The venue ought not to be changed, in an action brought by an attorney in the Court of which he is an attorney.
[1790] EngR 1387, (1790) Say 153, (1790) 96 ER 835 (B)
England and Wales
Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.364440
The 1856 Act cannot be used to allow a fishing expedition for evidence. The court distinguished between ‘a process by way of discovery and testimony for that purpose’ and ‘testimony for the trial itself’.
Devlin J
[1956] 1 QB 618
Foreign Tribunals Evidence Act 1856
England and Wales
Cited – In re State of Norway’s Application (No 1) CA 1987
There were taxation proceedings in Norway. One question was whether the Norwegian taxpayer controlled a trust which owned some shares. Letters rogatory issued by the Norwegian Court requested the oral examination of two witnesses in the United . .
Approved – In re Westinghouse Uranium Contract HL 1978
‘The fact, if it be so, that evidence so obtained may be used in other proceedings and indeed may be central in those proceedings is no reason for refusing to allow it to be requested’ Lord Fraser said: ‘in judging the nature of the letters rogatory . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.188696
Where one party appeals a judgment on its merits, the respondent is then entitled to seek to support it, even without needing further permission, on further grounds.
[2003] 1 WLR 307, [2002] EWCA 1142
England and Wales
Cited – Kastor Navigation Co Ltd and Another v Axa Global Risks (Uk) Ltd and others CA 10-Mar-2004
The Kastor Too had been lost in a fire. After substantial litigation, the insurers now appealed an order finding a constructive total loss (it was beyond economic repair or recovery). They had said that it was already beyond repair immediately . .
Cited – Sherrington and Another v Sherrington CA 29-Dec-2006
The deceased had after remarriage made a will which excluded from benefit entirely his first wife and children by her. Claims under the 1975 Act were put to one side while the court decided on the validity of the will, but then dismissed. The court . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.196577
The court declined to recognise any right of the media to protect their sources from disclosure of identity where disclosure was in the public interest.
Lord Parker CJ said: ‘it . . would remain open to this court to say in the special circumstances of any particular case that public policy did demand that the journalist should be immune’.
Lord Parker CJ
[1963] 1 All ER 420, [1963] 1 QB 773
England and Wales
Cited – British Steel Corporation v Granada Television Ltd HL 7-May-1980
The defendant had broadcast a TV programme using material confidential to the plaintiff, who now sought disclosure of the identity of the presumed thief.
Held: (Lord Salmon dissenting) The courts have never recognised a public interest right . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.193354
A defendant seeking to avoid answering questions so as not to incriminate himself is to be given some understanding and latitude in respecting his own interpretation. The beneficiary of a pardon could be called upon to incriminate himself because he merited no protection: ‘the effect of which [the pardon] was to make him a new man, and consequently to bar any proceedings by or in the name of the Crown’.
Cockburn CJ set out the level of risk required to allow a claim of the privilege against self incrimination: ‘To entitle a witness to the privilege of not answering a question as tending to incriminate him, the court must see, from the circumstances of the case and the nature of the evidence which the witness is called to give, that there is reasonable grounds to apprehend danger to the witness from his being compelled to answer. If the facts of the witness being endangered be once made to appear, great latitude should be allowed to him in judging the effect of any particular question. The danger to be apprehended must be real and appreciable, with reference to the ordinary operation of law in the ordinary course of things, and not a danger of imaginary character having reference to some barely possible contingency.’
Cockburn CJ
(1861) 1 B and S 311, [1861] EngR 626, (1861) 121 ER 730
England and Wales
Appeal from – Regina v Boyes 1860
A witness, an accomplice in a criminal offence, who has received the pardon of the Crown under the Great Seal for that offence, has no privilege of refusing to answer questions relating to the offence, which may tend to criminate himself. He is . .
Cited – British Steel Corporation v Granada Television Ltd HL 7-May-1980
The defendant had broadcast a TV programme using material confidential to the plaintiff, who now sought disclosure of the identity of the presumed thief.
Held: (Lord Salmon dissenting) The courts have never recognised a public interest right . .
Cited – Regina v Uxbridge Magistrates and Another ex parte Adimi; R v CPS ex parte Sorani; R v SSHD and Another ex parte Kaziu Admn 29-Jul-1999
The three asylum seeker appellants arrived in the United Kingdom at different times in possession of false passports. They were prosecuted for possession or use of false documents contrary to section 5, and for obtaining air services by deception . .
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 . .
Cited – Phillips v Newsgroup Newspapers Ltd and Others ChD 17-Nov-2010
The claimant had been assistant to a well known publicist. The defendant had settled an action brought by her principal for hacking his mobile telephone, in the course of which it appeared that the claimant’s phone had also been hacked. She now . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.193366
A subpoena requiring the production of documents had been served.
Held: A witness ought not to be required to comply with a letter of request if it appeared to the court ‘that the request is irrelevant, or fishing, or speculative, or oppressive’.
Lord Denning MR
[1976] QB 23
England and Wales
Cited – In re State of Norway’s Application (No 1) CA 1987
There were taxation proceedings in Norway. One question was whether the Norwegian taxpayer controlled a trust which owned some shares. Letters rogatory issued by the Norwegian Court requested the oral examination of two witnesses in the United . .
Cited – First American Corporation and others v Sheik Zayed Bin Sultan Al-Nahyan and Others CA 12-May-1998
Letters of Request had been received for the production of document to be used in litigation in the US. It was complained that they were drafted so widely as to amount to a fishing expedition.
Held: ‘an English court must look at the issue of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.188697
Application for protective costs order.
Holman J
[2008] EWHC 880 (Admin)
Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.267085
Carnwath LJ
[2006] EWCA Civ 1224
England and Wales
Appeal from – Prince Radu of Hohenzollern v Houston and Another QBD 7-Mar-2006
The claimant resided in Romania, and sought damages for libel. The magazine had obtained an order for security for costs. An offer had been made to cover the sum ordered, and no stifling could now happen.
Held: Any order for security costs in . .
See Also – Prince Radu of Hohenzollern v Houston and Another QBD 12-Oct-2007
. .
See Also – Prince Radu of Hohenzollern v Houston and Another QBD 23-Nov-2007
. .
See Also – Prince Radu of Hohenzollern v Houston and Another CA 15-Jul-2008
The defendant appealed from a decision that the occasion of publication was not privileged. He sought Reynolds protection.
Held: Appeal dismissed. . .
See Also – Prince Radu of Hohenzollern v Houston and Another (No 4) QBD 4-Mar-2009
Orders were sought to strike out part of the defendants defence of justification to an allegation of defamation.
Held: Where there remains the possibility of a jury trial, it becomes especially important to identify the issues the jurors are . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.245065
[1975] 1 Ll Rep 581
England and Wales
Cited – Lady Navigation Inc v Lauritzencool Ab and Another CA 17-May-2005
The shipowner appealed the award against them of an injunction requiring them not to act inconsistently with a time charterparty. The company said that such a form of order was improper.
Held: The existence of the contract to do what was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.225445
[2003] FSR 47
England and Wales
Cited – Norwich Pharmacal Co and others v Customs and Excise Commissioners HL 26-Jun-1973
Innocent third Party May still have duty to assist
The plaintiffs sought discovery from the defendants of documents received by them innocently in the exercise of their statutory functions. They sought to identify people who had been importing drugs unlawfully manufactured in breach of their . .
Cited – Mitsui and Co Ltd v Nexen Petroleum UK Ltd ChD 29-Apr-2005
Mitsui sought disclosure of documents from a third party under the rules in Norwich Pharmacal.
Held: Such relief was available ‘where the claimant requires the disclosure of crucial information in order to be able to bring its claim or where . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.224972
An action in the High Court on a debt proved in the County Court did not lie: ‘But where a specific remedy is provided for the recovery of such damages or sums of money, this mode of proceeding cannot be resorted to, as in the case of the new County courts, on the judgments of which an action will not lie.’
