant, a party to an arbitration, sought first an order requiring the defendant to comply with an order made by the arbitrator for the transfer of certain shares, and second an asset freezing order.
Held: The conditions for a peremptory . .
See Also – Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Emmott ComC 8-Jun-2011
The claimant challenged an arbitration award made concerning the agreement under which the defendant had been admitted to partnership. MWP contended that the Tribunal were guilty of a large number of serious irregularities in their conduct of the . .
See Also – Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Sinclair and Others ComC 21-Sep-2012
The claimant company alleged that the defendants had variously received assests (shares and cash) acquired by a former partner in the claimant company and held on his behalf, in breach of his obligations to the caimant partnership. The defendants . .
See Also – Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Sinclair and Others CA 16-Jan-2013
Application to stay order for costs. . .
See Also – Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Sinclair and Others CA 23-Jul-2015
. .
See Also – Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Emmott CA 14-Oct-2015
Appeal against a finding that payments made by the appellant were made in the ordinary course of business and not in breach of a freezing injunction. . .
See Also – Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Emmott CA 11-Dec-2015
The court considered a residual jurisdiction to set aside an arbitrator’s award after a first appeal. . .
See Also – Emmott v Michael Wilson and Partners ComC 24-Nov-2016
Application for an anti-suit injunction against the defendant to restrain it from taking any further steps in ongoing proceedings in New South Wales and from commencing or pursuing any other substantive claims against the claimant on the ground that . .
See Also – Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Sinclair and Another CA 13-Jan-2017
The appellant company sought to recover assets which, it said, had been acquired by a former partner in breach of his obligations under the partnership agreement, but which had been taken in the names of some of the respondents. There had been an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Arbitration, Litigation Practice, Contract

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.266155

La Caisse Regional Du Credit Agricole Nord De France v Ashdown: QBD 15 Mar 2007

The defendant appealed an order for enforcement of a judgment obtained in France, saying that the order did not reflect or identify correctly the orders made.

Judges:

Tugendhat J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 528 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Jurisdiction, Litigation Practice

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.250623

Barlcays Bank Plc v Alcorn: CA 17 May 2002

Renewed application for leave to appeal.

Judges:

Chadwick LJ

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 817

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Access to Justice Act 1999 55, European Convention on Human Rights 8 A1 FP, Administration of Justice Act 1970 36

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Barclays Bank plc v Alcorn ChD 2002
Hart J said: ‘It seems to me however, that her general submission on the effect of the Human Rights Act in relationship to a mortgagee’s action for possession is correct, namely, that the matter is regulated by section 36 of the Administration of . .
Cited – Ropaigealach v Barclays Bank plc CA 6-Jan-1999
The applicant’s property was charged to the defendant. At the time it was not occupied. The mortgage fell into arrears, and after serving notice at the property, the bank took posssession and sold the property at auction. The claimants said the bank . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Litigation Practice, Human Rights

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.217136

Osagie v Serco Ltd and Others: QBD 11 Jul 2019

Claim for damages and injunctive relief in slander, libel malicious falsehood, negligence and under the Human Rights Act 1998 against his former employer, the First Defendant and five employees of the First Defendant, the Second to Sixth Defendants.

Judges:

Master Cook

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 1803 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation, Torts – Other, Litigation Practice

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.639730

Officer L and Others, Re Application for Judicial Review: QBNI 3 Nov 2006

Police officers called to appear at a public inquiry objected to a decision against allowing them to do so anonymously.

Citations:

[2006] NIQB 75

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Northern Ireland

Cited by:

Appeal from – Officer L, Re Application for Judicial Review CANI 5-Feb-2007
Police officers were to give evidence before the Hamill Inquiry into events in Northern Ireland, but feared that if they were assiociated through the inquiry with the events, they would be under a threat of terrorist reprisal. They therefore sought . .
At first Instance – In re Officer L HL 31-Jul-2007
Police officers appealed against refusal of orders protecting their anonymity when called to appear before the Robert Hamill Inquiry.
Held: ‘The tribunal accordingly approached the matter properly under article 2 in seeking to ascertain . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Northern Ireland, Armed Forces, Litigation Practice

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.246254

Golden Eye (International) Ltd and Others v Telefonica UK Ltd and Another: CA 21 Dec 2012

The claimant IP rights holder sought disclosure by the defendant broadband internet provider of the addresses of customers thought to have participated in file sharing, in breach of those rights.

Judges:

Lord Dyson MR, Sullivan, Patten LJJ

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 1740, [2012] WLR(D) 396, [2013] EMLR 26, [2013] Bus LR 414, [2013] RPC 18, [2013] 2 CMLR 27

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Golden Eye (International) Ltd and Another v Telefonica UK Ltd ChD 26-Mar-2012
Golden Eye and 13 other claimants sought a Norwich Pharmacal order against Telefonica UK Ltd trading as O2, one of the six largest retail internet service providers in the UK. The object of the claim was to obtain disclosure of the names and . .

Cited by:

Cited – Mircom International Content Management and Consulting Ltd and Others v Virgin Media Ltd and Another ChD 16-Jul-2019
The claimants, producers of pornographic films, sought disclosure by the defendant internet service provider of certain internet protocol addresses, wishing to pursue those it said had wrongfully downloaded their films. The court was asked first . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information, Litigation Practice

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.467629

UZ (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 15 Oct 2014

The Upper Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear request for permission to proceed with judicial review where the application was by reference to the Secretary of State’s decisions to reject the application under the Legacy Programme.

Judges:

Davis, Christopher Clarke LJJ, Sir Bernard Rix

Citations:

[2014] EWCA Civ 1319, [2014] WLR(D) 429

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Litigation Practice

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.537581

Golden Eye (International) Ltd and Another v Telefonica UK Ltd: ChD 26 Mar 2012

Golden Eye and 13 other claimants sought a Norwich Pharmacal order against Telefonica UK Ltd trading as O2, one of the six largest retail internet service providers in the UK. The object of the claim was to obtain disclosure of the names and addresses of customers of O2 who were alleged to have committed infringements of copyright through peer-to-peer file sharing.
Held:
Arnold J set out the respective rights of the claimants and those whose personal data would be disclosed if a Norwich Pharmacal order was made. He said: ‘The Claimants’ rights
The Claimants’ position can be summarised as follows. They are owners of copyrights which have been infringed on a substantial scale by individuals who have been engaged in . . file sharing. The only way in which they can ascertain the identity of those individuals and seek compensation for past infringements is by (i) obtaining disclosure of the names and addresses of the Intended Defendants, (ii) writing letters of claim to the Intended Defendants seeking voluntary settlements and (iii) where it is cost-effective to do so, bringing proceedings for infringement.
The Intended Defendants’ rights
The Intended Defendants are not, of course, before me. With the assistance of Consumer Focus’ submissions, however, it seems to me that the position of the Intended Defendants can be summarised as follows. It is likely that most of the Intended Defendants are ordinary consumers, many of whom may be on low incomes and without ready access to legal advice, particularly specialised legal advice of the kind required for a claim of this nature. The grant of the order sought will invade their privacy and impinge upon their data protection rights. Furthermore, it will expose them to receiving letters of claim and may expose them to proceedings for infringement in circumstances where they may not be guilty of infringement, where the subject matter of the claim may cause them embarrassment, where a proper defence to the claim would require specialised legal advice that they may not be able to afford and where they may not consider it cost-effective for them to defend the claim even if they are innocent.’

Judges:

Arnold J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 723 (Ch), [2013] EMLR 1, [2012] RPC 28

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Norwich Pharmacal Co and others v Customs and Excise Commissioners CA 2-Jan-1972
The plaintiffs sought discovery of the names of patent infringers from the defendant third party, submitting that by analogy with trade mark and passing-off cases, the Customs could be ordered to give discovery of the names.
Held: Buckley LJ . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Golden Eye (International) Ltd and Others v Telefonica UK Ltd and Another CA 21-Dec-2012
The claimant IP rights holder sought disclosure by the defendant broadband internet provider of the addresses of customers thought to have participated in file sharing, in breach of those rights. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information, Litigation Practice

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.452445

Golden Eye (International) Ltd v Maricar: PCC 23 Sep 2011

In each of two cases, the claimant sued in copyright alleging that the defendant had made available copies of a film, to which it held the rights, for download from the internet.
Held: In view of the similarities in the case with the Media Cat litigation, it was appropriate to adjourn and hold a hearing with both parties present.

Judges:

Birss QC J

Citations:

[2011] EWPCC 27

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Media CAT Ltd v Adams and Others PCC 8-Feb-2011
The claimants had begun copyright infringement proceedings claiming that they represented the rights holders in pornographic films said to have been file shared by the defendants. Faced with insuperable difficulties, they purported to withdraw the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Litigation Practice

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.444660

Kosmar Villa Holidays Plc v Trustees of Syndicate 1243: CA 29 Feb 2008

The court considered the difference between waiver by election and waiver by estoppel. Rix LJ said: ‘election is the exercise of a right to choose between inconsistent remedies’ and ‘generally requires knowledge of all the facts giving rise to the choice on the part of the party electing’.

Judges:

Rix LJ, Jacob LJ, Forbes LJ

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 147

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Kosmar Villa Holidays Plc v the Trustees of Syndicate 1243 ComC 4-Apr-2007
The tour company had lost an action for personal injury by a young man injured on holiday with them in Greece, and now sought an indemnity from its insurers. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Walbrook Trustees (Jersey) Ltd and Others v Fattal and Others CA 8-Apr-2009
The parties had been involved in serial disputes regarding the management of leasehold apartments. It was now objected that the current case was an abuse of process.
Held: The appeal against the stay succeeded. The new case had been flagged up . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Litigation Practice

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.266014

Olafsson v Gissurarson (No 2): CA 3 Mar 2008

The defendant appealed against an order that service of the claim form could be dispensed with.
Sir Anthony Clarke MR said: ‘the whole purpose of service is to inform the defendant of the contents of the claim form and the nature of the claimant’s case: see eg Barclays Bank of Swaziland Ltd v Hahn [1989] 1 WLR 506, 509 per Lord Brightman, and the definition of ‘service’ in the glossary to the CPR, which describes it as ‘steps required to bring documents used in court proceedings to a person’s attention . .”

