Category: Litigation Practice

Eronat v Tabbah: CA 10 Jul 2002

Judges:

Sir Christopher Slade

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 950

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Di Placito v Slater and others CA 19-Dec-2003
The parties had earlier compromised their dispute, with the claimant undertaking not to lodge any further claim unless he did so within a certain time. They now sought to commence action.
Held: When considering whether to discharge such an . .
Cited – Di Placito v Slater and others CA 19-Dec-2003
The parties had earlier compromised their dispute, with the claimant undertaking not to lodge any further claim unless he did so within a certain time. They now sought to commence action.
Held: When considering whether to discharge such an . .
Cited – The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Jonkler and Another ChD 10-Feb-2006
The applicant had given an undertaking to the court to secure discontinuance of company director disqualification procedings. He now sought a variation of the undertaking.
Held: The claimant had given an undertaking, but in the light of new . .
Cited – The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Jonkler and Another ChD 10-Feb-2006
The applicant had given an undertaking to the court to secure discontinuance of company director disqualification procedings. He now sought a variation of the undertaking.
Held: The claimant had given an undertaking, but in the light of new . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.174302

Fawdry and Co (A Firm) v Murfitt: CA 14 May 2002

The judge at first instance who was ticketed to sit as a judge in the Technology and Construction Court, had been asked to sit as a judge of the High Court to take this case. The appellant said she was acting outside her powers.
Held: The court considered the comon law doctrine of de facto officers. She was in fact not a judge of the High Court but had acted in good faith, and the parties had accepted her jurisdiction. The parties had received a fair trial before a lawfully constituted tribunal.

Judges:

Lord Justice Ward, Lord Justice Sedley And Lady Justice Hale

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 643, [2003] QB 104

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 6(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Adams v Adams 1971
Despite the lack of modern English authority applying the doctrine, it was still part of the English common law, that the acts of a de facto officer were validated. The de facto officer must have some basis for his assumption of office, variously . .
Cited – Pfeifer And Plankl v Austria ECHR 25-Feb-1992
Two of the judges who had acted in Mr Pfeifer’s case also presided at his trial, despite a clear provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure disqualifying them. The Commission dealt with whether the court was ‘established by law’ separately from . .
Cited – Curtin v Barton 1893
(New York) ‘When a court with competent jurisdiction is duly established, a suitor who resorts to it for the administration of justice and the protection of private rights should not be defeated or embarrassed by questions relating to the title of . .

Cited by:

Cited – Coppard v The Commissioners of Customs and Excise, Lord Chancellor intervening CA 9-Apr-2003
The judge, a circuit judge who had been appointed a judge of the TCC, had adjudicated on the claimant’s case in the High Court in the false belief that the appointment allowed him to do so.
Held: The judge had not wilfully closed his eyes to . .
Cited – Baldock v Webster and Others CA 21-Dec-2004
The claimant alleged negligence against his solicitors in having failed to challenge an order made ultra vires by a county court judge.
Held: The common law doctrine of de facto jurisdiction validated the decision of the judge. The recorder . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Human Rights

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.171248

Mohamad Al Fayed v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis: CA 29 May 2002

During an action, advice from counsel had been inadvertently disclosed to the claimants. The defendant sought to restrain use of the papers in the trial. It was accepted that the papers attracted legal professional privilege, but the police also sought public interest immunity.
Held: A solicitor considering documents released to him owes no duty to the disclosing party. Once disclosure has in fact been made, it is too late to seek an injunction to protect the document against use, save in the case of an obvious mistake. The court is exercising an equitable jurisdiction, and there are no rigid rules. There had been discussions about the disclosure or withholding of different documents on different grounds, and the mistake need not have been obvious. The injunction was discharged.
Clarke LJ set out the principles applicable: ‘In our judgment the following principles can be derived from those cases:
i) A party giving inspection of documents must decide before doing so what privileged documents he wishes to allow the other party to see and what he does not.
ii) Although the privilege is that of the client and not the solicitor, a party clothes his solicitor with ostensible authority (if not implied or express authority) to waive privilege in respect of relevant documents.
iii) A solicitor considering documents made available by the other party to litigation owes no duty of care to that party and is in general entitled to assume that any privilege which might otherwise have been claimed for such documents has been waived.
iv) In these circumstances, where a party has given inspection of documents, including privileged documents which he has allowed the other party to inspect by mistake, it will in general be too late for him to claim privilege in order to attempt to correct the mistake by obtaining injunctive relief.
v) However, the court has jurisdiction to intervene to prevent the use of documents made available for inspection by mistake where justice requires, as for example in the case of inspection procured by fraud.
vi) In the absence of fraud, all will depend upon the circumstances, but the court may grant an injunction if the documents have been made available for inspection as a result of an obvious mistake.
vii) A mistake is likely to be held to be obvious and an injunction granted where the documents are received by a solicitor and:
a) the solicitor appreciates that a mistake has been made before making some use of the documents; or
b) it would be obvious to a reasonable solicitor in his position that a mistake has been made;
and, in either case, there are no other circumstances which would make it unjust or inequitable to grant relief.
viii) Where a solicitor gives detailed consideration to the question whether the documents have been made available for inspection by mistake and honestly concludes that they have not, that fact will be a relevant (and in many cases an important) pointer to the conclusion that it would not be obvious to the reasonable solicitor that a mistake had been made, but is not conclusive; the decision remains a matter for the court.
ix) In both the cases identified in vii) a) and b) above there are many circumstances in which it may nevertheless be held to be inequitable or unjust to grant relief, but all will depend upon the particular circumstances.
x) Since the court is exercising an equitable jurisdiction, there are no rigid rules.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Walker, Lord Phillips MR, Clarke LJ

Citations:

Gazette 01-Aug-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 780, A2/2002/0758

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 31.2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Guinness Peat Properties Ltd v Fitzroy Robinson Partnership CA 1987
Property developers (‘GPR’) were suing their architects (‘FRP’) in negligence. The claim against FRP was covered by a professional indemnity insurance policy. Once FRP was notified of GPR’s claim, FRP sent a ‘notification of claim’ to its insurer . .
Cited – Derby and Co Ltd v Weldon (No 8) CA 27-Jul-1990
There had been a lengthy and contentious process of discovery. Certain documents with legal professional privilege had also been handed over inadvertently. The plaintiff sought their return and an order against them being used.
Held: The . .
Cited – Pizzey v Ford Motor Co Ltd CA 10-Mar-1993
Reports which had been mistakenly disclosed by a solicitor were admitted in evidence. . .
Cited – International Business Machines Corporation v Phoenix International (Computers) Ltd ChD 28-Jul-1994
The defendant had, by mistake, included in bundles of documents produced on discovery opinions and other legally privileged material.
Held: A competent solicitor would see immediately that these had been disclosed by mistake, and an order was . .
Cited – Breeze v John Stacey and Sons Ltd CA 21-Jun-1999
The introduction of the Civil Procedures Rules has done nothing to change the rules or principles affecting the receipt of privileged and confidence protected documents inadvertently disclosed to a party. He had no obligation to examine them . .

Cited by:

Cited – MMI Research Ltd v Cellxion Ltd and Others ChD 24-Sep-2007
The claimant had accidentally disclosed a confidential document it should not have done. The defendant argued that there had been a waiver of privilege.
Held: Applying Al Fayed, it could not in these circumstances be said that the mistake was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Civil Procedure Rules, Equity

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.171335

Johnson v Gore Wood and Co (A Firm): QBD 20 Feb 2002

The claimant alleged negligence by the defendant solicitors.

Judges:

The Hon Mr Justice Hart

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 776 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – 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:

See Also – Johnson v Gore Wood and Co (A Firm) ChD 3-May-2002
The respondent firm acted on behalf of the claimant’s companies in land transactions. An option had been taken to purchase land, and he instructed the defendants to exercise it. The landowner claimed the notice to exercise the option was invalidly . .
See Also – William John Henry Johnson v Gore Wood and Co CA 3-Dec-2003
. .
See Also – William John Henry Johnson v Gore Wood and Co CA 27-Jan-2004
The defendant had made a substantial payment into court in protracted proceedings.
Held: The comparison between the payment in and the eventual amount of damages awarded should be assessed on the basis of the damages calculated as at the date . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.170274

Reed and others v Oury and others: ChD 14 Mar 2002

The court should only exercise its power under the Civil Procedure Rules Part 3 to require a payment in only in limited circumstances, and not do so unless the party against whom the order was sought had acted in bad faith.

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 369 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – CIBC Mellon Trust Company and others v Mora Hotel Corp Nv and Another CA 19-Nov-2002
A party had been ordered to pay into court as a condition of an application to set aside a judgment, a substantial sum in respect of past costs, and also as security for costs to be incurred. The defendant appealed.
Held: The judge had not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Litigation Practice

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.170108

Maridive and Oil Services (SAE) and Another v CNA Insurance Company (Europe) Ltd: CA 25 Mar 2002

The Civil Procedure Rules have allowed the Courts to accept an amendment to introduce a cause of action arising out of facts occurring subsequent to the commencement of the proceedings. There is no absolute rule of law or practice which precludes an amendment to rely on a cause of action which accrued only after the date of the original claim in circumstances where (but for the amendment) the claim could fail.

Judges:

Chadwick, Ward, Mance LLJ

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 369, [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 9, [2002] 2 LLR 9, [2002] 1 All ER (Comm) 653

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Midtown Ltd v City of London Real Property Company Ltd ChD 20-Jan-2005
Tenants occupied land next to land which was to be developed after compulsory acquisition. The tenants and the landlords asserted a right of light over the land, and sought an injunction to prevent the development. The developer denied that any . .
Cited – Hardy and others v Fowle and Another ChD 26-Oct-2007
Mortgagees claimed possession of the land. The occupiers claimed a right of occupation under a lease. The mortgagees argued that the lease had been surrendered.
Held: The lease had been surrendered by a deed. The defects in notice alleged did . .
Cited – Iqbal v Dean Manson Solicitors CA 15-Feb-2011
The claimant sought protection under the Act from his former employers’ behaviour in making repeated allegations against him. He appealed against the striking out of his claim.
Held: The appeal suceeded. The matter should go to trial. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.170025

On Demand Information Plc and others v Michael Gerson (Finance) Plc and others: HL 18 Apr 2002

The claimant took equipment under leases. After the initial period the rentals would be renewed without substantial further rental payments. The company went into administration after or toward the end of the initial period, and the lessors sought to reclaim the equipment. The administrators sought to sell it. During the case an order was made for it to be sold. After that sale, an order for relief from forfeiture could no longer be made.
Held: For an order for the sale of property in proceedings it had to be of a perishable value, and the action had to concern it. That applied here. To be such, an order should not affect the underlying position of the parties, even if it did affect the remedies which were available to give them effect. The application for relief from forfeiture was a means to an end: that of obtaining the underlying value. That was still achievable, and the order for sale had been valid.

Judges:

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough, Lord Millett and Lord Scott of Foscote

Citations:

Times 02-May-2002, Gazette 23-May-2002, [2002] UKHL 13, [2003] 1 AC 368, [2002] CLC 1140, [2002] 1 All ER (Comm) 641, [2002] BCC 673, [2002] 2 WLR 919, [2002] 2 All ER 949

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – On Demand Information Plc and Another v Michael Gerson (Finance) Plc and Another CA 19-Sep-2000
The power to grant relief from forfeiture in finance leases was real, but ceased to be available after property repossessed by the finance company had been contracted for sale by the applicants. The application for relief was in its nature, an . .

Cited by:

Appealed to – On Demand Information Plc and Another v Michael Gerson (Finance) Plc and Another CA 19-Sep-2000
The power to grant relief from forfeiture in finance leases was real, but ceased to be available after property repossessed by the finance company had been contracted for sale by the applicants. The application for relief was in its nature, an . .
Cited – Sirius International Insurance Company (Publ) v FAI General Insurance Limited and others HL 2-Dec-2004
The appellant had taken certain insurance risks on behalf of the respondents, subject to banking indemnities. Disputes arose and were settled under a Tomlin order, which was now itself subject to challenge.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Equity

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.169832

Nasser v United Bank of Kuwait: CA 21 Dec 2001

The claimant appealed against a decision to strike out her claim for want of prosecution, and a failure to pay a sum ordered as security for costs. She had put jewelry with the defendants for safe keeping, and alleged it had been stolen. The lock on her safety deposit box had changed. During complex procedures, her legal aid certificate was suspended and re-instated several times.
Held: It was wrong to use pre-CPR case law to decide whether to strike a case out. The new rules were intended to be self-contained. Nevertheless the defendant had been severely prejudiced in his defence by the delay, and he would have reached the same result under the new rules. The discretion to order security for costs should not be exercised in a manner which is discriminatory against those who reside outside the relevant zone.

Judges:

Henry LJ, Sir Christopher Slade

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 1454, [2001] 1 WLR 1868

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 3.4

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Superceded – Birkett v James HL 1977
Exercise of Power to Strike Out
The court has an inherent power to strike out an action for want of prosecution, and the House set down the conditions for its exercise. The power is discretionary and exercisable only where (a) there has been inordinate and inexcusable delay and . .
Cited – Biguzzi v Rank Leisure Plc CA 26-Jul-1999
The court’s powers under the new CPR to deal with non-compliance with time limits, were wide enough to allow the court to allow re-instatement of an action previously struck out. The court could find alternative ways of dealing with any delay which . .
Cited – UCB Corporate Services Ltd (formerly UCB Bank plc) v Halifax (SW) Ltd CA 6-Dec-1999
It was proper to strike out a claim for abuse of process where the party had been involved in a wholesale disregard of the Civil Procedure Rules and of court orders. The court has a range of remedies appropriate to the degree of such disregard. . .
See Also – Nasser v United Bank of Kuwait CA 11-Apr-2001
The claimant, a foreign resident, alleged that her jewels had been stolen from a deposit box while in possession of the defendants. The defendants sought security for costs.
Held: An order for security may not legitimately be based on the bare . .

