Application to reopen findings of fact and judicial recusal for apparent bias.
Lord Justice Peter Jackson
[2020] EWCA Civ 1685
England and Wales
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.656772
In a claim for sex discrimination by the police the court was asked whether the judge in the Central London County Court was right to overrule Mr Cary’s objection to a particular individual acting as an assessor on the ground that, for this type of case, an assessor is required to have specific experience and expertise in relation to issues of discrimination on the grounds of same sex sexual orientation.
[2014] EWCA Civ 987, [2014] WLR(D) 320, [2014] CP Rep 42, [2015] ICR 71, [2014] Eq LR 707
Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007
England and Wales
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.534415
In relation to court proceedings, it can be an abuse of process for a defendant to seek to reopen issues decided against it as defendant in previous court proceedings.
[1990] 3 All ER 547
England and Wales
Cited – OMV Petrom Sa v Glencore International Ag ComC 7-Feb-2014
The claimant sought to have struck out as abuse of process parts of the defence, saying that the factual issues raised had already been resolved in arbitration proceedings, but as against a different oarty. The defendant replied that the arbitration . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.521109
A mandatory order is not enforceable by committal unless it specifies the time for compliance
[1990] 2 FLR 98
England and Wales
Cited – Jones, Re (Alleged Contempt of Court) FD 21-Aug-2013
The Solicitor General sought the committal of the respondent for alleged contempt of court. There had been repeated litigation between the respondent and her former husband as to whether the children should live in Spain with the father or in Wales . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.514939
Letter of request – response
[2012] EWHC 2540 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.464394
Though a man is arrested by due process, yet if a wrong use is made of it against him by obliging him to execute a conveyance while under arrest, this Court will relieve.
[1737] EngR 196, (1737) West T Hard 192, (1737) 25 ER 890 (B)
England and Wales
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.386685
The claimant sought to collect a personal debt from the president of Uganda. The parties disputed whether the claim had been served by its being left at the High Commission.
[2009] EWCA Civ 964
England and Wales
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.375162
A person who obtains goods on contract, not having the means nor the intention of paying for them, is a competent witness in an action of trover by the person of whom he obtained them, to recover possession of them from a person to whom he parted with them at a less price than he had engaged to pay for them.
[1837] EngR 323, (1837) 7 Car and P 718, (1837) 173 ER 314
England and Wales
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.313440
An ex parte Mareva injunction had been obtained. It was said that there had been material non-disclosure of important facts. The plaintiff bank had been under the control of the Galadaris between 1970 and 1985, when it was taken over by the Government of Dubai. The bank complained that large amounts of interest on certain deposits had been unlawfully diverted into their own pockets. The bank obtained an ex parte Mareva injunction and ancillary orders for disclosure of assets, but this was later discharged by Morritt J. on the grounds that important facts known to the Government of Dubai had not been disclosed.
Held: The court refused to interfere with his exercise of his discretion. It was submitted on behalf of the bank that even where there had been non-disclosure on an ex parte application, the court should only discharge an injunction or refuse to continue an injunction if the court was satisfied that the non-disclosure was a deliberate attempt to mislead the court or a wilful failure to inquire as to the obvious. The phrase ‘whose . . affidavits’ extends to any affidavit sworn by a deponent who is not a party, but which is procured by and filed or used on behalf of a party. A copy of an unprivileged document does not become privileged merely because the copy is made for litigious purposes.
Dillon LJ said: ‘It is now accepted in this Court that, even if there has been material non-disclosure, the Court has a discretion whether or not to discharge an order obtained ex parte and a discretion whether or not to grant fresh injunctive relief Discharge of the order is not automatic on any non-disclosure being established of any fact known to the applicant which is found by the Court to have been material.’
Staughton LJ said that the bank had put forward a good arguable case, and a prima facie case for likelihood of dissipation: ‘In any event there was also non-disclosure to be considered before the injunction was continued. The authorities show plainly that non-disclosure will, in an appropriate case, not only be a ground for discharging an ex parte order, but also a ground for refusing to make a fresh order inter partes. At least in one respect there was here non-disclosure which was in my view both serious and culpable. The Galadaris had specified what they said was their defence to the claim, and there can scarcely be any more important topic of disclosure than that. As to culpability, it is said the Dubai Bank did not know the facts, and that those whom they consulted in the Government of Dubai had forgotten them. But the letters were still in the Government’s possession . . Once serious and culpable non-disclosure was established, the Judge had a balancing task to perform. On the one hand if justice required that a fresh injunction should be granted (which in the Judge’s view it did not, but the contrary was arguable), it might be thought unjust to refuse one on the grounds of non-disclosure. On the other hand the Courts must uphold and enforce the duty of disclosure, as a deterrent to others, if they are not to be deceived on ex parte applications. The conflict between those principles is well illustrated in a passage from the judgment of Lord Justice Woolf in the Behbehani case.’
Slade LJ, Dillon LJ
[1990] 1 WLR 731, [1990] Ch 98, [1990] 1 Lloyds Rep 120
England and Wales
Cited – Tweed v Parades Commission for Northern Ireland HL 13-Dec-2006
(Northern Ireland) The applicant sought judicial review of a decision not to disclose documents held by the respondent to him saying that the refusal was disproportionate and infringed his human rights. The respondents said that the documents were . .
Cited – Expandable Ltd and Another v Rubin CA 11-Feb-2008
The defendant’s witness statement referred to a letter written to him by the defendant’s solicitor. The claimant appealed refusal of an order for its disclosure.
Held: The appeal failed. The letter was protected by legal professional . .
See Also – Dubai Bank Ltd v Galadari CA 1990
A document created with a view to its being submitted to solicitors for advice does not, despite its purpose, attract privilege, even though the ‘pre-existing documents, and even documents on public records, have been selected by a solicitor for the . .
Cited – Expandable Ltd and Another v Rubin CA 11-Feb-2008
The defendant’s witness statement referred to a letter written to him by the defendant’s solicitor. The claimant appealed refusal of an order for its disclosure.
Held: The appeal failed. The letter was protected by legal professional . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.247440
The court coinsidered a claim for the privilege against self-incrimination: ‘As held in Saunders v. United Kingdom . . the right not to incriminate oneself is primarily concerned with respecting the will of the accused person to remain silent and does not extend to the use in criminal proceedings of material which may be obtained from the accused through the use of compulsory powers and which has an existence independent of the will of the accused . . eg documents, breath, blood, urine and tissue samples).’
[2000] 2 FLR 322
Human Rights
Cited – C Plc and W v P and Secretary of State for the Home Office and the Attorney General ChD 26-May-2006
The claimant sought damages from the first defendant for breach of copyright. An ex parte search order had been executed, with the defendant asserting his privilege against self-incrimination. As computer disks were examined, potentially unlawful . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.242452
Claimant’s application for an order debarring the defendant from relying on the second report from their expert and the defendant’s application to withdraw its ‘admission’ in relation to breach of duty in para 5 of their defence.
Burrell QC HHJ
[2015] EWHC 3181 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.555024
Lindsay J
[2005] EWHC 277 (Ch)
England and Wales
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.238707
Applications variously to amend particulars of claim, and for strike out.
Andrew Smith J
[2015] EWHC 3173 (Comm)
England and Wales
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.554584
(New Zealand) Disclosure was sought of papers said to be protected by litigation privilege on the basis of an exception because of alleged fraud.
Hoffmann J said: ‘The principle on which the plaintiffs seek disclosure is that laid down in the classic judgment of Stephen J in R v. Cox and Railton (1884) 14 QBD 153, namely that privilege does not attach to a communication between a client and his legal adviser ‘intended to facilitate or to guide the client in the commission of a crime or fraud’. This principle applies not only when the legal adviser is party to the crime or fraud but also when he is ignorant of the purpose for which his advice or assistance is being asked. As Stephen J said, in neither case can the client have been consulting his adviser in a confidential professional capacity: ‘The client must either conspire with his solicitor or deceive him.”
Hoffmann J
(1987) 177 NLJ 451
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Cox and Railton 1884
(Court for Crown Cases Reserved) The defendants were charged with conspiracy to defraud a judgment creditor of the fruits of a judgment by dishonestly backdating a dissolution of their partnership to a date prior to a bill of sale given by Railton . .
Cited – Kuwait Airways Corporation v Iraqi Airways Company (No 6) CA 16-Mar-2005
The defendant company appealed against an order allowing inspection of documents for which litigation privilege had been claimed. It was said that the defendants had been involved in perjury in previous proceedings between the parties.
Held: . .
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: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.224369
There had been an expropriation by Spanish decrees of shares in a Spanish company whose English subsidiary had rights in trade marks which it had sold to a Jersey company. The Spanish and English companies sought certain relief in relation to the trade marks, but the dispossessed proprietors sought to argue that the Spanish decrees should not be recognised because they were penal or confiscatory. The defence was rejected on the ground that the claimants’ case did not depend on the Spanish decrees, but arose under the general law. The House considered the rule that an English court could not be used to enforce the collection of foreign taxes. Lord Mackay looked at the authorities: ‘From the decision in the Buchanan case [1955] AC 516 counsel for the appellants sought to derive a general principle that even when an action is raised at the instance of a legal person distinct from the foreign government and even where the cause of action relied upon does not depend to any extent on the foreign law in question nevertheless if the action is brought at the instigation of the foreign government and the proceeds of the action would be applied by the foreign government for the purposes of a penal revenue or other public law of the foreign State relief cannot be given. It has to be observed that in the Buchanan case the action was being pursued by a person whose title as liquidator of the company depended on his having been appointed by a petition to the court in Scotland on behalf of the Inland Revenue, that the ground of action was that the transactions being attacked in the proceedings in Dublin were ultra vires and dishonest because there existed at the time that they were effected in Scotland a claim by the Inland Revenue which the transactions were designed to defeat, and that if no such claim existed the defendant would have been entitled to retain the subject matter of the claim. Most important there was an outstanding revenue claim in Scotland against the company which the whole proceeds of the action apart from the expenses of the action and the liquidation would be used to meet. No other interest was involved. That this was regarded as of critical importance appears from what was said in the decision on appeal by Maguire CJ, at p.533
Having regard to the questions before this House in Government of India v Taylor [1955] AC 491 I consider that it cannot be said that any approval was given by the House to the decision in the Buchanan case except to the extent that it held that there is a rule of law which precludes a state from suing in another state for taxes due under the law of the first state. No countenance was given in Government of India v Taylor , in Rossano’s case [1963] 2 QB 352 nor in Brokaw v Seatrain UK Ltd. [1971] 2 QB 476 to the suggestion that an action in this country could be properly described as the indirect enforcement of a penal or revenue law in another country when no claim under that law remained unsatisfied. The existence of such unsatisfied claim to the satisfaction of which the proceeds of the action will be applied appears to me to be an essential feature of the principle enunciated in the Buchanan case [1955] AC 516 for refusing to allow the action to succeed.’
Lord Templeman said: ‘This rule with regard to revenue laws may in the future be modified by international convention or by the laws of the European Economic Community in order to prevent fraudulent practices which damage all States and benefit no State. But at present the international law with regard to the non-enforcement of revenue and penal laws is absolute.’
Lord Templeman said that the striking out of a pleading was discretionary, and: ‘if an application to strike out involves a prolonged and serious argument, the judge should, as a general rule, decline to proceed with the argument unless he not only harbours doubts about the soundness of a pleading but, in addition, is satisfied that striking out will obviate the necessity for a trial, or will substantially reduce the burden of preparing for a trial, or the burden of the trial itself.’
Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Lord Templeman
[1986] AC 368, [1986] 1 All ER 129, [1986] 2 WLR 24
England and Wales
Cited – Peter Buchanan Limited and Macharg v McVey 1954
(Supreme Court of Ireland) The plaintiff was a company registered in Scotland put into compulsory liquidation by the revenue under a substantial claim for excess profits tax and income tax. The liquidator was really a nominee of the revenue. The . .
