Category: Litigation Practice

Winchester Cigarette Machinery Ltd v Payne and Another (1): CA 19 Oct 1993

A Judge may refuse a late application for leave to admit expert evidence to avoid adjournment.

Citations:

Times 19-Oct-1993

Statutes:

Rules of the Supreme Court Order 38 Rule 36

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Winchester Cigarette Machinery Ltd v Payne and Another (No 2) CA 15-Dec-1993
Only special circumstances will allow stay of execution pending appeal. . .

Cited by:

See also – Winchester Cigarette Machinery Ltd v Payne and Another (No 2) CA 15-Dec-1993
Only special circumstances will allow stay of execution pending appeal. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.90562

Winchester Cigarette Machinery Ltd v Payne and Another (No 2): CA 15 Dec 1993

Only special circumstances will allow stay of execution pending appeal.

Citations:

Times 15-Dec-1993

Statutes:

Rules of the Supreme Court Order 59 rule 13

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See also – Winchester Cigarette Machinery Ltd v Payne and Another (1) CA 19-Oct-1993
A Judge may refuse a late application for leave to admit expert evidence to avoid adjournment. . .

Cited by:

See Also – Winchester Cigarette Machinery Ltd v Payne and Another (1) CA 19-Oct-1993
A Judge may refuse a late application for leave to admit expert evidence to avoid adjournment. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.90563

Willowgreen Ltd v Smithers: CA 16 Feb 1994

Service was insufficient if the papers sent to an address at which defendant was never in fact present. A summons to be served by post had to go to an address where the person has a continuing presence. The case of White v West was applied independently of the rules of ther county court. The court had no discretion in the matter.

Judges:

Nourse LJ

Citations:

Gazette 16-Feb-1994, Ind Summary 03-Jan-1994, Times 14-Dec-1993, [1994] 1 WLR 832

Statutes:

County Court Rules 1981 7(10)(1)(b)

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, Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.90541

Wake v Page and Another: CA 9 Feb 2001

Insurers were quite entitled to insist upon service of the statutory seven day notice of an intention to sue. In the absence of a notice very were not liable even though they were fully aware of the possibility of action. However regrettable it was there was no representation from the Insurers that they would waive their right for formal notice, and no equitable estoppel arose. A prudent solicitor would be well advised to ensure that the insurance company received written notice within seven days after the commencement of proceedings.

Judges:

Kennedy LJ

Citations:

Times 09-Feb-2001, [2001] RTR 291

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Nawaz and Another v Crowe Insurance Group CA 24-Feb-2003
The claimant had claimed aganst the driver, but gave notice of the intention to make a claim on his insurance by telephone only. The insurers repudiated liability.
Held: Whilst solicitors would be strongly advised to give such notice in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Estoppel, Litigation Practice, Road Traffic

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.90234

Wain v Sherwood and Sons Transport Ltd: CA 4 Jun 1998

Plaintiff, having succeeded in claim for damage to his car, was subject to an action estoppel, since he could have had the additional claim for personal injury damages settled at the same time. A mistake by his adviser which fell short of being actionable but which resulted in a party not being able to pursue a remedy was not enough to set aside an issue estoppel having once litigated the matter.

Citations:

Times 16-Jul-1998, Gazette 24-Jun-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 905

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Henderson v Henderson 20-Jul-1843
Abuse of Process and Re-litigation
The court set down the principles to be applied in abuse of process cases, where a matter was raised again which should have been dealt with in earlier proceedings.
Sir James Wigram VC said: ‘In trying this question I believe I state the rule . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel, Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.90231

Roebuck v Mungovin: HL 4 Feb 1994

A defendant may ask for the Plaintiff’s claim to be struck out despite having cause the Plaintiff to incur costs. That was not a bar to the application.

Citations:

Gazette 30-Mar-1994, Independent 08-Feb-1994, Times 04-Feb-1994, [1994] 2 AC 224

Citing:

Appeal from – Roebuck v Mungovin CA 26-Apr-1993
The right to dismiss for want of prosecution once lost, will only rarely be regained by a defendant. . .

