Application for disclosure of internal documents in claim in group action for damages against Mirror Group for hacking of phones.
Mr Justice Norris
[2019] EWHC 265 (Ch)
England and Wales
Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.633428
Mr Justice Hildyard
[2019] EWHC 249 (Ch)
England and Wales
Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.633420
The defendant sought a declaration that the Claim Form and the Particulars of Claim were not properly served, alternatively that the claim should be struck out because of invalid or ineffectual service. Further, Designer sought summary judgment against the claimant because the claim was brought by Ndole as assignees, and it was said that the circumstances of the assignments meant that the claim should be dismissed on grounds of maintenance/champerty.
Coulson J
[2017] EWHC 1148 (TCC)
England and Wales
Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.583983
Appeal against rejection of pre-action disclosure request for medical records.
Neslon J
[2008] EWHC 919 (QB), (2008) 103 BMLR 17, [2008] 4 All ER 818, [2008] PIQR P18
England and Wales
Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.267542
Order re case management application. The claimant said he had been defamed on an internet forum run by the defendants, and sought orders for disclosure of the identities of the posters to the website. The operator said that special software might need to be written to extract the information sought, and that that might cost many thousands of pounds. The respondent were ordered to provide the applicant with the name, address and e-mail address of each avatar together with the IP number for the avatar at the time of each alleged defamatory posting.
Mackay J
[2008] EWHC 577 (QB)
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 – Totalise Plc v The Motley Fool Limited and Interative Investor Limited (2) CA 19-Dec-2001
The respondent operated a web site which contained a chat room. Defamatory remarks were made by a third party through the chat room, and the claimant sought details of the identity of the poster. The respondent refused to do so without a court . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Sheffield Wednesday Football Club Ltd and others v Hargreaves QBD 18-Oct-2007
The defendant operated a web forum in which posters posted defamatory messages about the claimants. The claimants sought an order disclosing the contact details of the members of the forum. The owner of the forum said he had undertaken not to . .
Appeal from – Smith v ADVFN Plc CA 15-Apr-2008
The claimant complained of defamation on internet bulletin boards. He made an application to require the forum operator to disclose IP addresses and other information about posters under a Norwich Pharmacal order. Further applications were made for . .
See Also – Nigel Smith v M QBD 12-May-2008
The claimants sought disclosure of material which would lead to the identification of people who had made postings to a forum on the internet.
Held: The court had aready imposed a stay on the issuing of further proceedings, yet the claimant . .
See Also – Smith v ADVFN Plc and others QBD 25-Jul-2008
The claimant had brought multiple actions in defamation against anonymous posters on an online forum. The claimant sought to lift the stay which had been imposed because of the number of actions. The claimant had not yet paid outstanding costs . .
See Also – Smith v ADVFN Plc and Others CA 30-Jul-2009
Application for leave to appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.267988
The French company defendants had been ordered to disclose documents which they said might expose them to criminal prosecution in France. They now appealed.
Held: The court was not obliged to make use of the Council Regulation. Orders for discovery of a document in this court (or for inspection of a document already disclosed) are procedural in nature and the law governing them is the lex fori, ie the law of England and Wales. The fact that a party objects to disclosure or inspection on the ground that to comply with such an order would put the party at risk of prosecution under a foreign law provides no defence to the making of the order. The English court retains jurisdiction under its local law to make such an order although it has a discretion whether to do so in the particular circumstances. The English court is entitled to take into account the risk of prosecution. In the two cases under consideration the judges who made the orders requiring disclosure had done so having found that a prosecution was highly unlikely.
Laws, Rimder, Beatson LJJ
[2013] EWCA Civ 1234, [2014] Lloyd’s Rep FC 175, [2014] UKCLR 263, [2014] 1 WLR 4383, [2013] WLR(D) 401
Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001, Civil Procedure Rules 18 31
England and Wales
Cited – Property Alliance Group Ltd v The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc ChD 19-Feb-2015
The claimant said that interest rate manipulation by the defendant bank had caused it losses in interest rate derivatives and SWAP agreements. In the course of that the claimants sought disclosure of internal documents. The defendants resisted . .
See Also – Secretary of State for Health and Others v Servier Laboratories Ltd and Others ChD 31-Jul-2014
The claimant sought damages, alleging that the defendants had breached competition law in the arrangements for sales of drugs for the treatment of heart disease. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 March 2022; Ref: scu.516955
[1669] EngR 471, (1669) Noy 30, (1669) 74 ER 1000 (D)
England and Wales
Updated: 25 March 2022; Ref: scu.407311
Service of notice of appeal.
[1861] EngR 913, (1861) 11 CB NS 1, (1861) 142 ER 693
England and Wales
Updated: 25 March 2022; Ref: scu.284674
This was an application by the defendant to amend its defence and to add a counterclaim. In considering the application, it had to be decided whether the defendant had already served a counterclaim since, if it had not, it was entitled to add the counterclaim. A further consideration was whether the new claims where statute-barred, which involved considering when the period of limitation starts to run for claims based on misrepresentation, recission and for a claim based on a total failure of consideration. The application was allowed with the usual order as to costs so far as the amendment was concerned. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendants costs of the hearing, to be taxed if not agreed. The plaintiff was refused leave to appeal.
[1998] EWHC Technology 336
England and Wales
See Also – JFS (UK) Limited v South West Water Services Limited TCC 22-Apr-1998
. .
See Also – JFS (UK) Limited v South West Water Services Limited TCC 22-Apr-1998
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 March 2022; Ref: scu.136105
The Court reduced the amount of damages owed to the applicants to GBP 244,000 plus interest.
[2005] EWCA Civ 172
England and Wales
See Also – OBG Ltd OBG (Plant and Transport Hire) Ltd v Raymond International Ltd; OBG Ltd v Allen CA 9-Feb-2005
The defendants had wrongfully appointed receivers of the claimant, who then came into the business and terminated contracts undertaken by the business. The claimant asserted that their actions amounted to a wrongful interference in their contracts . .
See Also – Douglas and others v Hello! Ltd and others; similar HL 2-May-2007
In Douglas, the claimants said that the defendants had interfered with their contract to provide exclusive photographs of their wedding to a competing magazine, by arranging for a third party to infiltrate and take and sell unauthorised photographs. . .
See Also – OBG Ltd And Others v United Kingdom ECHR 13-Nov-2009
Statement of Facts . .
See Also – OBG Ltd And Others v United Kingdom ECHR 29-Nov-2011
Admissibility . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 March 2022; Ref: scu.223232
Application for injunction and exclusion order against animal rights protesters.
The Honourable Mr Justice Owen
[2005] EWHC 372 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 25 March 2022; Ref: scu.224351
Appeal from grant of relief from sanctions
[2019] EWHC 166 (Comm)
England and Wales
Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.633217
Case management conference
[2018] EWHC 3715 (Ch)
England and Wales
Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.633190
Pre-action disclosure applications
[2018] EW Misc B7 (CC)
England and Wales
Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.633119
Mauritius. The Board was asked whether an appeal lies to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Mauritius from a decision of a Supreme Court Judge in Chambers sitting on a statutory appeal from a lower tribunal.
Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Lord Sumption
[2017] UKPC 11
Commonwealth
Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.582135
Appeal from refusal of adjournment where the first defendant claimed ill health.
Sir Terence Etherton MR, Beatson, Henderson LJJ
[2017] EWCA Civ 312
England and Wales
Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.582099
Application for an order seeking relief from sanctions
Stewart J
[2017] EWHC 939 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.581977
Return day for interim injunction in anti-suit application.
Waksman QC
[2017] EWHC 719 (Comm)
England and Wales
Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.581955
Application to revoke an order staying enforcement of an EEO certificate made by the Commercial Court of Burgos, Spain
[2017] EWHC 634 (Ch)
England and Wales
Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.581731
(Court of Appeal of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas) Application for special leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee in mortgage possession case.
Lord Mance, Lord Kerr, Lord Sumption, Lord Reed, Lord Hughes
[2017] UKPC 8
Commonwealth
Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.581726
The claimant challenged being recalled to prison from licence after being found in an area from which he was excluded as a condition of his parole.
Turner J
[2017] EWHC 729 (Admin)
European Convention on Human Rights 5, Criminal Justice Act 2003 244 254
England and Wales
Cited – Whiston, Regina (on The Application of) SC 2-Jul-2014
The claimant, having been released from prison on licence, objected to the procedure whereby his licence was revoked with no means for him to challenge that decision.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. Article 5(4) did not apply to the particular . .
Cited – Quinn v Leathem HL 5-Aug-1901
Unlawful Means Conspiracy has two forms
Quinn was treasurer of a Belfast butchers’ association. Leathem, who traded as a butcher, employed some non-union men, although when the union made difficulties he asked for them to be admitted to the union, and offered to pay their dues. The union . .
Cited – Behrens v Bartram Mill Circus QBD 1957
Devlin J said that the ratio decidendi consists of the reason or reasons for a decision which the judge who gives it wishes to have the full authority of precedent. . .
Dicta approved – Kadhim v Housing Benefit Board, London Borough of Brent CA 20-Dec-2000
A lower court was not bound to follow a decision of a higher court, where the decision at issue had been based, on the relevant point, on an unargued assumption about the law, which had in turn been pivotal to the decision of that higher court: ‘The . .
Cited – Lawrence v South Country Freeholds Ltd ChD 1939
Simonds J held that on the facts before him no general scheme of development existed. It was accordingly not necessary to determine what rights as between the sub-purchasers there might have been if the main scheme had been held to exist. However, . .
Dicta approved – Brunner v Greenslade ChD 1971
Megarry J discussed the ratio decidendi of and approving dicta in Lawrence.
‘The substance of the views of Simonds J was that where there is a head scheme, any sub-purchasers are bound inter se by the covenants of that head scheme even though . .
Cited – Practice Statement (Judicial Precedent) HL 1966
The House gave guidance how it would treat an invitation to depart from a previous decision of the House. Such a course was possible, but the direction was not an ‘open sesame’ for a differently constituted committee to prefer their views to those . .
Cited – Regina v Parole Board ex parte Smith, Regina v Parole Board ex parte West (Conjoined Appeals) HL 27-Jan-2005
Each defendant challenged the way he had been treated on revocation of his parole licence, saying he should have been given the opportunity to make oral representations.
Held: The prisoners’ appeals were allowed.
Lord Bingham stated: . .
Cited – Black, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice HL 21-Jan-2009
The appellant complained that the system for considering the release of a life prisoner did not comply with the Convention when the decision was made by the Secretary of State and not by the Parole Board, or the court. The Board had recommended his . .
Cited – Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Zodiac Seats UK Ltd SC 3-Jul-2013
Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd sought to recover damages exceeding 49,000,000 pounds for the infringement of a European Patent which did not exist in the form said to have been infringed. The Technical Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.581637
Appeal from refusal to allow addition of two further defendants in claim of trade mark infringement.
Floyd, Moylan LJJ, Sir Timothy Lloyd
[2017] EWCA Civ 227
England and Wales
Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.581430
Application by the Claimant for an interim payment
Teare J
[2017] EWHC 650 (Comm)
England and Wales
Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.581370
Popplewell J
[2017] EWHC 667 (Comm)
England and Wales
Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.581374
Application by the Claimant for disclosure of documents in support of the Claimant’s application to remove the Second and Third Defendants as arbitrators for misconduct
Popplewell J
[2017] EWHC 148 (Comm)
England and Wales
See Also – P v Q and Others ComC 9-Feb-2017
Application by the Claimant to remove the Second and Third Defendants as arbitrators for failing properly to conduct proceedings . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.581363
The claimant had issued proceedings against a very wide range of people and organisations, and her claims were said to be ill presented. An application was made for their strike out and for an extended civil restraint order.
Nicol J
[2017] EWHC 560 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.581319
Application for provision designating the matter for a closed material procedure.
Leggatt J
[2017] EWHC 547 (QB)
Justice and Security Act 2013 6(11)
England and Wales
Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.581318
Application by a secured creditor of a defendant against whom a freezing order has been made seeking an amendment to the freezing order to the effect that nothing in the order should prevent or restrict it from enforcing any rights it might have pursuant to its facility agreement and debenture.
Mann J
[2017] EWHC 636 (Ch), [2017] WLR(D) 213
England and Wales
Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.581331
Application by the Claimant (‘BHAM’) for an interim non-disclosure order. The First Defendant (‘Reuters’) is the well-known international news agency. The Second Defendant, Ms Keidan, is a financial journalist working for Reuters. The Third Defendant is identified as ‘Person or Persons Unknown’ alleged to have leaked the confidential documents, or the information derived therefrom, the use of which BHAM seeks to restrain by this application.
Popplewell J
[2017] EWHC 644 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.581310
Reasons for refusal to extend time to appeal.
Walker J
[2017] EWHC 285 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.581309
Orders following principal judgment
Holman J
[2017] EWHC 505 (Admin)
England and Wales
See Also – Solicitors Regulation Authority v Wingate and Another Admn 21-Dec-2016
The SRA alleged that the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal had erred in not finding proven some of the serious allegations against the defendant solicitors proven.
Held: Some of the appeals succeeded. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.581092
[2017] EWCA Civ 140
England and Wales
Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.581077
ECJ (Area of Freedom, Security and Justice : Judicial Cooperation In Civil Matters Area of Freedom, Security and Justice : Judicial Cooperation In Civil Matters – Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 – European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims – Requirements for certification as a European Enforcement Order – Concept of ‘court’ – Notary who has issued a writ of execution based on an ‘authentic document’ – Authentic instrument
C-484/15, [2017] EUECJ C-484/15, ECLI:EU:C:2017:199
European
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.580730
[1789] EngR 1329, (1789-1817) 1 Ves Jun Supp 463, (1789) 34 ER 875 (C)
England and Wales
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.366960
Where a traverse is good, because pursuant to the plea.
[1795] EngR 2653, (1795) 3 Salk 355, (1795) 91 ER 870 (A)
England and Wales
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.354998
The court had set aside an sequestration order made following a finding of contempt when the contempt order was incorrectly made. The intervener which had been prejudiced by the sequestration order now sought to argue that the sequestration order already set aside, had also been obtained irregularly.
Held: A party prejudiced by an irregularly made order should not be deprived of a right to apply for the withdrawal of any protection given to the party which had applied the irregularity made order. Where no issue of res judicata or abuse of process arose, that prejudiced party should be free to make the argument as to irregularity. However in the exceptional circumstances of this claim, such protection was not to be withdrawn.
