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 the order discharged.
Held: The order had been made under the former Supreme Court Rules. The power under the new rules to revoke an order made under the rules did not operate retrospectively to allow revocation of an order made under the earlier rules.
Times 07-Jan-2005,  EWHC 2896 (Ch)
Per incuriam – Paragon Finance Plc (Formerly the National Home Loans Corporation Plc) v Pender and Pender ChD 25-Nov-2003
Section 114 of the 1925 Act has no application to Registered Land. It provides for a transfer ‘unless a contrary intention is expressed’ in the mortgage. Thus if section 114 applies, all depends upon the true construction of the mortgage. The power . .
See Also – 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 . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Civil Procedure Rules, Litigation Practice
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.222532