Cited by:

Appealed to – Roebuck v Mungovin CA 26-Apr-1993
The right to dismiss for want of prosecution once lost, will only rarely be regained by a defendant. . .
Cited – Novak v Manchester City Council CA 27-Nov-1998
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.88841

Roe v Novak and Another: CA 15 Dec 1998

Where both plaintiff and defendant had in turn been guilty of inexcusable delay it was possible in appropriate circumstances to strike out the action with an order in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of their costs wasted by the defendant’s delay

Citations:

Times 15-Dec-1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.88838

Small And Others v Attwood And Others: 1 Nov 1832

Where a contract is entered into for the purchase of an estate by certain persons in their own names, but in fact on their own account, and also as agents for other parties, a bill to rescind the contract may be filed in the names of the agents and the other parties. Where the partners in a Company or partnership are numerous, a bill may be filed by some of the partners on behalf of themselves and the other partners to rescind the contract. In a case where it is manifest, from the circumstances, and the evidence, that it is for the benefit of all the partners that the contract should be rescinded. A contract for the sale of iron mines was rescinded on the ground of fraudulent misrepresentations of the value of the estate, and of the prices of ironstone and other materials, and of the quantities of materials required for the manufacture of iron, notwithstanding possession had been taken, the mines worked, and other acts of ownership had been exercised, and notwithstanding some acts in confirmation of the contract.

Citations:

[1832] EngR 776, (1831-1832) You 407, (1832) 159 ER 1051

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Attwood v Small And Others 8-Nov-1827
. .
See Also – Attwood v Small And Others 9-Aug-1827
An agreement, contained by itself less than 1080 words, but there was in it a stipulation that a clause in a previous agreement, which was duly stamped, should be taken as part of the new agreement.
Held: That although with the clause referred . .
See Also – Attwood v Small 12-Dec-1827
Where a great number of exceptions were taken to an answer, and shortly before the argument the defendant submitted to answer them, in consequence of which, it was urged, that the answer was clearly evasive, and that the ordinary costs were greatly . .
See Also – Small And Others v Attwood And Others 3-May-1828
Amendment of pleadings . .

Cited by:

Cited – Attwood v Small and Others HL 1-Mar-1838
The plaintiffs had bought land including iron mines from the defendants. They sought and were given explicit re-assurances about the mine’s capacity, but these proved false after the plaintiffs had begun to work the mine themselves.
Held: . .
See Also – Attwood v Small etc 22-Mar-1838
. .
See Also – Attwood v Small 1840
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Company, Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.319723

Regina v Secretary of State Home Dept ex parte Wynne: HL 17 Mar 1993

A prisoner wishing to appear at court in civil proceedings needed under the Act to apply for his own production to court, and to make arrangement for payment of the costs of being produced at court.
Held: A Legislature could so provide even though it interfered with the right of access to the courts.
Courts should be very reluctant to take cases which appeared to be merely hypothetical.
Lord Goff said: ‘It is well established that this House does not decide hypothetical questions. If the House were to do so, any conclusion, and the accompanying reasons, could in their turn constitute no more than obiter dicta expressed without the assistance of a concrete factual situation, and would not constitute a binding precedent for the future’.

Judges:

Lord Goff

Citations:

Gazette 17-Mar-1993, [1993] 1 WLR 115, [1993] 1 All ER 574

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1961 29(1)

Cited by:

Cited – Regina (W) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and Another CA 11-May-2006
The Commissioner appealed against a declaration that an authorisation given for creation of a dispersal area was unlawful.
Held: The proceedings appeared at first to be merely hypothetical, but the issue as to whether a police officer had use . .
Cited – AVS v A NHS Foundation Trust and Another CA 17-Jan-2011
The claimant contracted sporadic Creutzfeldt Jakob’s Disease disease. He executed a Lasting Power of Attorney in favour of his brother, expressing to him that he should do whatever was possible to protract his life. The brother now sought treatment . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Prisons

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.87991

Regina v Liverpool City Council Ex Parte Muldoon; Regina v Same Ex Parte Kelly: HL 11 Jul 1996