[1853] 1 El and Bl 805
England and Wales
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: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.223042
The obligation of confidentiality for documents disclosed during litigation discovery includes a duty being: ‘the implied undertaking, under which a party obtaining discovery is, not to use documents for any collateral or ulterior purpose.’
Jenkins J
[1948] 1 All ER 469
England and Wales
Cited – Kitcat v Sharp 1882
The plaintiff clergyman had begun his action for rescission of a contract with the defendant for misrepresentattion. The defendant sent him a ‘private and confidential’ letter threatening publication of the pleadings with comments depreciating the . .
Applied – Home Office v Hariette Harman HL 11-Feb-1982
The defendant had permitted a journalist to see documents revealed to her as in her capacity as a solicitor in the course of proceedings.
Held: The documents were disclosed under an obligation to use them for the instant case only. That rule . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.223342
[2001] EWCA Civ 1902
England and Wales
Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.201550
Application for leave to appeal from refusal of adjournment
[2001] EWCA Civ 1105
England and Wales
Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.201199
Adjournment
[2001] EWCA Civ 1566
England and Wales
Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.201362
[2001] EWCA Civ 1704
England and Wales
Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.201499
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 permission to take it out. He inclined, following Marsh v. Frenchay Healthcare, to a more flexible approach to take account of the overriding objective.
Garland J
Unreported, 22 June 2001
England and Wales
Cited – 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 . .
Approved – Cumper v Pothecary 1941
The court considered the nature of a payment into court: ‘there is nothing contractual about payment into court. It is wholly a procedural matter and has no true analogy to a settlement arranged between the parties out of court, which, of course, . .
Cited – Crouch v King’s Healthcare NHS Trust CA 15-Oct-2004
The defendants sought approval of their practice of making a written offer to the claimants rather than making a payment into court. The offer had been accepted but only after the defendant had purported to withdraw it.
Held: ‘it certainly is . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.199958
The case of Norrois v Beazley was criticised as too narrow an interpretation of the rules. The court decsribed ‘one of the great objects of the Judicature Acts, namely that where there is one subject matter out of which several disputes arise, all parties may be brought before the Court, and all those disputes may be determined at the same time without the expense and delay of several actions and trials.’
Lord Esher MR
[1895] 2 QB 321
England and Wales
Criticised – Norris v Beazley 1877
A person could not be added to a claim as defendant where the plaintiff has no claim against him and no wish to join him. . .
Cited – Balkanbank v Naser Taher and Others QBD 13-Feb-1995
The plaintiff had obtained a worldwide Mareva injunction, giving an undertaking for damages. On its discharge, the defendants sought to make a counterclaim. The defendant company and its subsidiaries sought to counterclaim for their damages suffered . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.200492
‘for the future in causes of collision and salvage, heard before the Trinity Masters, he should not sum up the evidence; but that the Court and Trinity Masters would retire and, on their return, the judgment of the Court would be given’.
Sir Robert Phillimore
(1867) LR 2 AdandE 53
England and Wales
Not current practice – ‘Bow Spring’, Owners of Ship v ‘Manzanillo Ii’, Owners of Ship CA 28-Jul-2004
There had been a collision at sea.
Held: (Addendum) Where the admiralty court sought advice from assessors, modern good practice required that the advice should be disclosed to the parties advisers and that they have opportunity to comment. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.200453
Lord Justice Laws Lord Phillips Of Worth Matravers, Mr Lord Justice Thomas
[2004] EWCA Civ 1062
England and Wales
Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.199737
Coleridge J, quoting Lord Chief Baron Gilbert: ‘nobody can take benefit by a verdict that had not been prejudiced by it, had it gone contrary’.
Coleridge J
(1855) 5 EandB 447
England and Wales
Cited – Wiltshire v Powell and others CA 7-May-2004
The claimant sought a declaration as to the ownership of an aircraft. Saying he had bought it in good faith from E H and S, who in turn similarly claimed to have bought it from Ebbs. The defendant had obtained a judgment that he was owner as against . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.198736
‘In no stage of the proceedings in this court can a party be compelled to answer any question, accusing himself, or any one in a series of questions, that has a tendency to (incriminate . . .)’
Lord Eldon
(1812) 19 Ves Jun 225
England and Wales
Cited – V v C CA 6-Oct-2001
The defendant faced an application for summary judgment and also a criminal investigation and possible criminal proceedings in respect of the same matters. He said that to provide a detailed defence to the claim he would have to give information . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.196003
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 Mareva type injunctions against defendants extending to assets outside the jurisdiction, but the court insisted that there can be no question of such orders operating directly upon the foreign assets by way of attachment, or upon third parties, such as banks, holding the assets. The effectiveness of such orders for these purposes can only derive from their recognition and enforcement by the local courts, as should be made clear in the terms of the orders to avoid any misunderstanding suggesting an unwarranted assumption of extraterritorial jurisdiction.
Nicholls LJ was concerned at the ‘extraterritorial vice’ of unqualified orders. He pointed out ‘The enforcement of the judgment in other countries, by attachment or like process, in respect of assets which are situated there is not affected by the order. The order does not attach those assets. It does not create, or purport to create, a charge on those assets, nor does it give the plaintiff any proprietary interest in then. The English court is not attempting in any way to interfere with or control the enforcement process in respect of those assets.’
Kerr LJ said: ‘In my view, the key to the proper exercise of any extra-territorial jurisdiction must lie in the question whether there is international reciprocity for the recognition and enforcement of the type of order which is under consideration, in this case a Mareva injunction or a variant of it purporting to operate on the defendants’ assets abroad.’ and
‘Apart from any EEC or EFTA connection, there is in any event no jurisdictional (as opposed to discretionary) ground which would preclude an English court from granting a pre-judgment Mareva injunction over assets situated anywhere outside the jurisdiction, which are owned or controlled by a defendant who is subject to the jurisdiction of our courts, provided that the order makes it clear that it is not to have any direct effect on the assets or on any third parties outside the jurisdiction save to the extent that the order may be enforced by the local courts. Whether an order which is qualified in this way would be enforced by the courts of states where the defendant’s assets are situated would of course depend on the local law . .’
Kerr LJ considered the standard proviso in such an order protecting the interests of third parties: ‘We understand that this is nowadays a standard type of proviso to Mareva injunctions, and it is of course inserted for the benefit of third parties who may be affected by the freezing order. My reason for quoting it is that it illustrates that, although Mareva injunctions are orders made in personam against defendants, they also have an in rem effect on third parties. It shows that, save to the extent of the proviso, the order is binding on third parties who have notice of the injunction. Although the passage in the judgment of Lord Denning MR in Z Ltd v. A [1982] 1 All ER 556 at 562, [1982] QB 558 at 573 headed ‘Operation in rem’ may well go too far in a number of respects, there cannot be any doubt that Mareva injunctions have a direct effect on third parties who are notified of them and who hold assets comprised in the order.’
Neill LJ said: ‘I am satisfied, however, that the Court has jurisdiction to grant a mareva injunction over foreign assets, and that in this developing branch of the law the decision in Ashtiani v. Kashi may require further consideration in a future case.’
Kerr, Neill and Nicholls LJJ
[1990] Ch 13, Independent 30-Jun-1988, [1989] 1 All ER 433
England and Wales
Limited – Z Ltd v A-Z and AA-LL CA 1982
The plaintiffs, an overseas company with an office in London had been defrauded here. They sought and obtained Mareva injunctions against defendants and against six clearing banks. The banks sought clarification of their duties.
Held: The . .
Cited – Ashtiani v Kashi CA 1986
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 . .
Cited – Kuwait Oil Tanker Company SAK and others v UBS AG, Qabazard HL 12-Jun-2003
Mr Qabazard conspired with others to defraud the Kuwait Oil Tanker Company SAK and Sitka Shipping Inc of large sums of money. On 16 November 1998 Moore-Bick J gave judgment against him for over US$130m. Historically sums had been placed with the . .