Judges:

Sir Anthony Clarke MR, Dyson, Jacob LJJ

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 152, [2008] 1 WLR 2016, [2008] CP Rep 25, [2008] 1 CLC 458, [2008] 1 All ER (Comm) 1106

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal From – Olafsson v Gissurarson (No 2) QBD 20-Dec-2006
. .
See Also – Olafsson v Gissurarson QBD 8-Dec-2006
Judgment in default had been entered against the defendant after the court had in its own discretion corrected an error in service of the claim form. The form had been served personally in Reykjavik, but that form of service was not allowed in . .

Cited by:

See Also – Olafsson v Foreign and Commonwealth Office QBD 22-Oct-2009
The claimant sought damages after the defendant had negligently failed to arrange for the service of the claimant’s defamation proceedings on a defendant in Iceland leaving the action time barred.
Held: The Claimant had not acted unreasonably . .
Cited – Abela and Others v Baadarani SC 26-Jun-2013
The claimants sought damages alleging fraud in a company share purchase. They said that their lawyer had secretly been working for the sellers. The claim form had been issued, but the claimant had delayed in requesting permission for its service . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Defamation

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.266056

Koo Golden East Mongolia v Bank of Nova Scotia and others: CA 19 Dec 2007

When making an order for the production of documents by a third party to an action, Sir Anthony Clarke MR said that it is necessary to consider all the circumstances in the light of the fact that Norwich Pharmacal relief is a flexible remedy.

Judges:

Sir Anthony Clarke MR

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 1443, [2008] QB 717

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Mohamed, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 1) Admn 21-Aug-2008
The claimant had been detained by the US in Guantanamo Bay suspected of terrorist involvement. He sought to support his defence documents from the respondent which showed that the evidence to be relied on in the US courts had been obtained by . .
Cited – Cheltenham Borough Council v Laird QBD 15-Jun-2009
The council sought damages saying that their former chief executive had not disclosed her history of depressive illness when applying for her job.
Held: The replies were not dishonest as the form could have been misconstrued. The claim failed. . .
Cited – The Rugby Football Union v Consolidated Information Services Ltd SC 21-Nov-2012
The Union challenged the right of the respondent to resell tickets to international rugby matches. The tickets were subject to a condition rendering it void on any resale at above face value. They said that the respondent had advertised tickets in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.264490

Dadourian Group International and Another v Simms and others: ChD 7 Feb 2008

It was suggested that the use of documents revealed under court disclosure for a further purpose was a contempt of court, and that they were protected by legal professional privilege.
Held: For iniquity to be established ‘there has to be strong evidence of fraud’.

Judges:

Peter Smith J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 186 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Dadourian Group International Inc and Others v Simms and Others CA 13-May-2004
Application for leave to appeal against worldwide asset freezing order. . .

Cited by:

Cited – X v Y Ltd (Practice and Procedure – Disclosure) EAT 9-Aug-2018
Iniquity surpasses legal advice privilege
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Disclosure
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Striking-out/dismissal
An Employment Judge struck out paragraphs of the Claimant’s claim as they depended on an email in respect of which legal advice privilege was claimed. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.264132

Lexi Holdings v Luqman and others: CA 6 Aug 2007

Application for permission to appeal – granted.

Judges:

Mummery LJ, Chadwick LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 888

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Application from – Lexi Holdings Plc v Luqman and others ChD 2-Jul-2007
Application was made for the committal to prison for contempt of court by the first defendant for breaches of court orders. . .

Cited by:

Application for leave – Lexi Holdings Plc v Luqman and others CA 29-Aug-2007
Claim by valuers on administration of mortgage company for sums paid to the company by lenders to pay for valuations. . .
See Also – Lexi Holdings Plc v Luqman and others ChD 19-Oct-2007
. .
See Also – Lexi Holdings Plc v Luqman and others ChD 16-Nov-2007
. .
See Also – Lexi Holdings Plc v Luqman and others ChD 15-Jan-2008
Whether a prisoner serving a sentence for contempt of court is subject to the same rules as to early release etc as other prisoners.
Held: ‘paragraph 5.2 of PSO 6300 is unlawful in so far as it purports to require, or is interpreted by the . .
See Also – Lexi Holdings v Luqman and Another ChD 16-Jul-2008
. .
See Also – Lexi Holdings Plc v Luqman and others CA 26-Feb-2009
Attempts by company administrators to recover sums allegedly misapplied by former directors. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.259134

Nikitin and others v Butler LLP and others: QBD 9 Feb 2007

A request was made for Norwich Pharmacal disclosure.
Held: Langley J considered the case law and decided that that it was necessary to show that the information sought was vital to a decision to sue or an ability to plead and whether or not. even if it was, it could be obtained from other sources.

Judges:

Langley J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 173 (QB), [2007] All ER (D) 129

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Mohamed, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 1) Admn 21-Aug-2008
The claimant had been detained by the US in Guantanamo Bay suspected of terrorist involvement. He sought to support his defence documents from the respondent which showed that the evidence to be relied on in the US courts had been obtained by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.248445

Practice Statement (Judicial review: Asylum Support): Admn 13 Feb 2004

Where an asylum applicant sought to have reviewed a decision not to provide support by way of benefits, the respondent Secretary of State was to be given an automatic extension of the time limit for replying to the application. Interim relief could be granted to the applicant and so he would not generally be prejudiced by this arrangement.

Judges:

Collins J

Citations:

Times 09-Mar-2004

Statutes:

Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 55

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Benefits, Litigation Practice

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.194795

Phillips and Others v Avena and Another: ChD 11 Nov 2005

The claimant sought to have registered here a judgment obtained in Canada against the defendant. The defendant objected saying that the Canadian judgment was subject to a pending appeal.
Held: Recognition of a foreign judgment required that judgment to be final and conclusive, but the possibility of a successful appeal did not prevent it being so. Appropriate safeguards could be applied.

Judges:

Sir Francis Ferris

Citations:

Times 22-Nov-2005

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.235234

Regina v Medicines Control Agency ex parte Smith and Nephew (Primecrown Ltd intervening): ChD 1999

The court considered liability to third partries under a cross-undertaking given to the court: ‘Whether the recoverable damage is that which is foreseeable by the plaintiff or that which is directly caused by the injunction is not in point. None of the differing views expressed in the cases go so far as to say that the injunctee can claim for damage not suffered by him. Nor do the very words of the undertaking (which is the foundation of the jurisdiction) suggest that he can recover more than that which he has suffered, whether that damage is foreseeable by the injunctor or not. Thus while I have sympathy with Mr Howe’s ‘flexible approach’ I do not think it can go so far as to require the ‘wrongful injunctor’ to pay for damage not suffered by the injunctee at all.
I think this consideration also disposes of Mr Howe’s Linden Gardens point. In that case the House of Lords held that damages for breach of a contract between a developer and a builder should include the damage suffered by the purchaser from the developer. The parties could be treated as having entered into the contract on the basis that the developer would be entitled to enforce its contractual rights on behalf of purchaser who suffered the actual damage. The case depended on the parties having full knowledge that the developer was going to pass the property on to the purchaser, so the builder knew exactly who would be suffered if his work was inadequate. Mr Howe suggested that in this case there is a parallel in that SandN expected to have to pay for trading losses. So they did, but they did not undertake to pay for trading losses, they only undertook to pay for Primecrown’s losses. The analogy with Linden Gardens breaks down.’

Judges:

Jacob J

Citations:

[1999] RPC 705.

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Linden Gardens Trust Ltd v Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd and Others; St. Martins Property Corporation Ltd v Sir Robert McAlpine HL 8-Dec-1993
A contractor had done defective work in breach of a building contract with the developer but the loss was suffered by a third party who had by then purchased the development. The developer recovered the loss suffered by the purchaser.
Held: . .

Cited by:

Cited – Smithkline Beecham Plc and others v Apotex Europe Ltd and others PatC 26-Jul-2005
Application was made to join in further parties to support a cross undertaking on being made subject to interim injunctions.
Held: On orders other than asset freezing orders it was not open to the court to impose cross-undertakings against . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Licensing

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.231218

Raja v Van Hoogstraten: ChD 11 Nov 2005

The defendant sought adjournment of the trial of his action.
Held: The defendant had tried to frustrate the hearing of the case. The delay was refused with leave for legal representatives appointed for the trial to renew an application.

Judges:

Lightman J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 2522 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Raja v Van Hoogstraten and others CA 23-Sep-2005
Misdirected letter from court. . .

Cited by:

See Also – Raja v Van Hoogstraten and others ChD 17-Nov-2005
The defendant had sought an adjournment, which was refused, with specified conditions for any renewed application.
Held: The present application was not by solicitors who had accepted instructions to appear at the trial, and therefore did not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.235025

Harlow and Jones v Panex (International) Ltd: ChD 1967

The sellers claimed under a sale contract against buyers who had refused to accept goods. By reason of the buyer’s non-acceptance of the goods, the sellers had incurred storage charges to their own suppliers with whom they had entered into an agreement which effectively made recovery of the storage charges contingent upon recovery of the storage charges from the buyers.
Rosklii J said: ‘Next there are the storage charges . . [Counsel] correctly summarised the final position by saying that the bargain was that the Russian sellers would only claim against the plaintiffs if the plaintiffs could recover those charges from the defendants in this action. [Counsel] argued that an arrangement of that kind barred the plaintiffs recovering in this action. For my part I am unable to see why. The plaintiffs have – and this was not contested – apart from any agreement with the Russian sellers, a perfectly good claim for these storage charges. Why the plaintiffs should not make an arrangement for their own sellers, ‘we will claim these and hand the proceeds over to you if we recover provided you let us off if we do not’, I am unable to see. Nor do I see why the existence of such an arrangement should afford the defendants a defence which they would not otherwise possess. It seems to me an eminently sensible commercial arrangement . . ‘

Judges:

Roskill J

Citations:

[1967] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 509

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Giles v Thompson, Devlin v Baslington (Conjoined Appeals) HL 1-Jun-1993
Car hire companies who pursued actions in motorists’ names to recover the costs of hiring a replacement vehicle after an accident, from negligent drivers, were not acting in a champertous and unlawful manner. Lord Mustill said: ‘there exists in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Contract, Damages

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.272902

Stuart v Goldberg and Linde (a firm): CA 17 Jan 2008

The claimant appealed against orders preventing him from suing his former solicitors in respect of heads of claim which the court said should have been included in earlier proceedings.
Held: When deciding whether a claim was an abuse of process it was not part of that decision to consider the merits of the later claim, and there is no ‘general principle that a potential claimant is under a duty to exercise reasonable diligence . . to find out the facts relevant to whether he has or may have . . a claim’.
Lloyd LJ related that the cases ‘include many reminders that a party is not lightly to be shut out from bringing before the court a genuine cause of action’. He rejected the ‘general proposition’ that a claimant who ‘comes to know’ in the course of proceedings ‘of an additional cause of action . . which is quite different from that asserted in his existing claim’ comes under an obligation to inform the defendant of that additional cause if ‘it would not be reasonable . . to expect [the claimant] to seek to combine’ the two causes of action. The issue is highly fact-sensitive.
Sir Anthony Clarke MR said that a party should no ‘keep future claims secret merely because a second claim might involve other issues’, and, ‘[i]n particular’, they ‘should not keep quiet in the hope of improving their position in respect of a claim arising out of similar facts or evidence in the future’. However, much depended on the particular facts, and ‘the question is not simply whether the claimant acted unreasonably in not raising [the second] claim, or indeed whether his failure to do so was an abuse of process’. ‘The question is’, as he said, ‘whether the second action is an abuse of the process, which involves a consideration of all the circumstances.’

