Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Civil Procedure Rules - From: 2001 To: 2001

This page lists 61 cases, and was prepared on 21 May 2019.

 
Hamilton v Al Fayed (No 4) [2001] EMLR 15
2001
CA
Lord Phillips MR
Civil Procedure Rules
The court considered the applicability of cases before the introduction of the new rules on the exercise of a judge's discretion. Held: The old cases "remain powerful persuasive authority".
1 Citers


 
Kelly v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [2001] EWCA Civ 1632
2001
CA
May LJ, Sedley LJ
Civil Procedure Rules
At the conclusion of the evidence, the claimant sought to amend her claim to include an alternative factual basis of liability based not on her own evidence but on that of one of the police officers with whom she had been struggling in a car. Held: The grounds for refusing permission were not sufficient to outweigh the justice of permitting the claimant to advance an alternative case based upon, or close to, the defendant's evidence. Sedley LJ said: "It is not uncommon for a version of the facts to emerge as a possible deduction from the evidence which has so far been neither side's pleaded case but which one side wants now to plead as an alternative basis, either of liability or of defence. In my experience it is normal and proper practice in the County Courts, and in the High Court too, to allow an amendment to such effect at the conclusion of the evidence if, on any terms which are appropriate as to costs or recall of witnesses, this can be done without injustice to the other party or parties."
1 Citers


 
Vinos v Marks and Spencer plc [2001] 3 All ER 784
2001
CA
May LJ
Civil Procedure Rules
The appellant claimed personal injuries. His solicitors issued a claim form within the limitation period, but only served it after the expiry of the four month period after the date of issue within which CPR 7.5 stipulated that the claim had to be served. CPR 7.6 provided that a claimant could apply for an order extending the period within which the claim form had to be served. Held: The special rule applied where an application was made after the time for service had run out, allowing the court to extend time only if certain conditions were fulfilled which were not fulfilled in that case. The more general words of CPR 3.10 could not be extended to enable a court to do what another rule expressly forbade. Rule 3.10 provides that, where there has been an error of procedure such as a failure to comply with a rule or practice direction, the error does not invalidate any step taken in the proceedings unless the court so orders and the court may make an order to remedy the error. The court could not extend time for service under rule 3.10 in circumstances where the power of the court to extend time was limited by the express provisions of rule 7.6(3), which provided that the court could make such an order "only if" certain criteria were satisfied. The overriding objective is that civil litigation should be pursued with expedition. Criticism of solicitors may be muted but there are statutory limitation periods. It is unsatisfactory to allow almost three years to elapse and to start proceedings at the last moment. It is in accordance with the overriding objective that parties should make speedy progress and within time limits. Four months is more than adequate for serving a claim form. It is not unjust that, if you leave issuing proceedings to the last moment and do not comply with this requirement and do not satisfy the conditions in r 7.6(3), your claim is lost and a new claim will be statute-barred.
Civil Procedure Rules 7.6(3) 3.10
1 Citers


 
Morris v Bank of India Unreported, 15-Jan-2001
15 Jan 2001
ChD
Hart J
Civil Procedure Rules
The court applied a wide interpretation of the word 'instructions' where the Rules exempted such instruction to experts preparing a report.
Civil Procedure Rules 35.10
1 Citers


 
National Bank Of Greece SA and Another v RM Outhwaite 317 Syndicate and Others [2001] EWHC 547 (Comm); [2001] CLC 591; [2001] Lloyd's Rep IR 652; [2001] CP Rep 69; [2001] All ER (D) 59
16 Jan 2001
ComC
Andrew Smith J
Civil Procedure Rules
Smith J emphasised that CPR Rule 19.6 is to be interpreted and applied with the overriding objective in mind. That principle was applied to enable one Lloyd's syndicate who subscribed to a particular policy to represent all the other syndicates who so subscribed in relation to a claim under the policy.
Civil Procedure Rules 19.6
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Nanglegan v Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust Times, 14 February 2001; [2002] 1 WLR 1043; [2001] EWCA Civ 127
23 Jan 2001
CA

Litigation Practice, Civil Procedure Rules
The requirement is that documents must be served at the address nominated for this purpose by the prospective defendant under the rules. Where a solicitor was so nominated, it was not open to the claimant to serve papers at a different address. In this case, the claimant solicitors having noticed their mistake had not done whatever was in their power to correct the situation, and the claim was properly struck out. Rule 6.8 dealt with the idea of substituted service, and not with the correction of errors in service.
Civil Procedure Rules 6.5(4)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Elmes v Hygrade Food Products Plc; CA 24-Jan-2001 - [2001] EWCA Civ 121; [2001] CP Rep 71
 
USF Ltd v Aqua Technology Hanson NV/SA Unreported, 30 January 2001
30 Jan 2001


Civil Procedure Rules
Extension of time to challenge jurisdiction of the court.
1 Citers