Cited by:

See also – Nasser v United Bank of Kuwait CA 11-Apr-2001
The claimant, a foreign resident, alleged that her jewels had been stolen from a deposit box while in possession of the defendants. The defendants sought security for costs.
Held: An order for security may not legitimately be based on the bare . .
Cited – Carson, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; Reynolds v Same HL 26-May-2005
One claimant said that as a foreign resident pensioner, she had been excluded from the annual uprating of state retirement pension, and that this was an infringement of her human rights. Another complained at the lower levels of job-seeker’s . .
Cited – Al-Koronky and Another v Time Life Entertainment Group Ltd and Another QBD 29-Jul-2005
The defendant to the defamation claim sought security for costs. There had been allegations of dishonesty on either side.
Held: The court should not, upon such an application, enter into the merits of the case in any detail, save in the . .
Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167873

Morgan Grenfell and Co Ltd v Sace – Istituto Per i Servizi Assicurativi Del Commercio: CA 19 Dec 2001

The claimants sought to recover under guarantees, issued by the respondent banks, underwriting export credit guarantees. Though described as guarantees, the agreements were in law and substance, contracts of insurance governed by Italian law. The respondents refused to pay alleging failure to disclose the absence of investigation of the financial viability of the payer.
Held: The judge had had to find against a background of differing expert opinions on Italian Law and banking practice. These were for an English court, questions of fact, even though of a special nature. On an appeal against findings on such issues the Court of Appeal should be reluctant to reverse findings of fact. Italian insurance law differs from English law with respect to avoidance of liability of the insurer. In this case though the court differed from the judge as to its conclusions on Italian insurance and banking law, greater disclosure by the insured would not have affected the bankers minds, and the finding was upheld.

Judges:

Clarke, Mance, Dyson LJJ

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 1932

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Parkasho v Singh PC 1968
. .
Cited – Macmillan, Inc (Incorporated Under the Laws of the State of Delaware, Usa) MCC Proceeds Inc v Bishopsgate Investment Trust Plc (No 4) CA 4-Nov-1998
When a court came to be obliged to decide issues of foreign law which were in substance issues of fact, and experts disagreed, it had to do so, and the Court of Appeal had to come to its own conclusions respecting the circumstances in first instance . .
Cited – Benmax v Austin Motor Co Ltd HL 1955
Except for cases which are expressly limited to questions of law, an appellant is entitled to appeal from the Court of Session to the House against any finding, whether it be a finding of law, a finding of fact or a finding involving both law and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Banking, Insurance, Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167862

R (Children) v R (Children): CA 7 Dec 2001

The parents sought defined contact arrangements after a divorce, with differing proposals. It was said that the father had been unable to move on following the relationship breakdown, and the mother sought a condition on contact that the father receive psychiatric assessment. The father came to reject the judge’s independence. The court made contact orders but also orders restraining publication of the matters before the court, and against the husband. He now appealed, asking the order to be set aside because he had not been given a fair hearing.
Held: The burden on a party in establishing bias is substantial. In his relationship with a litigant in person, the judge must be a shepherd and not a wolf. Parts of the order were immoderate and not supported by any evidence of need. The appeal was allowed in part, removing certain parts of the order, and extending the contact.

Judges:

Lord Justice Thorpe Lord Justice Keene And Sir Swinton Thomas

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 1880

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children, Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167844

Genira Trade and Finance Inc v CS First Boston and Standard Bank (London) Limited: CA 21 Nov 2001

The court considered the circumstances under which it could be called upon to assist a foreign court.
Held: It is the duty and pleasure of the court to give all such assistance as it can to the requesting court within the limits imposed by the 1975 Act from which the jurisdiction to make orders of this kind is derived.

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 1733

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Evidence (Proceedings in other Jurisdictions) Act 1975

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – United States of America v Philip Morris Inc and others QBD 10-Dec-2003
Witness orders were sought in respect of professionals resident in England to support litigation in the US. They objected on the ground that the terms of the order sought suggested improper behaviour, and that an order would anticipate breach of . .
Cited – United States of America v Philip Morris Inc and Others and British American Tobacco (Investments) Ltd CA 23-Mar-2004
The defendants appealed orders requiring them to produce evidence for use in the courts in the US.
Held: It was the pleasure and duty of British courts to respond positively to a letter of request. Public interest required that a court should . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Banking, Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167824

A Health Authority v Dr X and Others: CA 21 Dec 2001

Where, after a children case has been heard, a party wishes to apply for the release of papers, the application should be made before the judge who had heard the case. To do otherwise left the second judge making a difficult assessment with insufficient direct knowledge of the issues and people involved.

Judges:

Lord Justice Thorpe, Lord Justice Laws and Mr Justice Harrison

Citations:

[2002] 1 FLR 1045, Times 01-Feb-2002, [2001] Lloyds (Medical) 349, [2001] EWCA Civ 2014, [2002] Fam Law 342, [2002] 2 All ER 780, [2002] 2 FCR 357

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Children Act 1989

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – A Health Authority v X (Discovery: Medical Conduct) FD 2001
There is a compelling public interest in authorising the disclosure of documents to the General Medical Council if they ‘are or may be relevant to the General Medical Council carrying out its statutory duties to protect the public against possible . .

Cited by:

Cited – H (A Healthcare Worker) v Associated Newspapers Limited CA 27-Feb-2002
The applicant had been a health care worker, but was no longer working. He had come to be HIV positive, and an order was sought protecting his identity from disclosure in the press. He had evidence that the NHS guidelines on notification of patients . .
Cited – British Broadcasting Corporation v CAFCASS Legal and others FD 30-Mar-2007
Parents of a child had resisted care proceedings, and now wished the BBC to be able to make a TV programme about their case. They applied to the court for the judgment to be released. Applications were also made to have a police officer’s and . .
Cited – Re C (A Child) FC 29-Sep-2015
There had been care proceedings as to C. The mother was treated by a psychiatrist, X, and an associate Y. They also prepared expert reports. M formally complained about X, and the charges having been dismissed, the doctors now sought disclosure of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Children, Health Professions

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167523

Lilly Icos Ltd v Pfizer Ltd (No 2): CA 23 Jan 2002

The respondent sought an order to maintain the confidentiality of documents disclosed during patent revocation proceedings. It now appealed an order refusing confidentiality.
Held: Under normal circumstances, a party requesting such an order must provide clear reasons for it to be granted. The court should recognise the lack of protection which would attach to a document disclosed during proceedings but then, however it arose, coming into third party hands. In this case, the figures sought to be protected were figures for marketing costs. Patent cases were subject to the same general rules as any other cases, but did present some particular problems, and were subject to some particular considerations. The sensitivity of such figures was recognised, and the court should have granted protection, allowing for the limited part it played in the trial.

Judges:

Lord Justice Aldous, Lord Justice Buxton and Lord Justice Longmore

Citations:

Times 28-Jan-2002, Gazette 06-Mar-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 2, [2002] 1 WLR 2253

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 31.22

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – HRH the Prince of Wales v Associated Newspapers Ltd ChD 13-Jan-2006
The claimant had for many years kept private journals, whose contents were circulated within a small circle of friends. He now sought to claim confidentiality and copyright in them when the defendant sought to publish them.
Held: There was an . .
Cited – McBride v The Body Shop International Plc QBD 10-Jul-2007
The claimant sought damages for libel in an internal email written by her manager, accusing her of being a compulsive liar. The email had not been disclosed save in Employment Tribunal proceedings, and the claimant sought permission to use the email . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Litigation Practice, Civil Procedure Rules, Information

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167477

C and B Scene Concept Design Ltd v Isobars Ltd: CA 31 Jan 2002

The claimant appealed a refusal of summary judgement, in a claim to enforce an arbitration award. Where an award was challenged, enforcement should still be allowed to continue unless the challenge went as to the jurisdiction of the reference. Errors of procedure, fact or law are not sufficient to prevent enforcement of an adjudicator’s decision by summary judgment. In this case there was agreement as to the scope of the dispute, and the Adjudicator’s decision, even with errors of law as to the relevant contractual provisions, is still binding and enforceable until the matter is corrected in the final determination. Appeal allowed.

Judges:

Lord Justice Potter, Lord Justice Rix, And, Sir Murray Stuart-Smith

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 46, [2002] BLR 93

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Bouygues UK Limited v Dahl-Jensen UK Limited TCC 17-Dec-1999
An arbitrator had made an award, the consequence of which, it was claimed, would lead to a retention being released before it was actually due. It was claimed that this part of the award was outside the adjudicator’s jurisdiction.
Held: . .

Cited by:

Cited – Carillion Construction Ltd v Devonport Royal Dockyard Ltd CA 16-Nov-2005
The parties had disputed payments for subcontracting work on a major project. The matter had been referred to arbitration, and the claimants now appealed refusal of leave to appeal the adjudicator’s award.
Held: The dispute was complex and . .
Cited – Carillion Construction Ltd v Devonport Royal Dockyard TCC 26-Apr-2005
Application for leave to appeal against arbitrator’s award in construction dispute.
Held: The appeal was declined. . .
Cited – Melville Dundas Ltd and others v George Wimpey UK Ltd and others HL 25-Apr-2007
The appellant sought an interim payment for works of construction undertaken for the respondents under a JCT contract. The respondents contended that, having terminated the contract on their receivership, the contract and Act meant that the interim . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Arbitration, Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167534

Willers v Joyce and Another Re: Gubay, Deceased: ChD 23 May 2017

Defendants’ application to strike out elements of the claimants re-re-amended particulars of claim.

Judges:

Marsh CM

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 1225 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Willers v Joyce and Another (Re: Gubay (Deceased) No 2) SC 20-Jul-2016
The Court was asked whether and in what circumstances a lower court may follow a decision of the Privy Council which has reached a different conclusion from that of the House of Lords (or the Supreme Court or Court of Appeal) on an earlier occasion. . .
See Also – Willers v Joyce and Another (Re: Gubay (Deceased) No 1) SC 20-Jul-2016
Parties had been involved in an action for wrongful trading. This was not persisted with but the claimant sought damages saying that the action was only part of a campaign to do him harm. This appeal raised the question whether the tort of malicious . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.588021

Price and Another v Nunn: ChD 11 May 2012

Applications were made to strike out parts of a Defence and Counterclaim. The relevant parts of this pleading assert the existence of a private right of way, or a public right of way, in either case with or without vehicles, over certain land owned by the Claimants. The Claimants say that there is a cause of action estoppel, or an issue estoppel, arising from two sets of earlier proceedings, binding on the Defendant, which prevents the Defendant putting forward these contentions. Alternatively, the Claimants say that the relevant averments in the Defence and Counterclaim involve an abuse of the process of the court.

Judges:

Morgan J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 1251 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – LE Walwin and Partners Limited v West Sussex County Council ChD 1975
The parties disputed the extent of a public bridleway. The definitive map appeared to show a bridleway stopping at a point where it met a footpath. However the definitive statement described the bridleway as running ‘to the foreshore’ ie. beyond the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.457621

Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council v Wickes Building Supplies Ltd: CA 12 Jun 1991

Citations:

Gazette 12-Jun-1991, [1991] 3 WLR 985

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council v Wickes Building Supplies Ltd HL 1992
A public authority is not required as a rule to give a cross undertaking in damages in a law enforcement action. As to the legal status of the statutory instrument in question, the courts could ‘declare it to be invalid’ if satisfied that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Local Government, Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.268825

Jefferson Ltd v Bhetcha: CA 1979

The plaintiffs brought a claim to recover monies appropriated by a former employee who was also facing prosecution for offences in connection with the same matters. The defendant sought a stay of the application for summary judgement.
Held: The application for summary judgement should proceed. The issue of a stay to prevent civil proceedings when criminal prosecutions arising out of the same events are also pending is a matter of discretion to be exercised by reference to the competing considerations. It is not a matter of a rule. The court had a discretion to stay the civil proceedings or to adjourn an application for summary judgment having regard to the concurrent criminal proceedings. One factor to be taken into account was whether there was ‘a real danger of causing injustice in the criminal proceedings’, for example if publicity might influence potential jurors in the criminal proceedings or if disclosure of the defence might enable prosecution witnesses to prepare a fabrication of evidence or might lead to interference with witnesses.

Judges:

Megaw LJ

Citations:

[1979] 1 WLR 898

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Discarded – Smith v Selwyn 1914
The court considered whether civil proceedings should be delayed pending the conclusion of criminal proceedings: ‘where injuries are inflicted on an individual under circumstances which constitute a felony, that felony cannot be made the foundation . .

Cited by:

Cited – Panton and others v Financial Institutions Services Ltd PC 15-Dec-2003
(Jamaica) The appellants faced both civil and criminal proceedings. They sought a stay of the civil proceedings pending the disposal of the civil proceedings. They appealeed a saying that the rule in Smith v Selwyn applied.
Held: The rule is . .
Cited – Mote v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Another CA 14-Dec-2007
The appellant was accused of having received income benefits to which he was not entitled. A prosecution was commenced and at the same time he appealed to the tribunal against the decision that there had been an overpayment. The authorities . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.199225

Mahon, Regina (on the Application of) v Taunton County Court: Admn 13 Dec 2001

Application for leave to apply for judicial review of a decision of a county court judge. The claim was as to the refusal of a licence to the claimant to work as a taxi driver.
Held: Leave was refused.
Hooper J said: ‘This case and another case were listed before me because the Administrative Court Office have been receiving a number of applications for judicial review in circumstances where a claimant is seeking a judicial review of a decision of a county court judge to refuse permission to appeal on the grounds that the judge was wrong to refuse that permission. Other than in the exceptional circumstances to which I have referred, judicial review is not a remedy open to unsuccessful applicants who are prevented from appealing to a higher court by virtue of section 54(4) of the Access to Justice Act 1999.’