Judges:

Sir Anthony Clarke MR, Sedley LJ, Lloyd LJ

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 2, [2008] CP Rep 18, [2008] 1 WLR 823

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Foss v Harbottle 25-Mar-1843
Company alone may sue for legal wrong against it.
A bill was lodged by two of the proprietors of shares in a company incorporated by Act of Parliament, on their own and the other shareholders’ behalf. They claimed against three bankrupt directors, a proprietor, solicitor and architect charging them . .
Cited – Johnson v Gore Wood and Co HL 14-Dec-2000
Shareholder May Sue for Additional Personal Losses
A company brought a claim of negligence against its solicitors, and, after that claim was settled, the company’s owner brought a separate claim in respect of the same subject-matter.
Held: It need not be an abuse of the court for a shareholder . .

Cited by:

Cited – Walbrook Trustees (Jersey) Ltd and Others v Fattal and Others CA 8-Apr-2009
The parties had been involved in serial disputes regarding the management of leasehold apartments. It was now objected that the current case was an abuse of process.
Held: The appeal against the stay succeeded. The new case had been flagged up . .
Cited – Henley v Bloom CA 9-Mar-2010
Different claims allowed re-litigation
The parties had had long standing disputes as landlord and tenant. They were at one point settled, but the tenant claimed again, and the landlord sought to strike out the claim as an abuse of process, saying the claimant had failed to comply with . .
Cited – Gladman Commercial Properties v Fisher Hargreaves Proctor and Others CA 14-Nov-2013
The claimant appealed against the striking out of his claims for fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation as to the suitability for deveopment of two former fire service properties. The court had said that a settlement with co-tortfeasors operated . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.263770

HM Revenue and Customs v Weight Watchers (UK) Ltd: ChD 21 Jan 2008

The court was asked whether the weight-watchers program which included attendance at a course and a supply of supporting materials was one single standard-rated supply or separate supplies of zero-rated printed materials and standard-rated support services.
Held: The court asked whether if the tribunal was mistaken as to the law the court should overrule the decision and said that as a specialist tribunal the court should be circumspect before making the decision itself. That degree of caution was not as high as the Edwards v Bairstow question.
The issue was whether the materials are so closely linked to the services provided at the Meetings that they form objectively a single indivisible supply which it would be artificial to split. There were mixed supplies both at the first meeting and thereafter. The Tribunal in the present case had applied the correct legal test to the primary facts found by them. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first meeting’s materials. As to later materials it would be artificial to split them from the meetings at which they were used, and the tax payers appeal succeeded in this respect.

Judges:

Morgan J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 53 (Ch), [2008] BVC 254, [2008] BTC 5129, [2008] STC 301, [2008] STI 180

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – College of Estate Management v Customs and Excise HL 20-Oct-2005
The college supplied educational services by distance learning. The commissioner sought to argue that printe daterials supplied with the course were ancillary and did not have the same exemption form VAT.
Held: The supplies did benefit from . .
Cited – Faaborg-Gelting Linien v Finanzamt Flensburg ECJ 2-May-1996
A non-takeaway restaurant is a supply of services, and a ferry supply was made from its place of business. The supply of prepared food and drink at a restaurant resulted from a whole series of services (including the preparation and service of the . .
Cited – Levob Verzekeringen and Ov Bank v Staatssecretaris van Financien ECJ 27-Oct-2005
ECJ Sixth VAT Directive – Articles 2, 5, 6 and 9 – Transfer of software recorded on a carrier – Subsequent customisation of the software to the purchaser-?s specific requirements – Single taxable supply – Supply . .
Cited – Card Protection Plan Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise ECJ 25-Feb-1999
A company procuring insurance purchases for credit card protection was as exempt from VAT as was the insurer. A provision which restricted the ability to claim such exemption to those registered as insurers under national was invalid under European . .
Cited – Beynon and Partners v Customs and Excise HL 25-Nov-2004
The House asked whether the personal administration of a drug such as a vaccine by an NHS doctor to a patient is a taxable supply for the purposes of value added tax. The provision of medical care in the exercise of the medical and paramedical . .
Cited – Edwards (Inspector of Taxes) v Bairstow HL 25-Jul-1955
The House was asked whether a particular transaction was ‘an adventure in the nature of trade’.
Held: Although the House accepted that this was ‘an inference of fact’, on the primary facts as found by the Commissioners ‘the true and only . .
Cited – Cooke v Secretary of State for Social Security CA 25-Apr-2001
Although production of a new medical report, or of a new medical opinion, could evidence a relevant change of circumstances, to support the claim that the threshold had been reached so as to allow a review of a decision to grant benefits, it did not . .
Cited – Napp Pharmaceutical Holdings Ltd v Director General of Fair Trading CA 8-May-2002
The applicant sought leave to appeal against a decision of the Competition Commission Appeals Tribunal.
Held: Since the decision of the tribunal did not involve questions of law, it fell exactly within the Cooke case, and the court should be . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v AH (Sudan) and others HL 14-Nov-2007
The three respondents had fled persecution in Darfur. They sought asylum which was refused, and they now appealed. It was argued that whilst they had a well founded fear of persecution in Dhafur, that would not apply if they returned to Khartoum. . .
Cited – Able (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs CA 22-Nov-2007
The taxpayer company had received compensation for having been excluded from its business premises for a period until a compulsory purchase process failed. It treated the receipt as capital. The revenue said it was income.
Held: The court . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT, Litigation Practice

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.263803

Lloyds Investment (Scandinavia) Ltd v Ager-Hanssen: ChD 15 Jul 2003

The defendant sought a variation under Part 3.1(7) of an order setting aside an earlier judgment in default of defence, on terms requiring a substantial payment into court with which the defendant, who was a litigant in person, had not complied.
Patten J discussed the jurisdiction under Part 3.1(7): ‘The Deputy Judge exercised a discretion under CPR Part 13.3. It is not open to me as a judge exercising a parallel jurisdiction in the same division of the High Court to entertain what would in effect be an appeal from that order. If the Defendant wished to challenge whether the order made by Mr Berry was disproportionate and wrong in principle, then he should have applied for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal. I have been given no real reasons why this was not done. That course remains open to him even today, although he will have to persuade the Court of Appeal of the reasons why he should have what, on any view, is a very considerable extension of time. It seems to me that the only power available to me on this application is that contained in CPR Part 3.1(7), which enables the Court to vary or revoke an order. This is not confined to purely procedural orders and there is no real guidance in the White Book as to the possible limits of the jurisdiction. Although this is not intended to be an exhaustive definition of the circumstances in which the power under CPR Part 3.1(7) is exercisable, it seems to me that, for the High Court to revisit one of its earlier orders, the Applicant must either show some material change of circumstances or that the judge who made the earlier order was misled in some way, whether innocently or otherwise, as to the correct factual position before him. The latter type of case would include, for example, a case of material non-disclosure on an application for an injunction. If all that is sought is a reconsideration of the order on the basis of the same material, then that can only be done, in my judgment, in the context of an appeal. Similarly it is not, I think, open to a party to the earlier application to seek in effect to re-argue that application by relying on submissions and evidence which were available to him at the time of the earlier hearing, but which, for whatever reason, he or his legal representatives chose not to employ.’

Judges:

Patten J

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 1740 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 3.1(7)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Kojima v HSBC Bank Plc ChD 22-Mar-2011
The defendant had been found to owe money to the bank. In order to avoid damaging his career he agreed to execute a charge to secure the judgment. He now sought release from that order, and to withdraw his admission of the debt. He had acted in . .
Approved – Collier v Williams and others CA 25-Jan-2006
Various parties appealed refusal and grant of extensions of time for service of claim forms.
Held: The court gave detailed guidance. The three central issues were the proper construction of the rule, the question of whether the court could . .
Cited – Edwards v Golding and others CA 3-Apr-2007
The claimant appealed against an order that his claim in defamation had failed for limitation, the judge having held that time ran from publication even though the claimant did not know the identity of the author.
Held: The appeal was . .
Cited – CS v ACS and Another FD 16-Apr-2015
Rule Against Appeal was Ultra Vires
W had applied to have set aside the consent order made on her ancillary relief application accusing the husband of material non-disclosure. She complained that her application to have the order varied had been refused on the ground that her only . .
Approved – Roult v North West Strategic Health Authority CA 20-May-2009
The parties had settled a personal injury claim, on the basis as expected that the claimant would be provided with accommodation by the local authority. It later turned out that accommodation would not be provided, and he returned to court to . .
Cited – Masih, Regina (on The Application of) v Yousaf CA 6-Feb-2014
Appeal against refusal to set aside possession order made under assured shorthold tenancy. No rent was paid on three rent days, but then the Housing benefit begand clearing arrears in part.
Held: It is settled law that the notice requiring . .
Cited – Thevarajah v Riordan and Others CA 4-Feb-2015
The court was asked whether the judge at first instance had been right to attribute an agreement which he had not made to the defendants.
Held: The defendants were liable to pay 2.205 million pounds. . .
Cited – Thevarajah v Riordan and Others SC 16-Dec-2015
The defendants had failed to comply with an ‘unless’ order requiring disclosure, and had been first debarred from defending the cases as to liability. They applied to a second judge who granted relief from sanctions after new solicitors had complied . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.263723

