Reasons for deciding to exercise power under CPR 31.19(5) to review the original versions of a sample selection of documents which had been disclosed in these proceedings by the Defendant with parts of the documents redacted.
Snowden J
[2018] EWHC 2578 (Ch)
England and Wales
Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.625517
Where doubtful words in a statute have for a long period been decided in a particular sense, the House of Lords, although not bound by decision, will not disturb that interpretation, following the brocard Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium.
The Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lords Alverstone, Atkinson, and Shaw
[1911] UKHL 682
England and Wales
Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.619223
The plaintiff owner of a property had commenced proceedings to recover the property from the defendant tenants. The plaintiff then applied to have a particular provision of the 1968 Act interpreted as a preliminary issue of law under O 33 r 2.
Held: The House considered the risks of split trials. Lord Scarman said: ‘preliminary points of law are too often treacherous shortcuts. Their price can be, as here, delay, anxiety, and expense.’
Lord Wilberforce said that the Judicial Committee had: ‘often protested against the practice of allowing preliminary points to be taken, since this course frequently adds to the difficulties of courts of appeal and tends to increase the cost and time of legal proceedings. If this practice cannot be confined to cases where the facts are complicated and the legal issue short and easily decided, cases outside this guiding principle should at least be exceptional.’
Lord Scarman observed that ‘Preliminary points of law are too often treacherous short cuts. Their price can be, as here, delay, anxiety, and expense’
Lord Wilberforce, Lord Diplock, Lord Salmon, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, Lord Scarman
[1979] UKHL 10, [1980] AC 1, (1979) 250 EG 51, (1979) 38 P and CR 341, [1979] 2 WLR 401, [1979] 1 All ER 737
England and Wales
Cited – Gerrard and Another v Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Ltd and Another QBD 27-Nov-2020
The claimants, a solicitor and his wife, sought damages in harassment and data protection, against a party to proceedings in which he was acting professionally, and against the investigative firm instructed by them. The defendants now requested the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.522151
The appellant had been pilot in a private plane which crashed leading to the passenger’s death. He now challenged the admission of an expert’s report, which, he said, went beyond the proper range of such a report.
Held: The report was admissible. The court approved the explanation given by Leggatt J below.
Arden, Treacy, Christopher Clarke LJJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 257, [2014] 3 All ER 550, [2015] 1 QB 265, [2014] 1 CLC 316, [2014] 3 WLR 148, [2014] CP Rep 30
England and Wales
Appeal from – Rogers and Another v Hoyle QBD 23-May-2013
The claimant’s relative had died in an air accident. They sought damages from the defendant pilot, seeking to rely upon the official report of the Air Accident Investigation Bureau The court was asked as to its admissibility.
Held: It was . .
Cited – Moylett v Geldof and Another ChD 14-Mar-2018
Admissibility of parts of the Claimant’s expert report.
Held: ‘in so far as this report deals with whether this music was more likely to be composed on a guitar or on a piano, I consider that it is admissible and relevant expert evidence which . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.522395
The claimant appealed saying that on an application under Rule 3.4, the judge had without forewarning him struck out his case under part 24.
Held: There is an overlap between the summary judgment and strike out jurisdictions to the extent that the court may treat an application under CPR 3.4(2)(a) as if it was an application for summary judgment.
[2009] EWCA Civ 1560
England and Wales
Cited – Gerrard and Another v Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Ltd and Another QBD 27-Nov-2020
The claimants, a solicitor and his wife, sought damages in harassment and data protection, against a party to proceedings in which he was acting professionally, and against the investigative firm instructed by them. The defendants now requested the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.408791
Where in a claim for passing off, evidence from a consumer survey was to be required, it was incumbent on the parties to ensure that such a survey was carried out well in advance to make sure that it was available for the trial. An expert’s skills in brand management did not make him an expert in consumer confusion. Esure’s appeal was rejected.
Lady Justice Arden, Lord Justice Jacob and Lord Justice Maurice Kay
Times 05-Sep-2008
England and Wales
Appeal from – Esure Insurance Ltd v Direct Line Insurance Plc ChD 29-Jun-2007
Both companies sold motor insurance products at a distance and used as logos and symbols either a telephone or a computer mouse, in each case on wheels. Direct line claimed the use of the mouse by esure infringed its own trademarks, and resisted . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.276514
The defendants had paid money into court to settle the claim. The claimant sought payment also of all the interest earned by it. The claimant was a patient suing by his next friend.
Held: He was entitled to the interest only from the time when he accepted the money even if that had been delayed by the need for court approval.
Silber J
Times 01-Jan-2007
Civil Procedure Rules 21.10(1)
England and Wales
Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.247770
‘If the trustee gets a right of action, why is he not to realise it? The proper office of the trustee is to realise the property for the sake of distributing the proceeds among the creditors. Why should we hold as a matter of policy that it is necessary for him to sue in his own name? He may have no funds, or he may be disinclined to run the risk of having to pay costs, or he may consider it undesirable to delay the winding up of the bankruptcy until the end of the litigation.’
Sir George Jessel MR
[1880] 15 ChD 426
England and Wales
Cited – Norglen Ltd (In Liquidation) v Reeds Rains Prudential Ltd and Others; Circuit Systems Ltd (In Liquidation) and Another v Zuken-Redac HL 1-Dec-1997
An assignment of a cause of action by a company in liquidation was valid, even though the dominant purpose was to avoid having to give security for costs, and to get legal aid. In dismissing the argument that the transactions were a device to defeat . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.223195
Application for leave to appeal out of time.
Thorpe LJ
[2001] EWCA Civ 1612
England and Wales
Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.201400
The appellant sought to appeal a review of his application for housing. The appeal was lodged at court after close of business on the last day of the statutory time limit. The court decided it was delivered out of time.
Held: The Act required the appeal to be delivered. That denoted a unilateral act, not requiring any acknowledgement from the court. The case of Aadan was a transactional process, and therefore did not apply in this case.
Ward, Mummery, Parker LLJ
Times 28-Oct-2002, Gazette 31-Oct-2002
England and Wales
Cited – Aadan v Brent London Borough Council CA 3-Dec-1999
On a day when the court office is closed, the time for filing documents is accordingly extended by one day, if the expiring day would otherwise have been that day. A request for an appeal was due to be filed within 21 days. The last day was a day on . .
Cited – Swainston v Hetton Victory Club Ltd CA 1983
The claimant was dismissed on 7 September 1981. The time limit of three months, expired at midnight on 6 December. Other departments shared the building entrance with the Tribunal. The front door was closed over the weekend, but there was a . .
Cited – St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council v Barnes CA 25-Oct-2006
The claimant had delivered his claim form to the court, but it was not processed until after the limitation period had expired. The defendant appealed a finding that the claimant had brought the cliam within the necessary time.
Held: The claim . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.177800
The applicant complained of having been struck off the register of nurses. He said that when he told the court that he wanted to appeal he was sent forms appropriate for a judicial review. He amended and submitted them. In correcting him, the court office again misled him.
Held: The court was unable to extend the time for filing the original appeal, but could treate the original document as an appeal and extend time for service.
Scott Baker J
[1997] EWHC Admin 704
England and Wales
Cited – Low v Secretary of State for Wales 1993
Where a Notice of Motion was correctly addressed and was received in time in the Central Office, but then subsequently out of time in the Crown Office, it would be treated as having been constructively entered in the time in the Crown Office. . .
Cited – Mendip District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment and Castle Housing Society Limited 1993
The parties disputed what constituted an application under section 288 of the 1990 Act.
Held: Though the time limit for filing an application was absolute, a discretion remained with the court to allow subsequent service out of time in the . .
See also – Balamoody v United Kingdom Central Council; Balamoody v Manchester City Magistrates’ Court Admn 10-Jun-1998
The applicant had been convicted of offences relating to the management of his nursing home, and had been struck off the Register of Nurses.
Held: It was no defence to the criminal charges that a member of staff had failed in her duties. The . .
See Also – Balamoody v UKCC for Nursing Midwifery and Home Visitors EAT 15-Oct-1999
The claimant had complained that a decision of the respondent to cancel his nursing home registration was unlawful racial discrimination. He now appealed a decision to strike out his claim as vexatious and frivolous.
Held: It was not clear . .
See Also – Balamoody v UkCC for Nursing Midwifery and Home Visitors EAT 5-Dec-2000
The claimant’s claim of unlawful race discrimination had been dismissed as an abuse of process by the EAT. The Tribunal now considered whether the EAT had power to make such a decision.
Held: The 1993 Regulations were more generous to . .
See Also – Balamoody v United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing CA 14-May-2001
The applicant sought leave to appeal against a decision disallowing his complaint at his claim for race discrimination being struck out as scandalous, frivolous or vexatious. He said that the Tribunal had dismissed his claim without giving him . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.137649
[1997] EWHC Admin 691
England and Wales
Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.137636
[1997] EWHC Admin 663
England and Wales
Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.137608
Application to withdraw judicial review application, with order for costs against intervener.
[1997] EWHC Admin 605
England and Wales
Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.137550
Application for leave to appeal granted (no reasons).
[1997] EWHC Admin 586
Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.137531
Unspeciified leave given.
[1997] EWHC Admin 470
England and Wales
Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.137415
There was no obligation to disclose further documents against legal professional privilege where the issues are severable.
Auld LJ, Popplewell J
Times 16-May-1997, Gazette 04-Jun-1997, [1997] EWHC Admin 445, (1997) 9 Admin LR 591, [1997] COD 432
Cited – Fulham Leisure Holdings Ltd v Nicholson Graham and Jones ChD 14-Feb-2006
The defendant solicitors were being sued for professional negligence. The claimants had taken legal advice after termination of the retainer which led to the present action, and sought to rely upon part of counsel’s opinion. The defendants sought . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.137390
Claim for injunctions in respect of various valuable items kept at the home of the second claimant and her husband. The goods were seized and taken away by court enforcement officers acting pursuant to a Writ of Delivery.