The claimant sought to challenge a refusal of the Housing Authority to pay housing benefit. The Secretary of State had made the relevant Regulations determining eligibility for benefits. If the challenge were successful, the Secretary of State would be affected financially by reason of his obligation to pay sums to the Authority.
Held: The Secretary of State is not to be made party to judicial review proceedings even though he would be the ultimate payer. Though a party directly affected by the claim may be joined as an interested party, Lord Keith said: ‘That a person is directly affected by something connotes that he is affected without the intervention of any intermediate agency. In the present case, if the applications for judicial review are successful the Secretary of State will not have to pay housing benefit to the applicants either directly or through the agency of the local authority. What will happen is that up to 95% will be added to the subsidy paid by the Secretary of State to the local authority after the end of the financial year. The Secretary of State would certainly be affected by the decision, and it may be said that he would inevitably or necessarily be affected. But he would in my opinion, be only indirectly affected by reason of his collateral obligation to pay subsidy to the local authority.’ The Secretary of State has no locus to insist on joining in on such judicial review proceedings despite being the eventual payer of the benefit payment decision being reviewed.
The Secretary of State has no locus to insist on joining in on judicial review proceedings despite being the eventual payer of the benefit payment decision being reviewed.

Judges:

Lord Keith

Citations:

Times 11-Jul-1996, Gazette 12-Sep-1996, [1996] 1 WLR 1103

Statutes:

Rules of the Supreme Court O 53 r593)

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina v Liverpool City Council Ex Parte Muldoon; Regina v Rent Officer Service and Another Ex Parte Kelly CA 18-Apr-1995
The Secretary of State was not entitled to be served with notice of all Judicial Review applications on benefits. He was not sufficiently directy connected, . .

Cited by:

Cited – AXA General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others SCS 8-Jan-2010
The claimant sought to challenge the validity of the 2009 Act by judicial review. The Act would make their insured and themselves liable to very substantial unanticipated claims for damages for pleural plaques which would not previousl or otherwise . .
Cited – Nemeti and Others v Sabre Insurance Co Ltd CA 3-Dec-2013
The court considered the power of courts to allow substitution of a new party after the expiration of the limitation period. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, Administrative, Litigation Practice, Judicial Review

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.87193

Regina v Horsham District Council and Another Ex Parte Wenman and Others: QBD 7 Oct 1993

Counsel/solicitors are to reassess Judicial Review proceedings after discovery. Training in judicial review was urged for lawyers to avoid wasted costs orders.

Citations:

Times 21-Oct-1993, Independent 07-Oct-1993

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Judicial Review, Litigation Practice

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.86895

Regina v Darlington Borough Council Ex Parte Association of Darlington Taxi Owners and Darlington Owner Drivers Association: QBD 13 Jan 1994

The court should distinguish the concepts of locus standi and capacity when considering applications for judicial review. An unincorporated association is not a legal person and may not seek Judicial Review.

Citations:

Independent 13-Jan-1994, Times 21-Jan-1994

Statutes:

Rules of the Supreme Court Order 53 3(7)

Cited by:

See Also – Regina v Darlington Borough Council Ex Association of Darlington Tax Owners and Another (No 2) QBD 14-Apr-1994
An unincorporated association although not a legal person with the capacity to sue in judicial review, may still suffer an order for costs. . .
See Also – Regina v Darlington Borough Council Ex Parte Association of Darlington Taxi Owners and Darlington Owner Drivers Association (No 2) 1995
The court made an order for costs against the members of the Association on rejection of its request for permission to bring judicial review proceeds, even though he had found that the Association was not a legal person capable of bringing such . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Judicial Review, Company

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.86507

Regina v Chief Constable of West Midlands Ex Parte Wiley; Regina v Chief Constable Notts Ex Parte Sunderland: QBD 24 Feb 1993

Police were not to use a complaint statements in civil litigation.

Citations:

Gazette 24-Feb-1993

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police, Ex Parte Wiley Etc CA 30-Sep-1993
Police complaints documents’ use may be restricted in civil proceedings. . .
At first instance – Regina v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police Ex Parte Wiley; Other Similar HL 14-Jul-1994
Statements made to the police to support a complaint against the police, were not part of the class of statements which could attract public interest immunity, and were therefore liable to disclosure.
Lord Woolf said: ‘The recognition of a new . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.86370

Regina v British Coal Corporation, Ex Parte Price and Others (No 2): QBD 23 Feb 1993

A Court having made a declaration in the course of a hearing, was then functus officio as regards that decision, and could not revisit it at a later hearing. Nor in this case was it possible for the Corporation to approach the court for a declaration in advance that a decision it might want to make would or would not be in contempt.

