Category: Litigation Practice

Faulkner v Love: 1977

Citations:

[1977] 1 QB 937

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Gwynedd County Council v Grunshaw CA 22-Jul-1999
The plaintiff lived in Lincolnshire, but owned a house in Gwynnedd. She sought to serve a notice in her local County Court, appealing from an order for its demolition, but the manager of that Court refused to accept it saying that it should have . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.650577

Sharma v Knight: CA 1986

The court considered the situation where documents had been filed in time, but at the wrong county court.
Held: Purchas LJ said: ‘The jurisdiction of the county court is conferred on the county court under the County Courts Act 1984 and preceding Acts. The wording of the various sections . . makes no provision for the Lord Chancellor in any way to limit the basic jurisdiction conferred on the county court by the Acts of Parliament concerned. It deals solely with the definition of the districts and procedural matters for the convenient discharge of the functions of the court. In my judgment it requires an amendment of the statutory authority rather than the provision of rules of procedure, under which general rubric the County Court Rules are described, before it can be said that the jurisdiction of any particular county court is in any way limited. Moreover, the provisions to which I have already referred, which allow for the transfer of proceedings from one court to another if started in the wrong court, are inconsistent with any lack of jurisdiction if the wrong court is the origin of the proceedings. In particular, section 75(3)(a) of the County Courts Act 1984 and the equivalent provisions of section 102 of the County Courts Act 1959 would be rendered nugatory if the submission was that there was no jurisdiction if the wrong court was chosen in which to initiate the proceedings.’

Judges:

Purchas LJ

Citations:

[1986] 1 WLR 757

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Gwynedd County Council v Grunshaw CA 22-Jul-1999
The plaintiff lived in Lincolnshire, but owned a house in Gwynnedd. She sought to serve a notice in her local County Court, appealing from an order for its demolition, but the manager of that Court refused to accept it saying that it should have . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.650578

Mengiste and Another v Endowment Fund for The Rehabilitation of Tigray and Others: CA 11 Nov 2015

Appeal against refusal to lift a stay on the proceedings.

Judges:

Kitchin LJ

Citations:

[2015] EWCA Civ 1437

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Mengiste and Another v Endowment Fund for The Rehabilitation of Tigray and Others (Experts) ChD 22-Mar-2013
Consideration of the protocol for the instruction of experts . .
See Also – Mengiste and Another v Endowment Fund for The Rehabilitation of Tigray and Others (Jurisdiction) ChD 22-Mar-2013
The case was broght in respect of a foundation in Ethiopia; the parties were alll Ethiopian, the assets and the law. The defendants disputed that the English court had jurisdiction. . .
See Also – Mengiste and Another v Endowment Fund for The Rehabilitation of Tigray and Others ChD 25-Mar-2013
Application for leave to appeal – refused. . .
See Also – Mengiste and Another v Endowment Fund for The Rehabilitation of Tigray and Others ChD 26-Mar-2013
The defendants were seeking an order for wasted costs against the solicitors for the claimants. The claimants had requested the judge to recuse himself from hearing that complaint. He now gave his reasons for refusing that request. . .
See Also – Mengiste and Another v Endowment Fund for The Rehabilitation of Tigray and Others CA 14-Aug-2013
The solicitors appealed against the making of a wasted costs order against them. . .
See Also – Mengiste and Another v Endowment Fund for The Rehabilitation of Tigray and Others ChD 11-Dec-2014
The Claimants asserted that judgments in Ethiopia were obtained by perjury and fraudulent means in particular by the deliberate withholding of material evidence. They also claimed that the Ethiopian Courts were biased against them. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.565655

Christofi v National Bank of Greece (Cyprus) Ltd: QBD 14 Apr 2015

The applicant challenged registration here for enforcement of judgments obtained in Cyprus.

Judges:

Andrews DBE J

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 986 (QB), [2015] 1 WLR 5405, [2015] WLR(D) 170

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Council Regulation EC 44/2001

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Jurisdiction, Litigation Practice

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.545350

Abdelmamoud v The Egyptian Association In Great Britain Ltd: ChD 17 Apr 2015

For a non-party to an action to be ‘directly affected’ by a decision for CPR r 40.9, there has to be an interest capable of recognition by the law was materially and adversely affected by the judgment or order or would be materially and adversely affected by the enforcement of the judgment or order.

Judges:

Edward Murray sitting as a deputy judge of the Chancery Division

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 1013 (Ch), [2015] WLR(D) 175, [2015] Bus LR 928

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.545923

Mengiste and Another v Endowment Fund for The Rehabilitation of Tigray and Others: ChD 26 Mar 2013

The defendants were seeking an order for wasted costs against the solicitors for the claimants. The claimants had requested the judge to recuse himself from hearing that complaint. He now gave his reasons for refusing that request.

Judges:

Peter Smith J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 857 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – 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 Z 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 in costs.
Peter Smith J had held that: ‘It seems to me that in the administration . .
Cited – Symphony Group Plc v Hodgson CA 4-May-1993
A section 51 non-party costs application should not be used as a substitute for the pursuit of a related cause of action against the non-party in ordinary proceedings. Nine rules were set out for allowing a costs order against someone who is not a . .
See Also – Mengiste and Another v Endowment Fund for The Rehabilitation of Tigray and Others (Experts) ChD 22-Mar-2013
Consideration of the protocol for the instruction of experts . .
See Also – Mengiste and Another v Endowment Fund for The Rehabilitation of Tigray and Others (Jurisdiction) ChD 22-Mar-2013
The case was broght in respect of a foundation in Ethiopia; the parties were alll Ethiopian, the assets and the law. The defendants disputed that the English court had jurisdiction. . .
See Also – Mengiste and Another v Endowment Fund for The Rehabilitation of Tigray and Others ChD 25-Mar-2013
Application for leave to appeal – refused. . .

Cited by:

See Also – Mengiste and Another v Endowment Fund for The Rehabilitation of Tigray and Others ChD 1-May-2013
Judgment on wasted costs after findings critical of an expert witness. . .
See Also – Mengiste and Another v Endowment Fund for The Rehabilitation of Tigray and Others CA 14-Aug-2013
The solicitors appealed against the making of a wasted costs order against them. . .
See Also – Mengiste and Another v Endowment Fund for The Rehabilitation of Tigray and Others ChD 11-Dec-2014
The Claimants asserted that judgments in Ethiopia were obtained by perjury and fraudulent means in particular by the deliberate withholding of material evidence. They also claimed that the Ethiopian Courts were biased against them. . .
See Also – Mengiste and Another v Endowment Fund for The Rehabilitation of Tigray and Others CA 11-Nov-2015
Appeal against refusal to lift a stay on the proceedings. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Litigation Practice

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.472644

Mengiste and Another v Endowment Fund for The Rehabilitation of Tigray and Others (Experts): ChD 22 Mar 2013

Consideration of the protocol for the instruction of experts

Judges:

Peter Smith J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 598 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Mengiste and Another v Endowment Fund for The Rehabilitation of Tigray and Others (Jurisdiction) ChD 22-Mar-2013
The case was broght in respect of a foundation in Ethiopia; the parties were alll Ethiopian, the assets and the law. The defendants disputed that the English court had jurisdiction. . .
See Also – Mengiste and Another v Endowment Fund for The Rehabilitation of Tigray and Others ChD 25-Mar-2013
Application for leave to appeal – refused. . .
See Also – Mengiste and Another v Endowment Fund for The Rehabilitation of Tigray and Others ChD 26-Mar-2013
The defendants were seeking an order for wasted costs against the solicitors for the claimants. The claimants had requested the judge to recuse himself from hearing that complaint. He now gave his reasons for refusing that request. . .
See Also – Mengiste and Another v Endowment Fund for The Rehabilitation of Tigray and Others ChD 1-May-2013
Judgment on wasted costs after findings critical of an expert witness. . .
See Also – Mengiste and Another v Endowment Fund for The Rehabilitation of Tigray and Others CA 14-Aug-2013
The solicitors appealed against the making of a wasted costs order against them. . .
See Also – Mengiste and Another v Endowment Fund for The Rehabilitation of Tigray and Others ChD 11-Dec-2014
The Claimants asserted that judgments in Ethiopia were obtained by perjury and fraudulent means in particular by the deliberate withholding of material evidence. They also claimed that the Ethiopian Courts were biased against them. . .
See Also – Mengiste and Another v Endowment Fund for The Rehabilitation of Tigray and Others CA 11-Nov-2015
Appeal against refusal to lift a stay on the proceedings. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.472043

Nouvion v Freeman: HL 1889

A judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction may be final and binding, even though a right of appeal to a superior court remains open.
Lord Herschell stated on the question of finality or conclusiveness of a foreign judgment: ‘in order to establish that such a judgment has been pronounced it must be shown that in the court by which it was pronounced it conclusively, finally, and for ever established the existence of the debt of which it is sought to be made conclusive evidence in this country, so as to make it res judicata between the parties. If it is not conclusive in the same court which pronounced it, so that notwithstanding such a judgment the existence of the debt may between the same parties be afterwards contested in that Court, and upon proper proceedings being taken and such contest being adjudicated upon, it may be declared that there existed no obligation to pay the bet at all, then I do not think that a judgment which is of that character can be regarded as finally and conclusively evidencing the debt, as so entitling the person who has obtained the judgment to claim a decree from our Courts for the payment of that debt.’