 
Sally Rall v Ross Hume Gazette, 08 March 2001; Times, 14 March 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 146; [2001] 3 All ER 248; [2001] CPLR 239; [2001] CP Rep 58
8 Feb 2001
CA
Potter LJ
Personal Injury, Litigation Practice, Civil Procedure Rules
A surveillance film of a claimant was a document within the rules. The rules make no specific provision for the admission of such material for the purposes of cross examination of a claimant. A party proposing to use such material was under all the obligations which would apply to other documents as to disclosure and inspection. Application for the use of such material must be made at the first practicable opportunity. Where video evidence is available which, according to one party substantially undermines the case of the other, it should be admitted to allow cross examination on it.
Potter LJ said: "For the purposes of disclosure, a video film or recording is a document within the extended meaning contained in CPR 31.4. A defendant who proposes to use such a film to attack a claimant's case is therefore subject to all the rules as to disclosure and inspection of documents contained in CPR 31. Equally, if disclosure is made in accordance with CPR 31, whether as part of standard disclosure under CPR 31.6 or the duty of continuing disclosure under CPR 31.11, the claimant will be deemed to admit the authenticity of the film unless notice is served that the claimant wishes the document to be proved at trial. If the claimant does so, the defendant will be obliged to serve a witness statement by the person who took the film in order to prove its authenticity. If the claimant does not challenge the authenticity of the film, however, it is, in the absence of any ruling by the court to the contrary, available to the defendant for the purposes of cross-examining the claimant and/or the claimant's expert medical witnesses at court."
and "It is therefore necessary in the interests of proper case management and the avoidance of wasted court time that the matter be ventilated with the judge managing the case at the first practicable opportunity once a decision has been made by a defendant to rely on video evidence obtained."
Where the authenticity of such evidence is not challenged: "the issue was whether or not the defendant should be prevented from exercising what prima facie was his right to cross-examine the plaintiff by putting to her for her comment such parts of the video as the defendant thought appropriate for the purposes of undermining her case . . In principle, as it seems to me, the starting point on any application of this kind must be that, where video evidence is available which, according to the defendant, undermines the case of the claimant to an extent that would substantially reduce the award of damages to which she is entitled, it will usually be in the overall interests of justice to require that the defendant should be permitted to cross-examine the plaintiff and her medical advisors upon it, so long as this does not amount to trial by ambush."
Civil Procedure Rules 31.4
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Three Rivers District Council and Others v Governor and Company of The Bank of England (No 3); HL 23-Mar-2001 - Times, 23 March 2001; [2001] 2 All ER 513; [2001] UKHL 16; [2000] 2 WLR 1220; [2003] 2 AC 1; [2001] Lloyds Rep Bank 125; (2001) 3 LGLR 36
 
United Film Distribution Limited; United Pictures (India) Exports Private Limited v Chhabria; Chhabria; Spark Entertainments Limited; Spark Media Limited; Fairdeal Exports Private Limited and Mathilda International SA Times, 05 April 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 416
28 Mar 2001
CA

Civil Procedure Rules, Jurisdiction
The court rules, which dealt with the grant of permission to serve documents out of the jurisdiction under rule 6.20(2), were no less wide than the power in the court with regard to the substitution, or addition, of parties under Rule 19.1(2). The change from the old court rules had not either narrowed the power.
Civil Procedure Rules
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Petroleo Brasilero Sa v Mellitus Shipping Inc; CA 29-Mar-2001 - Times, 05 April 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 418

 
 The Royal Brompton Hospital National Health Service Trust v Hammond and Others (No 5); CA 11-Apr-2001 - Times, 11 May 2001; Gazette, 07 June 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 550; [2001] BLR 297; [2001] Lloyd's Rep PN 526

 
 Nasser v United Bank of Kuwait; CA 11-Apr-2001 - [2002] 1 All ER 401; [2002] 1 WLR 1868; [2001] EWCA Civ 556
 