Cited – Societe Eram Shipping Company Limited and others v Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corp Ltd, Compagnie Internationale de Navigation HL 12-Jun-2003
The appeal concerned a final third party debt order (formerly a garnishee order). A judgment in France was registered here for enforcement. That jurisdiction was now challenged.
Held: A third party debt order is a proprietary remedy operating . .
Cited – BAS Capital Funding Corporation, Deutsche Bank Ag London, Paine Webber Capital Inc, PW Exe Lp, Pw Partners 1999 Lp v Medfinco Limited, Abacus Holdings Limited, Andreas W Gerdes, HTC Inc, etc ChD 25-Jul-2003
The claimants wanted to bring actions in respect of various matters under shareholders agreements in complex international joint ventures. Leave was given to serve English proceedings in Malta, and the claim form and particulars of claim were faxed . .
Cited – Bank of China v NBM LLC and others CA 18-Dec-2001
A world wide asset freezing order, should as regards property in other jurisdictions allow that those having control of such assets must be free to deal with them as required by local law and other legal obligations. An order had included a ‘Baltic . .
Endorsed – Derby and Co Ltd v Weldon (Nos 3 and 4) CA 1990
The plaintiff had obtained an asset freezing order against a defendant Panamanian Company, which now appealed saying that it was inappropriate to make such an order where the company had no assets in the jurisdiction.
Held: The appeal failed. . .
Applied – Republic of Haiti v Duvalier CA 1989
The defendant had fled from Haiti with a large part of that country’s assets while in power. Proceedings were pending in France which gave no jurisdiction to grant a worldwide freezing or disclosure order. He had used a firm of English solicitors as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.183518
Freedman J
[2021] EWHC 1031 (QB)
Evidence (Proceedings in Other Jurisdictions) Act 1975
England and Wales
Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.662162
(British Virgin Islands) Two issues arose. First, what was the consequence of inordinate delay between a judge hearing a case and giving his decision, and secondly, how was the law of adverse possession to be applied in cases of interrupted or intermittent occupation. The parties had had resolved a dispute as to the ownership of land, but the winner moved to England, and the neighbour began acts to retake the land. The action to retake the land was heard, but judgement was not given until over a year after the hearing.
Held: There was a suggestion that the judge had misremembered some of the evidence, but his notes were detailed, and there was no evidence that the delay had actually effected the judgement. Such would have to be shown to justify setting aside a judgement on this ground. Similarly the judge’s analysis of the law was correct.
Legatt LJ said: ‘As to demeanour, two things can be said. First, in their Lordships’ collective experience, a judge re-reading his notes of evidence after the elapse of a considerable period of time can expect, if the notes are of the requisite quality, his impressions of the witnesses to be revived by the re-reading. Second, every experienced judge, and Georges J was certainly that, is likely to make notes as a trial progresses recording the impressions being made on him by the witnesses. Notes of this character would not, without the judge’s permission or special request being made to him, form part of the record on an appeal. They might be couched in language quite unsuitable for public record.’
Lord Slynn of Hadley Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Scott of Foscote Sir Ivor Richardson The Rt. Hon. Edward Zacca
Times 24-Jan-2001, [2000] UKPC 49, [2001] 1 WLR 1775
England and Wales
Cited – Goose v Wilson Sandford and Co and Mainon CA 13-Feb-1998
A judge was properly criticised for failing to write up a judgment when the witness’ evidence was still fresh in his mind. A two year delay required a re-trial.
Peter Gibson LJ explained the potential effect of delay on the formulation and . .
Cited – West Bank Estates Ltd v Arthur PC 1967
(From Federal Supreme Court of the West Indies) A claim was made for possessory title to a strip of land, based upon acts of cultivation, the cutting of timber, wood and grass, fishing and growing rice. The trial judge disallowed the claim to a . .
Cited – Boodhoo, Jagram, (suing on behalf of themselves and the Sanatan Dharma Sudhar Sadha) v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago PC 1-Apr-2004
PC (Trinidad and Tobago) The complainant said that his constitutional rights had been infringed by the court’s delay. Proceedings had begun in 1987 for redress with regard to a land dispute. There was substantial . .
Cited – Bangs v Connex South Eastern Ltd CA 27-Jan-2005
The failure of a tribunal to promulgate its decision was a matter of fact not of law, and could not therefore itself be a ground of appeal to the EAT. The EAT had allowed an appeal on the fair trial provision of the Convention. A failure to . .
Cited – Bond v Dunster Properties Ltd and Others CA 21-Apr-2011
The defendant appealed against the judge’s findings as to fact delivered some 22 months after the hearing.
Held: The appeal failed. Though such a delay must require the court carefully to investigate the judgment, it did not of itself . .
Cited – SS (Sri Lanka), Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 15-Jun-2018
The court was asked whether, in cases heard by the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) where the credibility of the appellant is in issue, there is a rule that a delay of more than three months between the hearing of oral evidence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.163263
Appeal from refusal of continuance of anti-suit injunction
Flaux, Males, Popplewell LJJ
[2020] EWCA Civ 599, A4/2019/2516, A4/2019/2516(A)
England and Wales
See Also – SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd ChD 23-Jul-2010
The court considered the impact of the distinction drawn by Article 9(2) of TRIPS and Article 2 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty between ‘expressions’ and ‘ideas, procedures, methods of operation and mathematical concepts as such’ on domestic copyright . .
See Also – SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd ECJ 29-Nov-2011
ECJ Opinion – Intellectual property – Directive 91/250/EEC – Directive 2001/29/EC – Legal protection of computer programs – Creation of various programs including the functionalities of another computer program . .
See Also – SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd ChD 22-Nov-2010
The parties sought to agree the terms of a reference to the European Court of Justice. . .
See Also – SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd ECJ 2-May-2012
ECJ (Grand Chamber) Intellectual property – Directive 91/250/EEC – Legal protection of computer programs – Articles 1(2) and 5(3) – Scope of protection – Creation directly or via another process – Computer . .
See Also – SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd ChD 25-Jan-2013
The parties disputed the extent to which elements of the claimant’s software package could be used by the defendants. SAS had written software including its own computer language to create a data processing environment. The defendants had wanted to . .
See Also – SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd CA 21-Nov-2013
The court was asked as to the extent to which the developer of a computer program may lawfully replicate the functions of an existing computer program; and the materials that he may lawfully use for that purpose. SAS had produced a computer software . .
See Also – SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd ComC 13-Dec-2018
SAS sought to enforce its North Carolina judgment which was contrary to decisions already made by the UK and European Courts.
Held: Cockerill J held that the terms of the contract which purported to prohibit WPL’s conduct constituted a . .
Cited – SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd (2495) ComC 25-Sep-2019
Post judgment orders . .
Appeal from – SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd (Injunction) ComC 25-Sep-2019
Continuation of anti-suit injunction – refused . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.650724
Insolvency – Administration – Extension of administrator’s term of office
Coronavirus Pandemic – Guidance on preparation for remote hearings
His Honour Judge Hodge QC
[2020] EWHC 1135 (Ch)
England and Wales
Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.650769
Bryan J
[2020] EWHC 240 (Comm)
England and Wales
Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.648571
Continuation of anti-suit injunction – refused
Cockerill J
[2019] EWHC 2481 (Comm)
England and Wales
See Also – SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd ChD 23-Jul-2010
The court considered the impact of the distinction drawn by Article 9(2) of TRIPS and Article 2 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty between ‘expressions’ and ‘ideas, procedures, methods of operation and mathematical concepts as such’ on domestic copyright . .
See Also – SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd ChD 22-Nov-2010
The parties sought to agree the terms of a reference to the European Court of Justice. . .
See Also – SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd ECJ 29-Nov-2011
ECJ Opinion – Intellectual property – Directive 91/250/EEC – Directive 2001/29/EC – Legal protection of computer programs – Creation of various programs including the functionalities of another computer program . .