Judges:

Lord Herschell

Citations:

(1889) 15 AC 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Carl Zeiss Stiftung v Rayner and Keeler Ltd (No 2) HL 1966
An agency had to be proved in a search to identify an entity which the law recognised (a) existed and (b) was legally responsible for the acts in issue in the proceedings. The House was asked whether the fact that an issue had already been . .
Cited – Joint Stock Company (Aeroflot-Russian Airlines) v Berezovsky and Another CA 16-Jan-2014
The appellant had judgments obtained in Russia against the respondent. It now appealed against a refusal of enforcement of those judgments based upon the ground that there was a complete defence to the recognition and enforcement of the judgments . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, International

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.468881

Edwards, Regina (on the application of) v Environment Agency: HL 16 Apr 2008

The applicants sought to challenge the grant of a permit by the defendant to a company to operate a cement works, saying that the environmental impact assessment was inadequate.
Held: The Agency had been justified in allowing the application in the form presented. Nor had there been inadeqate disclosure. Everything which was required to be published had been published.
The House noted that draft judgments sent to the parties lawyers to assist with corrections had been used instead to seek to re-argue the case presented. This was an abuse of the system.
Lord Hoffmann: ‘But I agree with the observation of Carnwath LJ in Bown v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions [2004] Env LR 26, 526, that the speeches in Berkeley need to be read in context. Both the nature of the flaw in the decision and the ground for exercise of the discretion have to be considered. In Berkeley, the flaw was the complete absence of an EIA and the sole ground for the exercise of the discretion was that the result was bound to have been the same.’

Judges:

Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, Lord Mance

Citations:

[2008] UKHL 22, Times 06-May-2008, [2008] Env LR 34, [2008] NPC 44, [2008] 16 EG 153, [2008] JPL 1278, [2009] 1 All ER 57, [2008] 1 WLR 1587, [2008] Env LR 34

Links:

Bailii, HL, Bailii

Statutes:

Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) Regulations 2000 (SI 2000/1973), Environmental Protection Act 1990, European Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Rockware Glass Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v Quinn Glass Ltd and Another CA 15-Jun-2006
Challenge to terms of Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control permit . .
Appeal from – Edwards, Pallikaropoulos v The Environment Agency, The First Secretary of State, Secretary of State for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs, Cemex UK Cement Limited CA 31-Jul-2006
. .
Dicta approved – Blewett, Regina (on the Application of) v Derbyshire County Council Admn 7-Nov-2003
Mr Blewett sought judicial review, quashing on three grounds a planning permission given by the Derbyshire County Council to Derbyshire Waste to use land at the former Glapwell Colliery in North-East Derbyshire, for ‘land reclamation by waste . .
Cited – Regina v North and East Devon Health Authority ex parte Coughlan and Secretary of State for Health Intervenor and Royal College of Nursing Intervenor CA 16-Jul-1999
Consultation to be Early and Real Listening
The claimant was severely disabled as a result of a road traffic accident. She and others were placed in an NHS home for long term disabled people and assured that this would be their home for life. Then the health authority decided that they were . .
Cited – Landelijke Vereniging tot Behoud van de Waddenzee and Nederlandse Vereniging tot Bescherming van Vogels v Staatssecretaris van Landbouw, etc ECJ 7-Sep-2004
ECJ Directive 92/43/EEC – Conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna – Concept of ‘plan’ or ‘project’ – Assessment of the implications of certain plans or projects for the protected site.
Cited – Commission v Germany ECJ 11-Aug-1995
Europa In exercising its powers under Articles 155 and 169 of the Treaty, the Commission, when bringing an action for failure to comply with obligations under the Treaty, does not have to show that there is a . .
Cited – Commission v Italy (Environment and Consumers) ECJ 23-Nov-2006
Europa Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment – Waste recovery – Installation for the production of electricity by the incineration of . .
Cited – Regina v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte the National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd HL 9-Apr-1981
Limitations on HMRC discretion on investigation
The Commissioners had been concerned at tax evasion of up to 1 million pounds a year by casual workers employed in Fleet Street. They agreed with the employers and unions to collect tax in the future, but that they would not pursue those who had . .
Cited – Berkeley v Secretary of State For The Environment and Others HL 11-May-2000
The claimant challenged the grant of planning permission for a new football ground for Fulham Football club, saying that an Environmental Impact Assessment had not been obtained, but was required.
Held: Where a planning application if . .
Approved – Bown v Secretary of State for Transport CA 31-Jul-2003
The appeal concerned the environmental effect of the erection of a bridge being part of a bypass. It was claimed that the area should have been designated as a Special Protection Area for Birds (SPA), and that if so it should be treated as such for . .

Cited by:

Cited – Sanderson v Hull CA 5-Nov-2008
Insufficient proof of cause of infection
The claimant worked as a turkey plucker. She caught an infection (campylobacter enteritis) at work, and the employer now appealed against a finding of liability. The employer said that the only necessary protection was regular washing of hands. The . .
Cited – Knaggs v Regina CACD 13-Jul-2009
The defendant appealed against a confiscation order, made on the basis of evidence secured from a probe installed in his car. He had made clear that he disputed the recordings. A second judge had inherited the proceedings, and ruled that he could . .
Cited – Boggis and Another v Natural England CA 20-Oct-2009
Natural England appealed against the quashing of an SSSI.
Held: The notification of an SSSI was not the making of a plan as respects the land affected, but the flagging up of it. The real purpose of the proceedings was to allow the land owners . .
Cited – Binyan Mohamed, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs CA 26-Feb-2010
The claimant had sought public disclosure of documents supplied to the defendant by US security services which might support his claim that he had been tortured by the US, and that the defendant knew of it. The draft judgment was to be handed down . .
Cited – McKeown v British Horseracing Authority Admn 12-Mar-2010
The judge had been asked to revise his draft judgment. The court set out the circumstances under which a draft judgment might be amended and why in this case he had rejected the request save as to clerical errors. . .
Cited – Save Britain’s Heritage, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Others Admn 14-May-2010
The claimant challenged the order allowing the demolition of a disused listed building saying that the Direction was contrary to European law in not requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The Secretary of State said an EIA was not . .
At HL – Edwards and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Environment Agency and Others SC 15-Dec-2010
Clarification was sought of the costs principles applicable on an application to the House of Lords. The paying party said that it was a requirement of the 1998 Convention under which the application fell, that a remedy should not be available only . .
Cited – Walton v The Scottish Ministers SC 17-Oct-2012
The appellant, former chair of a road activist group, challenged certain roads orders saying that the respondent had not carried out the required environmental assessment. His claim was that the road had been adopted without the consultation . .
At HL – Edwards v Environment Agency (No 2) ECJ 11-Apr-2013
ECJ Environment – Aarhus Convention – Directive 85/337/EEC – Directive 2003/35/EC – Article 10a – Directive 96/61/EC – Article 15a – Access to justice in environmental matters – Meaning of ‘not prohibitively . .
At HL – Edwards and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Environment Agency and Others (No 2) SC 11-Dec-2013
The court considered the consequences of a finding that the UK was in breach of the Aarhus Convention, as regards the ‘prohibitively expensive’ cost of proceedings. The Agency had given permission for the change of fuel for a cement works to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Environment, Litigation Practice

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.470551

Skone v Skone and Another: HL 1971

The husband appealed, seeking a new trial of a divorce petition following the discovery of fresh evidence consisting of a bundle of love letters from the co-respondent to the wife clearly showing that, contrary to his sworn evidence, he had committed adultery with her.
Held: The House admitted the fresh evidence. Where a strong prima facie case of wilful deception is disclosed, a new trial will be ordered.
Lord Denning said: ‘It is very rare that an application is made for a new trial on the ground that a witness has told a lie. The principles to be applied are the same as those when fresh evidence is sought to be introduced. In order to justify the reception of fresh evidence for a new trial, three conditions must be fulfilled: first it must be shown that the evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use at the trial: second, the evidence must be such that, if given, it would probably have an important influence on the result of the case, although it need not be decisive; third, the evidence must be such as is presumably to be believed, or in other words it must be apparently credible, although it need not be incontrovertible.’
Lord Hodson said: ‘Assuming, as I think your Lordships must for the purposes of this application, that the letters sought to be tendered as evidence are genuine, the basis of the judge’s finding of fact at the trial has been falsified to such an extent that to leave matters as they are would, in my opinion, be unjust . . A strong prima facie case of wilful deception of the court is disclosed.’ and ‘The situation of the wife is or was, however, at the material times a peculiar one in that she was in the opposite camp in the sense that she was anxious not to do anything without the approval of the co-respondent, feeling that her interests were bound up with his. The petitioner was advised by counsel, as I have said, and I find it impossible to hold that in these circumstances it is right to hold that the petitioner failed to exercise due diligence in this matter.’