Warren v The Random House Group Ltd (No. 1): QBD 5 Dec 2007

The defendant applied to amend its defence to the defamation claim. The effect of the proposed amendment had been to withdraw the defence based on its offer of amends and to substitute for it a plea of justification in respect of one of three passages complained of by the claimant, Mr Warren, in its book about the career of the boxer Ricky Hatton.
Held: Refused

Judges:

Gray J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 2856 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Warren v The Random House Group Ltd QBD 5-Dec-2007
The court had refused an earlier application by the defendant to amend its defence, after its offer of amends had been accepted, so as to allow it to withdraw that offer and plead justification. The defendant now sought an amendment to allow . .
See Also – Warren v The Random House Group Ltd QBD 20-Dec-2007
The parties had settled a defamation action by means of an offer of amends. The defendant changed his mind about the offer, and the court now considered whether the accepted offer of amends was binding as a contract.
Held: It was a contract, . .
See Also – Warren v The Random House Group Ltd CA 16-Jul-2008
An offer of amends by the defendant had been accepted by the claimant. The defendant then sought to set aside the agreement and to resist the claim on its merits in reliance on a defence of justification. The parties disputed whether such an offer . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.262182

Warren v The Random House Group Ltd: QBD 5 Dec 2007

The court had refused an earlier application by the defendant to amend its defence, after its offer of amends had been accepted, so as to allow it to withdraw that offer and plead justification. The defendant now sought an amendment to allow substantial revisions to certain particulars, which in turn the claimant sought to strike out.

Judges:

Gray J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 2860 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Warren v The Random House Group Ltd (No. 1) QBD 5-Dec-2007
The defendant applied to amend its defence to the defamation claim. The effect of the proposed amendment had been to withdraw the defence based on its offer of amends and to substitute for it a plea of justification in respect of one of three . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.262121

Britel Corporation Nv and Another v First Penthhouse Ltd and others: CA 7 Aug 2002

Application for permission against judge’s refusal to continue interim injunctions.
Held: Leave was refused.

Judges:

Jonathan Parker LJ, Chadwick LJ

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 1350

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Meretz Investments Nv v ACP Ltd QBD 27-May-2002
Meretz sued ACP for monies alleged to be due under agreements. . .
Appeal from – Britel Corporation NV v First Penthouse Ltd QBD 25-Jul-2002
The court refused to continue interim injunctions under a development agreement. . .

Cited by:

See Also – First Penthouse Limited/Channel Hotels and Properties (UK) Limited v Channel Hotels and Properties (UK) Limited/Fahad Al Tamimi First Penthouse Limited Varlet International Limited Ruth Gary Orbach Quallvile Limited Norval Holdings Limited ChD 14-Nov-2003
Several transactions had taken place with regard to a lease of a roof void, which was to be developed for penthouses. The lease had been charged to secure funding. The development did not proceed to schedule, and a s146 notice was served. It was . .
See Also – Channel Hotels and Properties (UK) Ltd v Fahad Al Tamimi and First Penthouse Ltd CA 30-Jul-2004
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.217519

Barnes v Tilbrooks Solicitors and Another: CA 20 Dec 2001

Applications for leave to re-instate application for leave to appeal. The applicant asked the judge to recuse himself the defendant having made allegations against several high court judges of a criminal conspiracy against him.
Held: No basis had been put forward for the allegation that a conspiracy existed and the application was refused.

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 2049

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.218591

Spencer v Wood and Another (T/A Gordons Tyres, A Firm): CA 15 Mar 2004

A conditional fee agreement was invalid in failing to specify how much of the success fee was attributable to a cost for the representative’s agreement to postone his fees and expenses.

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 352, Times 30-Mar-2004, [2004] 3 Costs LR 372

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Legal Professions, Litigation Practice, Costs

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.195535

Prince Radu of Hohenzollern v Houston and Another: QBD 12 Oct 2007

Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 2328 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Radu, Prince of Hohenzollern v Houston and Another CA 27-Jul-2006
. .
See Also – Prince Radu of Hohenzollern v Houston and Another QBD 7-Mar-2006
The claimant resided in Romania, and sought damages for libel. The magazine had obtained an order for security for costs. An offer had been made to cover the sum ordered, and no stifling could now happen.
Held: Any order for security costs in . .

Cited by:

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

Defamation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.261571

Taylor Walton (A Firm) v Laing: CA 15 Nov 2007

The appellants appealed against a refusal to strike out as an abuse of process the respondent’s claim against them for professional negligence in the drafting of development agreements.
Buxton LJ considered the nature of the enquiry on such an application: ‘The court . . has to consider, by an intense focus on the facts of the particular case, whether in broad terms the proceedings that it is sought to strike out can be characterised as falling under one or other, or both, of the broad rubrics of unfairness or the bringing of the administration of justice into disrepute. Attempts to draw narrower rules applicable to particular categories of case (in the present instance, negligence claims against solicitors when an original action has been lost) are not likely to be helpful.
As to the proper approach of this court, TW sought to draw from Lord Diplock’s disavowal of the word discretion the conclusion that, since the issue was not one for the discretion of the judge, in any appeal this court should start again, and simply decide whether the trial judge had been right or wrong. I do not think that the matter is so straightforward. In the passage relied, on Lord Diplock was indicating that to strike out a case brought without infraction of the rules of procedure was a serious step, not to be taken unless the circumstances were sufficiently extreme as to demonstrate that the judge had a duty to act. That is a much more stringent test than simply to say that the circumstances must fall within a category that entitles the judge to decide for himself whether or not to take action. It is therefore correct that this court, in reviewing the judge’s decision, is not limited to considering whether the facts fell within a wide ambit of discretion. At the same time, however, the issue although not one of discretion is one of judgment in determining whether the duty referred to by Lord Diplock arises. In reviewing such an exercise of judgment this court will always give considerable weight to the opinion of the judge, and particularly so when that opinion has been formed by a commercial judge of many years’ experience.’

Judges:

Buxton LJ, Laws LJ, Moses LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 1146, [2008] PNLR 11

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police HL 19-Nov-1981
No collateral attack on Jury findigs.
An attempt was made to open up in a civil action, allegations of assaults by the police prior to the making of confessions which had been disposed of in a voir dire in the course of a criminal trial. The plaintiffs had imprisoned having spent many . .
Appeal From – Laing v Taylor Walton (A Firm) QBD 20-Feb-2007
The claimant sought to pursue an action for professional negligence against his solicitors. They said that the action was an abuse being an attempted relitigation of matters already settled when a judge had decided that the defendants had not owed a . .

Cited by:

Cited – Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Sinclair and Another CA 13-Jan-2017
The appellant company sought to recover assets which, it said, had been acquired by a former partner in breach of his obligations under the partnership agreement, but which had been taken in the names of some of the respondents. There had been an . .
Explained – Kotonou v National Westminster Bank Plc CA 30-Oct-2015
Appeal against summary dismissal of claim against the bank based on Henderson v Henderson.
Gloster LJ, commented on Buxton LJ’s observations in the Taylor Walton case: ‘Thus, in my view, what is required in the present case is ‘an intense focus . .
Cited – Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Sinclair and Another CA 13-Jan-2017
The appellant company sought to recover assets which, it said, had been acquired by a former partner in breach of his obligations under the partnership agreement, but which had been taken in the names of some of the respondents. There had been an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.261316

O’Byrne v Aventis Pasteur Sa: CA 9 Oct 2007

The claimant had made a mistake in naming the defendant company, but had intended the company which it now requested the court to substitute as defendant. The limitation period had expired.
Held: The substitution was necessary to decide the issue raised by the action. The defendant’s appeal failed.

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 966, Times 19-Nov-2007, [2008] CP Rep 2, [2008] Eu LR 227, [2008] Bus LR 99, [2008] PIQR P3, (2007) 98 BMLR 160

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 35

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At ECJ – Declan O’Byrne v Sanofi Pasteur MSD Ltd, formerly Aventis Pasteur MSD Ltd, Sanofi Pasteur SA ECJ 9-Feb-2006
ECJ Directive 85/374/EEC – Liability for defective products – Definition of -putting into circulation- of the product – Supply by the producer to a wholly owned subsidiary. . .
See also – O’Byrne v Aventis Pasteur Sa CA 9-Oct-2007
Whether two applications for leave to appeal between the same parties should be heard together. . .
Appeal from – O’Byrne v Aventis Pasteur MSD Ltd QBD 20-Oct-2006
The claimant sought damages under the 1967 Act asserting injury from a drug sold by the defendant. Proceedings had been mistakenly commenced against Aventis Pasteur MSD Ltd within the limitation period, but outside the limitation period, it was . .
See Also – OB v Aventis Pasteur SA HL 11-Jun-2008
The claimant had been vaccinated with a HIB vaccine. He was severely injured and it was said that the vaccine was the cause, and a claim made under the 1987 Act. Originally the claim was made against a UK company, but it should have been against . .

Cited by:

See Also – O’Byrne v Aventis Pasteur Sa CA 9-Oct-2007
Whether two applications for leave to appeal between the same parties should be heard together. . .
At CA – OB v Aventis Pasteur SA HL 11-Jun-2008
The claimant had been vaccinated with a HIB vaccine. He was severely injured and it was said that the vaccine was the cause, and a claim made under the 1987 Act. Originally the claim was made against a UK company, but it should have been against . .
At CA – Aventis Pasteur v O’Byrne (Environment And Consumers) ECJ 2-Dec-2009
Europa Directive 85/374/EEC – Liability for defective products Articles 3 and 11 Mistake in the classification of ‘producer’ Judicial proceedings – Application for substitution of the producer for the original . .
At CA (1) – O’Byrne v Aventis Pasteur Sa SC 26-May-2010
The claimant wished to claim damages after suffering serious injury as a child having been vaccinated with a drug manufactured by a defendant (APMSD). The defendant had relied on a defence saying that the limitation period under the Directive was 10 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.259877

Arrow Generics Ltd and Another v Merck and Co, Inc: PatC 31 Jul 2007

The court considered it arguable that it had power properly to grant declarations that a product was old or obvious in patent law terms at a particular date.

