The court explained why the retrospectivity of an Act of Parliament was treated differently for matters of procedure. Mellish LJ said: ‘No suitor has any vested interest in the course of procedure, nor any right to complain, if during the litigation the procedure is changed, provided, of course, that no injustice is done.’

Judges:

Mellish LJ

Citations:

(1876) 3 Ch D 62

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Litigation Practice

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.184442

A judge has power to reconsider a judgement which he has delivered before the order consequent upon it has been sealed, but the judge should only exercise this power if there are strong reasons for doing so. When oral judgments have been given the successful party ought, save in the most exceptional circumstances, to be able to assume that the judgment is a valid and effective one. Here, the contemnor obtained from the court her release from custody but was ordered to pay the costs of her application for release.
Russell LJ said: ‘When oral judgments have been given, either in a court of first instance or on appeal, the successful party ought save in most exceptional circumstances to be able to assume that the judgment is a valid and effective one . . The cases to which we were referred in which judgments in civil courts have been varied after delivery (apart from the correction of slips) were all cases in which some most unusual element was present . . In all these cases there were circumstances of a wholly exceptional character d.
It is clearly not permissible for a party to ask for a further hearing merely because he has thought of a possible ground of appeal that he originally overlooked. The discovery of fresh evidence has never been suggested as a ground for reopening the argument before the Court of Appeal. If fresh evidence comes to light, of such a character as to call for further consideration of the issues, the right way to deal with the situation is by applying for leave to appeal to the House of Lords: see Murphy v. Stone-Wallwork (Charlton) Ltd [1961] 1 WLR 1023; or, if such appeal be not available in a contempt case, by application for release.’

Judges:

Russell LJ

Citations:

[1973] 1 WLR 19, [1972] 3 All ER 631

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Taylor v Lawrence CA 4-Feb-2002
A party sought to re-open a judgment on the Court of Appeal after it had been perfected. A case had been tried before a judge. One party had asked for a different judge to be appointed, after the judge disclosed that he had been a client of the firm . .
Cited – Bowerbank v Amos (Formerly Staff) CA 31-Jul-2003
The parties had gone into business together. After a breakdown, they had now spent very considerable sums in litigation. At the trial, the judge allowed an amendment of the claim after the close of evidence. He considered that it related to matters . .
Cited – Stewart v Engel, BDO Stoy Hayward CA 17-May-2000
A judge may reopen a case even after he has delivered his final judgment. A judge invited counsel to amend his pleading to incorporate an improvement, but in the face of his repeated failure to take up the invitation, entered final judgment against . .
Cited – Symes v Phillips and others CA 19-May-2005
The applicant was in contempt of court. He successfully appealed a sentence of two years imprisonment, with the sentence being reduced to one year. Legally aided, he sought his costs from the claimant. The claimant replied that their part was only . .
Cited – Ultraframe (UK) Ltd v Fielding and others ChD 11-Nov-2005
Ultraframe asked the judge to re-open his ‘in the round’ decision on costs.
Held: The decision questioned was not a draft, but a concluded judgment. The judge said that he had not made such a ‘palpable error’ in his order as to give him . .
Cited – Baxendale-Walker v The Law Society Admn 30-Mar-2006
The solicitor appealed being struck off. He had given a character reference in circumstances where he did not have justification for the assessment.
Held: ‘The appellant knew that Barclays Bank trusted him to provide a truthful reference. . .
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 – Sheikh and Another v Dogan and Others ChD 17-Nov-2009
The judge had reserved his judgment, but had since received further voluminous representations from a party.
Held: None of the matters raised suggested a proper reason for exercising the jurisdiction given by In re Barrell. The claimant was . .
Cited – Abacha and Another v Compagnie Noga D’Importantion Et D’Exportation Sa QBD 3-May-2001
The court had handed to the parties a draft judgement, but one party then asked the judge to reconsider it.
Rix LJ referred to the need to balance the concern for finality against the ‘proper concern that courts should not be held by their own . .
Cited – McKeown v British Horseracing Authority Admn 12-Mar-2010
The judge had been asked to revise his draft judgment. The court set out the circumstances under which a draft judgment might be amended and why in this case he had rejected the request save as to clerical errors. . .
Cited – Re L and B (Children) SC 20-Feb-2013
The court was asked as to the extent to which a court, having once declared its decision, could later change its mind. Though this case arose with in care proceedings, the court asked it as a general question. The judge in a fact finding hearing in . .
Cited – TZ v General Medical Council Admn 17-Apr-2015
Appeal against decision of a Fitness to Practise Panel holding that the Appellant’s fitness to practise as a medical practitioner was impaired by reason of his misconduct. It directed that his name be erased from the Medical Register under section . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.182395

Judges:

Warby J

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 3093 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.656297

Defendant’s application seeking an order pursuant to CPR 31.12 for the claimant to conduct further searches on the basis set out in a draft order and to disclose any documents located as a result of those searches.