Cited – Government of India v Taylor HL 1955
The Government of India sought to prove in the voluntary liquidation of a company registered in the United Kingdom but trading in India for a sum due in respect of Indian income tax, including capital gains tax, which arose on the sale of the . .
Cited – QRS 1 APS and others v Frandsen CA 21-May-1999
The appellants were all Danish companies put into liquidation for asset stripping in contravention of Danish law. The respondent was resident in the UK and had owned them. The Danish tax authorities issued tax demands and the liquidators now sought . .
Cited – Mbasogo, President of the State of Equatorial Guinea and Another v Logo Ltd and others CA 23-Oct-2006
Foreign Public Law Not Enforceable Here
The claimant alleged a conspiracy by the defendants for his overthrow by means of a private coup d’etat. The defendants denied that the court had jurisdiction. The claimants appealed dismissal of their claim to damages.
Held: The claims were . .
Cited – Belhaj and Another v Straw and Others SC 17-Jan-2017
The claimant alleged complicity by the defendant, (now former) Foreign Secretary, in his mistreatment by the US while held in Libya. He also alleged involvement in his unlawful abduction and removal to Libya, from which had had fled for political . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.225458
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 represented, had proceeded to judgment. The second action was a claim for fraud against D and others which was ongoing. Soon after the second action was commenced, D became bankrupt on her own petition. An order had been made for D’s private examination. Her trustee in bankruptcy had obtained possession of all the papers held by D’s previous solicitors. The trustee applied to the court for a direction that he be permitted to provide any documents he had received, including documents in respect of which D claimed privilege, to the administrators for the purposes of (i) the private examination and (ii) the second action. Two issues arose: whether the proposed uses of the documents, and in particular the use in the second action, was for the proper purposes of the bankruptcy, and whether the fraud exception to privilege applied.
Held: Jacob J answered ‘Yes’ to both questions, and ordered disclosure of documents used by the mistress’s previous lawyers for the advancement of her defence at the trial because she had been using her lawyers, who were innocent of any dishonesty, to advance a fraudulent defence in the course of which she perjured herself.
Although using to section 311(1), the trustee had taken possession of ‘papers in respect of which D claimed privilege, or more accurately, would have claimed privilege if they had not passed to the trustee’, and referred to ‘documents which, but for the bankruptcy, would be the subject of privilege’, the court did not find that the benefit of the privilege had passed to the trustee. Jacob J proceeded on the basis that, although it was no answer to the trustee’s claim for possession of the documents, D would continue to be entitled to maintain her privilege, and in particular to do so in the second action, unless the fraud exception applied: ‘Thus, if the matter had stood as simply between the administrators and Diana, I would have required disclosure. That being so, there is no reason for the court to say that the trustee should not do that which he thinks is best in the administration of his office.’
Jacob J
[2000] BCC 434
England and Wales
Cited – Chandler v Church 1987
(New Zealand) Disclosure was sought of papers said to be protected by litigation privilege on the basis of an exception because of alleged fraud.
Hoffmann J said: ‘The principle on which the plaintiffs seek disclosure is that laid down in the . .
Cited – Dubai Bank v Galadari (No 6) ChD 22-Apr-1999
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 . .
Cited – Kuwait Airways Corporation v Iraqi Airways Company (No 6) CA 16-Mar-2005
The defendant company appealed against an order allowing inspection of documents for which litigation privilege had been claimed. It was said that the defendants had been involved in perjury in previous proceedings between the parties.
Held: . .
Cited – Shlosberg v Avonwick Holdings Ltd and Others ChD 5-May-2016
Application by a bankrupt, for an order directing that the Second Respondent should cease acting as solicitors for both the First Respondent (‘Avonwick’) and the Third Respondents, Moore Stephens LLP, his joint trustees in bankruptcy.
Held: . .
Cited – Dadourian Group International Inc and others v Simms and others ChD 25-Jul-2008
Applications arising from disclosure of documents . .
Cited – JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov and Others ComC 8-Aug-2014
The Claimant sought disclosure from the First and Second Respondents of documents relating to their assets which would attract legal professional privilege unless falling within the iniquity exception to such privilege, and which are currently held . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.224370
The rules required a judge at trial on a judicial review case to consider the issue of whether there had been any undue delay in bringing the case. Nevertheless, where this issue had already been fully argued at a preliminary hearing, the judge could properly exclude a further attempt to argue the point. The judge’s duties as case manager required him to consider whether new material was to be introduced, or a different aspect was to be put, some relevant matter had been overlooked by the first judge, or he had said that it might be reconsidered at trial.
Times 30-Mar-2001, Gazette 26-Apr-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 304
England and Wales
Appeal from – Regina v Lichfield District Council Christopher John Nanscawen Williams and ex parte Lichfield Securities Limited Admn 1-Apr-1999
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.88537
A Local Authority was not able to impose charge for inquiries as to speculative developments and similar proposals, or for consultations, and pre-planning advice. There was no statutory authority for such a charge, and it was therefore unlawful and ultra vires. A power to charge did not arise by necessary implication. The words ‘necessary implication’ imposed a test more rigorous than that which would be satisfied by what is reasonable, conducive, or incidental.
Lord Lowry
Gazette 22-Jan-1992, [1992] 2 AC 48, [1989] UKHL 4, [1991] 3 WLR 941
Local Government Act 1972 111(1)
England and Wales
Cited – Attorney-General v Wilts United Dairies Ltd CA 1921
The Food Controller had been given power under the Defence of the Realm Acts to regulate milk sales. In granting the dairy a licence to buy milk in Cornwall, Devon, Dorset and Somerset, the Food Controller required the Dairy to pay 2d. per imperial . .
Appeal from – The London Borough of Barnet v Secretary of State for the Home Department, McCarthy and Stone (Developments) Ltd Admn 23-Aug-2001
The applicant sought to quash a decision letter. It had wanted to create a development, but the local authority considered it had not met the requirement to include affordable housing. It was agreed that a need existed for affordable housing, and . .
Cited – SPH (Scotland) Ltd v Edinburgh City Council OHCS 25-Jun-2003
The respondent council was regularly asked to provide information by way of search information, and sought to charge a fee for the purpose.
Held: The provision of the information was discretionary and not in pursuance of any explicit power. . .
Cited – Roberts v Parole Board HL 7-Jul-2005
Balancing Rights of Prisoner and Society
The appellant had been convicted of the murder of three police officers in 1966. His tariff of thirty years had now long expired. He complained that material put before the Parole Board reviewing has case had not been disclosed to him.
Held: . .
Cited – Dixon and Another, Regina (on the application of ) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs QBD 10-Apr-2002
The applicants were farmers. Their cattle were destroyed after contracting foot and mouth disease. Their land was used for the burning of the carcasses of their animals, and of animals from neighbouring farms. They were compensated inter alia for . .
Cited – Feakins and Another v Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Civ 1513) CA 9-Dec-2005
The department complained that the defendants had entered into a transaction with their farm at an undervalue so as to defeat its claim for recovery of sums due. The transaction used the grant of a tenancy by the first chargee.
Held: The . .
Cited – O’Brien and others v Independent Assessor HL 14-Mar-2007
The claimants had been wrongly imprisoned for a murder they did not commit. The assessor had deducted from their compensation a sum to represent the living costs they would have incurred if living freely. They also appealed differences from a . .
Cited – National Secular Society and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Bideford Town Council Admn 10-Feb-2012
The claimant challenged the placing of a prayer on the agenda of the respondent’s meetings.
Held: The claim succeeded. The placing of such elements on the Agenda was outside the powers given to the Council, and the action was ultra vires: . .
Cited – Dillner, Regina (on The Application of) v Sheffield City Council Admn 27-Apr-2016
The claimant challenged the policy of the respondent council to replace many established trees along streets in the City.
Held: Permission to apply for review was refused: ‘Some concern has been expressed by objectors to the scheme that, in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.87631
Property had been conveyed to the deceased and the appellant, his widow, to be held as joint tenants. The deceased dies whilst under investigation for defalcations as a solicitor, and an insolvency administration order was obtained in the estate. The wife argued that by the doctrine of survivorship the house was already hers. The administrator said that the effect of the order was backdated so as to have severed the joint tenancy before the death, and that therefore the deceased’s interest passed into the administration.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The rule that a judicial act takes effect from the first moment of the day on which it is made is not universal. ‘the time has come to say the fiction should have no place when the true facts are known, at least in cases where the court’s jurisdiction is concerned. . . The respondent’s submission in the present case is that the insolvency administration order which was made on the 17th August 1991 is deemed by paragraph 12 of the 1986 Order (Sch.1 Part II) to take effect for the purposes of the vesting of property in the trustee as if it had been made on 22 November 1990, the date of Mr Palmer’s death. To this statutory fiction, it is submitted, must be added the common law fiction that the Order was made at the earliest moment of that day, and therefore whilst Mr Palmer was alive.’ The submission failed.
Balcomve LJ, Evans LJ, Roch LJ
Independent 06-Apr-1994, [1994] EWCA Civ 15
England and Wales
Appeal from – In Re Palmer, Deceased (A Debtor) ChD 25-Mar-1994
The court considered the effect of the doctrine of relation back on a property of which the bankrupt was formerly a joint tenant where the bankrupt had died after the act of bankruptcy but before adjudication.
Held: A deceased’s share in . .
Cited – Williams v Hensman 10-Jun-1861
A fund of money was bequeathed on trust to be invested so as to generate an income payable to A ‘the principal to go to her children at her death’.
Held: The will created a joint tenancy. The court set out three ways in which a joint tenancy . .
Cited – Burgess v Rawnsley CA 15-Apr-1975
. .
Cited – Wright v Mills 1859
A judgment was signed when the Court’s offices opened at 11 am but the defendant had died at 9.30 the same morning. The Court held that the judgment was regular, applying the rule that judicial acts, being acts of the Crown, have precedence over . .
Cited – Edwards v Regina CExc 1854
The process of execution in respect of a Crown debt prevailed over the transfer of the personal estate of a bankrupt to an official assignee which took place earlier on the same day. Significantly, the Court’s judgment added that even if the . .
Cited – Shelley’s case; Wolfe v Shelley 1581
If it is possible to do so, every word in a deed must be given effect. A judgment and the process known as recovery were effective even though the defendant had died in the early morning of the day on which, after his death, the court orders were . .
Cited – Clarke v Bradlaugh CA 1881
The defendant had sat and voted in parliament without taking the statutory oath. The writ was issued on the same day. The defendant argued that since the writ was deemed to have been issued at the start of the day, the events on which the claim was . .
Cited – Clarke v Bradlaugh CA 1881
The defendant had sat and voted in parliament without taking the statutory oath. The writ was issued on the same day. The defendant argued that since the writ was deemed to have been issued at the start of the day, the events on which the claim was . .
Cited – Re Seaford Dec’d CA 1968
A decree of divorce was made absolute by the court on the same day as, but some hours later than, the husband respondent had died. The court considered the general rule that a judicial act takes effect at the start of the day on which it is made. . .
Cited – Tabernacle Permanent Building Society v Knight 1892
The court considered (obiter) it’s lack of jurisdiction to make an order directing arbitrators to state their award in the form of a special case, at a time when the award had already been published earlier on the same day and the arbitrators . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85849
Where a party applying for judicial review had received the practical decision he sought from the defendant, but wished the review to go ahead as a test case, it was necessary and appropriate for him to seek the agreement first of the defendant, and then of the court. The court should proceed with such academic investigations only with great care, and in this case, had the claimant done as suggested, his leave to apply would have been revoked.
Stanley Burnton J
Times 27-Apr-2001, [2001] EWHC Admin 92
England and Wales
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.86016
Where the Court of Appeal had refused permission to apply for judicial review after a similar refusal by a judge, that decision was also, by implication, a refusal to grant permission to appeal against the judge’s decision, and there was no scope for a further appeal to the House of Lords. It is not the role of the highest court to correct errors in the application of settled law.
Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Steyn Lord Hoffmann Lord Clyde Lord Millett
Times 08-Nov-2000, Gazette 30-Nov-2000, [2000] UKHL 56, [2000] 1 WLR 2222, [2000] 1 All ER 27
Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 6, Supreme Court Act 1981 18(1A) 31(3), Access to Justice Act 1999 54, Civil Procedure (Amendment Rules) 2000 (SI 221/2000), Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876 3
Cited – Practice Direction (Judicial Review: Appeals) CA 1982
The Court gave a practice direction on recourse to the Court of Appeal following refusal of leave to apply for judicial review by a Divisional Court or a single judge, describing such a refusal as ‘appealable to the Court of Appeal’. . .
Cited – Practice Direction (Court of Appeal) (Civil Division) CA 19-Apr-1999
As part of the modernisation and reform of civil procedure, all the principal Court of Appeal practice directions are consolidated now into this one document handed down by the court.
‘2. Permission to appeal
2.1 When is permission . .
Cited – Lane v Esdaile HL 5-May-1891
The court considered the extent of the House’s jurisdiction as an appellate court. Section 3 of the 1876 Act provided that an appeal should lie to the House of Lords from ‘any order or judgment of . . Her Majesty’s Court of Appeal in England’. The . .
Cited – Kemper Reinsurance Company v The Minister of Finance and others PC 5-May-1998
(Bermuda) An appeal Court did have jurisdiction to hear an appeal against the discharge of leave to apply for certiorari order, since this was outside scope of the rule in Lane v Esdaille.
Lord Hoffmann said: ‘Nevertheless, the limited nature . .
Cited – In re Housing of the Working Classes Act 1890, Ex parte Stevenson CA 1892
A party had applied to a judge for what in effect amounted to leave to appeal and had been refused.
Held: Wherever power is given to a legal authority to grant or refuse leave to appeal, the decision of that authority is, from the very nature . .
Cited – In re Poh HL 1983
The applicant had unsuccessfully applied to the Divisional Court for leave to apply for judicial review and renewed his application, equally unsuccessfully, to the Court of Appeal. He then petitioned for leave to appeal to the House of Lords.
See Also – Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Eastaway CA 6-Apr-2001
. .
See Also – Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Eastaway; Re Blackspur Group (No 3), Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Davies and Others (No 2) CA 13-Sep-2001
. .
See Also – Eastaway v The United Kingdom ECHR 20-Jul-2004
The applicant had been proceeded against after the collapse of companies in which he was involved with very substantial debts. The proceedings had begun in July 1990, and lasted nearly nine years.
Held: Where proceedings could be expected to . .
See Also – In Re Blackspur Group Plc; Secretary of State v Eastaway ChD 21-Jun-2001
The director was amongst a group against whom a director disqualification order was sought. He offered an undertaking, but the Secretary of State refused to accept this unless it was accompanied by a statement as to the factual basis on which it was . .
See Also – Eastaway v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and similar ChD 2-Mar-2006
. .
See Also – Eastaway v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry CA 10-May-2007
The applicant had been subject to company director disqualification proceedings. Eventually he gave an undertaking not to act as a company director, but then succeeded at the ECHR in a complaint of delay. He now sought release from his undertaking . .
Cited – Cooper v HM Attorney General QBD 30-Sep-2008
The claimant sought damages from the court saying that it had failed to properly apply European law. It had rejected his applications for judicial review.
Held: Any failure by the court was not sufficiently manifest to bring the case within . .
Cited – Coke-Wallis, Regina (on The Application of) v Institute of Chartered Accountants In England and Wales SC 19-Jan-2011
The appellant chartered accountant had been convicted in Jersey after removing documents from his offices relating to a disputed trust and in breach of an order from his professional institute. The court now considered the relevance and application . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85546
Mr Pelling sought to act as a McKenzie friend. On being refused he sought judicial review of he decision to exclude him.
Held: Review was refused. A McKenzie friend has himself no locus to challenge a decision by a county court judge not to allow him to be present in a chambers appointment; that right belongs to the litigant only. A judge in chambers can exclude a McKenzie friend, but not when in open court.
Otton LJ, Steel J
Times 08-Mar-1999, [1999] EWHC Admin 181
Cited – Collier v Hicks 7-Jun-1831
Trespass for assaulting, and turning plaintiff out of a police office. Plea, that two of the defendants, being justices of the peace, were assembled in a police office to adjudicate upon an information against AB for an offence against a penal . .
Cited – McKenzie v McKenzie CA 10-Jul-1970
Mr McKenzie was a litigant in person who wished to be assisted by a young Australian barrister, gratuitously, in the conduct of his case by sitting beside the husband in Court and prompting him. The hearing was in open Court . The friend’s conduct . .
Cited – Re G (Chambers Proceedings: McKenzie friend) CA 10-Jul-1991
A proposed McKenzie friend was a solicitor who was to be paid, but did not wish to be on the record. H appealed a refusal to allow him to be present in chambers. The Judge had taken the view that the proceedings were of a highly confidential nature . .
Cited – Re G (Chambers Proceedings: McKenzie friend) CA 10-Jul-1991
A proposed McKenzie friend was a solicitor who was to be paid, but did not wish to be on the record. H appealed a refusal to allow him to be present in chambers. The Judge had taken the view that the proceedings were of a highly confidential nature . .
Not binding – In Re H (A Minor) (Chambers Proceedings: Mckenzie Friend) CA 6-May-1997
A father sought ex parte, permission to appeal against orders in the county court. The first had refused to allow him to have a McKenzie friend in an application for contact to his daughter. The Recorder had taken the view that because the . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Brind HL 7-Feb-1991
The Home Secretary had issued directives to the BBC and IBA prohibiting the broadcasting of speech by representatives of proscribed terrorist organisations. The applicant journalists challenged the legality of the directives on the ground that they . .
Appeal from – Regina v Bow County Court, Ex Parte Pelling CA 17-Dec-1999
Access to the court given to a McKenzie Friend should normally be given in matters in open court, but when it came to matters being heard in chambers, the judge had discretion as to who he would hear. The right is in any event that of the litigant, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85131
Access to the court given to a McKenzie Friend should normally be given in matters in open court, but when it came to matters being heard in chambers, the judge had discretion as to who he would hear. The right is in any event that of the litigant, and not of the McKenzie friend, who must remember the division between friend and advocate. A judge should normally give reasons for refusing to allow a friend to attend.
The court summarised its conclusions: ‘(1) In relation to proceedings in public, a litigant in person should be allowed to have the assistance of a McKenzie friend unless the judge is satisfied that fairness and the interests of justice do not require a litigant in person to have the assistance of a McKenzie friend. (2) The position is the same where the proceedings are in chambers unless the proceedings are in private. (3) Where the proceedings are in private then the nature of the proceedings which make it appropriate for them to be heard in private may make it undesirable in the interests of justice for a McKenzie friend to assist. (4) A judge should give reasons for refusing to allow a litigant in person the assistance of a McKenzie friend. (5) The assistance of a McKenzie friend is available for the benefit of the litigant in person and whether or not a McKenzie friend is paid or unpaid for his services, he has no right to provide those services; the court is solely concerned with the interests of the litigant in person.’
Lord Woolf MR, Brooke and Robert Walker LJJ
Times 18-Aug-1999, Gazette 17-Dec-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 2004, [1999] 1 WLR 1807, [1999] 2 FLR 1126
England and Wales
Explained – McKenzie v McKenzie CA 10-Jul-1970
Mr McKenzie was a litigant in person who wished to be assisted by a young Australian barrister, gratuitously, in the conduct of his case by sitting beside the husband in Court and prompting him. The hearing was in open Court . The friend’s conduct . .
See Also – Regina v Bow County Court ex parte Dr Pelling Admn 30-Jun-1998
Dr Pelling applied for leave to challenge a refusal of permission to him to assist an applicant as a McKenzie friend. . .
Appeal from – Regina v Bow County Court Ex parte Pelling QBD 8-Mar-1999
Mr Pelling sought to act as a McKenzie friend. On being refused he sought judicial review of he decision to exclude him.
Held: Review was refused. A McKenzie friend has himself no locus to challenge a decision by a county court judge not to . .
Cited – In Re H (A Minor) (Chambers Proceedings: Mckenzie Friend) CA 6-May-1997
A father sought ex parte, permission to appeal against orders in the county court. The first had refused to allow him to have a McKenzie friend in an application for contact to his daughter. The Recorder had taken the view that because the . .
Cited – Noueiri v Paragon Finance Plc (Practice Note) CA 19-Sep-2001
Courts should be careful before allowing unqualified persons to represent other parties at court. Pleadings and similar documents must be signed by the party or their qualified legal representative. Others signing them may be in contempt of court . .
Cited – O and others (Children); In re O (Children), In re W-R (a Child), In re W (Children) CA 22-Jun-2005
In each case litigants in person had sought to be allowed to have the assistance and services of a Mackenzie friend in children cases. In one case, the court had not allowed confidential documents to be disclosed to the friend.
Held: The . .
See Also – Pelling, Regina (on the Application Of) v Bow County Court CA 22-Jan-2001
Application for permission to appeal from refusal of leave to bring judicial review. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85133
From January 2000, applications in company matters need not be heard only by a companies judge, and matters which had previously been listed on Mondays for this purpose need no longer be so listed. Urgent applications would also be dealt with by the applications judge.
Times 19-Jan-2000
England and Wales
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.84999
Guidance on the acceptability of photocopies of unreported judgments in the CA.
Times 22-May-1996
England and Wales
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85000
Amends original statement to clarify duty of counsel to ensure that he has received proper instructions.
Gazette 27-May-1992
England and Wales
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85001
Patents court judges may hear summonses by telephone unless substantial point.
Times 08-Nov-1995
England and Wales
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85003
Reserved judgments handed down should be marked as such when subject to revision, and could be copied and published freely and without charge once the embargo on copies delivered to parties had been lifted.
Times 02-Dec-1998, [1999] 1 WLR 1
England and Wales
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85005
New shorter target hearing dates for chancery matters and procedures.
Gazette 29-Jun-1994
England and Wales
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85006
Practice direction ensuring reduced hearing times for Court of Appeal matters.
Independent 02-Oct-1995
England and Wales
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85008
Refresher fee includes counsel noting and transcribing court’s judgment.
Ind Summary 24-Jan-1994
England and Wales
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.84992
Commercial list Judge’s may suggest alternative dispute resolution on first hearing.
Times 11-Jun-1996
England and Wales
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.84996
The Commercial Court wishes to encourage use of Alternative Dispute Resolution.
Times 17-Dec-1993
England and Wales
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.84998
Extra Fees not allowed to counsel for taking note of immediate judgment.
Times 30-Dec-1993
England and Wales
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.84983
Practice Note by Official Solicitor setting out the procedure to be followed when considering the sterilisation of a Minor.
Times 22-Jun-1993
England and Wales
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.84984
Directions given for conduct of white finger PI actions.
Times 13-Jan-1994
England and Wales
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.84986
Counsel’s brief fee includes administration of obtaining note of judgment.
Gazette 15-Jun-1994
England and Wales
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.84988
Detailed instructions for preparation of skeleton arguments and bundles and list.
Times 27-Oct-1994
England and Wales
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.84968
Describe procedures to apply to HC to withdraw treatment to PVS patients.
Gazette 18-May-1994
England and Wales
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.84990
The procedures set down by the new CPR Part 23 should be followed in the interim applications and companies courts. Those appearing should also make themselves aware of the amendments in the new Guide to Chancery Practice.
Times 04-May-1999
England and Wales
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.84977
The defendant resisted accelerated possession proceedings brought for rent arrears under his assured shorthold tenancy, by a private housing association who was a successor to a public authority.
