Category: Litigation Practice

Hayward v Zurich Insurance Company Plc: CA 31 Mar 2015

The claimant sought damages alleging his back had been injured at work. The insurers accepted liability but said that the claimant had exaggerated the extent of his injury. The claim was settled, but later a neighbour of the claimants said that the claim of a serious back injury had been dishonest. The insurers sought recission of the settlement agreement. The claimant contended that the Tomlin order created an estoppel per rem judicatam and/or by record, alternatively that the action was an abuse of the process because the issue of fraud had been compromised by the settlement.
Held: The appeal was allowed. In the light of its pleaded assertions that the claimant’s presentation of his injuries had been dishonest, the insurers could not be said to have relied on his presentation when entering into the settlement.
Underhill LJ said: ‘it is important to recall the very particular context in which the reliance is said to occur – that is, that the contract in issue is a settlement agreement and the misrepresentations relied on comprise the very allegations advanced as part of the claim being settled. No doubt in one sense those allegations do operate on the mind of the defendant in his consideration of whether to settle, and at what level: he may actually believe them to be true, but even if he does not he will inevitably be influenced by the possibility that they will be believed by the Court – which is of course what the Judge found to be the case here. But to my mind that does not constitute reliance in the relevant sense. The defendant is not concerned with the truth or otherwise of the statements as the factor motivating his action. Rather, he is treating them simply as part of the claimant’s case. It is inherent in the antagonistic relationship of claimant and defendant that in deciding whether to settle he has to form an independent judgment about whether the disputed statements made as part of the claim are (to the extent that they are material to the outcome) likely to be accepted by the Court. I do not believe that a relationship of reliance arises in that context.’
Briggs LJ said: ‘the judge’s finding that Zurich was induced into making the settlement agreement by reliance on the Appellant’s dishonest misrepresentations about his continuing injury was based upon a view of the law for which there is no authority, which is wrong in principle and the recognition of which would have most unfortunate consequences.’ and: ‘ the true principle is that the equitable remedy of rescission answers the affront to conscience occasioned by holding to a contract a party who has been influenced into making it by being misled or, worse still, defrauded by his counterparty. Thus, once he discovers the truth, he must elect whether to rescind or to proceed with the contract. It must follow that, if he already knows or perceives the truth by the time of the contract, he elects to proceed by entering into it, and cannot later seek rescission merely because he later obtains better evidence of that which he already believed, still less if he merely repents of it. This seems to me to be a fortiori the case where, as here, the misrepresentation consists of a disputed claim in litigation, and the contract settles that claim.’
Moore-Bick LJ said: ‘If it is to succeed in its action Zurich will have to persuade the court that it was induced to agree to the settlement by fraud on the part of Mr Hayward, a task that may not prove easy, given the fact that it already knew enough to justify the service of a defence in the terms indicated earlier.’

Underhill, Briggs, King LJJ
[2015] EWCA Civ 327
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Arkwright v Newbold CA 1881
Cotton LJ discussed the tort of deceit and said: ‘In my opinion, it would not be right in an action of deceit to give a plaintiff relief on the ground that a particular statement, according to the construction put on it by the court, is false, when . .
See Also – Zurich Insurance Company Plc v Hayward CA 27-May-2011
The court was asked whether an action alleging that the settlement of an earlier personal injuries action was obtained by fraud should be struck out on the grounds that the issues are res judicata or that the action is an abuse of process because . .
Cited – Redgrave v Hurd CA 1881
The plaintiff, an elderly solicitor wishing to retire, advertised for someone to enter into partnership with him and to buy his house. The defendant responded to the advertisement and negotiations followed, in which the plaintiff stated that the . .
Cited – Strover v Harrington 1988
A property was at first wrongly described by the agents as having mains drainage. Correcting information was sent to the buyer’s solicitors by the Agents, but the solicitors did not pass on the correction to their client. The mistake was later . .
Cited – Sprecher Grier Halberstam Llp and Another v Walsh CA 3-Dec-2008
Ward LJ said: ‘a man cannot be deceived if he knows the truth’ . .
Cited – Callisher v Bischoffsheim 1870
The settlement of an ill-founded claim is nonetheless binding. However, that would not be the case where the claim was fraudulent. A forgoing of a bona fide but unfounded claim is good consideration for a payment made in settlement of it but not the . .
Cited – Gilbert v Endean CA 1878
The plaintiff had obtained an order against a defendant for the defendant to give a bond for payment of money to the plaintiff and to deposit some shares as security for compliance. Subsequently, the plaintiff entered into a compromise with the . .
Cited – Wauton v Coppard 1899
A statement was made as to the meaning or effect of a document can amount to an actionable misrepresentation. The defendant had said that running a boys’ school was not capable of amounting to nuisance, but he was wrong.The running of a boys’ school . .
Cited – Kyle Bay Ltd (T/A Astons Nightclub) v Underwriters CA 7-Feb-2007
The claimant had been insured under a business interruption insurance policy issued by the respondent defendaants. A claim had arisen, and had been settled, but the caimant said that the parties had mistaken the basis of the policy and had settled . .

Cited by:
Appeal from – Hayward v Zurich Insurance Company Plc SC 27-Jul-2016
The claimant had won a personal injury case and the matter had been settled with a substantial payout by the appellant insurance company. The company now said that the claimant had grossly exaggerated his injury, and indeed wasfiully recovered at . .
Cited – Gohil v Gohil SC 14-Oct-2015
The Court was asked ‘Do the principles referable to the admissibility of fresh evidence on appeal, as propounded in the decision of the Court of Appeal in Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489, have any relevance to the determination of a spouse’s . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Litigation Practice

Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.544995

Pinterest, Inc v Premium Interest Ltd and Another: ChD 27 Mar 2015

Issue after undertakings were offered by the defendant to support an application was declined. Were the undertakings effective?