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 154 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.633419

Scott J said as regards the undertakings implied on giving discovery of documents during litigation that they applied not merely to the documents discovered themselves but also to information derived from those documents whether it be embodied in a copy or stored in the mind.

Judges:

Scott J

Citations:

[1985] Ch 299

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Crest Homes Plc v Marks HL 1987
The plaintiffs brought two successive actions against the same defendants (Mr Marks and Wiseoak Homes Ltd) for breach of copyright. They obtained Anton Piller orders in both actions. The documents which the plaintiffs obtained from the defendants in . .
Cited – IG Index Plc v Cloete QBD 11-Dec-2013
The defendant applied to have struck out the claim, saying that it was based upon a misuse of documents disclosed during an employment tribunal case, and was an abuse since the claimants had not sought the permission of the Tribunal for a second use . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.518938

A stay which is not a permanent stay does not bring the action to an end; the action becomes ‘static’ but can be restarted at any time. However, in the normal way the Courts seek to enforce settlement agreements and so bring finality to litigation and will only lift a stay in exceptional circumstances

Judges:

Lawton LJ

Citations:

[1977] 1 WLR 825

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Cockerill v Tambrands Ltd; Prolaw Ltd v Adams; Jackson v Pinchbeck CA 21-May-1998
The court considered consolidated appeals relating to the use of Order 17 Rule 11. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.510102

Neuberger J gave examples of cases where a judge might revisit his decision: a plain mistake by the court, the parties’ failure to draw to the court’s attention a plainly relevant fact or point of law and the discovery of new facts after judgment was given.

Judges:

Neuberger J

Citations:

Times 09-Nov-1999

Cited by:

Cited – Re L and B (Children) SC 20-Feb-2013
The court was asked as to the extent to which a court, having once declared its decision, could later change its mind. Though this case arose with in care proceedings, the court asked it as a general question. The judge in a fact finding hearing in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.472061

A High Court judge had made an order in bankruptcy proceedings which had the effect of varying a charging order which he had earlier made under the Solicitors Act 1860.
Held: A judge has jurisdiction to reverse his decision at any time until his order is perfected but not afterwards. Unlike the bankruptcy jurisdiction, the Solicitors Act gave no power of variation.
As Fry LJ said: ‘So long as the order has not been perfected the judge has a power of re-considering the matter, but, when once the order has been completed, the jurisdiction of the judge over it has come to an end.’

Citations:

[1888] 20 QBD 693

Statutes:

Solicitors Act 1860

Citing:

Cited – In re St Nazaire Company CA 1879
Sir Richard Malins V-C had permitted a petition to proceed which sought to vary an earlier order which he had made and which had been unsuccessfully appealed to the Court of Appeal.
Held: He had no power to do so. Any such power had . .

Cited by:

Cited – Re L and B (Children) SC 20-Feb-2013
The court was asked as to the extent to which a court, having once declared its decision, could later change its mind. Though this case arose with in care proceedings, the court asked it as a general question. The judge in a fact finding hearing in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.472059

Citations:

[1969] 1 WLR 1349

Litigation Practice

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.471324

The sheriff’s decision to order caution was upheld, having regard to the pursuer’s conduct, the nature of his pleadings which were said to be hopelessly irrelevant and his failure to pay the expenses awarded against him in another action. Lord Justice Clerk Wheatley said: ‘Ordering caution on a man who is manifestly not in a financial position to provide any sum of substance may appear to be a draconian order, but justice has to be even handed, and on the other side of the coin it would be grossly unfair to oblige the defenders to carry on defending an obviously irrelevant action without any hope of recovering any expenses if successful, particularly against an adversary who has shown that he is prone to table all kinds of procedural motions which have no merit and no justification.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Clerk Wheatley

Citations:

1985 SLT 451

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Cited – Anderson v Shetland Islands Council and Another SC 29-Feb-2012
The claimant sought leave to appeal. Each party now sought security for costs against the other. Her action related to water damage to her house said to have been caused by road mprovements and building works erected by and with the approval of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.452404

Lord Blackburn spoke of the presumption at common law that the word ‘person’ in an Act of Parliament includes ‘corporations’: ‘Circumstances, and indeed circumstances of a slight nature in the context, might show in which way the word is to be construed in an Act of Parliament . . whenever you can see that the object of the Act requires that the word ‘person’ shall have the more extended or less extended sense, then, whichever sense it requires, you should apply the word in that sense.’