See Also – SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd ECJ 2-May-2012
ECJ (Grand Chamber) Intellectual property – Directive 91/250/EEC – Legal protection of computer programs – Articles 1(2) and 5(3) – Scope of protection – Creation directly or via another process – Computer . .
See Also – SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd ChD 25-Jan-2013
The parties disputed the extent to which elements of the claimant’s software package could be used by the defendants. SAS had written software including its own computer language to create a data processing environment. The defendants had wanted to . .
See Also – SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd CA 21-Nov-2013
The court was asked as to the extent to which the developer of a computer program may lawfully replicate the functions of an existing computer program; and the materials that he may lawfully use for that purpose. SAS had produced a computer software . .
See Also – SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd ComC 13-Dec-2018
SAS sought to enforce its North Carolina judgment which was contrary to decisions already made by the UK and European Courts.
Held: Cockerill J held that the terms of the contract which purported to prohibit WPL’s conduct constituted a . .
Cited – SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd (2495) ComC 25-Sep-2019
Post judgment orders . .
Appeal from – SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd CA 12-May-2020
Appeal from refusal of continuance of anti-suit injunction . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.642103
Post judgment orders
[2019] EWHC 2496 (Comm)
England and Wales
See Also – SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd ChD 23-Jul-2010
The court considered the impact of the distinction drawn by Article 9(2) of TRIPS and Article 2 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty between ‘expressions’ and ‘ideas, procedures, methods of operation and mathematical concepts as such’ on domestic copyright . .
See Also – SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd ChD 22-Nov-2010
The parties sought to agree the terms of a reference to the European Court of Justice. . .
See Also – SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd ECJ 29-Nov-2011
ECJ Opinion – Intellectual property – Directive 91/250/EEC – Directive 2001/29/EC – Legal protection of computer programs – Creation of various programs including the functionalities of another computer program . .
See Also – SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd ECJ 2-May-2012
ECJ (Grand Chamber) Intellectual property – Directive 91/250/EEC – Legal protection of computer programs – Articles 1(2) and 5(3) – Scope of protection – Creation directly or via another process – Computer . .
See Also – SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd ChD 25-Jan-2013
The parties disputed the extent to which elements of the claimant’s software package could be used by the defendants. SAS had written software including its own computer language to create a data processing environment. The defendants had wanted to . .
See Also – SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd CA 21-Nov-2013
The court was asked as to the extent to which the developer of a computer program may lawfully replicate the functions of an existing computer program; and the materials that he may lawfully use for that purpose. SAS had produced a computer software . .
See Also – SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd ComC 13-Dec-2018
SAS sought to enforce its North Carolina judgment which was contrary to decisions already made by the UK and European Courts.
Held: Cockerill J held that the terms of the contract which purported to prohibit WPL’s conduct constituted a . .
Cited – SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd (Injunction) ComC 25-Sep-2019
Continuation of anti-suit injunction – refused . .
Cited – SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd CA 12-May-2020
Appeal from refusal of continuance of anti-suit injunction . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.642104
SAS sought to enforce its North Carolina judgment which was contrary to decisions already made by the UK and European Courts.
Held: Cockerill J held that the terms of the contract which purported to prohibit WPL’s conduct constituted a fundamental building block for the fraud claim and that without it that claim – as it was formulated in the North Carolina proceedings – could not have been run. Accordingly, the enforcement claim failed on four grounds:
(1) First, the issue estoppel which would have defeated the breach of contract claim equally defeated the fraud claim, and hence the UDTPA claim which in turn was based on the fraud claim. That was because the fraud claim depended on the licence terms which the English court had held to be null and void.
(2) Second, even if enforcement of the North Carolina judgment were not barred by issue estoppel, it would have been barred as an abuse of process, applying Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100, because the claims in that action could and should have been brought as part of the original claim in England.
(3) Third, enforcement would be contrary to the important public policy, embodied in the Software Directive, of preventing the monopolisation of ideas and promoting competition and consumer welfare.
(4) Fourth, following the decision of Lord Hodge in the Scottish case of Service Temps Inc v MacLeod [2013] CSOH 162, [2014] SLT 375, enforcement of the UDTPA element of the judgment, including the compensatory damages awarded in respect of that claim, was barred by section 5 of the PTIA.
Cockerill J
[2018] EWHC 3452 (Comm)
England and Wales
See Also – SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd ChD 23-Jul-2010
The court considered the impact of the distinction drawn by Article 9(2) of TRIPS and Article 2 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty between ‘expressions’ and ‘ideas, procedures, methods of operation and mathematical concepts as such’ on domestic copyright . .
See Also – SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd ChD 22-Nov-2010
The parties sought to agree the terms of a reference to the European Court of Justice. . .
See Also – SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd ECJ 29-Nov-2011
ECJ Opinion – Intellectual property – Directive 91/250/EEC – Directive 2001/29/EC – Legal protection of computer programs – Creation of various programs including the functionalities of another computer program . .
See Also – SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd ECJ 2-May-2012
ECJ (Grand Chamber) Intellectual property – Directive 91/250/EEC – Legal protection of computer programs – Articles 1(2) and 5(3) – Scope of protection – Creation directly or via another process – Computer . .
See Also – SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd ChD 25-Jan-2013
The parties disputed the extent to which elements of the claimant’s software package could be used by the defendants. SAS had written software including its own computer language to create a data processing environment. The defendants had wanted to . .
Cited – SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd CA 21-Nov-2013
The court was asked as to the extent to which the developer of a computer program may lawfully replicate the functions of an existing computer program; and the materials that he may lawfully use for that purpose. SAS had produced a computer software . .
See Also – SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd (2495) ComC 25-Sep-2019
Post judgment orders . .
See Also – SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd (Injunction) ComC 25-Sep-2019
Continuation of anti-suit injunction – refused . .
See Also – SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd CA 12-May-2020
Appeal from refusal of continuance of anti-suit injunction . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.631433
Teare J considered the without prejudice rule: ‘In my judgment an exception can only be allowed where it is of the same character as one already established or where it is an incremental but principled extension of an existing exception, as was the exception in Oceanbulk v TMT.’
Teare J
[2018] EWHC 1763 (Comm)
England and Wales
Cited – Briggs and Others v Clay and Others ChD 25-Feb-2019
Defendants’ application to exclude evidence said to be ‘without prejudice’ The case concerned a pension scheme for employees within a group of companies. In a prior action by way of a Part 8 claim brought by the trustees of the scheme, the court had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.619842
The defendant appealed from a decision requiring him to disclose documents which he said were held on a without prejudice basis. Mr Halborg, a solicitor, acted for his parents and a family company under a conditional fee agreement on their claim against a firm of architects, Savage Hayward. Mr Halborg engaged EMW Law to assist him under an agency arrangement which itself incorporated a CFA in that it provided that EMW would be paid only fees which Mr Halborg or the Halborg claimants had recovered from Savage Hayward. The proceedings against Savage Hayward were settled on terms under which they were liable to pay the Halborg claimants’ costs. When it appeared that Mr Halborg had failed to recover anything in respect of its fees, EMW sued him for breach of implied terms of the agency agreement that he would take all reasonable measures to recover its fees.
A significant issue was whether Mr Halborg had made all reasonable efforts to recover EMW’s costs in his negotiations on costs with Savage Hayward’s solicitors (BMW) and, indeed whether the costs had finally been settled (which Mr Halborg disputed). Mr Halborg sought to withhold, as covered by the WP rule, disclosure of correspondence and notes of communications with BMW relating to those negotiations (referred to as the ‘Class A Documents’).
In his judgment, Newey J (as he then was), after discussing the criticism of the reasoning in Muller, said that he should proceed on the basis that there was an exception which encompasses the facts of the Muller case. He held that the documents should be disclosed, stating, at [64]:
‘ . . I have concluded that, to echo Lord Walker in Ofulue v Bossert and Lord Clarke in the Oceanbulk case, justice clearly demands that an exception to the without prejudice rule (whether that encompassing the facts of the Muller case or another, comparable, exception) should apply . . .’