Judges:

Hooper J

Citations:

[2001] EWHC Admin 1078

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Access to Justice Act 1999 54(4)

Cited by:

Cited – Ogunbiyi, Regina (on The Application of) v Southend County Court and Another Admn 19-Mar-2015
Application for judicial review of a decision of a Circuit Judge at the County Court, (a) refusing permission to appeal again the judgment of a Deputy District Judge following a trial of the claim for damages again the claimant under a hire purchase . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Judicial Review

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167365

Sayers and Others v Smith Kline Beecham plc and Others; X, Y, Z and Others v Schering Health Care Ltd and Others; Afrika and Others v Cape plc: CA 21 Dec 2001

The case concerned the management of substantial multi-party actions, and in particular the form of costs orders. The claimants sought a payment of the ‘common costs’ element to be made payable as the appropriate relative common issues were resolved.
Held: The purpose of the new rules was to clarify the sharing of the burden of costs, not to prescribe what orders should be made and when. As to discontinuing claimants, the current form of order should continue. The advantages of amending such orders to crystallise the costs of a discontinuing party were outweighed by the potential injustice.

Judges:

Lord Justice Mummery, Lord Justice Buxton, And, Lord Justice Longmore

Citations:

Times 15-Jan-2002, Gazette 06-Mar-2002, [2001] EWCA Civ 2017

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules Part 19 Section III

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Afrika and others v Cape Plc and others; X Y Z and Others v Schering health Care Ltd; Sayers and Others v Merck, Smithkline Beecham plc MMR/MR vaccine litigation CA 21-Dec-2001
Claimants sought damages for personal injuries after immunisation with the MMR vaccine. . .

Cited by:

See Also – XYZ and others v Schering Health QBD 29-Jul-2002
The court heard seven lead claims in group litigation against three drug companies in respect of their combined oral contraceptive products. . .
See Also – XYZ v Schering Health Care: Oral Contraceptive Litigation SCCO 31-Mar-2004
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Litigation Practice, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167306

Jobserve Limited v Network Multimedia Television Limited: CA 21 Dec 2001

The claimants sought to re-instate an injunction, claiming Jobserve were acting to abuse their dominant market position. The claimants asserted that European case law had decided the point in their favour. Both parties operated web-sites advertising jobs in the IT sector. The trade association through which most jobs became available, used the Jobserve service. Jobserve, itself not an agency, refused to accept advertisements from those who were agencies, claiming they were competitors.
Held: There was an arguable case, and the injunction stood

Judges:

Lord Justice Mummery, Lord Justice Longmore, And, Mr Justice Harrison

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 2018

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Competition Act 1998 18

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Oscar Bronner v Mediaprint (Judgment) ECJ 26-Nov-1998
A major newspaper proprietor had refused to allow a small competitor access to its efficient distribution service.
Held: That amounted to an abuse of a dominant position: ‘First, it is apparent that the right to choose one’s trading partners . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial, Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167308

Gribbon v Lutton and Another: CA 19 Dec 2001

The defendant solicitors acted in obtaining and holding a deposit on the sale of land. They issued interpleader proceedings which decided that the deposit was payable to the purchaser. The vendor then sued the solicitors in negligence. The solicitors were faced with two courts making different and contradictory decisions on the same facts as to the destination of the deposit, and claimed that the decision of the first court was incorrect.
Held: The solicitor had initiated the interpleader proceedings, and could not be heard to complain about it. The application was an abuse of process. The claim in negligence succeeded because the defendants had failed to secure for their client an enforceable bipartite agreement under which the deposit would be forfeit if the prospective purchaser did not proceed. No issue estoppel arose in their favour because they were not parties in any real sense to the original proceedings.
Laddie J, sitting as a judge of the Court of Appeal, said (as to Chillingworth): ‘All the judge was saying was that if that [the 10 July document] had been a binding contract, suitable wording could have been inserted into it to make the deposit non-refundable.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Pill, Lord Justice Robert Walker and Mr Justice Laddie

Citations:

Times 04-Dec-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1956, [2002] 2 EGCS 100, [2002] NPC 2, [2002] QB 902, [2002] PNLR 19, [2002] 2 WLR 842, [2002] Lloyd’s Rep PN 272

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 . .
Explained – Chillingworth v Esche CA 1923
The purchasers agreed in writing to purchase land ‘subject to a proper contract to be prepared by the vendors’ solicitors’ accepting andpound;240 ‘as deposit and in part payment of the said purchase money’. A contract was prepared by the vendor’s . .

Cited by:

Cited – Sharma and Another v Simposh Ltd CA 23-Nov-2011
The parties created an oral (and therefore void) contract for a development, the claimants paid a deposit, expressed to be non-refundable, and the defendant builders completed the building work. The buyers backed out. The developer now appealed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Professional Negligence, Litigation Practice, Estoppel

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167323

Walsh (as executrix of the estate of David G Walsh) and Others v Deloitte & Touche Inc , Trustee of the estate of Bre-X Minerals Limited , a bankrupt: PC 17 Dec 2001

(Bahamas) Shares were sold in a mining company whose prices had been buoyed by rumour, but where disclosure of difficulties had not been made, and eventually it became clear that samples had bee fraudulently salted. The company became insolvent, and the respondents appointed. They obtained a continuing Mareva injunction against the appellant as executor of her husband’s estate in the Bahamas.
Held: An officer of a company owes a fiduciary duty to the company not to use his knowledge of its affairs by making a profit from dealing in what he knows to be a false market in its shares. Interlocutory jurisdiction is ordinarily ancillary to substantive jurisdiction. There was evidence that the appellants had tried move assets beyond the jurisdiction. The judge’s discretion had been exercised properly. An appeal on the ground of delay had not been pleaded.

Judges:

Lord Slynn of Hadley Lord Hoffmann Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Sir Martin Nourse Sir Kenneth Keith

Citations:

No 37 of 2000, [2001] UKPC 58

Links:

PC, PC, PC, Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Reading v Attorney General HL 1-Mar-1951
The applicant had been a sergeant in the army. He had misused army property and his uniform to assist in smuggling operations. After serving his sentence he now sought repayment of the money he had earned.
Held: His claim failed. The money had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Information, Commonwealth

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167223

REFCO Capital Markets Ltd and Another v Eastern Trading Co, Credit Suisse (First Boston) Ltd and Another: CA 17 Jun 1998

An application for Mareva relief was granted under s.25 where proceedings were pending in the US against Lebanese defendants arising out of futures transactions with respect of assets in England. On the application to discharge the order, the lower court held that, in view of the risk of asset dissipation, the merits was for the US court and granted a holding injunction. The plaintiffs were advised that such an application in the US would fail and sought declaratory relief instead. Rix J held that the forensic activity in Illinois should be regarded as if it were an application made and lost on the merits and discharged the injunction.
Held: There was insufficient evidence of a real risk of dissipation of assets and that by the time the matter was before them the plaintiffs had effective security over substantial assets. A two-stage approach should be adopted on an application for interim relief under s.25 namely: (a) whether the facts would warrant the relief sought if the substantive proceedings were brought in England; (b) if yes, whether in the terms of s.25(2) the fact that the court has no jurisdiction apart from that section makes it inexpedient to grant the interim relief sought. Much effort was being spent in English courts attempting to give effect to letters rogatory requesting the English court to order the production of documents and oral deposition from third parties to litigation in the USA. Such orders are not part of standard procedure in England. Discovery against non-parties will not be provided because it simply was not part of English procedure.

Judges:

Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Schiemann and Lord Justice Waller

Citations:

Times 07-Dec-2001, [1998] EWCA Civ 1020, [1999] 1 Lloyds Rep 159

Statutes:

Evidence (Proceedings in Other Jurisdictions) Act 1975

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Leave – Refco Inc and Another v Eastern Trading Co and others CA 4-Jun-1998
The defendant sought and was granted leave to appeal. . .

Cited by:

Appeal proceeded – Refco Inc and Another v Eastern Trading Co and others CA 4-Jun-1998
The defendant sought and was granted leave to appeal. . .
Cited – Motorola Credit Corporation v Uzan and others (No 2) CA 12-Jun-2003
World-wide freezing orders had been made under the 1982 Act. The defendants were members of a Turkish family with substantial business interests in the telecommunications industry. In breach of orders made in the US some defendants had sought to . .
Cited – BAS Capital Funding Corporation, Deutsche Bank Ag London, Paine Webber Capital Inc, PW Exe Lp, Pw Partners 1999 Lp v Medfinco Limited, Abacus Holdings Limited, Andreas W Gerdes, HTC Inc, etc ChD 25-Jul-2003
The claimants wanted to bring actions in respect of various matters under shareholders agreements in complex international joint ventures. Leave was given to serve English proceedings in Malta, and the claim form and particulars of claim were faxed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167118

Shyam Jewellers Limited v M Cheeseman: CA 29 Nov 2001

The parties contracted for building work to the claimant’s shop. The shop-keeper had been regularly late in making stage payments. Eventually the contractor repudiated the contract part way through. The judge proposed a decision on a preliminary issue as to who had repudiated the contract, but one party was not available to be examined in person. The judge proceeded in his absence.
Held: A judge hearing a Part 24 application for summary judgement must be careful about trying issues of fact, but both counsel had consented to the approach. The judge had held that the claimant had himself repudiated the contract by failing to make payments, and the claimant appealed said that such failure did not do to the root of the contract so as to amount to a repudiation. The difference is between a party merely dragging his heels in paying, and one whose late payments justify the conclusion of his inability or unwillingness to pay. Here the defendant had not made any formal demand sufficient to put the claimant on notice that his conduct would be treated as a repudiation.

Judges:

Lord Justice Potter, And, Sir Martin Nourse

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 1818

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules Part 24

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Ross T Smyth and Co Ltd v Bailey Son and Co HL 1940
The court looked to what had to be shown for one party to a contract to take the actions of the other as a repudiation.
Lord Wright said that: ‘repudiation of a contract is a serious matter, not to be lightly found or inferred’ and ‘I do not . .
Cited – Decro-Wall International SA v Practitioners in Marketing Limited CA 1971
Once the court has concluded that a ‘reasonable notice’ requirement was to be implied into a contract, the question of what notice period was reasonable must be judged as at the time the notice was given.
Buckley LJ also set out the test for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Contract, Litigation Practice, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.166953

Chan U Seek v Alvis Vehicles Ltd: ChD 8 Dec 2004

A newspaper, not party to the proceedings, sought access to the Court files, anticipating a significant journalistic story.
Held: Park J allowed the application for copies of certain pleadings and witness statements that had been placed before the court at a hearing in public, even though the application was made after the case had settled. The general principle that the judge applied was that: ‘the courts favour disclosure rather than the withholding of materials if the materials have featured in proceedings in open court.’ In deciding what counted as materials featuring in proceedings in open court he said that: ‘The reference to documents which have been read in open court must, in my view, be regarded as covering the pleadings, and also witness statements which were confirmed in general terms by their makers and which stood as evidence in chief.’

Judges:

Park J

Citations:

[2005] 1 WLR 2965, [2005] EMLR 19, [2005] 3 All ER 155

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Chan U Seek v Alvis Vehicles Ltd ChD 8-May-2003
The claimant appealed a striking out order.
Held: If a claim stood no chance of success, then it should not be allowed to proceed, but where the claim was merely weak it should not be struck out. That would be inconsistent with the needs of . .

Cited by:

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

Media, Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.535110

Miller v Allied Sainif (UK) Ltd: ChD 31 Oct 2000

In a simple case it was appropriate for a solicitor to apply by post for an order to declare that he had ceased to represent a party. This was a reasonable way of minimising costs for all parties, but the solicitor must be ready to consider whether attendance might be required.

Citations:

Times 31-Oct-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice, Legal Professions

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.83723

Pearson Education Ltd v Prentice Hall India Private Ltd: QBD 9 Feb 2005

The court was asked as a preliminary question whether two letters are in fact ‘without prejudice’ communications, and whether (even if they are) they should nevertheless be before the court on a forthcoming application.
Held: The test for determining the purpose of marking documents without prejudice is entirely objective and the actual intention of the writer is irrelevant.

Judges:

Crane J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 636 (QB), [2006] FSR 8

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Avonwick Holdings Ltd v Webinvest Ltd and Another ChD 10-Oct-2014
Application by the claimant that certain correspondence between the parties and their solicitors in April-May 2014 should be admissible as evidence, notwithstanding that most of it was headed ‘without prejudice and subject to contract’. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.431738

Natwest Lombard Factors Ltd v Arbis: ChD 10 Dec 1999

In order to mark the fundamental nature of the changes from the old civil procedure rules to the new, there can be no assumption made that phrases interpreted under the old rules would be interpreted identically under the new ones, even though the form of words chosen was identical.

Citations:

Times 10-Dec-1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.84235

Network Multimedia Television Ltd v Jobserve Ltd: ChD 25 Jan 2001

Where one party had been granted an ex parte injunction, but the other party then applied to have it discharged on the basis that the application had been made with a material nondisclosure, the following, and new guidelines should be considered by the judge when the original party then requested the continuation of the injunction. Whether or not the two applications should be held together was a matter of convenience only, and much depended on the particular case. The court should allow for the likely extent of any delay, prejudice to the defendant of continuation of the defendant in the light of the possibility of the material non-disclosure, prejudice to the claimant where the injunction might later be continued on its merits allowing for the fact that the claimant might later face prejudice from the court because of the material non-disclosure, the precise grounds of which the discharge was sought, allowing for the degree of seriousness of the allegation, the relationship of the applicants, and any substantive issues of law, and the urgency of the original application, allowing the possibility that the more urgent the case, the more excusable might be the non-disclosure.