Held: Once the human rights issue was raised, the judge had an obligation to deal with it. He did not have an obligation to examine housing policy in detail. The landlord was exercising a public function, and was subject to the Act, which for this purpose should be construed widely. There had to be a procedure for recovering possession, and the restricted powers of the court were legitimate and proportionate, and did not interfere with the defendant’s right to family life. The court should first ascertain if there was any breach of the convention before seeking to interpret a statute to comply with the Act.
The fact that there may be hard cases as a result of a measure does not mean that that measure is incompatible with any convention rights.
Lord Woolf CJ, May and Jonathan Parker LJJ
Gazette 11-May-2001, Gazette 07-Jun-2001, Times 21-Jun-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 595, [2002] QB 48, [2001] All ER (D) 210
Human Rights Act 1998 3 6 8, Housing Act 1988 21(4)
England and Wales
Cited – Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza CA 5-Nov-2002
The applicant sought to succeed to the tenancy of his deceased homosexual partner as his partner rather than as a member of his family.
Held: A court is bound by any decision within the normal hierachy of domestic authority as to the meaning . .
Cited – Wilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry; Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (No 2) HL 10-Jul-2003
The respondent appealed against a finding that the provision which made a loan agreement completely invalid for lack of compliance with the 1974 Act was itself invalid under the Human Rights Act since it deprived the respondent lender of its . .
Cited – London Borough of Harrow v Qazi HL 31-Jul-2003
The applicant had held a joint tenancy of the respondent. His partner gave notice and left, and the property was taken into possession. The claimant claimed restoration of his tenancy saying the order did not respect his right to a private life and . .
Cited – Hampshire County Council v Beer (T/A Hammer Trout Farm); Regina (Beer) v Hampshire Farmers’ Market Ltd CA 21-Jul-2003
The applicant had been refused a licence to operate within the farmer’s market. It sought judicial review of the rejection, but the respondent argued that it was a private company not susceptible to review.
Held: The decisions of the Farmers . .
Cited – Pay v Lancashire Probation Service EAT 29-Oct-2003
The appellant challenged refusal of his claim for unfair dismissal. A probation officer, he had business interests in fire breathing and bondage merchandising which the service said were incompatible with his duties, and dismissed him. He complained . .
Cited – Kay and Another v London Borough of Lambeth and others; Leeds City Council v Price and others and others HL 8-Mar-2006
In each case the local authority sought to recover possession of its own land. In the Lambeth case, they asserted this right as against an overstaying former tenant, and in the Leeds case as against gypsies. In each case the occupiers said that the . .
Cited – Desnousse v London Borough of Newham and others CA 17-May-2006
The occupier had been granted a temporary licence by the authority under the homelessness provisions whilst it made its assessment. The assessment concluded that she had become homeless intentionally, and therefore terminated the licence and set out . .
Cited – Coombes, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another Admn 8-Mar-2010
The landlord council brought proceedings for possession. The tenant (C) had remained in possession after his mother’s death, but enjoyed no second statutory succession. He had lived there since 1954 when he was six. C sought a declaration of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.84800
The thirty day time limit for the forwarding of a case stated is mandatory. The Court of Appeal has no discretion to extend the time limit. Millett LJ analysed the position by reference to the traditional dichotomy of directory or mandatory provisions, saying: ‘The question whether strict compliance with a statutory requirement is necessary has arisen again and again in the cases. The question is not whether the requirement should be complied with; of course it should: the question is what consequences should attend a failure to comply. The difficulty arises from the common practice of the legislature of stating that something ‘shall’ be done (which means that it ‘must’ be done) without stating what are to be the consequences if it is not done. The Court has dealt with the problem by devising a distinction between those requirements which are said to be ‘mandatory’ (or ‘imperative’ or ‘obligatory’) and those which are said to be merely ‘directory’ (a curious use of the word which in this context is taken as equivalent to ‘permissive’). Where the requirement is mandatory, it must be strictly complied with; failure to comply invalidates everything that follows. Where it is merely directory, it should still be complied with, and there may be sanctions for disobedience; but failure to comply does not invalidate what follows.’ and ‘The taxpayer’s argument, therefore, comes to this: that the requirement that the Case Stated be transmitted to the High Court is mandatory; but the requirement that this be done within thirty days is not. This is not an easy proposition to accept. Where statute requires an act to be done in a particular manner, it may be possible to regard the requirement that the act be done as mandatory but the requirement that it be done in a particular manner as merely directory. In such a case the statutory requirement can be treated as substantially complied with if the act is done in a manner which is not less satisfactory having regard to the purpose of the legislature in imposing the requirement. But that is not the case with a stipulation as to time. If the only time limit which is prescribed is not obligatory, there is no time limit at all. Doing an act late is not the equivalent of doing it in time . . This probably cannot be laid down as a universal rule, but in my judgment it must be the normal one. Unless the Court is given a power to extend the time, or some other and final mandatory time limit can be spelled out of the statute, a time limit cannot be relaxed without being dispensed with altogether; and it cannot be dispensed with altogether unless the substantive requirement itself can be dispensed with.’
Ind Summary 11-Jul-1994, Gazette 13-Jul-1994, Times 08-Jun-1994, [1994] 3 All ER 731, [1994] EWCA Civ 27, [1994] STC 689
Taxes Management Act 1970 56(4)
England and Wales
Cited – 7 Strathay Gardens Ltd v Pointstar Shipping and Finance Ltd and Another CA 15-Dec-2004
The tenants served a notice on the landlord to enfanchise their properties. The landlord’s counter-notice failed to state whether any estate management scheme existed. The tenants said the counter-notice was invalid.
Held: The landlord’s . .
Cited – JJB Sports Plc, Regina (On the Application of) v Telford and Wrekin Borough Council Admn 5-Nov-2008
The authority’s demand notice was served later than was practicable. The company now appealed against a liability order.
Held: The ratepayer’s appeal by way of Case Stated was dismissed. ‘demand notices must be served by the relevant authority . .
Cited – Matheson v Mazars Solutions Ltd EAT 16-Dec-2003
EAT Practice and Procedure – Application. The application had been presented timeously at the ET in Edinburgh, but was out of time when retransmitted to Glasgow. The tribunal had found the Edinburgh office to be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.84684
The requirement is that documents must be served at the address nominated for this purpose by the prospective defendant under the rules. Where a solicitor was so nominated, it was not open to the claimant to serve papers at a different address. In this case, the claimant solicitors having noticed their mistake had not done whatever was in their power to correct the situation, and the claim was properly struck out. Rule 6.8 dealt with the idea of substituted service, and not with the correction of errors in service.
Times 14-Feb-2001, [2002] 1 WLR 1043, [2001] EWCA Civ 127
England and Wales
Cited – Cranfield and Another v Bridgegrove Ltd; Claussen v Yeates etc CA 14-May-2003
In each case claims had been late in being served and extensions in time were sought and refused.
Held: The recent authorities were examined. The words ‘has been unable to serve’ in CPR 7.6(3)(a) include all cases where the court has failed to . .
Applied – Firstdale Ltd v Quinton ComC 5-Aug-2004
In the course of a long dispute, the defendant’s solicitors had indicated that they would accept service of proceedings. Just before the limitation period expired, the papers were served directly in the client. The defendants solicitors said that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.84161
Documents held by an insurance company after settling a personal injuries claim by the same claimant but as regards a later unconnected claim were admissible, since they went to an issue in the later case, namely the nature and extent of the injury from the first occasion. They were admissible even though they had been used as part of without prejudice negotiations.
Waller, Dyson LJJ
Times 01-May-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 486, [2001] 4 All ER 345, [2002] RTR 2
England and Wales
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.84140
A party’s oath sworn on discovery of documents is deemed to be conclusive, and the deponent cannot be cross-examined on it.
Independent 23-Jun-1993, Times 24-Jun-1993
England and Wales
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.83192
The plaintiffs, with the leave of the court, had obtained garnishee and charging orders nisi against the debtor 11 and a half years after they had obtained a consent judgment.
Held: An application by the judgment debtor to set aside the orders on the ground that they were statute barred under section 24(1) should be refused. A judgment can be enforced after six years, but not any claim for interest on that judgment. Execution was not a fresh action and so was not caught by the statutory restriction. Execution has historically been treated other than as a separate action. s24(1) does not apply to proceedings by way of execution of a judgment in the same action: the expression ‘action upon any judgment’ in s24(1) means, as it did in s2(4) of the 1939 Act, bringing a ‘fresh action’ upon a judgment for another judgment. It did not include the execution of an existing judgment, which could proceed despite the expiration of more than 6 years from the judgment.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
Times 24-Aug-1998, Gazette 16-Sep-1998, [1998] UKHL 34, [1998] 3 All ER 897, [1998] 3 WLR 501, [1999] 1 AC 329
Limitation Act 1980 24(1) 24(2), Supreme Court of Judicature (1873) Amendment Act 1875
Appeal from – Lowsley and Another v Forbes CA 21-Mar-1996
The statutory time limit under the Limitation Act applied only to the right to take substantive proceedings and had nothing whatever to do with the procedural machinery for enforcing a judgment when one was obtained. The Act of 1875 brought about a . .
Cited – W T Lamb and Sons v Rider CA 1948
The judge at first instance had rescinded the master’s order giving leave to the judgment creditor to proceed to levy execution although six years had passed since the judgment. On appeal the judgment creditor challenged the validity of the rule of . .
Cited – Black-Clawson International Ltd v Papierwerke Waldhof Aschaffenburg AG HL 5-Mar-1975
Statute’s Mischief May be Inspected
The House considered limitations upon them in reading statements made in the Houses of Parliament when construing a statute.
Held: It is rare that a statute can be properly interpreted without knowing the legislative object. The courts may . .
Cited – Ridgeway Motors (Isleworth) Ltd v Alts Ltd CA 10-Feb-2005
The company appelaed a refusal of the judge to strike out a winding up petition. They said the petition was based upon a judgment which was now time barred. The petitioner replied that such a petition was not an action under the section.
Held: . .
Cited – A v Hoare; H v Suffolk County Council, Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs intervening; X and Y v London Borough of Wandsworth CA 12-Apr-2006
Each claimant sought damages for a criminal assault for which the defendant was said to be responsible. Each claim was to be out of the six year limitation period. In the first claim, the proposed defendant had since won a substantial sum from the . .
Cited – Harding v Wealands HL 5-Jul-2006
Claim in UK for Accident in Australia
The claimant had been a passenger in a car driven by his now partner. They had an accident in New South Wales. The car was insured in Australia. He sought leave to sue in England and Wales because Australian law would limit the damages.
Held: . .
Cited – Yorkshire Bank Finance Ltd v Mulhall and Another CA 24-Oct-2008
The bank had obtained a judgement against the defendant, and took a charging order. Nothing happened for more than twelve years, and the defendant now argued that the order and debt was discharged.
Held: The enforcement of the charging order . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.83230
Where a party applied to court for an ex parte order, counsel had direct duties to the court, and also the supporting legal team and clients had continuing and overlapping duties. There was little to be gained by trying to analyze these things too closely to apportion blame. Here counsel had applied to and misadvised the court on the practice, and documents produced were unreliable and possibly from an unlawful source. Where a defending party risked contempt proceedings, and was ordered to file affidavit evidence in respect of that matter, any claim for privilege against self-incrimination should be made before the affidavit is made. It was inappropriate to be asked first to file the affidavit, and then to ask the court to inspect and decide. The privilege was available to be exercised in contempt proceedings within the same proceedings as the main action.
Mummery LJ said that: ‘It cannot be emphasised too strongly that in an urgent without notice hearing for a freezing order as well as for a search order or any other form of interim injunction, there is a high duty to make full, fair and accurate disclosure of material information to the court and to draw the court’s attention to significant factual, legal and procedural aspects of the case. It is the particular duty of the advocate to see that the correct legal procedures and forms are used, that a written skeleton argument and properly drafted order are prepared by him personally and lodged with the court before the oral hearing, and that at the hearing the court’s attention is drawn by him to unusual features of the evidence adduced, to the applicable law and to the formalities and procedure to be observed.’