Newey J set out a number of factors which supported that conclusion, of which three seem to me particularly relevant for the present case. He noted that Mr Halborg had referred in his defence to the negotiations with BMW, and further:
‘iv) It is hard to see how EMW’s claim would be justiciable without disclosure of Class A Documents. EMW and the Court would both, on the face of it, be in the dark as to, for example, what any payments Savage Hayward have made related to, how they came to be made on that basis, why nothing has been paid in respect of other items of costs and, should it prove to be the case that no settlement has been concluded, why not;
v) I see no likelihood that recognising that an exception to the without prejudice rule applies would deter parties from seeking to settle. Those undertaking negotiations will, if well informed, already be aware that the without prejudice rule will not apply if there is a dispute about whether they have reached agreement and that the facts of the Muller case have been held to fall within another exception. The existence of the Muller exception, moreover, means that communications otherwise protected by the without prejudice rule may become disclosable and admissible because the other party to negotiations unilaterally chooses, for reasons of his own, to put forward a case about the negotiations in litigation with a third party; . . ‘
Newey J
[2017] EWHC 1014 (Ch)
England and Wales
See Also – EMW Law Llp v Halborg ChD 22-May-2015
. .
Cited – Briggs and Others v Clay and Others ChD 25-Feb-2019
Defendants’ application to exclude evidence said to be ‘without prejudice’ The case concerned a pension scheme for employees within a group of companies. In a prior action by way of a Part 8 claim brought by the trustees of the scheme, the court had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.583683
Application to continue a freezing order
[2014] EWHC 2943 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.536538
Applications by the claimants, who hold securities issued by the Republic of Argentina for certain declarations and injunctive relief.
Mr Justice Newey
[2014] EWHC 3662 (Ch)
England and Wales
Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.538683
Viscount Simon LC said: ‘When an appeal is argued before the House of Lords, no one has any right of audience except counsel instructed on behalf of a party or (when the litigant is a natural person) the party himself. In the case of a corporation, inasmuch as the artificial entity cannot attend and argue personally, the right of audience is necessarily limited to counsel instructed on the corporation’s behalf . . Such a rule limiting a right of audience on behalf of others to members of the English or Scottish or Northern Irish bars, secures that the House will be served by barristers or advocates who observe the rules of their profession, who are subject to a disciplinary code, and who are familiar with the methods and scope of advocacy which are followed in presenting arguments to this House’.
Viscount Simon LC
1943 SC (HL) 88
Scotland
Cited – Apollo Engineering Ltd v James Scott Ltd (Scotland) SC 13-Jun-2013
After long running litigation between the parties, a shareholder and director of Apollo sought to represent the company in person. He was refused leave by the Court of Session, and now sought to appeal. The Court considered the possibility of an . .
Cited – HM Secretary of State for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, Re Order To Wind Up UK Bankruptcy Ltd SCS 31-Mar-2009
Outer House – Court of Session – . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.526002
Application by originating summons for pre-action discovery
[2013] NIQB 53
Northern Ireland
Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.511149
The parties disputed a settlement of property on divorce, and on appeal the court had to consider how it should approach a judgment made at the discretion of the judge at first instance.
Held: After citing Bellendon, Brennan J added: ‘The ‘generous ambit within which reasonable disagreement is possible’ is wide indeed when there are a number of factors to be taken into account and the comparative weight to be attributed to those factors is not clearly indicated by uniform standards and values of the community. The generous ambit of reasonable disagreement marks the area of immunity from appellate interference.’
Brennan J
(1986) 161 CLR 513, [1986] HCA 17
England and Wales
Applied – Bellenden (formerly Satterthwaite) v Satterthwaite CA 1948
The court considered the role of the appeal court in assessing an order for maintenance payable for a divorced wife. The judge’s decision had been made by an exercise of his discretion.
Held: Asquith LJ said: ‘It is, of course, not enough for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.420230
When an issue is joined relating to another’s appearance, what shall be said to be a good manner of pleading in such sort of cases.
[1744] EngR 401, (1744) 2 Barn KB 110, (1744) 94 ER 388 (B)
England and Wales
Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.382257
A corporation’s return to a mandamus need not be sealed with the common seal.
[1790] EngR 1457, (1790) 2 Ld Raym 848, (1790) 92 ER 66 (B)
England and Wales
Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.364510
(the Turks and Caicos Islands)
[2009] UKPC 22
Commonwealth
Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.346616
Verdict against two, and separate damages : the plaintiff may sign judgment against both for the damages of one ; and so waive off the damages against the other, without releasing them.
[1792] EngR 1268, (1792) Cro Car 192, (1792) 79 ER 768 (B)
England and Wales
Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.359480
Post judgment applications
[2009] EWHC 993 (Ch), [2009] CP Rep 35
England and Wales
Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.344032
[1790] EngR 10, (1732, 1756, 1790) Bar N 66, (1790) 94 ER 809 (D)
England and Wales
Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.363064
Action for assault and battery – payment into court
[1854] EngR 662, (1854) 4 El and Bl 53, (1854) 119 ER 21
England and Wales
Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.293519
[1858] EngR 998, (1858) 4 Drew 306, (1858) 62 ER 118
England and Wales
Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.289469
The claimants brought a claim in passing-off first obtaining an interim injunction but then failing at trial. The defendants then claimed under the undertaking in damages given. The claimants now sought to say that the injunction could have been justified on the separate ground that the defendants were in breach of copyright. The defendants said, relying on Henderson v Henderson, that it was too late for the claimant to take the point. The claimants said they had raised the claim in negotiations but had refrained from taking proceedings in relation to the claim because the defendants in those negotiations had asked them to hold fire with respect to that claim. The defendant replied that those negotiations were without prejudice and could not be referred to.
Held: A without prejudice argument could not be used for the purpose of ‘unambiguous impropriety’. In those circumstances reliance on the privilege would be ‘plainly unconscionable’. No allegation of ‘impropriety’ or ‘unconsconability’ was made and, to that extent Hodgkinson was distinguished.
Neuberger J referred to Tomlin’s case which decided that without prejudice correspondence could be looked at to determine whether a settlement had been reached and added: ‘Although, of course, contract and estoppel are quite separate concepts, it appears to me logical and consistent that if ‘without prejudice’ correspondence can be looked at to see if it gives rise to a contract, then such correspondence can also be looked at to see if it gives rise to an estoppel. However, I do not suggest that there is an absolute rule to that effect.’
Neuberger J
[1997] FSR 178
England and Wales
See Also – Hodgkinson and Corby Ltd and Another v Wards Mobility Services Ltd ChD 3-Aug-1994
Proof of the deception of some purchasers is an essential pre-requisite of the tort of passing off. . .
Appeal from – Hodgkinson and Corby Ltd (T/a Raymar) v Wards Mobility Services Ltd CA 27-Oct-1997
. .
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 . .
Cited – Oceanbulk Shipping and Trading Sa v TMT Asia Ltd CA 15-Feb-2010
The parties had settled their disagreement, but now disputed the interpretation of the settlement. The defendant sought to be allowed to give in evidence correspondence leading up to the settlement which had been conducted on a without prejudice . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.269955
The claimant had rejected satellite antennae it had bought from the defendants, and sought damages. The defendant said the English court did not have jurisdiction, since the order terms contained an exclusive jurisdiction clause. The claimant sought to appeal the oder refusing jurisdiction. The county court judge had refused permission to appeal to the High Court, but directed that the claimants appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Held: Though the judge had power when granting permission to appeal, to order the transfer of the appeal to the Court of Appeal, he could not do so and at the same time withhold permission to appeal.