Citations:

Times 25-Jan-2001

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.84260

Khanna v Lovell White Durrant (A Firm): ChD 19 Jul 1994

The practice of requiring a third party to produce documents with a subpoena ad duces tecum at an interlocutory stage was a good one and was designed to produce evidence at an earlier stage, reducing costs. No greater inconvenience was suffered by the person served. Subject to the agreement of the parties and the convenience of the third party, the practice should continue.

Judges:

Sir Donald Nicholls VC

Citations:

Ind Summary 08-Aug-1994, Gazette 07-Dec-1994, Times 19-Jul-1994, [1995] 1 WLR 121

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Charman v Charman CA 20-Dec-2005
The court considered orders to third parties abroad to produce docments for use in ancillary relief proceedings. The husband had built up considerable assets within an offshore discretionary trust. The court was asked whether these were family . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.82767

Morris and Others v Banque Arabe et Internationale D’Investissement Sa: ChD 23 Dec 1999

A party which had been ordered to produce documents which were under its control but in a foreign jurisdiction, did not have the right to refuse to produce them on the grounds that this would require them to breach the laws of the jurisdiction in which they were held. That was clearly a relevant consideration, but the decision remained that of the court which had a wide discretion. Rules regarding the enforcement of illegal contracts were not directly comparable.

Citations:

Times 23-Dec-1999, Gazette 07-Jan-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice, International

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.83844

Morris and Others v Director of SFO and Others: ChD 17 Feb 1993

The owner of documents should be joined in an application to SFO to disclose documents obtained by them.

Judges:

Sir Donald Nicholls VC

Citations:

Gazette 17-Feb-1993

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1987 3 4 5

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina (Kent Pharmaceuticals Ltd) v Serious Fraud Office CA 11-Nov-2004
In 2002 the SFO was investigating allegations that drug companies were selling generic drugs, including penicillin-based antibiotics and warfarin, to the National Health Service at artificially sustained prices. To further the investigation the SFO . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.83846

Memory Corporation Plc and Another v Sidhu: ChD 21 May 1999

Where counsel proposing an asset freezing order fails to mention a case relevant to the issue, the order need not thereby be discharged. This is as against a failure to disclose a material fact, which would lead to a discharge of the order.

Judges:

Hart J

Citations:

Gazette 16-Jun-1999, Times 31-May-1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Memory Corporation Plc, Datrontech Hong Kong Limited v Sukhbir Singh Sidhu, Sunsar Limited ChD 3-Nov-1999
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Memory Corporation Plc, Datrontech Hong Kong Limited v Sukhbir Singh Sidhu, Sunsar Limited ChD 3-Nov-1999
. .
On Appeal from – Memory Corporation v Sidhu (No 2) CA 3-Dec-1999
Where a party applied to court for an ex parte order, counsel had direct duties to the court, and also the supporting legal team and clients had continuing and overlapping duties. There was little to be gained by trying to analyze these things too . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.83626

Grainger v Hill: CEC 1838

Misuse of Power for ulterior object

D1 and D2 lent C 80 pounds repayable in 1837, secured by a mortgage on C’s vessel. C was to be free to continue to use the vessel in the interim but the law forbade its use if he were to cease to hold its register. In 1836 the Ds became concerned about the strength of their security. They resolved to put pressure on C to make early repayment. In an action for assumpsit they falsely claimed that the loan was already repayable. They swore an affidavit of debt, which entitled them, without judicial authority, to cause to be sued out of court a writ of capias ad respondendum directed at C. This obliged the local sheriff to capture C with a view to his being brought before the court and made to respond. The sheriff indicated to C that the Ds would be content for him not to be arrested if he were to surrender the vessel’s register. He did so. He soon repaid the loan but in the interim the absence of the register had required his vessel to forego four voyages to Caen. The plaintiff had used the threat of arrest of the defendants in proceedings for recovery of a debt to achieve the ulterior purpose of obtaining possession of a certain ship’s register.
Held: The court upheld the judgment for C in his action on the case. The judges, led by Tindal CJ, held that the tort committed by the Ds was not malicious prosecution but abuse of the process of the law to effect an object not within the scope of the process which they had initiated, namely to ‘extort’ the register, to which they had no right, from C or to obtain it from him by ‘duress’. To allow a defendant to order a plaintiff’s otherwise lawful claim to be stayed as an abuse of process, he has to show that the plaintiff has an ulterior motive, that he seeks a collateral advantage for himself beyond what the law offers, and is reaching out ‘to effect an object not within the scope of the process’. There is a tort of abuse of process for which it is not necessary to prove malice or want of reasonable and probable cause or that the proceedings have been terminated, let alone in favour of the plaintiff.
It was enough for the sheriff’s officer to tell the claimant, while he was lying ill in bed, that there was a writ of capias against him and unless he surrendered his ship’s register or found bail, he would be taken away or a man would be left with him: this was a sufficient restraint of his person to amount to an arrest.

Judges:

Tindall CJ, Park J

Citations:

(1838) 4 Bing (NC) 212, [1838] EngR 365, (1838) 4 Bing NC 212, (1838) 132 ER 769

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Goldsmith v Sperrings Ltd CA 1977
Claims for Collateral Purpose treated as abuse
The plaintiff commenced proceedings for damages for libel and an injunction against the publishers, the editors and the main distributors of Private Eye. In addition, he issued writs against a large number of other wholesale and retail distributors . .
Cited – Pitman Training Ltd and Another v Nominet UK and Another ChD 22-May-1997
The defendant had received a request to register the domain name ‘pitman.co.uk’ from the claimants, who held the trade mark. The domain was not activated, and was de-registered by the defendants and then re-registered by another company. Action was . .
Cited – Land Securities Plc and Others v Fladgate Fielder (A Firm) ChD 25-Mar-2009
The claimants sought damages, alleging that the defendants had abused the litigation process by issuing proceedings to challenge a grant of planning permission to the claimants not so as to defeat the grant, but by causing the claimants . .
Cited – Land Securities Plc and Others v Fladgate Fielder (A Firm) CA 18-Dec-2009
The claimants wanted planning permission to redevelop land. The defendant firm of solicitors, their tenants, had challenged the planning permission. The claimants alleged that that opposition was a tortious abuse because its true purpose was to . .
Cited – Broxton v McClelland CA 31-Jan-1995
The defendants issued various applications to strike out the claim, including a claim of abuse of process. The action was being financially maintained by a third party. The defendants contended that the maintainer’s purpose was to oppress and . .
Cited – Makudi v Baron Triesman of Tottenham In London Borough of Haringey QBD 1-Feb-2013
The claimant, former chairman of the Thailand Football Association, claimed in defamation against the defendant who had been chairman of the English Football Association. The defendant asked the court to strike out the claim, saying that some of the . .
Cited – Williamson v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago PC 3-Sep-2014
(Trinidad and Tobago) The claimant had been held after arrest on suspicion of theft. He was held for several months before the case was dismissed, the posecution having made no apparent attempt to further the prosecution. He appealed against refusal . .
Cited – Jalloh, Regina (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department SC 12-Feb-2020
Claim for damages for false imprisonment brought in judicial review proceedings challenging the legality of a curfew imposed upon the claimant, purportedly under paragraph 2(5) of Schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 1971.
Held: The Court of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Litigation Practice

Leading Case

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.186025

Knauf UK GmbH v British Gypsum Ltd and Another: CA 24 Oct 2001

Permission was sought to use alternative service to serve proceedings on a company. There was no exceptional difficulty in ordinary service, but the claimant wanted to ensure that a claim was heard within the UK jurisdiction, and expected that he would have to serve the proceedings by surprise in order to prevent them first issuing in Germany.
Held: This was an inappropriate attempt to misuse the court rules in order to subvert the ordinary rules regulating such matters. The order for alternative service was set aside.

Judges:

Lord Justice Henry, Lord Justice Robert Walker and Lord Justice Rix

Citations:

Times 15-Nov-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1570, [2002] 1 WLR 907

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – BAS Capital Funding Corporation, Deutsche Bank Ag London, Paine Webber Capital Inc, PW Exe Lp, Pw Partners 1999 Lp v Medfinco Limited, Abacus Holdings Limited, Andreas W Gerdes, HTC Inc, etc ChD 25-Jul-2003
The claimants wanted to bring actions in respect of various matters under shareholders agreements in complex international joint ventures. Leave was given to serve English proceedings in Malta, and the claim form and particulars of claim were faxed . .
Cited – Basil Shiblaq v Kahraman Sadikoglu (No 2) ComC 30-Jul-2004
The court considered whether there had been effective service of proceedings on defendants in Turkey. Evidence was given as to the effectiveness of such service in Turkish law.
Held: The defendant’s application to set aside the judgment in . .
See Also – Knauf UK Gmbh v British Gypsum Ltd and Another ComC 23-Apr-2002
. .
Cited – Nussberger and Another v Phillips and Another (No 4) CA 19-May-2006
A claim was issued in London in December 2004, and then served in part in Switzerland in January 2005. One copy was removed from the bundle by a Swiss official, seeing that it had been marked ‘Nor for service out of the jurisdiction.’ That marking . .
Cited – Phillips and Another v Symes and others HL 23-Jan-2008
Various parties had sought relief in the English courts and in Switzerland after an alleged fraud. There had been a mistake in service of the proceedings in England. The high court had dispensed with service an backdated the effect of the order to . .
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, Jurisdiction

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.166838

Savings and Investment Bank Ltd (in Liquidation) v Fincken: CA 6 Nov 2001

When the court was asked to decide whether a proposed form of amendment to the pleadings would add an issue which was out of time, the court must look to the pleadings before and after the proposed amendment, and the factual issues which would have to be proved to support each version. The mere addition of a new remedy for the same cause of action was not a new claim.

Judges:

Lord Justice Peter Gibson, Lord Justice Robert Walker and Lord Justice Keene

Citations:

Times 15-Nov-2001, Gazette 14-Dec-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1639

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Goode v Martin CA 13-Dec-2001
The claimant had sought to amend her claim for damages for personal injuries. The application had been rejected as introducing a claim not based on the same facts. She had suffered severe head injuries, and had no memory of the accident. She served . .
Cited – Steamship Mutual Underwriting Association Ltd v Trollope and Colls Ltd CA 1986
The employers sued the builders and architects alleging defects in the air conditioning system. Later, cracking and displacement of the walls was discovered, caused allegedly by not having sulphate resisting cement, and defects in the wall ties. . .
Approved – Lloyds Bank Plc v Rogers CA 16-Jul-1999
Where a claim had been made for possession of property under a legal charge, but no claim had been made for financial relief, and a later claim for such relief was made through an amended claim, the loss of the possible defence of limitation was a . .
Appeal from – Savings and Investment Bank Ltd (in Liquidation) v Fincken ChD 2-Mar-2001
The process of testing whether a new cause of action was proposed by an amendment of pleadings to bring into question application of the Limitation Acts, was conducted by asking at what level of abstraction was it claimed that there were one or two . .

Cited by:

See Also – Savings and Investment Bank Ltd (In Liquidation) v Fincken CA 14-Nov-2003
Parties to litigation had made without prejudice disclosures. One party sought to give evidence contradicting the dsclosure, and the other now applied for leave to amend based upon the without prejudice statements to be admitted to demonstrate the . .
Cited – Brown v Rice and Another ChD 14-Mar-2007
The parties, the bankrupt and her trustee, had engaged in a mediation which failed at first, but applicant said an agreement was concluded on the day following. The defendants denied this, and the court as asked to determine whether a settlement had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Limitation

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.166780

Hubbard and Others v Lambeth Southwark and Lewisham Health Authority and Others: CA 7 Sep 2001

In a medical negligence case, the court ordered a pre-trial private meeting between the expert witnesses for the claimant and defendant. The claimant objected, fearing that pressure would be brought on his professional witness by his colleagues, thus denying him a fair trial under article 6.
Held: The aim of the experts’ meeting was to identify and limit the medical issues needed to be decided at trial. It was a necessary function, and the concerns of the claimant could be met by the recording of the meeting.

Judges:

Lord Justice Tuckey and Lady Justice Hale

Citations:

Times 08-Oct-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1455, [2002] Lloyds Rep Med 8, [2002] PIQR P14, [2001] CP Rep 117

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 35.12, European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 6

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Civil Procedure Rules, Human Rights, Litigation Practice

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.166528

Sarwar v Alam: CA 19 Sep 2001

Litigation had followed an accident. The claimant, a passenger, sought and won damages for personal injuries. He had taken out legal expenses insurance, and at dispute was the recovery of the cost of that insurance. He had been unaware of having the insurance and had also paid out for after the event insurance. He sought to recover the costs of the legal expenses insurance. A challenge of a judge’s award in costs only proceedings should only rarely succeed. In such questions, the danger of conflicts of interest between the various insurance companies is real, and had been provided for in the regulations. Solicitors should inspect the client’s various policies to clarify what legal expenses insurance was available. The need to provide free choice of solicitors did not override common provisions for small cases referring such matters to insurance panel solicitors. In a case where a passenger sued his driver, it was not appropriate for his choice of solicitor to be determined by the defendant’s insurers, and after the event legal expenses insurance was a proper and reasonable expense and should be recoverable.