Lightman J
[2007] EWHC 1743 (Ch), Times 23-Aug-2007
England and Wales
Appeal from – Tombstone Ltd v Raja and Another; Raja v Van Hoogstraten and others (No 9) CA 17-Dec-2008
The claimant complained of an irregularly obtained judgment. The defendant had obtained an amendment to a writ of sequestration in the course of a bitterly fought dispute bewteen the defendant and the owner of the claimant. The judge had found the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.258413
Application to re-instate action struck out for failure to comply with unless order.
[2007] EWHC 1976 (Ch)
England and Wales
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.258747
Sir Robert Megarry VC said: ‘For reasons that will appear, I think that I should pause in my recital of the facts in order to say something about these two cases. For a long while it has been settled law that if letters written ‘without prejudice’ do not result in an agreement, they cannot be looked at by the court even on the question of costs, unless both parties consent: see, for example, Walker v. Wilsher (1889) 23 QBD 335; Stotesbury v. Turner (1943) KB 370. Thus if in ‘without prejudice’ correspondence a defendant offers less than the plaintiff is claiming but more than the plaintiff ultimately recovers at the trial, the defendant cannot use his offer in support of a contention that the plaintiff should receive no costs for the period subsequent to the offer. If the claim is purely a money claim, this causes no difficulty: the defendant may pay into court under RSC Ord. 22 the sum that he is offering, and although knowledge of this will be withheld from the court until both liability and quantum have been decided, the fact of payment in is admissible, and usually highly relevant, in deciding what order for costs should be made. If, however, the claim is not solely a money claim, but some other relief is sought, such as an injunction, there was formerly no comparable procedure. What was needed was some procedure whereby the defendant could make an offer to submit to an injunction, give an undertaking or afford other relief on the footing that the offer would be without prejudice until the case was decided but with prejudice when it came to costs.
It was a procedure of this type which was suggested by Cairns L.J. in Calderbank v. Calderbank (1975) 3 A.E.R. 333 at 342, (1976) Fam. 93 at 105-106 and was acted on in McDonnell v. McDonnell (1977) 1 A.E.R. 766 at 770, (1977) 1 W.L.R. 34 at 38. These were both matrimonial appeals from the Family Division, however, and there has been some uncertainty whether the procedure applies to other cases. Thus 17 Halsbury’s Laws (4th edn) para 213 cites Calderbank v. Calderbank for the proposition that ‘in matrimonial proceedings relating to finance’ a party may make this type of offer, and the 1983 cumulative supplement leaves it there. Nor do the cases appear to have been given the prominence which they deserve. Thus leading books which discuss offers made ‘without prejudice’ still leave unamended statements based on Walker v. Wilsher (1889) 23 QBD 335, without any mention of either Calderbank or McDonnell: see, for example, Phipson on Evidence (13th edn, 1982) p. 374; Cross on Evidence (5th edn, 1979) p. 301. Nor are the cases mentioned in The Supreme Court Practice 1982.’
and
‘In my view, the principle in question is one of perfectly general application which is in no way confined to matrimonial cases. Whether an offer is made ‘without prejudice’ or ‘without prejudice save as to costs’, the courts ought to enforce the terms on which the offer was made as tending to encourage compromise and shorten litigation; and the latter form of offer has the added advantage of preventing the offer from being inadmissible on costs, thereby assisting the court towards justice in making the order as to costs. I should say at once that no point on this arises for decision, as the parties have very sensibly acted on this footing. What I have been saying is as obiter as what Cairns L.J. said (and Scarman L.J. and Sir Gordon Willmer concurred with) in Calderbank v. Calderbank; but I hope that the attention of the profession (including authors and editors) will be more generally directed to what seems to me to be a valuable procedural process that is too little used.’
Sir Robert Megarry VC
[1983] 3 All ER 153
England and Wales
Cited – Cutts v Head and Another CA 7-Dec-1983
There had been a trial of 35 days regarding rights of way over land, which had proved fruitless, and where some orders had been made without jurisdiction. The result had been inconclusive. The costs order was now appealed, the plaintiff complaining . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.254333
An interim injunction had been obtained but on a flawed basis. A more limited injunction was now sought.
Held: Balcombe LJ set out the principles to be applied: ‘The rule that an ex parte injunction will be discharged if it was obtained without full disclosure has a two-fold purpose. It will deprive the wrongdoer of an advantage improperly obtained . . But it also serves as a deterrent to ensure that persons who make ex parte applications realise that they have this duty of disclosure and of the consequences (which may include a liability in costs) if they fail in that duty. Nevertheless, this judge-made rule cannot be allowed itself to become an instrument of injustice. It is for this reason that there must be a discretion in the court to continue the injunction, or to grant a fresh injunction in its place, notwithstanding that there may have been non-disclosure when the original ex parte injunction was obtained . . I make two comments on the exercise of this discretion. (1) Whilst, having regard to the purpose of the rule, the discretion is one to be exercised sparingly, I would not wish to define or limit the circumstances in which it may be exercised. (2) I agree with the views of Dillon LJ in [another case] that, if there is jurisdiction to grant a fresh injunction, then there must also be a discretion to refuse, in an appropriate case, to discharge the original injunction.’
Balcombe LJ
[1988] 1WLR 1350
England and Wales
Cited – Franses v Al Assad and others ChD 26-Oct-2007
The claimant had obtained a freezing order over the proceeds of sale of a property held by solicitors. The claimant was liquidator of a company, and an allegation of wrongful trading had been made against the sole director and defendant. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.260077
In order to obtain, or to enlarge a freezing order, the applicant must show that in considering the evidence as a whole he has, at a minimum, a ‘good arguable case’, and also the existence of a real risk of dissipation or secretion of assets.
Mustill J
[1983] 1 WLR 141, [1983] 2 Lloyds LR 600
England and Wales
Cited – Fiona Trust Holding Corp and others v Privalov and others ComC 21-May-2007
Allegations were made of different varieties of fraud. Applications were made for freezing orders. . .
Cited – Franses v Al Assad and others ChD 26-Oct-2007
The claimant had obtained a freezing order over the proceeds of sale of a property held by solicitors. The claimant was liquidator of a company, and an allegation of wrongful trading had been made against the sole director and defendant. The . .
Cited – Shepherd Construction Ltd v Berners (BVI) Ltd and Another TCC 25-Mar-2010
The defendants sought a release from an asset freezing order, saying that there was no good reason to anticipate any dissipation of assets. An action between the parties had been settled on terms, but the defendant had not met payments. The . .
Cited – Revenue and Customs v SED Essex Ltd ChD 14-Jun-2013
Liquidator confirmed despite VAT challege
The Revenue sought the winding up of the company for non-payment of substantial arrears of VAT. The revenue had declined to allow VAT input claims. The company said that the petition was wrong since the debt was genuinely disputed.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.252441
The court considered the circumstances under which it could depart from its previous decision. Scott LJ said that it might be allowed on the basis of the earlier decision ‘being inconsistent with general principles laid down by the House of Lords and with other decisions of this Court.’
Scott LJ
[1946] 1 KB 360, [1946] 1 All ER 431, (1946) 39 BWCC 39
England and Wales
Applied – Young v The Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd CA 28-Jul-1944
Court of Appeal must follow Own Decisions
The claimant was injured and received compensation. He then sought to recover again, alleging breach of statutory duty by his employers.
Held: The Court of Appeal was in general bound to follow its own previous decisions. The court considered . .
Cited – Woodward v Abbey National Plc CA 22-Jun-2006
The claimant appealed refusal to award damages after an alleged failure to give a proper reference, saying that the decision in Fadipe could not stand with the later decision in Rhys-Harper. She said that she had suffered victimisation after making . .
Cited – Woodward v Abbey National Plc CA 22-Jun-2006
The claimant appealed refusal to award damages after an alleged failure to give a proper reference, saying that the decision in Fadipe could not stand with the later decision in Rhys-Harper. She said that she had suffered victimisation after making . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.242680
A bus had left the road and crashed as a result of a tyre burst. In stating how the defendant could discharge the onus of proof the Lord Justice said: ‘To displace the presumption [of negligence] the defendants must . . prove (or it must emerge from the evidence as a whole) either (a) that the burst itself was due to a specific cause which does not connote negligence on their part but points to its absence as more probable, or (b) if they can point to no such specific cause, that they used all reasonable care in and about the management of their tyres.’
There is a certain ‘artificiality [in] describing a witness whose evidence is taken down and embodied in a transcript as a person ‘making a statement in a document”. Where there is direct evidence as to what occurred there is no need to rely upon inferences.
Asquith LJ
[1949] 1 KB 54, [1950] 1 All ER 392
England and Wales
Appeal from – Barkway v South Wales Transport HL 1950
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur should not be used where the judge has presented to him alternate versions of the facts and his job is to decide between them.
Lord Radcliffe said that an event which in the ordinary course of things is more . .
Cited – Smith v Fordyce and Another CA 10-Apr-2013
The claimant appealed against rejection of his claim for personal injuries from a road accident. The respondent driver had crashed into a wall. The claimant had been his front seat passenger. The judge had found the respndent not to be at fault, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.242137
The court revoked a grant of letters of administration with will annexed which had been granted in favour of judgment creditors on the grounds of their non-disclosure.
Lord Wright MR: ‘But the President or probate judge has discretion either to take or to refuse to take the course [of passing over an executor], and when he is acting on an ex parte motion or petition, he is entitled, according to the universal rule applicable to all ex parte applications, but peculiarly applicable to a matter of this gravity, to have from those who ask him to exercise his discretion the very fullest possible information and disclosure of all relevant circumstances. It may be that there was not such full disclosure of all relevant circumstances owing to a perfectly bona fide failure to appreciate its importance, and I am willing to assume that in the present case that was so; I have no reason to say the contrary. But, however well-intentioned the applicants may have been, if they had knowledge or information of relevant circumstances, it was their bounden duty to put that as fully as they could before the President. ‘
Romer LJ: ‘Whenever a party applies ex parte to a court of justice, it is essential that the applicant should state every relevant fact within his knowledge. The importance in the interests of the administration of justice of maintaining that rule in its entirety can hardly be exaggerated. An applicant who succeeds in obtaining an order without strictly observing that rule cannot complain if the order is subsequently discharged and he is ordered to pay the whole of the costs which have been occasioned by his application. ‘
Lord Wright MR, Romer LJ
(1936) 155 LT 270
England and Wales
Cited – Shepherd v Wheeler ChD 2000
An application was made without notice for the appointment of an alleged creditor under section 116 as administrator of the deceased’s intestate estate.
Held: The court applied the standard principles of an enhanced duty of disclosure in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.241554
The court has jurisdiction to grant a declaration, in a private law action, that a planning condition is invalid.
[1992] 1 PLR 97
England and Wales
Cited – Stancliffe Stone Company Ltd v Peak District National Park Authority CA 17-Jun-2005
In 1952, the Minister wrote a leter confirming the planning permissions for four quarries now owned by the claimants. In 1996, two of the quarries were separately included in a list of dormant sites, and in 19999 the applicant began to apply for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.228576
The court had allowed another company to be added as respondent to an appeal by a plaintiff against the judge’s decision against a patent’s validity. ‘Sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (b) widens the discretion of the court to a great extent, for now the court may add any person such as is described in that sub-paragraph if the question or issue involved is one which in the opinion of the court it would be just and convenient to determine as between the applicant and the present party to the proceedings as well as between the parties to the proceedings themselves.’
Buckley LJ, Orr LJ, Sir John Pennycuick
[1976] RCC 541
Rules of the Supreme Court O15 r6
England and Wales
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: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.200489
The power to change a party after the expiry of a limitation period can be exercised where a party has been wrongly identified, but ‘it was possible to identify the intending claimant or intended defendant by reference to a description which was more or less specific to the particular case’.
Lloyd LJ
[1991] 1 Lloyd’s R 201
Civil Procedure Rules 19.5, Limitation Act 1980 35
England and Wales
Cited – Horne-Roberts (a Child) v Smithkline Beecham plc and Another CA 18-Dec-2001
The court has a power to order substitution of a party though the limitation period, and even the ‘long stop’ limitation period had expired. The claimant child sought damages after a vaccination. The batch had been attributed to the wrong . .
Cited – Parsons and Another v George and Another CA 13-Jul-2004
The claimant sought to begin proceedings to renew his business tenancy, but the proceedings were issued in the wrong name. He sought to amend the proceedings to substitute the correct defendant, but that application was out of time.
Held: . .
Cited – Morgan Est (Scotland) Ltd v Hanson Concrete Products Ltd CA 17-Feb-2005
The defendant appealed an order adding two new claimants.
Held: Cases decided under the old RSC were not apposite for matters covered by the new Civil Procedure Rules. The court was not bound by the Sardinia Sulcis rules: ‘The Sardinia Sulcis . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.200228
The court will not add a person as a defendant to an existing action if the claim was already statute-barred and he wished to rely on that defence, and if the court allows such addition ex parte it will not, on objection allow the addition to stand. Where a defendant is added under Ord.15 r.6 there is no relation back so as to treat the added party as a defendant on any date earlier than he was in fact joined. Two reasons are used : ‘The first basis is that, if the addition were allowed, it would relate back, so that the action would be deemed to have been begun as against the person added, not on the date of amendment, but on the date of the original writ; that the effect of such relation back would be to deprive the person added of an accrued defence to the claim on the ground that it was statute-barred; and that this would be unjust to that person. I shall refer to this first basis of the rule of practice as the ‘relation back’ theory. The second and alternative basis for the rule is that, where a person is added as defendant in an existing action, the action is only deemed to have been begun as against him on the date of amendment of the writ; that the defence that the claim is statute-barred therefore remains available to him; and that, since such defence affords a complete answer to the claim, it would serve no useful purpose to allow the addition to be made. I shall refer to this second and alternative basis of the rule of practice as the ‘no useful purpose’ theory.’ As to which reason was correct, and referring to the rule in Sneade v Wotherton Barytes and Lead Mining Co as to relation back: ‘This seems to me to be an entirely sensible proposition so long as the amendment concerned does not involve the addition of a new party, either as plaintiff or defendant, or the raising of a new cause of action, but involves only the modification, by addition, deletion or substitution, of pleas or averments made between existing parties in respect of a cause or causes of action already raised. Where, however, the amendment concerned involves the addition of a new party or the raising of a new cause of action, it appears to me to be unrealistic and contrary to the common sense of the matter to treat it as relating back in the same way.’