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v Baker Norton Pharmaceuticals Inc and Another Times, 26 April 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 414
26 Apr 2001
CA
Aldous LJ
Litigation Practice, Civil Procedure Rules
The slip rule could not be used by the court to add second thoughts to a judgment, but could be used by the court to amend the judgment to give effect to the court's original intention. In this case the effect of an appeal was to restart the running of interest from the date of the appeal judgment even though this had not been an issue, nor had it been intended, and the judgment could be amended to allow the courts intention to have effect. Whilst the authorities "establish that the slip rule cannot enable a court to have second or additional thoughts. Once the order is drawn up any mistakes must be corrected by an appellate court. However it is possible under the slip rule to amend an order to give effect to the intention of the court."
Civil Procedure Rules Part 40.12 (1)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Solutia UK Limited v Griffiths [2001] EWCA Civ 736; [2001] 2 Costs LR 247; [2001] CP Rep 92; [2002] PIQR P16; [2001] CPLR 419
26 Apr 2001
CA
Latham.Mance LJJ, Sir Christopher Staughton
Costs, Civil Procedure Rules
The court considered issues relating to the appropriateness of the claimants instructing London solicitors in a case in which those solicitors had submitted a bill of costs totalling £220,000 in connection with a claim in which their clients had recovered £90,000. Sir Christopher Staughton said: "So surely case management powers will allow a judge in the future to exercise the power of limiting costs, either indirectly or even directly, so that they are proportionate to the amount involved."
Mance LJ said: "The present litigation was conducted under the old rules preceding the Woolf reforms. It is to be hoped that subsequent to the Woolf reforms judges conducting cases will make full use of their powers under the Practice Direction about costs, section 6, which appears in the Civil Procedure White Book 43/PD-006, to obtain estimates of costs and to exercise their powers in respect of cost and case management to keep costs within the bounds of the proportionate in accordance with the overriding objective."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
International Finance Corporation v Utexafrica SPRL [2001] EWHC 508 (Comm); [2001] CLC 1361; [2001] All ER (D) 101 (May)
9 May 2001
ComC
Moore-Bick J
Civil Procedure Rules, Contract
The defendant applied to have set aside judgement entered against him in default of acknowledgment of service. Held: The authorities make it plain that, in order to satisfy the test for resisting a summary claim for for wrongful repudiation and/or breach of contract, a defendant has to demonstrate a defence which is not 'false, fanciful or imaginary', and is better than merely arguable.
Civil Procedure Rules 13.3.(1)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Carnduff v Inspector Rock and Chief Constable West Midlands Police; CA 11-May-2001 - Times, 30 May 2001; Gazette, 21 June 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 680; [2001] 1 WLR 1786
 
Dennis Rye Ltd v Mansfield District Council [2002] EWCA Civ 767
15 May 2001
CA
Latham LJ
Civil Procedure Rules
Application for leave to appeal against refusal to lift automatic stay for delay.
Civil Procedure Rules Part 51
[ Bailii ]

 
 1-800 Flowers Inc v Phonenames Ltd; CA 17-May-2001 - Times, 09 July 2001; Gazette, 12 July 2001; [2002] FSR 191; [2001] EWCA Civ 721; (2001) 24(7) IPD 24042; [2002] Masons CLR 5; [2001] 2 Costs LR 286
 
Kirin Amgen Inc and Others v Transkaryotic Therapies Inc and Others Times, 01 June 2001; Gazette, 14 June 2001
1 Jun 2001
ChD

Litigation Practice, Civil Procedure Rules
The court has power to review its judgment at any point before the order has been drawn up, and this remained the case despite other changes in the rules. Here an authority inconsistent with the judgment had been brought to the attention of the judge. The judge wished to review his judgment. The ability to do so was not dependent upon the former absence of a right of appeal, and was not therefore lost under new rules intended to provide greater flexibility. Even so, and after review, he was not inclined to alter his decision.

 
In Re Banco Nacional De Cuba Times, 18 May 2001; Gazette, 07 June 2001; [2001] 1 WLR 2039
7 Jun 2001
ChD
Lightman J
International, Civil Procedure Rules, Insolvency, Litigation Practice
Where it was alleged that shares in a UK company had been sold at an undervalue, so as to allow a challenge in insolvency proceedings, the leave of the court was still required if the pleadings were to be served abroad. When the court considered such an application, it had to look not just at the fact that the property to which the claim related is in the jurisdiction, but also at reality of the extent of the connection with the UK, and the difficulties if any of enforcement. Here the claimant had not demonstrated that the purpose of the transaction might be to defeat creditors, and one would, in its own jurisdiction, enjoy immunity from enforcement. Section 423 "extends to any claim for relief, whether for damages or otherwise, so long as it is related to property located within the jurisdiction" and "the claim under section 423 relates to the shares and particularly the disposition of the shares." By CPR 6.20(10) the court may assume jurisdiction if the whole subject-matter of the claim relates to property situated in England.
Lightman J: "The critical differences between RSC, O 11, r 1(1)(g) and CPR 6.20(10) is the substitution for the words "land situate within the jurisdiction" of the words "relates to property located within the jurisdiction". The implications are that: (1) the rule is no longer limited to land and now extends to personal property; and (2) instead of the whole claim having to be confined to a claim to a proprietary or possessory interest, it is sufficient that the whole claim relates to property. The evident purpose of the new rule is to lay down a single rule in place of the three earlier rules which embraces and extends beyond the contents of those rules. It is to be noted that at p 128 of the Autumn 2000 Civil Procedure ("White Book") the comment is made on CPR 6.20(10): "This wide and new provision is no longer confined to land and the old cases are redundant." In my view on its proper construction the rule cannot be construed as confined to claims relating to the ownership or possession of property. It extends to any claim for relief (whether for damages or otherwise) so long as it is related to property located within the jurisdiction. This construction vests in the Court a wide jurisdiction, but since the jurisdiction is discretionary the Court can and will in each case consider whether the character and closeness of the relationship is such that the exorbitant jurisdiction against foreigners abroad should properly be exercised."
Civil Procedure Rules 6.20. - Insolvency Act 1986 423
1 Citers