Judges:

Lord Blackburn

Citations:

(1880) 5 App Cas 857

Cited by:

Cited – Floor v Davis (Inspector of Taxes) HL 1979
The House considered whether the meaning of the phrase ‘a person having control’ extended to control by more than one person. This depended on whether the word ‘person’ in the singular was to be construed as including the plural.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.449979

On the grant of a Mareva injunction, the defendant had disclosed assets outside the jurisdiction in bank accounts in Europe. The plaintiff then obtained injunctions relating to those assets. The defendant obtained the discharge of those orders on undertaking not to dispose of assets within the jurisdiction. The plaintiff appealed.
Held: The appeal failed. A Mareva injunction must be limited to assets located within the jurisdiction.

Judges:

Kerr LJ

Citations:

[1986] 2 All ER 970

Cited by:

Cited – Babanaft International Co SA v Bassatne CA 30-Jun-1988
The court considered whether the state in which enforcement of a judgment will take place should be the place where the debt is situated upon which it is sought to execute.
Held: There was nothing to preclude English courts from granting . .
Cited – Derby and Co Ltd v Weldon CA 2-Jan-1989
The plaintiff sought damages for breach of contract, for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty and deceit and conspiracy. It sought a world-wide injunction.
Held: A freezing order (Mareva injunction) can be made in respect of assets which were . .
Cited – Derby and Co v Weldon (No2) CA 2-Jan-1989
The plaintiff appealed against the refusal of a world-wide Mareva injunction.
Held: The appeal succeeded. Lord Donaldson of Lymington MR said: ‘We live in a time of rapidly growing commercial and financial sophistication and it behoves the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.449763

The Claimant complained about the late disclosure of surveillance evidence.
Held: Balancing the Defendant’s entitlement to use surveillance evidence effectively, against the general case management goal of openness and a ‘cards on the table’ approach, the court found in favour of the Defendant.
Hallett J said: ‘In my judgment, in the circumstances of this case -and I emphasise in the circumstances of this case -the defendant’s solicitors were entitled to hold on to the video recording for a reasonable period of time. This was not simply a case of trying to ambush the claimant at trial. The defendant’s insurers not surprisingly wished to assess the evidence in their possession with the claimant’s up-to-date account before disclosing it. I say not surprisingly in the light of the history of the litigation as I have outlined it. They wanted to use it effectively as cross-examination material. I accept therefore the explanation from Mr Curtis to which I have already referred.
What therefore is a reasonable time in the circumstances of this litigation?
Mr Curtis made it plain in August 2000 that although the defendant’s insurers were prepared to wait for the witness statement until the report from the doctor was available, they wished to have the claimant’s up-to-date witness statement at the same time. They were operating on the basis the medical report would be available within a reasonable time.
They also indicated they had no objection to there being an interim statement from the claimant which could be updated if necessary. They wished to have this material, as they said in their letter, to assess their position when it came to possible negotiations and attempts at settlement. They continued to press for the witness statement and up-to-date schedule, but the claimant’s solicitors seemed to indicate that one would be available as soon as possible. Despite that fact, no up-to-date witness statement or schedule was produced until December.
In my judgment the defendant’s solicitors were entitled to press for an up-to-date witness statement and schedule, and to press for documents of that kind in the summer of 2000. They were entitled to know what the claimant was saying himself, not merely what he had reported to Dr Supramamian. It is right to say that on receipt of the doctor’s report in October the defendant’s insurers would know what the claimant had told him, but it is not unknown in my experience for a claimant to say that a doctor has misunderstood what he or she has said or has failed to record other significant matters that have been said. I entirely understand and sympathise therefore with Mr Curtis’ attitude that he wished to know what the claimant himself was saying.
In any event, it became clear in October that the doctor had to reconsider the question of how the accident occurred yet the trial date was looming in January 2001. I agree entirely with the Master that the claimant’s solicitors should and could have served an up-to-date witness statement from the claimant long before the time that they did. Once served, I have no doubt the video recording would have been served upon them.’

Judges:

Hallett J

Citations:

Unreported, 18 July 2001

Cited by:

Cited – Douglas v O’ Neill QBD 9-Feb-2011
The defendant sought permission to adduce CCTV evidence taken secretly. The claimant sought an order for the footage not to be used being an attempt at trial by ambush.
Held: The defendant’s application succeeded. There had been no breach of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.440068

The defendant had appealed against his conviction to the Crown Court, but then given notice under rule 11 of his abandonment of the appeal. A few months later a Crown Court judge allowed an application for its re-instatement.
Held: The appeal against re-instatement was allowed. The court identified the jurisdiction to permit an argument that abandonment is a nullity in certain circumstances. Re-instatement should only be allowed where the abandonment itself could be seen as a nullity.