Brandon LJ, Stephenson LJ
[1980] 1 WLR 781, [1980] 1 All ER 623
England and Wales
Cited – Sneade v Wotherton Barytes and Lead Mining Co 1904
An amendment of a writ or a pleading relates back to the original date of the document amended. . .
Cited – Parsons and Another v George and Another CA 13-Jul-2004
The claimant sought to begin proceedings to renew his business tenancy, but the proceedings were issued in the wrong name. He sought to amend the proceedings to substitute the correct defendant, but that application was out of time.
Held: . .
Approved – Ketteman v Hansel Properties Ltd HL 1987
Houses were built on defective foundations. The purchasers sued the builders and later the architects who designed them. The defendants argued that the houses were doomed from the start so that the cause of action accrued, not when the physical . .
Cited – Evans Construction Co Ltd v Charrington and Co Ltd CA 1983
The tenant sought a new lease and served a notice. The notice named the former landlord not the current landlord.
Held: Order 20 could be used to correct the name where the error was a mere mistaken description of the correct party, but not a . .
Cited – Roberts v Gill and Co Solicitors and Others SC 19-May-2010
The claimant beneficiary in the estate sought damages against solicitors who had acted for the claimant’s brother, the administrator, saying they had allowed him to take control of the assets in the estate. The will provided that property was to be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.214460
The plaintiff’s sales manager resigned, but took with him confidential documents which he gave to a newspaper. The defendant sought to justify this, saying that the company had failed to register agreements it should have done under the Act.
Held: The media might make disclosure of material which would otherwise be protected by commercial confidence where it was intended to expose iniquity or other misconduct falling short of iniquity. Discussing Gartside -v- Outram, the principle is not limited to where a master was guilty of fraud or a crime, but extended to ‘misconduct of such a nature that it ought in the public interest to be disclosed to others . . Provided that the discolsure is in the public interest’ Wood V-C: ‘There is no confidence as to the disclosure of iniquity.’
Salmon LJ said: `I do not think that the law would lend assistance to anyone who is proposing to commit and to continue to commit a clear breach of a statutory duty imposed in the public interest.’ but but ‘what was iniquity in 1856 may be too narrow or . . too wide for 1967’
Lord Denning MR, Wood V-C, Salmon LJ
[1967] 3 All ER 145, [1968] 1 QB 396
Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1956
England and Wales
Cited – Gartside v Outram 1856
An employee was told by his master ‘I am going to falsify these sales notes and deceive the customers. You are not to say anything about it to anyone.’ He thereafter falsified the sale notes.
Held: The servant was entitled to say: ‘I am not . .
Cited – Annesley v Earl of Anglesea 1743
‘no private obligations can dispense with that universal one which lies on every member of the society to discover every design which may be formed, contrary to the laws of the society, to destroy the public welfare.’ . .
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 – Hyde Park Residence Ltd v Yelland, News Group Newspapers Ltd, News International Ltd, Murrell CA 10-Feb-2000
The court considered a dispute about ownership and confidence in and copyright of of video tapes taken by Princess Diana before her death.
Held: The courts have an inherent discretion to refuse to enforce of copyright. When assessing whether . .
Cited – Lion Laboratories Ltd v Evans CA 1985
Lion Laboratories manufactured and marketed the Lion Intoximeter which was used by the police for measuring blood alcohol levels of motorists. Two ex-employees approached the Press with four documents taken from Lion. The documents indicated that . .
Cited – Vickerstaff v Edbro Plc CA 28-Jan-1997
The appellant’s employment had terminated in circumstances where he had threatened to publicise matters about the defendant’s activities, but had failed to co-operate with the company in investigating his allegations by particularising them.
Cited – Terry (previously LNS) v Persons Unknown QBD 29-Jan-2010
The claimant (then known as LNS) had obtained an injunction to restrain publication of private materials.
Held: There was insufficient material to found an action in confidence or privacy. An applicant was unlikely to succeed either at an . .
Cited – In re A (A Minor) FD 8-Jul-2011
An application was made in care proceedings for an order restricting publication of information about the family after the deaths of two siblings of the child subject to the application. The Sun and a local newspaper had already published stories . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.193353
A debt to be garnisheed was situated in England.
Held: ‘If the debt is situate, or in other words if it is properly recoverable, in this country, then it would be discharged by payment under an order of our Courts and the garnishee need have no fear of being required to pay it a second time; but if the debt is situate, that is properly recoverable, in a foreign country, then it is not discharged by payment in this country under an order of the Courts of this country, and the debtor may be called upon to pay it over again in the foreign country. There is no doubt as to the effect of payment made under a garnishee order here. It is clearly a discharge pro tanto of the debt . .There is a vital distinction between the facts of that case [Martin v Nadel] and the facts of the present case . . That was a debt situate in Berlin, being properly recoverable in Berlin. That was the debt sought to be garnished. Here the debt sought to be garnished was a debt situate in England being properly recoverable in England. In this case the debt can be properly discharged in England. In Martin v Nadel the debt could be properly discharged only in Berlin.
The Court will not make absolute a garnishee order where it will not operate to discharge the garnishee in whole or pro tanto from the debt; it will not expose him to the risk of having to pay the debt or part of it twice over. Scrutton LJ considered this to be ‘well established as a principle of discretion on which the Court acts’.
Bankes LJ, Scrutton LJ
[1923] 1 KB 673
England and Wales
Distinguished – Martin v Nadel CA 17-May-1906
A garnishee order was sought in England against the London branch of a German bank to attach a balance owed to the judgment debtor by the Berlin branch of the bank.
Held: A garnishee order is of the nature of an execution, and is governed by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.183541
The applicant had been granted bail by a High Court judge when he was given leave to apply for judicial review of the decision refusing him leave to enter the United Kingdom. His application for judicial review was subsequently dismissed and the judge, considering that he had no further jurisdiction in the matter, refused bail pending an appeal.
Held: If on the adjourned hearing of the application for leave to apply before the High Court the judge had dismissed the application, there could be no appeal to the Court of Appeal. There would be a power to renew that application to that court, but no appeal. The Court affirmed the jurisdiction of a High Court judge to grant bail, as a measure of interim relief, when granting leave to apply for judicial review.
Sir John Donaldson MR said: ‘If I could come back to the general question of jurisdiction, in my judgment bail is to be regarded in civil proceedings – as it is in criminal proceedings – as ancillary to some other proceeding. It is not possible, so far as I know, to apply to any court for bail in vacuo. It is essentially an ancillary form of relief. The problems which have arisen really all stem from the need to find an underlying substantive proceeding to which bail would be ancillary . . I will now try and look at the problem overall, taking, first, the High Court. In my judgment you cannot apply to the High Court for bail unless the High Court is seised of some sort of proceeding. It may be seised of an application for leave to apply for judicial review or it may be seised of the substantive application. So long as it is seised of either of those applications, you can apply to the High Court and the court can grant or refuse bail. From the order granting or refusing bail an appeal will lie to this court.’
. . And ‘We own to having some doubts as to whether there is room for an inherent jurisdiction to grant bail in relation to a civil appeal in judicial review proceedings when Parliament has given . . the Secretary of State the power to detain and the substance of the complaint is the exercise of that power. But in the light of the authorities we accept that the High Court has the power in judicial review proceedings to make ancillary orders temporarily releasing an applicant from detention and that on an appeal in those proceedings this court by virtue of section 15(3) of the 1981 Act can make the like order. In our judgment this court is exercising an original jurisdiction and it is not judicially reviewing the decision by the Secretary of State.’
. . And ‘Clearly we would grant bail ancillary to or as a part of proceedings for habeas corpus.’
Sir John Donaldson MR, Croom-Johnson and Bingham LJJ
[1988] 1 QB 398, [1987] 2 All ER 823
England and Wales
Cited – Dhillon v Secretary of State for the Home Department CACD 1988
The court considered the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal to hear certain appeals, saying that ‘Lane v. Esdaile is of general application and provides that where leave to bring proceedings is required it is not possible to appeal against a . .
Cited – Lane v Esdaile HL 5-May-1891
The court considered the extent of the House’s jurisdiction as an appellate court. Section 3 of the 1876 Act provided that an appeal should lie to the House of Lords from ‘any order or judgment of . . Her Majesty’s Court of Appeal in England’. The . .
Cited – Kemper Reinsurance Company v The Minister of Finance and others PC 5-May-1998
(Bermuda) An appeal Court did have jurisdiction to hear an appeal against the discharge of leave to apply for certiorari order, since this was outside scope of the rule in Lane v Esdaille.
Lord Hoffmann said: ‘Nevertheless, the limited nature . .
Cited – Martin Corey, Re for Judicial Review SC 4-Dec-2013
The appellant challenged his recall to prison from licence. He had been convicted in 1973 of the murder of two police officers. He had remained at liberty for 18 years, befire his licence was revoked on the basis of confidential iintelligence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.182912
The tenant sought a new lease and served a notice. The notice named the former landlord not the current landlord.
Held: Order 20 could be used to correct the name where the error was a mere mistaken description of the correct party, but not a mistake as to the actual identity of the party. No injustice would be created here by requiring the correct landlord to make good his reply.
Donaldson LJ said: ‘In applying Ord. 20, r. 5 (3) it is, in my judgment, important to bear in mind that there is a real distinction between suing A in the mistaken belief that A is the party who is responsible for the matters complained of and seeking to sue B, but mistakenly describing or naming him as A and thereby ending up suing A instead of B. The rule is designed to correct the latter and not the former category of mistake. Which category is involved in making any particular case depends upon the intentions of the person making the mistake and they have to be determined on the evidence in light of al the surrounding circumstances. In the instant case I have not the slightest difficulty in accepting Mr. Greenwood’s assertion that he intended to sue the relevant landlord under the Act. After all, he was responding on behalf of his lessee client to a notice to quit given on behalf of the landlord and it would have been surprising, to say the least, if he had thought that it was appropriate to respond by claiming a new lease from the managing agent or other stranger to the landlord and tenant relationship. Accordingly I would conclude that he made a genuine mistake of a character to which Ord. 20, r. 5 (3) can apply.’
Donaldson LJ
[1983] QB 810, [1983] 2 WLR 117
England and Wales
Cited – Liff v Peasley CA 1980
The court will not add a person as a defendant to an existing action if the claim was already statute-barred and he wished to rely on that defence, and if the court allows such addition ex parte it will not, on objection allow the addition to stand. . .
Cited – Baxendale v Davstone (Holdings) Ltd CA 1982
. .
Applied – Horne-Roberts (a Child) v Smithkline Beecham plc and Another CA 18-Dec-2001
The court has a power to order substitution of a party though the limitation period, and even the ‘long stop’ limitation period had expired. The claimant child sought damages after a vaccination. The batch had been attributed to the wrong . .
Cited – Adelson and Another v Associated Newspapers Ltd CA 9-Jul-2007
The claimant sought to add the name of a further claimant. The defendant objected, saying that it was after the expiry of the limitation period.
Held: The claimant was seeking to use the rules for substitution of parties to add a party. In . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.182315
A refusal in a non-criminal cause or matter by a Divisional Court of the Queen’s Bench Division or by a single judge to grant leave to apply for judicial review is appealable to the Court of Appeal.
Lord Lane CJ and Sir John Donaldson M.R
[1982] 1 W L R 1375
England and Wales
Cited – Kemper Reinsurance Company v The Minister of Finance and others PC 5-May-1998
(Bermuda) An appeal Court did have jurisdiction to hear an appeal against the discharge of leave to apply for certiorari order, since this was outside scope of the rule in Lane v Esdaille.
Lord Hoffmann said: ‘Nevertheless, the limited nature . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.182910
In exceptional cases, a judge conscientiously seeking to decide the issues between the parties might have to conclude ‘I just do not know’.
May LJ
[1987] 2 All ER, [1998] QB 493
England and Wales
Cited – Baker v Market Harborough Co-Operative Society Ltd CA 1953
There was a collision in the centre of a road between two vehicles driven in opposite directions. In two hearings, judges had taken different views of the facts.
Held: The court was sympathetic to the judge who had found that the cause of the . .
Cited – Bray v Palmer CA 1953
The plaintiff was driving his motorcycle. The defendant drove a motor car on the same road in the opposite direction. Each s aid that they weredriving at acceptable speed when the two vehicles collided in the centre of the road. The trial judge . .
Cited – W Lamb Limited (Trading As The Premier Pump and Tank Company) v J Jarvis and Sons Plc TCC 31-Jul-1998
Contractors built a petrol station, and sub-contractors the underground piping. Leaks developed, and it was agreed to complete repairs, and apportion financial repairs through the court proceedings. In a case where a judge found it difficult to . .
Cited – Cooper v Floor Cleaning Machines Ltd and Another CA 20-Oct-2003
The judge had heard the evidence from two drivers involved in a road traffic incident. He had declared that he could find no way to prefer the evidence of one over the other. Accordingly neither had proved his or her case on the balance of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.182957
The High Court can order the disclosure of assets in support of proceedings for purposes of drug Trafficking control.
Gazette 29-Jul-1992
Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1985 8
England and Wales
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.85887
A claimant does not need to have a subsisting cause of action against a defendant before the court will grant a claimant a declaration. The court considered the ambiguity in the meaning of the word ‘jurisdiction’: ‘The first and, in my opinion, the only really correct sense of the expression that the Court has no jurisdiction is that it has no power to deal with and decide the dispute as to the subject matter before it, no matter in what form or by whom it is raised. But there is another sense in which it is often used, i.e., that, although the Court has power to decide the question it will not according to its settled practice do so except in a certain way and under certain circumstances.’ An unsuccessful attack was mounted on the vires of Ord 25 r 5.
Pickford LJ said: ‘I think therefore that the effect of the rule is to give a general power to make a declaration whether there be a cause of action or not, and at the instance of any party who is interested in the subject matter of the declaration.’ and ‘The first and, in my opinion, the only really correct sense of the expression that the Court has no jurisdiction is that it has no power to deal with and decide the dispute as to the subject-matter before it, no matter in what form or by whom it is raised. But there is another sense in which it is often used, i.e., that, although the Court has power to decide the question it will not according to its settled practice do so except in a certain way and under certain circumstances.’
