Category: Litigation Practice

Contradictors v The Attorney General of New Zealand; The Public Trustee and Pritchard: PC 8 Mar 2001

(New Zealand) The government of New Zealand wanted to re-organise the public trustee office, and had to determine the destiny of the funds held. Representative beneficiaries were recommended to be chosen, but instead, counsel was appointed to represent the ‘Contradictors’. When they sought to appeal the order, it was claimed that as non-parties they had no right of appeal. The board would have allowed parties to be joined and an appeal to proceed, but for long delay which now meant that further litigation would cause further substantial prejudice to the respondents, and in any event an appeal would be unlikely to succeed.

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Millett

Citations:

[2001] UKPC 10

Links:

Bailii, PC, PC

Statutes:

Public Trust Office Act 1957 30

Jurisdiction:

New Zealand

Financial Services, Litigation Practice, Commonwealth

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.159450

Saunders v Henry Adderley: PC 24 Jun 1998

(Bahamas) In the absence of other recorded reasons for a decision of an appellate court a contemporaneous note taken by junior counsel and exhibited on affidavit would be taken as evidence of the reasons given. When the question is what inferences are to be drawn from specific facts, an appellate court is in as good a position to evaluate the evidence as the trial judge.

Citations:

Times 20-Jul-1998, [1998] UKPC 29, [1999] 1 WLR 884

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Kearn-Price v Kent County Council CA 30-Oct-2002
The claimant was injured, being hit in the face by a football in a school playground. It was before school started. There had been accidents, and there were rules which had not been enforced. The school appealed a finding of negligence.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Commonwealth

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.159310

Horsford v Bernard Jarvis: PC 30 Oct 1997

(Antigua and Barbuda) The plaintiff sought damages after his truck was damaged in a road traffic accident. He had been unable to afford to repair it.
Held: The appeal was in effect an appeal on the facts. ‘No sufficient reasons have been advanced for them to be further reviewed by their Lordships on a second appeal.’ The appeal was dismissed.

Judges:

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead Lord Steyn Lord Hutton Lord Saville Mr. Justice Gault

Citations:

[1997] UKPC 53

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Commonwealth

Litigation Practice

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.159264

Lewis v Henry St Hillaire and others: PC 22 May 1996

(Saint Vincent and The Grenadines) A writ was issued, but little progress was made. The respondent applied for a declaration that the action had been abandoned and was incapable of being revived.
Held: The provision was one local to the home country. It was to be interpreted broadly, but words may only be implied in a statutory provision, primary or subordinate, if a strict test of necessity is satisfied. Here, there had been an intention to create a broader ground for striking out actions. The interpretation of the Court of Appeal was not to be disturbed.

Judges:

Lord Keith of Kinkel Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle Lord Steyn Lord Hope of Craighead

Citations:

[1996] UKPC 16

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Isaacs v Robertson PC 13-Jun-1984
(St Vincent and The Grenadines) Where the point at issue before the Board was as to a point of procedure with no direct comparable provision in UK law, the Board of the Privy Council should be reluctant to depart from the interpretation set down by . .
Cited – 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 – Srimati Bibhabati Devi v Kumar Ramendra Narayan Roy and Others PC 30-Jul-1946
(Bengal) The appellant sought to claim a substantial inheritance. From many years before it had been thought that he had been buried after dying of syphilis. He claimed he had been resuscitated, taken away and brought up by sanyasi. His identity . .
Mentioned – Antigua and Barbuda Enterprises Ltd v Attorney General of Antigua and Barbuda PC 9-Jun-1993
(Antigua and Barbuda) An action was not to be dismissed under Order 34, rule 11(1)(b) for a failure to apply to set it down. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Litigation Practice

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.159171

Grovit and others v Doctor and others: HL 24 Apr 1997

The plaintiff began a defamation action against seven defendants. Each had admitted publication but pleaded justification. The claims against the fourth to seventh defendants were dismissed by consent, and the third had gone into liquidation. The remaining two defendants, acting in person, applied for the action to be struck-out for want of prosecution. The plaintiff’s delay in proceeding with the case against the remaining two defendants was, as in the present case, somewhat over two years and the judge before whom the defendants’ strike-out application was heard was ‘quite satisfied . . on the evidence that [the appellant] has had literally no interest in pursuing this litigation’.
Held: A party who was guilty of commencing proceedings with no real intention of concluding them, was at risk of being accused of an abuse of process. This case was an example of a gagging writ in defamation proceedings.
Lord Woolf said: ‘This conduct on the part of the appellant constituted an abuse of process. The courts exist to enable parties to have their disputes resolved. To commence and to continue litigation which you have no intention to bring to conclusion can amount to an abuse of process.’

Judges:

Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Woolf, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Steyn, Lord Clyde

Citations:

Gazette 21-May-1997, Times 25-Apr-1997, [1997] UKHL 13, [1997] 1 All ER 417, [1997] 1 WLR 640

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Grovit and Another v Doctor and Others CA 28-Oct-1993
A delay in the prosecution of a libel case can be interpreted as an abuse of process. A claimant must pursue his case with vigour, and the court should be ready to resist the use of actions to gag defendants. The court asked whether the appellant’s . .
Cited – 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 – Department of Transport v Chris Smaller (Transport) Ltd HL 1989
An application had been made to strike out a claim for want of prosecution. The writ was not issued until the end of the relevant six year limitation period and then not served for a further nine months. The period of inexcusable delay after action . .
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 – Westminster City Council v Clifford Culpin and partners CA 18-Jun-1987
It was questionable whether plaintiffs should be allowed the benefit of the full limitation period with virtual impunity where the facts are known and there is no obstacle to the speedy institution and prosecution of claims. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Fay v Chief Constable of Bedfordshire Police QBD 6-Feb-2003
The claimant had begun proceedings for the return of money held by the respondent. His action was stayed for inactivity, and the respondent later had the claim struck out on the basis that it would be an abuse of process to proceed.
Held: The . .
Cited – Daniels v Griffiths CA 27-Nov-1997
The claimant appealed against dismissal of his claim in defamation against the defendant. He was a prisoner convicted of rape and subject to life imprisonment. He sought parole, and said that the defendant had slandered him before the Parole Board. . .
Cited – Adelson and Another v Associated Newspapers Ltd QBD 19-Dec-2007
Applications were launched with in defamation proceedings to seek to recover damages for parties who had not previously been part of the proceedings.
Held: The amendments were refused. The new claimants were now out of time, and it was clear . .
Cited – Icebird Ltd v Winegardner PC 2-Jun-2009
(The Bahamas) The parties disputed the existence of a right of way. The appellant issued proceedings to claim that the right of way had been obstructed. After inordinate delay, it was struck out.
Held: The appeal succeeded. There had been . .
Cited – Wahab v Khan and Others; In re Abdus Sattar Sheikh deceased ChD 12-Apr-2011
The claimant had asked the court to revoke the probate granted in his brother’s estate. He appealed now against a strike out of his request. He alleged that the will was a forgery. The executor’s and defendants were not relations of the deceased, . .
Cited – Morrissey v McNicholas and Another QBD 26-Oct-2011
The claimant musician alleged defamation, saying that the defendant had accused him of being a right wing racist. The defendant now applied to strike out the claim as an abuse of process because of the claimant’s delay.
Held: The application . .
Cited – Panamax Star Owners and or Bailees of The Cargo of The Ship) v Auk (Owners of The Ship) AdCt 18-Dec-2013
A strike out was sought alleging gross delay and an abuse of process.
Held: The strike out was granted both as to the claim and counter claims.
Hamblen J discussed first the issues surrounding delay: ‘In summary, the authorities provide . .
Cited – 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.