Lord Justice Dyson Lady Justice Arden Sir Anthony Clarke MR
[2007] EWCA Civ 140, Times 19-Mar-2007, [2007] 1 WLR 2175, [2008] Bus LR 472, [2007] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 411
England and Wales
Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.249234
The claimant sought damages claiming to have been defrauded of property in Spain.
Sedley LJ, lloyd LJ, Hallett LJ
[2006] EWCA Civ 1425
England and Wales
Appeal from – Weston v Gribben ChD 20-Dec-2005
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.245821
The court considered what would constitute frivolous proceedings on a request to magistrates to state a case.
Held: The expression meant that there was no possible prospect of a case succeeding because there was no substance in the request that a case should be stated.
Cluny J
Unreported, 13 April 1992
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Mildenhall Magistrates’ Court, Ex Parte Forest Heath District Council; Regina v North West Suffolk (Mildenhall) Magistrates’ Court ex parte Forest Heath District Council CA 16-Apr-1997
The Magistrates appealed against an order of mandamus requiring a case to be stated after rejecting the request by the authority as frivolous. The authority had sought to prevent the emission of noise from land used for a Motocross racing track.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.247418
Sir Baliol Brett MR: ‘however negligent or careless may have been the first omission, and, however late the proposed amendment, the amendment should be allowed if it can be made without injustice to the other side. There is no injustice if the other side can be compensated in costs.’
Sir Baliol Brett MR
(1883) 32 WR 262
England and Wales
Cited – Shoe Machinery Company v Cutlan 1896
The patentee had succeeded at trial in obtaining a declaration of validity and a determination of infringement, and, in subsequent proceedings, the infringer sought to challenge the validity of the patent by raising a fresh argument based on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.247701
[1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 215
England and Wales
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.
Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.245076
Lord MacDermott CJ discussed the doctrine of stare decisis: ‘Heretofore this Court has accepted and respected the doctrine, and as matters stand, I see no reason why, with one possible reservation, we should change the position even if, as a court, we were free to do so. The reservation I would make refers to cases-such as the present-where there is no appeal from this Court to the House of Lords. In such a case where the ratio of the earlier decision (1) cannot be found with certainty, or (2) is plainly wrong and it would be unjust or unfair to act upon it, I consider that this Court should then be at liberty to disregard the earlier decision and to reach an independent conclusion’
Lord MacDermott CJ
Unreported, 18 March 1969
England and Wales
Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.244803
[1971] 1 Ll R 7
England and Wales
Mentioned – Lady Navigation Inc v Lauritzencool Ab and Another CA 17-May-2005
The shipowner appealed the award against them of an injunction requiring them not to act inconsistently with a time charterparty. The company said that such a form of order was improper.
Held: The existence of the contract to do what was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.225444
The jurisdiction under Norwich Pharmacal is not confined to circumstances where there has been tortious wrongdoing and is now available where there has been contractual wrongdoing.
[1997] 1 WLR 1309
England and Wales
Cited – Norwich Pharmacal Co and others v Customs and Excise Commissioners HL 26-Jun-1973
Innocent third Party May still have duty to assist
The plaintiffs sought discovery from the defendants of documents received by them innocently in the exercise of their statutory functions. They sought to identify people who had been importing drugs unlawfully manufactured in breach of their . .
Cited – Mitsui and Co Ltd v Nexen Petroleum UK Ltd ChD 29-Apr-2005
Mitsui sought disclosure of documents from a third party under the rules in Norwich Pharmacal.
Held: Such relief was available ‘where the claimant requires the disclosure of crucial information in order to be able to bring its claim or where . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.224971
Application for leave to appeal from striking out a claim of alleged solicitors’ negligence- refused
Lord Justice Jacob
[2005] EWCA Civ 3
England and Wales
Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.221742
The presumption in favour of permitting a Mackenzie friend is a strong one.
[2002] 1 FLR 39
England and Wales
Cited – Potter v Potter FdNI 5-Feb-2003
The testator’s capacity to make his will was challenged. He had lived alone without electricity, but his doctor said he was known to him and was ‘with it’. Evidence from a member of staff at the solicitor’s office supported the doctor’s description. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.219629
(very short) Appeal dismissed in absence of applicant.
[2004] EWCA Civ 1683
England and Wales
Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.221006
The defendant sought leave to appeal against orders for possession. The trial had been transcribed by the claimant. At the start of the application, a copy of the transcript was given to the judge but not the defendant despite his application.
Held: The judge should not be provided with a document which was not also to be provided to the other party. The failure to do so was a procedural irregularity. In this case however the transcript had been provided in time for the defence counsel to make use of it for his closing summary, and no prejudice had in fact occurred. The other grounds of appeal failed. Appeal dismissed.
Lord Justice Auld, Lord Justice Chadwick, Lord Justice Clarke
[2004] EWCA Civ 1767, Times 11-Jan-2005
England and Wales
See Also – Lloyds Bank Plc and others v Cassidy CA 8-Nov-2002
. .
Cited – Meftah v Lloyds TSB Bank ChD 2001
Receivers of property under charge are not obliged before sale to spend money on repairs. . .
Cited – Routestone Ltd v Minories Finance ChD 1996
A receiver’s management duties will ordinarily impose on him no general duty to exercise the power of sale, or to ‘work’ an estate by refurbishing it before sale. Speaking of the role of an expert witness ‘What really matters in most cases are the . .
Cited – Garland v Ralph Pay and Ransom 1984
Receivers taking possession of a property are not under an obligation to make the property more attractive before marketing it. . .
Cited – Palk v Mortgage Services Funding Plc CA 1993
The mortgagees had obtained an Order for possession with the intention, not of proceeding to sell the property but of waiting in the hope that the market might improve. The mortgagor was anxious that the property should be sold so that the proceeds . .
See Also – Lloyds Bank Plc and others v Cassidy CA 8-Nov-2002
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.220666
Application for permission to appeal from the decision of the judge to refuse to continue a freezing order
[2001] EWCA Civ 1459
England and Wales
Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.201350
Appeals following strike out of defence after failure to comply with directions and otherwise.
Lord Justice Rix
[2001] EWCA Civ 1462
England and Wales
Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.201361
Application to reinstate dismissed.
Henry LJ
[2001] EWCA Civ 453
England and Wales
Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.200887
[2001] EWCA Civ 899
England and Wales
Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.201033
[2001] EWCA Civ 985
England and Wales
Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.201179
The plaintiff instructed the defendants, a firm of wool-brokers in the City of London, to buy foreign wool for him, in the belief that all the partners in the firm were duly qualified to act as brokers. It was of some importance to him to know who the sellers were of the wool which the defendants claimed to have bought for him, and he came to suspect that the information given him by the defendants as to the sellers was false and that the transactions were fraudulent. He therefore sought discovery of their dealings for him against the defendants. In fact, however, two of the three partners in the defendant firm were not qualified to act as brokers, as they had not entered into appropriate bonds with the City authorities, and if they were shown to have acted as brokers without being duly qualified they would be liable to penalties by statutes. The defendants therefore refused to give discovery or any further information, and relied on the privilege against self-incrimination.
Held: The court considered the rule against self-incrimination. A man by contract or the effect of his own acts may exclude himself from the benefit of the privilege against self-incrimination. The court equated, in equity, the moral obligation of a confidential agent to give discovery, to an obligation resulting from a stipulation by deed. A justification of the decision on moral grounds, was that the plaintiff as employer had no reason to suspect, and no means of detecting the misrepresentation of the fact whether the defendants were or were not duly constituted legal brokers.
Sir Anthony Hart, Vice-Chancellor
(1827) 1 Sim 404, (1827) 57 ER 630
England and Wales
Cited – Holder v The Law Society Admn 26-Jul-2005
The applicant challenged the independence of the respondent’s disciplinary tribunal.
Held: The claim failed: ‘the nature of the Tribunal is entirely adequately independent and impartial for the purposes for which it is constituted. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.200661
The word ‘review’ means a rehearing which may pronounce anew the rights of the parties.