Citations:

Times 23-Feb-1993

Statutes:

Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946 46

Litigation Practice, Employment

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.86212

Regina v Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council, Ex Parte C (A Child): QBD 26 Apr 2000

An appeal to the local education authority against a decision not to grant a place at the parents choice of primary school, because it would require additional resources to provide for larger class sizes, is by way of review, and not by way of a rehearing. Accordingly the appeal committee should base its decision on the information available on the original decision together with any information of which they should have been aware.

Citations:

Times 26-Apr-2000

Statutes:

Education Act 1966 (Infant Class Sizes) (Modification) Regulations 1998 (1998 no 1948)

Citing:

Appealed to – Regina v Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council and Another, Ex Parte JC (A Child) CA 10-Aug-2000
The restrictions placed upon the maximum class sizes in turn restricted the rights of parents to appeal against refusal of a school place. It is for the parent to satisfy the original admissions committee and the appeal committee of the need for a . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina v Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council and Another, Ex Parte JC (A Child) CA 10-Aug-2000
The restrictions placed upon the maximum class sizes in turn restricted the rights of parents to appeal against refusal of a school place. It is for the parent to satisfy the original admissions committee and the appeal committee of the need for a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Education, Litigation Practice, Legal Aid

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85462

Practice Direction: (Crown Office List: Preparation for Hearings): QBD 24 Mar 2000

It was anticipated that the introduction into law of the Human Rights Act would lead to an increased burden on the courts, and it was appropriate to clear the judicial decks in anticipation. Procedural changes were required including the increase of the number of judges available, bundles are to be filed in the Crown Office three weeks before the hearing date, and skeleton arguments 14 days before that date. Parties must be ready to be called on for the case to be heard possibly at very short notice. On applications without notice the judgments will be recorded.

Citations:

Times 24-Mar-2000

Litigation Practice

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.84942

Practice Direction (Queen’s Bench Division: Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Litigation Against the Ministry of Defence: Group Action (Group 1) and (Group 2): QBD 26 Nov 1999

Directions were given for the conduct of all the cases brought together as group actions under the above references, including for the transfer of them all to Royal Courts of Justice, for the commencement of future proceedings, the marking of all documents, and the assignment of Master Rose and Justice Buckley to hear issues arising.

Citations:

Times 26-Nov-1999

Litigation Practice, Personal Injury

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.84907

Practice Direction (Judgments: Form and Citation): LCJ 16 Jan 2001

The need to cite judgments consistently, and the growth of reporting cases on the Internet, required the amendment of the systems of reporting cases on the world wide web. Judgments will in future be set with paragraph but not page numbering. Cases will have a number assigned when the judgment is handed down, and that numbering will be used in the Court of Appeal and Administrative courts and later extended to other divisions of the High Court.

Citations:

Times 16-Jan-2001

Litigation Practice

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.84894

Practice Direction (Mercantile Court: Bristol): LCJ 30 Jun 1999

With immediate effect, the paragraph relating to the enabling of the presiding judges of the Western Circuit for the appointment or designation of judges of circuit judges in the Bristol Mercantile Court is withdrawn.

Citations:

Times 30-Jun-1999

Citing:

Cited – Practice Direction (Mercantile Court: Bristol) QBD 26-Nov-1993
From 10-Jan-94 the new QB list is to be known as the Bristol Mercantile Court List. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.84899

Practice Direction (Mercantile Court: Bristol): QBD 26 Nov 1993

From 10-Jan-94 the new QB list is to be known as the Bristol Mercantile Court List.

Citations:

Times 26-Nov-1993

Cited by:

Cited – Practice Direction (Mercantile Court: Bristol) LCJ 30-Jun-1999
With immediate effect, the paragraph relating to the enabling of the presiding judges of the Western Circuit for the appointment or designation of judges of circuit judges in the Bristol Mercantile Court is withdrawn. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.84900

Practice Direction (Administrative Court Establishment): QBD 27 Jul 2000

The direction establishes the Administrative Court as a successor to the Crown Office List. Existing orders and directions applying to the List should be renamed. A lead nominated judge would take responsibility for the speed efficiency and economy of the conduct of the court’s business. New rules for judicial review will also be implemented to accompany the introduction of the Human Rights Act.