Defamation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.158888

St Brice and Another v Southwark London Borough Council: CA 17 Jul 2001

The council having obtained a possession order, suspended on terms, through court proceedings, later sought to enforce the order by a warrant for possession issued without first giving notice to the tenant. The tenant alleged that the grant of the warrant was in breach of his right to a fair trial.
Held: The hearing at which the possession order had been granted satisfied the applicant’s right to a fair trial. The issue of the warrant merely gave effect to the order, and did not alter the tenant’s legal status, nor make any decision about his rights. Proportionality had been considered at the first hearing. The choice of the County Court rather than the High Court was made without reference to any characteristic of the applicant, and could not be said to be discriminatory.
The issue of a warrant was an administrative and not a judicial process.
Kennedy LJ: ‘the routine enforcement of court orders . . should not normally entail a separate hearing’. There is a need for ‘court administration [to be] flexible and efficient’.
Rix LJ: ‘An efficient procedure for routine execution of the court’s orders is in the public interest’.

Judges:

Kennedy LJ, Chadwick LJ, Rix LJ

Citations:

Times 06-Aug-2001, Gazette 13-Sep-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1138, [2002] 1 WLR 1537

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 85, European Convention on Human Rights Art 6

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Kariharan and Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 5-Dec-2001
The claimants had applied for asylum, being Tamils from Sri Lanka. The applications had been rejected, and they sought to challenge the decisions to return them as a breach of their human rights. The new Act and transitional provisions created a new . .
Cited – Bristol City Council v Hassan and Glastonbury CA 23-May-2006
The council had obtained possession orders for two properties from secure tenants, but the orders were suspended for so long as rent arrears were being discharged. The judges had understood that a date must appear on the possession order.
Cited – Knowsley Housing Trust v McMullen CA 9-May-2006
The defendant tenant appealed an order for possession of her flat. She was disabled and living with her 19 year old son. He had been made subject to an anti-social behaviour order. The court had found that she could have required him to leave. The . .
Cited – Knowsley Housing Trust v McMullen CA 9-May-2006
The defendant tenant appealed an order for possession of her flat. She was disabled and living with her 19 year old son. He had been made subject to an anti-social behaviour order. The court had found that she could have required him to leave. The . .
Cited – Cardiff County Council v Lee (Flowers) CA 19-Oct-2016
The court was asked: ‘can the court proceed to validate a warrant of possession where a landlord who seeks to enforce his right to possession because of an alleged breach of the terms of a suspended possession order has not complied with CPR 83.2? ‘ . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Housing, Litigation Practice

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147621

Barings Plc (In Liquidation) and Another v Coopers and Lybrand and Others: CA 20 Jul 2001

It was for the judge to decide which of the case papers he should read before the hearing. In long cases it would be absurd to try to prevent the judge reading papers, even those which one party might assert to be inadmissible. The choice of what to read did not extend outside his case management powers.

Judges:

Lord Justice Potter and Lord Justice Longmore

Citations:

Times 19-Oct-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1163

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147624

Foenander v Bond Lewis and Co: CA 23 May 2001

The applicant sought to appeal from an order refusing leave to appeal out of time. There was no second appeal inherent in such a case where the court had not additionally considered and refused the leave to appeal itself. A refusal to extend time dealt with a different issue to the grant of leave to appeal itself which involved a consideration of the issues underlying the order against which appeal was sought. The situation had not fundamentally changed under the new rules, and judges might consider whether to refuse leave to appeal as well as or instead of refusal of an extension of time to appeal.

Citations:

Times 18-Jun-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 759, [2002] 1 WLR 525

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Access to Justice Act 1999 55

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Southern and District Finance Plc v Turner CA 7-Nov-2003
The defendant sought to assert that the agreement under which possession of her house was sought was an extortionate credit bargain. She had to obtain leave to appeal out of time.
Held: The rules required an application to be supported by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147559

Hammersmith Hospitals NHS Trust and others v Troup Bywaters and Anders (a Firm): CA 25 May 2001

Correctly construing apparently sceptical expert witness as to ‘reasonable body of professional opinion’ in a fact rich case.

Judges:

Lord Justice Brooke, Lord Justice Sedley And Lord Justice Dyson

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 793

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Evidence, Professional Negligence, Litigation Practice

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147571

Cachie and Others v Faluyi: CA 27 Jun 2001

The claimant appealed against an order striking out his claim, though it raised a novel point under the 1976 Act. Did section 2(3) of the Act, providing: ‘Not more than one action shall lie for and in respect of the same subject-matter of complaint.’, mean that if a writ was issued in a Fatal Accidents Act claim brought on behalf of a deceased’s dependants but never served, this automatically precluded the bringing of a new action some years later?

Judges:

Henry, Brooke LJJ

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 998, [2001] 1 WLR 1966, [2001] CP Rep 102, [2002] 1 All ER 192, [2002] PIQR P5

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Fatal Accidents Act 1976 2(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Litigation Practice

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147593

Frederick Edward Barlow; David William Barlow v BOC Limited and Edwards High Vacuum International Limited: CA 8 Jun 2001

The rule which prevented use of material under the Act applied only to prevent its use in criminal proceedings for purposes other than for the stated purpose when the request had been made. There is no bar on statements being used in civil proceedings. An action was brought against the defendants for misfeasance. In parallel criminal proceedings, evidence was obtained of the existence of undisclosed bank accounts in Switzerland, and that evidence was used to obtain freezing orders. The defendant’s appeal was dismissed.

Citations:

Times 10-Jul-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 854

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147577

Igwemma v The Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police: CA 20 Jun 2001

There is a power to recall a civil jury after their discharge, and to set aside a verdict in order to correct an evident mistake. This power only exists for so long as the jury have not separated nor seen nor heard anything which they should not, as a jury, have seen or heard. The power cannot be exercised in circumstances which might amount to a change of mind. The judge should look carefully at the time elapsed, why further assistance was required, and what might have operated to change their minds. In this case there was a possibility of a clear misunderstanding, and the recall was proper.

Citations:

Times 20-Jul-2001, Gazette 31-Aug-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 953

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147583

White v White: CA 21 Jun 2001

A family had occupied a council house. They purchased the property under the right to buy scheme, with financial assistance from a son, who having paid the mortgage was to allow his parents to live in the house, but then it was to become his. The son fell into arrears, and the family into dispute about the trusts upon which the home was held. One son sought a retrial.
Held: The first trial and the judgment given was unsatisfactory, but all parties had contributed to the defects. A new trial should be ordered only in exceptional cases, and this was not a case in which justice required a retrial.

Judges:

Lord Justice Henry, Lord Justice Robert Walker And Lord Justice Longmore

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 955

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Heffer and Another v Tiffin Green (A Firm) CA 17-Dec-1998
The plaintiff had sued the defendant accountants for negligently understating their business profits by inflating the figure for creditors. As a result, further tax had to be paid. The plaintiffs claimed the penalties and interest on tax paid . .
Cited – Bray v Ford HL 1896
An appellate court’s power to order a new trial is conditional on ‘some substantial wrong or miscarriage’ being established.
Lord Hershell said: ‘It is an inflexible rule of the court of equity that a person in a fiduciary position, such as . .