Judges:

Kitchin J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 1900 (Pat), [2007] FSR 39

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property, Litigation Practice

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.258670

Field and Another v Leeds City Council: CA 8 Dec 1999

The parties were involved in a dispute as to repairs on a tenanted property. The court had ordered an independent surveyor’s report. The claimant objected to the use by the defendant of an employee for this purpose, and was involved in their claims investigation department.
Held: The judge’s decision to exclude the evidence at an interim hearing when the impartiality had not been demonstrated. However, the court could not properly have rejected evidence from such a party without seeing a report prepared by him. He would otherwise have been qualified to report. The fact that a proposed epert witness was an employee of a party need not always debar him from acting. He needed to demonstrate that he was properly qualified, and that he understood that he first duty was to the court and not to his employer or the party calling him.
Waller LJ said: ‘The question whether someone should be able to give expert evidence should depend on whether, (i) it can be demonstrated whether that person has relevant expertise in an area in issue in the case; and (ii) that it can be demonstrated that he or she is aware of their primary duty to the court if they give expert evidence. ‘

Judges:

Lord Woolf MR, Waller LJ, May LJ

Citations:

Times 18-Jan-2000, Gazette 03-Feb-2000, (2000) 17 EG 165, [1999] EWCA Civ 3013, [1999] CPLR 833

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Environmental Protection Act 1990 82

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Toth v Jarman CA 19-Jul-2006
The claimant appealed dismissal of his claim for damages for nervous shock, associated with the alleged negligence of the defendant doctor in treating his son. It was said that the medical expert had not disclosed a conflict of interest.
Held: . .
Cited – Armchair Passenger Transport Ltd v Helical Bar Plc and Another QBD 28-Feb-2003
Objection was made to the use of an expert witness who had formerly been a senior employee of the defendant.
Held: The court set out criteria for testing the independence of a proposed expert witness: ‘i) It is always desirable that an expert . .
Cited – Kennedy v Cordia (Services) Llp SC 10-Feb-2016
The appellant care worker fell in snow when visiting the respondent’s client at home. At issue was the admission and status of expert or skilled evidence.
Held: Mrs Kennedy’s appeal succeeded. ‘There are in our view four considerations which . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Housing, Evidence

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.258646

Donovan v Gwentoys Ltd: HL 1990

The plaintiff, then a 16 year old girl slipped and fell whilst employed at the defendant’s factory. The limitation period expired on her 21st birthday. She commenced proceedings five and a half months after that date. The judge extended time under LA section 33, holding that he could only consider prejudice suffered by the defendant in the last five and a half month period. The Court of Appeal upheld that decision. The defendant appealed.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The defendant had been prejudiced by delay in ‘a truly stale claim first made on them five years after the event.’ Prejudice which occurred before the expiry of the limitation period was a relevant matter for the court to consider in deciding whether to override any limitation period.
The House noted that the opening words of section 33 (3) required the court to ‘have regard to all the circumstances of the case.’ That provision enabled the court to take into account prejudice caused to the defendant by the plaintiff’s delay over the entire period since her accident.
Lord Griffiths said: ‘In the course of his speech, Lord Diplock considered the meaning of delay in what was then, section 2D(3)(a)(b) of the Limitation Act 1939, as inserted by the Act of 1975 and which is now s.33(3)(a)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980. He said [1981] 1 WLR 744, 751:
‘Subsection (3) requires the court to have regard to ‘all the circumstances of the case’ but singles out six matters for particular mention. These six present a curious hotchpotch. ‘The delay’ referred to in paragraph (a) must be the same delay as in paragraph (b); so it means the delay after the primary limitation period expired. It is the length of this delay (in the instant case 37 days) and the reasons for it that matter under paragraph (a).’
There was some debate before your Lordships, for which I was primarily responsible, as to whether delay in subsection (3)(a) was referring to delay from the accrual of the cause of action rather than delay after the expiry of the primary limitation period. There can, however, be no doubt that the delay referred to in subsection (3)(b) is delay subsequent to the expiry of the primary limitation period and I am persuaded that Lord Diplock’s construction is correct and it is to this same period of delay that the court is to have regard under paragraph (a) and also in subsection (4).
It does not, however, follow that, in weighing the prejudice to the defendant, the court is not entitled to take into account the date upon which the claim is first made against the defendant. Compare the facts in Thompson v Brown with the facts of this case. In Thompson v Brown the claim had been made within a few weeks of the accident and liability and damage had been fully considered by the defendants’ insurers at an early stage. At the time the limitation period expired, the defendants’ insurers were in a position to settle the claim on its true merit. The fact that the plaintiff’s solicitors slipped up so that the writ was issued 37 days late was a totally unexpected windfall benefit for the defendants’ insurers. The primary purpose of the limitation period is to protect a defendant from the injustice of having to face a stale claim, that is, a claim with which he never expected to have to deal.’
Lord Oliver said: ‘The argument in favour of the proposition that dilatoriness on the part of the plaintiff in issuing his writ is irrelevant until the period of limitation has expired rests upon the proposition that, since a defendant has no legal ground for complaint if the plaintiff issues his writ one day before the expiry of the period, it follows that he suffers no prejudice if the writ is not issued until two days later, save to the extent that, if the section is disapplied, he is deprived of his vested right to defeat the plaintiff’s claim on that ground alone. In my opinion, this is a false point. A defendant is always likely to be prejudiced by the dilatoriness of a plaintiff in pursuing his claim. Witnesses’ memories may fade, records may be lost or destroyed, opportunities for inspection and report may be lost. The fact that the law permits a plaintiff within the prescribed limits to disadvantage a defendant in this way does not mean that the defendant is not prejudiced. It merely means that he is not in a position to complain of whatever prejudice he suffers. Once a plaintiff allows the permitted time to elapse, the defendant is no longer subject to that disability, and in a situation in which the court is directed to consider all the circumstances of the case and to balance the prejudice to the parties, the fact that the claim has, as a result of the plaintiff’s failure to use the time allowed to him, become a thoroughly stale claim, cannot, in my judgment, be irrelevant. It is clear from the judge’s judgment that, because sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 33(3) of the Act of 1980 focus particular attention on the time elapsing after expiry of the limitation period, he felt constrained to regard the time which had to been allowed to pass prior to that date as something which had to be left wholly out of account. In my judgment, he was wrong to do so and that necessarily vitiated the exercise of his discretion.’
and ‘The argument in favour of the proposition that dilatoriness on the part of the plaintiff in issuing his writ is irrelevant until the period of limitation has expired rests upon the proposition that, since a defendant has no legal ground for complaint if the plaintiff issues his writ one day before the expiry of the period, it follows that he suffers no prejudice if the writ is not issued until two days later, save to the extent that, if the section is disapplied, he is deprived of his vested right to defeat the plaintiff’s claim on that ground alone. In my opinion, this is a false point. A defendant is always likely to be prejudiced by the dilatoriness of a plaintiff in pursuing his claim. Witnesses’ memories may fade, records may be lost or destroyed, opportunities for inspection and reports may be lost. The fact that the law permits a plaintiff within prescribed limits to disadvantage a defendant in this way does not mean that the defendant is not prejudiced. It merely means that he is not in a position to complain of whatever prejudice he suffers. Once a plaintiff allows the permitted time to elapse, the defendant is no longer subject to that disability, and in a situation in which the court is directed to consider all the circumstances of the case and to balance the prejudice to the parties, the fact that the claim has, as a result of the plaintiff’s failure to use the time allowed to him, become a thoroughly stale claim, cannot, in my judgment, be irrelevant.’

Judges:

Lord Griffiths, Lord Oliver, Lord Bridge, Lord Templeman and Lord Lowry

Citations:

[1990] 1 WLR 472, [1990] 1 All ER 1018

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 3393)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Roberts vWinbow (3) CA 4-Dec-1998
The plaintiff was treated for depression by the defendant by prescription of drugs. She sufferred a reaction, but now claimed that the doctor’s slow reaction caused her to suffer lasting injury. The question on appeal was, if a plaintiff suffers . .
Cited – Jacqueline Adam v Rasal Ali CA 21-Feb-2006
The defendant sought damages against the defendant for personal injury from his alleged negligence. Her action was struck out and she recommenced the action. The defendant pleaded that she was out of time. The claimant said that the first action . .
Cited – Horton v Sadler and Another HL 14-Jun-2006
The claimant had been injured in a road traffic accident for which the defendant was responsible in negligence. The defendant was not insured, and so a claim was to be made against the MIB. The plaintiff issued proceedings just before the expiry of . .
Cited – Kamar v Nightingale and Another QBD 14-Dec-2007
The claimant sought damages from his barrister saying that he should have introduced evidence of his good character during the trial. The defendant appealed against the order permitting extension of the limitation period.
Held: The court had . .
Cited – McDonnell and Another v Walker CA 24-Nov-2009
The defendant appealed against the disapplication of section 11 of the 1980 Act under section 33.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The defendant had not contributed significantly to the delay: ‘the defendant received claims quite different in . .
Cited – Kaneria v Kaneria and Others ChD 15-Apr-2014
The parties were embroiled in a company dispute with allegations of conduct prejudicial to minority shareholders. An application was now made for sanctions for a failure to comply with court directions.
Held: Unless and until a higher Court . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.186438

Lyal v Henderson: HL 5 Jun 1916

Where the Court of Session has, under the power conferred by section 2 of the Jury Trials Amendment (Scotland) Act 1910, after hearing parties on a rule in terms of section 6 of the Jury Trials (Scotland) Act 1815, on the ground that the verdict is contrary to evidence, set aside the verdict and in place of granting a new trial has entered judgment for the party unsuccessful at the trial, an appeal to the House of Lords, notwithstanding that no appeal is competent under section 6 of the 1815 Act, is competent.
‘To submit the language used on privileged occasions to a strict scrutiny and to hold all excess beyond the actual exigencies of the occasion to be evidence of express malice would greatly limit if not altogether defeat the protection which the law gives to statements so made ( Laughton v. Sodor and Man, L. R., 4 P.C. 495). The real question is whether, having regard to the circumstances, the statement is so violent as to afford evidence that it could not have been fairly and honestly made; for the very essence of a privileged occasion is that it protects statements that are defamatory and false, when apart from the protection the very character of the statement itself carries with it the implication of malice. If once the privilege be established, unless there be extrinsic evidence of malice, there must be something so extreme in the words used as to rebut the presumption of innocence and to afford evidence that there was a wrong and an indirect motive prompting the publication ( Spill v. Maule, L.R., 4 Ex. 232)’-per Lord Chancellor Buckmaster.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Buckmaster), Viscount Haldane, Lords Kinnear, Atkinson, and Parker

Citations:

[1916] UKHL 557, 53 SLR 557

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Jury Trials Amendment (Scotland) Act 1910

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Defamation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.630685

Demirel v TMSF: CA 26 Jul 2007

Judges:

Sir Anthony Clarke MR

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 799, [2007] 1 WLR 2508

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Fonu v Demirel and Another ChD 21-Dec-2006
. .