Judges:

Judge Halbert, District Judge Wallace

Citations:

Times 11-Oct-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1401, [2002] RTR 12, [2001] 4 All ER 541, [2002] 1 WLR 125, [2002] 1 Costs LR 37, [2002] Lloyd’ Rep IR 126, [2002] PIQR P15

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Insurance Companies (Legal Expenses Insurance) Regulations 1990, Conditional Fee Agreements Regulations 2000, Civil Procedure Rules 44.12A

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Callery v Gray (No 2) CA 31-Jul-2001
A plaintiff could recover the costs of insuring himself against the risk of having to pay the other sides costs, and finding his own costs irrecoverable (after the event or ATE insurance). The earlier case had decided that such premiums may be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Damages, Costs, Legal Professions, Insurance

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.166184

Nottingham City Council v Zain (a Minor): CA 31 Jul 2001

The council had power under the Act to seek, in its own name, an injunction to prevent an alleged drug-dealer minor to enter a housing estate, and put an end to public nuisances. The authority was not acting outside its powers if it considered the action expedient for the protection of the inhabitants of its area. The fact that the acts complained of were also criminal acts, could not prevent the authority pursuing its case. Even so, it should be recognised that there were arguments against such actions by local authorities, and courts had in the past refused such applications.

Judges:

Lord Justice Mance, Lord Justice Schiemann, Lord Justice Keene

Citations:

Times 29-Aug-2001, Gazette 11-Oct-2001, Gazette 15-Nov-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1248, [2002] 1 WLR 607, [2003] HLR 16

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Local Government Act 1972 222

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Attorney-General v PYA Quarries Ltd CA 1957
In a relator action, an injunction was sought to prevent the respondent from emitting quantities of dust from their quarry. The court had to decide what were the constituents of the offence of a public nuisance, and how this differed from a private . .

Cited by:

Cited – Birmingham City Council v Shafi and Another CA 30-Oct-2008
The Council appealed a finding that the court did not have jurisdiction to obtain without notice injunctions to control the behaviour of youths said to be creating a disturbance, including restricting their rights to enter certain parts of the city . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Local Government, Litigation Practice

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.166272

Leyvand v Barasch and Others: ChD 16 Mar 2000

In a partnership dispute the defendants sought an order for security for costs against the claimant, saying that he was ordinarily resident abroad. It was held that under the new regime such an order would not follow as a matter of course. The sole test was what was the just in the particular case. The existence of assets within the jurisdiction was relevant, and in this case the claimant had lived for a long time here, and had substantial assets here, and such an order was unnecessary.

Citations:

Gazette 16-Mar-2000, Times 23-Mar-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs, Litigation Practice

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.83057

Kirin Amgen Inc and Others v Transkaryotic Therapies Inc and Others: ChD 1 Jun 2001

The court has power to review its judgment at any point before the order has been drawn up, and this remained the case despite other changes in the rules. Here an authority inconsistent with the judgment had been brought to the attention of the judge. The judge wished to review his judgment. The ability to do so was not dependent upon the former absence of a right of appeal, and was not therefore lost under new rules intended to provide greater flexibility. Even so, and after review, he was not inclined to alter his decision.

Citations:

Times 01-Jun-2001, Gazette 14-Jun-2001

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.82804

In re Waring, Westminster Bank v Burton-Butler: ChD 1948

(i) an annuitant under a will was bound by a decision of the Court of Appeal in earlier litigation, where the will trustees and he were parties, as to the effect of tax legislation on his rights, but (ii) another annuitant was entitled to rely on a subsequent, more favourable, decision of the House of Lords on the point in a different case, because he had not been a party to the earlier litigation.

Judges:

Jenkins J

Citations:

[1948] Ch 221

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Zodiac Seats UK Ltd SC 3-Jul-2013
Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd sought to recover damages exceeding 49,000,000 pounds for the infringement of a European Patent which did not exist in the form said to have been infringed. The Technical Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Wills and Probate, Litigation Practice

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.535290

MacDonald v Taree Holdings Ltd: ChD 28 Dec 2000

It was wrong to deprive a party of his costs because only of his failure to serve an appropriate schedule of costs at least 24 hours before the summary assessment hearing. The court should consider first, a brief adjournment, and second whether the case should be stood over for a detailed assessment, and third whether it should be stood over for a summary assessment. In the absence of other aggravating features, it was wrong to refuse entirely a party his costs. The remedy was disproportionate. The court should make use of other ways of penalising a party in default.

Citations:

Times 28-Dec-2000, Gazette 08-Feb-2001

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules Part 44

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Commercial, Litigation Practice

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.83270

Dombo Beheer BV v The Netherlands: ECHR 27 Oct 1993

‘under the principle of equality of arms, as one of the features of the wider concept of a fair trial, each party must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present his case under conditions that do not place him at a disadvantage vis-a-vis his opponent ‘ and ‘the contracting states have greater latitude when dealing with civil cases concerning civil rights and obligations than they have when dealing with criminal cases’ and articles 6(2) and 6(3) may have ‘a certain relevance outside the strict confines of criminal law’.

Citations:

14448/88, (1993) 18 EHRR 213, [1993] ECHR 49

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 6

Cited by:

Cited – Josef Fischer v Austria ECHR 17-Jan-2002
The applicant had been convicted of criminal offences. He submitted an appeal by way of a plea of nullity. He complained that the Appeal court dealt with his application without serving on him a copy of the advice given to the Court by the . .
Cited – Clingham (formerly C (a minor)) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Regina v Crown Court at Manchester Ex parte McCann and Others HL 17-Oct-2002
The applicants had been made subject of anti-social behaviour orders. They challenged the basis upon which the orders had been made.
Held: The orders had no identifiable consequences which would make the process a criminal one. Civil standards . .
Cited – O and others (Children); In re O (Children), In re W-R (a Child), In re W (Children) CA 22-Jun-2005
In each case litigants in person had sought to be allowed to have the assistance and services of a Mackenzie friend in children cases. In one case, the court had not allowed confidential documents to be disclosed to the friend.
Held: The . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills v Doffman and Another ChD 11-Oct-2010
The defendants applied for directors’ disqualification proceedings for the claim to be struck out or dismissed on the ground that the respondent had breached their rights to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Litigation Practice

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165284

GKR Karate (UK) Limited v Porch, Yorkshire Post Newspaper, Holmes: QBD 17 Jan 2000

The claimant sought damages alleging defamation. The judge ordered certain elements of the case to be heard first, and others, if necessary later. Although the case had been begun under the old rules, the new civil procedure regime gave the judge much wider powers of management, and defamation cases were notoriously expensive and lengthy and the powers were particularly appropriate for use in defamation cases. As to qualified privilege: ‘A privileged occasion exists if the public is entitled to know the particular information. That is, if it was the journalist’s social or moral duty to communicate it and the interest of the particular public to receive it. This is determined in the light of all the circumstances of the publication and, in particular, whether the sources were, or appeared to be reliable, to a reasonable and responsible journalist. While Lord Nicholls’ ten examples are not to be taken as written in stone, they form the basic framework upon which a judge can do the balancing exercise.’ and ‘In particular, I am adjured to avoid hindsight, attach importance to the freedom of expression, be slow to conclude that publication was not in the public interest, to resolve any lingering doubts in favour of publication, and to be flexible in my approach.’

Judges:

Sir Oliver Popplewell

Citations:

Gazette 27-Jan-2000, Times 09-Feb-2000, [2000] EWHC QB 180, (2000) EMLR 396

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – MacIntyre v Phillips and Others CA 24-Jul-2001
The appellant police officers and others were defendants in an action for defamation. They appealed a refusal of a trial of the preliminary issue as to whether they had the benefit of qualified privilege. They said that recent case law (GKR Karate . .
Appeal from – GKR Karate (UK) Ltd v Yorkshire Post Newspapers Ltd (No1) CA 21-Jan-2000
It was arguable that a defendant in defamation proceedings could pray in aid in his claim for qualified privilege circumstances not known to him at the time of the publication: ‘there was a real, if problematic, prospect of success.’
May LJ . .
Cited – Loutchansky v Times Newspapers Limited (No 2) CA 12-Mar-2001
The defendants appealed against a refusal to allow them to amend their pleadings. They wished to include allegations as to matters which were unknown to the journalist at the time of publication.
Held: It is necessary for the defendants to . .
Cited – Armstrong v Times Newspapers Ltd and David Walsh, Alan English CA 29-Jul-2005
The claimant sought damages after publication by the first defendant of articles which it was claimed implied that he had taken drugs. The paper claimed qualified privilege, and claimed Reynolds immunity.
Held: The defence of qualified . .
Cited – Grobbelaar v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Another CA 18-Jan-2001
The claimant had been awarded andpound;85,000 damages in defamation after the defendant had wrongly accused him of cheating at football. The newspaper sought to appeal saying that the verdict was perverse and the defence of qualified privilege . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Litigation Practice, Media

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.163132

Fenty and Others v Arcadia Group Brands Ltd (T/A Topshop): ChD 5 Jul 2013

The claimant a famous pop singer (Rihanna) alleged that in putting her image on certain t-shirts, the defendants had committed passing off. The claimant had her own business merchandising her image. The defendants now applied for an order striking out a number of witness statements and parts of witness statements then being relied on by the claimants.
Held: Statements from three witnesses which the claimants had wished to call were ruled out, and any remaining evidence which was simply an opinion about human nature and/or an opinion on the ultimate issue before the court was of no value and need not be cross-examined.

Judges:

Birss J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 1945 (Ch), [2013] Bus LR 1165

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Directions – Fenty and Others v Arcadia Group Brands Ltd (T/A Topshop) and Another ChD 31-Jul-2013
The claimant (Rihanna), a famous singer, complained that the defendant company had used her image on a T-shirt. The defendant had a licence from the photographer but not Miss Fenty. . .
Directions – Fenty and Others v Arcadia Group Brands Ltd and Another CA 22-Jan-2015
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Litigation Practice

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.516276

HM Attorney General v Pepin: Admn 27 May 2004

Civil proceedings order. The defendant had commenced ten sets of proceedings which the court held amounted to serial and repeated litigation of the same points.
Held: The fact that new details had emerged which might throw new light on the underlying events did not mean that the respondent’s behaviour did not come within the section. An order was granted, save that he could proceed with the first action provided an advocate with higher court rights of audience so advises and only if and so long as such an advocate continues to represent him in the conduct of the claim.

Judges:

Auld LJ, Pitchers J

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 1246 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Supreme Court Act 1981 42

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Re Chaffers, ex parte Attorney General 1897
Wright J said: ‘The consideration of whether a person has habitually and persistently instigated vexatious legal proceedings without any reasonable ground does not depend on a minute examination of whether in each particular action there was a . .
Cited – Attorney General v Vernazza HL 1960
Vernazza was a vexatious litigant. The Attorney-General obtained an order pursuant to an Act which gave the court power to prohibit such a litigant instituting proceedings without leave. Vernazza appealed. Between the making of the original order . .
Cited – Bhamjee v Forsdick and Others (No 2) CA 25-Jul-2003
The Court set out the range of remedies available to protect court processes from abuse by litigants who persist in making applications totally devoid of merit. The courts are facing very serious contemporary problems created by the activities of . .
Cited – Attorney General v Jones CA 1990
A section 42 order embraced applications to or in the Court of Appeal as well as below. A person against whom a vexatious litigant order was sought could not seek to argue anew the findings which had already been made against him by the courts in . .
Cited – Attorney-General v Barker CA 16-Feb-2000
An order that someone be denied access to the courts save with consent of a judge was a challenge to that individual’s constitutional rights, and should only be made if the statutory pre-conditions are fulfilled. It had to be shown that the litigant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.197833

Fox v Graham Group Ltd: ChD 26 Jul 2001

A litigant in person contacted the court to request an adjournment on the grounds of her illness.
Held: A first request for an adjournment from a litigant in person should be considered carefully, and refused only in appropriate circumstances. Such adjournments were costly to the court, the other party, and to other litigants through the court time wasted. Nevertheless, the court should proceed in his absence only where the court was satisfied either that the litigant in person should not be granted the relief he sought, or that the application or appeal was hopeless.

Judges:

Neuberger J

Citations:

Times 03-Aug-2001

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.159492

Liverpool Roman Catholic Archdiocesan Trust v David Goldberg QC (No 3): ChD 6 Jul 2001

Where parties settled a matter after the draft of the judgment had been delivered to them, and the terms of the settlement required the non-publication of the judgment, the judge nevertheless retained the power to publish that judgment.
Held: The judge limited the judgment to that and the following issue. The defendant’s expert witness was a friend of the defendant, working from the same barrister’s set. He admitted his friendship for the defendant was closer than would be the case normally. The court disallowed admission of his evidence, since the risk of his evidence being coloured by this relationship was incompatible with the special duties owed to the court and all parties. However objective his evidence might in fact be, it was incompatible with the need for justice to be seen to be done.

Judges:

Evans-Lombe J

Citations:

Times 14-Aug-2001, Gazette 23-Aug-2001, [2001] EWHC Ch 396, [2001] 1 WLR 2337

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Evidence Act 1972 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – F and C Alternative Investments (Holdings) Ltd v Barthelemy and Another ChD 14-Jul-2011
The parties applied to the court for a conclusion to their action without the draft judgment being handed down and published, they having reached agreement.
Held: It was within the judge’s discretion and in this in the public interest for the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Evidence, Litigation Practice

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.136127

Italia Testa: ECJ 25 Jun 1996

ECJ In order to reach an interpretation of Community law which will be of use to the national court, it is essential that the national court define the factual and legislative context of the questions it is asking or, at the very least, explain the factual circumstances on which those questions are based.
In this respect, the information provided and the questions raised in orders for reference must not only be such as to enable the Court usefully to reply but also such as to give the governments of the Member States and other interested parties the opportunity to submit observations pursuant to Article 20 of the EC Statute of the Court.
It is the Court’ s duty to ensure that the opportunity to do so is safeguarded, bearing in mind that, by virtue of the abovementioned provision, only the orders for reference are notified to the interested parties.
Consequently, a request from a national court is manifestly inadmissible inasmuch as it does not enable the Court to give a useful interpretation of Community law where the order for reference merely refers to criminal breaches of national copyright legislation committed by a person running a private radio station and to the question, raised in that context, as to whether the monopoly held by a company having the exclusive right to manage such copyright and authorized to require payment of fees with protection backed by criminal penalties is compatible with Community law, and where it fails to give sufficient details of the factual context of the dispute, the national legislative context or the precise reasons which prompted it to consider the interpretation of Community law and to deem it necessary to refer questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.