Bankes LJ: ‘It is essential, however, that a person who seeks to take advantage of the rule must be claiming relief. What is meant by this word relief? When once it is established, as I think it is established, that relief is not confined to relief in respect of a cause of action it seems to follow that the word itself must be given its fullest meaning. There is, however, one limitation which must always be attached to it, that is to say, the relief claimed must be something which it would not be unlawful or unconstitutional or inequitable for the court to grant or contrary to the accepted principles upon which the court exercises its jurisdiction. Subject to this limitation I see nothing to fetter the discretion of the court in exercising a jurisdiction under the rule to grant relief, and having regard to general business convenience and the importance of adapting the machinery of the courts to the needs of suitors I think the rule should receive as liberal a construction as possible.’
Pickford LJ, Bankes LJ
[1915] 2 KB 536, [1914-15] All ER 24, 113 LT 98, 84 LJKB 1465
England and Wales
Approved – Garthwaite v Garthwaite CA 1964
The court discussed what was constitutive jurisdiction: ‘The ‘jurisdiction’ of a validly constituted court connotes the limits which are imposed upon its power to hear and determine issues between persons seeking to avail themselves of its process . .
Cited – Fourie v Le Roux and others HL 24-Jan-2007
The appellant, liquidator of two South African companies, had made a successful without notice application for an asset freezing order. He believed that the defendants had stripped the companies of substantial assets. The order was set aside for . .
Cited – F v West Berkshire Health Authority HL 17-Jul-1990
The parties considered the propriety of a sterilisation of a woman who was, through mental incapacity, unable to give her consent.
Held: The appeal succeeded, and the operation would be lawful if the doctor considered it to be in the best . .
Cited – Rolls-Royce plc v Unite the Union CA 14-May-2009
The parties disputed whether the inclusion of length of service within a selection matrix for redundancy purposes would amount to unlawful age discrimination. The court was asked whether it was correct to make a declaratory judgment when the case . .
Cited – SRJ v Person(s) Unknown (Author and Commenters of Internet Blogs) QBD 10-Jul-2014
The claimant sought an order for the disclosure by his solicitor of the identity of the author of an internet blog publishing critical material which, the claimant said, was its confidential information. The defendant’s solicitor had failed to . .
Cited – Aspect Contracts (Asbetos) Ltd v Higgins Construction Plc SC 17-Jun-2015
Aspect had claimed the return of funds paid by it to the appellant Higgins under an adjudication award in a construction contract disute. The claimant had been asked to prpare asbestos surveys and reports on maisonettes which Higgins was to acquire . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.248201
Applications to amend pleadings.
Flaux J
[2008] EWHC 918 (Comm), [2008] ILPr 43, [2008] 2 Lloyds Rep 177
England and Wales
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.267371
Application for disclosure of defendant’s insurance arrangements.
David Steel J
[2008] EWHC 1296 (Comm), [2008] CP Rep 35, [2008] 1 CLC 935, [2008] Lloyd’s Rep IR 688
England and Wales
See Also – West London Pipeline and Storage Ltd and Another v Total UK Ltd and others Comc 22-Jul-2008
The court was asked whether it could go behind an affidavit sworn by a person claiming litigation privilege, and, if so, in what circumstances and by what means.
Held: The burden of proof is on the party claiming privilege to establish it; An . .
Cited – Starbev GP Ltd v Interbrew Central European Holding Bv ComC 18-Dec-2013
Challenge to assertion of litigation privilege.
Hamblen J said:
’11. The legal requirements of a claim to litigation privilege may be summarised as follows:
(1) The burden of proof is on the party claiming privilege to establish it . .
Cited – Kyla Shipping Co Ltd and Another v Freight Trading Ltd and Others ComC 22-Feb-2022
Litigation Privilege
Defendants challenged the claimants assertion of litigation privilege and contended for a waiver of any privilege which entitles them to disclosure of additional materials referred to in a witness statement.
Held: ‘I dismiss the waiver of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.269737
The appellant had instructed the defendant solicitors in litigation. On beginning to act in person she sought an order to require the solicitors to deliver the case papers to her. They asserted a lien on them until their account was paid. She now appealed against refusal of an order for their release. There had been found to be a complete breakdown in the relationship of trust and confidence between client and solicitor. She said that their lien did not apply after they had repudiated the retainer.
Held: The appeal failed. The solicitors’ retainer had not been terminated by repudiation or otherwise, and the solicitors were entitled to payment of their fees. The retainer was in fact terminated by the client, and therefore the solicitors were entitled to assert their lien.
Lloyd, Stanley Burnton LJJ, Morgan J
[2012] EWCA Civ 1180
England and Wales
Cited – Underwood, Son and Piper v Lewis CA 11-May-1894
Solicitors had declined to continue to act for their client before the litigation in which they were acting had been completed. They brought an action for the amount of their bill of costs for work done to date. The trial judge held that a solicitor . .
Cited – Richard Buxton (Solicitors) v Mills-Owens and Another CA 23-Feb-2010
The solicitors felt that the instructions received from their client were to pursue points which neither they nor counsel thought were properly arguable. They withdrew from the case, and now appealed against a refusal of their costs on the basis . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.463825
The appellant, liquidator of two South African companies, had made a successful without notice application for an asset freezing order. He believed that the defendants had stripped the companies of substantial assets. The order was set aside for want of jurisdiction, because it had not been ancillary to any proceedings which had even been formulated let alone commenced. He now appealed refusal by the Court of Appeal to re-instate it.
Held: Provided the court has in personam jurisdiction over the person against whom an injunction, whether interlocutory or final, is sought, the court has jurisdiction, in the strict sense, to grant it. Section 25 of the 1982 Act allowed courts to grant injunctions in support of foreign proceedings. However at the time when the order had been made, the circumstances required to support it did not exist since any claim it was intended to support had not been formulated: ‘An interlocutory injunction, like any other interim order, is intended to be of temporary duration, dependent on the institution and progress of some proceedings for substantive relief’ (Lord Scott). In essence the case was now about the award of costs on an indemnity basis.
Lord Scott considered the ambiguous nature of the word ‘jurisdiction’, as it had appeared in the case: ‘The references to jurisdiction made both by Sir Andrew Morritt V-C and by the deputy judge . . read as though they had in mind jurisdiction in the strict sense. If they did, then I think they were wrong. It seems to me clear that Park J had jurisdiction, in the strict sense, to grant an injunction against Mr Le Roux and Fintrade. Both were within the territorial jurisdiction of the court at the time the freezing order was made. Both were, shortly after the freezing order had been made, served with an originating summons in which relief in the form of the freezing order was sought. There is no challenge to the propriety or the efficacy of the service on them. The power of a judge sitting in the High Court to grant an injunction against a party to proceedings properly served is confirmed by, but does not derive from, s37 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 and its statutory predecessors. It derives from the pre-Judicature Act 1873 powers of the Chancery courts, and other courts, to grant injunctions (see s16 of the 1873 Act and s19(2)(b) of the 1981 Act). The issue is, in my opinion, not whether Park J had jurisdiction, in the strict sense, to make the freezing order but whether it was proper, in the circumstances as they stood at the time he made the order, for him to make it. This question does not in the least involve a review of the area of discretion available to any judge who is asked to grant injunctive relief. It involves an examination of the restrictions and limitations which have been placed by a combination of judicial precedent and rules of court on the circumstances in which the injunctive relief in question can properly be granted. The various matters taken into account by the deputy judge and Sir Andrew Morritt V-C respectively in holding that Park J had no jurisdiction to make the freezing order were really, in my respectful opinion, their reasons for concluding that, in the circumstances as they stood when the matter was before him, it had not been proper for Park J to have made the order. That, in my opinion, is the real issue.’
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Carswell
[2007] UKHL 1, Times 25-Jan-2007, [2007] 1 WLR 320, [2007] 1 All ER 1087, [2007] Bus LR 925
Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 25
England and Wales
At first Instance – Fourie v Le Roux and Others ChD 30-Sep-2004
Interim asset freezing injunctions had been obtained on the application of a liquidator in South Africa. The defendant applied for their discharge.
Held: They should be discharged. No foreign proceedings had been specified for which they were . .
Appeal from – John Louis Carter Fourie v Allan Le Roux and others CA 7-Mar-2005
The defendant’s company in South Africa had become insolvent and the claimant had recovered judgment for arrears of rent. They obtained a freezing order against the defendant. The defendant appealed saying the court did not have jurisdiction, and . .
Cited – Siporex Trade SA v Comdel Commodities 1986
The court should not absolve a defaulting party from the consequences of its neglect by maintaining a Mareva injunction order in force. . .
Cited – Reid Minty (a firm) v Taylor CA 2002
New CPR govern Indemnity Costs awards
The defendant had successfully defended the main claim and now appealed against the refusal of an order for costs on an indemnity basis even though judge thought that the claimants had behaved unreasonably. He had said that some conduct deserving of . .
Cited – Guaranty Trust Co of New York v Hannay and Co CA 1915
A claimant does not need to have a subsisting cause of action against a defendant before the court will grant a claimant a declaration. The court considered the ambiguity in the meaning of the word ‘jurisdiction’: ‘The first and, in my opinion, the . .
Cited – Garthwaite v Garthwaite CA 1964
The court discussed what was constitutive jurisdiction: ‘The ‘jurisdiction’ of a validly constituted court connotes the limits which are imposed upon its power to hear and determine issues between persons seeking to avail themselves of its process . .
Cited – Karl Construction Limited v Palisade Properties Plc SCS 14-Jan-2002
The maintenance of procedural safeguards is necessary if the use of the Mareva injunction procedure is not to be held to be incompatible with article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights. . .
Cited – Edge and others v Pensions Ombudsman and Another CA 29-Jul-1999
The Pensions Ombudsman was wrong to set aside the decision of pensions trustees where that decision was properly made within the scope of a discretion given to the Trustees. He should not carry out an investigation where no particular benefit could . .
Cited – Castanho v Brown and Root (UK) Ltd HL 1981
A claim was made for an anti-suit injunction.
Held: The court is reluctant to make orders which would be ineffective to achieve what they set out to do, but the fear that the defendant will not obey an injunction is not a bar to its grant. The . .
Cited – Channel Tunnel Group Ltd v Balfour Beatty Construction Ltd and Others HL 17-Feb-1993
The court has the power to stay an action which pursued a remedy which was outside the terms of the arbitration agreement determining the dispute. The contract between the parties provided for disputes to be settled by arbitration in Belgium. The . .
Cited – Tehrani v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 18-Oct-2006
The House was asked whether an asylum applicant whose original application was determined in Scotland, but his application for leave to appeal rejected in London, should apply to challenge those decisions in London or in Scotland.
Held: Such . .
Affirmed – Siskina (owners of Cargo lately on Board) v Distos Compania Naviera SA HL 1979
An injunction was sought against a Panamanian ship-owning company to restrain it from disposing of a fund, consisting of insurance proceeds, in England. The claimant for the injunction was suing the company in a Cyprus court for damages and believed . .
Cited – North London Railway Co v The Great Northern Railway Co CA 9-Jun-1883
The Judicature Act, 1873, s. 25, sub-S. 8, has given no power to the High Court to issue an injunction in a case in which no Court before that Act had power to give any remedy whatever.
Therefore the High Court has no jurisdiction to issue an . .
Cited – British Airways Board v Laker Airways Limited HL 1985
The plaintiffs tried to restrain the defendant from pursuing an action in the US courts claiming that the plaintiffs had acted together in an unlawful conspiracy to undermine the defendant’s business.
Held: The action in the US were unlawful . .
Cited – South Carolina Insurance Co v Assurantie Maatschappij de Zeven Provincien NV HL 1987
There can be little basis for the grant of relief to a landowner providing protection from an action in nuisance if the landowner will not himself remedy the public nuisance. The House considered whether the circumstances gave the court power to . .
Cited – Mercedes Benz Ag v Leiduck PC 24-Jul-1995
Mareva relief is not available against a foreigner outside the UK in order to support a court action abroad. A Mareva injunction is not itself a substantive relief and so was not available to support foreign proceedings. A freezing order has to be . .
Cited – Memory Corporation v Sidhu (No 2) CA 3-Dec-1999
Where a party applied to court for an ex parte order, counsel had direct duties to the court, and also the supporting legal team and clients had continuing and overlapping duties. There was little to be gained by trying to analyze these things too . .
Cited – Franses v Al Assad and others ChD 26-Oct-2007
The claimant had obtained a freezing order over the proceeds of sale of a property held by solicitors. The claimant was liquidator of a company, and an allegation of wrongful trading had been made against the sole director and defendant. The . .
Cited – Coventry City Council v PGO and Others CA 22-Jun-2011
The children had been placed with short term fosterers. On adopters being found, the fosterers themselves applied to adopt the children. The court was asked whether a county court judge had power to injunct the authority not to remove the children . .
Cited – SRJ v Person(s) Unknown (Author and Commenters of Internet Blogs) QBD 10-Jul-2014
The claimant sought an order for the disclosure by his solicitor of the identity of the author of an internet blog publishing critical material which, the claimant said, was its confidential information. The defendant’s solicitor had failed to . .
Cited – JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov SC 21-Oct-2015
The court was asked as to the interpretation and application of the standard form freezing order. In the course of long-running litigation between JSC BTA Bank and Mr Ablyazov the Bank had obtained a number of judgments against the respondent . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.248200
The House was asked as to the effect of the section.
Held: Since the provisions of the statute under consideration were designed to give domestic effect to an international convention, a broad and liberal construction should be given to them
Lord Brandon of Oakbrook
[1985] AC 711
Supreme Court Act 1981 20(2)(h)
Approved – The Eschersheim; The Jade HL 1976
The 1956 Act implemented as part of the domestic law the treaty obligations of the United Kingdom under the International Convention Relating to the Arrest of Seagoing Ships signed at Brussels on 10 May 1952 (the Arrest Convention).
Held: The . .
Appeal from – Samick Lines Co Ltd v Owners of The Antonis P Lemos CA 1984
Parker LJ said: ‘a domestic statute designed to give effect to an international convention should, in general, be given a broad and liberal construction’ . .
Cited – Fiona Trust and Holding Corporation and others v Privalov and others CA 24-Jan-2007
The court was asked whether when contracts have been induced by bribery and have been rescinded on discovery of the bribery, that constitutes a dispute which can be determined by arbitration in the context of a common form of arbitration clause.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.248211
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Admissibility of evidence
The claimant sought disclosure of certain legal advice on the basis that its effect, and a summary of its contents, had been put before the court and therefore privilege was waived. The Tribunal rejected the application and the EAT held that they were right to do so.
Consideration of the operation of waiver principles.