Citations:

[1986] Crim LR 194

Statutes:

Crown Court Rules 11

Cited by:

Cited – Wilson v Ashford Borough Council Admn 9-Mar-2010
The defendant appealed against an order for costs made against her after service and enforcement of an abatement notice with respect to an audible intruder alarm at her premises. She had first lodged an appeal to the Crown Court, but argued that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.421631

Sir Christopher Staughton warned that ‘when both sides agreed that information should be kept from the public, that was when the court had to be most vigilant.’

Judges:

Sir Christopher Staughton

Citations:

(1998) 31 HLR 154

Cited by:

Cited – Secretary of State for The Home Department v AP (No. 2) SC 23-Jun-2010
The claimant had object to a Control order made against him and against a decision that he be deported. He had been protected by an anonymity order, but the Court now considered whether it should be continued.
Held: AP had already by the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.421060

Section 21 permits only a declaration of the rights of the parties in lieu of an injunction against officers of the Crown and this does not empower the court to grant interlocutory declarations which would be a contradiction in terms.

Citations:

[1962] 1 Ch 784

Statutes:

Crown Proceedings Act 1947 21

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Inland Revenue Commissioners ex parte Rossminster Ltd HL 13-Dec-1979
The House considered the power of an officer of the Board of Inland Revenue to seize and remove materials found on premises which a warrant obtained on application to the Common Serjeant authorised him to enter and search; but where the source of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.416369

The fact that the answer to interrogatories sought to be administered would or might tend to incriminate the party interrogated, is no ground to objecting to leave being given to administer them.

Citations:

(1878) 8 ChD 645

Litigation Practice

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.416380

A commission to take an answer of a person resident in a foreign country at war with us, must be executed in that very country ; a commission to examine witnesses at the nearest neutral port.

Citations:

[1737] EngR 2, (1737-1784) Amb 62, (1737) 27 ER 35 (B)

Links:

Commonlii

Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.386491

Sir Nicholas Browne-Wilkinson V-C spoke of section 7 of the 1978 Act: ‘If actual receipt is necessary to enable the addressee to take some necessary step, then the word ‘sent’ in the principal Act will be construed to mean ‘received”

Judges:

Sir Nicholas Browne-Wilkinson V-C

Citations:

[1987] 1 WLR 1586

Statutes:

Interpretation Act 1978 7

Cited by:

Cited – Immigration Advisory Services v Oommen EAT 19-Mar-1997
The claimant had been ordered to pay a deposit as a condition of being allowed to proceed with the claim which the tribunal had judged to have no reasonable prospect of success. The claim was struck out after the tribunal had been wrongly told that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.347416

Where a general verdict has been given on two counts, one of which is bad, and it appears by the Judge’s notes that the jury calculated the damages or evidence applicable to the good count only, the Court will amend the verdict by entering it on that count, though evidence was given applicable to the bad count also.

Citations:

[1798] EngR 236, (1798) 1 Bos and Pul 329, (1798) 126 ER 932

Links:

Commonlii

Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.348986

Declaration was delivered within the term: rule to plead was given the 7th of May, and expired the 11th, and no plea being put in, defendant applying for time, but no order made by the Judge, after the time for pleading was out, and before plaintiff bad signed judgment, the defendant being pleaded abatement ; and the question now was, whether this plea being after the time for pleading was out and a dilatory, should hinder the plaintiff from signing judgment? And per Cur – The pIaintiff shall have his judgment, for pleas in abatement must be pleded in four days, if the declaration be delivered before the last four days in term : if in those last four days, defendant must plead after a special imparlance within the first four days of the next term ; and this is the practice of the Court : and although fair pleas to the action are received alter the rules to plead are out, and before judgment at any time, yet dilatory pleas never are, and no Court ever favoured them.

Citations:

[1799] EngR 272, (1799) 1 Wils KB 23, (1799) 95 ER 471 (B)

Links:

Commonlii

Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.348099

It is in the discretion of the Court to put a Defendant under terms, who moves to have the issues levied under several distringas’s restored to him on his appearance, according to: I0 G;. 3, c. 50, e. 4.

Citations:

[1797] EngR 515, (1797) 1 Bos and Pul 81, (1797) 126 ER 790 (A)

Links:

Commonlii

Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.349612

By 49 G 3, c 68, s 5, ten clear days’ notice of the intention to appeal is required.
Held, that the ten days are to be taken exclusively, both of the day of serving the notice and the day of holding the sessions.
One Joseph Stinton, having had an order of filiation made on him, as the father of a bastard child, served a notice of appeal to the Quarter Sessions for the county of Hereford, on the morning of the 9th of October. The sessions were holden on the 19th of the same month; and the Court refused to enter on the appeal, being of opinion that the notice was insufficient, the statute 49 G. 3, e. 68, s. 5, requiring that the person aggrieved by such an order should give notice ten clear days before the Quarter Sessions, of his intention to appeal, and the cause and matter thereof. W. E. Taunton having obtained a rule nisi for a mandamus to the justices to receive the Abraham now shewed cause against it, and relied on the words of the statute, which could only be satisfied by a notice wherein there should be ten clear days, exclusive of the day of serving it and the day of holding the sessions.
WE Taunton, contra, contended that the word ‘clear’ meant only complete days ; and referred to the computation of the octave of Saint Hilary, and the quarto die post of the term, to shew that the days of a stated period were in law generally reckoned both inclusively, and that all that the Legislature had in view, in this instance, was to prevent such a computation [582] being used. But the Court were of opinion, that ten clear days meant ten perfect intervening days between the act done and the first day of the sessions, and held, therefore, that the notice was defective ; and they referred to Roberts v. Stacey (13 East, 21).
Rule discharged.