Judges:

Lord Denning, Lord Hodson

Citations:

[1971] 1 WLR 812, [1971] 2 All ER 582

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Approved – Ladd v Marshall CA 29-Nov-1954
Conditions for new evidence on appeal
At the trial, the wife of the appellant’s opponent said she had forgotten certain events. After the trial she began divorce proceedings, and informed the appellant that she now remembered. He sought either to appeal admitting fresh evidence, or for . .

Cited by:

Cited – Owens v Noble CA 10-Mar-2010
The respondent had been awarded substantial damages after an accident for which the appellant was responsible. The appellant now said that the claimant had exaggerated his injuries and misled the judge. The defendant argued that the correct approach . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.414951

Rae v Meek: HL 1889

The beneficiaries under a trust created by a marriage contract sued a trustee for having lost trust money which had been lent on the security of unfinished houses in a building speculation. The trustee was held liable to restore the trust fund. The beneficiaries also sued the trustees’ solicitor, who had advised the trustee that there was no objection to the investment. Lord Herschell dealt with the liability of the solicitor, by re-stating the rule that in the exceptional case of a failure by trustees to act, ‘the beneficiaries might compel them to do so, or even enforce the right themselves.’ He went on to say that no such question (that is, of a failure by trustees to act) was raised by the averments in relation to the claim in that case by the beneficiaries against the solicitor, who (in any event) was not liable because he had not been retained by the trustees to advise on the sufficiency of the security.

Judges:

Lord Herschell

Citations:

(1889) 14 App Cas 558

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

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.

Trusts, Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.415973

Rank Film Distributors v Video Information Centre: HL 1 Mar 1981

The plaintiffs claimed large-scale copyright infringement, and obtained Anton Pillar orders. The House considered the existence of the privilege against self-incrimination where the Anton Piller type of order has been made. The Court of Appeal had decided that the court should abstain from making an order ex parte requiring immediate answers to interrogatories or disclosure of documents when it can see that the defendant would be in danger of self-incrimination, and all requirements to answer those interrogatories or to disclose documents were deleted from the order originally made at first instance.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The privilege against self-incrimination was capable of being invoked. The test is as to whether there is a ‘real and appreciable risk of criminal proceedings . . being taken against’ the witness.
Lord Wilberforce said: ‘However, it is only too clear (and I deliberately use the language of reluctance) that supply of the information and production of the documents sought would tend to expose the respondents to a charge of conspiracy to defraud . . A charge of conspiracy to defraud, so far from being as it sometimes is, a contrived addition to other charges, is here an appropriate and exact description of what was being done . . Unless some escape can be devised from this conclusion, the privilege must inevitably attach.’ and
‘Mr. Nicholls was at pains to make clear that he was not, in these submissions, attempting to negate or undermine the privilege against self-incrimination. This has been too long established in our law as a basic liberty of the subject – in other countries it has constitutional status – to be denied. It has received modern recognition in section 14 of the Civil Evidence Act 1968 and in this House.’
The protection extended to material the discovery of which which might ‘Set in train a process which may lead to incrimination or may lead to the discovery of real evidence of an incriminating character.’
‘It may seem to be a strange paradox that the worse, ie the more criminal, their [ie the defendants’] activities can be made to appear, the less effective is the civil remedy that can be granted, but that, prima facie, is what the privilege achieves.’ and ‘This has been too long established in our law as a basic liberty of the subject (in other countries it has constitutional status) to be denied.’ ‘It is certainly correct to say, that existing law and practice to some extent prevent matter disclosed on discovery in civil proceedings from being used to the prejudice of the disclosing party. The protection is described with different words: the matter must not be used for an ‘improper’ purpose’ or a ‘collateral object’ or, most strongly, ‘otherwise than in the action, in which they are disclosed’.
Lord Fraser of Tullybelton: ‘At one stage, the argument seemed to depend on the possibility that the court which ordered the discovery might place an express restriction on the use of any information disclosed. In my opinion, any argument on that basis must be rejected. A restriction by the court making the order would, no doubt, be effective to bind the party who obtained the order, but it can hardly be suggested that it would be effective to prevent a prosecutor in the public interest from using, or an English criminal court (a fortiori a Scottish criminal court if a conspiracy were prosecuted in Scotland) from admitting the information in evidence at a trial. All evidence which is relevant is prima facie admissible in a criminal trial, although the trial judge has a discretion to exclude evidence which, though admissible, has been obtained by unfair means from the accused after commission of the offence: Reg. v. Sang [1980] AC 402. But it is obvious that a person who has to rely on an exercise of judicial discretion is in a less secure position than one who, by relying on the privilege, can avoid providing the information in the first place. ‘ and ‘The main basis of the argument was an implied rule, said to be derived from the case of Riddick v. Thames Board Mills Ltd. [1977] QB 881, to the effect that evidence which has been disclosed under compulsion in a civil action cannot be used against a person who has disclosed if for the purposes of another civil action or of a criminal prosecution. It was argued that any incriminating information disclosed by a person making discovery or answering interrogatories would enjoy complete protection by reason of that rule, because the information would have been given under compulsion, in respect that refusal to give it would be contempt of court. I would make one preliminary observation on that argument. It seems to me to go much too far. If it is well-founded, it means that the established practice whereby judges warn witnesses that they need not answer questions addressed to them in oral examination in court, if the answers might tend to incriminate them, is unnecessary, because refusal to answer would, in the absence of the warning, be contempt of court and any incriminating evidence having been given under compulsion would not be admissible against them in criminal proceedings. I approach a proposition leading to that result with some scepticism. In any event, the case of Riddick was concerned only with the question of the use to which documents recovered on discovery could be put by the party who had obtained discovery. Lord Denning M.R. at p. 896H, stated the principle in a sentence thus: ‘A party who seeks discovery of documents gets it on condition that he will make use of them only for the purposes of that action, and for no other purpose’ (emphasis added). That statement of principle would have to be extended to include cases such as Norwich Pharmacal Co. v. Customs and Excise Commissioners [1974] AC 133, where an order was made for discovery of information for the purpose of its being used in another action. The principle is, I think, that information is not to be used by the party who gets discovery for purposes other than that for which production was ordered. But the case of Riddick had nothing to do with the use of information for prosecution in the public interest. On the contrary, both Lord Denning M.R. at p.896 and Stephenson L.J. at p.901, referred with approval to the observations of Talbot J. in Distillers Co. (Biochemicals) Ltd. v. Times Newspapers [1975] QB 613, 621, recognising that there might be a public interest in favour of disclosure which would override the public interest in the administration of justice which goes to preserve the confidentiality of documents disclosed on discovery. That is clearly correct. If a defendant’s answers to interrogatories tend to show that he has been guilty of a serious offence I cannot think that there would be anything improper in his opponent reporting the matter to the criminal authorities with a view to prosecution, certainly if he had first obtained leave from the court which ordered the interrogatories, and probably without such leave. If that is right the object of the privilege against self-incrimination would not be completely achieved by relying on any rule which can be derived from Riddick v. Thames Board Mills Ltd. [1977] QB 881.’

Judges:

Lord Wilberforce, Templeman L

Citations:

[1982] AC 380, [1981] 2 All ER 76, [1981] 2 WLR 668

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal From – Rank Film Distributors v Video Information Centre CA 1980
The plaintiff film companies accused the defendants of pirating their films. They obtained Anton Piller orders which required the defendants to permit the plaintiffs to enter their premises to inspect and remove any unauthorised films, and three . .
Cited – Rasu Maritima SA v Perusahaan (the Pertamina) CA 1978
Section 45 of the 1925 Act gives the court a very wide discretion to grant an injunction. . .
Cited – Anton Piller v Manufacturing Processes Ltd CA 8-Dec-1975
Civil Search Orders possible
The plaintiff manufactured and supplied through the defendants, its English agents, computer components. It had reason to suspect that the defendant was disclosing its trade secrets to competitors. The court considered the effect of a civil search . .