Judges:

GC Rodriguez Iglesias, P

Citations:

C-101/96, [1996] EUECJ C-101/96

Links:

Bailii

European, Litigation Practice

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161817

Mellat v HM Treasury: CA 15 Mar 2019

The bank sought damages, alleging that its listing as supporting terrorist organisations had caused it very substantial damages. Unredacted documents were now sought to be produced, for the defence, but the production would risk breach of Iranian law.
Held: The bank’s appeal from an order for their production failed.

Citations:

[2019] EWCA Civ 449

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.634763

Banque de Paris v de Naray: CA 1984

The court considered an application for summary judgment. The defendant filed a statement, but no effective pleading.
Held: The assertion in an affidavit alone of a situation said to found a defence was not enough of itself justify leave to defend; the Court must consider the whole situation. Ackner LJ said that the test was ‘Is there a fair or reasonable probability of the Defendant’s having a real or bona fide defence?’

Judges:

Ackner LJ

Citations:

[1984] 1 Lloyd’s Law Rep 21

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – National Westminster Bank v Daniel CA 1993
The defence contained two contradictory grounds, and the defendant’s evidence again contradicted the defences. The plaintiff sought summary judgment.
Held: A judge, when considering whether a claim should be determined then or allowed to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.253656

Cashmore v Blue Circle Plumbing Fixtures Ltd: CA 30 Jul 1996

Time did not run for the purposes of CCR Order 9 Rule 10 during a period when the action was stayed pursuant to an order for a stay made under CCR Order 6 Rule 1(6) pending the filing of a medical report in support of a claim for damages for personal injuries.
Held: In an action where automatic directions have never been triggered at the time a stay is ordered, and where the lifting of the stay leads to the delivery of defences by all the defendants (or an order is made to the effect that invalid defences may stand as valid defences without redelivery), automatic directions will then run from the appropriate trigger date in the usual way.

Judges:

Waller LJ

Citations:

Unreported, CAT 30th July 1996

Statutes:

County Court Rules 1981 6.1(6) 9.10

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Cockeril v Tambrands Limited CA 21-May-1998
Even if a case is quite unsuitable for automatic directions, the plaintiff has an obligation to apply instead for specific manual directions to stand in their stead. It would be wrong to allow a plaintiff to escape from the discipline of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Personal Injury

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.184382

Commission v Solvay: ECJ 6 Apr 2000

ECJ (Judgment) Appeal – Actions for annulment – Pleas in law – Infringement of essential procedural requirements – Failure to authenticate decisions adopted by the college of Commissioners – Issue that may be raised of the Court’s own motion

Citations:

[2000] EUECJ C-287/95-P

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Litigation Practice

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161672

Langnese-Iglo v Commission: ECJ 1 Oct 1998

By virtue of Article 168a of the Treaty and the first paragraph of Article 51 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, an appeal may be based only on grounds relating to the infringement of rules of law, to the exclusion of any appraisal of the facts. As regards matters of evidence, it is for the Court of First Instance alone to assess the value which should be attached to the evidence adduced before it, save where the sense of that evidence has been distorted.
Having regard to the legal nature of comfort letters, the sending of such a letter, in which the Commission has reserved the right to re-open the procedure in the event of there being any appreciable change affecting certain matters of law or of fact on which its assessment had been based, cannot entail the consequence that the Commission, when actually re-opening the procedure, would no longer be entitled to take account of a factual situation which existed before the comfort letter was sent but was brought to its notice only later, particularly in connection with a complaint lodged at a later stage.
Since Article 3 of Regulation No 17 is to be applied according to the nature of the infringement found, although the Commission may by decision require undertakings and associations of undertakings to bring to an end an infringement of Article 85 of the Treaty deriving from an exclusive purchasing agreement, it may not prohibit the conclusion of any such agreements in the future.

Citations:

C-279/95, [1998] EUECJ C-279/95P

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

See also – Langnese-Iglo and Scholler Lebensmittel v Commission ECFI 8-May-1992
ECJ Where both granting a suspension of operation of a Commission decision prescribing interim measures relating to competition and refusing to grant such suspension would in practice have the effect of depriving . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161665

Biogen v Smithkline Beecham Biologicals: ECJ 26 Feb 1996

ECJ (Order) A natural or legal person who has not sought or been granted leave to intervene before the national court is not entitled to apply for leave to intervene in preliminary ruling proceedings before the Court of Justice in order to submit observations on the question raised by the national court.
Article 37 of the Statute of the Court recognizes a right to intervene, but only in contentious proceedings designed to settle a dispute and not in proceedings under Article 177 of the Treaty; Article 177 provides for a right to submit observations but limits that right, as far as natural and legal persons are concerned, to those who are parties to the action pending before the national court seeking a ruling from the Court of Justice.

Citations:

C-181/95, [1997] ECR I-386, [1997] RPC 833

Links:

Bailii

European, Litigation Practice

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161608

Donatab Srl and others v Commission of the European Communities (Rec 1993,p I-3955) (Order): ECJ 9 Jul 1993

ECJ Where the main action to which an application for interim measures attaches is dismissed as inadmissible, the latter application is itself inadmissible.

Citations:

C-64/93, [1993] EUECJ C-64/93

Links:

Bailii

European, Commercial, Litigation Practice

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161088

Franz Eppe v Commission of the European Communities: ECJ 22 Dec 1993

ECJ 1. It follows from Article 112(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court that an appeal which merely reiterates the pleas in law and arguments put forward at first instance in fact constitutes a request for re-examination of the application bought before the Court of First Instance, a matter which falls outside the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice, thus rendering those pleas and arguments inadmissible. 2. An appeal may not be based on pleas in law which the appellant expressly withdrew in the proceedings before the Court of First Instance or pleas declared inadmissible by that Court, where the finding that they are inadmissible is not itself contested. 3. Under Article 168a of the Treaty and the first paragraph of Article 51 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, an appeal may be based only on pleas as to the infringement by the Court of First Instance of rules of law, to the exclusion of any appraisal of the facts. A fresh assessment of the facts thus falls outside the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice. A plea which merely challenges the assessment of the facts made by the Court of First Instance is therefore inadmissible.

Citations:

C-354/92, [1993] EUECJ C-354/92P

Links:

Bailii

European, Litigation Practice

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.160985

Forse and Others v Secarma Ltd and Others: CA 13 Mar 2019

One defendant appealed from an interim springboard injunction against the appellants. The appellants are among a larger group of defendants alleged to be liable to the respondents for the tort of conspiracy to injure by unlawful means.

Citations:

[2019] EWCA Civ 215

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Torts – Other, Litigation Practice

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.634759

Fairmays (A Firm) v Palmer: ChD 31 Jan 2006

The defendant appealed against a decision not to set aside a judgment obtained against him by default. Whilst he retained a property in England, he lived in Ethiopia. The claim was served at the address in England, but was redirected to another address in Ethiopia.
Held: The appeal suceeded. The proceedings had not been served out of the jurisdiction. The defendant had not in fact been aware of their issue. The domicile of the defendant was not a relevant issue. As to ‘the difficulties of claimants seeking to serve proceedings on a defendant for whom they did not have an accepted address for service but who they suspect may be absent abroad or become so . . this difficulty can be met by the issue of concurrent proceedings for service abroad in respect of which an order for alternative service on the last known address of the defendant within the jurisdiction can be obtained. ‘

Judges:

Evans-Lombe J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 96 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 6.5 10.3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Still good law – Barclays Bank Swaziland Ltd v Hahn HL 1989
The House considered the validity of service of proceedings. Documents were served by means of ‘letterbox service’ when the defendant was en-route to this country but was not within the jurisdiction. Later that day he arrived within the jurisdiction . .
Cited – Chellaram and Another v Chellaram and others (No 2) ChD 16-Apr-2002
One of the defendants had not been properly served by posting the proceedings to an address at which he stayed on his very occasional visits to London. The proceedings had not been issued for the purposes of service abroad, because at the time of . .
Cited – Rolph v Zolan CA 1993
Postal service of County Court proceedings on an address within the jurisdiction could be good service notwithstanding that the defendant was physically outside the jurisdiction at the time of such service. Referring to RSC O10R1: ‘Thus it is . .
Cited – Cadogan Properties Limited v Mount Eden Land Limited CA 29-Jun-1999
If the defendant is outside England, an order for substituted service in England could not be obtained unless permission to serve proceedings out of the jurisdiction has first been obtained. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Kamali v City and Country Properties Ltd CA 24-Jul-2006
The defendant tenant appealed against judgment saying that the proceedings in the County Court had not been correctly served. Though the documents had been sent to his address under the lease, he had been out of the jurisdiction when the claim was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.238209

Wesley Jessen Corporation and Another v Coopervision Ltd: ChD 4 Jul 2001

Patents cases should be dealt with in the Patents County Court or the Patents court as appropriate. Factors suggesting the Patents County Court included that the parties were smaller sized companies or of lesser means, or the length of the hearing, and the availability of an earlier listing. Longer cases might be more appropriate for the High Court, since such cases might also be more complex. The effects on those other than the actual parties should also be considered. Those involved in cases and the court should bear in mind the possibility of transferring cases.

Judges:

Neuberger J

Citations:

Times 31-Jul-2001, Gazette 09-Aug-2001

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property, Litigation Practice

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.136160

Re B (A Child): CA 18 Oct 2017

The court heard a case in which in the course of a child residence dispute F had made and sought to have use before the court, covert recordings of interviews and telephone conversations with practitioners.
Held: The actual matters had been decided adequately without the recordings, but the court acknowledged both the difficulties arising and the absence of authority, and said that an initation would be made to the Family Justice Council to consider the issue.

Judges:

Sir James Munby P FD, King LJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 1579

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children, Evidence, Litigation Practice

Updated: 02 June 2022; Ref: scu.597402

Iberian UK Ltd v BPB Industries plc: ChD 1996

Proceedings in front of an administrative body (the Commission) which were subsequently appealed to a court (CFI and ECJ) did not give rise to an issue of estoppel between the investigatee/appellant and the complainant / intervener. The fact that the ‘victim’ of the abuse intervened in the appeal brought by an investigatee to a court did not mean that the victim and investigatee were parties to a lis before a court for the purposes of issue estoppel.

Judges:

Laddie J

Citations:

[1997] ICR 164, [1996] 2 CMLR 601, [1997] EuLR 1

Statutes:

Competition Act 1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills v Weston and Another ChD 5-Sep-2014
The Secretary of State sought company director disqualification orders against the defendants saying they had been convicted of making false instruments. The Insolvency service had decided against such proceedings, and the Crown Court judge, when . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial, European, Litigation Practice

Updated: 02 June 2022; Ref: scu.536467

HRH the Prince of Wales v Associated Newspapers Ltd: ChD 13 Jan 2006

The claimant had for many years kept private journals, whose contents were circulated within a small circle of friends. He now sought to claim confidentiality and copyright in them when the defendant sought to publish them.
Held: There was an arguable case that confidence existed in some part of the journals. The order for restraint againt publication was continued until a full hearing.

Judges:

Kitchin J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 11 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 31.22

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Home Office v Hariette Harman HL 11-Feb-1982
The defendant had permitted a journalist to see documents revealed to her as in her capacity as a solicitor in the course of proceedings.
Held: The documents were disclosed under an obligation to use them for the instant case only. That rule . .
Cited – Lilly Icos Ltd v Pfizer Ltd (No 2) CA 23-Jan-2002
The respondent sought an order to maintain the confidentiality of documents disclosed during patent revocation proceedings. It now appealed an order refusing confidentiality.
Held: Under normal circumstances, a party requesting such an order . .
Cited – Bonzel v Intervention Ltd 1991
‘the duty placed upon the patentee to make full disclosure of all relevant documents (which is required in amendment proceedings) is one which should not be fettered by any action of the courts. Reluctance of this court to go into camera to hear . .