Citations:

Times 27-Jul-2000

Administrative, Litigation Practice

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.84842

Ot Africa Line Ltd v Fayad Hijazy and Another; Same v Fayad Hijazy and Others: QBD 28 Nov 2000

The human right to a fair trial did not amount to a right to an unfettered choice of tribunal. Contracts said that they were exclusively governed by English law and to be decided in England. Proceedings between the parties having already commenced in England some of the defendants were enjoined from continuing another action they had begun in Belgium arising from the same contract.

Citations:

Times 28-Nov-2000

Statutes:

Brussels Convention on Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1968 art 17

Litigation Practice, Human Rights, Jurisdiction

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.84487

New Victoria Hospital v Ryan: EAT 3 Feb 1993

Privilege from disclosure is only to attach to ‘qualified legal advisers’.
Tucker J referred in an obiter passage to advisers ‘such as solicitors or counsel’, and thus it was said that he was not seeking to limit legal professional privilege to these categories of legal advisers, but it could not be granted to communications with a personnel consultant.

Judges:

Tucker J

Citations:

Gazette 03-Feb-1993, [1993] ICR 20

Cited by:

Cited – Prudential Plc and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax and Another Admn 14-Oct-2009
The company had obtained legal advice but had taken it from their accountants. The Revenue sought its disclosure, and the company said that as legal advice it was protected by legal professional privilege.
Held: The material was not protected. . .
Cited – Prudential Plc and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax and Another SC 23-Jan-2013
The appellants resisted disclosure to the revenue of advice it had received. It claimed legal advice privilege (LAP), though the advice was from its accountants.
Held: (Lords Sumption and Clarke dissenting) LAP applies to all communications . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.84265

Morgans (A Firm) v Needham: CA 5 Nov 1999

Where a party’s case was put at risk of being struck out by means of an unless order, because of a failure to make full discovery, it was vital that the order requiring discovery, must be precise in specifying the documents required, so as to leave him in no doubt as to what was required.

Citations:

Times 05-Nov-1999, Gazette 17-Nov-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 560

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.83832

Milano Assicurazioni Spa v Walbrook Insurance Co Ltd and Others: QBD 8 Feb 1994

A plaintiff was to be allowed to amend the writ to publicise material which had been obtained on discovery, however an amendment to pleadings for publicity purposes only was an abuse of discovery.

Citations:

Gazette 02-Mar-1994, Times 08-Feb-1994

Statutes:

Rules of the Supreme Court 20(10)

Litigation Practice

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.83719

Mealey Horgan Plc v Horgan: QBD 6 Jul 1999

The failure to serve witness statements in time could be used disallow additional evidence to be served only in extreme circumstances. Such a failure can be marked in costs. An order to a party to make a payment into court should be used only in the case of repeated infringements of the rules.

Judges:

Buckley J

Citations:

Times 06-Jul-1999, [1999] STC 711

Cited by:

Approved – Olakunle O Olatawura v Alexander O Abiloye CA 17-Jul-2002
The claimant challenged an order requiring him to give security for costs before proceeding. The judge had felt he was unreasonable in the way he was pursuing his claim. He appealed saying the order was made outside the scope of Part 25.
Held: . .
Cited – Al-Koronky and Another v Time Life Entertainment Group Ltd and Another QBD 29-Jul-2005
The defendant to the defamation claim sought security for costs. There had been allegations of dishonesty on either side.
Held: The court should not, upon such an application, enter into the merits of the case in any detail, save in the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.83590

McDonald and Others v Horn and Others: ChD 12 Oct 1993

A pre-emptive costs order is possible where Plaintiffs are impecunious but the case is very strong.