Cited by:

Cited – Holder v The Law Society Admn 26-Jul-2005
The applicant challenged the independence of the respondent’s disciplinary tribunal.
Held: The claim failed: ‘the nature of the Tribunal is entirely adequately independent and impartial for the purposes for which it is constituted. The . .
Cited – C Plc and W v P and Secretary of State for the Home Office and the Attorney General ChD 26-May-2006
The claimant sought damages from the first defendant for breach of copyright. An ex parte search order had been executed, with the defendant asserting his privilege against self-incrimination. As computer disks were examined, potentially unlawful . .
Cited – C Plc v P and Attorney General Intervening CA 22-May-2007
The respondent had been subject to a civil search, which revealed the existence of obscene images of children on his computer. He appealed against refusal of an order that the evidence should not be passed to the police as evidence. He said that the . .
Cited – Mohamed, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 1) Admn 21-Aug-2008
The claimant had been detained by the US in Guantanamo Bay suspected of terrorist involvement. He sought to support his defence documents from the respondent which showed that the evidence to be relied on in the US courts had been obtained by . .
Cited – Phillips v Mulcaire SC 24-May-2012
The claimant worked as personal assistant to a well known public relations company. She alleged that the defendant had intercepted telephone message given by and left for her. The court was asked first as to whether the information amounted to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Intellectual Property

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.230905

Pritam Kaur v S Russell and Sons Ltd: QBD 1 Jun 1972

The plaintiff sought damages following the death of her husband when working for the defendants. He had died on 5 September 1967 but the writ was not issued until Monday 7 September 1970. The applicable limitation period was 3 years, which the defendants relied upon. The plaintiff argued that since the writ could not be issued when the court office was closed, it was permissible to issue on the next day upon which the court was open.
Held: Willis J said: ‘In the absence of direct authority that the plaintiff under the statute of limitations should not be treated in a similar way to the tenant in Hodgson’s case, that the principles of law applicable to him are those set out in the judgment of Russell LJ in that in the absence of any days of grace or extenuating rule this action is barred.’

Judges:

Willis J

Citations:

[1972] 1 All ER 306, [1973] 1 QB 336, [1973] 2 WLR 147

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Hodgson v Armstrong CA 1967
Sellers LJ considered the application of court rules requiring notices to be given within a certain number of days: ‘Does the court need in each statute requiring notices to be given to a court – of which there are so many – an express stipulation . .
Cited – Radcliffe v Bartholomew 1892
The day on which an accident happened should be excluded from calculation for limitation purposes. . .
Cited – Marren v Dawson Bentley and Co Ltd 1961
Compensation was sought for injuries received in the course of employment.
Held: The limitation period was to be calculated to have started on the day after the occurrence which founded the claim, the day itself being excluded from the . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Pritam Kaur v S Russell and Sons Ltd CA 2-Jun-1972
The plaintiff sought damages following the death of her husband when working for the defendant. The limitation period expired on Saturday 5 September 1970. The writ was issued on the Monday following.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The writ was . .
Cited – Gwynedd County Council v Grunshaw CA 22-Jul-1999
The plaintiff lived in Lincolnshire, but owned a house in Gwynnedd. She sought to serve a notice in her local County Court, appealing from an order for its demolition, but the manager of that Court refused to accept it saying that it should have . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.231056

Stoke on Trent City Council v Walley: CA 31 Jul 2006

Does the court have jurisdiction to enter judgment for a claimant in reliance on an admission made by a defendant before the commencement of the action, which the defendant has subsequently withdrawn.

Judges:

Brooke LJ, Smith LJ, Wall LJ

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 1137, Times 25-Aug-2006, [2007] 1 WLR 352

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Woodland v Stopford and Others CA 16-Mar-2011
The claimant appealed against a decision allowing a defendant to withdraw an admission of liability. As a child she had got into difficulties during a class swimming lesson, and had ceased to breathe leaving her with catastrophic hypoxic brain . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.244104

Mayor and Commonalty and Citizens of the City of London v Reeve and Company Ltd, G Lawrence Wholesale Meat Company Ltd, Citigen (London) Ltd: TCC 25 Feb 2000

CPR 24.2(a)(i) – Summary judgment against Part 20 Claimant – Whether no real prospect of success
1. Indemnity – Indemnity against loss etc suffered by reason of indemnifier’s breach of contract – Date of accrual of cause of action – Breaches giving rise to claims by third parties – Whether cause of action accrues when liability to third parties arises or is satisfied
2. Construction of documents – Settlement agreement – Recital of agreement to ‘resolve all outstanding matters’ – Waiver of ‘all claims or causes of action . . [arising] prior to the date of this Agreement’ – Whether claims under indemnity included if cause of action had not accrued

Judges:

His Honour Judge Hicks QC

Citations:

[2000] EWHC Technology 138

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.201799

Koshy v Deg-Deutsche Investitions – Undentwicklungs Gesellschaft Gmbh: CA 24 Nov 2003

One party had been ordered to pay the costs of an unsuccessful attempt to discharge injunctions and strike out the action. The applications failed (badly) and the costs were ordered to be taxed and paid forthwith. Later there was a trial, and the previously unsuccessful party succeeded. That party then sought to appeal the original costs judgment out of time. The application failed.
Held: Mummery LJ observed: ‘The unusual feature of the case is that a successful defendant seeks, after final judgment in the action, to set aside and reverse on appeal an interlocutory order made before trial. I do not say that this is impossible in principle, but it is certainly a most unusual form of appeal in practice. In most cases interlocutory orders made in the course of proceedings cease to have any independent practical significance after the proceedings have been tried and final judgment entered. A court would not normally entertain an appeal after final judgment, attempting to reopen a costs order made inter partes at an interlocutory stage on the ground that the facts as found by the trial judge were different from what they were alleged to be at the date of the interlocutory order.’ and ‘ I have reached the conclusion that the appeal should be dismissed, though with some hesitation, as I do not regard the result as entirely fair or satisfactory.
‘ I start from the position that this is in substance an attempt, after the trial is over and in the light of the results of the trial and the findings made at it, to re-litigate an interlocutory costs order. No court, whether on an application to set aside at first instance or by way of appeal, is receptive to such an application. It is bound to be a difficult exercise for the court to review the exercise of a discretion made at an early stage where not all the evidence is available or all the facts known or even all the issues identified. As for the parties, more time will be taken up and additional costs incurred.
Harman J had exercised his discretion on the costs of the hearing to set aside freezing orders by taking into account all the circumstances of the applications. The court would not normally interfere with his discretion on costs unless it could be demonstrated that he had taken a wrong approach to the exercise of his discretion or had made an order which was plainly wrong.
This court is being asked to interfere with the exercise of his discretion on a very different basis. It is not being asked to look at all the circumstances in which he exercised his discretion or at his approach or at the result at the time of the order, but at one circumstance only: namely a comparison between (a) the affidavit evidence placed before Harman J. on the ex parte application for the freezing orders and the applications to set them aside on the issue of DEG obtaining knowledge about the profits made by Lasco and Mr Koshy; and (b) the findings of Rimer J. on that issue at the trial.
. . What this court is being asked to do is to cancel an order for costs, which was made in the exercise of the discretion by having regard to all the circumstances at that time, solely on the basis of what has transpired at the trial on an issue of disputed fact. . . in my judgment, it would be wrong and potentially unfair to DEG in these circumstances for the court to set aside the costs order made by Harman J. If the exercise of discretion is to be reviewed in circumstances of an alleged material non-disclosure with a view to making a different order for costs, it can only be fairly and satisfactorily done in this case by an application at first instance, in which the issues of fact are defined and on which evidence can be adduced by both sides about the circumstances in which the orders were made, including orders for costs.’

Judges:

Lady Justice Hale Lord Justice Mummery Lord Justice Carnwath

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 1718

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Deg-Deutsche Investitions – Undentwicklungs Gesellschaft Gmbh v Thomas Koshy ChD 13-Dec-2004
The parties had been involved in protracted litigation where a freezing order had been made to support a claim which was eventually dismissed. The claimant sought to have set aside an earlier order made ordering him to pay costs on failing to have . .
See Also – Koshy v Deg-Deutsche Investitions-Und Entwicklungsgesellschaft Mbh ChD 20-Jan-2006
. .
See Also – Koshy v Deg-Deutsche Investitions-Und Entwicklungsgesellschaft Mbh and Another CA 5-Feb-2008
Application to set aside earlier order saying that it had been obtained by fraudulent misrepresentation or false evidence . .
Cited – Business Environment Bow Lane Ltd v Deanwater Estates Ltd ChD 31-Jul-2009
The court was asked ‘Where a claimant has picked up one or more costs orders in its favour on the way to a trial, but fails very badly at the trial (for example due to exaggeration), can the costs judge assess those costs at nil on the footing that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Costs

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.188256

Deep Vein Thrombosis and Air Travel Group Litigation, Re: CA 3 Jul 2002

Group litigation between the appellant passengers and the respondent carriers. Most of the passengers allege that they have suffered deep vein thrombosis leading to serious injury, as a result of travelling in the carriers’ aircraft. In some particularly tragic cases the DVT proved fatal and the claim is brought by the personal representatives of the passenger.