The claimants assert that they are the owners of and entitled to possession of the goods at issue. They now seek interim mandatory orders that the items be delivered up to them. In the meantime, or in the alternative, they seek orders that the items should not be sold or disposed of pending trial. The defendant’s position is that no relief should be granted because the claimants cannot show any tenable claim to the goods, or even if they can, a claim for damages would represent an adequate remedy.
Warby J
[2015] EWHC 179 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.541985
Application for continuation of anti-harassment injunction against persons unknown.
Warby J
[2015] EWHC 178 (QB)
England and Wales
See Also – Kerner v WX and Another QBD 6-May-2015
The claimant’s husband had been convicted for sexual activity with a child while in a position of trust. She now sought continuation of an anti-harassment injunction against news photographers taking pictures of her whilst in public with her . .
Cited – Brett Wilson Llp v Person(s) Unknown, Responsible for The Operation and Publication of The Website www.solicitorsfromhelluk.com QBD 16-Sep-2015
The claimant solicitors sought remedies against the unknown publishers of the respondent website which was said to publish material defamatory of them, and to ampunt to harassment.
Held: The alleged defamatory meanings were not challenged by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.541986
[1997] EWHC Admin 333
England and Wales
Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.137278
Failure of applicant’s representatives to appear.
[1997] EWHC Admin 356
Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.137301
If subordinate legislation cannot be construed in a way that makes it compatible with fundamental rights, it will be declared ultra vires. Rules which disallowed exemptions from court fees to a litigant in person on income support were invalid. They infringed the rule allowing access to justice. The common law had given special weight to the citizen’s right of access to the courts, a constitutional right. Access to justice at an affordable price was not just another government service.
Although the right of access to the courts has been described as a constitutional right, ‘the cases do not explain what that means.’ and ‘In the unwritten legal order of the British state, at a time when the common law continues to accord a legislative supremacy to Parliament, the notion of a constitutional right can in my judgment inhere only in this proposition, that the right in question cannot be abrogated by the state save by specific provision in an Act of Parliament, or by regulations whose vires in main legislation specifically confers the power to abrogate. General words will not suffice. And any such rights will be creatures of the common law, since their existence would not be the consequence of the democratic political process but would be logically prior to it.’
Laws J
Times 14-Mar-1997, [1997] EWHC Admin 237, [1998] QB 575
Cited – Regina (Amicus etc) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry Admn 26-Apr-2004
The claimants sought a declaration that part of the Regulations were invalid, and an infringement of their human rights. The Regulations sought to exempt church schools from an obligation not to discriminate against homosexual teachers.
Held: . .
Cited – Watkins v Secretary of State for The Home Departmentand others CA 20-Jul-2004
The claimant complained that prison officers had abused the system of reading his solicitor’s correspondence whilst he was in prison. The defendant argued that there was no proof of damage.
Held: Proof of damage was not necessary in the tort . .
Cited – Watkins v Home Office and others HL 29-Mar-2006
The claimant complained of misfeasance in public office by the prisons for having opened and read protected correspondence whilst he was in prison. The respondent argued that he had suffered no loss. The judge had found that bad faith was . .
Cited – A, K, M, Q and G v HM Treasury Admn 24-Apr-2008
The applicants were suspected of terrorist associations. Their bank accounts and similar had been frozen. They challenged the Order in Council under which the orders had been made without an opportunity for parliamentary challenge or approval.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.137182
The applicant, subject to a civil proceedings order, was refused permission to appeal to the court of appeal against refusal of his request for permission to bring judicial review proceedings against the respondent in respect of his claim for compensation for personal injuries after being assaulted.
Laws J
[1997] EWHC Admin 240
England and Wales
Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.137185
Mr Justice Lavender
[2020] EWHC 2989 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.655932
PARK HOMES – FTT procedure – protected site – parking – whether FTT has jurisdiction to direct that access to pitch be kept free of obstruction – whether order going further than necessary for the ‘just, expeditious and economical disposal of the proceedings’ – s.4(1), Mobile Homes Act 1983 – s.231A(4), Housing Act 2004 – appeal allowed
[2018] UKUT 123 (LC)
England and Wales
Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.623937
Appeal from refusal of the judge to allow the claimants to o carry out a market research survey in support of their allegation of passing off.
[2014] EWCA Civ 82
England and Wales
Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.521491
Order for certiorari by consent.
[1997] EWHC Admin 186
Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.137131
Appication to extend time for filing of case stated.
[1997] EWHC Admin 187
England and Wales
Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.137132
Case management of inheritance act claim
[2010] EWCA Civ 747, [2010] 2 FLR 1449, [2010] Fam Law 1062
Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.420387
There is jurisdiction for a civil court to make a declaration as to the criminality of future conduct.
[1997] 10 Adm LR 93, [1997] EWHC Admin 360, [1997] EWHC Admin 121, [1997] EWCA Civ 1393
Cited – Regina v Her Majesty’s Attorney General ex parte Rusbridger and Another HL 26-Jun-2003
Limit to Declaratory Refilef as to Future Acts
The applicant newspaper editor wanted to campaign for a republican government. Articles were published, and he sought confirmation that he would not be prosecuted under the Act, in the light of the 1998 Act.
Held: Declaratory relief as to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.137066
Application for vexatious litigant order.
[1997] EWHC Admin 123
Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.137068
The claimant sought judicial review of a refusal by the judge of his appeal against a small claims court arbitration.
Held: Such arbitrations could be set aside only for misconduct or error of law by the judge. No misconduct had been shown, and nor had any error of law. The refusal was correct.
Forbes J
[1997] EWHC Admin 110
England and Wales
Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.137055
[1996] EWHC Admin 389
Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.136937
(very short formal judgment)
[1996] EWHC Admin 204
Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.136752
Forbes J
[1996] EWHC Admin 166
See Also – Porter; Weeks; Hartley; England and Phillips v Magill Admn 19-Dec-1997
. .
See Also – Porter; Weeks; Hartley; England and Phillips v Magill Admn 19-Dec-1997
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.136714
Reasons for Civil proceedings order.
[1996] EWHC Admin 157
Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.136705
Action Dismissed.
[1996] EWHC Admin 127
Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.136675
[1996] EWHC Admin 116
Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.136664
The Court should be ready to refuse any application made on a ground previously rejected.
Times 18-Oct-1996, [1996] EWHC Admin 105
Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.136653
Applications for relief from sanctions.
Hamblen J
[2014] EWHC 210 (Comm)
England and Wales
Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.535238
The claimant appealed from a decision of the registrar that he had no jurisdiction to hear their claim in rem having been commenced on the form appropriate to a claim in personam.
Teare J
[2015] EWHC 3060 (Admlty)
England and Wales
Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.553924
The defendant had taken his challenge to the magistrates’ decision on the application to extradite him to Australia to the High Court, who had remitted the case for reconsideration of whether the Australian law on misuse of drugs was compliant with human rights law in Europe. The district judge had reconsidered the issue in the light of the additional evidence then available, but had come to the same conclusion.
Held: The review now sought was against a decision after a remission by the High Court and was to be treated as one of the High Court itself procedurally. A right of appeal lay still to the House of Lords, but not otherwise.
Maurice Kay LJ, Penry-Davey J
Times 23-Nov-2005, [2005] EWHC 2925 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.235388
The claimant interpleader appealed summary dismissal of its claim.
Held: The appeal was upheld. Despite the Civil Procedure Rules, the old case law on interpleader retained value. Although under the new rules, the precise formulation of an issue might be dispensed with, the matter could not be dealt with out of hand except in exceptional circumstances which did not apply here.
Roderick Evans J
Times 30-Nov-2005
England and Wales
Applied – P B J Davis Manufacturing Co Ltd v Fahn 1967
Interpleader proceedings . .
Applied – Fredericks and Pelhams Timber Buildings v Wilkins QBD 1971
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.235500
Practice between Commercial Court and Admiralty Court harmonised.
Times 20-May-1993
England and Wales
Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.84843
An investigation and transcripts of interviews in the course of it, by the Banking Supervisor having been conducted under the Act were subject to the restrictions on disclosure mentioned in the Act. Once however the transcripts had been exhibited to an affidavit used in the course of company director disqualification proceedings, they had become part of a public record and the protection was lost.
Lord Woolf MR, Robert Walker LJ, Smith J
Times 17-May-2000, [2000] Lloyd’s Rep Bank 225, [2000] 1 WLR 2353, [2000] 3 All ER 910
England and Wales
Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135941
The defendants sought a declaration that they would not be liable in respect of their potential involvement in a pending action. The appellants asserted that such a declaration could not be granted since no proceedings were yet in issue. The court said that such orders might be useful in simplifying international court actions, and that a primary motive for seeking the order was to establish a UK jurisdiction was not determinative. Lord Woolf summarised the modern position on granting negative declarations: ‘The approach is pragmatic. It is not a matter of jurisdiction, it is matter of discretion. The deployment of negative declarations should be scrutinised and their use rejected where it would serve no useful purpose. However, where a negative declaration would help to ensure that the aims of justice are achieved the court should not be reluctant to grant such declarations. They can and do assist in achieving justice . . . While negative declarations can perform a positive role they are an unusual remedy insofar as they reverse the more usual roles of the parties. The natural defendant becomes a claimant and vice-versa. This can result in procedural complications and possible injustice to an unwilling ‘defendant’. This in itself justifies caution in extending the circumstances where negative declarations are granted, but, subject to the exercise of appropriate circumspection, there should be no reluctance to their being granted when it is useful to do so.’
Lord Mustill, The Master Of The Rolls Lady Justice Hale
Gazette 09-Mar-2000, Times 14-Mar-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 48, [2000] 1 WLR 2040
England and Wales
Appeal from – Messier-Dowty Ltd and Another v Sabena Sa and others ComC 3-Dec-1999
Application by 2 and 3 defendants for an order suspending proceedings in England pending production and consideration of expert report. Whether, pursuant to Supreme Court Act 1981 s. 49(3) and CPR 3.1(2)(f), there were ‘compelling circumstances’ . .