Burchett J
(1986) 9 FCR 52
Australia
Cited – Tom Hudson (HM Inspector of Taxes) v JDC Services Limited ChD 26-Mar-2004
The taxpayer company had been refused a statutory Construction Industry Scheme certificate. The General Commissioners allowed the company’s appeal and itself issued a certificate. The revenue said the Commissioners had no jurisdiction either to hear . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.195749
In issue was a provision in the 1967 Act which stated that, if it appeared to the Secretary of State that it was expedient in the public interest that a corporate body should be wound up, he could present a petition for its winding-up. That power had been exercised by the Inspector of Companies in the Department of Trade acting for the Secretary of State. It was held that there was no obligation on the Secretary of State to exercise the power personally. It had been argued that the exercise of the power involved a serious invasion of the freedom or property rights of the subject and that it should be exercised only by the Secretary of State in whom it had been invested. Brightman J accepted that the power given to the Secretary of State ‘was of a most formidable nature which may cause serious damage to the reputation or financial stability of the company’, but he rejected the notion that a true distinction required to be drawn as a matter of law between powers which the minister must exercise personally and those which can be exercised by an officer of his department, if that distinction was based on the seriousness of the subject matter.
Brightman J’s judgment was based on his rejection of the claim that a distinction should be drawn as a matter of law between those cases in which the exercise of the power would have serious and grave consequences for those affected by it and cases where such consequences were not expected.
Brightman J said: ‘If there is a true distinction which must be drawn as a matter of law between powers which the Minister must exercise personally and those which can be exercised by an officer of his department, I might well come to the view that the power given by section 35 is so potentially damaging that it falls into the former category, however burdensome that may be to a Secretary of State personally. But is such a distinction to be drawn? I find no warrant for it in the authorities. In fact, the reverse. The accuracy of the breath test equipment with which R v Skinner [1968] 2 QB 700 was concerned was of vital importance to every motorist as indeed the judgment of the Court of Appeal recognised . . If a motorist fails the breath test he is arrested. So if the equipment over-registers, an innocent subject is placed under arrest; if it under-registers, a potentially lethal motorist is let loose on the highway. Yet the Court of Appeal decided that although such a ‘vitally important matter might well have occupied the Minister’s personal attention . . there is in principle no obligation upon the Minister to give it his personal attention’: p 709. As Mr Chadwick pointed out, there are important cases in which the Minister will exercise a statutory discretion personally, not because it is a legal necessity but because it is a political necessity.’
Brightman J
[1976] Ch 300
England and Wales
Cited – H M Attorney General v Foley and Foley CA 21-Aug-1997
. .
Not approved – Adams, Regina v CANI 14-Feb-2018
Appeal against convictions on 20 March 1975 and 18 April 1975 on counts of attempting to escape from detention contrary to paragraph 38(a) of Schedule 1 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973 (‘the 1973 Act’) and common law.
Not approved – Adams, Regina v (Northern Ireland) SC 13-May-2020
Secretary of State alone to consider confinement
The appellant had been detained under an Interim Custody Order (ICO) during internment during the troubles in Ireland, and then convicted of attempting to escape and escaping. He now appealed from that conviction saying that the order under which he . .
Applied – Regina v Harper CANI 1990
The appellant had been convicted of a number of serious offences, largely as a result of admissions made by him during interviews by the police. Among the grounds of appeal was a claim that extension of the appellant’s detention had wrongly been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.188388
The Plaintiffs had entered into a towage contract with Lambert Eggink Offshore Transport Consultants. Those Defendants are a body known as a VOF under Dutch Law, being a form of partnership under that law. It is a body that has no separate legal personality, but a suit will lie against it in its own name. Under a provision referred to as clause 24 of the contract there was a time limit. At a later stage the Plaintiffs sought to join as individual Defendants the partners VOF. The issue was whether they were too late to do so because of the time bar in clause 24, which required notification of a claim within six months of delivery of the ‘Tow’. Article 18 (1) of the Dutch Commercial Code provides that: ‘ In the case of a Commercial Partnership i.e. a VOF each of the partners is jointly and severally bound in respect of the obligations of a partnership’.
Held: (Majority) Clause 24 of the contract did not provide the individual partners with a Defence, because they were not contracting parties, and because the cause of action did not arise out of the agreement and it was not connected with the agreement. It arose out of Article 18 of the Dutch Commercial Code.
[1999] 2 Lloyds Rep 443, [1998] EWCA Civ 1354
England and Wales
Cited – S v Suren and Another QBD 10-Sep-2004
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.144833
[1998] CLC 1559, [1998] EWCA Civ 1351
England and Wales
See also – Lubbe and others v Cape Plc CA 24-Aug-1999
Although the court had previously decided to hear a multi-party case here, rather than in South Africa, the failure to disclose an impending group action was sufficient to transform the case leaving South Africa as clearly the most appropriate forum . .
See also – Lubbe and others v Cape Plc CA 24-Aug-1999
Although the court had previously decided to hear a multi-party case here, rather than in South Africa, the failure to disclose an impending group action was sufficient to transform the case leaving South Africa as clearly the most appropriate forum . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.144830
It was a proper exercise of a discretion by a judge to decide to try five similar cases together. Admissibility questions on one case becoming admissible in others could be set aside if there was a sufficiently similar factual basis alleged.
[1998] EWCA Civ 1298
England and Wales
Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.144777
Whether the County Court has jurisdiction to grant an interlocutory injunction requiring a local authority to provide accommodation for a person who is proceeding with an appeal under s 204 of the Housing Act 1996 against a review decision made under s 202 of the Act.
[1998] EWCA Civ 1288, [1999] 1 WLR 384
England and Wales
Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.144767
In a dispute between an Italian company and British one, each sought to have the case heard in its own country. The British company asserted that the case begun in Italy had been begun after at best misrepresentation by the other company, and sought an injunction preventing its being heard in Italy. The UK court refused to issue the injunction. It had the power to do so, but the parties must rely upon the Italian courts to discover the truth, and was asserted fell short of abuse of process.
Times 01-Mar-2000, Gazette 24-Feb-2000
Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil and Comercial Matters 1965 Cmd 3986, Brussels Convention on Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1968
England and Wales
See Also – Molins Plc v GD Spa PatC 2-Feb-2000
. .
Appeal from – Molins Plc v G D Spa CA 29-Mar-2000
In a case where the national court which would deal with a matter was the court first seised of the matter, a stay could only be awarded where the proceedings until the proceedings were definitively pending in that court. Documents could be served . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.83798
Applicant must show good reason for delay when applying to extend writ.
Times 15-Nov-1993
Rules of the Supreme Court order 6 rule 8
England and Wales
Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.89270
Application for Extended Civil Restraint Order
[2021] EWHC 535 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.659687
The issue is about the need for the Attorney General to be a party to proceedings in which certain kinds of question arise about the terms on which an owner holds property.
Mr Justice Birss
[2020] EWHC 933 (Ch)
England and Wales
Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.650504
[2020] EHWC 935 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.650121
[2014] EWHC 3229 (Ch)
England and Wales
Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.538043
If a claim is mistakenly brought against an LLP which should have been brought against the former partnership, and before the error is recognised the limitation period for starting a new action has expired, can the error be corrected by substituting the former partnership for the LLP as the defendant to the claim? That is the principal question raised by this appeal.
Leggatt J
[2012] EWHC 3644 (QB), [2013] 3 All ER 518, [2013] 1 CLC 90, [2014] 1 WLR 1448, [2013] PNLR 13
Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2000
England and Wales
Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.467167
Whether the defendant is entitled to redact certain information from documents disclosed in these proceedings on the ground that the information is subject to legal professional privilege.
Mr Justice Leggatt
[2013] EWHC 4478 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.522528
The Defendant relied on Section 7 of the 1978 Act to support of its contention that it had served on the Claimant a counter-notice under Section 45 Leasehold Reform (Housing and Urban Development) Act 1993 (‘the 1993 Act’). The Claimant contended that Section 7 allowed him to prove on the facts that the counter-notice had not been served on him and that on the facts he had proved that matter on the ordinary balance of probabilities.