Citations:

[1820] EngR 359, (1820) 3 B and A 581, (1820) 106 ER 773 (B)

Links:

Commonlii

Cited by:

Applied – Regina v Swansea City Council, ex parte Elitestone Ltd CA 5-May-1993
The company appellant, E, wished to develop its land. The Council had declared it to be a conservation area. E said that they had not given the necessary notice of the meeting of the sub-committee at which the initial decision had been made. E . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.330611

Although a Defendant’s name is omitted in the note at the foot of the bill, he must put in an answer, though it be a mere formal one.

Citations:

[1843] EngR 1219, (1843) 12 Sim 361, (1843) 59 ER 1170

Links:

Commonlii

Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.306913

Service of a declaration or ejectment upon a person found upon the premises, but not shewn to be resident there. Held to be insufficient.

Citations:

[1842] EngR 1042 (A), (1842) 4 Man and G 843

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.307997

The claimant challenged his committal to prison saying that the order was invalid in that although made under an order of the Vice-Chancellor, the warrant had been endorsed with the letters CC.
Held: Such an endorsement did not mean that the warrant ceased to be the order of the Vice-Chancellor, and it could not be challenged. On the return of a writ of habeas corpus, the court’s task is limited to ensuring that the custody arises under a court having authority in that behalf.

Citations:

[1850] EngR 769, (1850) 3 Mac and G 4, (1850) 42 ER 162

Links:

Commonlii

Citing:

See Also – Dimes v The Company of Proprietors of The Grand Junction Canal CExC 1846
By a local Act of Parliament a company was incorporated and empowered to purchase certain lands ; and all persons seised, possessed of or interested in those lands were empowered to conveyed their right and interest therein to the company, in the . .
See Also – The Grand Junction Canal Company v Dimes 1-May-1849
In a suit in which an incorporated company were Plaintiffs, a decree was pronounced by the Vice-Chancellor for England, and was affirmed, on appeal, by the Lord Chancellor. It was afterwards discovered that the Lord Chancellor was a shareholder in . .
See Also – The Grand Junction Canal Company v Dimes CA 4-Feb-1850
The defendant had been committed for the breach of an injunction which he believed had been unlawfully granted in that the Lord Chancellor, on appeal, had decided in favour of the plaintiff company in which he held shares. The defendant again . .
See Also – Dimes v Lord Cottenham 2-May-1850
The Court will not, on the application of the plaintiff, grant a trial at bar merely because the defendant is Lord Chancellor and the plaintiff an attorney of the Court. . .

Cited by:

See Also – Dimes v Proprietors of Grand Junction Canal and others HL 26-Jun-1852
The Lord Chancellor, Lord Cottenham, owned a substantial shareholding in the defendant canal which was an incorporated body. He sat on appeal from the Vice-Chancellor, whose judgment in favour of the company he affirmed. There was an appeal on the . .
See Also – Dimes v The Proprietors Of The Grand Junction Canal and Others 29-Jun-1852
The plaintiff had brought an action to recover land. His appeal failed, but the House later decided that the Lord Chancellor who heard the appeal should have disqualified himself, because he held shareholdings in the defendant company, and his . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.298116

The Court will not prospectively dispense with the usual oath of the messenger to whose custody an answer is confided.

Citations:

[1845] EngR 1207 (A), (1845) 8 Beav 575

Links:

Commonlii

Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.304349

The defendant disputed the right of the plaintiff to use the canal constructed across his land. After he had been ordered to allow the boats to pass, the defendant brought 15 actions in trespass. The company now sought an injunction to restrain those actions. The defendant had also challenged the validity of the existing orders.