Cited – Guarantee Trust Co of New York v Hannay and Co 1915
A negative declaration should be granted by the court only in exceptional circumstances: ‘I think that a declaration that a person is not liable in an existing or possible action is one that will hardly ever be made, but that in practically every . .
Cited – Financial Services Authority v Rourke ChD 19-Oct-2001
The applicant sought a declaration that the defendant had acted in breach of the Act, in accepting sums by way of deposit, without being authorised, and had made prohibited statements to attract such deposits. Could a civil court make such a finding . .
Cited – Tryg Baltic International (UK) Ltd v Boston Compania De Seguros Sa and others ComC 28-May-2004
Four defendants from Argentina sought to have set aside an order for them to be served, saying the appropriate jursidiction, if there was a triable issue, would be Argentina.
Held: The agreements were to be construed according to English Law. . .
Cited – Well Barn Shoot Limited and Well Barn Farming Limited v Shackleton and Another CA 22-Jan-2003
The defendants had been tenant farmers of the plaintiff company which retained shooting rights over the land when part was sold to the defendants. The defendant object to the use of a roadway by the plaintiff. The plaintiff sought to repurchase the . .
Cited – Point Solutions Ltd v Focus Business Solutions Ltd and Another ChD 16-Dec-2005
It was claimed that the defendant’s computer software infringed the copyright in software owned by the claimant. A declaration was sought beacause of allegations that assertions about infringement had been made to third parties.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135970
[2000] EWHC Technology 169
England and Wales
Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135984
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 could recompense the other party and seek to achieve justice as between the parties. The new Civil Procedure Rules had ushered in a new regime. Decisions as t the pre-Cpr regime ae no longer binding, though they may be helpful usd with caution. Lord Woolf pointed out the array of sanctions made available under the CPR which might enable a court to do justice to the parties, after delay had occurred, without resorting to the draconian measure of a strike out order.
Lord Woolf MR said: ‘it is also essential that parties do not disregard timetables laid down. If they do, then the court must make sure that the default does not go unmarked. If the court were to ignore delays which occur, then undoubtedly there will be a return to the previous culture of regarding time limits as unimportant.’
Lord Woolf MR, Brooke, Robert Walker LJJ
Times 05-Oct-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 1972, [1999] 1 WLR 1926, [1999] 4 All ER 934, [2000] CP Rep 6, [2000] 1 Costs LR 67
England and Wales
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 – 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 . .
Cited – Bloomsbury Publishing Group Ltd and J K Rowling v News Group Newspapers Ltd and others ChD 23-May-2003
The publishers had gone to great lengths to keep advance copies of a forthcoming book in the Harry Potter series secret. They became aware that some had been stolen from the printers and sought injunctions against the defendants and another unnamed . .
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 – Parnall v Hurst and others ChD 15-May-2003
The court refused an appeal by the defendants from an order refusing to strike out the claim.
Held: Where the court could deal with a matter justly without striking a case out, by possibly imposing a sanction as to costs, it should do so. Here . .
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 – Arrow Nominees Inc and Another v Blackledge and Others CA 22-Jun-2000
A petition had been lodged alleging unfair prejudice in the conduct of the company’s affairs. The defendants alleged that when applying for relief under section 459, the claimants had attempted to pervert the course of justice by producing forged or . .
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 . .
Cited – Weston and Another v Weston and others ChD 21-Oct-2005
Action to wind up partnership, and appeal against permission to proceed with assessment of costs despite a twenty year delay. . .
Cited – Irvine and Another v Talksport Ltd CA 18-Jan-2002
The claimants renewed their application for permission to appeal from an order granting an application made by the defendant, Talksport Ltd, to exclude certain evidence which the claimants appeared to wish to adduce at the trial of the action. Mr . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.136014
A judge may reopen a case even after he has delivered his final judgment. A judge invited counsel to amend his pleading to incorporate an improvement, but in the face of his repeated failure to take up the invitation, entered final judgment against him. After advice from leading counsel, counsel requested the judgment be reopened to allow the amendment. This was allowed, and again on appeal. The discretion is however strictly limited, and the arguments are quite different after final judgment. The Barrell jurisdiction survives the implementation of the Civil Procedure Rules but must be ‘very cautiously and sparingly exercised.’
Clarke LJ dissented in part. He did not think that the court was bound by Barrell to look for exceptional circumstances. He took as a starting point the overriding objective in the Civil Procedure Rules of enabling the court to deal with cases justly.
Roch, Clarke LJJ, Sir Christopher Clarke
Times 26-May-2000, [2000] 1 WLR 2268, [2000] EWCA Civ 362, [2000] 3 All ER 518, [2001] ECDR 25, [2001] CP Rep 9
England and Wales
Cited – In re Barrell Enterprises CA 1972
A judge has power to reconsider a judgement which he has delivered before the order consequent upon it has been sealed, but the judge should only exercise this power if there are strong reasons for doing so. When oral judgments have been given the . .
Cited – Bloomsbury Publishing Group Ltd and J K Rowling v News Group Newspapers Ltd and others ChD 23-May-2003
The publishers had gone to great lengths to keep advance copies of a forthcoming book in the Harry Potter series secret. They became aware that some had been stolen from the printers and sought injunctions against the defendants and another unnamed . .
Cited – Bowerbank v Amos (Formerly Staff) CA 31-Jul-2003
The parties had gone into business together. After a breakdown, they had now spent very considerable sums in litigation. At the trial, the judge allowed an amendment of the claim after the close of evidence. He considered that it related to matters . .
Cited – Robinson v Fernsby, Scott-Kilvert CA 19-Dec-2003
The judge had drafted his judgment and sent the drafts to the parties for comment. He then received additional written representations from one party, from which he realised that he had made an error, and issued a corrected judgment which a . .
Cited – R Griggs Group Ltd and others v Evans and others (No 2) ChD 12-May-2004
A logo had been created for the claimants, by an independent sub-contractor. They sought assignment of their legal title, but, knowing of the claimant’s interest the copyright was assigned to a third party out of the jurisdiction. The claimant . .
Cited – North British Housing Association Ltd v Matthews, Same v Others CA 21-Dec-2004
In each case the tenants requested adjournment of the possession proceedings brought against them by the landlord for arrears of rent to allow them time to bring the arrears below the level at which a possession order could be made. In each case it . .
Cited – Judge v Judge and others CA 19-Dec-2008
The wife appealed against an order refusing to set aside an earlier order for ancillary relief in her divorce proeedings, arguing that it had been made under a mistake. The sum available for division had had deducted an expected liabiliity to the . .
Cited – Re L and B (Children) SC 20-Feb-2013
The court was asked as to the extent to which a court, having once declared its decision, could later change its mind. Though this case arose with in care proceedings, the court asked it as a general question. The judge in a fact finding hearing in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135755
The court gave detailed guidance on the application of the new procedures on civil appeals in private law cases introduced on May 2. Appeals from a County Court District Judge’s final decision in a multi-track case could now go straight to the Court of Appeal. Appeals will generally be subject to leave being obtained. An appeal should only be allowed where the decision of the lower court was ‘wrong’ or where it was unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity in the proceedings. It is only in an ‘exceptional’ case that a second appeal may be sanctioned. The general rule is that the decision of the appeal court on the first appeal will be the final decision. It is no longer possible to pursue a second appeal merely because the appeal is properly arguable or has a real prospect of success.
‘A final decision includes the assessment of damages or any other final decision where it is ‘made at the conclusion of part of a hearing or trial which has been split up into parts and would, if made at the conclusion of that hearing or trial, be a final decision:’ article 1(3) of the Order of 2000; it does not include a decision only on costs. This means that if a judge makes a final decision on any aspect of a claim, such as limitation, or on part of a claim which has been directed to be heard separately, this is a final decision within the meaning of this provision.’
Brooke LJ
Times 17-May-2000, Gazette 15-Jun-2000, [2000] 1 WLR 1311, [2000] EWCA Civ 152, [2000] 2 All ER 801, [2000] EWCA Civ 3023
Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004, Civil Procedure Rules
England and Wales
Approved – G v G (Minors: Custody Appeal) HL 25-Apr-1985
The House asked when a decision, on the facts, of a first instance court is so wrong as to allow it to be overturned on appeal.
Held: The epithet ‘wrong’ is to be applied to the substance of the decision made by the lower court. ‘Certainly it . .
Applied – Slot and Slot v Isaac CA 12-Apr-2002
Leave to appeal was sought against a judge’s finding that he had no jurisdiction to hear an application for leave to appeal against another order itself refusing leave to appeal against a case management decision. The party had declined to make any . .
Explained – Assicurazioni Generali Spa v Arab Insurance Group (BSC) CA 13-Nov-2002
Rehearing/Review – Little Difference on Appeal
The appellant asked the Court to reverse a decision on the facts reached in the lower court.
Held: The appeal failed (Majority decision). The court’s approach should be the same whether the case was dealt with as a rehearing or as a review. . .
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 – Sarah Lloyd Jones and others v T Mobile (Uk) Ltd CA 31-Jul-2003
The claimant challenged a stautory notice. The Act required the notice to be fixed to the structure in question, but because of its location, the notice was not legible without going on to private land.
Held: Appeal lay here from the County . .
Cited – Totalise Plc v The Motley Fool Limited and Interative Investor Limited (2) CA 19-Dec-2001
The respondent operated a web site which contained a chat room. Defamatory remarks were made by a third party through the chat room, and the claimant sought details of the identity of the poster. The respondent refused to do so without a court . .
Cited – Ross v Stonewood Securities Ltd ChD 7-Oct-2004
The claimant appealed an order reducing his award of costs. . .