Citations:

Times 12-Oct-1993

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – McDonald and Others v Horn and Others CA 8-Aug-1994
A court may make a pre-emptive award of costs to pension fund members who wished to sue the trustees. Hoffmann LJ said: ‘if one looks at the economic relationships involved, there does seem to me to be a compelling analogy between a minority . .
Cited – 3 Individual Present Professional Trustees of 2 Trusts v an Infant Prospective Beneficiary of One Trust and others ChD 25-Jul-2007
The parties challenged under the 198 Act the right of trustees to seek a Beddoe order protecting themselves against an award of costs. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Costs, Litigation Practice

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.83523

McFarlane v E E Caledonia Ltd: QBD 8 Dec 1994

The court can order a champertous non-party to pay a successful defendant’s costs of defending the claim.
A non-party unlawfully supporting an action was ordered to pay the costs of the defendant.
Held: It may not be necessary to every case of lawful maintenance that the maintainer should accept a liability for a successful adverse party’s costs; for example, a member of a family or a religious fraternity may well have a sufficient interest in maintaining an action to save such maintenance from contractual illegality, even without any acceptance of liability for such costs. But in what one may call a business context (e.g. insurance, a trade union activity, or commercial litigation support for remuneration) the acceptance of such liability will always, in my view, be a highly relevant consideration.’

Judges:

Longmore J

Citations:

Ind Summary 16-Jan-1995, Times 08-Dec-1994, [1995] 1 WLR 366

Citing:

See Also – McFarlane v E E Caledonia Ltd CA 10-Sep-1993
The court will not extend a duty of care to mere bystanders of horrific events. Nor is any duty of care owed to a rescuer lacking ordinary courage. Whether a person is to be regarded as a rescuer will be a question of fact to be decided on the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Abraham and Another v Thompson and Others ChD 12-May-1997
The court may issue a stay of proceedings pending disclosure of the source of funding of an action, without there needing to be any suggestion of champerty or other illegality. The first plaintiff was ordered to disclose to the 5th and 6th . .
Cited – Abraham and Another v Thompson and Another CA 24-Jul-1997
The plaintiffs appealed an order that they should disclose who if any had funded their case. The case concerned failed business ventures in Portugal. . .
Cited – Condliffe v Hislop and Another CA 3-Nov-1995
The plaintiff, a bankrupt, pursued libel proceedings. He was being financed by his mother who had limited resources. She undertook to pay any order for costs, but the Master ordered a stay under the inherent jurisdiction of the court to prevent . .
See Also – McFarlane v E E Caledonia Ltd CA 10-Sep-1993
The court will not extend a duty of care to mere bystanders of horrific events. Nor is any duty of care owed to a rescuer lacking ordinary courage. Whether a person is to be regarded as a rescuer will be a question of fact to be decided on the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.83532

McTear v Imperial Tobacco Ltd: IHCS 30 Sep 1996

The pursuer sought damages from the tobacco company following the death of her husband.
Held: A first instance decision on caution for expenses should be set aside only if plainly wrong.

Citations:

Times 30-Sep-1996

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

See Also – McTear v Scottish Legal Aid Board 1995
The court refused the pursuer’s claim for judicial review of the board’s refusal of legal aid to pursue a claim for negligence against tobacco manufacturers following the death of her husband. . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – McTear v Imperial Tobacco Ltd OHCS 31-May-2005
The pursuer sought damages after her husband’s death from lung cancer. She said that the defenders were negligent in having continued to sell him cigarettes knowing that they would cause this.
Held: The action failed. The plaintiff had not . .
See Also – McTear v Imperial Tobacco Limited SCS 23-Oct-2001
The pursuer sought damages from the defenders after her husband had died, she said, after suffering injury smoking their cigarettes. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.83405

Marsh v Frenchay NHS Trust: QBD 13 Mar 2001

The circumstances required to allow a person to withdraw money paid into court. The new rules created a flexibility unavailable under the old rules, and the case law associated with the old pre-Woolfe rules should not now determine how such applications are dealt with.