Cited by:

Cited – Foster v Foster CA 16-Apr-2003
The marriage had been short, there were no children, both parties were working, and each could support themselves providing themselves with accomodation. The wife had successfully appealed a finding of the district judge for an equal distribution. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Trusts, Litigation Practice

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147587

Steeds v Peverel Management Services Limited: CA 30 Mar 2001

Where it was not the claimant’s fault that proceedings had not been issued within the appropriate time limit, the judge when considering exercise of his discretion to admit the claim, should not be tempted to refuse to admit it on the basis that the claimant would have a clear claim for negligence against the solicitor who should have issued the proceedings. The judge was wrong to seek to distinguish the case and deny that the delay at issue related to periods only after the expiration of the limitation period. The judge had been wrong to conclude that the Civil Procedure rules required the claimant to have issued proceedings much earlier, since those rules could only affect the conduct of proceedings once they had been issued.

Citations:

Times 16-May-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 419

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 33(3)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Limitation, Personal Injury, Litigation Practice, Professional Negligence

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147490

Ebert v Official Receiver and others: CA 14 Mar 2001

The claimant, subject of a civil restraint order had been refused leave to bring certain proceedings.

Judges:

Chadwick, Buxton LJJ

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 340, [2001] 3 All ER 942, [2002] 1 WLR 320, [2002] BPIR 80, [2001] ACD 66

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Human Rights, Litigation Practice

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147468

L (Minor), P (Father) v Reading Borough Council Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police: CA 12 Mar 2001

A social worker and police officer interviewed a child and father on allegations of sexual abuse made by the mother. No criminal proceedings followed, but the father alleged that the misrepresentation of the interviews by the officer and social worker led to later care proceedings. The allegations were false. The court allowed an appeal against an order striking out the case against the police officer. Having interviewed the father, and it having been decided that no criminal proceedings would follow, a duty of care had arisen as between the officer and the interviewee as to the future use of the material from the interview. The case against the police should not be struck out on the basis of a witness immunity in these circumstances.

Citations:

Gazette 03-May-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 346, [2001] 1 WLR 1575

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – JD v East Berkshire Community Health NHS Trust and others HL 21-Apr-2005
Parents of children had falsely and negligently been accused of abusing their children. The children sought damages for negligence against the doctors or social workers who had made the statements supporting the actions taken. The House was asked if . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Professional Negligence, Police, Litigation Practice

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147466

Prashar v Secretary of State For Environment, Transport and Regions: CA 2 Feb 2001

The court had before it three applications for leave to appeal. Each raised the problem of whether, where a High Court judge has considered an application for permission to appeal under section 289 of the 1990 Act, an appeal can be lodged against the refusal of that judge to grant such permission.

Judges:

Kay LJ

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 1231, [2001] 3 PLR 116

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 289

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government CA 6-Feb-2013
The Council sought permission to appeal against the setting aside of two enforcement notices, leave having been refused by the Administrative court. The court now considered whether it had jusridiction, and whether the rule in Lane v Esdaile was to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Planning

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147423

Somatra Limited v Sinclair Roche and Temperley (a Firm) etc: CA 26 Jul 2000

In an action between clients and their solicitors, the solicitors produced at an interlocutory hearing evidence derived from without prejudice discussions. The claimants applied for disclosure of all such documents, but this was rejected on the basis that the evidence would not be admissible at trial.
Held: The evidence having been introduced already by the defendants, it would not be just if they were not admitted in evidence in full at trial.
Clark LJ said: ‘The infringement in the present case is that Sinclair’s opened up issues on the merits which will be the very questions to be determined by the trial judge. It seems to me that no party who has taken part in without prejudice discussions should be entitled to use them to his advantage on the merits of the case in one context, but then assert a right to prevent its opponent from doing so on the merits at the trial.’

Judges:

Clark LJ

Citations:

Gazette 14-Sep-2000, Times 22-Sep-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 229, [2000] 1 WLR 2453

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Nea Karteria Maritime Co Ltd v Atlantic and Great Lakes Steamship Corporation (No 2) 11-Dec-1978
The court considered disclosure of a legally privileged note of an interview: ‘I believe that the principle underlying the rule of practice exemplified by Burnell v British Transport Commission is that, where a party is deploying in court material . .

Cited by:

Cited – Jamie v Management Solution Partners Ltd EAT 31-Jan-2006
The claimant received an email from his employers and resigned claiming unfair dismissal saying that it was repudiatory. The employers objected to the admission of the email into evidence saying that it was marked without prejudice and subject to . .
Cited – Ravenscroft v Canal and River Trust ChD 14-Sep-2016
Special Circumstances to appoint McKenzie Friend
An application was made to have a nominated person appointed as McKenzie friend and as advocate for the claimant. The claimant’s narrow boat had been seized by the defendant for non payment of licence fees and for not having a Pleasure Boat . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Legal Professions, Professional Negligence

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147262

Ashton and Another v Securum Finance Ltd: CA 21 Jun 2000

In the new litigation culture it was correct to strike out a second action which fundamentally re-litigated a case which had previously been struck out on the grounds of abuse of process or delay. The court’s case management required it to consider whether it was appropriate to expend time on a case. When facing such an application, the court must have regard to the earlier action, and the decisions then taken. Older rules against striking out where and action could be recommenced without difficulty, should be set aside. Here a bank sought to pursue as a speciality debt a debt it had already claimed as a simple contract debt.
Chadwick LJ said: ‘For my part, I think that the time has come for this court to hold that the ‘change of culture’ which has taken place in the last three years-and, in particular, the advent of the Civil Procedure Rules-has led to a position in which it is no longer open to a litigant whose action has been struck out on the grounds of inordinate and inexcusable delay to rely on the principle that a second action commenced within the limitation period will not be struck out save in exceptional cases. The position, now, is that the court must address the application to strike out the second action with the overriding objective of the Civil Procedure Rules in mind-and must consider whether the claimant’s wish to have ‘a second bite at the cherry’ outweighs the need to allot its own limited resources to other cases.’

Judges:

Chadwick LJ, Rattee J

Citations:

Times 05-Jul-2000, Gazette 06-Jul-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 197, [2001] Ch 291, [2000] 3 WLR 1400, [2000] All ER (D) 843

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Securum Finance Ltd v Ashton and Another ChD 18-Jun-1999
The fact that earlier proceedings under a mortgage to recover the debt as a simple contract debt had been dismissed for want of prosecution, did not prevent the mortgagee later proceeding under the mortgage as a specialty debt. . .
Approved – Arbuthnot Latham Bank Limited; Nordbanken London Branch v Trafalgar Holdings Limited; Ashton and Ashton CA 16-Dec-1997
The issue was the appropriateness of a Court striking an action out where there has been considerable delay if: (i) the cause of action relied upon by the plaintiff in the proceedings would be statute barred if the action were to be struck out, but . .