Morgan
[2011] EWHC 2501 (Ch), [2011] 44 EG 108
England and Wales
Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.446005
The court considered the continuing failure of parties to follow the requirements as to preparation of court bundles, and particularly in urgent applications: ‘This continuing failure by the professions to comply with their obligations is simply unacceptable. Enough is enough. Eight years of default are enough. Eight years are surely long enough for even the most casual practitioner to have learned to do better. ‘ In these days much had been done to improve court efficiency by judges pre-readig the documenmts in a case. That required correctly prepared court bundles. Munby J said: ‘Paragraph 12 of the Practice Direction warns of sanctions penalising those who fail to comply with its requirements. There is the sanction of costs, either orders for costs against the party in default or orders for costs to be paid by the defaulting lawyers. There is the risk that those who default may find their cases put to the end of the list – and I should like to emphasise that the plea ‘but the case will only take 30 minutes, including reading time’ will not necessarily save defaulters from this salutary fate.’
Munby J
[2008] EWHC 2058 (Fam), [2008] Fam Law 999, [2009] CP Rep 5, [2008] 2 FLR 2053, [2009] 1 FCR 468
England and Wales
Cited – In Re CH (family proceedings: court bundles) FD 2000
. .
Cited – Practice Direction (Family Proceedings: Court Bundles) 10-Mar-2000
There should at be lodged with the court a summary of the background to the hearing; a statement of the issue or issues to be determined; a summary of the order or directions sought by each party; a chronology; and skeleton arguments. . .
Cited – Practice Direction: Court Bundles (Universal Practice to be Applied in All Courts other than the Family Proceedings Court) FD 2006
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.272834
Application for leave to appeal from refusal of adjournment
[1994] EWCA Civ 24
England and Wales
Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.263237
[2006] EWCA Civ 1622
England and Wales
Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.246725
Mummery, Neuberger, Wilson LJJ
[2006] EWCA Civ 1170
England and Wales
Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.244201
[2001] EWCA Civ 1677
England and Wales
Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.201489
The claimant having failed on his application for leave save to a limited extent, now sought to extend the leave given.
[2001] EWCA Civ 1003
England and Wales
Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.201153
[2001] EWCA Civ 1457
England and Wales
Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.201347
[2001] EWCA Civ 506
England and Wales
Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.200996
Aldous LJ, May LJ, Rix LJ
[2001] EWCA Civ 741, [2001] 2 All ER (Comm) 289
England and Wales
Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.201069
[2001] EWCA Civ 672
England and Wales
Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.200992
Application to reinstate before this court application for permission to appeal.
[2001] EWCA Civ 547
England and Wales
Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.200879
[2001] EWCA Civ 570
England and Wales
Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.200890
The court considered an an application to strike out a claim for damages for the loss of profits which the claimant said he would have made if the bank had complied with its agreement to provide him with funds for a property development.
Held: Even on the assumption that the bank knew of the purpose for which the funds were required and that it was foreseeable that he would suffer loss of profit if he did not receive them, the damages were not recoverable. Sir Anthony Evans said: ‘The authorities to which we were referred . . demonstrate that the concept of reasonable foreseeability is not a complete guide to the circumstances in which damages are recoverable as a matter of law. Even if the loss was reasonably foreseeable as a consequence of the breach of duty in question (or of contract, for the same principles apply), it may nevertheless be regarded as ‘too remote a consequence’ or as not a consequence at all, and the damages claim is disallowed. In effect, the chain of consequences is cut off as a matter of law, either because it is regarded as unreasonable to impose liability for that consequence of the breach (The Pegase [1981] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 175 Robert Goff J), or because the scope of the duty is limited so as to exclude it (Banque Bruxelles SA v. Eagle Star [1997] AC 191), or because as a matter of commonsense the breach cannot be said to have caused the loss, although it may have provided the opportunity for it to occur . . ‘
Sir Anthony Evans
[2003] EWCA Civ 1112
England and Wales
Cited – Transfield Shipping Inc v Mercator Shipping Inc (The Achilleas) HL 9-Jul-2008
The parties contracted to charter the Achileas. The charterer gave notice to terminate the hire, and the owner found a new charterer. Until the termination the charterers sub-chartered. That charter was not completed, delaying the ship for the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.185304
[2003] EWCA Civ 42
England and Wales
Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.184056
[2002] EWCA Civ 1429
England and Wales
Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.177731
The claimant appealed a decision to admit in evidence a tape recording, taken by an enquiry agent of the defendant who had entered her house unlawfully.
Held: The situation asked judges to reconcile the irreconcilable. Courts should be reluctant to create rules which would deny the admission of genuine evidence. Where a party behaved in a reprehensible manner, the court should look to other methods of marking the unlawful behaviour, including costs awards, but the court was required to get to the truth. A party’s behaviour in the conduct of litigation, although very blameworthy, may not result in the claim or defence being struck out, or even in evidence being excluded. Any infringement under article 8.1 was justified under article 8.2.
Woolf LCJ, Hale, Latham LJJ
Times 07-Feb-2003, [2003] EWCA Civ 151, Gazette 20-Mar-2003, [2003] 1 WLR 954
Civil Procedure Rules 32.1(2), European Convention on Human Rights 8.1 8.2
England and Wales
Cited – Sally Rall v Ross Hume CA 8-Feb-2001
A surveillance film of a claimant was a document within the rules. The rules make no specific provision for the admission of such material for the purposes of cross examination of a claimant. A party proposing to use such material was under all the . .
Modified – Regina v Khan (Sultan) HL 2-Jul-1996
The police had obtained the evidence against the defendant by fixing a covert listening device at an apartment visited by the defendant, and by recording his conversations there. The defendant appealed, saying that the court should have regard to . .
Modified – Regina v Sang HL 25-Jul-1979
The defendant appealed against an unsuccessful application to exclude evidence where it was claimed there had been incitement by an agent provocateur.
Held: The appeal failed. There is no defence of entrapment in English law. All evidence . .
Modified – 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 . .
Cited – A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, Mahmoud Abu Rideh Jamal Ajouaou v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 11-Aug-2004
The claimants had each been detained without trial for more than two years, being held as suspected terrorists. They were free leave to return to their own countries, but they feared for their lives if returned. They complained that the evidence . .
Cited – Amwell View School v Dogherty EAT 15-Sep-2006
amwell_dogherty
The claimant had secretly recorded the disciplinary hearings and also the deliberations of the disciplinary panel after their retirement. The tribunal had at a case management hearing admitted the recordings as evidence, and the defendant appealed, . .
Cited – L v L and Hughes Fowler Carruthers QBD 1-Feb-2007
The parties were engaged in ancillary relief proceedings. The Husband complained that the wife had sought to use unlawfully obtained information, and in these proceedings sought delivery up of the material from the wife and her solicitors. He said . .
Cited – White v Withers Llp and Dearle CA 27-Oct-2009
The claimant was involved in matrimonial ancillary relief proceedings. His wife was advised by the defendants, her solicitors, to remove his private papers. The claimant now sought permission to appeal against a strike out of his claim against the . .
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.
Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.179000
[1997] EWCA Civ 1728
England and Wales
Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.142124
Parties agreeing to procedural steps Outside the provided rules.
Mr Justice Mostyn
[2021] EWFC 34, [2021] WLR(D) 230
England and Wales
Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.662341
His Honour Judge Cawson QC
[2021] EWHC 850 (Ch)
Bankers Books Evidence Act 1879
England and Wales
Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.661641
Application made ex parte on notice on behalf of the defendants for an interim injunction to restrain disclosure of confidential information both against the claimants and the person who is said to be their de facto controller, International Airfinance Corporation, an intended third party.
[2020] EWHC 3787 (Comm)
England and Wales
Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.660104