Cited – Uphill v BRB (Residuary) Ltd CA 3-Feb-2005
The court considered an application for leave for a second appeal.
Held: Pursuant to the Practice Direction, the court certified that though this was an application for leave, it could be cited: ‘the reference in CPR 52.13(2)(a) to ‘an . .
Cited – Law v Margarets Insurances Limited CA 27-Feb-2001
The defendant sought to set aside a judgment entered against it for the cost of repairs to the claimant’s boat engine, saying that they were not the insurers but merely the insurance brokers. Their appeal had been incorrectly prepared and had been . .
Cited – Haw and Another v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court Admn 12-Dec-2007
The defendants appealed convictions for contempt of court, on the basis of having wilfully interrupted the court. The respondent said that no appeal lay.
Held: The statute was ambiguous, and ‘there can be no good reason why a person convicted . .
Cited – Ridsdill and others v Smith and Nephew Medical, Duffy, Whittleton EAT 22-Jun-2006
EAT Practice and Procedure – Striking-out/dismissal.
Chairman’s decision to strike out claims which had not been actively pursued and when there had been failure to comply with Tribunal orders. The appeal . .
Cited – Somerfield Stores Ltd v Spring (Sutton Coldfield) Ltd ChD 4-Aug-2010
The landlord had opposed the renewal of the claimant’s business tenancies saying that it wished to redevelop the sites. Before the matter came to trial, the landlord went into administration, and the tenant sought summary judgment. It now appealed . .
Cited – White v Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust and Another QBD 1-Apr-2011
The claimant doctor sued in defamation for letters written by the defendants to the Fitness to Practice Directorate. She now sought to appeal against a finding that she could not rely upon one letter which had come to her attention through . .
Cited – C v V CoP 25-Nov-2008
The court heard an appeal objecting to the appointment of a sibling as Deputy for the parents now lacking capacity. Both daughters had at one time been appointed under Enduring Powers of Attorney, acting jointly, but the daughters became estranged. . .
Cited – Roerig v Valiant Trawlers Ltd CA 28-Jan-2002
The claimant who was Dutch, was a widow of a fisherman who had died at sea. The question on appeal was ‘in assessing damages for loss of dependency should benefits resulting from the loss be deducted from the damages?’ The claimant’s position under . .
Cited – Dellal v Dellal and Others FD 1-Apr-2015
The families disputed a claim under the 1975 Act. The defendants now sought summary dismissal of the claim. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135758
Representatives of the Defendant company were said to have asserted, during an expressly ‘without prejudice’ meeting, that the plaintiff’s marketing of its product infringed the Defendant’s patent and threatened to bring an action for infringement. The plaintiff, relying on the statements made at the meeting, brought proceedings against the Defendant under section 70 of the Patents Act 1977 for threatening the plaintiff with proceedings for infringement of the patent.
Held: The overriding principal of without prejudice negotiations meant that disclosure in patents negotiations of perceived strengths and weaknesses was not to be used against a party. This is to be even more so under the new litigation regime. In a threat action, it does not matter that the threat may be veiled or covert, conditional or future. Nor does it matter that the threat is made in response to an enquiry from the party threatened.
Laddie J
Times 18-Mar-1999, [1999] EWHC Patents 250, [1999] FSR 849
England and Wales
Appeal from – Unilever plc v Procter and Gamble Company CA 4-Nov-1999
The defendant’s negotiators had asserted in an expressly ‘without prejudice’ meeting, that the plaintiff was infringing its patent and they threatened to bring an action for infringement. The plaintiff sought to bring a threat action under section . .
Cited – L’Oreal (UK) Limited and Another v Johnson and Johnson and Another ChD 7-Mar-2000
The claimant appealed against an order striking out their threat action for trade mark infringement, in respect of the words ‘No Tears’ when used for children’s shampoo.
Held: The court had to consider both the letter and the surrounding . .
See Also – Unilever plc v Procter and Gamble Company CA 4-Nov-1999
The defendant’s negotiators had asserted in an expressly ‘without prejudice’ meeting, that the plaintiff was infringing its patent and they threatened to bring an action for infringement. The plaintiff sought to bring a threat action under section . .
Cited – Paymaster (Jamaica) Ltd and Another v Grace Kennedy Remittance Services Ltd PC 11-Dec-2017
(Court of Appeal of Jamaica) The parties disputed the ownership of copyight in certain computer software, and also an allegation of the misuse of confidential information. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135852
Where the claimant was not out of time to bring an appeal, or he retained the right of appeal, or the works proposed involved were not new, and no amendment or substitute of a new claim was proposed, the court should exercise its discretion to amend the claim form so that an application for permission to appeal under section 289, should proceed as an application under section 288.
Times 20-Dec-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 323
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 288 289, Civil Procedure Rules Part 1.1(1) 1.2 17.4
England and Wales
Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135643
A judge who had submitted a draft judgment to the parties for comment before publishing a final version, was entitled to go ahead and publish his judgment notwithstanding that the parties had reached a settlement after seeing the draft. The judge has an independent discretion to do so if he thought it in the public interest. He has a wider power than one of simple correction of errors, even when the stage has already been reached of judgment having been given.
Brooke LJ said: ‘This is the ‘handed down judgment’ of which copies are to be made available in advance of the hearing 24 hours earlier than was allowed for in the previous practice. The express purpose of these arrangements was to enable the parties’ legal advisers to consider ‘the judgment’ and decide what consequential orders they should seek. The parties themselves were not ordinarily to be allowed to have the contents of the judgment communicated to them until an hour before the listed time for ‘pronouncement of the judgment’ because ‘the judgment’ is confidential until it is ‘given’. The document which is sent to the parties’ legal advisers in confidence is to be marked ‘unapproved judgment’, and the reason why the procedure is being elongated is to enable minor corrections to be pointed out to the judge in time for them to be put right before the judgment is ‘handed down formally in court . . It is clear that when a copy of the judgment is sent to the parties’ legal advisers in accordance with this new practice, it is not at that time being given or made within the meaning of CPR 40.7 (‘a judgment or order takes effect from the day when it is given or made’): compare Holtby v Hodgson (1889 QBD 103). It is also clear that the judge is at liberty to alter the terms of his or her judgment (whether to make minor corrections or for any other reason) before handing it down formally in court. This, however, is nothing new, because it has always been within the powers of a judge to reconsider his or her decision at any time before it is entered and perfected (Re St Nazaire Co (1879) 12 Ch D 88, 91; Re Suffield and Watts ex p Brown (1888) 20 QBD 693 697). It has also always been within a judge’s powers to alter at any time his or her judgment if it has been delivered orally, although not so as to contradict the order made on the judgment once it has been perfected (see Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Rogers [1996] 1 WLR 1569, 1578 and Medcalf v Mardell (CAT 2 March 2000, para 62).’
Brooke LJ
Times 02-Jun-2000, Gazette 15-Jun-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 172, [2000] 1 WLR 2000, [2000] CPLR 475, [2001] 3 All ER 1014, [2001] CP Rep 19
England and Wales
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 . .
See Also – Prudential Assurance Company Ltd v McBains Cooper TCC 27-Jun-2000
The claimant sought damages from the defendant firm of surveyors, alleging negligence in their survey of commercial property. . .
Cited – TZ v General Medical Council Admn 17-Apr-2015
Appeal against decision of a Fitness to Practise Panel holding that the Appellant’s fitness to practise as a medical practitioner was impaired by reason of his misconduct. It directed that his name be erased from the Medical Register under section . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135751
A surveillance film of a claimant was a document within the rules. The rules make no specific provision for the admission of such material for the purposes of cross examination of a claimant. A party proposing to use such material was under all the obligations which would apply to other documents as to disclosure and inspection. Application for the use of such material must be made at the first practicable opportunity. Where video evidence is available which, according to one party substantially undermines the case of the other, it should be admitted to allow cross examination on it.
Potter LJ said: ‘For the purposes of disclosure, a video film or recording is a document within the extended meaning contained in CPR 31.4. A defendant who proposes to use such a film to attack a claimant’s case is therefore subject to all the rules as to disclosure and inspection of documents contained in CPR 31. Equally, if disclosure is made in accordance with CPR 31, whether as part of standard disclosure under CPR 31.6 or the duty of continuing disclosure under CPR 31.11, the claimant will be deemed to admit the authenticity of the film unless notice is served that the claimant wishes the document to be proved at trial. If the claimant does so, the defendant will be obliged to serve a witness statement by the person who took the film in order to prove its authenticity. If the claimant does not challenge the authenticity of the film, however, it is, in the absence of any ruling by the court to the contrary, available to the defendant for the purposes of cross-examining the claimant and/or the claimant’s expert medical witnesses at court.’
and ‘It is therefore necessary in the interests of proper case management and the avoidance of wasted court time that the matter be ventilated with the judge managing the case at the first practicable opportunity once a decision has been made by a defendant to rely on video evidence obtained.’
Where the authenticity of such evidence is not challenged: ‘the issue was whether or not the defendant should be prevented from exercising what prima facie was his right to cross-examine the plaintiff by putting to her for her comment such parts of the video as the defendant thought appropriate for the purposes of undermining her case . . In principle, as it seems to me, the starting point on any application of this kind must be that, where video evidence is available which, according to the defendant, undermines the case of the claimant to an extent that would substantially reduce the award of damages to which she is entitled, it will usually be in the overall interests of justice to require that the defendant should be permitted to cross-examine the plaintiff and her medical advisors upon it, so long as this does not amount to trial by ambush.’
Potter LJ
Gazette 08-Mar-2001, Times 14-Mar-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 146, [2001] 3 All ER 248, [2001] CPLR 239, [2001] CP Rep 58
England and Wales
Cited – Jones v University of Warwick CA 4-Feb-2003
The claimant appealed a decision to admit in evidence a tape recording, taken by an enquiry agent of the defendant who had entered her house unlawfully.