Citations:

Times 13-Mar-2001

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules Part 36

Cited by:

Cited – MRW Technologies v Cecil Holdings 22-Jun-2001
The court heard an appeal against a Master’s order which had given the defendant permission under rule 36.6(5) to withdraw a Part 36 payment.
Held: The same considerations apply to giving permission to withdraw money in court as to refusing . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Damages

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.83424

Manatee Towing Company and Another v Oceanbulk Maritime Sa and Another: ComC 11 May 1999

Old rules, restricting the power to disclose to documents relating to a matter at issue between the parties, were no longer applicable. The court could order disclosure of documents as between two parties which were relevant to an issue in related action.
ComC An additional defendant to the counterclaim, who was also a defendant to the plaintiff’s third party notice, may get discovery under RSC Order 24, rule 3 and/or 7, from the plaintiff, of documents relevant to an issue of quantum in the counterclaim, even though there was no issue of quantum as between him and the plaintiff. The question was treated as a matter of both jurisdiction and discretion and was decided in favour of the applicant for discovery in both respects. Order 24, rule 3’s and 7’s language ‘any party…… any other party…..relating to any matter in question in the cause or matter’ contested with rule 2’s ‘parties between whom pleadings are closed…. relating to any matter in question between them’.

Judges:

Rix J

Citations:

Times 11-May-1999, [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 876, [1999] CLC 1197, Independent 15-Mar-1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Manatee Towing Co and Anr v Oceanbulk Maritime and Anr. By original action ‘Bay Ridge’ (No. 2) ComC 18-May-1999
ComC Whether negotiations resulted in a binding contract of sale – the legal principles to be applied. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.83359

Lloyd’s Litigation Note (No 2): QBD 11 Feb 2000

Whilst the large majority of names had now settled, the remaining cases needed orderly disposal. Names wanting to reserve the right to take part in the threshold fraud issue, must notify the solicitors for Lloyd’s before February 21 2000 of their wish to take any part in that trial. When a determination had been made as to their contribution to the costs, they would have a certain time to withdraw.

Citations:

Times 11-Feb-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Insurance, Litigation Practice

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.83115

Jordan v Norfolk County Council: ChD 25 May 1994

An order to replace trees ‘as reasonably practical’ was to include cost considerations, and it could be varied where the costs exceeded those expected. The mandatory order was varied. When considering what was meant by ‘reasonably practical’ ‘. . there is very little nowadays which is not physically feasible if enough money is spent. Hence in this context the phrase is apt to include financial considerations.’

Judges:

Sir Donald Nicholls VC

Citations:

Times 25-May-1994, Ind Summary 20-Jun-1994, Gazette 03-Aug-1994, [1994] 4 All E R 218, [1994] 1 WLR 1353

Cited by:

Cited – Midtown Ltd v City of London Real Property Company Ltd ChD 20-Jan-2005
Tenants occupied land next to land which was to be developed after compulsory acquisition. The tenants and the landlords asserted a right of light over the land, and sought an injunction to prevent the development. The developer denied that any . .
Cited – Calgin, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Enfield Admn 29-Jul-2005
The claimant complained that having applied for housing in the borough they had in fact housed him outside the borough.
Held: The authority had a duty to house the applicant so far it was reasonably practicable within its borders. The policy . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Land, Environment

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.82627

James v Evans: CA 2 Aug 2000

In appropriate cases it was proper for a court summarily to dispose of cases. If a party has no reasonable prospect of success, it is in accordance with the philosophy of the new rules to manage cases actively and to allot court time to cases with the need to deal justly with claims. In this case active management might have avoided a three day listing for a case which was eventually dismissed on the first day.

Citations:

Times 02-Aug-2000

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 24.2(a)(ii)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.82482

International Distillers and Vintners Ltd v J F Hillebrand (UK) Ltd and Others: QBD 25 Jan 2000

An application was made to substitute one defendant in an action for an existing one. Under the old rules, the applicant would have to have shown both that the substitution arose from a genuine mistake and also that the new defendant had not been prejudiced. The new rules stated no such requirements, but the court held that it could not be imagined that such a requirement was not intended under the new rules.

Citations:

Times 25-Jan-2000

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules Part 19.4

Litigation Practice

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.82403

Ismail and Another v Richards Butler (A Firm): QBD 23 Feb 1996

A solicitor’s lien on papers can be set aside by the court to allow litigation to proceed, where there was a continuing retainer, and the lien was with regard to concluded matters. However, the release of the papers would reduce the value of the lien, and it may also be appropriate to require the client to provide some security for the costs. The power to order payment into court did not replace the equitable right of relief against the solicitors’ lien.