Cited by:

See Also – HRH the Prince of Wales v Associated Newspapers Ltd. ChD 17-Mar-2006
Application for summary judgment.
Held: Granted . .
See Also – Associated Newspapers Ltd v Prince of Wales CA 21-Dec-2006
The defendant newspaper appealed summary judgment against it for breach of confidence and copyright infringement having published the claimant’s journals which he said were private.
Held: Upheld, although the judge had given insufficient . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Media, Intellectual Property, Litigation Practice

Updated: 02 June 2022; Ref: scu.237597

In re Regent Hotels (UK) Ltd v Pageguide Ltd: CA 10 May 1985

The court was concerned with a long-term management contract for the Dorchester Hotel between Regent as managers and Pageguide. When Regent sold the hotel to Pageguide the management contract would continue and be novated (with some amendment) as between Regent and Pageguide. Pageguide sought to cancel the management contract alleging serious and fundamental breach. Injunctive relief was granted restraining Pageguide ‘from taking any steps to prevent or hinder [Regent] from performing their function of the management and operation of the Dorchester Hotel in accordance with the management agreement’. It was conceded that there was no rule of law precluding specific performance, but counsel for Regent identified principles based on public policy, fairness and practical convenience which militated against the relief sought. Under the heading of public policy, he identified both moral and economic grounds, referring in each context to the breakdown of trust and confidence which Pageguide was asserting.
Held: The Court of Appeal refused to accept counsel’s argument that no injunction was appropriate because there had been a breakdown of trust and confidence was that this was in issue. Regent’s case was the Pageguide was acting cynically and in bad faith, for pure financial or business motives. But the court also said this: ‘Leaving aside the factual issue as to whether Pageguide would be able to establish that they have lost confidence in the Regent companies, in regard to which there is, in my judgment, a serious question to be tried, this action raises the further serious question, as yet unresolved by English authority, as to the extent to which a commercial arrangement of this kind between two independent companies, which does not provide for the employment of any named individuals and is part of a larger package including the sale of the hotel itself, can be properly treated as analogous to a contract of personal service. There are, however, two commonwealth decisions, one from Canada and one from Singapore, both of which were concerned with attempts by hotel owners to terminate long-term management contracts and in both cases the courts granted interlocutory relief. The Canadian case went to the Court of Appeal of Montreal which affirmed the decision: Loewess Hotel Montreal v Concordia City Properties [1979]. In the Singapore case, Holiday Inns v Holiday Enterprises [1975] the court expressly contemplated that specific performance was available.’

Citations:

Times 13-May-1985, Unreported, 10 May 1985

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Warren v Mendy CA 1989
A boxing manager and promoter sought injunctive relief to restrain the defendant from interfering with a management contract between himself and B, a talented young boxer, and from acting for B in B’s professional career. B was at his request joined . .
Cited – Lady Navigation Inc v Lauritzencool Ab and Another CA 17-May-2005
The shipowner appealed the award against them of an injunction requiring them not to act inconsistently with a time charterparty. The company said that such a form of order was improper.
Held: The existence of the contract to do what was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Contract

Updated: 02 June 2022; Ref: scu.225449

Re A: CA 4 Feb 2003

The court considered whether publicity should be allowed in a children’s application: ‘On the one hand, there is the need to protect the welfare of children. This can arise in a variety of ways. Children can be directly affected by the publication of material about them. If this comes to the notice of their school friends or others, then they may be the subject of jokes, teasing, bullying, and worse. Children, particularly of primary school age, are greatly susceptible to embarrassments of this sort. The other way in which it can be harmful to children is if it serves to undermine the confidence and the ability to cope of the person who is looking after the child.’

Judges:

Hale LJ

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 210

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Pelling v Bruce-Williams, Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs intervening CA 5-Jul-2004
The applicant sought an order that his application for a joint residence order should be held in public.
Held: Though there was some attractiveness in the applicant’s arguments, the issue had been fully canvassed by the ECHR. The time had come . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Litigation Practice

Updated: 02 June 2022; Ref: scu.198582

Fitzleet Estates Ltd v Cherry: HL 9 Nov 1977

Income tax – Schedule D, Cases III and VI – Payments of interest and ground rent incurred when property was being developed – Whether capitalised or paid out of profits or gains brought into charge to tax – Income Tax Act 1952 (15 and 16 Geo. 6 and 1 Eliz. 2, c. 10), j. 170.
The House was invited to depart from its own precedent set eleven years before. Lord Wilberforce said: ‘There is therefore nothing left to the appellant but to contend – as he frankly does – that the 1965 decision is wrong. This contention means, when interpreted, that three or more of your Lordships ought to take the view which appealed then to the minority.
My Lords, in my firm opinion, the Practice Statement of 1966 was never intended to allow and should not be considered to allow such a course. Nothing could be more undesirable, in fact, than to permit litigants, after a decision has been given by this House with all appearance of finality, to return to this House in the hope that a differently constituted committee might be persuaded to take the view, which its predecessors rejected. True that the earlier decision was by majority: I say nothing as to its correctness or as to the validity of the reasoning by which it was supported. That there were two eminently possible views is shown by the support for each by at any rate, two members of the House. But doubtful issues have to be resolved and the law knows no better way of resolving them than by the considered majority opinion of the ultimate tribunal. It requires much more than doubts as to the correctness of such opinion to justify departing from it.’

Judges:

Lord Wilberforce, Lord Salmon and Lord Keith

Citations:

[1977] 1 WLR 1345, [1977] UKHL TC – 51 – 708, [1977] 3 All ER 996, [1977] STC 397, [1977] TR 217, 51 TC 708

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Practice Statement (Judicial Precedent) HL 1966
The House gave guidance how it would treat an invitation to depart from a previous decision of the House. Such a course was possible, but the direction was not an ‘open sesame’ for a differently constituted committee to prefer their views to those . .

Cited by:

Cited – Rees v Darlington Memorial Hospital NHS Trust HL 16-Oct-2003
The claimant was disabled, and sought sterilisation because she feared the additional difficulties she would face as a mother. The sterilisation failed. She sought damages.
Held: The House having considered the issue in MacFarlane only . .
Applied – McDonnell v Congregation of Christian Brothers Trustees (Formerly Irish Christian Brothers) and others HL 4-Dec-2003
In 2000, the claimant sought damages for sexual abuse from before 1951. The issue was as to whether the limitation law which applied was that as at the date of the incidents, or that which applied as at the date when he would be deemed uner the . .
Cited – Kay and Another v London Borough of Lambeth and others; Leeds City Council v Price and others and others HL 8-Mar-2006
In each case the local authority sought to recover possession of its own land. In the Lambeth case, they asserted this right as against an overstaying former tenant, and in the Leeds case as against gypsies. In each case the occupiers said that the . .
Cited – Gibson v United States of America PC 23-Jul-2007
(The Bahamas) The US government sought the extradition of the appellant from the Bahamas on drugs charges. The warrants were found to be void, and the defendant released unconditionally, when the nmagistrate rejected evidence from an admitted . .
Cited – Regina v Kansal (2) HL 29-Nov-2001
The prosecutor had lead and relied at trial on evidence obtained by compulsory questioning under the 1986 Act.
Held: In doing so the prosecutor was acting to give effect to section 433.
The decision in Lambert to disallow retrospective . .
Cited – Willers v Joyce and Another (Re: Gubay (Deceased) No 2) SC 20-Jul-2016
The Court was asked whether and in what circumstances a lower court may follow a decision of the Privy Council which has reached a different conclusion from that of the House of Lords (or the Supreme Court or Court of Appeal) on an earlier occasion. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Constitutional, Income Tax

Updated: 02 June 2022; Ref: scu.186956

Davis v Johnson: HL 2 Jan 1978

The court was asked to interpret the 1976 Act to see whether its protection extended to cohabitees as well as to wives. In doing so it had to look at practice in the Court of Appeal in having to follow precedent.
Held: The operation of the doctrine of precedent in the Court of Appeal so far as civil matters were concerned had been ‘clear and unassailable’ for more than 30 years. As to Young v Bristol Aeroplane: ‘The rule as expounded in the Bristol Aeroplane case was not new in 1944. It had been acted upon on numerous occasions and had, as recently as the previous year, received the express confirmation of this House of Viscount Simon LC, with whose speech Lord Atkin agreed: see Perrin -v- Morgan …. Although prior to 1944 there had been an occasional deviation from the rule, which was why a court of six was brought together to consider it, there has been none since. It has been uniformly acted upon by the Court of Appeal and re-affirmed, notably by a Court of Appeal of five, of which Lord Denning as Denning LJ was a member, in Morelle -v- Wakeling …. The rule was also been uniformly accepted by this House as being correct. Because until recently it has never been questioned, the acceptance of the rule has generally been tacit in the course of recounting the circumstances which have rendered necessary an appeal to your Lordships’ House.’ The House re-affirmed the rules of stare decisis. As to whether it was correct to look to debates in Parliament: (Lord Scarman) ‘There are two good reasons why the courts should refuse to have regard to what is said in Parliament or by Ministers as aids to the interpretations of a statute. First, such material is an unreliable guide to the meaning of what is enacted. It promotes confusion not clarity… Secondly, counsel are not permitted to refer to Hansard in argument. So long as this rule is maintained by Parliament (it is not the creation of the judges) it must be wrong for the judge to make any judicial use of proceedings in Parliament for the purpose of interpreting statutes.’

Judges:

Lord Diplock, Viscount Dilhorne, Lord Kilbrandon, Lord Salmon, Lord Scarman

Citations:

[1979] AC 264, [1978] 1 All ER 1132, [1978] UKHL 1, [1978] 2 WLR 553

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1976

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Affirmed – Young v The Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd CA 28-Jul-1944
Court of Appeal must follow Own Decisions
The claimant was injured and received compensation. He then sought to recover again, alleging breach of statutory duty by his employers.
Held: The Court of Appeal was in general bound to follow its own previous decisions. The court considered . .
Appeal from – Davis v Johnson CA 1978
The court had to consider whether the Act protected cohabitees as well as wives. In doing so the court looked at whether it could look to parliamentary debates.
Held: Lord Denning MR said: ‘Some may say, and indeed have said, that judges . .

Cited by:

Considered – Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart HL 26-Nov-1992
Reference to Parliamentary Papers behind Statute
The inspector sought to tax the benefits in kind received by teachers at a private school in having their children educated at the school for free. Having agreed this was a taxable emolument, it was argued as to whether the taxable benefit was the . .
Cited – Sorrell v Sorrell FD 29-Jul-2005
The parties contested ancillary relief on their divorce. The marriage had been very long, and the assets were very substantial. The husband contended that these assets represented an exceptional contribution on his part.
Held: In this case an . .
Cited – James, Regina v; Regina v Karimi CACD 25-Jan-2006
The defendants appealed their convictions for murder, saying that the court had not properly guided the jury on provocation. The court was faced with apparently conflicting decision of the House of Lords (Smith) and the Privy Council (Holley).
Cited – Woodward v Abbey National Plc CA 22-Jun-2006
The claimant appealed refusal to award damages after an alleged failure to give a proper reference, saying that the decision in Fadipe could not stand with the later decision in Rhys-Harper. She said that she had suffered victimisation after making . .
Cited – RJM, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions HL 22-Oct-2008
The 1987 Regulations provided additional benefits for disabled persons, but excluded from benefit those who had nowhere to sleep. The claimant said this was irrational. He had been receiving the disability premium to his benefits, but this was . .
Cited – Willers v Joyce and Another (Re: Gubay (Deceased) No 2) SC 20-Jul-2016
The Court was asked whether and in what circumstances a lower court may follow a decision of the Privy Council which has reached a different conclusion from that of the House of Lords (or the Supreme Court or Court of Appeal) on an earlier occasion. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Family

Updated: 02 June 2022; Ref: scu.182420

Constantin Medien Ag v Ecclestone and Others: ChD 22 Jul 2013

The claimant wished to allege the payment of a bribe by the defendants inducing the sale of a part of its shareholding in the F1 Group, and now sought advanced disclosure of certain documentation.
Held: The application was dismissed as against the first defendant.

Judges:

Vos J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 2674 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Torts – Other, Litigation Practice

Updated: 02 June 2022; Ref: scu.569402

Revenue and Customs and Another v Ben Nevis (Holdings) Ltd and Others: ChD 20 Jul 2012

The claimant sought to make arrangements with a view to collecting substantial arrears of tax due to South Africa. The revenue said that it had that power by virtue of the double taxation treaty with South Aftrica. The company replied that the liabilities arose for years prior to the Convention embodied in the Regulations, andtat they were not recoverable under it.

Judges:

Pelling QC

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 1807 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (South Africa) Order 2002, Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 788, Finance Act 2006 173, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 28

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Re Visser ChD 1928
English law generally does not permit either the direct or indirect enforcement of foreign revenue laws. . .
Cited – Government of India v Taylor HL 1955
The Government of India sought to prove in the voluntary liquidation of a company registered in the United Kingdom but trading in India for a sum due in respect of Indian income tax, including capital gains tax, which arose on the sale of the . .
Cited – Rossano v Manufacturers Life Insurance Co 1963
The plaintiff an Egyptian national bought insurance from the defendant Canadian company (MLI) with branches inter alia in Egypt. When the policies matured, Rassano brought an action in England claiming the money due under them. In defence, MLI . .
Cited – QRS 1 APS and others v Frandsen CA 21-May-1999
The appellants were all Danish companies put into liquidation for asset stripping in contravention of Danish law. The respondent was resident in the UK and had owned them. The Danish tax authorities issued tax demands and the liquidators now sought . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Ben Nevis (Holdings) Ltd and Another v Revenue and Customs CA 23-May-2013
The company owed very substantial arrears of tax in South Africa. Assets had been transferred to a bank account in London in the name of an associated company. The double taxation treaty with South Africa now provided for mutlual assistance and the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

International, Taxes Management, Litigation Practice

Updated: 02 June 2022; Ref: scu.463008

Giorgio Pincherle v Commission of the European Communities: ECJ 22 Dec 1993

ECJ 1. It follows from Article 49 of the EEC Statute of the Court of Justice that interveners before the Court of First Instance are regarded as parties before that court. Accordingly, where an appeal is brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance, Article 115(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice applies to those interveners, and they are therefore not required to submit a fresh application for leave to intervene before the Court of Justice in accordance with Articles 93 and 123 of the Rules of Procedure. 2. In providing that an official, his spouse and his dependants are insured against sickness up to 80% of the expenditure incurred subject to rules drawn up by agreement between the institutions of the Communities, and that that ceiling is increased to 85% for certain services, Article 72(1) of the Staff Regulations establishes the maximum rate of reimbursement to which those covered by the Joint Sickness Scheme are entitled. For the remainder, that provision leaves it to the institutions to fix the reimbursement ceilings by agreement between them in the context of those rules, without prescribing any minimum thresholds. 3. In an appeal, a plea in law directed against a superabundant ground of a judgment of the Court of First Instance, the operative part of which is sufficiently based on other grounds, must be rejected.