Robert Walker LJ discussed the apparent gathering of evidence by unlawful means and said that this has not in general led to its exclusion under the English law of evidence. It was far from obvious that concerns of this nature ‘should be added to the heavy responsibilities already undertaken by lawyers who are making a without notice application, except perhaps in circumstances where the evidence in question is of central importance to the application’. Even when the evidence is of central importance, for example evidence relating to the sale of contraband goods in a case of piracy of intellectual property rights, trap orders and other conduct involving impersonation or deception have been commonplace in the Chancery Division for a century or more, and do not seem to have attracted censure.
Mummery LJ, Robert Walker LJ
Times 15-Feb-2000, Gazette 27-Jan-2000, Times 03-Dec-1999, [2000] EWCA Civ 9, [2000] 1 WLR 1443
England and Wales
On Appeal from – Memory Corporation Plc and Another v Sidhu ChD 21-May-1999
Where counsel proposing an asset freezing order fails to mention a case relevant to the issue, the order need not thereby be discharged. This is as against a failure to disclose a material fact, which would lead to a discharge of the order. . .
Approved – Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Al Alawi and Others ComC 3-Dec-1998
The claimants had brought proceedings against their former sales manager for accepting bribes and secret commission from outsiders. In support of their claim the claimants had obtained a search and seizure order and a worldwide freezing injunction, . .
See Also – Memory Corporation Plc, Datrontech Hong Kong Limited v Sukhbir Singh Sidhu, Sunsar Limited ChD 3-Nov-1999
. .
Cited – John Louis Carter Fourie v Allan Le Roux and others CA 7-Mar-2005
The defendant’s company in South Africa had become insolvent and the claimant had recovered judgment for arrears of rent. They obtained a freezing order against the defendant. The defendant appealed saying the court did not have jurisdiction, and . .
Cited – Fourie v Le Roux and others HL 24-Jan-2007
The appellant, liquidator of two South African companies, had made a successful without notice application for an asset freezing order. He believed that the defendants had stripped the companies of substantial assets. The order was set aside for . .
Cited – Franses v Al Assad and others ChD 26-Oct-2007
The claimant had obtained a freezing order over the proceeds of sale of a property held by solicitors. The claimant was liquidator of a company, and an allegation of wrongful trading had been made against the sole director and defendant. The . .
Cited – Tchenguiz and Others v Imerman CA 29-Jul-2010
Anticipating a refusal by H to disclose assets in ancillary relief proceedings, W’s brothers wrongfully accessed H’s computers to gather information. The court was asked whether the rule in Hildebrand remained correct. W appealed against an order . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.83628
The plaintiff sought to amend a conspiracy claim, based on arrangements to publish defamatory statements, by adding a claim for damage to reputation and feelings.
Held: Such a claim could not be made in conspiracy. A Plaintiff’s motives in commencing proceedings, as to whether they constituted an abuse of process, are only assessable by the judge at trial, and not on an interlocutory application. The action was re-instated. ‘[N]o one has a right to a reputation which is unmerited. Accordingly one can only suffer an injury to reputation if what is said is false. In defamation the falsity of the libel or slander is presumed; but justification is a complete defence.’
Dillon LJ said: ‘In my judgment, if the plaintiffs want to claim damages for injury to reputation or injury to feelings, they must do so in an action for defamation, not in this very different form of action. Injury to reputation and to feelings is, with very limited exceptions, a field of its own and the established principles in that field are not to be side-stepped by alleging a different cause of action. Justification, truth, is an absolute defence to an action for defamation and it would, in my judgment, be lamentable if a plaintiff could recover damages against defendants who had combined to tell the truth about the plaintiff and so had destroyed his unwarranted reputation. But that would be the consequence if damages for injury to reputation and injury to feelings could be claimed in a ‘lawful means’ conspiracy action. To tell the truth would be wrongful. I see no difference in this regard between general reputation and commercial or business reputation.’
Stuart-Smith, Dillon LJ
Gazette 06-Oct-1993, Gazette 29-Sep-1993, [1993] 1 WLR 1489
England and Wales
Cited – Foaminol Laboratories Ltd v British Artide Plastics Ltd 1941
There is no justification for artificially excising from the damages recoverable for breach of contract that part of the financial loss which might or might not be the subject of a successful claim in defamation. A claim for mere loss of reputation . .
Cited – Greene v Associated Newspapers Ltd CA 5-Nov-2004
The claimant appealed against refusal of an order restraining publication by the respondent of an article about her. She said that it was based upon an email falsely attributed to her.
Held: ‘in an action for defamation a court will not impose . .
Cited – Ashley and Another v Sussex Police CA 27-Jul-2006
The deceased was shot by police officers raiding his flat in 1998. The claimants sought damages for his estate. They had succeeded in claiming damages for false imprisonment, but now appealed dismissal of their claim for damages for assault and . .
Cited – Hannon and Another v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Another ChD 16-May-2014
The claimants alleged infringement of their privacy, saying that the defendant newspaper had purchased private information from police officers emplyed by the second defendant, and published them. The defendants now applied for the claims to be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.83189
The claimant asserted disability discrimination, and consented to a medical report for the purpose of the claim. He was then to be obliged to consent to its release to the other party. To order otherwise would be contrary to the need for expeditious and efficient litigation.
Pill, Schiemann LJJ, Sir Murray Stuart-Smith
Times 04-Jul-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ B1, [2000] IRLR 699
England and Wales
Cited – Kapadia v London Borough of Lambeth EAT 19-Nov-1998
The Tribunal lifted the stay of the claimant’s claim of disability discrimination. . .
Appeal from – Kapadia v London Borough of Lambeth EAT 27-May-1999
The claimant appealed against rejection of his claim for disability discrimination which had been on the ground that his condition did not amount to a disability within section 1(1). He suffered from anxiety, stress, tension and depression.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.82670
The requirement that a penal notice must have been endorsed upon an order before an application is made to commit the respondent for contempt, was not absolute. In exceptional and clear cases only, as here, such an order could be made, but this should be discouraged.
Times 10-Mar-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 4
County Court Rules 1981 Order 29 Rule 1(3)
England and Wales
Cited – Hydropool Hot Tubs Ltd v Roberjot and Another ChD 4-Feb-2011
The parties disputed ownership of a customer database. An interim order had been made prohibiting the defendants’ from its use pending trial. A mandatory order had been made for the disclosure of a list of contacts made, and the claimant complained . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.82578
A social worker may disclose admissions made during investigation into child abuse, to the police without the court’s permission, where the information had not been incorporated in the welfare report filed at the court. The rule (against disclosure) applies only to documents which have actually been filed with the court and ‘protects only the pieces of paper and not the contents’.
Butler-Sloss LJ, Mummery LJ, Judge LJ
Times 08-Apr-1998, [1998] 2 FLR 135, [1998] EWCA Civ 553, [1999] 1 WLR 205, [1998] 2 All ER 801, [1998] 2 FCR 405, [1998] Fam Law 387
Family Proceedings Rules 1991 4.23
England and Wales
Cited – Kent County Council v The Mother, The Father, B (By Her Children’s Guardian); Re B (A Child) (Disclosure) FD 19-Mar-2004
The council had taken the applicant’s children into care alleging that the mother had harmed them. In the light of the subsequent cases casting doubt on such findings, the mother sought the return of her children. She applied now that the hearings . .
Cited – Doctor A and Others v Ward and Another FD 8-Jan-2010
Parents wished to publicise the way care proceedings had been handled, naming the doctors, social workers and experts some of whom had been criticised. Their names had been shown as initials so far, and interim contra mundum orders had been made . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.82278
When considering an application for a re-hearing of a County Court action in order to consider and admit new evidence, the county court and High Court practice is now the same and the judge should consider the list of questions in Ladd v Marshall, although the new procedural environment required that they be implemented less rigorously. The new evidence should not have been available at the time of the original trial, should be significant in its effect, and credible.
Hale LJ said: ‘The power to reopen a case after final judgment because of fresh evidence should be the same whatever the procedural route adopted. It would be most unjust if a party to county court proceedings could reopen matters when a party to High Court proceedings could not.’
Swinton Thomas LJ, Sedley LJ, Hale LJ
Times 31-Aug-2000, [2000] 1 WLR 2318, [2000] CPLR 588, [2001] CP Rep 38, [2000] EWCA Civ 3013
England and Wales
Applied – 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 – Zarvos v Pradhan and another CA 7-Mar-2003
The landlord had occupied the premises as a restaurant, but subsequently let it to the respondents. The landlord opposed renewal of the tenancy saying that it intended to recommence trading, and now appealed a finding in favour of the tenant.
Cited – Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Paulin ChD 13-May-2005
The director sought to appeal an order disqualifying him form acting as a company director.
Held: The disqualification proceedings were properly charactised as insolvency proceedings and therefore there was no requirement for permission to . .
Cited – Al-Koronky and Another v Time-Life Entertainment Group Ltd and Another CA 28-Jul-2006
The claimants sought damages after publication of articles alleging severe mistreatment of a servant. One defendant had settled and apologised, but the defendant publisher and author had persisted with the allegation. The claimants who lived in . .
Cited – Ali v Lane and Another CA 21-Nov-2006
The parties disputed the boundary between their neighbouring plots of land.
Held: In the modern law the conveyance (parchment or not) is undoubtedly the starting point. Where information contained in the conveyance is unclear or ambiguous, 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 – Pritchard Englefield (A Firm) and Another v Steinberg QBD 11-Feb-2011
The defendant sought to set aside summary judgment against him in a defamation action relating to a publication on the internet. The action had been heard over several years with the defendant being unrepresented, ill or abroad.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.81341
The claimant had been made bankrupt, and when she sued the defendant, was challenged as to her standing. She obtained an assignment of the right of action from her trustee in bankruptcy. She then sought to amend her pleadings under the rule. It was held that ‘capacity’ in this context required some alteration from one representative capacity to another. Here the alteration was not in fact a change in capacity, and accordingly she could not use the rule as a basis for amending her pleadings.
Arden LJ
Times 10-Jul-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 957, [2001] 1 WLR 1594
England and Wales
Cited – Roberts v Gill and Co Solicitors and Others SC 19-May-2010
The claimant beneficiary in the estate sought damages against solicitors who had acted for the claimant’s brother, the administrator, saying they had allowed him to take control of the assets in the estate. The will provided that property was to be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.81224
Where a person funded another’s court action as an act of charity, it should be exceptional to order that third party to contribute to the costs of the successful opponent. Nevertheless there could be no absolute rule against such orders. There is a clear distinction between those who act in this way as pure funders, and those who funded litigation from some contractual obligation. Another relevant consideration was whether the funder had information to suggest that the claimant had a reasonable prospect of success, or whether he acted as some quixotic philanthropist.
The Hon Mr Justice Morland
Times 25-Jul-2001, [2001] EWHC QB 389
Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 4(1)
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.81197
Where one party was a litigant in person and the other was legally represented, the legal advisers had a duty to inform the court and the other party where a patent mistake had been made. The small claim had been referred to full hearing by mistake and not to arbitration. The claim for andpound;1000 by the LIP was mistakenly tried rather than arbitrated as a small claim, the award of costs against plaintiff should be set aside. It was wrong of a legally assisted party to take advantage.
Thorpe, Mantell LJJ
Times 16-Jul-1998, Gazette 28-May-1998, [1998] EWCH Civ 773
England and Wales
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.81137
A non-party applied to inspect written submissions and documents forming part of the evidence, including witness statements which had been referred to in open court but not read out. The application was refused at first instance.