Cited by:

Mentioned – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.258455

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Morina and Another: CA 23 Jul 2007

The Secretary of State had won his case on the substance but wished to challenge parts of the judgement which dealt with jurisdictional points.
Held: The court could hear an appeal by a successful party where there were good reasons for deciding jurisdictional points which had arisen.

Judges:

Maurice Kay LJ, Arden LJ, Phillips MR

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 749, [2007] 1 WLR 3033

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Lake v Lake CA 1955
Mrs Lake’s answer to an allegation of adultery had been one of denial or, in the alternative, condonation. Her husband’s petition was dismissed, the Commissioner finding that there had been adultery but that it had been condoned. She sought to . .

Cited by:

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.

Benefits, Litigation Practice

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.258301

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 the basis that he should apply the Part 24 test. He dismissed the Defendant’s application. The Defendant appealed.
Held: Further evidence was not required to determine the issue.
It is not enough simply to argue that the case should be allowed to go to trial because something may turn up which would have a bearing on the question of construction
Moore-Bick LJ said: ‘In my view the Judge should have followed his original instinct. It is not uncommon for an application under Part 24 to give rise to a short point of law or construction and, if the Court is satisfied that it has before it all the evidence necessary for the proper determination of the question and the parties have had adequate opportunity to address it in argument, it should grasp the nettle and decide it. The reason is quite simple: If the respondent’s case is bad in law, he will in truth have no real prospect of succeeding on his claim or successfully defending the claim against him, as the case may be. Similarly, if the applicant’s case is bad in law, the sooner this is determined, the better.’
The court was asked as to whether material not currently available might lead to a different construction being placed upon the contract sued upon: ‘Sometimes it is possible to show by evidence that although material in the form of documents or oral evidence that would put the documents in another light is not currently before the court, such material is likely to exist and can be expected to be available at trial. In such a case it would be wrong to give summary judgment because there would be a real, as opposed to a fanciful prospect of success. However, it is not enough simply to argue that the case should be allowed to go to trial because something may turn up which would have a bearing on the question of construction.’

Judges:

Moore-Bick, Ward, Buxton LJJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 725

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – John D Wood and Co (Residential and Agricultural Ltd) v Craze QBD 30-Nov-2007
The claimant estate agents sought payment of its commission. The defendant appealed refusal of his request for the claim to be struck out. The agency said that the agency’s standard terms applied under which commission was payable on exchange. The . .
Cited – Alchemy Estates Ltd v Astor and Another ChD 5-Nov-2008
The parties disputed the effect of a contract between them for the sale of a leasehold property. After exchange the solicitors failed to obtain the landlord’s consent to the proposed assignment as required by the lease. In the meantime the proposed . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Williams v Central Bank of Nigeria QBD 8-Apr-2011
The claimant had been defrauded by a customer of the defendant bank. He brought a claim against the bank, saying that they knew or ought to have known of the fraudster’s activities, and were liable. The Bank denied that the UK courts had . .
Cited – Williams v Central Bank of Nigeria QBD 24-Jan-2012
The claimant asserted involvement by the defendant bank in a fraud perpetrated against him. Jurisdiction had already been admitted for one trust , and now the claimant sought to add two further claims.
Held: ‘None of the gateways to English . .
Cited – Williams v Central Bank of Nigeria QBD 24-Jan-2012
The claimant asserted involvement by the defendant bank in a fraud perpetrated against him. Jurisdiction had already been admitted for one trust , and now the claimant sought to add two further claims.
Held: ‘None of the gateways to English . .
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, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.254598

Haydon-Baillie and others v Bank Julius Baer and Co Ltd and others: ChD 5 Jul 2007

Judges:

Morgan J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 1609 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Haydon-Baillie and others v Bank Julius Baer and Co Ltd and others ChD 12-Nov-2007
Post judgment matters . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.254487

Banco Nacional De Comercio Exterior Snc v Empresa De Telecommunicaciones De Cuba Sa and Another: CA 4 Jul 2007

Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to grant a worldwide freezing order following registration of a judgment under Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001 (the Regulation) in this case and whether the order should have contained the usual undertaking that ‘if the court later finds that this order has caused [anyone other than the respondent] loss, and decides that such person should be compensated for that loss, the applicant will comply with any order the court may make’.

Judges:

Tuckey LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 662

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.254540

Steadman-Byrne v Amjad and others: CA 27 Jun 2007

In the course of a personal injury trial, the judge asked counsel to his room, where he said that having been conviced that the claimants were not lying, the defence had no prospect of success, and complained that ‘Insurance companies are trying to send out a message about fraudulent claims to the Asian community, if there was such a thing.’ The defendant claimed bias.
Held: It is not acceptable for the judge to form, or to give the impression of having formed, a firm view in favour of one side’s credibility when the other side has not yet called evidence which is intended to impugn it. He appeared here to have not allowed for a possibility that he would on hearing the defendant also find him credible. The defendant’s appeal succeeded. A party wishing to raise such a matter should normally raise it immediately.

Judges:

Sedley, Smith, Hughes LJJ

Citations:

Times 31-Jul-2007, [2007] EWCA Civ 625, [2007] 1 WLR 2484

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Hart v Relentless Records Ltd, Relentless Music Publishing Ltd, Media Village PR Ltd ChD 4-Oct-2002
The judge had informally met counsel in the corridor outside court, and advised him of the need to settle the case. The client asked the judge to recuse himself, having compromised his independence and impartiality.
Held: Such meetings were a . .
Approved – Project v Hutt EAT 6-Apr-2006
Lady Smith discussed the limits of case management powers when it came to persuading the parties to settle: ‘There are, of course, occasions when a judge or tribunal can quite properly explore difficulties that have become apparent from the evidence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Litigation Practice

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.253710

Wilson v Jaymarke Estates Ltd and Another: HL 20 Jun 2007

The defendant company appealed in part against a finding of unfair conduct of the company as against a minority shareholder, saying the court had been wrong to treat a payment of management charges as unfairly prejudicial. Though nothing had been done to support the charges, the defendant said that the claimant must have consented in advance, and were made for tax purposes.
Held: The argument was impossible and failed: ‘All that can be deduced from Mr Wilson’s past conduct is that when he and Mr Shaw were both involved in the management of the Jaymarke companies and, as the sheriff found, a relationship of quasi-partnership existed between them, and when the practice was for one company actually to incur costs for the benefit in varying degrees of the others, he did not think that the allocation of management charges was unfair. It cannot be taken as an agreement that after their relationship had broken down Mr Shaw should be entitled, whether in respect of past or future years, to deal with the assets of Estates as if they were his own.’ The right of parties to appeal to the House from the Inner House of the Court of Session without leave was not shared by courts in England and should not be abused.

Judges:

Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Lord Carswell

Citations:

[2007] UKHL 29, Times 28-Jun-2007, [2007] SC (HL) 135, [2007] SCLR 712

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Companies Act 1985 459, Court of Session Act 1988 40(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

Appeal from – Alan Baxter Wilson v Jaymarke Estates Limited James Shaw OHCS 25-Nov-2005
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Company, Litigation Practice

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.253517

Conticorp Sa and others v The Central Bank of Ecuador and others: PC 20 Jun 2007

(The Bahamas )

Citations:

[2007] UKPC 40

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Commonwealth

Cited by:

Cited – Paymaster (Jamaica) Ltd and Another v Grace Kennedy Remittance Services Ltd PC 11-Dec-2017
(Court of Appeal of Jamaica) The parties disputed the ownership of copyight in certain computer software, and also an allegation of the misuse of confidential information. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.253512

Tonner and Another v Reiach and Hall: SCS 12 Jun 2007

In order to succeed in a minute asserting want of prosecution, the defender must show (i) that there had been both inordinate and inexcusable delay and (ii) that there was an ‘added element of unfairness . . specific to the particular factual context.’
A Scottish court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction in the case of an abuse of process by way of a procedural sanction such as dismissal without express parliamentary authority

Judges:

Lord Abernethy

Citations:

[2007] ScotCS CSIH – 48, 2008 SC 1

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

See Also – Tonner and Another v Reiach and Hall OHCS 5-Aug-2005
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Cameron and Another v Hughes Dowdall SCS 28-Oct-2008
The pursuer sought damages for negligence by his solicitors. They had sold their business, but the solicitors were said to have failed to include in their contracts clauses necessary for their protection. The defenders claimed that the action should . .
Cited – Davies and Another (T/A All Stars Nursery) v The Scottish Commission for The Regulation of Care SC 27-Feb-2013
The appellants ran a day care nursery regulated under the 2001 Act. The Commission, being concerned at the care provided, sought to revoke the registration in proceedings before the Sherriff’s Court. Before they were concluded, the Commission was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Litigation Practice

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.253423

Sunworld Limited v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council: QBD 2000

The company faced a prosecution under the 1968 Act, in respect of a brochure. On conviction, the company asked the Crown Court to state a case for the Divisional Court. The Recorder refused as to two points, saying that they were decisions of fact not law. The company sought judicial review for mandamus to require the case to be stated.
Held: The court heard an appeal which should have been brought by way of judicial review. The court gave the necessary directions, and proceeded to treat the hearing as such an application.
Simon Brown LJ suggested the appropriate practice: ‘(1) Where a court, be it a Magistrates’ Court or a Crown Court, refuses to state a case, then the party aggrieved should without delay apply for permission to bring judicial review, either (a) to mandamus it to state a case and/or (b) to quash the order sought to be appealed.
(2) If the court below has already (a) given a reasoned judgment containing all the necessary findings of fact and/or (b) explained its refusal to state a case in terms which clearly raise the true point of law in issue, then the correct course would be for the single judge, assuming he thinks the point properly arguable, to grant permission for judicial review which directly challenges the order complained of, thereby avoiding the need for a case to be stated at all.
(3) If the court below has stated a case but in respect of some questions only, as here, the better course may be to apply for the case stated to be amended unless again, as here, there already exists sufficient material to enable the Divisional Court to deal with all the properly arguable issues in the case.
(4) This court for its part will adopt whatever course involves the fewest additional steps and the least expense, delay and duplication of proceedings. Whether, as in Ex Parte Levy, it will be possible to proceed at once to a substantive determination of the issues must inevitably depend in part upon whether all interested parties are represented and prepared, and in part upon the availability of court time.’