Arnold J
[2015] EWHC 857 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Pinterest Inc v Premium Interest Ltd and Another ChD 24-Mar-2015
Dispute over trade mark ‘PINTEREST’ where there were cross applications for a Community Trade Mark, and allegations of passing off. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.544919

The Society of Lloyd’s v Noel: QBD 20 Mar 2015

Application for extended civil restraint order.
Held: When considering such an application the court was entitled to take account the quality and number of applications made by the respondent before an earlier similar order. Nothing in the rules required reference to a particular time frame.

Lewis J
[2015] EWHC 734 (QB), [2015] WLR(D) 142
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.544612

Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd v Su and Others: CA 14 May 2014

The claimant had obtained a freezing order in standard form against the defendant company. The Director of the company had similar sole positions in three other companies. The claimant obtained a similar order against the assets of the other companies, even though not directly parties to the action. The defendant appealed.
Held: The appeal failed. The assets of the company all of whose shares were owned by a defendant himself subject to a standard form freezing order might not be the assets of the defendant, for the purposes of the order, but the scope of such an order was to restrain him diminishing the value of any of his assets, which included his shareholding in such a company, and the order would therefore restrain him from procuring thosee companies making any disposition of assets likely to result in such a diminution.

Rimer, Tomlinson LJJ, Sir Bernard Rix
[2014] EWCA Civ 636, [2015] 1 WLR 291, [2014] WLR(D) 216, [2014] CP Rep 37, [2014] 1 CLC 688, [2014] 1 CLC 68
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Lakatamia Shipping Co Ltd v Su ComC 20-Mar-2014
. .
See Also – Lakatamia Shipping Co Ltd v Nobu Su and Others ComC 13-Feb-2014
. .

Cited by:
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 . .
See Also – Lakatamia Shipping Co Ltd and Others v Nobu Su/Hsin Chi Su (Aka Su Hsin Chi; Aka Nobu Morimoto) and Others ComC 5-Nov-2014
. .
See Also – Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd v Su CA 16-Sep-2019
Application for bail after committal for contempt on finding of guilt of numerous breaches of court orders relating to the case. . .
See Also – Lakatamia v Su CA 24-Sep-2019
Application for an extension of time for appeal against a committal order. The grounds for the committal were multiple breaches of freezing orders, orders requiring disclosure of assets and orders requiring the defendant not to leave the . .
See Also – Lakatamia Shipping Co Ltd and Others v Su and Others ComC 30-Jan-2020
Application for committal for contempt. . .
See Also – Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd and Others v Su (Aka Su Hsin Chi; Aka Nobu Moritomo) and Others ComC 3-Apr-2020
. .
See Also – Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd and Others v Su and Others ComC 8-Apr-2020
. .
See Also – Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd and Others v Su and Others ComC 9-Nov-2020
Application by Lakatamia pursuant to CPR Part 31.22 to use documents obtained from the Respondent, Mr Su, in these proceedings pursuant to a search order made in related proceedings bearing the claim . .
See Also – Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd and Others v Su and Others ComC 11-Dec-2020
Application by the claimant, Lakatamia, to re-amend its committal application notice to incorporate 11 additional alleged contempts on the part of the first defendant, . .
See Also – Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd v Nobu Su and Others ComC 25-Jan-2021
Application to re-re-amend the Particulars of Claim and the second is an application for specific disclosure also made by the claimant, Lakatamia. . .
See Also – Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd and Others v Su and Others ComC 15-Apr-2021
. .
See Also – Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd v Su and Others ChD 1-Jul-2021
Interpretation of the phrase ‘has had a place of residence’ in section 263I(2)(b) of the Insolvency Act 1986. . .
See Also – Lakatamia Shipping Co Ltd v Su and Others ComC 8-Jul-2021
Alleged cause of action in unlawful means conspiracy as to whether the Defendants including the Second Defendant Toshiko Morimoto (‘Madam Su’) conspired together to injure Lakatamia by unlawful means, namely by the dissipation of two assets of Madam . .
See Also – Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd and Others v Su and Others CA 30-Jul-2021
Use of passport orders in enforcement of collection of judgment debt. . .
See Also – Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd v Su ComC 15-Sep-2021
Reasons for dismissal of appeal from maximum sentence of two years imprisonment for contempt. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.525631

Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd and Others v Su and Others: CA 30 Jul 2021

Use of passport orders in enforcement of collection of judgment debt.

[2021] EWCA Civ 1187
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Lakatamia Shipping Co Ltd v Nobu Su and Others ComC 13-Feb-2014
. .
See Also – Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd v Su and Others CA 14-May-2014
The claimant had obtained a freezing order in standard form against the defendant company. The Director of the company had similar sole positions in three other companies. The claimant obtained a similar order against the assets of the other . .
See Also – Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd v Su CA 16-Sep-2019
Application for bail after committal for contempt on finding of guilt of numerous breaches of court orders relating to the case. . .
See Also – Lakatamia v Su CA 24-Sep-2019
Application for an extension of time for appeal against a committal order. The grounds for the committal were multiple breaches of freezing orders, orders requiring disclosure of assets and orders requiring the defendant not to leave the . .

Cited by:
See Also – Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd v Su ComC 15-Sep-2021
Reasons for dismissal of appeal from maximum sentence of two years imprisonment for contempt. . .
Cited – Lakatamia Shipping Co Ltd v Su and Others ComC 8-Oct-2021
Application for wasted costs order. Held dismissed . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.666323

Jalla and Another v Shell International Trading and Shipping Co Ltd and Another (Appeal, : Representative Action): CA 29 Sep 2021

Whether the claims of over 28,000 individuals and communities for ‘remediation relief’ against the respondents can be pursued by two named individuals by way of a representative action under CPR 19.6(1).