Held: The situation asked judges to reconcile the irreconcilable. Courts should be . .
Cited – Douglas v O’ Neill QBD 9-Feb-2011
The defendant sought permission to adduce CCTV evidence taken secretly. The claimant sought an order for the footage not to be used being an attempt at trial by ambush.
Held: The defendant’s application succeeded. There had been no breach of . .
Cited – O’Leary v Tunnelcraft Ltd 2009
Surveillance took place over a long period of time but was not disclosed until a short time before a settlement meeting and trial. The claimant objected.
Held: The court identified this as a form of trial by ambush. From the time of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135585
[2001] EWCA Civ 1213
England and Wales
Appeal from – Grobbelaar v Sun Newspapers Ltd CA 9-Jul-1999
With the new Civil Procedure Rules, it was no longer correct that a court could not exclude evidence which was relevant, on the grounds that its probative value was outweighed by its prejudicial effect. The court now has full power and discretion to . .
Appealed to – Grobbelaar v Sun Newspapers Ltd CA 9-Jul-1999
With the new Civil Procedure Rules, it was no longer correct that a court could not exclude evidence which was relevant, on the grounds that its probative value was outweighed by its prejudicial effect. The court now has full power and discretion to . .
Appeal from – Grobbelaar v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Another HL 24-Oct-2002
The claimant appealed against a decision of the Court of Appeal quashing the judgement in his favour for damages for defamation.
Held: The Court of Appeal was not able to quash a jury verdict as perverse, and the appeal succeeded. An appellate . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135615
The test for whether an interim injunction should be granted restraining publication of material claimed to be confidential, where such a grant would infringe the right to freedom of expression was slightly different under the 1998 Act. The established test was whether the claimant had a real prospect of succeeding at trial in restraining publication, but the new test was whether he was likely to do so. Nevertheless the difference was so small as to make any calculation fruitless.
The court was asked to restrain the publication of confidential documents, and the effect of the section. The defendants argued that the requirement of likelihood imposed a higher standard than that formulated in American Cyanamid, but the claimant said that his case satisfied whatever the standard was applied. Theoretically and as a matter of language likelihood is slightly higher in the scale of probability than a real prospect of success. But the difference between the two is small. The court could not imagine many (if any) cases which would have succeeded under the American Cyanamid test but will now fail because of the terms of section 12(3). The court applied the test of likelihood without any further consideration of how much more probable that now has to be.
Sir Andrew Morritt set out the approach to be taken: ‘Of course, the defendants’ right to freedom of expression is an element in their democratic right to campaign for the abolition of all animal xenotransplantation or other experimentation. But they may continue to do that whether the injunction sought by Imutran is granted or not. The issue is whether they should be free to do so with Imutran’s confidential and secret documents. Many of those documents are of a specialist and technical nature suitable for consideration by specialists in the field but not by the public generally. Given the provisos to the injunction sought there would be no restriction on the ability of the defendants to communicate the information to those specialists connected with the regulatory bodies denoted by Parliament as having special responsibility in the field.’
Sir Andrew Morritt
Times 30-Jan-2001, Gazette 05-Apr-2001, [2001] EWHC Ch 31, [2001] 2 All ER 385, [2002] FSR 2, [2001] HRLR 31, [2001] EMLR 21, [2001] CP Rep 28, [2001] ECDR 16
England and Wales
Cited – American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd HL 5-Feb-1975
Interim Injunctions in Patents Cases
The plaintiffs brought proceedings for infringement of their patent. The proceedings were defended. The plaintiffs obtained an interim injunction to prevent the defendants infringing their patent, but they now appealed its discharge by the Court of . .
Approved – A v B plc and Another (Flitcroft v MGN Ltd) CA 11-Mar-2002
A newspaper company appealed against an order preventing it naming a footballer who, they claimed, had been unfaithful to his wife.
Held: There remains a distinction between the right of privacy which attaches to sexual activities within and . .
Cited – Barclays Bank Plc v Guardian News Media Ltd QBD 19-Mar-2009
The bank sought continuation of an injunction preventing publication by the defendant of papers leaked to relating to the claimant’s tax management. The claimant claimed in confidentiality. The papers did not reveal any unlawful activity. The . .
Cited – Theakston v MGN Ltd QBD 14-Feb-2002
The claimant, a celebrity sought to restrain publication by the defendant of information about his sex life, consisting of pictures of him in a brothel. The court considered the test for the grant of an injunction to restrain publication under the . .
Cited – Cream Holdings Limited and others v Banerjee and The Liverpool Daily Post and Echo Limited CA 13-Feb-2003
The defendants considered publication of alleged financial irregularities by the claimant, who sought to restrain publication. The defendants argued that under the Act, prior restraint should not be used unless a later court would be likely to . .
Cited – Bains and Others v Moore and Others QBD 15-Feb-2017
The claimant anti-asbestos campaigners complained that the defendant investigators had infringed their various rights of privacy. They now sought discovery to support the claim.
Held: the contents of the witness statements do show that it is . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135620
The case management powers of judges allowed a judge to order extensive pre-action discovery of documents. It is not appropriate at this stage in the development of the case management approach to lay down restrictive rules, and it must be for judges to use their discretion. The power only extended to documents which might be later ordered to be produced, and the court needed a clear idea of the likely issues in the case. Although the defendants had unreasonably resisted discovery, it remained appropriate that the costs of production should be borne by the party making the application.
Times 14-Mar-2001, Gazette 12-Apr-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 269
England and Wales
Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135551
When looking at an application to strike out a claim, the normal ‘balance of probabilities’ standard of proof did not apply. It was the court’s task to assess whether, even if supplemented by evidence at trial, the claimant’s claim was bound to fail and even if unchallenged. The court could look to witness statements to see what might be said at trial. The court must take into account not only the evidence actually placed before it on the application for summary judgment, but the evidence that can reasonably be expected to be available at trial. The judge had been wrong to exclude some claims under 3.1(2)(k), since this only created confusion as to the status of the decision as a whole, and finality was to be sought.
The overriding objective of the CPR does not provide that every submission undealt with in the judgment amounts to special circumstances requiring the court to allow the matter to be re-opened. In reaching its conclusion the court must take into account not only the evidence actually placed before it on the application for summary judgment, but also the evidence that can reasonably be expected to be available at trial
Lord Justice Aldous, Lord Justice Clarke And Lord Justice Laws
Times 11-May-2001, Gazette 07-Jun-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 550, [2001] BLR 297, [2001] Lloyd’s Rep PN 526
Civil Procedure Rules 3.1(2)(k)
England and Wales
See Also – Royal Brompton Hospital National Health Service Trust v Hammond and others CA 9-Feb-2001
. .
See Also – Royal Brompton Hospital National Health Trust v Hammond etc TCC 8-Jan-1999
. .
See Also – Royal Brompton Hospital National Health Trust v Hammond and others TCC 9-Dec-1999
. .
See Also – The Royal Brompton Hospital NHS Trust v Hammond and Others TCC 18-Dec-2000
. .
Cited – Miller (T/A Waterloo Plant) v Cawley CA 30-Jul-2002
At the end of the claimant’s case the defendant wished to submit that there was no case for her to answer. The judge then put the defendant to an election as to whether or not she would call any evidence. She appealed.
Held: It is not . .
See Also – The Royal Brompton Hospital National Health Service Trust v Hammond and Others CA 23-May-2001
. .
Appeal from – Royal Brompton Hospital National Health Service Trust v Hammond and others HL 25-Apr-2002
The claimants sought damages against the defendants for their late delivery of a building. The contractors sought to share the damages with the architects who had certified the delays, defeating their own claims.
Held: The Act sought to extend . .
Cited – Trustees In the Charity of Sir John Morden v Mayrick; Graham v Mayrick CA 12-Jan-2007
The claimant had owned tracts of land in London for very many years, but the title deeds had been lost. The defendant had purchased a part from a company who had in turn purchased from the claimants, but the parties disputed an adjacent strip of . .
Cited – Sawyer v Atari Interactive Inc CA 2-Mar-2007
The claimant designed games software and complained of infringements by the defendant of licensing agreements by failing to allow audits as required.
Held: The defendant should be allowed to be heard on the standard practices for management of . .
Cited – Nigeria v Santolina Investment Corp and others ChD 7-Mar-2007
The federal government sought to recover properties from the defendants which it said were the proceeds of corrupt behaviour by the principal defendant who had been State Governor of a province. The claimant sought summary judgment.
Held: . .
Cited – Pegasus Management Holdings Sca and Another v Ernst and Young (A Firm) and Another ChD 11-Nov-2008
The claimants alleged professional negligence in advice given by the defendant on a share purchase, saying that it should have been structured to reduce Capital Gains Tax. The defendants denied negligence and said the claim was statute barred.
Cited – Parties Named In Schedule A v Dresdner Kleinwort Ltd and Another QBD 28-May-2010
The defendant merchant banks resisted two group claims for annual bonuses for 2008 made by the employee claimants. They now sought summary judgment against the claims. The employer had declared a guaranteed minimum bonus pool available to make the . .
Cited – Meakin v British Broadcasting Corporation and Others ChD 27-Jul-2010
The claimant alleged that the proposal for a game show submitted by him had been used by the various defendants. He alleged breaches of copyright and of confidence. Application was now made to strike out the claim. . .
Cited – Fairclough Homes Ltd v Summers SC 27-Jun-2012
The respondent had made a personal injury claim, but had then been discovered to have wildly and dishonestly exaggerated the damages claim. The defendant argued that the court should hand down some condign form of punishment, and appealed against . .
Cited – Easyair Ltd (T/A Openair) v Opal Telecom Ltd ChD 2-Mar-2009
Principles Applicable on Summary Judgment Request
The court considered an application for summary judgment.
Held: Lewison J set out the principles: ‘the court must be careful before giving summary judgment on a claim. The correct approach on applications by defendants is, in my judgment, as . .