Judges:

Simon Brown LJ, Turner J

Citations:

[2000] 1 WLR 2102, [1999] EWHC QB 271

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Trade Descriptions Act 1968 14(1)(b)(ii)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Crown Court at Ipswich, ex parte Baldwin QBD 1981
Proceedings to challenge a Crown Court’s decision may be brought: ‘either by case stated or by judicial review, whichever is the most convenient in the circumstances.’ Donaldson LJ said that in the circumstances of the case: ‘it is much more . .
Cited – Regina v Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrates ex parte Levy Admn 16-Jun-1997
The court was asked whether a defendant can be convicted of driving while disqualified notwithstanding that, subsequent to the act of driving in question, he has successfully appealed against the conviction for which he had earlier been . .

Cited by:

Cited – Gillan v The Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 15-Feb-2007
Before committing the defendant for sentence, the magistrates court had itself decided on disputed facts behind the plea. After being committed to the Crown Court, the defendant asked that court to conduct a further hearing to determine the facts. . .
Cited – Vitesse Networks Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v North West Wiltshire Magistrates Court Admn 10-Dec-2009
. .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions, Regina (on the Application of) v Chorley Justices and Forrest Admn 8-Jun-2006
The prosecutor applied for an order to require the magistrates to state a case. He faced a charge of driving with excess alcohol. He pleaded not guilty. There were several adjournments, and a considerable delay. At the trial, and with no . .
Cited – Skelton, Regina (on The Application of) v Winchester Crown Court Admn 5-Dec-2017
The Court was asked whether the Crown Court could properly refuse to state a case for the opinion of the divisional court, having convicted a defendant, on her appeal from the magistrates’ court, of an offence of common assault. She was evicted from . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Judicial Review

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.253207

Framlington Group Ltd and Another v Barnetson: CA 24 May 2007

The defendant had sought an order requiring the claimant to remove from a witness statement elements referring to without prejudice discussions between the parties before litigation began.
Held: The defendant’s appeal succeeded. The test for proximity of the negotiations to the litigation was not one of time, but of the closeness of the connection between the negotiations and the subject of the proceedings.

Judges:

Auld LJ, Longmore LJ, Toulson LJ

Citations:

Times 11-Jun-2007, [2007] EWCA Civ 502

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 36.10

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Rush and Tompkins Ltd v Greater London Council and Another HL 1988
Use of ‘Without Prejudice Save as to Costs”
A sub-contractor sought payment from the appellants under a construction contract for additional expenses incurred through disruption and delay. The appellants said they were liable to pay the costs, and were entitled to re-imbursement from the . .
Cited – Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v Prudential Insurance Co of America ChD 20-Dec-2002
The parties had undertaken negotiations on a ‘without prejudice’ basis. One now sought freedom to rely upon the other’s statements.
Held: There was a need to balance the right to freedom of expression, against the need to protect the rights of . .
Cited – Cutts v Head and Another CA 7-Dec-1983
There had been a trial of 35 days regarding rights of way over land, which had proved fruitless, and where some orders had been made without jurisdiction. The result had been inconclusive. The costs order was now appealed, the plaintiff complaining . .
Cited – Bradford and Bingley Plc v Rashid HL 12-Jul-2006
Disapplication of Without Prejudice Rules
The House was asked whether a letter sent during without prejudice negotiations which acknowledged a debt was admissible to restart the limitation period. An advice centre, acting for the borrower had written, in answer to a claim by the lender for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.253260

Ceredigion County Council v Jones and others: HL 23 May 2007

The parties had disputed the provision of free travel to school, and permission had been granted for a leapfrog appeal direct to the House of Lords. The Council then sought instead to take the matter to the Court of Appeal. The claimants said that they had no such choice.
Held: If a party found the terms of the reference to the House unwelcome, he had the alternative of proceeding instead to appeal to the Court of Appeal: ‘a term precluding argument on a specific point or points cannot be treated as irrevocable or incapable of revision, but written cases will be drafted and oral argument prepared in compliance with such a term, from which the appellate committee will ordinarily be unwilling to depart.’ The council had been free to withdraw its petition.

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Mance and Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury

Citations:

[2007] UKHL 24, Times 24-May-2007

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Administration of Justice Act 1969, Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Attorney-General for Northern Ireland v Gallagher HL 1961
The defendant appealed against his conviction for the murder of his wife. The court allowed his appeal on the ground of a misdirection. The prosecutor having now appealed, he sought to plead insanity.
Held: The appeal was allowed on the new . .
See Also – Jones and others v Ceredigion County Council CA 28-Jul-2005
The parties had challenged the respondent’s decision not to provide free transport to school. The judge granted certificates allowing leave to apply direct to the House of Lords on two issues, and to the Court of Appeal on one other. The House later . .
See Also – Jones, Regina (on the Application of) v Ceredigion County Council Admn 22-Jun-2004
The parents lawfully chose to send their child to a Welsh language school. The authority refused to provide free transport on the basis that a nearer school was available even though it was not a Welsh language school.
Held: Provided the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Education

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.252519

Carnegie v Drury; Drury v British Broadcasting Corporation: CA 23 May 2007

The claimant had extended the time for service of his claim for defamation.
Held: The author’s appeal succeeded. To extend time for service, the claimant had to have shown that he had done what he could to take steps to serve the claim within the four months allowed. In this case though the first defendant had not assisted, it was under no duty to do so, or to accept service on behalf of an employee, and steps taken by the claimant after the period had expired were not relevant.

Judges:

Dyson LJ, Smith LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 497, Times 11-Jun-2007, [2007] EMLR 637

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rule 7.6(3)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.252505

Chorus Group v Berner (BVI) Ltd and Another: TCC 1 Nov 2006

Application to continue a freezing injunction.
Held: The order should continue. The defendant companies were registered in countries where enforcement would be more difficult, one of the defendants was a single purpose vehicle,and there was evidence of real funding difficulties. The defendant companies were: ‘companies outside of the jurisdiction; where they have the ability to create complex mechanisms which are not transparent; where they have created this single purpose vehicle specifically to avoid financial exposure; where the only asset is equity in the Berners Hotel and where the Respondents’ behaviour in response to the claims by Chorus shows a pattern of evasiveness, I consider it proper to draw the inference that, as was set out in The Niedersachsen [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 600, the refusal of an injunction would involve a real risk that a judgment awarded in favour of Chorus would remain unsatisfied.’

Judges:

Ramsey J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 3622 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See also – Shepherd Construction Ltd v Berners (BVI) Ltd and Another TCC 25-Mar-2010
The defendants sought a release from an asset freezing order, saying that there was no good reason to anticipate any dissipation of assets. An action between the parties had been settled on terms, but the defendant had not met payments. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.252367

JD Wetherspoon Plc v Van De Berg and Co Ltd and others: ChD 4 May 2007

Lewison J summarised the approach to be taken by courts hearing an application by defendants to strike out claims: ‘Both the application to strike out and the application for summary judgment are summary applications. The application for summary judgment is made by defendants against a claimant, which is less usual than an application by a claimant for judgment against a defendant. The authorities deal mainly with applications by claimants. The correct approach on applications by defendants is, in my judgment, as follows:
i) The court must consider whether the claimant has a ‘realistic’ as opposed to a ‘fanciful’ prospect of success: Swain v Hillman [2001] 1 All ER 91;
ii) A ‘realistic’ claim is one that carries some degree of conviction. This means a claim that is more than merely arguable: ED and F Man Liquid Products v Patel [2003] EWCA Civ 472 at [8];
iii) In reaching its conclusion the court must not conduct a ‘mini-trial’: Swain v Hillman;
iv) This does not mean that the court must take at face value and without analysis everything that a claimant says in his statements before the court. In some cases it may be clear that there is no real substance in factual assertions made, particularly if contradicted by contemporaneous documents: ED and F Man Liquid Products v Patel at [10];
v) However, in reaching its conclusion the court must take into account not only the evidence actually placed before it on the application for summary judgment, but also the evidence that can reasonably be expected to be available at trial: Royal Brompton Hospital NHS Trust v Hammond (No 5) [2001] EWCA Civ 550;
vi) Although a case may turn out at trial not to be really complicated, it does not follow that it should be decided without the fuller investigation into the facts at trial than is possible or permissible on summary judgment. Thus the court should hesitate about making a final decision 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: Doncaster Pharmaceuticals Group Ltd v Bolton Pharmaceutical Co 100 Ltd [2007] FSR 3;
vii) The court should be especially cautious of striking out a claim in an area of developing jurisprudence, because in such areas decisions on novel points of law should be decided on real rather than assumed facts.’
In discussing the phrase ‘for some time’ Lewison J said: ‘The other ingredient needed to bring section 32(2) into play is that the breach is committed in circumstances where it is unlikely to be discovered ‘for some time’. Although the quoted phrase is imprecise, it seems to me that the implicit contrast that it is setting up is one between a breach of duty that would be immediately discovered (eg the infliction of a physical injury) and one that would not.’

Judges:

Lewison J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 1044 (Ch), [2007] PNLR 28

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – JD Wetherspoon Plc v Van De Berg and Co Ltd and Others ChD 31-Mar-2009
. .
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 – Burnden Holdings (UK) Ltd v Fielding and Another CA 17-Jun-2016
The company, now in liquidation sought to claim for the alledged misapplication by former directors of its funds in 2007. It now appealed against a summary rejection of its claim as time barred.
Held: The appeal succeeded. Section 21(1)(b) . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.252310

Belhaj and Others v Director of Public Prosecutions and Others (2): Admn 15 Mar 2018

Second judgment on the scope of privilege to which we have both contributed – inadvertent disclosure

Judges:

Lord Justice Irwin
Mr Justice Green

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 514 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Belhaj and Another v Straw and Others SC 17-Jan-2017
The claimant alleged complicity by the defendant, (now former) Foreign Secretary, in his mistreatment by the US while held in Libya. He also alleged involvement in his unlawful abduction and removal to Libya, from which had had fled for political . .
See Also – Belhaj and Another v Straw and Others QBD 21-Jul-2017
The claimant sought a declaration that the acts of the defendants had contributed to his unlawful rendition into US custody during the Iraq War, and that such actions were criminal. The Defendants applied for a declaration that these are proceedings . .
See Also – Belhaj and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 1-Dec-2017
The claimants alleged that the defendants had been involved in their unlawful rendition in 2004 from Thailand to Libya, in particular now challenging by judicial review the decision not to prosecute certain senior British Officers. . .
See Also – Belhaj and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions and Others (1) Admn 15-Mar-2018
A claim that the DPP erred in her decision not to prosecute for alleged involvement in the unlawful rendition of the Claimants to Libya. . .