[2021] EWCA Civ 1389
Bailii, Judiciary
England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.668330

Dalton and Others v British Telecommunications Plc: QBD 13 Mar 2015

The court considered the success fee payable by a defendant employer in the (very common) situation where a claim for damages for noise-induced hearing loss is settled before a trial has commenced. The issue is whether, in that context, noise-induced hearing loss is to be regarded as a disease.

Phillips J
[2015] EWHC 616 (QB)
Bailii
Civil Procedure Rules 45

Litigation Practice, Costs

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.544298

Secretary of State for Health and Others v Servier Laboratories Ltd and Others: ChD 12 Mar 2015

This judgment concerns the terms of the confidentiality order which the court should make when directing the defendants to give disclosure in the present proceedings of the decision adopted by the European Commission

Henderson J
[2015] EWHC 647 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales

Litigation Practice, European

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.544267

Alexander Paterson v David Chieslaw: SCS 29 Mar 1561

Ane decrete-arbitral gevin be the maist part, or be the half of the arbiteris, with the oversman, is sufficient and valzieable. Albeit the arbiteris gevaris thairof, be thay quha wer chosin for the ane part allenarlie, and the arbiteris electit for the uther part, wer not present at the geving of the said decrete; for it is sufficient, gif they wer present at the time of the compromit, and acceptit the samin on thame.

[1561] Mor 654
Bailii

Scotland, Litigation Practice

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.543995

JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank and Another v Pugachev: CA 27 Feb 2015

The defendant appealed form an order requiring disclosure of the assets of a discretionary trust. He was subject to an asset freezing order and a beneficiary of the trust.

Arden, Lewison, Christopher Clarke LJJ
[2015] EWCA Civ 139, [2015] 1 CLC 238, [2016] 1 WLR 160, [2015] WLR(D) 94, [2015] 2 P and CR DG4, [2015] WTLR 991, [2015] 2 All ER (Comm) 816
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal From – JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank and Another v Pugachev ChD 19-Dec-2014
Application by the defendant, Mr Pugachev, to discharge a world-wide freezing order . .

Cited by:
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.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.543877

Fawwaz v Secretary of State for The Home Department (1): Admn 2 Mar 2015

Wyn Williams J
[2015] EWHC 469 (Admin)
Bailii
Justice and Security Act 2013 8
Citing:
See Also – Fawwaz v Secretary of State for The Home Department (2) Admn 2-Mar-2015
Refusal of accession to Letters rogatory. . .
See Also – Fawwaz v Secretary of State for The Home Department (3) Admn 2-Mar-2015
Refusal of accession to Letters rogatory. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.543784

Fawwaz v Secretary of State for The Home Department (3): Admn 2 Mar 2015

Refusal of accession to Letters rogatory.

Burnett LJ, Wyn Williams J
[2015] EWHC 166 (Admin)
Bailii
Cited by:
See Also – Fawwaz v Secretary of State for The Home Department (2) Admn 2-Mar-2015
Refusal of accession to Letters rogatory. . .
See Also – Fawwaz v Secretary of State for The Home Department (1) Admn 2-Mar-2015
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

International, Litigation Practice

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.543782

Fawwaz v Secretary of State for The Home Department (2): Admn 2 Mar 2015

Refusal of accession to Letters rogatory.

Wyn Williams J
[2015] EWHC 468 (Admin)
Bailii
Justice and Security Act 2013 6
Citing:
See Also – Fawwaz v Secretary of State for The Home Department (3) Admn 2-Mar-2015
Refusal of accession to Letters rogatory. . .

Cited by:
See Also – Fawwaz v Secretary of State for The Home Department (1) Admn 2-Mar-2015
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.543783

Pannone Llp v Aardvark Digital Ltd: CA 12 Jul 2011

Claimant a few minutes late filing and then serving documents under an unless order although the process of filing by fax and serving by email was initiated in each case before the deadline.

Arden, Lloyd, Tomlinson LJJ
[2011] EWCA Civ 803, [2011] 1 WLR 2275, [2011] NPC 74
Bailii
Civil Procedure Rules 3.1(2)(a)
England and Wales

Litigation Practice, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.441588

Jephson Homes Housing Association v Moisejevs and Another: CA 1 Nov 2000

A possession warrant, properly issued and executed in ignorance of a payment into court by the tenant was not an abuse of process. The tenant had paid funds into court in the mistaken belief that this would be effective to set aside the warrant. She was assisted in this misapprehension neither by the Court nor by the landlord. Their behaviour could not properly be described as oppressive. It was not clear, in this context, what was meant by ‘oppressive’. The applicant had not in this case been misled. Once it is concluded that there is no oppression, there is no inherent power in the court to set aside the eviction. The Rules did not require notice to be given of an intention to aply for a warrant for possession. Though a failure to give notice might be oppressive conduct, it was not in this case.