Cited – Guthrie v Morel and Others ChD 5-Nov-2015
The will had failed clearly to identify a property in Spain the subject of a bequest.
Held: Summary judgment was given. ‘It seems to me to be clear that the deceased intended by his Will to deal with his entire estate and that he intended the . .
Cited – Bhayani and Another v Taylor Bracewell Llp IPEC 22-Dec-2016
Distinction between reputation and goodwill
The claimant had practised independently as an employment solicitor. For a period, she was a partner with the defendant firm practising under the name ‘Bhayani Bracewell’. Having departed the firm, she now objected to the continued use of her name, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135498
[2001] EWCA Civ 319
England and Wales
Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135542
Where judgment had been entered with damages to be assessed, the issues which could be raised on the assessment of damages were any directly affecting that assessment, but the defendant could not raise an issue which would impugn the judgement leading to the assessment. It was not always however clear that an issue had been settled by the judgment in such a way as to create an estoppel.
Times 20-Mar-2001, Gazette 03-May-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 307
England and Wales
Cited – Lunnon v Singh CA 1-Jul-1999
Once judgment has been given, whether after a contested hearing or in default, for damages to be assessed, the defendant cannot dispute liability at the assessment hearing. . .
Cited – Strachan v The Gleaner Company Limited and Stokes PC 25-Jul-2005
PC (Jamacia) The plaintiff challenged an order setting aside a default assessment of damages in his claim for defamation. After the action was lost, two witnesses had come forward who might have allowed a defence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135543
The court considered a reference to the European Court on assumed facts where the domestic court had not yet established those facts.
Europa In the present state of Community law, characterized by the absence of harmonization of the patents legislation of the Member States, and in the absence of international conventions in force providing to the contrary, Article 36 of the Treaty must be interpreted as not precluding the application of a Member State’s legislation which recognizes the principle of relative novelty and provides that a patent granted for an invention may not be declared invalid by reason only of the fact that the invention in question appears in a patent specification filed more than 50 years previously. Where national law normally provides for the issue of an injunction to prevent any infringement, that measure is justified under Article 36 in so far as it aims to preserve the actual substance of the patent right.
C-35/87, R-35/87, [1988] EUECJ R-35/87, [1987] 3 CMLR 266
Cited – Attridge Law (A Firm of Solicitors) v Coleman and Law EAT 20-Dec-2006
The claimant asserted associative disability discrimination. She was the carer for her disabled son.
Held: To succeed the claimant would have to show that associative discrimination was prohibited by the directive and that the 1995 Act could . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.134565
Morritt J said: ‘The rationale for the principle, and the decisions cited all pointed to the conclusion that communications in furtherance of a crime or fraud were not protected from disclosure if they were relevant to an issue in the action whether of not the plaintiff’s claim was founded on that crime or fraud.
Different considerations might apply to litigation privilege. It was plain from the authorities that litigation privilege was not displaced solely by virtue of the original fraud or crime: see R v Cox and Railton (at p 175); O’Rourke v Darbishire ([1920] AC 581, 622-3); R v Snaresbrook Crown Court, ex parte DPP ([1988] 1 QB 532, 537); and Francis and Francis . .
But none of those cases dealt with the situation where a client, having committed a fraud, sought to further that fraud by stifling it yet further after proceedings were anticipated or commenced by putting forward to his solicitors bogus defences.
The rationale behind the principle that by deceiving his solicitor the client deprived the communication of the necessary element of professional confidence was as applicable to communications after proceedings had been brought as to those which took place before.’
Morritt J
Times, 22 April 1999
England and Wales
Cited – Omar’s Trustees v Omar ChD 2000
A wife and mistress (D) had conspired, after the death of the husband, to remove money in bank accounts from his estate by taking the bearer shares in the company in whose name the accounts were held. The first action, in which D was legally . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.622383
Application for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendants from disposing, dealing or otherwise engaging in transactions with their assets in the sum of or to the value of more than 1m pounds without first giving the Claimants’ solicitors 7 days advance notice in writing.
Nugee J
[2016] EWHC 970 (Ch), [2018] Ch 297, [2016] WLR(D) 302, [2016] 2 All ER (Comm) 711, [2016] 3 WLR 357
England and Wales
Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.564972
The court gave guidance as to the practice operating within the ‘specialist mesothelioma list’ at the Royal Courts of Justice.
Victoria McCloud M
[2014] EWHC 2311 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.534048
A sum had been paid into court in 1997. Other sums were paid out, but this sum was left against costs liability. It was discovered much laterand paid out to the claimant. The former defendant now said that it had been paid out twice, and alleged dishonesty.
Held: The allegation of dishonesty was not well founded and should not have been made. Unjust enrichment was not made without proof of knowledge which was clearly not present here. However the court order in the defendant’s favour was administrative in nature, and the defendant could not rely upon it.
Bean J
[2013] EWHC 3714 (QB)
England and Wales
Vexing legal scholars – Moses v Macferlan KBD 1760
An action for money had and received will only lie where it is inequitable for the defendant to retain the money. The defendant in an action for money had and received ‘can be liable no further than the money he has received’. . .
Cited – Marriott v Hampton KBD 1775
The plaintiff paid for goods bought from the defendant. The defendant then brought an action for payment of the price alleging that he had not been paid. The claimant could not find his receipt for the first payment, and was ordered by the court to . .
Cited – Don Nuno Alvares Pereira De Mello, Duke Of Cadaval, v Thomas Collins 27-Apr-1836
Piaintiff being a foreigner, ignorant of the English language, was arrested at Falmouth soon after his first arrival there from abroad, by defendant, for 10,0001. Defendant and plaintiff then signed an agreement, by which, in consideration of 5001. . .
Cited – Wilson v Ray 1-May-1839
Lord Denman CJ descirbed the pronciple establishedin Marriott: .that what a party recovers from another by legal process, without fraud, the loser shall never recover back by virtue of any facts which could have availed him in the former proceeding. . .
Cited – Derry v Peek HL 1-Jul-1889
The House heard an action for damages for deceit or fraudulent misrepresentation.
Held: The court set out the requirements for fraud, saying that fraud is proved when it is shown that a false representation has been made knowingly or without . .
Cited – Lipkin Gorman (a Firm) v Karpnale Ltd HL 6-Jun-1991
The plaintiff firm of solicitors sought to recover money which had been stolen from them by a partner, and then gambled away with the defendant. He had purchased their gaming chips, and the plaintiff argued that these, being gambling debts, were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.518504
The court considered the issue of the jurisdiction of a court of first instance to set aside a judgment obtained by a claimant following the lodging of an Acknowledgement of Service which contains an admission by the Defendant. A (not invariable) practice has grown up of the judgment being entered as if a judgment in default of Acknowledgement of Service or Defence, in effect as an administrative act by the relevant court office without the involvement of any judge.
Akenhead J
[2011] EWHC 3229 (TCC), [2012] TCLR 1, [2012] 2 All ER 501, [2012] Bus LR D81
England and Wales
Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.451491
cw Arbitration – award – limitation period – cause of action arising – implied promise to perform award – breach – RSC Order 15 r.6 – misjoinder and non-joinder of party – principles – RSC Order 15 r.6 – joinder of party – proceedings a nullity – no power
Waller J
16 February 1994, Unreported, [1996] 2 Lloyds Rep 474
England and Wales
Affirmed – International Bulk Shipping and Services Ltd v President of India and Another CA 11-Dec-1995
Actions to enforce arbitration awards were brought, each in the name of a ship-owning company. At the time of the arbitrations the assets of each company had vested in a trustee in bankruptcy appointed under New York law, but the trustee had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.182567
Lord Hamilton And Lord Kingarth And Lord Mccluskey
[2003] ScotCS 317
Scotland
Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.190750
Direction was given as to the circumstances allowing an appeal out of time after a change in the law affecting a decision after the judgment had been given. Corrections to Bannister v SGB plc made in respect of time calculations in County Court Rules in cases under Order 17 r 11. The rule led to actions being struck out where there had been no trial on the merits: ‘In other words, this is a quite different context in which to apply the general principle that there must be finality in litigation . . it is difficult to imagine circumstances more special than those which have flowed from the introduction of [the rule].’ An extension of time for appealing would not be given automatically. Among the factors which would strongly militate against the grant of such an extension four were lists. The first of these was any inexcusable delay in applying for an extension of time. The third was if ‘the respondent can demonstrate that he or his insurers have reasonably acted on the basis that the claim is at an end, and their affairs have been conducted on this basis or if prejudice has been suffered in any other way.’
The court emphasised the need to file an appeal within the time limit even if legal aid had not yet been granted.
The court discussed the difficulties caused by differing paragraph numbers in the reporting of judgments: ‘We authorised two versions of our judgment in Bannister to be published, one in hard copy transcript form and one on the Internet. Because the page numbering of these two versions differed and because those who downloaded the judgment from the Internet are likely to have different paging systems, we have inserted paragraph numbering into the main text of the original judgment (as opposed to its Schedules). In the Schedule to the present judgment we explain the paragraph numbering we have now adopted. It also seemed to us that it would be very much more convenient if we were to incorporate into the original text of our judgment the corrections and clarifications we have mentioned, and we have directed that it is this revised version of our judgment in Bannister, as clarified and corrected, which should appear in any official law report. We have also directed that the text of the judgment which currently appears on FELIX, the judges’ electronic communications system, and on the Internet on the website of the Lord Chancellor’s Department should be replaced by this revised version, and copies of this revised version should be sent to court administrators for distribution to judges as before. In addition, this judgment should itself be distributed on FELIX and the Internet, and to court administrators for distribution to judges.
We also believed that it would be helpful to practitioners if we were to include in our present judgment a summary of the new points decided by two-judge divisions of this court during the four weeks which followed our judgment in Bannister. Most of the cases they heard raised no new points of general interest, but a few of them did, and we are including a summary of these in the final part of this judgment.’