Held: The appeal was allowed in part. Historically there had been no right, and there was no current provision, enabling a member of the public to see, examine or copy a document on the basis that it had been referred to in court or read by the judge. No recent development in court procedures justified the court in contemplating such an exercise under its inherent jurisdiction. On the other hand, the arguments for such an exercise in respect of the written submissions of counsel were stronger. A non-party to an action is entitled to inspect and copy written opening submissions and skeletons referred to by the judge during the trial, but not to documents merely referred to in the judge’s reading list and in affidavits.
Potter LJ said: ‘If, as in the instant case, an opening speech is dispensed with in favour of a written opening (or a skeleton argument treated as such) which is not read out, or even summarised, in open court before the calling of the evidence, it seems to me impossible to avoid the conclusion that an important part of the judicial process, namely the instruction of the judge in the issues of the case, has in fact taken place in the privacy of his room and not in open court. In such a case I have no doubt that, on an application from a member of the press or public in the course of the trial, it is within the inherent jurisdiction of the court to require that there be made available to such applicant a copy of the written opening or skeleton argument submitted to the judge.’
Butler-Sloss, Potter LJJ, Sir Patrick Russell
Times 13-Jan-1999, Gazette 10-Feb-1999, [1998] EWCA Civ 3538, [1999] WLR 984
England and Wales
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80840
Medical history disclosure was not limited to injury since the matters revealed could affect earnings losses claim.
Gazette 21-Apr-1993, Independent 10-Mar-1993
England and Wales
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80179
Photocopies of documents are discoverable even if they may not be themselves good evidence of the documents of which they are copies.
Gazette 19-Feb-1992
England and Wales
See Also – Dubai Bank Ltd v Galadari CA 1990
A document created with a view to its being submitted to solicitors for advice does not, despite its purpose, attract privilege, even though the ‘pre-existing documents, and even documents on public records, have been selected by a solicitor for the . .
See Also – Dubai Bank Ltd v Galadari and Others (No 5) 25-Jun-1990
A British court can legitimately decide whether a foreign plaintiff company was lawfully incorporated. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80150
An application for a Mareva injunction made ex parte was exceptionally justified when a partner failed to explain unaccounted for receipts after a full opportunity had been given, and there was no logical or innocent basis for the concealment of receipts.
Times 18-Jun-1998
England and Wales
See Also – Don King Productions Inc v Warren and Others ChD 13-Apr-1998
Where partnership terms required benefit of all contracts to be assigned to the partnership, this included unassignable personal contracts which were to be held in trust for partnership, unless stated otherwise.
Lightman J said: ‘The existence . .
See Also – Don King Productions Inc v Warren; Roberts; Centurion Promotions Limited (Formerly Sports Network Limited); Sports Network Usa, Inc; Time Warner Entertainment Company, Lp and Sport International, Inc CA 19-Nov-1998
Contracts between the members of a firm and third parties, and which were subject to the partnership contract, but which were expressed to be personal and incapable of assignment, were still held on trust for the partnership, and renewals made . .
See Also – Don King Productions Inc v Warren; Roberts; Centurion Promotions Limited (Formerly Sports Network Limited); Sports Network Usa, Inc; Time Warner Entertainment Company, Lp and Sport International, Inc CA 19-Nov-1998
Contracts between the members of a firm and third parties, and which were subject to the partnership contract, but which were expressed to be personal and incapable of assignment, were still held on trust for the partnership, and renewals made . .
See Also – Don King Productions Inc v Warren and Others ChD 13-Apr-1998
Where partnership terms required benefit of all contracts to be assigned to the partnership, this included unassignable personal contracts which were to be held in trust for partnership, unless stated otherwise.
Lightman J said: ‘The existence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80094
Interlocutory direction by judge displaces the automatic directions timetable.
Times 19-Jan-1996, Gazette 21-Feb-1996
County Court Rules 1981 17(11)
England and Wales
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80108
The claimants had brought proceedings against their former sales manager for accepting bribes and secret commission from outsiders. In support of their claim the claimants had obtained a search and seizure order and a worldwide freezing injunction, apparently using their agents to impersonate the defendant in order to discover information about his Swiss bank accounts. This was in breach both of Swiss law and an offence under section 5(6) of the 1984 Act. The defendant applied to discharge the order and the freezing injunction and also applied for disclosure of reports and associated documents relating to the investigation of his affairs by the claimants’ agents. The claimants said the documents were privileged.
Held: A document obtained unlawfully or even criminally by investigators appointed by solicitors, was so tainted that it could not benefit from legal professional privilege and so was discoverable. There was a ‘strong prima facie case of criminal or fraudulent conduct’ by the claimants’ investigative agents: ‘But it seems to me that criminal or fraudulent conduct for the purpose of acquiring evidence in or for litigation cannot properly escape the consequence that any documents generated by or reporting on such conduct and which are relevant to the issues in the case are discoverable and fall outside the legitimate area of legal professional privilege . . . Ultimately, it seems to me that criminal or fraudulent conduct undertaken for the purpose of litigation falls on the same side of the line as advising on or setting up criminal or fraudulent transactions yet to be undertaken, as distinct from the entirely legitimate professional business of advising and assisting clients on their past conduct, however iniquitous’
Rix J
Times 06-Jan-1999, [1999] 1 WLR 1964, [1998] EWHC 1202 (Comm), [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 478, [1999] 1 All ER 703, [1999] 1 All ER (Comm) 1
England and Wales
Confirmed – Kuruma v The Queen PC 8-Dec-1954
(Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa) The defendant appealed against his conviction for unlawful possession of ammunition, saying that the evidence had been obtained by unlawful means, and should not have been admitted against him.
Held: Lord . .
See Also – Dubai Aluminium Company Ltd v Salaam and Others QBD 17-Jul-1998
A partner is vicariously liable for the acts of his partner in equity as well as in tort. Where a partner acted as accessory to a breach of trust he acted as a constructive trustee. A settlement of and action on this basis was enforceable in a later . .
Approved – Kuwait Airways Corporation v Iraqi Airways Company (No 6) CA 16-Mar-2005
The defendant company appealed against an order allowing inspection of documents for which litigation privilege had been claimed. It was said that the defendants had been involved in perjury in previous proceedings between the parties.
Held: . .
Cited – Hughes v Carratu International Plc QBD 19-Jul-2006
The claimant wished to bring an action against the defendant enquiry agent, saying that it had obtained unlawful access to details of his bank accounts, and now sought disclosure of documents. The defendant denied wrongdoing, and said it had . .
Approved – Memory Corporation v Sidhu (No 2) CA 3-Dec-1999
Where a party applied to court for an ex parte order, counsel had direct duties to the court, and also the supporting legal team and clients had continuing and overlapping duties. There was little to be gained by trying to analyze these things too . .
Applied – Tchenguiz and Others v Imerman CA 29-Jul-2010
Anticipating a refusal by H to disclose assets in ancillary relief proceedings, W’s brothers wrongfully accessed H’s computers to gather information. The court was asked whether the rule in Hildebrand remained correct. W appealed against an order . .
See Also – Dubai Aluminium Company Limited v Salaam and others CA 7-Apr-2000
The liability of a firm for the wrongful acts of one partner is not limited to tortious acts creating liability in common law, but includes all wrongful acts or omissions, including a knowing assistance in a fraudulent scheme. A solicitor who . .
See Also – Dubai Aluminium Company Limited v Salaam and Others HL 5-Dec-2002
Partners Liable for Dishonest Act of Solicitor
A solicitor had been alleged to have acted dishonestly, having assisted in a fraudulent breach of trust by drafting certain documents. Contributions to the damages were sought from his partners.
Held: The acts complained of were so close to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80147
Stay of proceedings only to used as last resort where no alternatives.
Times 01-Jun-1994, (1994) 158 JP 602
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80011
Counsel should not advance arguments under the Human Rights legislation which were without merit, and judges should be robust in rejecting references without merit. Where one party was unhappy with a joint expert’s report, he should nevertheless be free to appoint his own further expert in order to have a fair trial.
Aldous, May LJJ
Times 17-May-2000, Gazette 31-May-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 508, [2000] PIQR 193, [2000] CPLR 462, [2000] 1 WLR 1382
England and Wales
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79798
A request for security for costs from a foreign EC company is discriminatory and against the Treaty.
Times 10-Oct-1996, C-43/95, [1996] EUECJ C-43/95
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79816
A court may apply forum non conveniens doctrine as between UK jurisdictions.
Ind Summary 10-Jul-1995, Times 08-Jun-1995
Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982
England and Wales
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79707
Later law change on admitting video evidence justified case re-opening.
Times 24-Nov-1994
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79677
Some agents had policies against which there were likely to be various calls, either because several claims were being pursued against the same agents by different Lloyd’s Names, or because the policies were group policies covering several agents against each of which claims were being pursued, by different Lloyd’s Names. The essential issue was whether each claim ascertained as against an agent exhausted the agent’s insurance cover pro tanto, or whether all claims falling individually within a policy’s scope ranked or could be treated as ranking pari passu against the policy in whatever order they were ascertained against the insured agent or agents.
Held: Lloyds claims are to have priority of payment according to time of orders. The statutory transfer under the Act occurred notwithstanding that the insured’s liability to the third party had not yet been extinguished. The statutory transfer to the third party of the insured’s right against his insurer takes place at the moment of his bankruptcy.
Phillips J said: ‘In a situation of solvency, the ranking of claims against the EandO underwriter depends upon the order in which the third party Names establish liability against the assured by judgment, arbitration award or settlement, thereby giving rise to a vested right on the part of the assured to indemnity in accordance with the terms of the cover. The same is true in a situation of insolvency. If the insolvency occurs after third party Names have established quantified liability, the right or rights to indemnity that were thereby established in the assured agent will be transferred to the Names upon the assured becoming formally insolvent. If quantified liability has not been established at the date of insolvency, a third party Name asserting a claim will have transferred under the Act merely an inchoate or contingent right. If before that Name establishes a quantified claim, other quantified claims are established which exhaust the cover, his contingent right will be rendered nugatory.’ Phillips J summarised the relationship between the insurers and the solicitors acting: ‘Where underwriters instruct a solicitor to conduct the defence, they thereby create the relationship of solicitor and client between the solicitor and the assured . . The normal consequence of this is that the assured becomes liable to pay the solicitor’s costs, even if the underwriters were also liable for those costs . . Those costs are properly deemed to be incurred by the assured, even if they are funded by underwriters. . .’
Phillips J
Times 27-Jan-1995, [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 437
Appeal from – Cox v Bankside Members Agency Ltd and Others CA 16-May-1995
Successful Lloyds names were entitled to enforce their claims in the normal time sequence. The transfer of the rights of the insured against the insurer under section 1(1) the 1930 Act takes place on the event of insolvency, even if the insured’s . .
Cited – Centre Reinsurance International Co and Another v Curzon Insurance Ltd ChD 12-Feb-2004
It was a necessary part of the system of statutory transfers of insurance obligations under the Act, that the rights should be transferred before exhaustion of any policy excess, and notwithstanding the insolvency. The rights (inchoate at this . .
Cited – First National Tricity Finance Ltd v OT Computers Ltd; In re OT Computers Ltd (in administration) CA 25-May-2004
The company had gone into liquidation. They had sold consumer policies as extended warranties on behalf of the claimant. The company had insured its own joint liability under the contracts, and the claimant sought information from the company’s . .
Cited – Law Society of England and Wales and others v Shah and others ChD 30-Nov-2007
Solicitor firms had been made bankrupt leaving a shortfall after thefts from client accounts of over 12 million pounds. The thief had diappeared, and the other partners were now discharged form bankruptcy. The Law Society accepted that it could not . .
Cited – Teal Assurance Company Ltd v WR Berkley Insurance (Europe) Ltd SC 31-Jul-2013
An international engineering company had several layers of professional indemnity insurance. The top later did not cover claims originating in the US or Canada. The several insurers now disputed apportionment of liability between them. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79586
Professional negligence claim was not compromised by acceptance of sum in full and final settlement where the terms suggested were not offered.