Lord Justice Simon Brown And Lord Justice Rix
Times 02-Jan-2001, [2000] EWCA Civ 271, [2001] 23 EGLR 14, [2001] 41 EG 186, [2001] 2 All ER 901
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Mayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Camden v Akanni CA 31-Jan-1997
The context in which the court is willing in a rare, but appropriate, case to intervene to nullify the execution of a warrant for possession goes back to the principles set out in McHenry v Lewis. . .
Cited – McHenry v Lewis 1888
Bowen LJ said: ‘I would much rather rest on the general principle that the Court can and will interfere whenever there is a vexation and oppression to prevent the administration of justice being perverted for an unjust end. I would rather do that . .
Cited – Leicester City Council v Aldwinckle CA 1991
A tenant was evicted while absent from the premises for some months through illness and who, following her breach of the suspended possession order, received no notice whatever either of the council’s application for a warrant, or of the issue of . .
Cited – Beale v MacGregor 1886
The court has an inherent power to prevent the abuse of proceedings and to avoid oppression. . .
Cited – Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council v Hill CA 25-Apr-1994
A possession warrant issued under a secure tenancy of a dwelling-house may not be set aside after its execution, unless the possession order itself was set aside for example as having been obtained by fraud. If a possession order has been made, . .
Cited – Lambeth London Borough Council v Hughes CA 8-May-2000
The tenant had been misled both by the respondent Council and by the court.
Held: (Waller LJ) ‘Mr Hughes has made out a case that he received misleading advice from the court. He has also made out a case that he was misled as to the procedures . .
Cited – London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham v Lemeh CA 3-Apr-2000
The court noted that there was no reported case in which it had actually been decided ‘that oppression can include oppression caused by misleading information given by the court office’, and continued: ‘In principle, I am unable to see why . .
Cited – Mayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Barking and Dagenham v Saint CA 21-Aug-1998
The council requested a warrant for possession be issued on the basis of certified arrears of pounds 333 when they were in breach of their statutory duty to assist the tenant in his claim for housing benefit and save for pounds 28, were relying on . .
Cited – London Borough of Southwark v Sarfo CA 19-Jul-1999
The tenant sought to set aside a warrant for possession after it had been executed.
Held: The tenant would have succeeded in setting aside the execution of the possession warrant but for her delay in applying to the court and the fact that by . .
Cited – Peachey Property Corporation Limited v Robinson 1967
The High Court and County Court rules differ in their ability to give a default judgment for possession of a residential property as against a tenant. . .
Cited – Fleet Mortgage and Investment Company Limited v Lower Maisonette 1972
Natural justice required the High Court Rules to be construed as requiring the tenant to be given notice of the landlord’s application for leave to issue a writ of execution following an alleged breach of a conditional possession order. . .
Cited – Regina v Bloomsbury and Marylebone County Court ex parte Villerwest Limited 1976
Lord Denning said that every Court has inherent power to control its own procedure, even though there is nothing in the rules about it, and ‘Suppose a man is on his way to the court in time with the money in his pocket. Then he is run down in an . .
Cited – Rolph v Zolan CA 7-May-1993
Postal service at the last known address within the jurisdiction is valid even though the defendant was known to be abroad. The summons was then posted on to him abroad and was properly served under County Court Rules 1981. . .

Cited by:
Cited – Ellis v Circle 33 Housing Trust Ltd CA 23-Sep-2005
The housing association obtained a possession order for rent arrears. The tenant had not attended, and had taken no steps in the matter. The association had corresponded with the housing benefit department of the local authority which had said that . .
Cited – Pritchard and Others v Teitelbaum and Others ChD 20-Apr-2011
The claimants sought orders allowing them to re-enter the tenanted properties after eviction in order to allow them recover their possessions left behind. Proceedings for recovery of possession had continued over several years.
Held: The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Litigation Practice

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.147304

Yeo v Times Newspapers Ltd: QBD 4 Feb 2015

The claimant MP sought damages alleging defamation by the defendant newspaper. The court heard a second case management conference as to amended particulars of claim.

Warby J
[2015] EWHC 209 (QB), [2015] 2 Costs LO 243, [2015] 1 WLR 3031, [2015] EMLR 18
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Stocker v Stocker QBD 10-Jun-2015
The claimant alleged defamation by his former wife in a post on facebook. The posting and associatedeEmails were said falsely to have accused him of serious abuse, and that the accusations had undermined his relationship with his new partner.
See Also – Yeo v Times Newspapers Ltd QBD 22-Jul-2015
Pre-trial review of libel action. . .
See Also – Yeo v Times Newspapers Ltd QBD 25-Nov-2015
The claimant alleged defamation by the defendant as to his conduct as an MP. The defendant having pleaded justification, the court now tried the liability issue.
Held: The claim failed. The publication had the benefit of reynolds privilege.
Defamation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.542256

JSC BTA Bank v Mukhtar Ablyazov and Others: QBD 16 Oct 2009

Application by the claimants for an order that the first defendant attend for cross-examination upon his affidavits as to assets and as to his answers to questions posed.

Teare J
[2009] EWHC 2833 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – House of Spring Gardens v Waite CA 1991
The principle of abuse of process is capable of applying where the relevant earlier proceedings have taken place before a foreign court (Ireland). In this case the defendants argued that the judgment obtained in Ireland had been obtained . .
Cited – Yukong Lines v Rendsburg Investment Corporation CA 17-Oct-1996
An order for cross examination in an application for a Mareva order is exceptional, but permissible if it is just and convenient that such an order should be made. In applying the test of whether it would be ‘just and convenient’ to make the order, . .
Cited – Den Norske Bank ASA v Antonatos and Another CA 7-Apr-1998
The defendants appealed orders requiring them to attend court and provide evidence under cross-examination. They claimed a prvilege against self-incrimination.
Waller LJ said: ‘A witness is entitled to claim the privilege in relation to any . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.541927

The Prudential Assurance Company Ltd v HM Revenue and Customs: ChD 26 Jan 2015

Consequential judgment after principle findings in litigation as to issues of liability and quantification arising from the alleged or established invalidity under EU law of various aspects of the UK legislation which governed the taxation of ‘portfolio dividends’ (i.e. dividends derived from holdings of less than 10% of the shares in the companies concerned) paid by companies resident either in the EU, or elsewhere in the world (‘third countries’), to corporate shareholders resident in the UK.