Judges:

Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers MR

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 1005, [2004] 1 Lloyds Rep 316, [2004] 1 All ER 445, [2003] 2 CLC 884, [2003] 3 WLR 956, [2003] PIQR P35, (2004) 76 BMLR 38, [2004] QB 234, [2004] 1 All ER (Comm) 459

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – In re Deep Vein Thrombosis and Air Travel Group Litigation QBD 20-Dec-2002
The claimants claimed to have suffered deep vein thrombosis having been sat in cramped conditions for long periods whilst travelling by air. They sought compensation, saying that the failure by the airlines to warn them and take steps to minimise . .
See Also – In re Deep Vein Thrombosis and Air Travel Group Litigation CA 3-Jul-2003
Passengers on air flights who had suffered deep vein thrombosis through inactivity whilst travelling sought damages.
Held: The claim in its nature was for something unrelated to any particular event. The word ‘accident’ necessitated some sort . .
See Also – Deep Vein Thrombosis and Air Travel Group Litigation HL 8-Dec-2005
The appellants had suffered deep vein thrombosis whilst travelling on long haul air flights. The defendants said that their liability was limited because the injuries were not accidents.
Held: The claimants’ appeal failed. The definition of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Personal Injury, Damages

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.184819

Credit Suisse Fides Trust SA v Cuoghi; Credit Suisse Fides Trust SA and Amhurst Brown Colombotti (a Firm): CA 11 Jun 1997

The claimant brought proceedings in Switzerland (a party to the Lugano Convention) against the defendant who was domiciled in England, alleging that he had conspired with one of the claimant’s employees to misappropriate some US$ 21 million. It was conceded that there was a good arguable case against Mr Cuoghi, which would have justified worldwide Mareva relief if the action had been brought in England. Mr Cuoghi relied on earlier decisions in support of his argument that Mareva relief should be confined to his assets in England and Wales. No criterion or guide line is provided as to the test to be applied by the court in considering whether it is inexpedient to grant an order under the Act. ‘It is the ancillary or subordinate nature of the jurisdiction rather than its source which is material, and the test is one of expediency. The structure of sub-sections (1) and (2) and the way in which their scope has been progressively widened indicate . . an intention on the part of Parliament that the English courts should in principle be willing to grant appropriate interim relief in support of substantive proceedings taking place elsewhere, and that it should not be deterred from doing so by the fact that its role is only an ancillary one unless the circumstances of the particular case make the grant of such relief inexpedient.’

Judges:

Millett LJ

Citations:

Times 03-Jul-1997, [1997] EWCA Civ 1831, [1998] QB 818

Statutes:

Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 25

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Motorola Credit Corporation v Uzan and others (No 2) CA 12-Jun-2003
World-wide freezing orders had been made under the 1982 Act. The defendants were members of a Turkish family with substantial business interests in the telecommunications industry. In breach of orders made in the US some defendants had sought to . .
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 – ETI Euro Telecom International Nv v Republic of Bolivia and Another CA 28-Jul-2008
The parties were involved in an international investment dispute arbitration. An injunction had been sought to prevent repatriation of assets to Bolivia.
Held: The international system of arbitration was not subject to any national law and did . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Jurisdiction

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.183509

Gwynedd County Council v Grunshaw: CA 22 Jul 1999

The plaintiff lived in Lincolnshire, but owned a house in Gwynnedd. She sought to serve a notice in her local County Court, appealing from an order for its demolition, but the manager of that Court refused to accept it saying that it should have been filed in Gwynnedd. The regulations said it was to be filed in the ‘local County Court’. The refiled notice was out of time.
Held: A county court manager receiving a notice of appeal was obliged to enter it on the court record. He was not entitled to reject it on the basis that the rules would say that the appeal should be lodged elsewhere. In so acting the officer carried out a formal and administrative act. The making of a decision about entering the appeal was properly a judicial decision to be made only by a judge: ‘He made a judicial determination, which he had no power to make, to the effect that he could not or should not accept the document. In my judgment this resulted in a failure by him to comply with a requirement of the rules, namely the requirement under Order 2 r 4 that he enter it in the records of the court. That failure was an irregularity but does not nullify the proceedings.’

Judges:

Henry LJ, Moylan J

Citations:

Times 30-Aug-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 1928, (2000) 32 HLR 610, [2000] 1 WLR 494, [1999] 4 All ER 304

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

County Court Rules 1981 Order 4 Rule 9, Housing Act 1985 265, The Housing (Prescribed Forms) (No.2) Regulations 1990

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Pritam Kaur v S Russell and Sons Ltd QBD 1-Jun-1972
The plaintiff sought damages following the death of her husband when working for the defendants. He had died on 5 September 1967 but the writ was not issued until Monday 7 September 1970. The applicable limitation period was 3 years, which the . .
Cited – Faulkner v Love 1977
. .
Cited – Swainston v Hetton Victory Club Ltd CA 1983
The claimant was dismissed on 7 September 1981. The time limit of three months, expired at midnight on 6 December. Other departments shared the building entrance with the Tribunal. The front door was closed over the weekend, but there was a . .
Cited – Sharma v Knight CA 1986
The court considered the situation where documents had been filed in time, but at the wrong county court.
Held: Purchas LJ said: ‘The jurisdiction of the county court is conferred on the county court under the County Courts Act 1984 and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Housing

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.146843

Manson v Vooght and others: CA 12 Jun 1998

The plaintiff had sued administrative receivers of a company of which he had been managing director and principal shareholder in a 1990 action which culminated in a judgment adverse to him in 1993. Other proceedings and other judgments, also in 1993, related to certain of the same issues: proceedings to disqualify the plaintiff as a director, in which findings adverse to him were made; and summonses issued in the liquidation of the company, when the court refused to allow issues which had been decided in the disqualification proceedings to be re-litigated. In 1994 the plaintiff issued a further writ making claims against the administrative receivers and others. His proceedings against the administrative receivers were struck out on the ground that these claims should have been raised, if at all, in the 1990 action.
Held: His appeal failed. The doctrine of res judicata it is not concerned with cases where a court has decided the matter, but rather cases where the court has not decided the matter.
May LJ said: ‘In my view, the use in this context of the phrase ‘res judicata’ is perhaps unhelpful, and this not only because it is Latin. We are not concerned with cases where a court has decided the matter; but rather cases where the court has not decided the matter, but where in a (usually late) succeeding action someone wants to bring a claim which should have been brought, if at all, in earlier concluded proceedings. If in all the circumstances the bringing of the claim in the succeeding action is an abuse, the court will strike it out unless there are special circumstances. To find that there are special circumstances may, for practical purposes, be the same thing as deciding that there is no abuse, as Sir Thomas Bingham M.R. came close to holding on the facts in Barrow. The bringing of a claim which could have been brought in earlier proceedings may not be an abuse. It may in particular cases be sensible to advance cases separately. It depends on all the circumstances of each case. Once the court’s consideration is directed clearly towards the question of abuse, it will be seen that the passage from Sir James Wigram V.-C.’s judgment in Henderson is a full modern statement of the law so long as it is not picked over semantically as if it were a tax statute.
The extent of any coincidence of causes of action, facts or even the capacities in which parties are sued, though relevant, will not necessarily determine the outcome.’

Judges:

May LJ

Citations:

[1998] EWCA Civ 987, [1999] BPIR 376

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.144466

ATA and Another v American Express Bank Ltd: CA 17 Jun 1998

The Court of Appeal again emphasised the supreme importance of parties working together to identify the real issues between themselves and producing core bundles accordingly.

Citations:

Times 26-Jun-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 1015

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Practice Direction (Court of Appeal: Procedure) CA 4-Oct-1995
Full practice direction for matters before the Court of Appeal. . .
Appeal from – Ali Abdel Ghani ATA and Another v American Express Bank Ltd ComC 7-Oct-1996
ComC Banking – bank – acting as counter-party – discretion to trade – failure to exercise discretion – damages – causation – assumptions to be made – common-sense . .

Cited by:

Cited – Spreadex Ltd v Dr Vijay Ram Battu CA 11-Jul-2005
The appellant traded in financial indices through the respondent spread betting company. The company took two forms of security, an initial payment by way of security, and a sum covering any current trading positions. The trader made losses, and the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.144494

Cockeril v Tambrands Limited: CA 21 May 1998

Even if a case is quite unsuitable for automatic directions, the plaintiff has an obligation to apply instead for specific manual directions to stand in their stead. It would be wrong to allow a plaintiff to escape from the discipline of the automatic directions timetable simply by issuing an application seeking an order that the timetable be disapplied.