Elias J P discussed the question fundamental to whether there had been a waiver: The fundamental question is whether, in the light of what has been disclosed and the context in which disclosure has occurred, it would be unfair to allow the party making disclosure not to reveal the whole of the relevant information because it would risk the court and the other party only having a partial and potentially misleading understanding of the material. The court must not allow cherry picking, but the question is: when has a cherry been relevantly placed before the court?
Typically, as we have seen, the cases attempt to determine the question whether waiver has occurred by focusing on two related matters. The first is the nature of what has been revealed; is it the substance, the gist, content or merely the effect of the advice? The second is the circumstances in which it is revealed; has it simply been referred to, used, deployed or relied upon in order to advance the parties’ case? As Waller LJ observed in the Dunlop Slazenger case [2003] EWCA Civ 901. The principles are not altogether easy to discern, partly perhaps because of the vagueness of the language adopted – for example, sometimes reliance and deployment are used as separate terms and sometimes they appear to mean much the same thing – and partly because the cases are necessarily fact sensitive . .
66. Having said that, we do accept that the authorities hold fast to the principle that legal advice privilege is an extremely important protection and that waiver is not easily established. In that context something more than the effect of the advice must be disclosed before any question of waiver can arise.
However, in our view, the answer to the question whether waiver has occurred or not depends upon considering together both what has been disclosed and the circumstances in which disclosure has occurred. As to the latter the authorities in England strongly support the view that a degree of reliance is required before waiver arises, but there may be issues as to the extent of the reliance . .’
Elias J P
[2008] UKEAT 0349 – 08 – 1612, [2009] ICR 479
England and Wales
Cited – Wilson v Northampton and Banbury Junction Railway Co 1872
Lord Selborne LC said: ‘It is of the highest importance . . that all communications between a solicitor and a client upon a subject which may lead to litigation should be privileged, and I think the court is bound to consider that . . almost any . .
Cited – Unison GMB v Brennan and others EAT 19-Mar-2008
EAT Jurisdictional Points
Sex discrimination
Can an employment tribunal make a declaration that the term of a collective agreement is void, pursuant to section 77 of the Sex Discrimination Act, at the . .
Cited – Assicurazioni Generali Spa v Arab Insurance Group (BSC) CA 13-Nov-2002
Rehearing/Review – Little Difference on Appeal
The appellant asked the Court to reverse a decision on the facts reached in the lower court.
Held: The appeal failed (Majority decision). The court’s approach should be the same whether the case was dealt with as a rehearing or as a review. . .
Cited – Great Atlantic Insurance v Home Insurance CA 1981
The defendants sought to enter into evidence one part of a document, but the plaintiffs sought to have the remainder protected through legal professional privilege.
Held: The entirety of the document was privileged, but by disclosing part, the . .
Cited – Nea Karteria Maritime Co Ltd v Atlantic and Great Lakes Steamship Corporation (No 2) 11-Dec-1978
The court considered disclosure of a legally privileged note of an interview: ‘I believe that the principle underlying the rule of practice exemplified by Burnell v British Transport Commission is that, where a party is deploying in court material . .
Cited – Dunlop Slazenger International Ltd v Joe Bloggs Sports Ltd CA 11-Jun-2003
Waller LJ said: ‘To answer the question whether waiver of parts of a privileged communication waives the complete information, it is that dictum of Mustill J., as he then was, which applies. A party is not entitled to cherry pick and a party to whom . .
Cited – Bennett v Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Customs Service 25-Aug-2004
Austlii (Federal Court of Australia) EVIDENCE – Privilege – Legal professional privilege – Waiver – Letter conveying substance and effect of legal advice to third party – Inconsistency between disclosure and . .
Cited – Expandable Ltd and Another v Rubin CA 11-Feb-2008
The defendant’s witness statement referred to a letter written to him by the defendant’s solicitor. The claimant appealed refusal of an order for its disclosure.
Held: The appeal failed. The letter was protected by legal professional . .
Cited – Mann v Carnell 21-Dec-1999
Austlii (High Court of Australia) Practice and procedure – Preliminary discovery – Legal professional privilege – Loss of privilege – Waiver by disclosure to third party.
Australian Capital Territory – . .
Cited – GE Capital Corporate Finance Group v Bankers Trust Co and Others CA 3-Aug-1994
Irrelevant parts of documents required to be disclosed may be blanked out on discovery by the party giving discovery. Hoffmann LJ: ‘It has long been the practice that a party is entitled to seal up or cover up parts of a document which he claims to . .
Cited – Infields Ltd v P Rosen and Son CA 1938
Sir Wilfred Greene MR said that reliance on a document was not of itself sufficient to displace legal professional privilege: ‘In my judgment, the same principle applies here. All that the deponent was doing was saying: ‘Well, I am asking the court . .
Cited – Government Trading Corporation v Tate and Lyle Industries Ltd CA 24-Oct-1984
Reference was made to information derived from Iranian lawyers. The solicitor in an affirmation had set out his understanding of Iranian law on the incorporation of a Government Trading Corporation in Iran and stated that his information had been . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Transport ex-parte Factortame and Others CA 1988
The Secretary of State was willing to make legal advice given to him available on the grounds that privilege had been waived, but not advice after a particular cut off date. The claimants were dubious as to whether the privilege had been properly . .
Cited – University of Southampton v Dr C K Kelly EAT 14-Nov-2005
EAT The respondent had stated in its response to the complaint of unfair dismissal that it had realised that it would be unlawful to continue to employ the claimant after having taken legal advice. The claimant . .
Cited – Re D (a child) CA 14-Jun-2011
In the course of care proceedings, the mother had revised her version of events, and then explained why. The father sought disclosure of the attendance notes of her solicitor, saying that she had waived any privilege in the advice given. She now . .
Applied – The National Crime Agency v Perry and Others QBD 12-Nov-2014
The agency had taken proceedings against the defendant to reciver what it said were theproceeds of crime. That claim was dicontinued. The defendant sought to recover his costs on an indemnity basis, and relying upon a witness statement from an . .
Appeal from – Council of The City of Sunderland v Brennan and Others CA 3-Apr-2012
Equal pay claim – Whether difference in pay due to material factor other than sex . .
See Also – Sunderland City Council v Brennan and Others EAT 2-May-2012
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Contribution
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Disclosure
(1) An employment tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine claims for contribution under the Civil Liability . .
See Also – Sunderland City Council v Brennan and Others EAT 2-May-2012
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Contribution
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Disclosure
(1) An employment tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine claims for contribution under the Civil Liability . .
Cited – Kyla Shipping Co Ltd and Another v Freight Trading Ltd and Others ComC 22-Feb-2022
Litigation Privilege
Defendants challenged the claimants assertion of litigation privilege and contended for a waiver of any privilege which entitles them to disclosure of additional materials referred to in a witness statement.
Held: ‘I dismiss the waiver of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.278812
The court was asked whether it could go behind an affidavit sworn by a person claiming litigation privilege, and, if so, in what circumstances and by what means.
Held: The burden of proof is on the party claiming privilege to establish it; An assertion of privilege and a statement of the purpose of the communication over which privilege is claimed in an affidavit are not determinative and are evidence of a fact which may require to be independently proved; it is difficult to go behind an affidavit of documents at an interlocutory stage of proceedings. Where the court is not satisfied on the basis of the affidavit and the other evidence before it that the right to withhold inspection is established, there are four options open to it: 1) It may conclude that the evidence does not establish a legal right to withhold inspection and order inspection; It may order a further affidavit to deal with matters which the earlier affidavit does not cover or on which it is unsatisfactory; It may inspect the documents; At an interlocutory stage a court may, in certain circumstances, order cross-examination of a person who has sworn an affidavit, for example, an affidavit sworn as a result of the order of the court that a defendant to a freezing injunction should disclose his assets.
Beatson J
[2008] EWHC 1729 (Comm), [2008] 2 CLC 258
England and Wales
See Also – West London Pipeline and Storage Ltd and Another v Total UK Ltd and others Comc 9-Jun-2008
Application for disclosure of defendant’s insurance arrangements. . .
Cited – Property Alliance Group Ltd v The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc ChD 19-Feb-2015
The claimant said that interest rate manipulation by the defendant bank had caused it losses in interest rate derivatives and SWAP agreements. In the course of that the claimants sought disclosure of internal documents. The defendants resisted . .
Cited – Astex Therapeutics Ltd v Astrazeneca Ab ChD 8-Nov-2016
The parties had agreed to work tgether in the development of new drugs, but came to dispute whether certain projects were subject to the agreement. The claimant sought details of the defendant’s internal documents justifying that conclusion. The . .
Cited – ZS v FS (Application To Prevent Solicitor Acting) FD 24-Oct-2017
Discosure of Confidences must be at risk
H sought to restrain W’s solicitors from acting. The firm was one of six firms approached to consider representing H, and he now said that certain matters had been diviluged to the firm.
Held: The legal principles were clear, and it was for H . .
Cited – Starbev GP Ltd v Interbrew Central European Holding Bv ComC 18-Dec-2013
Challenge to assertion of litigation privilege.
Hamblen J said:
’11. The legal requirements of a claim to litigation privilege may be summarised as follows:
(1) The burden of proof is on the party claiming privilege to establish it . .
Cited – Kyla Shipping Co Ltd and Another v Freight Trading Ltd and Others ComC 22-Feb-2022
Litigation Privilege
Defendants challenged the claimants assertion of litigation privilege and contended for a waiver of any privilege which entitles them to disclosure of additional materials referred to in a witness statement.
Held: ‘I dismiss the waiver of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.271151
Application by the defendants for disclosure and inspection of files of documents, which the claimant in the action says are protected by legal professional privilege or litigation privilege.
Judge Havelock-Allen QC said: ‘ When it comes to proof of knowledge under section 14A , the assertion by a claimant that he was unaware of the material circumstances until a certain date, carries with it the assertion that he did not have the requisite knowledge at any time before that date. To that extent, the assertion involves proving a negative. MAC is here saying that it did not have the requisite knowledge any earlier than 6 December 2006: but it does not want to be compelled to establish that proposition by having to disclose details of its investigations into the defendants’ conduct only in order to establish that those investigations produced no credible leads which should have instigated a further enquiry leading to requisite knowledge about the Midas fraud and the other new non-fraud-derived claims against the defendants. However, sometimes, difficult and invidious choices have to be made if the evidence, without some waiver of privilege, risks being insufficient to enable the claimant to persuade the court that the running of limitation was postponed for as long as the claimant says.’
Judge Havelock-Allen QC
[2010] EWHC 767 (TCC)
England and Wales
Cited – Kyla Shipping Co Ltd and Another v Freight Trading Ltd and Others ComC 22-Feb-2022
Litigation Privilege
Defendants challenged the claimants assertion of litigation privilege and contended for a waiver of any privilege which entitles them to disclosure of additional materials referred to in a witness statement.
Held: ‘I dismiss the waiver of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.424983
Where a merger was proposed between two accountancy firms, who had provided litigation support services to opposing sides in a case, it was necessary to separate the two halves most rigorously including physical separation in order to ensure no disclosure of material held for either side.
Times 11-May-1999, [1999] EWHC Ch 242, [1999] 3 All ER 524
England and Wales
Cited – Prince Jefri Bolkiah v KPMG (A Firm) HL 16-Dec-1998
Conflicts of Duty with former Client
The House was asked as to the duties of the respondent accountants (KPMG). KPMG had information confidential to a former client, the appellant, which might be relevant to instructions which they then accepted from the Brunei Investment Agency, of . .
Cited – Underwood, Son and Piper v Lewis CA 11-May-1894
Solicitors had declined to continue to act for their client before the litigation in which they were acting had been completed. They brought an action for the amount of their bill of costs for work done to date. The trial judge held that a solicitor . .
Cited – Koch Shipping Inc v Richards Butler (a Firm) CA 22-Jul-2002
The claimants in an arbitration sought orders with regard to a solicitor who had moved to the opponent’s firm of solicitors, but who came with privileged knowledge of the claimant’s business dealings. She offered undertakings, but the claimant . .
Cited – Marks and Spencer plc v Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer (A Firm) ChD 2-Jun-2004
The claimant sought an injunction preventing the respondent form of solicitors acting for a client in a bid for the claimant, saying that the firm was continuing to act for it, and that a conflict of interest arose.
Held: Though the . .
Cited – Marks and Spencer Group Plc and Another v Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer CA 3-Jun-2004
The defendant firm of solicitors sought leave to appeal against an injunction requiring them not to act for a client in making a bid to take over the business of the claimant, a former client of the firm.
Held: Leave was refused. The appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.162969
The defendants appealed orders requiring them to produce evidence for use in the courts in the US.
Held: It was the pleasure and duty of British courts to respond positively to a letter of request. Public interest required that a court should have before it all the evidence it required to fulfil its task. Unless it was clear that the majority of questions asked could be resisted on the grounds of legal professional privilege, the rquest should be complied with.
Mr Justice Brooke Lord Justice Chadwick Lord Justice Scott Baker
[2004] EWCA (Civ) 330, Times 16-Apr-2004, [2004] 1 CLC 811
Evidence (Proceedings in other Jurisdictions) Act 1975
England and Wales
Cited – Genira Trade and Finance Inc v CS First Boston and Standard Bank (London) Limited CA 21-Nov-2001
The court considered the circumstances under which it could be called upon to assist a foreign court.
Held: It is the duty and pleasure of the court to give all such assistance as it can to the requesting court within the limits imposed by the . .
Cited – Three Rivers District Council and others v The Governor and Co of the Bank of England (No 5) CA 3-Apr-2003
Documents had been prepared by the respondent to support a request for legal advice in anticipation of the Bingham enquiry into the collapse of BCCI.
Held: Legal advice privilege attached to the communications between a client and the . .
Cited – Three Rivers District Council v Bank of England (No 5) ComC 4-Nov-2003
The defendant bank sought protection from disclosure of advice it had received from its solicitors.
Held: To the extent that the communications were for the purpose of seeking advice as to its legal rights and obligations, the communications . .
Cited – Balabel v Air India CA 1988
When considering claims for legal professional privilege, the court should acknowledge the ‘continuity of communications’. However, where the traditional role of a solicitor had expanded, the scope of legal professional privilege should not be . .
Appeal from – United States of America v Philip Morris Inc and others QBD 10-Dec-2003
Witness orders were sought in respect of professionals resident in England to support litigation in the US. They objected on the ground that the terms of the order sought suggested improper behaviour, and that an order would anticipate breach of . .