Citations:

Gazette 06-Mar-1996, Times 23-Feb-1996

Statutes:

Rules of the Supreme Court Ord 29 r 6

Citing:

Cited – Robins v Goldingham 1872
Where a solicitor discharges himself in the course of an action, he should be subject to an order for the transfer of the papers subject to an order respecting his lien for any unpaid costs. . .
Cited – Gamlen Chemical Co (UK) Ltd v Rochem Ltd CA 4-Dec-1979
Solicitors accepted instructions against a promise of sums on account of costs. After non-payment they began to apply to be removed from the record. The new solicitors sought transfer of the solicitors file, and obtained an order to that effect . .
Cited – A v B 1984
Solicitors acting for a ship owner incurred costs which remained unpaid by the client, and the solicitors arrested that client’s ship as security. The litigation was continuing. The solicitors took themselves off the court record and obtained . .
Cited – Heslop v Metcalfe 1837
The court referred to the practice that where a solicitor removed himself from a case, an order should be made for the transfer of his file of papers: ‘Undoubtedly, that doctrine may expose a solicitor to a very great inconvenience and hardship, if, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Costs, Litigation Practice

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.82437

Industrie Chimiche, Italia Centrale and Another v Alexander G Tsavliris and Sons Etc: ComC 19 Jul 1995

Procedure – RSC Order 20 r.5 – amendment with leave – mistake – mistake as to identity of person intending to sue – mistake as to name of that party – distinction – Procedure- RSC Order 20 r.5(3) – amendment with leave – discretion – RSC Order 6 r.8(1) – validity of writ – 4 months – RSC Order 11 r.1(1) – leave to serve outside jurisdiction – validity of writ – 6 months – admiralty action in personam – RSC Order 75 r.4(4) – exclusion of RSC Order 11 r.1(2) -meaning – Procedure – privilege – deployment of court material otherwise privileged – principles – application at interlocutory stage – fairness – disclosure of part of privileged document – waiver of privilege with respect to other parts – Procedure – substitution of parties – RSC Order 15 r.7 – outside limitation period
A new party can be added outside the limitation period for that party if the writ was served within time. An interest can be transferred from one party to another if the time limit is relevant. In all situations of such ‘everyday occurrences as death of one or other party, bankruptcy leading to assignment to a trustee in bankruptcy, assignment, transmission or devolution of interest … of which death was only the most striking, it seemed self-evident both that any existing proceedings, properly constituted within the limitation period, should be allowed to continue for or against the party to whom the relevant right or obligation had been transferred in law; and that that should be permitted whether the transfer occurred before or after the expiry of the limitation period. The underlying rationale of limitation periods, to protect against stale claims which should have been brought earlier, had no application to this type of case.’

Judges:

Mance J

Citations:

Ind Summary 04-Sep-1995, Times 08-Aug-1995, [1996] 1 WLR 774, [1996] 1 All ER 114, [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 608

Statutes:

Rules of the Supreme Court Order 15 r7

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Pharmedica GMBH’s Trade Mark Application ChD 2000
The tribunal was asked whether an assignee of a trademark should be substituted in existing opposition proceedings for the assignor. The assignment had taken place after the proceedings had begun.
Held: A tribunal has an inherent power to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Limitation

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.82324

Infantino v Maclean: QBD 20 Jul 2001

Where a court could no longer grant an extension of time for service of proceedings under rule 7.6, a court could, in appropriate circumstances, achieve the desired result by dispensing with service under rule 6.9. Here the parties had long been in negotiation, and the receiving party knew entirely of the document which was to be served. The case was complicated, and the claimant’s solicitors had otherwise gone well beyond the requirements of the rules in working with the defendant’s solicitors.

Citations:

Times 20-Jul-2001

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 7.6, 6.9

Litigation Practice

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.82327

In Re Port (A Bankrupt) (No 516 of 1987) Port v Auger: ChD 16 Dec 1993

‘Ordinary application’ in Insolvency Rules not a pleading to be struck out. Court may strike out ‘ordinary application’ only if no basis at all for claim.

Citations:

Times 16-Dec-1993, Ind Summary 27-Dec-1993

Statutes:

Rules of the Supreme Court Order 18 rule 19

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice, Insolvency

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.82125