Citations:

[1849] EngR 682, (1849) 17 Sim 38, (1849) 60 ER 1041, [1850] EngR 243, (1850) 2 H and Tw 92, (1850) 47 ER 1610

Links:

Commonlii, Commonlii

Citing:

See Also – Dimes v The Company of Proprietors of The Grand Junction Canal CExC 1846
By a local Act of Parliament a company was incorporated and empowered to purchase certain lands ; and all persons seised, possessed of or interested in those lands were empowered to conveyed their right and interest therein to the company, in the . .
See Also – The Grand Junction Canal Company v Dimes 1-May-1849
In a suit in which an incorporated company were Plaintiffs, a decree was pronounced by the Vice-Chancellor for England, and was affirmed, on appeal, by the Lord Chancellor. It was afterwards discovered that the Lord Chancellor was a shareholder in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.298987

If a plea be so pleaded that it is manifestly intended to embarrass the plaintiff, the Court, on affldavit that the plea is false will set it aside. As, where, to an action by the second indorsee of a bill of exchange against the acceptor, defendant pleaded that the acceptance was obtained from him by fraud of the drawer, that the bill was overdue when indorsed by the drawer to the first indorsee, and that both indorsees at the time of taking the bill, had notice of the premises. A plea under such circumstances is not treated as a mere irregularity.

Citations:

[1849] EngR 1090, (1849) 14 QB 418, (1849) 117 ER 164

Links:

Commonlii

Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.299395

Under the 24th Order of August 1841, the Court will allow the Plaintiff to enter a memorandum of service of a copy of the bill without an affidavit, stating the nature of the suit, and that no direct relief is sought against the Defendant who has been served.

Citations:

[1844] EngR 358 (A), (1844) 12 Sim 362

Links:

Commonlii

Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.304950

An outlaw cannot enforce payment of damages recovered in an action of libel by sciere facias on th erecognisance of the Crown, under the 60 Geo J c ( s8 and 11 Geo 4 and 1 Will 4, e 73, s 3. And therefore, where notice of a rule to stay proceedings on the ground of his outlawry was served on the Attorney-General and he did not appear, the Court made the rule absolute.

Citations:

[1853] EngR 512, (1853) 8 Exch 697, (1853) 155 ER 1532

Links:

Commonlii

Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.294498

The parties had settled their original dispute on terms including that: ‘the plaintiffs in the said actions will not nor will any of them sue or continue to sue the said defendants in respect of any of the matters the subject matter of the said actions or either of them . . but this agreement shall not be construed or operate as a release of any cause of action of the plaintiffs or any of them against the defendants or any of them in the said actions.’
Held: This was not a release of the plaintiffs.

Citations:

[1947] 1 Ch 217

Cited by:

Cited – L’Oreal Sa and others v eBay International Ag and others ChD 15-Jul-2008
In interlouctory proceedings, Ebay sought disclosure of a Tomlin settlement reached by the claimants with a co-defendant. The claimant resisted, saying that the Tomlin order was confidential.
Held: Master Gragg said: ‘on balance it must be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.276223

Large quantities of crude oil had been sold at an undervalue by a dishonest consultant and his associates. A Mareva injunction had been granted. The defendant objected to being required to disclose the extent of his foreign assets saying that such disclosure would lead him to incriminate himself in the UK.
Held: A conspiracy was not an offence under the Theft Act, and that privilege was available because a charge of conspiracy was probable. The order to disclose should not be imposed where there were reasonable grounds for considering that he might thereby incriminate himself. Sir Nicolas Browne-Wilkinson V-C said that: ‘the clearer the facts alleged, the stronger will be the privilege against self-incrimination.’ Any provision that removes or restricts the privilege against self-incrimination must be strictly construed.

Judges:

Beldam LJ, Staughton LJ, Sir Nicolas Browne-Wilkinson V-C

Citations:

Fin Times 06-Feb-1990, [1991] 2 QB 310, [1990] 3 All ER 283, [1991] 2 WLR 280

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Rio Tinto Zinc Corporation v Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Re Westinghouse Electric Corpn Uranium Contract Litigation MDL Docket No 235 (No 2) HL 1977
The court considered a claim that a party was not compelled to give evidence where it might incriminate him: ‘No one is bound to furnish information against himself. It [the common law] says: ‘If a witness claims the protection of the court, on the . .
Cited – Rank Film Distributors v Video Information Centre CA 1980
The plaintiff film companies accused the defendants of pirating their films. They obtained Anton Piller orders which required the defendants to permit the plaintiffs to enter their premises to inspect and remove any unauthorised films, and three . .