Gazette 25-Mar-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 469
England and Wales
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79208
The Civil Procedure Rules have not changed the common law rules which say that an interlocutory order for costs could not be varied by another judge sitting at first instance, except only in exceptional circumstances where it appeared for example that fraud might be involved. To do so would be for the court to act as an appellate capacity on a matter it had decided itself: ‘when the court makes an order, only in the most exceptional circumstances such as those involving fraud or the slip rule, could the court revisit the order even where it is for costs. The court cannot act as an appellate court in respect of its own orders. It is not even as if the circumstances in which I am asked to revisit the order were not contemplated at the time when the order for costs was made.’
Neuberger J
Gazette 11-Aug-1999, Times 28-Sep-1999, [1999] EWHC 834 (Ch)
See also – Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Anchor Foods Ltd (No 2) ChD 24-Mar-1999
The claimant intended to seek recovery of a very substantial sum from the defendant. On learning of the defendant’s intention to sell its assets, it sought an order freezing them.
Held: The court has the discretion to order a freezing of a . .
See also – Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Anchor Foods Limited Admn 26-Jun-1998
The court heard an appeal by the Commissioners from the VAT Duties Tribunal that ‘Spreadable butter’ and ‘Ammix butter’ from New Zealand made and imported by the respondent are ‘manufactured directly from milk or cream’, and are not ‘recombined . .
See also – Customs and Excise v Anchor Foods Ltd (No.4) ChD 18-Oct-1999
. .
See Also – Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Broomco (1984) Ltd (Formerly Anchor Foods Ltd) CA 17-Aug-2000
When an appeal is lodged in a VAT dispute, the discretion as to whether to require the appellant to lodge security for costs in the appeal, was a decision exclusively to be decided by the tribunal itself. A decision as to such security could not be . .
Cited – CS v ACS and Another FD 16-Apr-2015
Rule Against Appeal was Ultra Vires
W had applied to have set aside the consent order made on her ancillary relief application accusing the husband of material non-disclosure. She complained that her application to have the order varied had been refused on the ground that her only . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79364
All claims to be transferred to High Court central office for Master Hodgson
Gazette 26-Feb-1992
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79170
It remains possible to amend pleadings after judgment but before the order is drawn up, provided the party involved complies with the appropriate procedures. This may apply even though it would require the presentation of further evidence and argument to the court.
Nueberger J
Times 31-Aug-1999, [2000] 1 WLR 230
See Also – Charlesworth v Relay Roads Limited, Haley and Others PatC 1-Feb-1999
. .
Cited – Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Paulin ChD 13-May-2005
The director sought to appeal an order disqualifying him form acting as a company director.
Held: The disqualification proceedings were properly charactised as insolvency proceedings and therefore there was no requirement for permission to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.78990
Without Prejudice negotiations continue on that basis till clearly altered.
Jules Sher QC
Gazette 15-Jul-1992, [1992] 1 WLR 820
Cited – Brown v Rice and Another ChD 14-Mar-2007
The parties, the bankrupt and her trustee, had engaged in a mediation which failed at first, but applicant said an agreement was concluded on the day following. The defendants denied this, and the court as asked to determine whether a settlement had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79000
A Chartered Accountant who had been struck off for dishonesty, has no right to represent a client in taxation proceedings, and the Commissioners could choose not to hear him.
Ind Summary 03-Jul-1995, Times 08-Jun-1995
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.78941
The Motor Insurers Bureau must be served with evidence of proceedings having been issued before it would become liable under the scheme.
Times 21-Mar-1997
England and Wales
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.78840
When appealing against fully argued refusal of jurisdiction, parties may not bring in additional evidence at that appeal save in exceptional circumstances.
Nourse, Pill, Waller LJJ
Times 14-May-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 774
England and Wales
See Also – Canada Trust Company and others v Stolzenberg and others CA 28-Apr-1997
(Oral judgment, Millett LJ) The question was whether it is a proper exercise of discretion to refuse to make an order for the production of documents at an interlocutory hearing on the sole ground that they are wanted in order to establish the . .
See Also – Canada Trust Company and others v Stolzenberg and others (2) CA 29-Oct-1997
The court looked at questions relating to domicile and jurisdiction; standard of proof, date to be determined and duties before service.
Held: The court is endeavouring to find an imprecise concept which reflects that the plaintiff must . .
See Also – The Canada Trust Co and Others v Stolzenberg and Others ChD 10-Nov-1997
A foreign resident defendant failing to comply with an order for discovery should be barred from defending after having been given notice. . .
See also – Canada Trust Co and Others v Stolzenberg and Others (No 2) HL 12-Oct-2000
The plaintiffs alleged the involvement of the defendant in a conspiracy to defraud. He had been domiciled in England, but had moved to Germany. He denied that the UK court had jurisdiction. The court of appeal said that jurisdiction was determined . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.78867
The time for service of a writ was extended after an excusable error by solicitors. The writ had been issued but the guidance given had been confusing.
Gazette 02-Jun-1993
Appealed to – Caribbean General Insurance Co Ltd v Frizzell Insurance Brokers CA 4-Nov-1993
The judge was wrong to re-instate a case after there had been repeated breaches of unless orders by the plaintiff. Peremptory orders of the court must be obeyed unless excusable. . .
Appeal from – Caribbean General Insurance Co Ltd v Frizzell Insurance Brokers CA 4-Nov-1993
The judge was wrong to re-instate a case after there had been repeated breaches of unless orders by the plaintiff. Peremptory orders of the court must be obeyed unless excusable. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.78902
The claimant sought damages after having bought a house after receiving an allegedly negligent report on the concrete. She had asked to be allowed to add a third party (the local authority who had passed the building) as a defendant, but the request was outside the primary limitation period and was refused and again on appeal. She now sought to appeal.
Held: Her appeal was allowed. It was within the court’s jurisdiction to try issues relationg to the primary facts which would decide how the limitation rules would be applied. Section 14(10(b) operated to extend the time limit provided in 14(4)(a), and therefore it was not necessary to issue a new set of proceedings. The joining of a third party after the initial limitation period had expired, remained possible. The claim was justiciable.
Times 15-Apr-1996
Limitation Act 1980 14A(4)(a) 14A(4)(b)
England and Wales
Followed – Davies v Reed Stock and Co Ltd 1984
. .
Distinguished – Welsh Development Agency v Redpath Dorman Long Ltd CA 4-Apr-1994
A new claim was not deemed to have been made until the pleading was actually amended for limitation purposes, and should not be allowed after the limitation period had expired. The date of the application for leave to amend was not at issue. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.78778
The plaintiff had obtained judgment against L, only then to find that she claimed that all only apparent assets were held by her on trust for or as agent for her husband who was overseas. The plaintiff therefore now set out to add him, and to claim an asset freezing injunction against him.
Held: The court had power to order the assets of that third party to be frozen, even though they were not a party to the action, and no judgment existed against them. The court also has power to order him to be joined as a party, rather than for proceedings to be issued against him. Even though judgment had been obtained, the parties remained in dispute as to the means of payment, and that dispute remained part of the original proceedings. The word ‘proceedings’ in rule 19(2) should be interpreted widely and extend to circumstances where judgment had been obtained but not yet satisfied. The rule did not require that the disputed issue should be as between the existing parties. The court had the power to join the third party. The purpose of an asset freezing order ‘remains the protection of assets so as to provide a fund to meet a judgment obtained by the claimant in the English Courts’.
The court considered the effect of the decision in Cardile: ‘It seems to me that the High Court of Australia has stated that, in Australia, the assets of a third party can be frozen in aid of enforcing a pending or actual judgment, even where those assets are not beneficially owned by the actual or potential judgment debtor. The necessary precondition for power to make a freezing order over the third party’s assets is that the actual or potential judgment creditor should have some legal right to get at the third party’s funds. However, on my reading of the judgments, particularly pars. 57 and 121, the High Court of Australia is stating that there must be some casual link between the fact that the claimant has obtained a judgment against the principal defendant and thus has a legal right, as a consequence of the liability giving rise to the judgment, to go against the assets of the third party. I will delay deciding whether English law permits the exercise of the freezing order jurisdiction where there is such a casual link until I have considered the remaining two factors I have identified. ‘
and ‘If there is a claim for substantive relief by A against B (whether or not in the English Court), or A has obtained a judgment against B (in the English Court), then the English Court can grant a freezing order against the assets of C. But, generally, it must be arguable that those assets, even if in C’s name, are, in fact, beneficially owned by B.
The crucial question is whether the Court can go one stage further. Does it have the power to grant a freezing order against the assets of C when: (i) A has a substantive right against B (e.g. in the form of a judgment); (ii) the assets of C are not, even arguably, beneficially owned by B. The answer, to my mind, depends on how one interprets the phrases ‘ancillary’ and ‘incidental to and dependent upon’ used by Lords Browne-Wilkinson and Mustill in the Channel Tunnel case. In the Cardile case the High Court of Australia has, effectively, given those phrases a broad interpretation. But, critically, the High Court of Australia held that the right of A to a freezing order against C is dependent upon A having a right against B and that right itself giving rise to a right that B can exercise against C and its assets. Therefore the freezing order sought by A against C is ‘incidental to’ A’s substantive right against B and it is also ‘dependent upon’ that right.’
Aikens J
Times 04-May-2001, [2001] 2 Lloyds Law Reports 459, [2001] 2 All ER (Comm) 446
Civil Procedure Rules 19.4(2)(a), 6.30(2), 6.20(3)
Cited – Cardile v LED Builders PTY Limited 1999
(High Court of Australia) The respondent (‘LED’) twice sought relief from Eagle Homes PTY Limited (‘Eagle’) for copyright infringement. Anticipating the proceedings the only shareholders and controllers of Eagle, the claimants arranged the . .
Cited – Siskina (owners of Cargo lately on Board) v Distos Compania Naviera SA HL 1979
An injunction was sought against a Panamanian ship-owning company to restrain it from disposing of a fund, consisting of insurance proceeds, in England. The claimant for the injunction was suing the company in a Cyprus court for damages and believed . .
Cited – HM Revenue and Customs v Egleton and others ChD 19-Sep-2006
The claimants had applied for the winding up of a company for very substantial sums of VAT due to it. Anticipating that hearing, it now sought restraining orders against the director defendants, alleging that there had been a carousel or missing . .
Cited – Trade Credit Finance No Ltd and Another v Bilgin and others ComC 3-Nov-2004
. .
Cited – Messer Griesheim Gmbh v Goyal Mg Gases Pvt Ltd ComC 7-Feb-2006
The claimant sought to have set aside its own judgment obtained by default so as to apply for a second judgment. The first would not be enforceable abroad against the defendant, because a default judgment was not enforceable in India. The second . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.78800
Cazalet J
[1994] EWHC Fam 4, [1995] 2 FCR 97, [1995] 1 FLR 204, (1995) 159 LG Rev 849, [1995] Fam Law 176
England and Wales
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.263373
The decision whether to order sequential or simultaneous disclosure of skeleton arguments was for each case. In construction cases simultaneous disclosure was usually appropriate, and this was also normal in Chancery. Nevertheless in complicated cases it might be sensible and was within the judge’s discretion to order sequential disclosure, with the claimant going first. The rules are silent because of this discretion.
Times 13-Jun-2000
Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78688
An expert witness should not be compelled to attend court where the party who instructed him had been unable to satisfy him that he was able to pay the expert’s fees. To hold otherwise would be to endanger the system of expert witnesses by allowing potential manipulation, by issuing a sub poena instead of paying the fee. In such circumstances the practice should remain that a witness summons should be issued only in exceptional cases.