Judges:

Hirst, Morritt, Brooke LJJ

Citations:

Gazette 10-Jun-1998, Times 04-Jun-1998, [1998] 1 WLR 1379, [1998] EWCA Civ 882, [1998] 3 All ER 97

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

County Court Rules 1981 17.11

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Bannister v SGB Plc and others and 19 Other Appeals CA 25-Apr-1997
Detailed guidance was given as to several different problems of interpretation of Order 17 r 11, dealing with automatic directions. Definitive guidelines were given for the interpretation of automatic directions and strike out provisions in the . .
Cited – Greig Middleton and Company v Denderowicz and Olaleye-Oruene v London Guildhall University (No 1) CA 4-Jul-1997
Direction was given as to the circumstances allowing an appeal out of time after a change in the law affecting a decision after the judgment had been given. Corrections to Bannister v SGB plc made in respect of time calculations in County Court . .
Cited – Whitehead v Avon County Council (2) CA 10-Feb-1997
The automatic directions timetable ceases to run on the stay of proceedings; a date was needed. Automatic directions were ousted if an order was made staying the action, even if it was likely that the stay would only be a temporary one. The . .
Cited – Cashmore v Blue Circle Plumbing Fixtures Ltd CA 30-Jul-1996
Time did not run for the purposes of CCR Order 9 Rule 10 during a period when the action was stayed pursuant to an order for a stay made under CCR Order 6 Rule 1(6) pending the filing of a medical report in support of a claim for damages for . .
Cited – Rofa Sport Management AG v DHL International (UK) Ltd CA 1989
After an action had been stayed, it remained technically in being. It cannot proceed or resume without a court order, but it cannot properly be regarded as dead, in the same way as it might had it been dismissed or discontinued by order. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Hawkins v Keppe Shaw, Solicitors (a Firm) CA 20-Jul-2001
The solicitors represented the applicant in a claim for personal injuries. The action was struck out, and he sued the solicitors for negligence. Composite directions had been given, and the question was whether the making of those directions ousted . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.144361

McPhilemy v Times Newspapers Ltd; Liam Clarke and and Andrew Neil (No 3): CA 12 Jun 2001

In defamation proceedings the defendant had invited one issue to be left to the jury. After losing the case, the defendant sought to appeal, arguing that the jury’s verdict was perverse. It was held that such an appeal amounted to an abuse of process, and if allowed, would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. The issue was central to the judgment. The admission that the issue was referred to the jury by the defendant’s mistake, because there was only one proper verdict, but that could not allow the reversal of an express request to the judge to put that issue to the jury.
Chadwick LJ said: ‘The purpose for which the power to order the payment of costs on an indemnity basis is conferred, as it seems to me, is to enable the court, in a case to which CPR 36.21 applies, to address the element of perceived unfairness which arises from the fact that an award of costs on the standard basis will, almost invariably, lead to the successful claimant recovering less than the costs which he has to pay to his solicitor.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Simon Brown, Lord Justice Chadwick, Lord Justice Longmore

Citations:

Times 19-Jun-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 933, [2001] 4 All ER 861, [2002] CP Rep 9, [2002] 1 WLR 934, [2001] EMLR 35, [2001] 2 Costs LR 295

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See also – McPhilemy v Times Newspapers Ltd and Others (2) CA 26-May-1999
The new Civil Procedure Rules did not change the circumstances where the Court of Appeal would interfere with a first instance decision, but would apply the new rules on that decision. Very extensive pleadings in defamation cases should now be . .
See also – McPhilemy v Times Newspapers Ltd (No 4) CA 3-Jul-2001
The fact that a defendant had not acted unreasonably in pursuing a case after an offer of settlement, was not a reason for not awarding costs to be paid on an indemnity basis. Such an award had no penal element, and did not first require any . .
See also – McPhilemy v Times Newspapers Limited; Clarke and Neil (1) CA 25-Nov-1998
. .
See Also – McPhilemy v Times Newspapers Ltd and Others CA 7-Jun-2000
The new civil procedure rules did not change the basic rules of evidence. The old rule prevented a party putting in evidence a witness statement which he knew conflicted substantially with the case he wished to place before the jury, and then be . .
See Also – McPhilemy v Times Newspapers Ltd and others CA 12-Jun-2001
. .

Cited by:

See Also – McPhilemy v Times Newspapers Ltd (No 4) CA 3-Jul-2001
The fact that a defendant had not acted unreasonably in pursuing a case after an offer of settlement, was not a reason for not awarding costs to be paid on an indemnity basis. Such an award had no penal element, and did not first require any . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Litigation Practice, Costs

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.83584

Birmingham City Council v Afsar and Others: QBD 8 Apr 2020

Post judgment applications raising issues about whether one of the injunctions contained in the Annex to the Final Order should be continued, whether two others should be varied, and whether the Trial Judgment should be amended.

Judges:

Warby J

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 864 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Birmingham City Council v Afsar and Others QBD 18-Jun-2019
The Council sought an interim order restraining a protest outside one of it junior schools against the teaching of certain matters relating to sexual behaviour, sexuality, and gender. The named defendants and, it would appear, a significant . .
See Also – Birmingham City Council v Afsar and Others QBD 25-Jun-2019
Reason for grant of injunction to restrain demonstrations outside a school. . .
See Also – Birmingham City Council v Afsar and Others QBD 26-Nov-2019
Claim for injunctions to restrict street protests about a school, and to prohibit online abuse of teachers at that school . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Costs

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.650084

Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd and Others v Su and Others: ComC 8 Apr 2020

Judges:

Mr Justice Foxton

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 865 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

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

Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.650004

Ecko Ltd (T/A Subway) v Revenue and Customs (Procedure – Application for Further and Better Particulars): FTTTx 2 Dec 2019

PROCEDURE – application for further and better particulars – principles – application allowed in part – directions mad

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 715 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes – Other, Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.646923

Page v Champion Financial Managementltd and Others: QBD 6 Jun 2014

Does a default judgment obtained against one defendant (defendant A) preclude another defendant in the same proceedings (defendant B) from advancing, by way of defence to a claim against it (defendant B), a case which is inconsistent with the default judgment which has been obtained (against defendant A)?

Judges:

Simon Picken QC

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 1778 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.526440

Abbey Forwarding Ltd and Another v Hone and Others: ChD 11 Dec 2012

Availability of award of damages for emotional distress after wrongful obtaining of freezing order. Fact dependent.

Judges:

Judge Pelling QC sitting as a judge of the High Court

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 3525 (Ch), [2012] WLR(D) 375, [2013] 2 WLR 1368, [2013] 1 Ch 455

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice, Damages

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.470137

Zipher Ltd v Markem Systems Ltd and Another: PatC 1 Sep 2008

This judgment deals with the issue of the scope of the injunction to which Markem should be entitled in support of the undertaking given to HHJ Fysh QC.

Judges:

Floyd J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 2078 (Pat)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Markem Corporation and Another v Zipher Ltd CA 22-Mar-2005
A patent which was applied for as a result of a breach of confidence may be capable of giving the victim of the breach the benefit of an interest in the patent. In the UK at least the basis of an entitlement claim must be a breach of the claimant’s . .
See Also – Zipher Ltd v Markem Systems Ltd PatC 16-Jan-2007
. .
See Also – Zipher Ltd v Markem Systems Ltd and Another PatC 25-Jun-2008
. .

Cited by:

Appeal From – Zipher Ltd v Markem Systems Ltd and Another CA 10-Feb-2009
In earlier proceedings, Zipher had given an undertaking not to pursue their claim over and above a certain level. The defendant now sought to hold them to that undertaking. The claimants replied that the undertaking had lapsed when that action had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Litigation Practice, Costs

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.273175

Mote v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Another: CA 14 Dec 2007

The appellant was accused of having received income benefits to which he was not entitled. A prosecution was commenced and at the same time he appealed to the tribunal against the decision that there had been an overpayment. The authorities requested an adjournment pending the outcome of the criminal trial. The tribunal refused it. The appellant failed to appear, and the tribunal treated this as an application for an adjournment which it refused and proceeded to hear the appeal in his absence, finding against him. After leave was eventually given, he was convicted at the crown court and was awaiting the result of his appeal. The appellant said the tribunal should not have heard his appeal in his absence, and that the case should have followed the criminal trial.
Held: The balance between criminal and civil proceedings had not altered under the Human Rights Act: ‘the court still enjoys a real discretion whether or not to adjourn. The authorities make clear that a relevant consideration is whether the continuation of the civil proceedings will give rise to a real risk of prejudice to the defendant in the criminal proceedings. If there is a risk of prejudice, then I would expect it to weigh heavily in favour of an adjournment pending the conclusion of the criminal proceedings, but it will not necessarily be decisive. ‘ It as unrealistic to suggest that the court should have pursued a more inquisatorial role to investigate matters on behalf of the appellant where he had declined to assist or attend.