Citations:

C-244/91, [1993] EUECJ C-244/91P

Links:

Bailii

European, Litigation Practice

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.160784

Hawkins v Keppe Shaw, Solicitors (a Firm): CA 20 Jul 2001

The solicitors represented the applicant in a claim for personal injuries. The action was struck out, and he sued the solicitors for negligence. Composite directions had been given, and the question was whether the making of those directions ousted the automatic directions, under which the action was struck out for delay.
Held: That question had to be answered for each case. In this case, an order delaying disclosure of an expert’s report, and an order for a split trial had been made. The rules for serving of evidence, could clearly accommodate the particular order for the evidence here, and the claimant was not prevented from applying for a date for trial. The application for a split trial had been withdrawn without the timetable being interrupted.

Judges:

Mr Justice Astill, Lord Justice Waller, Lord Justice Latham

Citations:

Times 25-Sep-2001, Gazette 27-Sep-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1160

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

County Court Rules 1981 Order 17, rule 11(9)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Ashworth v McKay Foods Ltd CA 16-Nov-1995
Where automatic directions had not been followed, a later hearing application was not an not abuse of process. . .
Cited – Bannister v SGB Plc and others and 19 Other Appeals CA 25-Apr-1997
Detailed guidance was given as to several different problems of interpretation of Order 17 r 11, dealing with automatic directions. Definitive guidelines were given for the interpretation of automatic directions and strike out provisions in the . .
Cited – Cockeril v Tambrands Limited CA 21-May-1998
Even if a case is quite unsuitable for automatic directions, the plaintiff has an obligation to apply instead for specific manual directions to stand in their stead. It would be wrong to allow a plaintiff to escape from the discipline of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.159931

Totty v Snowden; Hewitt v Wirral and West Cheshire Community NHS Trust: CA 31 Jul 2001

Where a party had served a claim form, but then failed to serve the particulars of claim within the appropriate time limit, the court had full discretion to allow an extension of time for service. It had been argued that the same rules applied both to the issue of the claim form, and the particulars or particulars complying with Part 16, and that no discretion existed.
Held: The claim form had been singled out for special and rigid treatment under the Rules. The problems caused by failure to serve either forms were different, and it was sensible to impose different requirements, the one strict, and the other discretionary.
Kay LJ said: ‘The effect of rule 7.4(2) is that the claimant who chooses not to serve the claim form until the period of the service has all but elapsed loses such part of that absolute right as takes the total period beyond the prescribed limit, and is left to rely on the exercise of the court’s discretion if he wishes to extend that period. That discretion would involve considering the overriding objective, which includes ensuring that the case is dealt with expeditiously. The consideration will, therefore, start from the position that the claimant will not have complied with the requirements of rule 7.4 and this will be a factor to be taken into account.
If the claimants are right in their interpretation, I consider that there is a perfectly sensible reason why a distinction could be drawn between service of the claim form and service of the particulars of claim. Until the claim form is served, the defendant may be wholly unaware of the proceedings. He may, therefore, because of his ignorance be deprived of the opportunity to take any steps to advance the case. The same would not be true if the claim form had been served but the particulars of claim were outstanding. In such circumstances it would be open to a defendant either to seek an order for immediate delivery of the particulars of claim or, if it was justified, to seek to strike out the claim. Thus a strict regime in relation to the claim form and a discretionary regime subject to the overriding objective is a perfectly sensible approach to the differing problems raised by the two types of failure to comply with the rules as to service.
For these reasons I have come to the conclusion that there is no justification for concluding, in the absence of express words to that effect, that the particulars of claim come within the provisions of rule 7.6 by implication. Thus I am satisfied that the court does have a discretion to extend time in circumstances such as those in this case.’

Judges:

Gibson LJ, Chadwick LJ, Kay LJ

Citations:

Times 10-Aug-2001, Gazette 04-Oct-2001, [2001] 4 All ER 577, [2001] EWCA Civ 1415

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 7.7

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Robert v Momentum Services Ltd CA 11-Feb-2003
The claimant appealed against an order refusing an extension of time for service of her particulars of claim. She had made the application before the period expired.
Held: The rules made a clear distinction between applications made before . .
Cited – Price v Price (Trading As Poppyland Headware) CA 26-Jun-2003
The claimant sought damages from his wife for personal injuries. He had been late beginning the claim, and it was served without particulars. He then failed to serve the particulars within 14 days. Totty and then Sayers had clarified the procedure . .
Cited – Venulum Property Investments Ltd v Space Architecture Ltd and Others TCC 22-May-2013
The claimant sought an extension of time to serve the Particulars of Claim. The solicitors said that they had misread the relevant Rules.
Held: The solicitors had acted on the basis of the former practice, but the rules had been substantially . .
Cited – Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd and Others QBD 29-Jun-2015
Orders allowing extension of time for service of the Particulars of Claim. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Civil Procedure Rules, Litigation Practice

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.159498

Samaroo and Sezek v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 17 Jul 2001

Two foreign nationals with leave to remain in this country committed serious crimes. The Secretary of State ordered their deportation.
Held: Where the deportation of a foreigner following a conviction here, would conflict with his human rights, the court had to assess whether the, first, the objective could be achieved by some alternative, less interfering, action, and, second, whether the effect was disproportionate to the need. A fair balance has to be struck. The ‘margin of appreciation’ test did not affect the test applied or the question asked. The test was more intense that Wednesbury unreasonableness.
Dyson LJ said: ‘There is nothing in the Convention nor any authority to support Mr Bishop’s assertion that Mr Sezek’s detention is incompatible with Article 5(1)(f) if other ways of preventing him absconding are available.’ ‘The court does not have expertise in judging how effective a deterrent is a policy of deporting foreign nationals who have been convicted of serious drug trafficking offences once they have served their sentences.’
‘[I]n deciding what proportionality requires in any particular case, the issue will usually have to be considered in two distinct stages. At the first stage, the question is: can the objective of the measure be achieved by means which are less interfering of an individual’s rights? . . At the second stage, it is assumed that the means employed to achieve the legitimate aim are necessary in the sense that they are the least intrusive of Convention rights that can be devised in order to achieve the aim. The question at this stage of the consideration is: does the measure have an excessive or disproportionate effect on the interests of affected persons?’

Judges:

The President Lord Justice Thorpe, Lord Justice Dyson

Citations:

Times 20-Jun-2001, Gazette 09-Aug-2001, Gazette 06-Sep-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 795, [2001] EWCA Civ 1139, [2002] 1 WLR 348, [2001] UKHRR 1150, [2002] INLR 55

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

Human Rights Act 1998, Immigration Act 1971 Sch 3 para 2(3), Supreme Court Act 1981 15(3), European Convention on Human Rights 5.1 8.1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina v The Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Samaroo Admn 20-Dec-2000
. .
Cited – Regina (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 23-May-2001
A prison policy requiring prisoners not to be present when their property was searched and their mail was examined was unlawful. The policy had been introduced after failures in search procedures where officers had been intimidated by the presence . .
Cited – De Freitas v The Permanent Secretary of Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, Lands and Housing and others PC 30-Jun-1998
(Antigua and Barbuda) The applicant was employed as a civil servant. He joined a demonstration alleging corruption in a minister. It was alleged he had infringed his duties as a civil servant, and he replied that the constitution allowed him to . .
Cited – Boughanemi v France ECHR 24-Apr-1996
A Tunisian national lived in France. In his youth. He was deported after being convicted of a number of serious criminal offences. He returned illegally and formed a relationship with a French national whose child he acknowledged to be his. He . .
Cited – Sporrong and Lonnroth v Sweden ECHR 23-Sep-1982
Balance of Interests in peaceful enjoyment claim
(Plenary Court) The claimants challenged orders expropriating their properties for redevelopment, and the banning of construction pending redevelopment. The orders remained in place for many years.
Held: Article 1 comprises three distinct . .
Cited – Regina v Chief Constable of Sussex, ex Parte International Trader’s Ferry Limited HL 2-Apr-1998
Chief Constable has a Wide Discretion on Resources
Protesters sought to prevent the appellant’s lawful trade exporting live animals. The police provided assistance, but then restricted it, pleading lack of resources. The appellants complained that this infringed their freedom of exports under . .
Cited – Regina v Director of Public Prosecutions, ex parte Kebilene and others HL 28-Oct-1999
(Orse Kebeline) The DPP’s appeal succeeded. A decision by the DPP to authorise a prosecution could not be judicially reviewed unless dishonesty, bad faith, or some other exceptional circumstance could be shown. A suggestion that the offence for . .
Cited – Stott (Procurator Fiscal, Dunfermline) and Another v Brown PC 5-Dec-2000
The system under which the registered keeper of a vehicle was obliged to identify herself as the driver, and such admission was to be used subsequently as evidence against her on a charge of driving with excess alcohol, was not a breach of her right . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Mahmood CA 8-Dec-2000
A Pakistani citizen entered the UK illegally and claimed asylum. A week before his claim was refused and he was served with removal directions, he married a British citizen of Pakistani origin. Two children were later born.
Held: Only . .
Cited – Smith and Grady v The United Kingdom ECHR 27-Sep-1999
The United Kingdom’s ban on homosexuals within the armed forces was a breach of the applicants’ right to respect for their private and family life. Applicants had also been denied an effective remedy under the Convention. The investigations into . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Ali Dinc Admn 3-Apr-1998
The applicant had been sentenced to five years imprisonment for possession of heroin with intent to supply.
Held: In making the decision whether under the Immigration Rules, a deportation order should be made, the Secretary of State was . .
Cited – Caglar v Germany ECHR 7-Dec-2000
The applicant a Turkish national, aged 55 years, had lived in Germany for 30 years. He was sentenced to 7 years’ imprisonment for a drugs offence, and then ordered expuelled to Turkey. His wife had serious psychiatric problems. She needed him and . .
Cited – Barthold v Germany ECHR 25-Mar-1985
Hudoc Violation of Art. 10; Just satisfaction reserved
Any claim to derogation from a convention right must be ‘convincingly established’. . .
Cited – D v United Kingdom ECHR 1997
In the circumstances of the case, where the applicant was in the advanced stage of a terminal illness (AIDS), to implement a decision by the respondent to remove the appellant to St Kitts in the West Indies would be a violation of his rights under . .
Cited – Poku v United Kingdom ECHR 1996
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex parte Saadi and others HL 31-Oct-2002
The applicants were Kurdish asylum seekers. The Home Secretary introduced powers to detain certain asylum seekers for a short period in order to facilitate the speedy resolution of their applications. Only those who it was suspected might run away . .
Cited – M v London Borough of Islington and Another CA 2-Apr-2004
The applicant asylum seeker had had her application refused, and was awaiting a removal order. She had a child and asked the authority to house her pending her removal.
Held: Provided she was not in breach of the removal order, the council had . .
Cited – Lough and others v First Secretary of State Bankside Developments Ltd CA 12-Jul-2004
The appellants challenged the grant of planning permission for neighbouring land. They sought to protect their own amenities and the Tate Modern Gallery.
Held: The only basis of the challenge was under article 8. Cases established of a breach . .
See Also – Allan Samaroo v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 18-Sep-2001
A civil court of appeal has power to hear an application for bail in the course of a judicial review of a committal to custody under the Act pending deportation. Though the applicant could have sought habeas corpus, the court could exercise a . .
Cited – Regina (Nadarajah) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Abdi v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 22-Nov-2005
The asylum applicant challenged a certificate given by the respondent that the claim for asylum was manifestly ill-founded. The respondent had made a mistake in applying the appropriate policy, but had sought to correct the error. The claimants . .
Cited – Begum (otherwise SB), Regina (on the Application of) v Denbigh High School HL 22-Mar-2006
The student, a Muslim wished to wear a full Islamic dress, the jilbab, but this was not consistent with the school’s uniform policy. She complained that this interfered with her right to express her religion.
Held: The school’s appeal . .
Cited – Baiai and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 10-Apr-2006
The respondent brought in laws restricting marriages between persons subject to immigration control, requiring those seeking non Church of England marriages to first obtain a certificate from the defendant that the marriage was approved. The . .
Cited – X, Regina (on the Application of) v Y School Admn 21-Feb-2007
The court was asked whether a school was entitled to refuse to allow a Muslim girl to wear the niqab full face veil at school. The reasons were ‘first educational factors resulting from a teacher being unable to see the face of the girl with a . .
Cited – Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 21-Mar-2007
Appellate Roles – Human Rights – Families Split
The House considered the decision making role of immigration appellate authorities when deciding appeals on Human Rights grounds, against refusal of leave to enter or remain, under section 65. In each case the asylum applicant had had his own . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v Baiai and others CA 23-May-2007
The claimants challenged rules which meant that certain immigrants subject to immigration control were unable to marry, save only those marrying according to the rites of the Church of England.
Held: The rules were not justified by evidence . .
Cited – Birmingham City Council v James and Another CA 17-May-2013
The appellant challenged an injunction under the 2009 Act excluding him from parts of Birmingham. He said that it prevented him visiting his mother.
Held: The appeal failed. Moore-Bick LJ said: ‘It was for the judge to decide on the basis of . .
Cited – Martin Corey, Re for Judicial Review SC 4-Dec-2013
The appellant challenged his recall to prison from licence. He had been convicted in 1973 of the murder of two police officers. He had remained at liberty for 18 years, befire his licence was revoked on the basis of confidential iintelligence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Judicial Review, Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.159581