Cited by:

Appealed to – Securum Finance Ltd v Ashton and Another ChD 18-Jun-1999
The fact that earlier proceedings under a mortgage to recover the debt as a simple contract debt had been dismissed for want of prosecution, did not prevent the mortgagee later proceeding under the mortgage as a specialty debt. . .
Cited – Celador Productions Ltd v Melville ChD 21-Oct-2004
The applicants each alleged breach of copyright and misuse of confidential information in the format of the television program ‘Who wants to be a Millionaire’. The defendant appealed a refusal to strike out the claim. It was not contended that no . .
Cited – Wahab v Khan and Others; In re Abdus Sattar Sheikh deceased ChD 12-Apr-2011
The claimant had asked the court to revoke the probate granted in his brother’s estate. He appealed now against a strike out of his request. He alleged that the will was a forgery. The executor’s and defendants were not relations of the deceased, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Banking

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147230

David Yablon Minton v Kenburgh Investments (Northern) Ltd: CA 28 Jun 2000

An agreement ‘in full and final settlement’ of insolvency proceedings between a liquidator and directors, did not prevent an action in negligence against solicitors as regards the same contractual situation who had themselves issued third party proceedings against the directors under the Act. There is a difference between settlement and satisfaction. The second claim was sufficiently different, and might even give rise to a larger claim for damages. The settlement of one claim need not satisfy

Citations:

Times 11-Jul-2000, Gazette 20-Jul-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 202

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Minton v Kenburgh Investments (Northern) Ltd (In Liquidation) QBD 13-Nov-1988
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Torts – Other, Negligence

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147235

Maria Dolores Townsend and Beverley Ann King v George Nicolas Achilleas: CA 6 Jul 2000

Citations:

[2000] EWCA Civ 210

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Paulin ChD 13-May-2005
The director sought to appeal an order disqualifying him form acting as a company director.
Held: The disqualification proceedings were properly charactised as insolvency proceedings and therefore there was no requirement for permission to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147243

Gregson v Channel Four Television Corporation: CA 11 Jul 2000

It was possible to amend pleadings outside of the limitation period, where the alteration to identify the correct party was genuine and the mistake had not mislead any party. In this case there was no reasonable doubt about who had been intended to be sued. The overriding objective and rule 17.4(3) could either be applied to allow the amendment.

Citations:

Times 24-Aug-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 214

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Gregson v Channel Four Television Corporation CA 4-Jul-2002
Whether trial before jury appropriate . .

Cited by:

See Also – Gregson v Channel Four Television Corporation CA 4-Jul-2002
Whether trial before jury appropriate . .
Cited – Morgan Est (Scotland) Ltd v Hanson Concrete Products Ltd CA 17-Feb-2005
The defendant appealed an order adding two new claimants.
Held: Cases decided under the old RSC were not apposite for matters covered by the new Civil Procedure Rules. The court was not bound by the Sardinia Sulcis rules: ‘The Sardinia Sulcis . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Limitation

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147247

United Pan-Europe Communications N V v Deutsche Bank Ag: CA 19 May 2000

The claimant sought to prevent the misuse of what it said was its confidential information, identifying it by reference to specific documents in which it was said to be recorded.
Held: That was a sufficient description because the defendant had ‘each of the documents in its possession and can see for itself what [the claimant] is referring to and could, if it had wished to do so, itself have put the documents in evidence on a confidential basis’.

Judges:

Morritt, Ward LJJ, Charles J

Citations:

[2000] EWCA Civ 166, [2000] 2 BCLC 461

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Ocular Sciences Ltd v Aspect Vision Care Ltd ChD 11-Nov-1996
The freedom for a claimant in registered design right to frame his claim, as to whether he asserts an infringement of the entire design, or limits it to the section infringed, is important.
Laddie J said: ‘This means that the proprietor can . .

Cited by:

Cited – Ratiu, Karmel, Regent House Properties Ltd v Conway CA 22-Nov-2005
The claimant sought damages for defamation. The defendant through their company had accused him acting in such a way as to allow a conflict of interest to arise. They said that he had been invited to act on a proposed purchase but had used the . .
Cited – Caterpillar Logistics Services (UK) Ltd v Huesca De Crean QBD 2-Dec-2011
The claimant sought an order to prevent the defendant, a former employee, from misusing its confidential information said to be held by her. Her contract contained no post employment restrictions but did seek to control confidential and other . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Litigation Practice

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147199

Barings Plc and Ors v Co Lybrand and Ors: CA 5 May 2000

Appeal from decision that declared that the transcripts of certain interviews carried out on behalf of the Board of Banking Supervision in the course of an investigation into the collapse of the Barings Group were and still are subject to the restriction on disclosure contained in Part V of the Banking Act 1987

Judges:

Lord Woolf MR, Robert Walker LJ, Smith J

Citations:

[2000] Lloyd’s Rep Bank 225, [2000] EWCA Civ 148, [2000] 1 WLR 2353, [2000] 3 All ER 910

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Banking Act 1987

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Banking, Litigation Practice

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147181

Odyssey Re (London) Limited and Alexander Howden Holdings Limited v OIC Run-Off Limited (Formerly Orion Insurance Company Plc): CA 13 Mar 2000

There had been litigation between the two companies previously. The general manager and director had given evidence which was accepted by the judge and again on appeal. After his death and in other proceedings it became clear that he had perjured himself. The applicant sought to have the judgment set aside. Since the company could not itself give evidence, the question was whether the evidence of the director was that of the company allowing the judgment to be set aside. One question was the extent of his involvement in the preparation of the case. The test was described: ‘The rule on which this court acted in Boswell v Coaks, which I have held to continue to be the law, is that the fraud or perjury must be that of the party himself, or at least be suborned by or knowingly relied on by that party.’

Citations:

Times 17-Mar-2000, Gazette 30-Mar-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 71

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Odyssey Re (London) Ltd (Formerly Sphere Drake Insurance Plc) and Another v OIC Run-Off Ltd (Formerly Orion Insurance Co Plc) Admn 15-Feb-2000
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Cinpres Gas Injection Ltd v Melea Ltd ChD 9-Oct-2006
The claimant had sought a declaration as to the ownership of a patent, and now said that a witness had procured his earlier judgment by perjury. The witness now said that he had formed his statement against a feeling of oppression by the threat of a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Company, Litigation Practice

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147104

DNB Mortgages v Bullock and Lees: CA 28 Jan 2000

An application on an appeal to allow a new point to be argued should not in any event be entertained unless the facts proposed to found the point, if fully investigated, were clear beyond reasonable doubt. The higher level of proof was set down in Connecticut Fire Insurance Co v Kavanagh.

Citations:

Times 25-Mar-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 20

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Connecticut Fire Insurance Co v Kavanagh PC 1892
An appeal court must scrutinise most carefully an argument or point not taken at the trial and presented for the first time on appeal to ensure that injustice is not caused. ‘When a question of law is raised for the first time in a court of last . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147053

Faiza Pervaiz v Chelsea Building Society: CA 18 Aug 1999

Formal putting back of application for application for permission to appeal.

Citations:

[1999] EWCA Civ 2089

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Pervaiz v Chelsea Building Society CA 1-May-2001
No jurisdiction to hear appeal from refusal of leave to appeal. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147004

Lubbe and others v Cape Plc: CA 24 Aug 1999

Although the court had previously decided to hear a multi-party case here, rather than in South Africa, the failure to disclose an impending group action was sufficient to transform the case leaving South Africa as clearly the most appropriate forum for the case, and to stay the actions commenced here. The House upheld the general principle that an available forum must be one in which the plaintiff can sue as of right, but treated an undertaking to submit to the alternative jurisdiction (in that case, an undertaking by the English holding company to submit to the jurisdiction of the South African court) as sufficient to show that the forum is available even though given after the application for a stay.