Henderson J
[2015] EWHC 118 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales

Corporation Tax, European, Litigation Practice

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.541758

Todaysure Matthews Ltd and Another v Marketing Ways Services Ltd: ComC 21 Jan 2015

Application by the Defendant to set aside an order to which it consented so that the Defendant may be released from the undertakings it gave in the consent order. The basis of the application is in essence that when the Claimants obtained an ex parte order they failed to disclose a material matter and continued to fail to disclose that matter up to the time when the parties negotiated and agreed the terms of the consent order.

Teare J
[2015] EWHC 64 (Comm)
Bailii

Litigation Practice

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.541686

Nexus Communications Group Ltd v Lambert and Others: ChD 31 Jan 2005

The purchaser under a share sale agreement sought money due in default. The vendors had accounts prepared for them which would give rise to a large sum being payable to the claimant. They served a notice disputing the accounts. The notice implied that a discussion period had been reached, but they also claimed that the purchaser had not himself completed certain stages and that therefore that stage had not been reached.
Held: The equitable doctrine of election, requiring a party taking the benefit of a document to accept also the burden applied to litigation where a party was seeking to present inconsistent arguments. In order for the claimant to put the defendant to that election, he had to show that the defendant had taken some futher step beyond the pleadings which would make it inequitable to pursue both lines of argument.

Gabriel Moss QC
Times 03-Mar-2005
England and Wales

Equity, Litigation Practice

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.223462

Integral Petroleum Sa v Petrogat Fza and Others: ComC 14 May 2021

Applicant’s without notice application for a worldwide freezing order, together with associated disclosure orders against the respondents, and an order for service of the worldwide freezing order and the proceedings out of the jurisdiction and by alternative means.

The Honourable Mr Justice Calver
[2021] EWHC 1365 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.663103

Trancikova v Slovakia: ECHR 13 Jan 2015

The applicant alleged, in particular, that the observations filed by the defendant in her court action in response to the appeal had not been communicated to her and that, in violation of her rights under Article 6.1 of the Convention, she had been denied a public hearing of that appeal.

Josep Casadevall, P
17127/12 – Chamber Judgment, [2015] ECHR 6
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 6.1

Human Rights, Litigation Practice

Updated: 25 December 2021; Ref: scu.541386

VTB Bank PJSC v Mejlumyan: ComC 25 May 2021

Adjourned application by the Claimant for an anti-suit injunction against the Defendant an Armenian businessman, to prevent him from pursuing proceedings which he has brought in Armenia seeking the termination of a share pledge agreement between the parties which contains a provision for London arbitration

[2021] EWHC 1386 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 25 December 2021; Ref: scu.663114

ZHD v SQO: ComC 29 Apr 2021

Claimant’s application for three things. First, an interim and in due course a final antisuit injunction pursuant to section 37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 to restrain the defendant from pursuing proceedings against the claimant in the People’s Court of a particular province in Vietnam, which I will call the Vietnamese action, in breach of an arbitration agreement providing for arbitration in London. Second, for permission for alternative service of the claim form and documents relating to the application for an interim antisuit injunction. Third, for permission to serve those documents out of the jurisdiction pursuant to CPR 62.5(1)(c) and/or CPR 6.36 and para.3.1(6)(c) of practice direction 6B.

Mr Justice Calver
[2021] EWHC 1262 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 25 December 2021; Ref: scu.663095

Club Hotel Loutraki Ae and Othrs v Commission: ECFI 8 Jan 2015

ECJ State aid – Operation of Video Lottery Terminals – Grant by the Hellenic Republic of an exclusive licence – Decision finding no State aid – Failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure – Serious difficulties – Procedural rights of the interested parties – Obligation to state reasons – Right to effective judicial protection – Advantage – Joint assessment of the notified measures

T-58/13, [2015] EUECJ T-58/13
Bailii
European

Litigation Practice, Administrative

Updated: 24 December 2021; Ref: scu.540503

JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank and Another v Pugachev: ChD 19 Dec 2014

Application by the defendant, Mr Pugachev, to discharge a world-wide freezing order

Mann J
[2014] EWHC 4336 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal From – JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank and Another v Pugachev CA 27-Feb-2015
The defendant appealed form an order requiring disclosure of the assets of a discretionary trust. He was subject to an asset freezing order and a beneficiary of the trust. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 24 December 2021; Ref: scu.540356

Hague Plant Ltd v Hague and Others: CA 11 Dec 2014

Appeal against an Order whereby, save for a small number of agreed items, the court had refused permission to the claimant to re-amend its Particulars of Claim in these proceedings alleging dishonest breach of fiduciary duty and dishonest assistance against the defendants

[2014] EWCA Civ 1609
Bailii
England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 24 December 2021; Ref: scu.539826

XYZ v Various (Including Transform Medical Group (CS) Ltd and Spire Healthcare Limited) and Others: QBD 3 Dec 2014

The court considered further direction in a personal injury claim involving over 1,000 women complaining of the breast implants supplied by the defendants. The claimants wanted the defendant’s insurers to be joined so as to ascertain the viability of the action.
Held: A claimant must take the defendant as he finds him. Application refused.