Cited by:

Cited – Mohamed, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 1) Admn 21-Aug-2008
The claimant had been detained by the US in Guantanamo Bay suspected of terrorist involvement. He sought to support his defence documents from the respondent which showed that the evidence to be relied on in the US courts had been obtained by . .
Cited – Gray v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Another; Coogan v Same ChD 25-Feb-2011
The claimants said that agents of the defendant had unlawfully accessed their mobile phone systems. The court was now asked whether the agent (M) could rely on the privilege against self incrimination, and otherwise as to the progress of the case. . .
Cited – Phillips v Mulcaire SC 24-May-2012
The claimant worked as personal assistant to a well known public relations company. She alleged that the defendant had intercepted telephone message given by and left for her. The court was asked first as to whether the information amounted to . .
Cited – Phillips v Mulcaire SC 24-May-2012
The claimant worked as personal assistant to a well known public relations company. She alleged that the defendant had intercepted telephone message given by and left for her. The court was asked first as to whether the information amounted to . .
Cited – Beghal v Director of Public Prosecutions SC 22-Jul-2015
Questions on Entry must be answered
B was questioned at an airport under Schedule 7 to the 2000 Act, and required to answer questions asked by appropriate officers for the purpose set out. She refused to answer and was convicted of that refusal , contrary to paragraph 18 of that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.272821

Theft was alleged against persons who were not party to the action. The court considered whether the allegation should be allowed to go ahead to trial without them having opportunity to take part.

Judges:

Ackner J

Citations:

[1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 564

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Kamidian v Holt (on Behalf of Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s) and others ComC 27-Jun-2008
The claimant claimed to have bought what he believed to be a genuine Faberge Egg Clock, but which his insurers said was a copy. It was loaned to an exhibition, and insured, and damaged twice. The parties disagreed as to the disappreciation value, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.270464

The court asked whether it was appropriate to allow an extension of time to file an appeal: ‘Save in special cases or exceptional circumstances it can rarely be appropriate on an overall assessment of what justice requires to deny the plaintiff an extension where the denial will stifle his action because of a procedural default, which even if unjustifiable, had caused the defendant no prejudice for which he cannot be compensated by an order for costs.’ Time problems arise at the intersection of two principles, both salutary, neither absolute: ‘. . The first principle is that the rules of court and the associated rules of practice, devised in the public interest to promote the expeditious dispatch of litigation, must be observed. The prescribed time limits are not targets to be aimed at or expressions of pious hope but requirements to be met . .’ and the second: ‘ . . a plaintiff should not in the ordinary way be denied an adjudication of his claim on its merits because of a procedural default, unless the default causes prejudice to his opponent for which an award of costs cannot compensate.’

Judges:

Sir Thomas Bingham MR

Citations:

[1993] 1 WLR 256, [1993] 1 All ER 952

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – The Polygon Corporation v P R Tregunna EAT 14-Nov-2001
The claimant alleged unfair dismissal. The respondent failed to enter a response within the period required, and was refused an extension of time. It appealed that refusal, saying the tribunal had failed to allow for the factors enumerated in the . .
Cited – Price v Price (Trading As Poppyland Headware) CA 26-Jun-2003
The claimant sought damages from his wife for personal injuries. He had been late beginning the claim, and it was served without particulars. He then failed to serve the particulars within 14 days. Totty and then Sayers had clarified the procedure . .
Cited – United Arab Emirates v Abdelghafar and others EAT 29-Jul-1994
At a preliminary hearing, when the respondent failed to appear, the tribunal decided that it had jurisdiction to hear a case brought by the claimant against the respondent despite the 1978 Act. The respondent sought to appeal out of time.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.181193

Judges:

Evans-Lombe J

Citations:

[2001] 1 All ER 249

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.135763

When service is under an ‘unless’ order, it must be by 4:30pm and not by 4:00pm on any day as required under the rules generally. Those advertising fax facilities on letterheads, must provide fax continuously or not complain if it is interrupted.

Citations:

Times 09-Dec-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 1892, [1998] EWCA Civ 1893

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.145372

Setting of shorter target dates for hearing of Chancery matters.

Citations:

Gazette 08-Jun-1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.84957

The direction set down extensive guidelines and standard forms for use in ex parte Mareva and Anton Piller applications.

Citations:

Times 02-Aug-1994, Independent 11-Aug-1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Practice Direction (Ex Parte Mareva Injunctions and Anton Piller Orders) QBD 31-Oct-1996
Amendments were made to the forms for applying for ex parte injunctions taking place with immediate effect. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.84882

Amendments were made to the forms for applying for ex parte injunctions taking place with immediate effect.

Citations:

Times 31-Oct-1996

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Practice Direction (Ex Parte Mareva and Anton Pillar Orders) QBD 2-Aug-1994
The direction set down extensive guidelines and standard forms for use in ex parte Mareva and Anton Piller applications. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.84883

Where a party applies for an order obliging a third party to discover all documents within a certain class of documents, the court must be satisfied that every document which might fall within the class also fell properly within the class of documents which had direct relevance to the court action as described in the new Rules. It was not for the non-Party to have to make up its mind about each of the documents separately, and the court must be sure that the documents do in fact exist.
Pumfrey J said: ‘It seems to me that, notwithstanding the provision as to costs, the jurisdiction to make an order against a non-party must be exercised with some caution. There is no doubt that an order in respect of specific documents presents no difficulties. However, in respect of a request for a class of documents it seems to me that notwithstanding the provision which I have read relating to the costs of the application and of compliance with any order made pursuant to it, it is none the less necessary to be satisfied that there are documents falling within the classes which are specified and those documents are – not may be – documents in relation to which disclosure will support the case of the applicant or adversely affect the case of one of the other parties to the proceedings.’