Times 02-Nov-2000
Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78689
The slip rule could not be used by the court to add second thoughts to a judgment, but could be used by the court to amend the judgment to give effect to the court’s original intention. In this case the effect of an appeal was to restart the running of interest from the date of the appeal judgment even though this had not been an issue, nor had it been intended, and the judgment could be amended to allow the courts intention to have effect. Whilst the authorities ‘establish that the slip rule cannot enable a court to have second or additional thoughts. Once the order is drawn up any mistakes must be corrected by an appellate court. However it is possible under the slip rule to amend an order to give effect to the intention of the court.’
Aldous LJ
Times 26-Apr-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 414
Civil Procedure Rules Part 40.12 (1)
England and Wales
See also – Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v Baker Norton Pharmaceuticals Inc, Napro Biotherapeutics Inc CA 23-May-2000
. .
Cited – Herbert George Snell and others v Robert Young and Co Limited and others CA 21-Nov-2002
The claimants had sought damages for poisoning from organophosphates used in sheep dipping. Evidence linking the injuries to the use of the chemicals had not been found, and the actions struck out as an abuse of process. The group litigation had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78601
A plaintiff electing to take an account of profits cannot accept a payment into court, since his was not a claim in damages.
Times 03-Jan-1997
Rules of the Supreme Court 22 3
Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78535
A delay in issuing Order 14 proceedings is not in itself relevant.
Ind Summary 06-Mar-1995
See Also – Brinks Ltd v AbuSaleh and Others (No 3) ChD 23-Oct-1995
A person must know of the existence of an obligation of trust to be liable as an accessory to an act in breach of that trust. A person cannot be liable for dishonest assistance in a breach of trust unless he knows of the existence of the trust or at . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78582
Judgment on an Order 14 application was to be granted following a conviction against the defendant for theft subject only to any clear claim to the contrary.
Times 30-Jan-1995
Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78583
The discretion of a judge to deal with a case at the close of the claimant’s case, and without putting the defendants to their respective election was only to be exercised with the greatest caution. There was a risk that, if the claimant appealed successfully, an entire re-trial could result with considerable extra expense. ‘The course taken by the judge of deciding the case following the hearing of the claimant’s evidence without putting the defendants to their election is one which calls, on any view, for considerable caution.’ ‘If no election is extracted, then there is the risk, as here, that if the claim is dismissed, there may be a successful appeal against the judge’s view of the merits, and the matter may then have to be remitted, quite likely to a different judge, for a complete retrial. ‘
Mance LJ
Times 14-Jun-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 692
England and Wales
Cited – Alexander v Rayson CA 1936
The action was for arrears of rent. The evidence at trial was that the plaintiff granted a lease to the defendant at a rent of andpound;1200 and contracted that certain services in connection with the flat would be performed. The plaintiff sent the . .
Applied – Mullen v Birmingham City Council QBD 29-Jul-1999
Under the new rules, judges were required to take greater control over court proceedings, and accordingly had the power to entertaining a submission of no case to answer at the close of the claimant’s case and without first requiring the defendant . .
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 . .
Cited – Benham Limited v Kythira Investments Ltd and Another CA 15-Dec-2003
The appellant complained that the judge had accepted a case of no case to answer before the close of the claimant’s case and without putting them to their election. The claimant estate agents sought payment of their account. The defendants alleged a . .
Cited – Lloyd v John Lewis Partnership CA 1-Jul-2001
The judge allowed the defendant’s submission of no case to answer without putting them to their election and again the claimant’s appeal succeeded. The trial judge had been persuaded that the rule in Alexander -v- Rayson had been altered by the . .
Cited – Neina Graham v Chorley Borough Council CA 21-Feb-2006
The defendant had submitted after the close of the claimant’s case that it had no case to answer. The judge did not put the defendant to its election as to whether to call evidence, but instead decided to accede to the submission. The claimant now . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78524
The name of a person with a notifiable disease could be withheld pending an appeal, but any anonymity given by court to party must end when it would not be needed for the purposes of justice. The power to make an order under s.11 must be exercised carefully and cannot be used simply to protect privacy or avoid embarrassment An open ended order was inappropriate.
Times 25-Nov-1993, Independent 25-Nov-1993
Public Health (Control of Diseases) Act 1984 37, Contempt of Court Act 1981 11
Cited – Allen v The Grimsby Telegraph and Another QBD 2-Mar-2011
The claimant sought to prevent publication of his name in the context of the making of a Sexual Offences Prevention Order (SOPO). He had been convicted of offences against sex workers. An order had been made preventing disclosure of his address, but . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78418
A plaintiff can insist on automatic judgment despite the availability of proceedings abroad.
cw Procedure – RSC Order 13 – RSC Order 19 r.2 – failure to acknowledge service – failure to serve a defence – trial on the merits – inherent jurisdiction of court.
Times 27-Nov-1995, [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 426
Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78360
The rule which prevents a company in administration being prosecuted without the leave of the court, was not intended only to restrict creditors. Here another company wanted to bring patent infringement proceedings, but were first to be required to obtain the court’s consent.
Times 25-Nov-1999, Gazette 25-Nov-1999
Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78409
It could be correct for an appeal to be dismissed rather than allow an appeal against the grant of leave to appeal. The subject matter was important and highly controversial, even if the law appeared to be clear and the appeal to be hopeless. To revoke the leave to appeal would leave no way of settling the controversy, but to dismiss the appeal would leave open the possibility of an application in turn to the House of Lords for leave to appeal.
Times 05-Apr-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 400, [2001] ICR 962
England and Wales
Cited – Bournemouth University Higher Education Corp v Buckland EAT 8-May-2009
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL: Constructive dismissal
Whether fundamental breach of implied term of trust and confidence cured, so that the Claimant’s resignation did not amount to constructive dismissal.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78316
It was appropriate to reduce the interest discount rate used to calculate damages awards in personal injury cases for future losses, from 3 per cent to 2 per cent. This reflected the general reduction in such interest rates since the Act came into effect. The House of Lords had set down guidelines for the discount rate to be applied on the award of damages for future losses. The decision had been expressed to apply only until the Act was put into effect. The parties sought to argue that they were not bound since the limitation was not essential to the decision, and the Lord Chancellor was thought to be about to announce a rate under the Act. The Court of Appeal stated that whilst guidelines were not immutable principles of law, they were clearly to be applied, and the time scale, set down in the judgement, was just as much part of the guidelines as the rate.
Hnry, Judge, Hale LJJ
Times 03-Apr-2001, Gazette 01-Jun-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 433
England and Wales
Appeal from – Barry v Ablerex Construction (Midlands) Ltd QBD 22-Mar-2000
After a delay of delay 5 years, the judge deducted two years interest from the award to reflect the plaintiff’s delay. . .
Cited – Wells v Wells; Thomas v Brighton Health Authority; etc HL 16-Jul-1998
In each of three cases, the plaintiffs had suffered serious injury. They complained that the court had made a substantial reduction of their damages award for loss of future earnings and the costs of future care.
Held: The appeals succeeded. . .
Cited – Eagle (By Her Litigation Friend) v Chambers CA 29-Jul-2004
The claimant had been severely injured, and a substantial damages award made. Cross appeals were heard as to the several elements awarded. The claimant sought as part of her award of damages for personal injuries the fees she would have to pay to . .
Cited – Tortolano v Ogilvie Construction Ltd SCS 21-Feb-2013
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78259
A court would not stop a plaintiff using discovered documents in way they were obliged to do under foreign law.
Gazette 16-Sep-1992
Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78152
The need to reach one conclusion justified service of proceedings overseas on a firm’s partners, where there was a genuine issue to be decided
Times 13-Aug-1996, Gazette 23-Oct-1996, [1996] EWCA Civ 1025
England and Wales
Appeal from – Barings Plc and Another v Coopers and Lybrand (A Firm) and Others CA 6-Dec-1996
Whether a duty of care exists from the auditors of a subsidiary, towards its parent company is a triable issue. . .
Cited – Johnson v Gore Wood and Co HL 14-Dec-2000
Shareholder May Sue for Additional Personal Losses
A company brought a claim of negligence against its solicitors, and, after that claim was settled, the company’s owner brought a separate claim in respect of the same subject-matter.
Held: It need not be an abuse of the court for a shareholder . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78229
A court need not be satisfied as to the exact date of a theft, in order to make a finding that a theft had happened. The level of proof required in civil fraud cases will vary with the seriousness of allegation.
Times 09-May-1994, Ind Summary 30-May-1994
Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78155
Where an arbitration agreement referred to an arbitration under the rules of a major international scheme, by virtue of a standard form master agreement, this was sufficient and good reason to grant an injunction to enforce the reference.
ComC Injunction restraining proceedings in a foreign court in breach of an arbitration agreement.
Cresswell J
Times 10-May-1999, [1999] 1 All ER (Comm) 785, [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 910
Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78163
A party to litigation must ensure that an agent attending had sufficient knowledge and authority to deal with issues raised at a pre-trial review, and where he failed in this he could be penalised in indemnity costs or interest at higher rates than usual on damages. An agent had no knowledge of why an expert’s report had not been served, and the report remained excluded.
Brooke LJ said: ‘If a defendant’s lawyers choose not to send a representative with appropriate authority to attend a pre-trial review and choose not to ensure that the client (who in this case should be equated with the defendant’s insurer) attends the review, the judge, who is likely to be the trial judge, is likely to note their absence. If he considers that that party has acted unreasonably in this way in connection with the litigation in breach of a direction of the court, there may come a time when he decides that it is appropriate to make an order for indemnity costs against that party, or to exercise his power to award interest on damages at a much higher rate than what is usual, if those powers are available to him. The whole trust of the CPR regime is to require the parties to behave reasonably towards each other in the conduct of the litigation. The old antagonistic point scoring, which used to drag personal injuries cases out and run up costs, should now be at an end.’
Brooke LJ
Times 14-Sep-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 1977
Civil Procedure Rules 1998 R 29
England and Wales
Cited – Reid Minty (a firm) v Taylor CA 2002
New CPR govern Indemnity Costs awards
The defendant had successfully defended the main claim and now appealed against the refusal of an order for costs on an indemnity basis even though judge thought that the claimants had behaved unreasonably. He had said that some conduct deserving of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78238
Where judgment was entered in default but there was some significant defect in that judgment it would not in future be set aside automatically, but the court should look to the merits, correct the error, consider the merits and then decide what to do.
Times 20-Jul-1998
Rules of the Supreme Court Order 13 1
Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78136
A compromise of a claim involved a settlement with the value given, and a release did not import requirement for any consideration. A compromised claim could not be set aside for lack of knowledge, and no duty of disclosure of any wrongdoing existed.
Lightman J
Times 25-Jan-1999, Gazette 17-Feb-1999, [1999] ICR 1068
See also – Bank of Credit and Commerce International Sa (In Compulsory Liquidation) v Munawar Ali, Sultana Runi Khan And Others (No 3) ChD 25-Jun-1999
In order for an employee to claim that his employer was conducting his business in an unlawful manner so as to destroy the relationship of trust and confidence between them, the activity had to be such that the employee could not reasonably be . .
At First Instance – Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA v Ali, Khan and others (No 1); BCCI v Ali HL 1-Mar-2001
Cere Needed Releasing Future Claims
A compromise agreement which appeared to claim to settle all outstanding claims between the employee and employer, did not prevent the employee later claiming for stigma losses where, at the time of the agreement, the circumstances which might lead . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78147
The case was being heard before a civil jury. The parties had agreed a description of the facts, and prepared an agreed list of issues where there remained factual disputes. The judge had gone beyond those lists, and acted as if she was trying the case, rather than the jury. She embarked upon a fact-finding exercise of her own, and made factual findings adverse to the police. She should not have done so, but rather summed up for the jury. If she needed findings of fact in order to be able to give rulings, then she should have put those to the jury for their decision.
Times 04-May-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 538
England and Wales
Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78098
Discovery on quantum was to be treated separately from that on liability. In split trials discovery will normally be limited to the instant issue.
Gazette 18-Jan-1995, Ind Summary 11-Jul-1994, Times 07-Jul-1994
Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78102