Citations:

Times 03-Dec-1999, Gazette 17-Dec-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 2107

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See also – Lubbe and Others v Cape Plc CA 30-Jul-1998
. .
Appealed to – Lubbe (Suing As Administrator Of The Estate Of Rachel Jacoba Lubbe) and 4 Others v Cape plc and Related Appeals HL 22-Jun-2000
South African asbestosis victims suing in England submitted that to stay their proceedings in favour of the South African forum would violate their article 6 rights. A stay was refused on the non-Convention ground that, because of the lack of . .

Cited by:

See also – Lubbe and Others v Cape Plc CA 30-Jul-1998
. .
Appeal from – Lubbe (Suing As Administrator Of The Estate Of Rachel Jacoba Lubbe) and 4 Others v Cape plc and Related Appeals HL 22-Jun-2000
South African asbestosis victims suing in England submitted that to stay their proceedings in favour of the South African forum would violate their article 6 rights. A stay was refused on the non-Convention ground that, because of the lack of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, International

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147022

Edwin John Stevens v R J Gullis and David Pile: CA 27 Jul 1999

The new Civil Procedure Rules underline the existing duty which an expert owes to the Court as well as to the party which he represents.

Judges:

Lord Woolf MR

Citations:

[1999] EWCA Civ 1978

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – National Justice Compania Naviera S A v Prudential Assurance Company Ltd (‘The Ikarian Reefer’) 1993
Cresswell J spoke of the nature of the duty owed by expert witnesses: ‘The duties and responsibilities of expert witnesses in civil cases include the following:

1. Expert evidence presented to the Court should be, and should be seen to be, the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Anglo Group Plc, Winther Brown and Co Ltd v Winter Brown and Co Ltd, BML (Office Computers) Ltd, Anglo Group Plc, BML (Office Computers) Ltd TCC 8-Mar-2000
Contract – Contract for provision of computer services – purchaser contract with finance company – duty of co-operation to be implied in computer contracts – practice – responsibilities of expert witnesses generally – whether computer company liable . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.146893

Denzil Williams v Jean Robertson (Wrongly Described As Robinson): CA 22 Jul 1999

The claimant had sought orders alleging a nuisance caused by his neighbour’s fir tree. He appealed a refusal of his claim which had been based upon the absence of any evidence to support it. Because of the long history of complaints between the parties, the court had also made a Grepe -v- Loam Order against the appellant.
Held: The appellant had failed to state sufficiently particularly his complaints against the order. The Grepe v Loam order acted as a filter and not as a bar. Appeal refused.

Citations:

[1999] EWCA Civ 1925

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Grepe v Loam; Bulteel v Grepe CA 1887
The court was asked for an order restricting the right of a group of litigants be restrained from beginning further court actions without first obtaining the court’s consent, they having been accused of issuing vexatious proceedings.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Litigation Practice

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.146840

Reichhold Norway ASA and Reichhold Chemicals Inc v Goldman Sachs International: CA 28 Jun 1999

An application was made to stay proceedings to await the decision of a foreign court. At first instance, Moore-Bick J had held that a Court has an interest in deciding the order in which related proceedings should be tried ‘not only because the existence of concurrent proceedings may give rise to undesirable consequences in the form of inconsistent decisions, but also because the outcome of one set of proceedings may have an important effect on the conduct of the other’ and the court may manage the order in which the proceedings are heard. Case management is appropriate even where the proceedings are taking place between different parties in different jurisdictions, but before an action which has been properly commenced here is stayed pending the outcome of proceedings between different persons in another jurisdiction is granted, the defendant must show ‘very strong reasons for doing so and the benefits which are likely to result from doing so clearly outweigh any disadvantage to the plaintiff’
Held: The appeal failed. Counsel had accepted ‘that the grant of stays such as this would be a rarity, account always being taken of the legitimate interests of plaintiffs and the requirement that there should be no prejudice to plaintiffs beyond that which the interest of justice were thought to justify.’

Judges:

Lord Bingham CJ

Citations:

Times 20-Jul-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 1703, [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 567, [2000] 2 All ER 679, [1999] 2 LLR 567, [1999] 2 All ER (Comm) 174, [2000] 1 WLR 173

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – National Westminster Bank v Utrecht-America Finance Company CA 10-May-2001
An agreement between the parties for assignment or novation of a credit agreement, contained a ‘take out’ agreement (‘TOA’). The defendant began proceedings in California to rescind the agreement, and the claimants obtained summary judgement under . .
Cited – Curtis and Another v Lockheed Martin UK Holdings Ltd ComC 20-Feb-2008
Application for stay pending completion of proceedings in Italy. . .
Cited – Clyde and Co Llp and Another v Winkelhof QBD 22-Mar-2011
The claimant firm of solicitors sought an order requiring the defendant to amend her employment tribunal claim so as to accord with the partnership agreement to which she was party, and to submit to arbitration. The defendant said that statutory . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Arbitration, Jurisdiction, Litigation Practice, International

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.146618

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.

Citations:

[1999] EWCA Civ 1709, [2000] IL Pr 722

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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 – 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 . .
Not preferred – 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.

Landlord and Tenant, Litigation Practice

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.146624

Ebert v Venvill (Trustee In Bankruptcy); Woolf; Midland Bank Plc and Rabinowicz (a Solicitor): CA 5 Jul 1999

The court refused leave to appeal from the High Court. It would be absurd if, when an order was made restricting commencement of proceedings by a vexatious litigant, that the High Court should not have power to restrain by the same order also commencement of proceedings in the County Court.

Judges:

Lord Woolf LCJ

Citations:

[1999] EWCA Civ 1763, [2000] Ch 484

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Supreme Court Act 1981 41

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – HM Attorney-General v Ebert Admn 21-Sep-2001
The defendant had instituted over 80 fruitless actions over years. He had been made subject to a vexatious litigant order, but the Attorney General now requested additional injunctive relief. This was a very extreme instance of extreme litigation. . .
Applied – Regina (Mahajan) v Central London County Court and Department of Constitutional Affairs CA 30-Jun-2004
The High Court has power to make a general civil restraint order to prevent the litigant commencing proceedings in the County Court as well as the High Court. . .
Cited – Raja v Van Hoogstraten and others ChD 12-Jun-2006
The claimant sought the strike out of the defendants pleadings. The first defendant was found to have been responsible for the killing of the deceased. The proceedings had been prolonged by procedural challenges by the defendant.
Held: The . .
Cited – Courtman v Ludlam and Another; In re Ludlam (Bankrupts) ChD 6-Aug-2009
The applicant trustee in bankruptcy sought an extended civil restraint order against the respondents, saying that they had made unmeritorious claims in the proceedings.
Held: The rules required there to be shown that person had ‘persistently . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.146678

Al-Ani v Shubber: CA 10 May 1999

The claimant sought leave to appeal an order refusing his application for assets to be released from an injunction obtained by his former solicitors to preserve assets against their claim for costs. The court deprecated the fact that a relatively minor defamation action had been allowed to generate considerable satellite litigation.
Held: the orders had been made properly and the request for leave to appeal failed.