Saville, Brooke, Waller LJJ
Times 28-Jul-1997, [1997] EWCA Civ 2026, [1997] 4 All ER 181, [1998] 1 WLR 1164
County Court Rules 1981 Ord 17 R 11
England and Wales
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 . .
Cited – Cockerill v Tambrands Ltd; Prolaw Ltd v Adams; Jackson v Pinchbeck CA 21-May-1998
The court considered consolidated appeals relating to the use of Order 17 Rule 11. . .
See Also – Greig Middleton and Co Ltd v Denderowicz (No 2) CA 28-Jul-1997
A claim for under pounds 3,000 in County Court is automatically referred to arbitration without the need for any order to that effect. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.142423
[1997] EWHC Admin 194
England and Wales
Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.137139
Order – 1. As a condition for the grant of an interim measure suspending the operation of a decision, article 83(2) of the rules of procedure requires that an application for such a measure must state the factual and legal grounds establishing a prima facie case for the interim measure applied for and the circumstances giving rise to urgency. The urgency required in regard to an application for interim measures must be assessed in the light of the need to adopt such measures in order to avoid serious and irreparable damage to the party requesting those measures.
2. The issue of the admissibility of the main application should not, in principle, be examined in proceedings relating to an application for interim measures but should be reserved for the examination of the main application so as not to prejudge the substance of the case; however, where an objection is raised that the main application to which the application for interim measures is an adjunct is manifestly inadmissible, it is necessary to establish the existence of certain factors which support the conclusion that the main application is prima facie admissible.
C-82/87, [1987] EUECJ C-82/87R
European
Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.134198
LANDLORD AND TENANT – FTT PROCEDURE – whether applicant entitled to appoint a lay representative to conduct tribunal proceedings on its behalf – whether ‘conduct of litigation’ before the FTT a reserved legal activity – whether lay representative an exempt person – s.22, Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 – ss. 13, 14, 18 Legal Services Act 2007 – rule 14, Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 – appeal allowed
[2020] UKUT 347 (LC)
England and Wales
Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.656818
whether the Court has power to permit the Claimants to amend so as to introduce new claims after the expiry of the limitation period – ‘In circumstances where the Court has struck out the entirety of the Claimants’ currently pleaded case, can the Court nevertheless subsequently permit new claims to be brought?’
Lord Justice Nugee
[2020] EWCA Civ 1690
England and Wales
Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.656771
[2020] EWCA Civ 1668
England and Wales
Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.656657
[1675] EngR 1616, (1675) March NR 9, (1675) 82 ER 388 (A)
England and Wales
Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.405741
Where the under-sheriff refuses to send his notes of the trial, a motion for a new trial must be made on affidavit of the facts.
[1834] EngR 358, (1834) 1 CrM and R 382, (1834) 149 ER 1128 (A)
England and Wales
Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.317035
Application by the Petitioner for the appointment of a receiver by way of equitable execution over certain assets belonging to the First and Second Respondents.
Justice Marcus Smith
[2019] EWHC 530 (Ch)
England and Wales
Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.634403
[2018] EWHC 3345 (Comm)
England and Wales
Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.631339
The claimant sought damages after being very severely injured whilst training in gymnastics at the defendant’s gym. The parties now disputed the existence of an obligation to discover to the claimant the nature and extent of insurance to cover the claim and its costs.
Held: The matter should be disclosed. This was a high value claim, and the existence of insurance was directly relevant to any award of interim damages.
Irwin J
[2007] EWHC 1500 (QB), [2007] PIQR Q9
England and Wales
Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.271250
Application to strike out particulars of claim as over prolix, and disclosing no cause of action.
[2007] EWHC B2 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.271252
The claimants asked the court to withhold from publication reference to documents and a judgment between the parties in Hong Kong, which it said were confidential, and which the court in Hong Kong had protected.
Held: The request was not granted: ‘The Claimants sought an injunction restraining the Defendant from continuing to publish information and documents that had already been published, and which as a result of my refusal of their application it has presumably continued to publish. The great likelihood is that that information is no longer confidential.’ and ‘Comity requires this Court to respect any order of that Court, but it does not require this Court to observe an order made against a defendant which was not subject to its jurisdiction. Moreover, the Claimants have not been able to put forward any good reason, apart from the terms of the order itself, for excluding reference to that order in my principal judgment.’
Stanley Burnton J
[2007] EWHC 1816 (QB)
England and Wales
Cited – Cream Holdings Limited and others v Banerjee and others HL 14-Oct-2004
On her dismissal from the claimant company, Ms Banerjee took confidential papers revealing misconduct to the local newspaper, which published some. The claimant sought an injunction to prevent any further publication. The defendants argued that the . .
Cited – Lord Browne of Madingley v Associated Newspapers Ltd CA 3-Apr-2007
The appellant sought to restrict publication by the defendants in the Mail on Sunday of matters which he said were a breach of confidence. He had lied to a court in giving evidence, whilst at the same time being ready to trash the reputation of his . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.258419
Applications to amend pleadings.
Gray J
[2007] EWHC 1271 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.261901
Application by person subject to civil proceeedings order for permission to bring claims for defamation and otherwise against the defendants.
Held: Leave was refused. The claims in relation to the hard copy articles have no real prospect of success and/or were an abuse of the process of the court, and claim in relation to the internet postings would fail for the same reasons, together with the additional reason that there is no evidence of publication.
Coulson J
[2008] EWHC 1390 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.271043
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 such a situation should be limited to a sum to represent the additional cost which will be incurred in the process of enforcement. Romania’s accession to the European Union, which would ease collection of any award, was not yet concluded. The proper level of security to be requested was andpound;80,000.
Eady J
[2006] EWHC 231 (QB)
England and Wales
Cited – M V Yorke Motors v Edwards HL 1982
A sale of a second hand Rolls Royce had gone wrong. The plaintiff was claiming damages of 23,250 pounds. The plaintiff sought Order 14 summary judgment. That was refused, and the Master gave leave to defend without any conditions. The plaintiff . .
Cited – 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 . .
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 – Texuna International Ltd v Cairn Energy Plc ComC 17-May-2004
Where the court concludes that it may be effectively impossible to enforce an order for payment of costs, then this situation would provide ‘an objective justification for the court exercising its discretion to make an order for payment of the full . .
Cited – Ladd v Marshall CA 29-Nov-1954
Conditions for new evidence on appeal
At the trial, the wife of the appellant’s opponent said she had forgotten certain events. After the trial she began divorce proceedings, and informed the appellant that she now remembered. He sought either to appeal admitting fresh evidence, or for . .
Cited – Hammond Suddard, Solicitors v Agrichem International Holdings Limited CA 18-Dec-2001
The appellant sought staying the order for him to pay costs pending the results of an appeal, and the respondent sought security for costs in fighting the appeal, and a striking out in default of payment, and for security for payment of the . .
Cited – Contract Facilities Ltd v Estate of Rees(dec’d) and others CA 23-Jul-2003
Where a stay is sought, all the circumstances must be considered. The court must consider whether the appeal would be stifled. One must not only look at the means of the appellant himself but also consider whether the money could be raised from . .
Appeal from – Radu, Prince of Hohenzollern v Houston and Another CA 27-Jul-2006
. .
See Also – Prince Radu of Hohenzollern v Houston and Another QBD 12-Oct-2007
. .
See Also – Prince Radu of Hohenzollern v Houston and Another QBD 23-Nov-2007
. .
See Also – Prince Radu of Hohenzollern v Houston and Another CA 15-Jul-2008
The defendant appealed from a decision that the occasion of publication was not privileged. He sought Reynolds protection.
Held: Appeal dismissed. . .
See Also – Prince Radu of Hohenzollern v Houston and Another (No 4) QBD 4-Mar-2009
Orders were sought to strike out part of the defendants defence of justification to an allegation of defamation.
Held: Where there remains the possibility of a jury trial, it becomes especially important to identify the issues the jurors are . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.238934
An inadvertent destruction of documents may have the same consequences visited on the party as a deliberate destruction.
Unreported, 4 May 1991
England and Wales
Cited – Bilta (Uk) Ltd v Nazir and Others ChD 24-Nov-2010
The company had been wound up by the Revenue on the basis that it had been used for a substantial VAT fraud. The liquidators now sued those said to have participated. A defendant denied the jurisdiction because of a disputed arbitration agreement. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.565822
Appeal by the second defendant from a decision acceding to the plaintiff respondent’s application for removal of a stay of proceedings granted to the appellant for referral of a dispute between the parties to arbitration.
[2015] NICA 68
Northern Ireland
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.560585
An application was made under RSC Ord. 15, r. 6(2)
[1990] 1 WLR 112
England and Wales
Cited – S v Suren and Another QBD 10-Sep-2004
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.549471
(Judgment) Application for revision of the judgment given by the court on 8 february 1968 in case 3/67 between the same parties.
C-56/70, [1971] EUECJ C-56/70
European
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131945
Application for authorization to enforce a garnishee order against the European Economic Community.
[1963] EUECJ C-64/63, C-64/63
England and Wales
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131694
(Order only) The government of the Federal Republic of Germany is, for the purpose of making its submissions in support of its conclusions during the written procedure, required to use the language of the case used in the main action, namely Dutch; but is authorized to use the german language for the oral procedure.
C-30/59, [1960] EUECJ C-30/59, [1961] EUECJ C-30/59
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131607
The claimant sought damages following injury after the use of tampons. The matters were all defended. The judge, in an attempt to restrict the costs, agreed to hear a preliminary issue as to the adequacy of the warnings given.
Held: Such decisions should only be interfered with where clearly wrong, but in this case, the issues could not be taken out of order, and the issue of causation was not settled.