Cited – Waugh v British Railways Board HL 12-Jul-1979
No Litigation Privilege without Dominant Purpose
An internal report had been prepared by two of the Board’s officers two days after a collision involving the death of a locomotive driver, whose widow brought the action and now sought its production.
Held: The court considered litigation . .
Cited – Re Highgrade Traders Ltd CA 1984
The court rejected a claim for legal advice privilege in relation to reports commissioned by an insurance company after a suspected arson. The documents were reports prepared by third parties rather than employees of the company. After considering a . .
Cited – Regina v Derby Magistrates Court Ex Parte B HL 19-Oct-1995
No Breach of Solicitor Client Confidence Allowed
B was charged with the murder of a young girl. He made a confession to the police, but later changed his story, saying his stepfather had killed the girl. He was acquitted. The stepfather was then charged with the murder. At his committal for trial, . .
Cited – In Re L (A Minor) (Police Investigation: Privilege) HL 22-Mar-1996
A report obtained for Children Act proceedings has no privilege against use in evidence. Such proceedings are in the nature of inquisitorial proceedings. Litigation privilege was not applicable in care proceedings and a report prepared may be given . .
Cited – Anderson v Bank of British Columbia CA 1876
Litigation was threatened against an English bank concerning the conduct of an account kept at the branch of the bank in Oregon. The English bank’s London manager thought it necessary to ascertain the full facts and cabled the branch manager in . .
Cited – Wheeler v Le Marchant CA 1881
Advice was given to the defendant trustee of the will of a Mr Brett in the course of its administration in the Chancery Division; for the purpose of that advice information was sought from both the former and the current estate-agent and surveyor. . .
Cited – Collins v London General Omnibus Company 1893
The court adopted a narrow definition of when documents would be protected by legal professional privilege because of anticipated litigation. Will J postulating circumstances being such that ‘no reasonable person could doubt that an action would . .
Cited – Jarman v Lambert and Cooke Contractors Ltd CA 1951
The words ‘pending’ or ‘anticipated’ in the subsection were the words habitually used in connection with legal professional privilege, and ‘The privilege only obtains if litigation is ‘pending or anticipated’, and in that connection it is well . .
Cited – Regina v Special Commissioner And Another, ex parte Morgan Grenfell and Co Ltd HL 16-May-2002
The inspector issued a notice requiring production of certain documents. The respondents refused to produce them, saying that they were protected by legal professional privilege.
Held: Legal professional privilege is a fundamental part of . .
Cited – Starbev GP Ltd v Interbrew Central European Holding Bv ComC 18-Dec-2013
Challenge to assertion of litigation privilege.
Hamblen J said:
’11. The legal requirements of a claim to litigation privilege may be summarised as follows:
(1) The burden of proof is on the party claiming privilege to establish it . .
Cited – Kyla Shipping Co Ltd and Another v Freight Trading Ltd and Others ComC 22-Feb-2022
Litigation Privilege
Defendants challenged the claimants assertion of litigation privilege and contended for a waiver of any privilege which entitles them to disclosure of additional materials referred to in a witness statement.
Held: ‘I dismiss the waiver of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.194836
This expedited appeal raises issues as to: the scope of litigation privilege; the grounds upon which the court will be prepared to inspect documents where there is a challenge to the assertion of privilege; and the application of the ‘dominant purpose’ test in relation to documents produced for more than one reason.
Sir Terence Etherton MR, Lord Justice Lewison and Lady Justice Asplin
[2018] EWCA Civ 2652
England and Wales
Cited – Kyla Shipping Co Ltd and Another v Freight Trading Ltd and Others ComC 22-Feb-2022
Litigation Privilege
Defendants challenged the claimants assertion of litigation privilege and contended for a waiver of any privilege which entitles them to disclosure of additional materials referred to in a witness statement.
Held: ‘I dismiss the waiver of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.630778
Application for inspection of certain documents which have been disclosed by Sotheby’s, the Claimant, but in respect of which inspection has been withheld on the grounds of litigation privilege.
Teare J
[2018] EWHC 3179 (Comm)
England and Wales
Cited – Kyla Shipping Co Ltd and Another v Freight Trading Ltd and Others ComC 22-Feb-2022
Litigation Privilege
Defendants challenged the claimants assertion of litigation privilege and contended for a waiver of any privilege which entitles them to disclosure of additional materials referred to in a witness statement.
Held: ‘I dismiss the waiver of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.631336
The plaintiff was one of many female employees who complained to the industrial tribunal that she was paid less by the defendant than her male counterparts. Sample cases were selected for trial and the others stayed pending a decision. It was an express term that the other cases were not bound by the test cases. She did not seek to put her case forward as one of the test cases, so it was stayed. The test cases had been decided adversely, and she sought to have the stay lifted to enable her to continue her claim.
Held: Although the decision in the test cases was not binding upon her as a matter of law, it would be an abuse of process for her to relitigate the same issues since that would defeat the whole purpose of having test claims.
Stuart-Smith LJ said: ‘The expression `frivolous or vexatious’ in rule 12(2)(e) [which seems to be the predecessor of the current regulation 13(2)(d)] includes applications which are an abuse of process: see E T Marler Ltd v Robertson [1974] ICR 72, 76, per Sir Hugh Griffiths. Whether or not an application should be struck out on this ground is a matter for the discretion of the tribunal, which can only be challenged on the basis that the tribunal has misdirected itself in law or reached a decision to which no reasonable tribunal could come: see Medallion Holidays Ltd v Birch [1985] ICR 578.’
Stuart-Smith LJ
[1990] 2 QB 338, [1990] 2 All ER 981, [1990] IRLR 283, [1990] ICR 485, [1990] 2 WLR 1437
England and Wales
Approved – Bragg v Oceanus Mutual Underwriting Association (Bermuda) Ltd CA 1982
The court considered the ability to prevent relitigation of issues already decided. The Court identified some of the limits of the abuse jurisdiction. Kerr LJ said: ‘To take the authorities first, it is clear that an attempt to relitigate in another . .
Cited – E T Marler Limited v Robertson NIRC 1974
A frivolous claim is one that has no substance in it and is bound to fail or on the face of it is so manifestly misconceived that it has no prospect of success: ‘If the employee knows that there is no substance in his claim and that it is bound to . .
Cited – Simms v Conlon and Another CA 20-Dec-2006
Solicitors within a practice sued each other, and one wished to plead the fact of a finding of professional misconduct.
Held: The defendant’s appeal succeeded. It was not an abuse for the appellant to continue to assert his innocence, and the . .
Cited – Johnson v Gore Wood and Co HL 14-Dec-2000
Shareholder May Sue for Additional Personal Losses
A company brought a claim of negligence against its solicitors, and, after that claim was settled, the company’s owner brought a separate claim in respect of the same subject-matter.
Held: It need not be an abuse of the court for a shareholder . .
Cited – C (A Minor) v Hackney London Borough Council CA 10-Nov-1995
The mother had claimed in damages for the injuries to her health from the landlord authority’s failure to repair. Her child then brought a subsequent action in respect of his own injuries. The authority claimed the action should be stopped as res . .
Cited – In re Norris, Application by Norris HL 28-Jun-2001
The applicant’s husband had been made the subject of a drugs confiscation order. Part of this was an order against the house. She had failed in asserting that the house was hers. Her appeal to a civil court had been disallowed as an abuse. It was . .
Approved – Balamoody v United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting CA 6-Dec-2001
The claimant had been struck from the register of nurses after convictions arising from failures of his staff at his nursing home with regard to drug management. He had then brought claims of unlawful race discrimination against the health authority . .
Cited – British Aerospace plc v Green and Others CA 18-Apr-1995
The employer was to make 530 members of its staff redundant. Each staff member was assessed and scored. The claimants said that the method of selection was unfair, and sought disclosure of the scores of all employees.
Held: It was wrong to . .
Cited – The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills v Weston and Another ChD 5-Sep-2014
The Secretary of State sought company director disqualification orders against the defendants saying they had been convicted of making false instruments. The Insolvency service had decided against such proceedings, and the Crown Court judge, when . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.248046
It was undesirable to apply hard and fast rules when considering the replacement of an interim injunction obtained wrongfully (even if the nondisclosure was based on legal advice) by a full injunction. Woolf LJ said however that: ‘In deciding in a case where there has undoubtedly been non-disclosure whether or not there should be a discharge of an existing injunction and a re-grant of fresh injunctions, it is most important that the Court assesses the degree and extent of the culpability with regard to the non-disclosure, and the importance and significance to the outcome of the application for an injunction of the matters which were not disclosed to the Court.’
Nourse LJ said that one test as to the innocence of the failings was whether the mistakes were errors of judgment.
Woolf LJ, Nourse LJ
[1989] 1 WLR 723, [1989] 2 All ER 143
England and Wales
Cited – Franses v Al Assad and others ChD 26-Oct-2007
The claimant had obtained a freezing order over the proceeds of sale of a property held by solicitors. The claimant was liquidator of a company, and an allegation of wrongful trading had been made against the sole director and defendant. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.260078
The husband had forged his wife’s signature on the loan application and on the charge of the house held by himself and his wife as joint tenants. He had left the country, and the plaintiff sought to enforce the charge, and ex parte obtained an order nisi charging the husband’s interest in the house. The wife petitioned for divorce. The bank appealed the master’s refusal to make the charging order absolute, and the High Court upheld the appeal and refused to allow the matter to transfer to the Family Division.
Held: The wife’s appeal failed. The judge had identified and considered the correct issues. The plaintiffs had not delayed their action, and had begun it before the divorce. Stephenson LJ said that the courts should not defeat claims from legitimate creditors by use of a matrimonial jurisdiction, though enforcement of a charging order might be deferred until any application under section 30 of the 1925 Act had been dealt with,
Stephenson LJ
[1984] 3 WLR 769, [1984] 3 All ER 641, [1985] QB 850, [1984] Fam Law 315
Law of Property Act 1925 30, Matrimonial Causes Act 1973
England and Wales
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.248852
Refusal of ;lay representation in Commercial Court
Mr Justice David Steel
[2008] EWHC 1433 (Comm), [2009] Lloyd’s Rep IR 119
Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 27, Admiralty and Commercial Court Guide
England and Wales
Cited – D v S (Rights of Audience); In re and Application by Dr Pelling CA 18-Dec-1996
The court said that the representation of a litigant in person by a charging non-professional must be only exceptional. . .
Cited – Paragon Finance Plc v Noueiri CA 24-Apr-2001
Application for leave to appeal. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.270536
Appeal from the order of Cooke J on 30 April 2009 dismissing the application of the claimants for specific disclosure. The issue is whether the defendants are entitled to claim litigation privilege in respect of the documents in question.
[2009] EWCA Civ 1323
England and Wales
Cited – Starbev GP Ltd v Interbrew Central European Holding Bv ComC 18-Dec-2013
Challenge to assertion of litigation privilege.
Hamblen J said:
’11. The legal requirements of a claim to litigation privilege may be summarised as follows:
(1) The burden of proof is on the party claiming privilege to establish it . .
Cited – Kyla Shipping Co Ltd and Another v Freight Trading Ltd and Others ComC 22-Feb-2022
Litigation Privilege
Defendants challenged the claimants assertion of litigation privilege and contended for a waiver of any privilege which entitles them to disclosure of additional materials referred to in a witness statement.
Held: ‘I dismiss the waiver of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.384355
Application for third party disclosure.
Eder J
[2013] EWHC 2297 (QB)
England and Wales
Cited – Starbev GP Ltd v Interbrew Central European Holding Bv ComC 18-Dec-2013
Challenge to assertion of litigation privilege.
Hamblen J said:
’11. The legal requirements of a claim to litigation privilege may be summarised as follows:
(1) The burden of proof is on the party claiming privilege to establish it . .
Cited – Kyla Shipping Co Ltd and Another v Freight Trading Ltd and Others ComC 22-Feb-2022
Litigation Privilege
Defendants challenged the claimants assertion of litigation privilege and contended for a waiver of any privilege which entitles them to disclosure of additional materials referred to in a witness statement.
Held: ‘I dismiss the waiver of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.513778
An injunction was sought against a Panamanian ship-owning company to restrain it from disposing of a fund, consisting of insurance proceeds, in England. The claimant for the injunction was suing the company in a Cyprus court for damages and believed the company to have no other assets from which to meet the hoped-for damages award than the fund in England. No proprietary claim was, or could have been, made by the claimant to the fund.
Held: The Court could not grant interlocutory relief when the substantive proceedings were taking place abroad. English courts had no jurisdiction to grant a freezing injunction in a case in which there was no claim for substantive relief before the English courts.
Lord Diplock said: ‘A right to obtain an interlocutory judgment is not a cause of action. It cannot stand on its own. It is dependent upon there being a pre-existing cause of action against the defendant arising out of an invasion, actual or threatened by him, of a legal or equitable right of the plaintiff for the enforcement of which the defendant is amenable to the jurisdiction of the court. The right to obtain an interlocutory injunction is merely ancillary and incidental to the pre-existing cause of action. It is granted to preserve the status quo pending the ascertainment of the court of the rights of the parties and the grant to the plaintiff of the relief to which his cause of action entitles him, which may or may not include a final injunction.’ and ”To come within the sub-rule the injunction sought in the action must be part of the substantive relief to which the plaintiff’s cause of action entitles him; and the thing that it is sought to restrain the foreign defendant from doing in England must amount to an invasion of some legal or equitable right belonging to the plaintiff in this country and enforceable here by a final judgment for an injunction.’ and
‘The general rule is that the jurisdiction of the English Court over persons is territorial. It is restricted to those upon whom its process can be served within the territorial limits of England and Wales. To this general rule there are some exceptions. These are now to be found in Order 11 of the Rules of the Supreme Court which have statutory force by nature of section 99 of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925. Order 11 permits the High Court to grant leave to a plaintiff to serve its process upon a person outside the territorial limits of England and Wales in those cases, but only in those cases, that are specified in sub-rules (a) to (o) of rule 1(1) or in rule 2 . .
In several of the cases specified in sub-rules (a) to (o) the jurisdiction exercisable over foreigners by the High Court is wider than that which is recognized in English law as being possessed by courts of foreign countries. These are ‘exorbitant’ jurisdictions which run counter to the normal rules of comity among civilized nations. For this reason it has long been held that where there is any room for doubt as to their meaning the provisions of the sub-rules are to be strictly construed in favour of the foreigners : The Hagen [1908] P.189, 201 per Farwell L.J. and it is in my view equally well settled now that it is not permissible in any action commenced by service of process on a person out of the jurisdiction to litigate any claim that does not fall within one or other of sub-rules (a) to (o).’