Judges:

LLoyd LJ, Richards LJ, Sir Peter Gibson

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 1324, Times 28-Dec-2007

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Social Security Administration Act 1992 71, Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 98 99

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Jefferson Ltd v Bhetcha CA 1979
The plaintiffs brought a claim to recover monies appropriated by a former employee who was also facing prosecution for offences in connection with the same matters. The defendant sought a stay of the application for summary judgement.
Held: . .
Cited – V v C CA 6-Oct-2001
The defendant faced an application for summary judgment and also a criminal investigation and possible criminal proceedings in respect of the same matters. He said that to provide a detailed defence to the claim he would have to give information . .
Cited – Paal Wilson and Co v Partenreederei Hannah Blumenthal (The Hannah Blumenthal) HL 1983
The House was asked whether a contract to abandon an arbitration might be implied from conduct, or a lack of conduct.
Held: The abandonment of a contract can be effected by the entry of the parties, expressly or by necessary inference from . .
Cited – Bastick v James Lane (Turf Accountants) Ltd 1979
The court considered an appeal against a refusal of an adjournment of proceedings before the industrial tribunal when criminal proceedings on the same issues were pending.
Held: The court refused to interfere with the exercise of his dicretion . .
Cited – Bremer Vulkan Schiffbau Und Maschinenfabrik v South India Shipping Corp Ltd HL 1981
Where both parties to a contract are in breach of a mutual obligation owed by each to the other, neither can rely upon the other’s breach as giving him a right to terminate. The Court of Appeal has an inherent power to control its own procedure to . .
Cited – Payton, Regina v CACD 26-May-2006
The defendant appealed a conviction of possession of 66 grams of cannabis with intent to supply. Also found were a large number of small bags and pounds 7,000 in cash. The defendant said the cannabis was for his personal use, and the equipment had . .
Cited – Levey, Regina v CACD 27-Jul-2006
The defendant appealed against his conviction of manslaughter of his baby son. He said that a family court had previously investigated the same allegations and had explicitly found itself unable to say which of himself and the mother were . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Health and Others v Norton Healthcare Ltd and Others ChD 24-Jul-2003
The defendant sought a stay of a civil action against them, saying that the claimant’s own action in pursuing criminal proceedings deprived it of access to former employees who might provide evidence to allow them to defend the claim.
Held: It . .
Cited – Kerr v Department for Social Development (Northern Ireland) HL 6-May-2004
Wrongful Refusal of Benefits
The claimant was estranged from his family, but claimed re-imbursement of the expenses for his brother’s funeral. The respondent required him to establish that none of his siblings was in a better position than he to pay for the funeral, but he had . .
Cited – Mongan v Department for Social Development CANI 13-Apr-2005
application for disability living allowance . .

Cited by:

See Also – Mote v Regina CACD 21-Dec-2007
The defendant appealed his convictions for offences relating to the claiming of benefits, saying that he was immune from prosecution as a member of the European Parliament, and that the verdicts were inconsistent with acquittals on other charges. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.262161

Marcan Shipping (London) Ltd v Kefalas and Another: CA 17 May 2007

The appellant having failed to comply with an unless order, now appealed against an order striking out the claim.
Held: The activation of a sanction in an unless order striking out a claim was a powerful weapon in a judge’s case management armoury that should only be deployed where its consequences could be fully justified.
Moore-Bick LJ set conditions for making an unless order: ‘before making conditional orders, particularly orders for the striking out of statements of case for the dismissal of claims or counterclaims, the judge should consider carefully whether the sanction being imposed is appropriate to all the circumstances of the case. Of course it is impossible to foresee the nature and effect of every possible breach and the party in default can always apply for relief, but a conditional order striking out a statement of claim or dismissing the claim or counterclaim is one of the most powerful weapons in the court’s case management armoury and should not be deployed unless its consequences can be justified. I find it difficult to imagine circumstances in which such an order could properly be made for what were described in Keen Phillips v Field as good housekeeping purposes’.’

Judges:

Pill LJ, Keene LJ, Moore-Bick LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 463, [2007] 1 WLR 1864, [2007] CP Rep 41, [2007] 3 All ER 365, [2007] 1 CLC 785

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Followed – Kinsley v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis CA 9-Jun-2010
The claimant had obtained an interim injunction requiring the police not to harass him. He was acting in person and had been ordered to file his claim and particulars by a date. He failed to comply and the injunction was discharged against an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.252386

Mincoff Science and Gold (Now Known As ‘Mincoffs Solicitors’) v Ganatra: CA 8 Mar 2001

The claimant sought leave to appeal out of time, and for a further adjournment for his poor health.
Held: The application was in principle wrong, and the intended appeal was without merit. Leave refused.

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 373

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.200913

Adams v Naylor: HL 1946

The House disapproved of the practice of appointing a nominee defendant in tort actions against whom damages could be awarded as opposed to a party with crown immunity. The House refused to entertain a claim against a nominated army officer arising from injuries which children had sustained in a derelict minefield.

Judges:

Lord Simonds

Citations:

[1946] 2 All ER 241, [1946] AC 543

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Adams v Naylor CA 1944
The court considered the practice of appointing a substitute defendant against whom damages could be awarded, ie to get around crown immunity. . .

Cited by:

Cited – British Railways Board v Herrington HL 16-Feb-1972
Land-owner’s Possible Duty to Trespassers
The plaintiff, a child had gone through a fence onto the railway line, and been badly injured. The Board knew of the broken fence, but argued that they owed no duty to a trespasser.
Held: Whilst a land-owner owes no general duty of care to a . .
Followed – Royster v Cavey CA 1946
The plaintiff sought damages after being injured on her way to work. The Crown nominated the superintendent of a factory in which the plaintiff was injured as its occupier in order to allow the claim which would otherwise have failed for Crown . .
Cited – Davidson v Scottish Ministers HL 15-Dec-2005
The complainant a prisoner sought an order that he should not be kept in conditions found to be inhumane. He had been detained in Barlinnie priosn. The Crown replied that a mandatory order was not available against the Scottish Ministers.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Torts – Other

Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.180524

Burns v Shuttlehurst Limited and McGroarty General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation Plc: CA 24 Apr 1998

The insurer appealed against an order requiring it to disclose all policies of insurance and associated documents relating to the policy under which a claim was being made.
Held: A claim for an indemnity under a contract of insurance though in respect of personal injuries was not itself an action for damages for personal injuries and so no order could be made for pre-action discovery.

Judges:

Stuart-Smith, Thorpe, Mummery LJJ

Citations:

Times 12-Jan-1999, Gazette 10-Feb-1999, [1998] EWCA Civ 719

Statutes:

Supreme Court Act 1981 33(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Litigation Practice, Insurance

Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.144197

First American Corporation and others v Sheik Zayed Bin Sultan Al-Nahyan and Others: CA 12 May 1998

Letters of Request had been received for the production of document to be used in litigation in the US. It was complained that they were drafted so widely as to amount to a fishing expedition.
Held: ‘an English court must look at the issue of the relevance of the requested testimony, if it is raised, in broad terms, leaving to the foreign court, in all but the clearest cases, the decision as to whether particular answers, or answers on particular topics, would constitute relevant admissible evidence.’ and ‘In relation to oral testimony . . an objection of ‘fishing’ has [no] substance except in a case in which the conclusion can be reached, whether from the terms of the request or from other sources, that the intention underlying the request is not one of obtaining evidence for use at trial. ‘ The request was refused.

Judges:

Sir Richard Scott V-C

Citations:

[1998] EWCA Civ 817, [1998] CLC 1225, [1999] ILPr 179, [1999] 1 WLR 1154, [1998] 4 All ER 439

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Evidence (Proceedings in Other Jurisdictions) Act 1975, Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – In re Asbestos Insurance Coverage HL 1985
A London insurance brokerage company had been ordered to produce documents pursuant to a letter of request issued by a Californian court in proceedings brought by manufacturers of asbestos against their insurers. The 1975 Act empowered the court to . .
Cited – Senior v Holdsworth 1976
A subpoena requiring the production of documents had been served.
Held: A witness ought not to be required to comply with a letter of request if it appeared to the court ‘that the request is irrelevant, or fishing, or speculative, or . .
Cited – In re Westinghouse Uranium Contract HL 1978
‘The fact, if it be so, that evidence so obtained may be used in other proceedings and indeed may be central in those proceedings is no reason for refusing to allow it to be requested’ Lord Fraser said: ‘in judging the nature of the letters rogatory . .
Cited – In the Matter of a Civil Matter Now Pending In District Court for Second Judicial District, County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota CA 30-Jul-1997
When considering an application under the 1975 Act, the court must not only observe the restrictions imposed by the 1975 Act; it must also hold a fair balance between the interests of the requesting court and the interests of the witness. ‘because . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.144296

Stabilad Limited v Stephens and Carter Limited: CA 1 Apr 1998

Appeal from the refusal of Mr Lawrence Collins QC to order a stay preventing the payment out of court to the plaintiff, who had been successful in the action, of the sum of pounds 58,000 that it had paid into court by way of security for the defendant’s costs of the action.