Ebsworth J
Gazette 17-Dec-1999, Times 11-Feb-2000, [1999] EWHC 273 (QB), [2000] PIQR P95
Consumer Protection Act 1987 1 3
England and Wales
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.90614
An order for cross examination in an application for a Mareva order is exceptional, but permissible if it is just and convenient that such an order should be made. In applying the test of whether it would be ‘just and convenient’ to make the order, Phillips LJ said: ‘In my judgment the test is simply whether, in all the circumstances, it is both just and convenient to make the order. In applying this test the court will have regard to the fact that it is a very considerable imposition to subject a defendant to cross-examination and consider carefully whether or not alternative means of achieving the same end that are less burdensome. The Court has to weigh the various options in order to decide which best meet the dual requirements of justice and convenience.’
Phillips LJ, Toulson J
Times 22-Oct-1996, [1996] EWCA Civ 759, [1998] 1 WLR 294
England and Wales
Cited – Kensington International Ltd v Republic of Congo and Another ComC 20-Jul-2006
The claimant sought leave to cross examine an officer of the defendant in connection with his affidavit sworn in search order proceedings. The case had a history of deceit and dishonest oral evidence.
Held: Though such an order would be . .
See Also – Yukong Lines Ltd v Rendsburg Investments Corporation and Others (No 2) QBD 23-Sep-1997
Repudiation by charterer: Funds were transferred by a charterer’s ‘alter ego’ to another company controlled by him with intent to defeat owner’s claim – whether ‘alter ego’ acting as undisclosed principal of charterer – whether permissible to pierce . .
Cited – JSC BTA Bank v Mukhtar Ablyazov and Others QBD 16-Oct-2009
Application by the claimants for an order that the first defendant attend for cross-examination upon his affidavits as to assets and as to his answers to questions posed. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.90680
The rule that a claimant must bring his entire case in one action should not be extended to prevent a defendant from bringing a subsequent action against a former co-defendant for an indemnity or contribution, even though that claim might have been made in the first proceedings. The overriding objective of the court is to achieve justice for the parties.
Times 29-Mar-2000, Gazette 06-Apr-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 91
England and Wales
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89656
A teletext page can be a document for gaming licensing purposes. A bookmaker sought to advertise his services via a teletext page. His services were not licensed in this country, but the advertisements were. It was held that despite the insubstantial nature of a teletext broadcast, the page constituted, sufficiently for the Act, ‘an advertisement or other document . . issued circulated or distributed’ in the UK. The page held recorded information. The page was within the mischief contemplated. Chadwick LJ: The error in his reasoning, as it seems to me, was to regard the transmission of electronic impulses from one electronic database to another as the transmission of ‘information’ as if that were something distinct from the transmission of a ‘document’. The true analysis is that the transmission of electronic impulses is simply that: it is nothing more nor less than the transmission of electronic impulses. It is the combination of those impulses within co-ordinates and groups that may convey information. If the impulses are transmitted to a system which is capable of receiving and storing them in the same, or some derivative, combination – so that they can be analysed or ‘read’ – then it may be said that a document is created in or on the recipient database. It is as apt to describe the process as the transmission of a document as it is to describe it as the transmission of information. Indeed, it is now a matter of common parlance to talk of ‘sending a document’ from one computer to another. But what is really happening is that, by the transmission of electronic impulses in a combination, or ‘language’, which the recipient system can read, the sender is creating a document on the recipient database.
Sir Richard Scott, Lord Justice Chadwick, Lord Justice Buxton
Times 08-Mar-2000, Gazette 16-Mar-2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 299, [2000] 1 WLR 1296
Betting and Gaming Duties Act 1981 9(1)(b)
England and Wales
Appeal from – Victor Chandler International v Commissioners of Customs and Excise and Another ChD 17-Aug-1999
A document is a material object. A form presented as a screen via Teletext did not constitute an ‘advertisement or document’ under the Act, and its circulation within the UK without a licence was not an offence. The prohibition was against . .
Cited – Derby and Co Ltd And Others v Weldon And Others (No 9) ChD 25-Jul-1990
The court considered the application of rules relating to the discovery of documents to material held on computer: ‘the database of a computer, so far as it contained information capable of being retrieved and converted into readable form, and . .
Cited – Rollo v HM Advocate 1997
The court discussed the nature of a document as applied to an electronic notebook seized under the 1971 Act: ‘It seems to us that the essential essence of a document is that it is something containing recorded information of some sort. It does not . .
Cited – Regina v Westminster City Council and others ex parte M, P, A and X CA 1997
Destitute asylum-seekers could derive benefit from section 21.
Held: ‘The destitute condition to which asylum-seekers can be reduced as a result of the 1996 Act coupled with the period of time which, despite the Secretary of State’s best . .
Cited – Regina v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council, ex parte M; Regina v Similar Ex Parte P etc QBD 8-Oct-1996
Destitute asylum seekers who were not entitled to welfare benefits could be in need of care and attention within the meaning of section 21 of the 1948 Act although they were no longer entitled to housing assistance or other social security benefits . .
Cited – Fitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Association CA 23-Jul-1997
A homosexual partner of a deceased tenant was not a member of that tenant’s family so as to entitle him to inherit the Rent Act tenancy on the death of his partner. . .
Cited – Fitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Association Ltd HL 28-Oct-1999
Same Sex Paartner to Inherit as Family Member
The claimant had lived with the original tenant in a stable and long standing homosexual relationship at the deceased’s flat. After the tenant’s death he sought a statutory tenancy as a spouse of the deceased. The Act had been extended to include as . .
Cited – Alliance and Leicester Building Society v Ghahremani and others 1992
The court rejected a submission that Mr Justice Vinelott’s view as to the scope of the word ‘document’ was restricted to questions of discovery under the rules of court. He applied the extended meaning of a document described to the question of . .
Cited – Oxfordshire County Council v Oxford City Council and others HL 24-May-2006
Application had been made to register as a town or village green an area of land which was largely a boggy marsh. The local authority resisted the application wanting to use the land instead for housing. It then rejected advice it received from a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.90161
When disallowing interest on a claim, the judge refused to allow the admission of the plaintiff’s expert report on quantum, dated two years before the writ, in rebuttal of the respondent’s assertion, that they had not known of the amount claimed until immediately before the action.
Held: The draft had been marked without prejudice, and it was against public policy to discourage attempts to settle actions without litigation by allowing reference to such documents. The draft remained a draft, and the figures were in fact different from those ultimately disclosed. The judge was correct not to allow the report to be admitted.
Times 15-Nov-2000, Gazette 02-Nov-2000, Gazette 09-Nov-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 265
England and Wales
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.90095
The court gave the following points for consideration as to whether to order determination of a preliminary issue. Could the determination of a preliminary issue dispose of the whole or any part of the case, or could it significantly reduce the costs? If it related to an issue of law, what was the extent of factual differences to be settled before that issue could be presented, or to what extent were the facts agreed? Would the process unreasonably fetter either party or the court later in the case? Might the enquiry increase costs, or delay, or lead to amendments in the pleadings, and was it just or right to order trial of the preliminary issue?
Times 05-Jun-2001
England and Wales
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89533
It was not unfair or a denial of the applicant’s human rights, to strike out a second action which differed only marginally in the parties involved, from an earlier action already struck out by the court for delay, and where the claimant had not yet satisfied a costs order made against him arising from that earlier action.
Times 02-Feb-2001
England and Wales
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89548
‘Proceedings against Crown’ includes third Party proceedings and must be transferred to London.
Gazette 02-Nov-1994
England and Wales
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89474
District Judge holding arbitration has full discretion as to conduct of case. Validity of patent is res judicata – not to be re-opened. An appeal against a small claims arbitration must be for misconduct only and not on the facts.
Times 11-Apr-1994, Ind Summary 04-Apr-1994, [1994] FSR 458
England and Wales
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89506
Changes in court procedure where judges now read rather more before hand to save court time could lead to confusion as to what of the paperwork before the court was now deemed to have been read in open court and therefore in the public domain. The change in practice should not change the law. Papers upon which a patent revocation was based were in the public domain even when not read out.
Lord Bingham CJ said: ‘Since the date when Lord Scarman expressed doubt in Home Office v Harman as to whether expedition would always be consistent with open justice, the practices of counsel preparing skeleton arguments, chronologies and reading guides, and judges pre-reading documents (including witness statements) out of court, have become much more common. These methods of saving time in court are now not merely permitted, but are positively required, by practice directions. The result is that a case may be heard in such a way that even an intelligent and well-informed member of the public, present throughout every hearing in open court, would be unable to obtain a full understanding of the documentary evidence and the arguments on which the case was to be decided.
In such circumstances there may be some degree of unreality in the proposition that the material documents in the case have (in practice as well as in theory) passed into the public domain. That is a matter which gives rise to concern . . As the court’s practice develops it will be necessary to give appropriate weight to both efficiency and openness of justice, with Lord Scarman’s warning in mind. Public access to documents referred to in open court (but not in fact read aloud and comprehensively in open court) may be necessary, with suitable safeguards, to avoid too wide a gap between what has in theory, and what has in practice, passed into the public domain.’
Lord Bingham of Cornhill LCJ, Otton, Robert WalkerLJJ
Times 13-Jul-1999, [1999] 4 All ER 498, [1999] EWCA Civ 1781, (2000) 51 BMLR 91, [1999] CPLR 505, [2000] FSR 1
England and Wales
Cited – Chan v Alvis Vehicles Ltd and Another ChD 8-Dec-2004
The parties had had a part trial, and settled. The Gardian Newspaper now applied for disclosure of various documents to support a proposed news story. The parties had disputed payment to the claimant of commissions on the sales of military vehicles . .
Cited – Albion Plc v Walker Morris (A Firm) CA 19-Mar-2006
The court was asked whether defendant firm of solicitors should be prevented from acting for potential conflict of interest. They sought leave to appeal an order restraining them from acting. They had acted in two similar matters for the client . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89350