The purpose of a freezing order is ‘ . . to ensure that there will be a fund available within the jurisdiction to meet any judgment obtained by a Plaintiff in the High Court against a Defendant who does not reside within the jurisdiction and has no place of business here.’
As to the 1925 Act: ‘That sub-section, speaking as it does of interlocutory orders, presupposes the existence of an action, actual or potential, claiming substantive relief which the High Court has jurisdiction to grant and to which the interlocutory orders referred to are but ancillary. This factor has been present in all previous cases in which Mareva injunctions have been granted . . . it is not present in this.’
Lord Diplock
[1979] AC 210, [1979] 3 WLR 818, [1979] 3 All ER 803
Rules of the Supreme Court Order 11 Rule 1, Judicature Act 1925 45(1)
England and Wales
Cited – Mercantile Group (Europe) Ag v Aiyela and Others CA 4-Aug-1993
Interlocutory injunctions including Mareva procedures and orders are available to support the enforcement of a judgment. The purpose of such a jurisdiction is so that the court can ‘ensure the effective enforcement of its orders’. A court may still . .
Cited – Petromec Inc v Petroleo Brasiliero Sa Petrobras and Another ComC 16-Jun-2006
. .
Cited – C Inc Plc v L and Another QBD 4-May-2001
The plaintiff had obtained judgment against L, only then to find that she claimed that all only apparent assets were held by her on trust for or as agent for her husband who was overseas. The plaintiff therefore now set out to add him, and to claim . .
Cited – North London Railway Co v The Great Northern Railway Co CA 9-Jun-1883
The Judicature Act, 1873, s. 25, sub-S. 8, has given no power to the High Court to issue an injunction in a case in which no Court before that Act had power to give any remedy whatever.
Therefore the High Court has no jurisdiction to issue an . .
Cited – Channel Tunnel Group Ltd v Balfour Beatty Construction Ltd and Others HL 17-Feb-1993
The court has the power to stay an action which pursued a remedy which was outside the terms of the arbitration agreement determining the dispute. The contract between the parties provided for disputes to be settled by arbitration in Belgium. The . .
Cited – South Carolina Insurance Co v Assurantie Maatschappij de Zeven Provincien NV HL 1987
There can be little basis for the grant of relief to a landowner providing protection from an action in nuisance if the landowner will not himself remedy the public nuisance. The House considered whether the circumstances gave the court power to . .
Cited – Fourie v Le Roux and Others ChD 30-Sep-2004
Interim asset freezing injunctions had been obtained on the application of a liquidator in South Africa. The defendant applied for their discharge.
Held: They should be discharged. No foreign proceedings had been specified for which they were . .
Cited – Marketmaker Beijing Co Ltd and others v CMC Group Plc and others QBD 8-Oct-2004
Interim injunctions had been obtained to prevent the defendants carrying out certain banking transactions.
Held: The remedy sought and the claim was extravagant and unlikely to succeed. The injunctions should be discharged. It was not at all . .
Cited – Schmidt v Wong CA 7-Dec-2005
The claimant began a personal injury claim against her landlord. She wanted a freezing order, but began her claim in the County court. When she became aware that the county court had no jurisdiction to grant such an order, he sought to have the . .
Cited – HM Revenue and Customs v Egleton and others ChD 19-Sep-2006
The claimants had applied for the winding up of a company for very substantial sums of VAT due to it. Anticipating that hearing, it now sought restraining orders against the director defendants, alleging that there had been a carousel or missing . .
Affirmed – Fourie v Le Roux and others HL 24-Jan-2007
The appellant, liquidator of two South African companies, had made a successful without notice application for an asset freezing order. He believed that the defendants had stripped the companies of substantial assets. The order was set aside for . .
Cited – Franses v Al Assad and others ChD 26-Oct-2007
The claimant had obtained a freezing order over the proceeds of sale of a property held by solicitors. The claimant was liquidator of a company, and an allegation of wrongful trading had been made against the sole director and defendant. The . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov SC 21-Oct-2015
The court was asked as to the interpretation and application of the standard form freezing order. In the course of long-running litigation between JSC BTA Bank and Mr Ablyazov the Bank had obtained a number of judgments against the respondent . .
Not Followed – Mercedes Benz Ag v Leiduck PC 24-Jul-1995
Mareva relief is not available against a foreigner outside the UK in order to support a court action abroad. A Mareva injunction is not itself a substantive relief and so was not available to support foreign proceedings. A freezing order has to be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 February 2022; Ref: scu.184335
(Supreme Court of Victoria) The court had appointed a receiver without requiring a cross-undertaking in damages. The order was then set aside, and compensation was sought. There had been no cross-undertaking.
Held: If it had power to award compensation it would do so. However, after an exhaustive review of authorities from three continents, the court unanimously concluded that the court had no such power; and that a person against whom an injunction is granted but later discharged is ‘without remedy’ in the absence of a cross-undertaking.
Kaye J: ‘It is therefore clear from the authorities to which I have referred that the practice followed for nearly 150 years of requiring a plaintiff seeking an interim or interlocutory injunction to give an undertaking as to damages has been based on the view that otherwise the defendant would be without remedy in the event of the order having been improperly made.’
Murphy J: ‘Next, restitutio in integrum has been espoused as a principle by the appellants. The cases relied upon to support the assertion that it is just and equitable to award monetary compensation for any loss caused the appellants do not in my view go this far in terms. It must be conceded that it is an established principle that it is just and equitable to allow interest upon money ordered to be repaid to a defendant who has been wrongly ordered to pay a capital sum to a plaintiff’ and
‘The fallacy in the appellants’ case appears to me to rest in the fact that they cannot point to a right entitling them in equity to monetary compensation. What the respondents have done is come to the court seeking payment of an alleged debt, and in the course of such action have sought interlocutory equitable relief in support of that claim. The court has ruled that the interlocutory equitable relief sought was wrongly granted, and have set it aside, but this did not constitute the breach or infringement of any recognisable right in equity which might have entitled the appellants/defendants to monetary compensation or might have obliged the respondents to put the appellants ‘in as good a position pecuniarily as that in which he was’ (they were) ‘before the injury’: Nocton v Lord Ashburton [1914] A.C. 932, at p.952.’ and
‘Nowhere have the researches of counsel found a relevant precedent in which, in the absence of an undertaking, an award of monetary compensation has been made to compensate a defendant for loss occasioned [to] his property by the making of an erroneous order that has been subsequently set aside’
Brooking J: ‘With all due respect to W.S. Gilbert’s Lord Chancellor, in practice the law is not always the true embodiment of everything that’s excellent. Mistakes are made from time to time.’ and
‘The first question is that of the limits of the principle expressed by Lord Cairns in Rodger’s Case. For the passage cannot be read as asserting that the court will always ensure, so far as possible, that no suitor suffers as a result of the act of the court a loss for which there is no redress. The law being what it is, and judges being what they are, many wrong judgments and orders are given and made. These can be corrected on appeal. But there are and must be limits to how far the courts will go in putting matters right on appeal.’ and
‘But while the cases show that the courts will often, by way of setting things right on appeal, go beyond the mere substitution of the right judgment or order for the wrong one, it is not the law that the court will always ensure, so far as possible, that no suitor suffers as a result of the act of the court a loss for which there is no redress. Any such unlimited principle is inconsistent with the law’s recognition of the torts of malicious abuse of process and malicious institution of proceedings, with their uncertain, but certainly limited, scope: Metall und Rohstoff v Donaldson Lufkin and Jenrette [1989] 3 W.L.R. 563, at pp. 611-15. And any such unlimited principle would mean that an appellate court would be entitled or obliged to award compensation or damages whenever it set aside an erroneous judgment or order which had caused damage to the appellant which was not regarded for this purpose as too remote. Yet many final judgments or orders that may be set aside on appeal are apt to cause great damage to the unsuccessful party in circumstances where it is unthinkable that the appellate court should have power to award damages or compensation. An order winding up a corporation is about as drastic an order as one could imagine. Such an order will rarely be stayed pending an appeal, and great and irremediable damage may be done to the corporation by the order in the meantime. But I have never heard it suggested that if a winding up order is set aside on appeal the appellate court may award damages or compensation against the party who obtained it. At the trial of an action a final injunction to prevent the commission of a nuisance may put the defendant out of business. May the court of appeal not only set aside the injunction but also award damages for the destruction of the defendant’s business? A judgment for possession of business premises may mean financial disaster for the defendant who claims that his lease has not been duly determined. If there is no stay and the defendant succeeds on appeal, is he to be awarded damages on the principle that the court must take care that ‘no act of the Court in the course of the whole of the proceedings does an injury to the suitors in the Court.’
Murphy J, Kaye J, Brooking J
[1991] 1 VR 386
Cited – Nocton v Lord Ashburton HL 19-Jun-1914
The defendant solicitor had persuaded his client to release a charge, thus advancing the solicitor’s own subsequent charge on the same property. The action was started in the Chancery Division of the High Court. The statement of claim alleged fraud . .
Cited – Smithkline Beecham Plc and others v Apotex Europe Ltd and others PatC 26-Jul-2005
Application was made to join in further parties to support a cross undertaking on being made subject to interim injunctions.
Held: On orders other than asset freezing orders it was not open to the court to impose cross-undertakings against . .
Cited – Smithkline Beecham Plc Glaxosmithkline UK Ltd and Another v Apotex Europe Ltd and others (No 2) CA 23-May-2006
The parties to the action had given cross undertakings to support the grant of an interim injunction. A third party subsequently applied to be joined, and now sought to take advantage of the cross undertakings to claim the losses incurred through . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 February 2022; Ref: scu.231217
In the courts of Chancery, the statute of limitations would not apply when the person in a confidential relationship had got the property into his hands. A court presumes against the party against whom relief is sought that he has made that profit from the misapplied money which persons ordinarily do make in trade: ‘the court does not proceed against an accounting party by way of punishing him for making use of the plaintiff’s money by directing rests, or payment of compound interest, but proceeds upon this principle, either that he has made, or has put himself into such a position as that he is to be presumed to have made, 5 per cent., or compound interest, as the case may be’.
Lord Hatherley LC
(1870) LR 5 Ch App 233
England and Wales
Cited – Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council HL 22-May-1996
Simple interest only on rate swap damages
The bank had paid money to the local authority under a contract which turned out to be ultra vires and void. The question was whether, in addition to ordering the repayment of the money to the bank on unjust enrichment principles, the court could . .
Cited – Nocton v Lord Ashburton HL 19-Jun-1914
The defendant solicitor had persuaded his client to release a charge, thus advancing the solicitor’s own subsequent charge on the same property. The action was started in the Chancery Division of the High Court. The statement of claim alleged fraud . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 February 2022; Ref: scu.194033
‘This judgment concerns an issue in the RBS Rights Issue Litigation as to the circumstances in which the Court may require disclosure of the names of commercial funders, and the details of any ATE insurance, in advance of a threatened application for security for costs when a trial is imminent.’
Hildyard J
[2017] EWHC 463 (Ch), [2017] WLR(D) 168
England and Wales
Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.579951
Application for discharge of freezing order – continued
Popplewell J
[2017] EWHC 418 (Comm)
England and Wales
Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.579918
(Malta)
[1877] UKPC 22
England and Wales
Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.418723
Third judgment in respect of amendments to the individual Particulars of Claim
Stewart J
[2017] EWHC 2703 (QB)
England and Wales
See Also – Kimathi and Others v Foreign and Commonwealth Office QBD 26-Nov-2015
Reasns on decisions on applications for exclusion of certain witness statements . .
See Also – Kimathi and Others v Foreign and Commonwealth Office QBD 16-Dec-2015
. .
See Also – Kimathi and Others v Foreign and Commonwealth Office QBD 18-Mar-2016
Ruling in relation to Defendant’s application for an order ‘directing that the issues of double actionability and limitation be heard and determined as preliminary issues’ . .
See Also – Kimathi and Others v Foreign and Commonwealth Office QBD 28-Nov-2017
Application to admit contents of book into evidence. . .
See Also – Kimathi and Others v Foreign and Commonwealth Office QBD 20-Dec-2017
Parliamentary privilege The claimants sought to have admitted as evidence extracts from Hansard in support of their claim for damages arising from historic claims.
Held: The court set out the authorities and made orders as to each element. . .
See Also – Kimathi and Others v Foreign and Commonwealth Office QBD 20-Dec-2017
Parliamentary privilege The claimants sought to have admitted as evidence extracts from Hansard in support of their claim for damages arising from historic claims.
Held: The court set out the authorities and made orders as to each element. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.601093
A plaintiff must show that there is a ‘serious issue for trial’ to support and justify an application for overseas service. The standard of proof in respect of the cause of action relied on is whether, on the evidence, there was a serious question to be tried, i.e. a substantial question of fact or law, or both, which the claimant bona fide desired to have tried.
Lord Goff said: ‘it is difficult to see why the fact that the writ is to be served out of the jurisdiction should have any particular impact upon the standard of proof required in respect of the existence of the cause of action. On this point, I find myself in respectful disagreement with the opinion expressed by Lloyd LJ to the contrary in the Court of Appeal [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 236, 242. I prefer the approach of Stuart-Smith LJ when . . he commended his preferred view as consonant with common sense and policy, and continued:
‘It seems to me to be wholly inappropriate once the question[s] of jurisdiction and forum [conveniens] are established for there to be prolonged debate and consideration of the merits of the plaintiffs’ claim at the interlocutory stage.’