Citations:

[1998] EWCA Civ 597, [1999] 1 WLR 1201, [1998] 4 All ER 129

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Dar International FEF Co v Aon Ltd CA 10-Dec-2003
There had been at an earlier stage an order requiring security for costs to be provbided. That order had been discharged. The defendant sought to appeal, and for the purposes of that appeal theat the costs order be restored.
Held: The court . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.144075

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 piece of information or evidence on which the prosecution might wish to rely in establishing guilt. And, as it seems to me, it also applies to any piece of information or evidence on which the prosecutor would wish to rely in making his decision whether to prosecute or not.’ and ‘It is finally important to recognise that it is only in exceptional circumstances that cross-examination would be ordered on an affidavit sworn pursuant to a Mareva order.’

Judges:

Waller, Millett, Chadwick LJJ

Citations:

[1998] EWCA Civ 649, [1999] QB 271, [1998] 3 All ER 74, [1998] 3 WLR 711, [1998] Lloyd’s Rep Bank 253

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Mohamed, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 1) Admn 21-Aug-2008
The claimant had been detained by the US in Guantanamo Bay suspected of terrorist involvement. He sought to support his defence documents from the respondent which showed that the evidence to be relied on in the US courts had been obtained by . .
Cited – Phillips v Newsgroup Newspapers Ltd and Others ChD 17-Nov-2010
The claimant had been assistant to a well known publicist. The defendant had settled an action brought by her principal for hacking his mobile telephone, in the course of which it appeared that the claimant’s phone had also been hacked. She now . .
Cited – 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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.144127

Anson (Trading As Party Planners) v Trump: CA 7 Apr 1998

The defendant had asked the claimant to organise a substantial party. The account was more than anticipated, and the defendant refused to pay the full amount claimed. She sought leave to appeal judgment in default. The defendant had filed a defence by fax out of time, but on the same day but only a few minutes before the claimant had entered judgment in default.
Held: The older cases should no longer be applied. It was not appropriate to say that service should be deemed to be the actual time of the fax plus a reasonable time. The rules made no such provision. The judge had erred in finding that there was no arguable defence. Leave given to defend for a limited amount.

Citations:

[1998] EWCA Civ 656, (1998) 3 All ER 331, [1998] 1 WLR 1404

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Gill v Woodfin 1884
. .
Cited – Gibbings v Strong CA 1884
Earl of Selborne LC: ‘When no defence has been put in, then, by Order XXIX, rule 10 of the Rules of 1875, the plaintiff may set down the action or motion for judgment, ‘and such judgment shall be given as upon the statement of claim the Court shall . .

Cited by:

Cited – Osborne v Leighton CA 30-Apr-1999
The defendant being late in filing a defence to the claim for defamation, the claimant entered judgment in default. The defendant sought to have that set aside, and now sought her (substantial) costs.
Held: The entry of judgment had been at . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Contract

Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.144134

The Guiness Trust v Oshuntoki and Another: CA 7 Apr 1998

The appellants had been defendants to an application for possession of their flat. There had been several court hearings, and opportunities made for them to present their counterclaim as regards the state of the financial account, and in order to make a counterclaim themselves for damages. They had had quite sufficient time and opportunity to make their case, and had put no proper reason forward for their failure. The appeal was refused.

Judges:

Lord Justice Simon Brown, Lord Justice Ward

Citations:

[1998] EWCA Civ 646

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing, Litigation Practice

Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.144124

Little and Others v George Little Sebire and Co: QBD 17 Nov 1999

Citations:

Times 17-Nov-1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Little and others v Messrs George Little Sebire and Co CA 14-Jun-2001
The defendant accountants appealed a finding of professional negligence. They had organised schemes with respect to tax saving for their client companies.
Held: The judge was correct to reject the defendant’s argument that the company could . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Litigation Practice, Professional Negligence

Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.83091

Maryland Estates Ltd v Joseph and Another: CA 6 May 1998

A claim for rent arrears in County Court, was also to be read to include a claim for arrears (mesne profits) arising after the issue of the summons for possession and rent. The landlord will be entitled if relief from forfeiture is granted to all his arrears of rent and the rent until the date of the hearing.

Judges:

Beldam LJ, Bracewell LJ

Citations:

Times 06-May-1998, Gazette 29-Apr-1998, Gazette 28-May-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 693, [1999] 1 WLR 83, [1998] 3 All ER 193, [1998] L and TR 105, (1999) 31 HLR 269

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

County Courts Act 1984 138(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant, Litigation Practice

Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.83458

Original Beauty Technology Company Ltd and Others v G4K Fashion Ltd and Others (Costs): ChD 28 Apr 2021

Does the existence of a genuine Part 36 offer prevent the Court from dealing with the costs of a liability trial prior to quantum being determined even when the ‘losing’ party’s conduct has been egregious?

Judges:

David Stone (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court)

Citations:

[2021] EWHC 954 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property, Litigation Practice

Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.662216

Van Overwaele v Hacking and Paterson for Recall of an Award of Sequestration: SCS 8 Aug 2001

Judges:

Lord Coulsfield and Lord Johnston and Lord Prosser

Citations:

[2001] ScotCS 201, [2001] ScotHC 80

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

See Also – Van Overwaele v Hacking and Paterson and Another ScS 22-Apr-2004
. .
See Also – Russell v Van Overwaele SCSF 2-Mar-2005
‘The Sheriff Principal having resumed consideration of the cause Refuses the appeal and Adheres to the interlocutor of the sheriff dated 4 September 2003; Certifies the appeal as suitable for the employment of junior counsel; Finds the defender and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insolvency, Litigation Practice

Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.168937

Senior-Milne, Regina (on The Application of) v Hm Treasury: Admn 26 Feb 2013

Making of extended civil restraint order

Judges:

Haddon-Cave J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 1007 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

See Also – Senior-Milne, Regina (On the Application of) v The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman Admn 8-Sep-2009
The claimant was concerned that the Financial Service Authority had failed properly to supervise the de-mutualisation of the Scottish Widows insurance company, and had not identified a failure to disclose very substantial potential liabilities. He . .
See Also – Senior-Milne, Regina (on The Application of) v HM Treasury Admn 26-Feb-2013
The court made an extended civil restraint order. . .
See Also – Senior-Milne, Regina (on The Application of) v Her Majesty’s Treasury Admn 26-Feb-2013
Application for thrown away costs. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.472996

Kapeller v Rondalia Versekeringskorporasie van Suid-Afrika Bpk: 1964

(South Africa) A clear admission by an insurer of liability in the course of without prejudice negotiations about quantum was sufficient to restart the limitation period.

Citations:

1964 (4) SA 722 (T)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Litigation Practice, Limitation

Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.243131

Brookfield Properties Limited v Newton: 1971

An allegation of negligence against an architect in the design of a building arose out of the same or substantially the same facts as an allegation of negligence against him in respect of the supervision of the construction of the same building, so that even if it added a new cause of action, such an amendment would be allowed.

Citations:

[1971] 1 WLR 862

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Dowson and Others v Northumbria Police QBD 30-Apr-2009
Nine police officers claimed damages for alleged harassment under the 1997 Act by a senior officer in having bullied them and ordered them to carry out unlawful procedures. Amendments were sought which were alleged to be out of time and to have . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.342141

Biggin v Permanite: 1951

Devlin J discussed what a party must do to bring evidence to support his claim: ‘Where precise evidence is obtainable, the court naturally expects to have it [but] where it is not, the court must do the best it can.’

Judges:

Devlin J

Citations:

[1951] 1 KB 422

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Zabihi v Janzemini and Others CA 30-Jul-2009
The claimant said that he had left valuable jewelry with the defendant for sale. The defendant said at first they had been stolen, but then returned jewelry which the claimant denied was what had been left. The defendant appealed a finding that he . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.374778

Murungaru, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 30 Nov 2006

The applicant, a former minister in the Government of Kenya challenged the revocation of entry visas. This had been done on the basis of evidence withheld from him, and the court considered the way in which that evidence could be used by the use of special counsel.

Judges:

Mitting J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 3726 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Murungaru v Secretary of State for the Home Department and others Admn 4-Oct-2006
The claimant challenged the decision of the respondent that his continued presence in the UK would not be conducive to the public good. He had been given multiple entry visas which had been revoked.
Held: The refusal of entry interfered with . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Murungaru v Secretary of State for the Home Department and others CA 12-Sep-2008
The claimant was a former Kenyan minister. He had been visiting the UK for medical treatment. His visas were cancelled on the basis that his presence was not conducive to the public good. Public Interest Immunity certificates had been issued to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Litigation Practice

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.263478