Judges:

Pumfrey J

Citations:

Times 21-Apr-2000, [2001] 1 All ER 376

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd and others QBD 5-Mar-2009
The claimant police officer complained of an alleged defamation in an article published by the defendant. The defendant wished to obtain information from the IPCC to show that they were investigating the matter as a credible issue. The court . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.81940

Legal costs to be paid out of funds secured under a Mareva order. It was not a dissipation of assets to defend the case.

Citations:

Times 06-May-1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.78828

It is for the court itself to declare when a decision is final as a matter of fact.

Citations:

Times 24-Jul-1996

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.78454

Judicial review case is about oral hearings and paper determinations in substantive appeals dealt with by the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (UTIAC) during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Judges:

Fordham J

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 3103 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.656316

Application of the claimant for relief from sanctions for failure to comply with the orders

Citations:

[2020] EW Misc 7 (CC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.655645

If solicitors for one party know that the party being served is out of country, then service at his last known address is irregular. The procedure which allows deemed service is to be followed strictly. Stuart-Smith LJ: ‘Whether it is entirely right to say that there is no discretion in the matter or whether, as it seems to me, the Court of Appeal in White v Weston said that there may be a discretion but it can only be exercised one way, is I think immaterial. If it is an exercise of discretion, where there has been no service at all, the discretion can only be exercised one way as appears to have been the view of the court in Gold Ocean Assurance Ltd v Martin [1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 215.’

Judges:

Stuart-Smith LJ, Kennedy LJ

Citations:

Gazette 07-Sep-1994, Gazette 08-Jun-1994, Gazette 30-Mar-1994, Times 10-Mar-1994, CAT No 233 of 1994

Statutes:

Rules of the Supreme Court 67.7

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Nelson and Another v Clearsprings (Management) Ltd CA 22-Sep-2006
The defendant did not appear at the trial and now appealed the judgment. The claim form and court papers had been served by post at the wrong address. The question was whether a defendant wanting to set aside a judgment was required to persuade the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.77772

Whether certain negotiations said by the Claimant to have been conducted without prejudice are admissible in evidence at the trial.

Judges:

Miles J

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 2996 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.655625

Application for an adjournment of this appeal

Judges:

Arnold J

Citations:

[2013] EWCA Civ 1898

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.539989

Judges:

Lord Justice Richards

Citations:

[2014] EWCA Civ 1607, [2015] CP Rep 15, [2015] 1 Costs LO 157

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.539829

The pursuer, a steelworker, had been diagnosed with pneumoconiosis. He had worked for a previous company, and had claimed damages from them
Held: In an exceptional case such as this, a judgment may not conclusively decide the full measure of damage for which B is liable to A, a sum agreed to be paid under a compromise may or may not represent the full measure of B’s liability to A.

Judges:

Lord Cameron

Citations:

Unreported 18 July 1958

Cited by:

Cited – Heaton and Others v AXA Equity and Law Life Assurance Society plc and Another HL 25-Apr-2002
The claimant had settled one claim in full and final satisfaction against one party, but then sought further damages from the defendant, for issues related to a second but linked contract. The defendant claimed the benefit of the settlement.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.251630

Evidence was admitted that the defendant’s former attorney had admitted the debt claimed and made an offer on the defendant’s behalf to pay a certain sum on account. Lord Kenyon said: ‘Concessions made for the purpose of settling the business for which the action is brought, cannot be given in evidence; but facts admitted I have always received.’

Judges:

Lord Kenyon

Citations:

(1796) 2 Esp 474

Cited by:

Cited – Bradford and Bingley Plc v Rashid HL 12-Jul-2006
Disapplication of Without Prejudice Rules
The House was asked whether a letter sent during without prejudice negotiations which acknowledged a debt was admissible to restart the limitation period. An advice centre, acting for the borrower had written, in answer to a claim by the lender for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.243126

The Board’s practice of restricting the hearing a dispute of fact to situations where two courts had made consistent findings of fact is not immutable and the Board may in special circumstances vary their application to some degree.

Judges:

Lord Pearce

Citations:

[1962] 1 WLR 1464

Jurisdiction:

Commonwealth

Cited by:

Cited – Kwasi Bekoe v Horace Broomes PC 31-Oct-2005
PC (Trinidad and Tobago) The appellant defendant was an attorney-at-law, and the respondent a senior magistrate who was said to have accused the claimant of having given a bribe. The appellant challenged the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.237485