It has been suggested that, since both the assessment of the merits of the plaintiff’s claim and the principle of forum conveniens fall to be considered as elements in the exercise of the court’s discretion, these should be regarded as interrelated in the sense that ‘the more conspicuous the presence of one element the less insistent the demands of justice that the other should also be conspicuous:’ see Societe Commerciale de Reassurance v. Eras International Ltd.(formerly Eras (U.K.) [1992] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 570, 588, per Mustill L.J. This approach originated in the speech of Lord Oaksey in Korner’s case, at pp. 881-882, to the effect that the strength of the evidence in that case as to forum conveniens was such that only the slightest evidence was required of there having been a breach of contract within the jurisdiction. Lord Oaksey’s speech also provided the inspiration for an expression of opinion by Parker L.J. to the effect that, if there is overwhelming evidence that England is the appropriate forum, it will be enough that, on the merits, the plaintiff’s case is worthy of serious consideration: see Overseas Union Insurance Ltd. v. Incorporated General Insurance Ltd. [1992] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 439, 448, and see also. [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 19, Banque Paribas v. Cargill International S.A 25. I must however express my respectful disagreement with this approach. Suppose that, for example, the plaintiff’s case is very strong on the merits. If so, I cannot see that a case particularly strong on the merits can compensate for a weak case on forum conveniens. Likewise, in my opinion, a very strong connection with the English forum cannot justify a weak case on the merits, if a stronger case on the merits would otherwise be required. In truth, as I see it, the two elements are separate and distinct. The invocation of the principle of forum conveniens springs from the often expressed anxiety that great care should be taken in bringing before the English court a foreigner who owes no allegiance here. But if jurisdiction is established under rule 1(1), and it is also established that England is the forum conveniens, I can see no good reason why any particular degree of cogency should be required in relation to the merits of the plaintiff’s case.
Once it is recognised that, so far as the merits of the plaintiff’s claim are concerned, no more is required than that the evidence should disclose that there is a serious issue to be tried, it is difficult to see how this matter, although it falls within the ambit of the court’s discretion, has not in practice to be established in any event. This is because it is very difficult to conceive how a judge could, in the proper exercise of his discretion, give leave where there was no serious issue to be tried. Accordingly, a judge faced with a question of leave to serve proceedings out of the jurisdiction under Order 11 will in practice have to consider both (1) whether jurisdiction has been sufficiently established, on the criterion of the good arguable case laid down in Korner’s case, under one of the paragraphs of rule 1(1), and (2) whether there is a serious issue to be tried, so as to enable him to exercise his discretion to grant leave, before he goes on to consider the exercise of that discretion, with particular reference to the issue of forum conveniens.’
Lord Goff of Chieveley
Independent 20-Oct-1993, Times 15-Oct-1993, Gazette 17-Nov-1993, [1994] 1 AC 438, [1993] 4 All ER 456, [1994] 1 Lloyds Rep 1, [1993] 3 WLR 756
Rules of the Supreme Court Order 11 Rule 1(1) 1(4)
England and Wales
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 – Sawyer v Atari Interactive Inc ChD 1-Nov-2005
The claimant owned the copyright in several successful computer games. He had granted licenses for the use of the software, which licences were assigned to the defendants. Disputes arose as to the calculation of royalty payments, and the claimant . .
Cited – Islamic Republic of Pakistan v Zardari and others ComC 6-Oct-2006
The claimant alleged that the defendants had funded the purchase of various properties by secret and unlawful commissions taken by them whilst in power in Pakistan. They sought to recover the proceeds. They now sought permission to serve proceedings . .
Cited – Ashton Investments Ltd. and Another v OJSC Russian Aluminium (Rusal) and others ComC 18-Oct-2006
The claimants sought damages for breach of confidence saying that the defendants had hacked into their computer systems via the internet to seek privileged information in the course of litigation. The defendants denied this and said the courts had . .
Cited – Canada Trust Co and Others v Stolzenberg and Others (No 2) HL 12-Oct-2000
The plaintiffs alleged the involvement of the defendant in a conspiracy to defraud. He had been domiciled in England, but had moved to Germany. He denied that the UK court had jurisdiction. The court of appeal said that jurisdiction was determined . .
Cited – Bols Distilleries VB (T/A As Bols Royal Distilleries) and Another v Superior Yacht Services Ltd PC 11-Oct-2006
(Gilbraltar) The parties disputed the management contract for a racing yacht, and also the juridiction of the Supreme Court of Gibraltar to hear the case. Bols said that under regulation 2(1) Gibraltar had no jurisdiction.
Held: The English . .
Cited – Four Seasons Holdings Incorporated v Brownlie SC 19-Dec-2017
The claimant and her family were in a car crash while on holiday in Egypt. The claimant’s husband and his daughter died. The holiday had been booked in England and the car excursion booked in advance from England. The hotel operator was incorporated . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.89080
The slip rule can be used to correct an order agreed by counsel but under an error of law.
Ind Summary 21-Aug-1995
England and Wales
Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.85732
The complainant alleged that the ties between the separate defendants’ businesses were anti-competitive.
Held: That issue was best decided by the Competition Commission Appeal Tribunal. The issues might also give rise to litigation of the instant nature. It was inappropriate for the same issues to be litigated in parallel, and accordingly the present proceedings should be stayed pending the decision by the tribunal on an appeal from the decision of the Director General of Fair Trading to refuse to undertake an investigation of the alleged restrictive practices.
Times 01-May-2001, Gazette 07-Jun-2001
England and Wales
Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.89667
Mr Justice Vos
[2012] EWHC 397 (Ch), [2012] EMLR 23, [2012] 1 WLR 2545
England and Wales
Updated: 07 February 2022; Ref: scu.451847
[2006] EWHC 1721 (Ch)
England and Wales
See Also – Phillips and Another v Robin James Symes and Robin Symes Ltd ChD 9-Jul-2001
English proceedings were issued to claim against a partnership. Simultaneously proceedings were issued in Greece, but the Greek proceedings were served on the London parties first. The plaintiffs in Greece asked the English court to issue a stay of . .
See Also – Phillips v Symes CA 2003
Courts should be reluctant to exclude altogether evidence merely because it is written. If the purpose of the order sought was to trace assets it would be wrong to permit cross-examination which was designed to show that there had been a contempt of . .
See Also – Phillips, Harland (Administrators of the Estate of Michailidis), Papadimitriou; Symes (A Bankrupt), Robin Symes Limited (In Administrative Receivership), Domercq etc ChD 30-Jul-2004
Under the Ciivil Procedure Rules, experts have acquired greater responsibilities to the court. Those responsibilities transcend their perceived obligations to the parties whom they give evidence. . .
See Also – Phillips, Harland (Suing As Administrators of the Estate of Christo Michailidis), Papadimitriou v Symes (A Bankrupt) Robin Symes Limited (In Administrative Receivership) Jean-Louis Domercq ChD 20-Oct-2004
Dr Zamar had given expert evidence in the principal proceedings. It was now said that that evidence had not been given in the proper way, and a remedy was now sought. . .
See Also – Phillips, Harland (Suing As Administrators of the Estate of Christo Michailidis), Papadimitriou v Symes (A Bankrupt) Robin Symes Limited (In Administrative Receivership) Jean-Louis Domercq etc ChD 20-Oct-2004
. .
See Also – Symes v Phillips and others CA 6-May-2005
. .
See Also – Symes v Phillips and others CA 19-May-2005
The applicant was in contempt of court. He successfully appealed a sentence of two years imprisonment, with the sentence being reduced to one year. Legally aided, he sought his costs from the claimant. The claimant replied that their part was only . .
See Also – Phillips, Harland (Suing As Administrators of the Estate of Christo Michailidis) v Symes (A Bankrupt), Nussberger, Galerie Nefer Ag, Geoff Rowley ChD 19-Aug-2005
The court allowed the appellant’s application to dispense with service of a claim form under the rule. The High Court became seised of the matter as at 19 January 2005. Further directions were given. . .
See Also – Phillips and Another v Symes and Others (No 6) CA 19-May-2006
Proceedings were issued in England for service on the defendant in Switzerland, but because of an error by the Swiss Court were not properly served. Proceedings were then issued in Sitzerland, and seisin was claimed for the Swiss Court. The claimant . .
See Also – Nussberger and Another v Phillips and Another (No 4) CA 19-May-2006
A claim was issued in London in December 2004, and then served in part in Switzerland in January 2005. One copy was removed from the bundle by a Swiss official, seeing that it had been marked ‘Nor for service out of the jurisdiction.’ That marking . .
See Also – Phillips and others v Symes and others ChD 16-Oct-2006
. .
See Also – Phillips and Another v Symes and others HL 23-Jan-2008
Various parties had sought relief in the English courts and in Switzerland after an alleged fraud. There had been a mistake in service of the proceedings in England. The high court had dispensed with service an backdated the effect of the order to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 February 2022; Ref: scu.243072
Directors facing disqualification proceedings to give evidence by affidavit.
Gazette 01-Sep-1993
England and Wales
Appealed to – In Re Rex Williams Leisure Plc (In Administration) CA 4-May-1994
On an application for a disqualification order, the director against whom the order is to be made should file an affidavit before the date of the hearing. A disqualification order can have grave consequences and is a serious interference with the . .
Appeal from – In Re Rex Williams Leisure Plc (In Administration) CA 4-May-1994
On an application for a disqualification order, the director against whom the order is to be made should file an affidavit before the date of the hearing. A disqualification order can have grave consequences and is a serious interference with the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 February 2022; Ref: scu.85859
Claim for damages against witness not attending court.
Held: A plaintiff in such a case could recover as damages the loss which the missing witness could have established.
Bruce J
(1896) 12 TLR 405
England and Wales
Cited – Re N CA 20-May-1999
The claimant was a victim of a rape. She alleged that the police had mishandled the prosecution, resulting in the dismissal of the charges against the defendant, which in turn, she said exacerbated her own post traumatic stress disorder.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 February 2022; Ref: scu.224417
Grant of adjournment
[2002] EWCA Civ 1108
England and Wales
Updated: 07 February 2022; Ref: scu.217347
[2013] EWCA Civ 121
England and Wales
Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.471658
The claimant sought damages in defamation saying that the defendants had published a web page which falsely associated her with a terrorist gang in the 1970s. The defendants now sought a strike out of her claim as an abuse saying that a similar action by her had already been struck out applying Jameel. The defendant had published her reply and withdrawn his own article and offered further amends as required.
Held: The action was an abuse and should be struck out. The value to the claimant was not proportionate to the costs to the parties and in court time. ‘Abuse of process . . is a more elusive and elastic principle than res judicata and issue estoppel, the burden in the former being on the claimant to establish the abuse and there being a requirement in the ordinary case of some additional element beyond that of potentially inconsistent findings.’ Though there was no res judicata from the result of the associated action, the court considered whether the case should also be considered an abuse because of the result of that action, but found no need to decide the point.
Stadlen J
[2010] EWHC 1907 (QB)
Defamation Act 1996 1, Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002 19
England and Wales
See Also – Kaschke v Osler QBD 13-May-2010
The claimant sued in defamation as regards the defendant’s comments in his internet blog on her historical left wing political connections. She complained that they made a connection with terrorist activities. The defendant said that the article was . .
Cited – Dow Jones and Co Inc v Jameel CA 3-Feb-2005
Presumption of Damage in Defamation is rebuttable
The defendant complained that the presumption in English law that the victim of a libel had suffered damage was incompatible with his right to a fair trial. They said the statements complained of were repetitions of statements made by US . .
Cited – Schellenberg v British Broadcasting Corporation QBD 2000
The claimant had settled defamation actions against the Guardian and the Sunday Times on disadvantageous terms, when it seemed likely that he was about to lose. He then pressed on with this almost identical action against the BBC.
Held: A . .
Cited – Lonzim Plc and Others v Sprague QBD 11-Nov-2009
The court asked whether any damages recovered by the claimant might be so small as to be totally disproportionate to the very high costs that any libel action involves.
Held: Tugendhat J said: ‘It is not enough for a claimant to say that a . .
Cited – Williams v MGN Ltd QBD 2-Dec-2009
The claimant, who had been convicted of murder, complained that an article defamed him by calling him a ‘grass’ or police informer. The defendant asked that the claimant’s defamation action be struck out as an abuse.
Held: While the suggestion . .
Cited – Byrne v Deane CA 1937
A notice had been displayed on a golf club notice board. The court considered whether this constituted publication for defamation purposes.
Held: Greene LJ said: ‘Now on the substantial question of publication, publication, of course, is a . .
Cited – Charleston and Another v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Another HL 31-Mar-1995
The plaintiffs were actors playing Harold and Madge Bishop in the Australian soap series ‘Neighbours’. They sued on a tabloid newspaper article which showed their faces superimposed on the near-naked bodies of models apparently engaged in sexual . .
Cited – Burstein v Times Newspapers Ltd CA 20-Dec-2000
Where a defendant in a defamation action sought to reduce the damages payable by arguing that the claimant had a reduced or damaged reputation, he could include evidence about particular facts only where these were directly connected to the . .
Cited – Turner v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Another CA 16-May-2006
Dispute as to quantification of damages for libel. An offer of amends had been made, but the parties could not agree the sum payable. . .
Cited – Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd (MGN) (No 1) HL 6-May-2004
The claimant appealed against the denial of her claim that the defendant had infringed her right to respect for her private life. She was a model who had proclaimed publicly that she did not take drugs, but the defendant had published a story . .
Cited – Bragg v Oceanus Mutual Underwriting Association (Bermuda) Ltd CA 1982
The court considered the ability to prevent relitigation of issues already decided. The Court identified some of the limits of the abuse jurisdiction. Kerr LJ said: ‘To take the authorities first, it is clear that an attempt to relitigate in another . .
Cited – Pedder v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 2002
The court expressed concern at the costs being incurred in defamation cases after the introduction of conditional fee agreements. Additional elements in an abuse of process case may include the ability of the claimant to pursue a claim at no risk in . .
Cited – Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp and Others v British Telecommunications Plc ChD 28-Jul-2011
The claimant rights holders sought an order to require the defendant broadband internet provider to deny access to its users to websites which were said to facilitate the distribution of infringing copies of their films. An earlier judgment had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.421068
Applications for these proceedings to be transferred to the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court
Master Teverson
[2020] EWHC 2799 (Ch)
England and Wales
Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.655200
Foskett J
[2016] EWHC 1619 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.578197
Application for relief from sanctions
Green J
[2015] EWHC 3905 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.578196
[1688] EngR 168, (1688) 3 Bulst 32, (1688) 81 ER 27
England and Wales
Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.393932
Application to re-open appeal
Sir Julian Flaux, the Chancellor of the High Court
Lord Justice Newey
And
Lord Justice Edis
[2022] EWCA Civ 22
England and Wales
Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.671223
Mr Justice Linden
[2021] EWHC 3502 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 05 February 2022; Ref: scu.671033
The Honourable Mr Justice Swift
[2022] EWHC 87 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 05 February 2022; Ref: scu.671308
Post judgment matters
Lavender J
[2017] EWHC 401 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 04 February 2022; Ref: scu.578045