Judges:

Lord Justice Swinton Thomas, Lord Justice Sedley

Citations:

[1999] EWCA Civ 1363, [1999] EWCA Civ 1498

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice, Costs

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.146278

Regina v Bow County Court ex parte Dr Michael John Pelling: CA 10 May 1999

Application for leave to appeal against refusal to allow Dr Pelling to act as Mckenzie friend.

Citations:

[1999] EWCA Civ 1374

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Regina v Bow County Court ex parte Dr Pelling Admn 30-Jun-1998
Dr Pelling applied for leave to challenge a refusal of permission to him to assist an applicant as a McKenzie friend. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.146289

Mercedes Benz Ag v Leiduck: PC 24 Jul 1995

Mareva relief is not available against a foreigner outside the UK in order to support a court action abroad. A Mareva injunction is not itself a substantive relief and so was not available to support foreign proceedings. A freezing order has to be in support of an extant cause of action, and cannot be made ‘in the air.’

Judges:

Lord Mustill

Citations:

Gazette 13-Sep-1995, Times 11-Aug-1995, [1995] CLC 1090, [1996] 1 AC 284, [1995] UKPC 31, [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 417, [1995] 3 WLR 718, [1995] 3 All ER 929

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Not Followed – Siskina (owners of Cargo lately on Board) v Distos Compania Naviera SA HL 1979
An injunction was sought against a Panamanian ship-owning company to restrain it from disposing of a fund, consisting of insurance proceeds, in England. The claimant for the injunction was suing the company in a Cyprus court for damages and believed . .

Cited by:

Cited – Schmidt v Wong CA 7-Dec-2005
The claimant began a personal injury claim against her landlord. She wanted a freezing order, but began her claim in the County court. When she became aware that the county court had no jurisdiction to grant such an order, he sought to have the . .
Cited – Fourie v Le Roux and others HL 24-Jan-2007
The appellant, liquidator of two South African companies, had made a successful without notice application for an asset freezing order. He believed that the defendants had stripped the companies of substantial assets. The order was set aside for . .
Cited – JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov SC 21-Oct-2015
The court was asked as to the interpretation and application of the standard form freezing order. In the course of long-running litigation between JSC BTA Bank and Mr Ablyazov the Bank had obtained a number of judgments against the respondent . .
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

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.83645

Grovit and Another v Doctor and Others: CA 28 Oct 1993

A delay in the prosecution of a libel case can be interpreted as an abuse of process. A claimant must pursue his case with vigour, and the court should be ready to resist the use of actions to gag defendants. The court asked whether the appellant’s conduct amounts to an abuse of process. Having done so he concludes that it was proper to infer that the appellants motive in delaying the libel action did constitute an abuse of process: ‘Where delay results from an abuse of process, in my judgment these facts can properly be said to be exceptional and thus the abuse of process coupled with the anxiety to the defendants amount to significant prejudice which justifies the court in striking out the pleadings and dismissing the action for want of prosecution.’
Glidewell LJ said: ‘If the Plaintiff delays in prosecuting such an action, and gives no valid explanation for his delay, the court is entitled to infer that his motive for the delay is not a proper one.’

Judges:

Glidewell LJ, Evans LJ

Citations:

Ind Summary 13-Dec-1993

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Grovit and others v Doctor and others HL 24-Apr-1997
The plaintiff began a defamation action against seven defendants. Each had admitted publication but pleaded justification. The claims against the fourth to seventh defendants were dismissed by consent, and the third had gone into liquidation. The . .
Cited – Wahab v Khan and Others; In re Abdus Sattar Sheikh deceased ChD 12-Apr-2011
The claimant had asked the court to revoke the probate granted in his brother’s estate. He appealed now against a strike out of his request. He alleged that the will was a forgery. The executor’s and defendants were not relations of the deceased, . .
Cited – Morrissey v McNicholas and Another QBD 26-Oct-2011
The claimant musician alleged defamation, saying that the defendant had accused him of being a right wing racist. The defendant now applied to strike out the claim as an abuse of process because of the claimant’s delay.
Held: The application . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.81064

Grant v Dawn Meats (UK): CA 16 Oct 2018

‘The issue that arises on this appeal is whether a stay of proceedings imposed by the court applies to the service of the claim form, as well as to any other procedural step that would otherwise have been required to be taken during the period of the stay. By an order dated 16 August 2017, Judge Gore QC declared that, notwithstanding the stay, the claim form should have been – but was not – served within 4 months after issue, as prescribed by the CPR.’

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 2212

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.625958

Dreymoor Fertilisers Overseas Pte Ltd v Eurochem Trading Gmbh and Another: ComC 24 Aug 2018

Application by the claimant, to continue an injunction to restrain the defendants from enforcing an order made by a court in the United States requiring the defendant to disclose documents in his possession and to provide evidence by way of deposition.

Judges:

Males J

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 2267 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.625924

Sangamneheri v Bellamy: ComC 24 May 2018

Orders on claim against arbitrator after making of civil restraint order against the claimant.
Held: There was absolutely no basis for the allegations made by the claimant, and ‘ It follows that there is simply no basis on which the claimant’s outstanding applications can succeed. The applications are in each case totally without merit and they are dismissed.’

Judges:

Males J

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 2569 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.625915

Government Trading Corporation v Tate and Lyle Industries Ltd: CA 24 Oct 1984

Reference was made to information derived from Iranian lawyers. The solicitor in an affirmation had set out his understanding of Iranian law on the incorporation of a Government Trading Corporation in Iran and stated that his information had been derived from a firm of lawyers practising in Tehran, and he believed it to be correct. He nevertheless claimed that the document was protected by legal professional privilege.
Held: Robert Goff LJ emphasised that it will often be necessary, particularly in interlocutory applications, to refer to certain facts or certain advice and it may be necessary, in order to provide full and frank disclosure, to refer to the source of that advice. However, he concluded that that was a long way from waiving privilege.

Judges:

Robert Goff LJ

Citations:

Unreported, 24 Oct 1984

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Brennan and others v Sunderland City Council Unison GMB EAT 16-Dec-2008
No Waiver for disclosure of Advice
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Admissibility of evidence
The claimant sought disclosure of certain legal advice on the basis that its effect, and a summary of its contents, had been put before the court and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.344015

Lambeth London Borough Council v Onayomake: CA 19 Oct 2007

The defendant appealed a strike out of his defence and counterclaim to an action for possession. His solicitors had failed to deliver a checklist on time.
Held: The striking out of the defence and counterclaim was wholly disproportionate.

Judges:

Chadwick LJ, Tuckey LJ, Maurice Kay LJ

Citations:

Times 02-Nov-2007

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing, Litigation Practice

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.260258

Lloyds Bowmaker Ltd v Britannia Arrow Holdings Plc: CA 1988

It is the duty of a plaintiff who has obtained an interlocutory injunction to proceed to trial and not simply to sit back and rely upon the injunction until such time as the defendant moves to discharge it. The court have stressed the importance of prompt progress to trial in a case where a claimant has had the distinct benefit of freezing orders or search and seizure orders.