Thirlwall DBE J
[2014] EWHC 4056 (QB)
Bailii
Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 4(2), Civil Procedure Rules 19.2

Personal Injury, Contract, Litigation Practice

Updated: 24 December 2021; Ref: scu.539750

Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Limited: QBD 27 Nov 2014

[2014] EWHC 4014 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 1-Aug-2013
The defamation claimant sought relief from sanctions imposed after a failure to comply with orders requiring him to discuss budgets and budgetary assumptions.
Held: The claimant had failed to deliver the required costs budget in time, and any . .
See Also – Mitchell MP v News Group Newspapers Ltd CA 27-Nov-2013
(Practice Note) The claimant brought defamation proceedings against the defendant newspaper. His solicitors had failed to file his costs budget as required, and the claimant now appealed against an order under the new Rule 3.9, restricting very . .
See Also – Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 27-Mar-2014
Application for discovery of documents held by a third party, the Police Complaints Commission) in a defamation action. . .
See Also – Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 11-Jun-2014
. .
See Also – Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 28-Jul-2014
The claimant MP had a bad tempered altercation with police officers outside Downing Street. He sued the defendant newspaper in defamation saying that they had falsely accused him of calling te officers ‘plebs’. One officer now sued the MP saying . .
See Also – Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 31-Oct-2014
The claimant alleged defamation by the defendant. In the second action, the policeman claimant alleged defamation by the first claimant. The court heard applications as to the admission of expert evidence, and as to the inclusion or otherwise of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 24 December 2021; Ref: scu.539374

Customs and Excise v Anchor Foods Ltd (No.4): ChD 18 Oct 1999

Mr Justice Neuberger
[1999] EWHC 835 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See also – Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Anchor Foods Ltd (No 2) ChD 24-Mar-1999
The claimant intended to seek recovery of a very substantial sum from the defendant. On learning of the defendant’s intention to sell its assets, it sought an order freezing them.
Held: The court has the discretion to order a freezing of a . .
See also – Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Anchor Foods Limited Admn 26-Jun-1998
The court heard an appeal by the Commissioners from the VAT Duties Tribunal that ‘Spreadable butter’ and ‘Ammix butter’ from New Zealand made and imported by the respondent are ‘manufactured directly from milk or cream’, and are not ‘recombined . .
See also – Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Anchor Foods Ltd (No 3) ChD 8-Jul-1999
The Civil Procedure Rules have not changed the common law rules which say that an interlocutory order for costs could not be varied by another judge sitting at first instance, except only in exceptional circumstances where it appeared for example . .

Cited by:
See Also – Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Broomco (1984) Ltd (Formerly Anchor Foods Ltd) CA 17-Aug-2000
When an appeal is lodged in a VAT dispute, the discretion as to whether to require the appellant to lodge security for costs in the appeal, was a decision exclusively to be decided by the tribunal itself. A decision as to such security could not be . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Costs

Updated: 24 December 2021; Ref: scu.263750

Wearn (T/A Jonathan Wearn Productions) v HNH International Holdings Ltd: ChD 29 Oct 2014

An application was made to strike out the claim when the action had begun nearly 14 years before, but had not yet concluded. The defendant argued that the delay amouned to an abuse of process. Additionally the parties disputed the admission of expert evidence. The defendant argued that the claimant’s expert had gone beyond his proper role.

Barling J
[2014] EWHC 3542 (Ch)
Bailii
Civil Procedure Rules 3.4
England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.538680

Teekay Tankers Ltd v STX Offshore and Shipping Co: ComC 6 Nov 2014

Proceedings could be served on a company at a registered office in the UK even though the matter arose elsewhere.

Hamblen J
[2014] EWHC 3612 (Comm), [2015] Bus LR 731, [2014] WLR(D) 492, [2015] 2 All ER (Comm) 263, [2015] 2 BCLC 210
Bailii, WLRD
Overseas Companies Regulations 2009
England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.538339

Jasinarachchi v General Medical Council: Admn 31 Oct 2014

The doctor appealed, not against the finding of misconduct, but against the penalty imposed by the Fitness to Practice Panel. Following the decision, matters had come to light concerning the practical consequences of suspending a trainee doctor’s registration. It was said that this cast a fresh light on the determination, making it unduly harsh and disproportionate and that this cannot have been envisaged by the Panel. If this basis succeeded, and the first ground did not, the Appellant invited the court to remit his case for further consideration on the issue of sanction exercising the power under section 40(7)(d) of the Act.
Held: Stewart J allowed the second ground: ‘I rule in favour of allowing the additional evidence and in favour of A’s case on this basis for the following reasons:
(i) Although the first principle in Ladd v Marshall cannot be relied upon by A, the culpability of A is not particularly high in this regard. He was represented. However, there is no evidence to suggest that anybody appreciated the possible consequences of his suspension. It is correct that the Gold Guide then in force made it clear that the NTN would be given up if a trainee was suspended and that (at that stage) there would be a right of appeal; further that it was open to those who had had their training numbers removed to reapply for competitive entry to specialty training at a later date should circumstances change. Nevertheless, whilst paying proper regard to the fact that all the principles in Ladd v Marshall are of relevance and of powerful persuasive authority, I do not regard the lack of compliance with this first principle to be determinative. There is no suggestion that the Postgraduate Dean in any way alerted A or his lawyers to these consequences and no evidence that the Panel was aware of them.
(ii) As to the second principle in Ladd v Marshall, it is difficult for the court, on the basis of the evidence provided, to quantify the risk that A’s GP specialty training may be at an end if he is suspended. Looking at the evidence of Ms Willmott, I nevertheless consider that there is a real risk that this will occur. Nobody was aware of any precedent of a suspended trainee applying to get back on the Register and what the prospects of success were or were not. It will of course be open to the FTPP to come to the same conclusion i.e. that A should be suspended. That said, I do regard the fresh evidence as probably having an important influence on the result of the case. It may indeed not be decisive but that is a matter for a properly informed FTPP to decide.
(iii) Clearly the fresh evidence is credible, especially as in the circumstances I am basing my judgment on Ms Willmott’s testimony.
(iv) Considering the overriding objective this, in my judgment, is one of the perhaps rare cases where, notwithstanding that one of the Ladd v Marshall principles has not been complied with, justice requires the fresh evidence to be admitted and for the matter to be considered by the FTPP. Both parties agree, and the order reflects, that this will not be a re-hearing of the case but merely a hearing which takes into account the fresh evidence so as to decide what if any difference it makes to sanctions. That also is a relevant factor, namely that the further disciplinary process will be limited in extent.’