Cited by:

See Also – Belhaj and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions and Others Admn 3-May-2018
Incorrect disclosure of non-redacted material in closed hearing. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.608921

The Eschersheim; The Jade: HL 1976

The 1956 Act implemented as part of the domestic law the treaty obligations of the United Kingdom under the International Convention Relating to the Arrest of Seagoing Ships signed at Brussels on 10 May 1952 (the Arrest Convention).
Held: The fundamental rule for the arrest of a ship under the provisions of the Arrest Convention is that the right to arrest exists only if the claim arose in respect of a ‘particular ship’ and the owner was liable in respect of a maritime claim relating to that ship.
Lord Diplock explained the purpose and effect of the Arrest Convention, saying: ‘The purpose of that Convention was to provide uniform rules as to the right to arrest seagoing ships by judicial process to secure a maritime claim against the owner of the ship. Article 1 defined by reference to their subject matter various classes of maritime claim in respect of which alone a right of arrest was to be exercisable; while articles 2 and 3 granted and confined the right of arrest to either (a) the particular ship in respect of which a maritime claim falling within one or more of those classes arose or (b) any other ship owned by the person who was, at the time when the maritime claim arose, the owner of the particular ship.
The provisions of article 3 represented a compromise between the wide powers of arrest available in some of the civil law countries (including for this purpose Scotland) in which jurisdiction to entertain claims against a defendant could be based on the presence within the territorial jurisdiction of any property belonging to him, and the limited powers of arrest available in England and other common law jurisdictions, where the power to arrest was exercisable only in respect of claims falling within the Admiralty jurisdiction of the court and based upon a supposed maritime lien over the particular ship in respect of which the claim arose.’
Where a statute was passed in order to give effect to an international convention, if the statute and the convention differ in their language, the statute should be construed in the same sense as the convention ‘if the words of the statute are reasonably capable of bearing that meaning’.

Judges:

Diplock, Simon of Glaisdale, Kilbrandon, Salmon and Edmund-Davies LL

Citations:

[1976] 1 WLR 430, [1976] 2 Lloyds Rep 1

Statutes:

Admralty Act 1956, International Convention Relating to the Arrest of Seagoing Ships signed at Brussels on 10 May 1952

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Currie v M’Knight HL 16-Nov-1896
The maritime law administered by Courts of Admiralty in England and Scotland is the same, and the doctrine of maritime lien for damages is part of that law.
In order that a maritime lien should attach to a ship for damages done to another, . .

Cited by:

Approved – Samick Lines Co Ltd v Owners of The Antonis P Lemos HL 2-Jan-1985
The House was asked as to the effect of the section.
Held: Since the provisions of the statute under consideration were designed to give domestic effect to an international convention, a broad and liberal construction should be given to them . .
Cited – Fiona Trust and Holding Corporation and others v Privalov and others CA 24-Jan-2007
The court was asked whether when contracts have been induced by bribery and have been rescinded on discovery of the bribery, that constitutes a dispute which can be determined by arbitration in the context of a common form of arbitration clause.
Cited – The Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd and Others v Meltwater Holding Bv and Others ChD 26-Nov-2010
The claimant newspapers complained of the spidering of the web-sites and redistribution of the materials collected by the defendants to its subscribers. The defendants including the Public Relations Consultants Association (PRCA) denied that they . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Transport

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.248212

Madurasinghe v Penguin Electronics (A Firm): CA 13 Jan 1993

A taxation review is a rehearing by the circuit judge, exercising his own discretion. It is not the exercise of an appellate jurisdiction.

Citations:

Gazette 13-Jan-1993, [1993] 1 WLR 989

Statutes:

County Court Rules 1981 38(24)(6), Solicitors Act 1974 74

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs, Legal Professions, Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.83292

Walsh v Greystone Financial Services Ltd: ChD 4 Jul 2019

The parties disputed a long history of allegations and denials of involvement in fraud.

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 1719 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Walsh and Others v Greystone Financial Services Ltd ChD 18-Dec-2018
Application for three matters to be heard in one trial . .
Cited – Glenn v Watson and Others ChD 31-Jul-2018
In the context of a claim in which there were substantial disagreements as to the underlying facts. Nugee J said: ”Despite the primacy which our trial system has long given to oral evidence, it is by now a commonplace that the memory even of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.639303

Walsh and Others v Greystone Financial Services Ltd: ChD 18 Dec 2018

Application for three matters to be heard in one trial

Judges:

Bowles DM

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 3918 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Walsh v Greystone Financial Services Ltd ChD 4-Jul-2019
The parties disputed a long history of allegations and denials of involvement in fraud. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.634386

McGraddie v McGraddie and Another: SCS 3 Nov 2009

The parties, father and his and and his wife, disputed whether advances of money had been by way of a gift from the father or otherwise, and accordingly whether property purchased in the son’s own name was to be transferred to the father.
Held: The the pursuer was ‘a confident witness, capable of being firm and even robust in the face of cross-examination’, and that ‘there was an energy in his responses that had an air of conviction about it’. He acknowledged that the pursuer’s evidence ‘lacked much in the way of specifics or circumstantial detail’ in relation to the second transaction and that he had forgotten some matters. As to the defender: ‘The content of the first defender’s evidence and the manner in which he gave it raised sharp questions as to whether he was a witness in whom the court could have confidence.’ He was not a witness upon whom he coud rely.

Judges:

Lord Ordinary, Lord Brodie

Citations:

[2009] ScotCS CSOH – 142, [2009] CSOH 142

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

See Also – McGraddie v McGraddie and Another SCS 7-May-2010
Consequential opinion as to remedies. . .
See Also – McGraddie v McGraddie and Another SCS 13-Mar-2012
The defender appealed against rejection of his assertion that monies paid to him by his father was by way of gift.
Held: His appeal succeeded. The Lord Ordinary’s conclusions were ‘plainly wrong’ when he stated that he did not find any of the . .
See Also – McGraddie v McGraddie and Another SCS 13-Mar-2012
. .
See Also – McGraddie v McGraddie and Another (Scotland) SC 31-Jul-2013
The parties were father and son, living at first in the US. On the son’s wife becoming seriously ill, the son returned to Scotland. The father advanced a substantal sum for the purchase of a property to live in, but the son put the properties in his . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Trusts, Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.377366

Zambia v Meer Care and Desai (A Firm) and others (No. 2): ChD 29 Jun 2007

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 1540 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Zambia, Attorney General of Zambia for and on Behalf of v Meer Care and Desai (A Firm) and others ChD 7-Oct-2005
Reasons for dismissal of stay for certain defendants. . .
See Also – Zambia v Meer Care and Desai (A Firm) and others CA 7-Mar-2006
The appellant sought a stay of the action brought against them. The cliamants sought the return of goernment funds said to have been misappropriated. . .
See Also – Zambia, Attorney General v Meer Care and Desai (A Firm) and others ChD 22-May-2006
. .
See Also – Zambia v Meer Care and Desai (A Firm) and others ChD 4-May-2007
. .
See Also – Zambia v Meer Care and Desai (A Firm) and others ChD 4-May-2007
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Zambia v Meer Care and others (1415) CA 17-Dec-2007
. .
See Also – Zambia v Meer Care and others (1414) CA 17-Dec-2007
Two applications for permission to appeal . .
See Also – Zambia v Meer Care and Desai (A Firm) and others CA 9-Jul-2008
The claimant sought to allege fraud by its former president, and began proceedings to recover payments it said were fraudulent, including against a defendant Taylor in Switzerland, who now said that no letter before action or other explanation . .
Appeal from – Attorney General of Zambia v Meer Care and Desai (A Firm) and others CA 31-Jul-2008
The defendants appealed against two orders made in proceedings by the new government of Zambia alleging various tortious conspiracies by defendants with members of the former government.
Held: Appeals by the remaining two partners in the firm . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.254486

Nesbitt v Citizens Advice Bureau and Holt: CA 26 Mar 2007

The claimant sought damages from the defendant saying that they had compromised his employment law damages claim on his behalf, but without his authority. He had unsuccessfully sought to set aside that settlement in the Employment Tribunal on the same basis and failed. The Citizens Advice Bureau sought to strike out his claim as an abuse on the grounds that it amounted to a collateral attack upon the Employment Tribunal’s conclusions.

Judges:

May, Longmore, Smith LJJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 249, [2007] PNLR 24

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Sinclair and Others ComC 21-Sep-2012
The claimant company alleged that the defendants had variously received assests (shares and cash) acquired by a former partner in the claimant company and held on his behalf, in breach of his obligations to the caimant partnership. The defendants . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.250982

Real Estate Opportunities Ltd v Aberdeen Asset Managers Jersey Ltd and others: CA 9 Mar 2007

The defendants had declined to produce documents saying that they had been obtained under conditions of confidence from the Financial Services Authority. The claimants said that the documents were not protected since the defendant already had the documents required independently of the FSA.
Held: The defendant’s appeal failed. They could not claim protection from disclosure of information returned to them by the FSA. The information had not been ‘obtained’ from the FSA.

Judges:

Tuckey LJ, Arden LJ, Lawrence Collins LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 197, Times 06-Apr-2007

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Financial Services and Markets Act 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Real Estate Opportunities Ltd v Aberdeen Asset Managers Jersey Ltd and others ChD 15-Dec-2006
The defendant company resisted disclosure of documents saying that they had been supplied by the Financial Services Authority in confidence, and that to disclose them would be an offence.
Held: The information had already in principle been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Financial Services, Litigation Practice, Information

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.249958