Judges:

Lord Justice Glidewell, Lord Justice Dillon

Citations:

[1988] 1 WLR 1337

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Derrick Burgess, Chris Furbert, Sinclair Smith and Orin Simmons v Stevedoring Services Limited PC 15-Jul-2002
PC (Bermuda) An injunction had been granted requiring the trade union to cease industrial action. The action was settled, but the injunction was not released. Later, there were furthe rdisputes, and committal was . .
Cited – Ministry of Defence v Foxley and others Admn 10-Dec-2007
In 1992, the claimant and members of his family were made subject to restraint orders after his conviction for corruption. They now applied for discharge of the orders claiming excessive delay. Nothing had moved forward since 1996, saying hey had in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.187525

Von Hellfield v E Rechnitzer and Mayer Freres and Co: CA 1914

A French partnership did not carry on business within the UK. It was sued in its firm name in respect of a contract signed in the name of the firm. The evidence of French law did not establish that the French partnership was a totally separate legal entity from the individual partners in it, although it was a legal person for the purpose of service of legal proceedings upon it.
Held: The Court upheld the judge’s order setting aside the writ which named the firm as the defendant on the ground that Ord 48A did not apply and that the writ was not properly issued naming the firm as a defendant.
Phillimore LJ: ‘According to our modern practice there are three classes who can sue, or appear to writs, – persons, corporations, and firms. The introduction of partnerships is comparatively modern and since the Judicature Act, but the fact is merely for convenience of nomenclature and of service; the results are in the end the same as if the individuals composing them sued or were sued by their individual names. It is clear from the case of Dobson v Festi, Rasini and Co (1) that some similar procedure now obtains in Italy, and it appears from this case that some similar procedure now exists in France. That may well be, but our law, being very careful how it interferes with the rights of foreigners, has not allowed service to be effected upon individuals who are engaged in a foreign partnership by serving the partnership as in England. The foreign partners cannot be sued by their firm name, and there is nothing to enable service upon some manager carrying on business for the partners or service on one as service on the rest.’
and ‘They are not enough for this purpose; they are not enough to shew – which is necessary for this purpose – that a societe en nom collectif is like a corporation in this respect, not merely that it has a separate persona, but that it has a separate ownership of property and separate liability from the ownership or liability by or of the persons composing the aggregation. I can conceive certain cases of bodies of which one might be doubtful whether they were corporations or not; and upon a writ properly framed alleging that the body sued was a separate entity, and making it clear that no relief was sought against any individual opposing that entity any more than it would be against shareholders in a corporation, I can conceive it being possible to suggest that such a body might be treated as a corporation and might be sued and served as a corporation. But this is on the face of it apparently a partnership, and the affidavit of service of the writ plainly and boldly describes it as a partnership. The rules of English law provide that our ancient process in respect of English people should remain in respect of foreigners.’

Judges:

Buckley Phillimore LJJ

Citations:

[1914] 1 Ch 748

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Company, Litigation Practice

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.183335

Federal Bank of Middle East Limited v Hadkinson and others: CA 22 Apr 1999

A party subject to an asset freezing order could not transfer assets legally in his name even where he had no beneficial interest, but must apply to court. A party in contempt should be encouraged to apply if necessary to ensure compliance.

Citations:

Times 28-May-1999, Gazette 16-Jun-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 1232

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Contempt of Court, Litigation Practice

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.146147

Bradford and Bingley Building Society v Seddon and Hancock; Walsh and Rhodes (Trading As Hancocks (a Firm): CA 11 Mar 1999

There was an unsatisfied judgment on a claim by a defendant in an earlier action against a third party. In a subsequent action against the defendant the latter issued third party proceedings against the original and different third parties.
Held: Since the pleadings and judgment in the first action were arguably equivocal and since not all the differences in the plaintiffs claims in the second action were unequivocal the third parties had failed to establish abuse of process and there were no grounds for striking out.
That a case was a repeat of an earlier case, was not sufficient to make the re-litigation necessarily, and of itself, an abuse of process. The party alleging that it was an abuse had the onus of proving it to be such, and the court should be cautious before striking out what appeared to be a valid claim.
Auld LJ stated: ‘In my judgment, mere re-litigation, in circumstances not giving rise to cause of action or issue estoppels, does not necessarily give rise to abuse of process. Equally, the maintenance of a second claim which could have been part of an earlier one, or which conflicts with an earlier one, should not, per se, be regarded as an abuse of process. Rules of such rigidity would be to deny its very concept and purpose.’ Something more than re-litigation of a claim which could have been part of an earlier claim was required to render a second claim an abuse of process. This was an ‘additional element’: ‘Some additional element is required, such as a collateral attack on a previous decision (see eg. Hunter; Bragg, per Kerr LJ and Sir David Cairns at page 137 and 139 respectively; and Ashmore), some dishonesty (see eg. Bragg, per Stephenson LJ at page 139; and Morris, per Potter LJ at pp. 13 and 14 of the transcript;), or successive actions amounting to unjust harassment (see eg. Manson v Vooght, CA (unreported) 3 November 1998, per May LJ at page 16 of the transcript).’

Judges:

Auld LJ, Nourse J, Ward LJ

Citations:

Times 30-Mar-1999, Gazette 14-Apr-1999, [1999] 1 WLR 1482, [1999] EWCA Civ 944

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Yat Tung Investment Co Ltd v Dao Heng Bank Ltd PC 1975
Restraint of Second Action as Abuse
Hong Kong – A company purchased a property from the defendant bank who had taken it back into possession from a former borrower. The company itself fell into arrears, the property was taken back again and resold. The company sought a declaration . .

Cited by:

Cited – Time Group Limited v Computer 2000 Distribution Limited and IBM United Kingdom Limited TCC 4-Feb-2002
Computers had been supplied by the second defendant to the claimant and first defendant at different times for exclusive distribution in the UK. Defects were alleged. The case concerned applications made for dismissal of a case as an abuse of . .
Cited – J A Pye (Oxford) Limited v South Gloucestershire District Council CA 26-Oct-2000
The company appealed an award by way of valuation for land which was to valued as if purchased compulsorily. It was argued that they were raising points which should have been litigated before the Lands Tribunal.
Held: The appeal to the court . .
Cited – Johnson v Gore Wood and Co HL 14-Dec-2000
Shareholder May Sue for Additional Personal Losses
A company brought a claim of negligence against its solicitors, and, after that claim was settled, the company’s owner brought a separate claim in respect of the same subject-matter.
Held: It need not be an abuse of the court for a shareholder . .
Cited – Specialist Group International Ltd v Deakin and Another CA 23-May-2001
Law upon res judicata – action estoppel and issue estoppel and the underlying policy interest whereby there is finality in litigation and litigants are not vexed twice on the same matter.
(May LJ) ‘the authorities taken as a whole tend to . .
Cited – Schellenberg v British Broadcasting Corporation QBD 2000
The claimant had settled defamation actions against the Guardian and the Sunday Times on disadvantageous terms, when it seemed likely that he was about to lose. He then pressed on with this almost identical action against the BBC.
Held: A . .
Cited – Foster v Bon Groundwork Ltd EAT 17-Mar-2011
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Striking-out/dismissal
In April 2009, the Claimant, who was then 77 years of age, was employed by the Respondent, when he was laid off without pay. While still being employed by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.145859

Novak v Manchester City Council: CA 27 Nov 1998

Citations:

[1998] EWCA Civ 1870

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Roebuck v Mungovin HL 4-Feb-1994
A defendant may ask for the Plaintiff’s claim to be struck out despite having cause the Plaintiff to incur costs. That was not a bar to the application. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.145349

Worldwide Corporation Limited v GPT Limited and GPT (Middle East) Limited: CA 2 Dec 1998

Reasons for dismissal of application for leave to appeal – refusals of leave to amend particulars. The court must take into account the public interest in the efficient administration of justice which may be damaged by the disruption and delay caused by late amendmentsz

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, LCJ, Peter Gibson, Waller LJJ

Citations:

[1998] EWCA Civ 1894

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Gardner v Southwark London Borough Counci (No 1); King v East Cambridgeshire District Council etc CA 18-Jan-1996
It was not an abuse of process, to restart a claim within the limitation period after an automatic striking out of an earlier action. Millett LJ referred to the ‘same dilatory progress’ all the parties to the action continued to make after the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Smart v The Forensic Science Service Ltd CA 2-Jul-2013
On a search of his house, the police found a bullet cartridge on the claimant’s property. It was sent for testing but due to a mistake it was reported as a live cartridge. The prosecution was only dropped after some months when the mistake was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.145373

Bourns Inc v Raychem Corporation: CA 17 Dec 1998

Citations:

[1998] EWCA Civ 1955

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Bourns Inc v Raychem Corporation, Clifford Chance, Row and Maw, Latham and Watkins PatC 17-Oct-1998
Where a party sought disclosure of documents in support an application in a costs taxation, the payee could choose not to disclose, but if he did so the payer was bound by implied undertakings to use them only for the purposes of that application . .
See also – Bourns Inc v Raychem Corporation; Latham and Watkins (a Firm) CA 30-Mar-1999
Documents disclosed in support an application in a costs taxation, remained subject to implied duties of confidence, and they could not be used for any other purpose, including to support litigation abroad. Where questions of US law arose, a US . .

Cited by:

See also – Bourns Inc v Raychem Corporation; Latham and Watkins (a Firm) CA 30-Mar-1999
Documents disclosed in support an application in a costs taxation, remained subject to implied duties of confidence, and they could not be used for any other purpose, including to support litigation abroad. Where questions of US law arose, a US . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Litigation Practice

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.145434

Duffy v Secretary of State for Health: QBD 27 Mar 2015

The court considered an application for an adjournment of an upcoming hearing. The opponent did not oppose the application, but the court considered the inconvenience to the court and other users. An expert witness had become unavailable.

Judges:

Foskett J

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 867 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.544921

G and G v Wikimedia Foundation Inc: QBD 2 Dec 2009

The claimants sought an order that the defendants, an internet company in Florida, should disclose the IP address of a registered user of the site with a view to identifying the user and pursuing an action against him or her.
Held: Tugendhat J said: ‘Hearings in private under CPR 39.2 (3) and orders under CPR 5.4C (4) are derogations from the principle of open justice. They must be ordered only when it is necessary and proportionate to do so, with a view to protecting the rights which claimants (and others) are entitled to have protected by such means. When such orders are made, they must be limited in scope to what is required in the particular circumstances of the case.’

Judges:

Tugendhat J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 3148 (QB), [2010] EMLR 14

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 39.2(3) 5.4C(4)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – TSE and ELP v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 23-May-2011
The claimants had obtained an injunction preventing publication of details of their private lives and against being publicly named. The newspaper had not attempted to raise any public interest defence. Various publications had taken place to breach . .
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.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.381770

Kufaan Publishing Ltd v Al-Warrak Publishing Ltd: CA 1 Mar 2002

Judges:

Potter LJ

Citations:

Unreported, 1 March 2002

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Al-Koronky and Another v Time-Life Entertainment Group Ltd and Another CA 28-Jul-2006
The claimants sought damages after publication of articles alleging severe mistreatment of a servant. One defendant had settled and apologised, but the defendant publisher and author had persisted with the allegation. The claimants who lived in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.244089

Golobiewska v Commissioners of Customs and excise: CA 6 May 2005

The owner of a motor vehicle which had been seized by Customs applied to have it restored.
Held: the 1994 Act placed the burden on the applicant to establish that she was entitled to the return of her car, but the standard of proof was the civil standard only. The applicant had not met that standard. The case was however remitted to a different tribunal because the tribunal had failed to set out its reasons adequately.

Citations:

Times 25-May-2005

Statutes:

Finance Act 1994 16(6)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Flannery and Another v Halifax Estate Agencies Ltd, Trading As Colleys Professional Services CA 18-Feb-1999
A judge at first instance taking a view on an expert’s report should give reasons in his judgment for that view. On appeal, where no reasons had been given, he should be asked to provide reasons by affidavit for the appeal. An inadequately reasoned . .
Cited – Gora and others v Commissioners of Customs and Excise and others CA 11-Apr-2003
The appellants challenged decisions of the VAT and Duties Tribunal after seizure of their goods, and in particular whether the cases had been criminal or civil cases and following Roth, whether the respondent’s policy had been lawful and . .
Cited – English v Emery Reimbold and Strick Ltd; etc, (Practice Note) CA 30-Apr-2002
Judge’s Reasons Must Show How Reached
In each case appeals were made, following Flannery, complaining of a lack of reasons given by the judge for his decision.
Held: Human Rights jurisprudence required judges to put parties into a position where they could understand how the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Customs and Excise, Litigation Practice

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.226030

Rhiannon Anderton v Clwyd County Council (2): QBD 25 Jul 2001

The claim form had been issued only just before the limitation period expired. Under the rules it would have been deemed to have been served on a Sunday, the day before the expiry of the period, but evidence suggested it was not received until after the expiration of the period. The defendant argued there was insufficient evidence of the date of posting to bring into effect the deeming provisions as to the date of service. No certificate had been supplied under 6.14.
Held: There was no evidence as to the class of postage used, and no inference could be drawn that first class post had been used. The rules therefore deemed service out of time, as in fact had occurred. Nor would alternate service be ordered. This was a discretionary remedy, and the circumstances of this case did not justify it.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice McCombe

Citations:

[2001] EWHC QB 161

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 6.7 6.14

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Phelps v Hillingdon London Borough Council; Anderton v Clwyd County Council; Gower v Bromley London Borough Council; Jarvis v Hampshire County Council HL 28-Jul-2000
The plaintiffs each complained of negligent decisions in his or her education made by the defendant local authorities. In three of them the Court of Appeal had struck out the plaintiff’s claim and in only one had it been allowed to proceed.

Cited by:

Cited – Brennan v Bolt Burdon and Others, London Borough of Islington, Leigh Day and Co CA 29-Jul-2004
The claimant sought damages for injury alleged to have been suffered as tenant of a house after being subjected to carbon monoxide poisoning, and also from her former solicitors for their delay in her claim. The effective question was whether the . .
Appeal from – Anderton v Clwyd County Council (No 2); Bryant v Pech and Another Dorgan v Home Office; Chambers v Southern Domestic Electrical Services Ltd; Cummins v Shell International Manning Services Ltd CA 3-Jul-2002
In each case, the applicant sought to argue that documents which had actually been received on a certain date should not be deemed to have been served on a different day because of the rule.
Held: The coming into force of the Human Rights Act . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Limitation, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.159917