Stewart J
[2014] EWHC 3570 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – TZ v General Medical Council Admn 17-Apr-2015
Appeal against decision of a Fitness to Practise Panel holding that the Appellant’s fitness to practise as a medical practitioner was impaired by reason of his misconduct. It directed that his name be erased from the Medical Register under section . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health Professions, Litigation Practice

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.538203

Revenue and Customs v Dempster (T/A Boulevard): ChD 24 Jan 2008

The revenue wished to refuse a claim to set off input tax for two transactions involving the alleged purchase of software. They said the transactions were a sham.
Held: The revenue’s appeal failed.
Briggs J said: ‘the critical question whether a transaction which, as documented, appears to attract certain VAT consequences is to be deprived of those consequences because it is a sham, is whether the rights and obligations expressed in the documents, to the extent relevant for VAT purposes, are different from those which the parties intended to confer and incur. ‘ In this case the tribunal had not decided that the taxpayer was party to a fraud, since it had not been asserted that he was: ‘it is a cardinal principle of litigation that if serious allegations, in particular allegations of dishonesty are to be made against a party who is called as a witness they must be both fairly and squarely pleaded, and fairly and squarely put to that witness in cross examination.’
Before a finding of dishonesty can be made it must not only be pleaded, but also put in cross-examination. Briggs J considered a submission that dishonesty having been pleaded it had not been necessary to put the allegation to the defendant, and said: ‘I emphatically disagree with that submission. First, the Tribunal’s summary of what was not put in cross examination is stated with clarity on no less than three occasions in the Decision and I was provided neither with a transcript, nor notes (whether by the Tribunal itself or by the parties) of the cross examination with which to be in any position to conclude that the Tribunal’s summary of the cross examination was other than fair and accurate. Secondly, it is a cardinal principle of litigation that if serious allegations, in particular allegations of dishonesty are to be made against a party who is called as a witness they must be both fairly and squarely pleaded, and fairly and squarely put to that witness in cross examination. In my judgment the Tribunal’s conclusion that it was constrained, notwithstanding suspicion, from making the necessary findings of knowledge against Mr Dempster (necessary that is to permit the consequences of the alleged sham to be visited upon him) was nothing more nor less than a correct and conventional application of that cardinal principle.’

Briggs J
[2008] EWHC 63 (Ch), [2008] STC 2079
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Snook v London and West Riding Investments Ltd CA 1967
Sham requires common intent to create other result
The court considered a claim by a hire-purchase company for the return of a vehicle. The bailee said the agreement was a sham.
Held: The word ‘sham’ should only be used to describe an act or document where the parties have a common intention . .
Cited – Stone (HM Inspector of Taxes) v Hitch and others CA 26-Jan-2001
As an exception to the general rule, it is not invariably necessary to show, in relation to multi party transactions, that every party to it knew it was a sham.
Arden LJ said: ‘Third, the fact that the act or document is uncommercial, or even . .
Cited – Regina v Commissioners of Customs and Excise ex parte McNicholas Construction Co Ltd Admn 15-Oct-1996
Where there was no real transaction underlying a claim for VAT credit, no VAT credit can be claimed.
Dyson J said: ‘the words ‘to the best of their judgment’ permit the commissioners a margin of discretion in making an assessment; a taxpayer . .
Cited – Ensign Tankers (Leasing) Ltd v Stokes (Inspector of Taxes) HL 6-May-1992
The appellants entered into partnerships with a film production company. By doing so they intended to make available to themselves first year allowances on the capital expenditure incurred. Loan agreements protected them from any eventual loss.
Cited by:
Cited – Abbey Forwarding Ltd v Hone and Others ChD 30-Jul-2010
. .
Cited – London Borough of Haringey v Hines CA 20-Oct-2010
The authority sought rescission of a lease granted to the defendant under the right to buy scheme, saying that she had misrepresented her occupation when applying. The tenant replied that no adequate evidence had been brought that she was not a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT, Contract, Litigation Practice, Natural Justice

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.263853

Foakes v Beer: HL 16 May 1884

Mrs Beer had obtained judgment against Dr Foakes for pounds 2,090 19s. He asked for time to pay and they agreed with him, acknowledging the debt, and paying part immediately and undertaking to pay the balance over a period of time. In consideration of the part payment and Dr Foakes’s undertaking to pay the balance in instalments Mrs Beer agreed not to take any proceedings on the judgment. After the whole sum had been paid, however, she sought to take proceedings on the judgment to recover interest.
Held: A promise to pay part of a debt is not good consideration in law. The House applied the rule in Pinnel’s Case that since the obligations undertaken by Dr Foakes under the agreement added nothing to his existing obligation under the judgment, he had provided no consideration for Mrs Beer’s promise not to take action on the judgment which was therefore unenforceable.
Lord Blackburn argued for the abolition of the rule in Pinnel’s case: ‘What principally weighs with me in thinking that Lord Coke made a mistake of fact is my conviction that all men of business, whether merchants or tradesmen, do every day recognize and act on the ground that prompt payment of a part of their demand may be more beneficial to them than it would be to insist on their rights and enforce payment of the whole. Even where the debtor is perfectly solvent, and sure to pay at last, this often is so. Where the credit of the debtor is doubtful it must be more so.’

Lord Blackburn
(1884) 9 App Cas 605, [1884] UKHL 1
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – Pinnel’s Case, Penny v Core CCP 1602
Payment of Lesser Sum Not Satisfaction
(Court of Common Pleas) The payment of a lesser sum on the day in satisfaction of a greater, cannot be any satisfaction for the whole. The gift of a horse, hawk, robe, etc., in satisfaction, is good. Payment of part before the day and acceptance may . .

Cited by:
Cited – Bradford and Bingley Plc v Rashid HL 12-Jul-2006
Disapplication of Without Prejudice Rules
The House was asked whether a letter sent during without prejudice negotiations which acknowledged a debt was admissible to restart the limitation period. An advice centre, acting for the borrower had written, in answer to a claim by the lender for . .
Cited – Collier v P and M J Wright (Holdings) Ltd CA 14-Dec-2007
Agreement for payment by joint debtor not contract
The claimant appealed against refusal of an order to set aside a statutory demand. He said that he had compromised a claim by the creditors. He argued for an extension to the Rule in Pinnel’s case, so that where a debtor agrees to pay part of a . .
Applied – In Re Selectmove Ltd CA 21-Dec-1993
Promisse to Pay Tax due is not Consideration
The company appealed against an order for its winding up, saying that the debt was disputed, an accomodation having been reached with the Revenue.
Held: The court declined to regard a promise to the Revenue by a company to pay its existing . .
Cited – Hirachand Punamchand v Temple CA 1911
The defendant, a British army officer in India, had given a promissory note to the plaintiff moneylenders. Unable to pay, he suggested they apply to his father, Sir Richard Temple. In reply, Sir Richard Temple’s solicitors wrote saying they were . .
For Examination later – Rock Advertising Ltd v MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd SC 16-May-2018
The parties disputed whether a contract (licence to occupy an office) had been varied by an oral agreement, where the terms prohibited such.
Held: The ‘no oral variation’ clause applied. Such clauses were in common commercial use and served a . .
Cited – Williams v Roffey Brothers and Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd CA 23-Nov-1989
The defendant subcontracted some of its work under a building contract to the plaintiff at a price which left him in financial difficulty and there was a risk that the work would not be completed by the plaintiff. The defendant agreed to make . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Contract

Leading Case

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.243134

Barings Plc (In Liquidation) and Another v Coopers and Lybrand (A Firm) and Others etc: ChD 9 Feb 2001

Expert evidence is generally admissible where there are recognised standards, professional rules and a body of expertise. Even so, the court retained the discretion not to hear expert evidence, if the court felt that such evidence would not assist to decide any issue justly. Such matters will now be decided more by the weight to be given to the evidence, rather than by questions of admissibility

Times 07-Mar-2001, Gazette 29-Mar-2001, [2001] EWHC Ch 17
Bailii
Civil Evidence Act 1972 3
England and Wales

Litigation Practice, Evidence

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.163005

Caresse Navigation Ltd v Zurich Assurances Maroc and Others: CA 21 Oct 2014

Appeal against an interim anti-suit injunction

Lord Dyson MR, Beatson LJ, Sir Robin Jacob
[2014] EWCA Civ 1366, [2015] 2 WLR 43, [2014] 2 CLC 851, [2014] WLR(D) 444, [2015] 1 QB 366, [2015] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 256
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Caresse Navigation Ltd v Office National De L’Electricite and Others ComC 14-Oct-2013
The Court was asked as to the effect of the incorporation into a bill of lading of the ‘Law and Arbitration clause’ of an identified charterparty when the dispute resolution clause in that charterparty provides, not for English law and arbitration, . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 22 December 2021; Ref: scu.537767

Carlton Advisors v Dorchester Holdings Ltd: ComC 29 Aug 2014

The court considered a request to order the defendants to pay a sum of money into court having defaulted in compliance with directions.
Held: The court does have the power under 3.1(5) to order a party to pay a sum of money into court if that party has, without good reason, failed to comply with a rule, practice direction or a relevant pre-action protocol. The defendants here had failed to comply with the overriding objective and other requirements.

Mackie QC HHJ
[2014] EWHC 3341 (Comm)
Bailii
Civil Procedure Rules 23.11
Citing:
Cited – Huscroft v P and O Ferries Ltd CA 21-Dec-2010
Second appeal against order requiring sum for security for costs to be paid into court and in default for the claim to be struck out.
Held: The Court considered its jurisdiction to make an order for security for costs under rule 3.1 and, . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 22 December 2021; Ref: scu.537734

CF v The Ministry of Defence and Others: QBD 14 Oct 2014

The issue considered was whether, following the declaration under Section 6 of the 2013 Act permitting a closed material procedure, Article 6 of the ECHR requires further details of the Defendants’ case to be provided, by any further disclosure, summary or gist. It was common ground that civil proceedings of this kind do engage Article 6: the question is one of compliance.

Irwin J
[2014] EWHC 3171 (QB)
Bailii
Justice and Security Act 2013, European Convention on Human Rights 6

Litigation Practice, Human Rights

Updated: 22 December 2021; Ref: scu.537745

Tchenguiz v Director of The Serious Fraud Office and Others: CA 13 Oct 2014

Application made pursuant to paragraph 32 of Practice Direction 52C to rely on a supplementary skeleton argument for the purposes of the present appeal. The context in which this application is made is an appeal by the claimant against an order of Mr Justice Eder in the exercise of his discretion under Civil Procedure Rules, rule 31.22.

Jackson, Sharp, Vos LJJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 1333, [2015] CP Rep 5, [2015] 1 WLR 838, [2014] WLR(D) 427
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 22 December 2021; Ref: scu.537580