 
Gillingham and others v Gillingham [2001] CPLR 355; [2001] EWCA Civ 906; [2001] CP Rep 89
8 Jun 2001
CA
Peter Gibson, Clarke LJJ
Civil Procedure Rules
Application for leave to appeal out of time and for admission of new evidence discovered only after trial. Held: Granted.
[ Bailii ]
 
Hertsmere Borough Council v Harty and others [2001] EWCA Civ 1238
21 Jun 2001
CA
Sedley LJ
Civil Procedure Rules
Concerning challenges to leave to appeal: "… (if) the Judge was misled by an Appellant, not necessarily deliberately, into giving permission to appeal, that may well be a compelling reason within the Rule. It must … involve showing (a) that the materials put before the judge were inaccurate or incomplete; (b) that these deficiencies had a bearing upon the grounds on which permission to appeal was given; and (c) very importantly, that but for them permission to appeal would not have been given."
Civil Procedure Rules 52.9(1)(b) - Civil Procedure Rules 52.9(2)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Fieldman and Another v Markovitch and Another Times, 31 July 2001
4 Jul 2001
CA
Morritt VC
Litigation Practice, Civil Procedure Rules
Where a judge, on an oral application, gave leave to appeal, but limited it to certain issues, it was not for the party on the later substantive appeal to try again to re-open issues which that judge had considered and excluded. Once leave to appeal had been granted after first written and then oral submissions, it was not for a brother judge to re-open the questions decided. The judge hearing the appeal which had been permitted did not himself have jurisdiction to revisit the earlier leave application.
Access to Justice Act 1999 54 - Civil Procedure Rules Part 52 52.1(1) and 52.3


 
 Colley v Council for Licensed Conveyancers; CA 17-Jul-2001 - Times, 06 August 2001; Gazette, 31 August 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1137; [2002] 1WLR 160
 
Yenula Properties Ltd v Naidu Times, 01 August 2001; [2001] EWHC Ch 387
18 Jul 2001
ChD
J Lloyd
Civil Procedure Rules
Those issuing proceedings, anticipating no dispute as to the facts, and therefore using Part 8, should remain aware of the fact that, upon a dispute, and in the absence of a judge explicitly reallocating the claim to the multitrack, the court rules would do the same by default, with the further effect of disallowing any further appeal to the Court of Appeal by virtue of Art 4 of the Order.
Civil Procedure Rules Part 8 rule 8.1(3) - Access to Justice Act 1999 (Destination of Appeals) Order 2000 (2000 N0 1071)
[ Bailii ]
 
Thomas v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1233; [2002] EMLR 4
18 Jul 2001
CA
Lord Phillips MR, Jonathan Parker LJ, Mustill J
Civil Procedure Rules, Torts - Other, Media, Human Rights
The publication of articles in a newspaper describing how a "black clerk" had complained about the allegedly racist comments of two policemen was said to have caused the claimant to receive racist hate mail. Held: The court considered the type of conduct which had to be proved to bring the case within the statute. Publication of press articles is, in law, capable of amounting to harassment albeit in only very rare circumstances. Lord Phillips MR said that: "Section 7 of the 1997 Act does not purport to provide a comprehensive definition of harassment. There are many actions that foreseeably alarm or cause a person distress that could not possibly be described as harassment. It seems to me that section 7 is dealing with that element of the offence which is constituted by the effect of the conduct rather than with the types of conduct that produce that effect.
The Act does not attempt to define the type of conduct that is capable of constituting harassment. "Harassment" is, however, a word which has a meaning which is generally understood. It describes conduct targeted at an individual which is calculated to produce the consequences described in section 7 and which is oppressive and unreasonable. The practice of stalking is a prime example of such conduct."
Civil Procedure Rules 24 - Protection from Harassment Act 1997 - European Convention on Human Rights 10 - Human Rights Act 1998 12(4)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Lewis and Another; ChD 19-Jul-2001 - Times, 16 August 2001
 
Rhiannon Anderton v Clwyd County Council (2) [2001] EWHC QB 161
25 Jul 2001
QBD
The Honourable Mr Justice McCombe
Litigation Practice, Limitation, Civil Procedure Rules
The claim form had been issued only just before the limitation period expired. Under the rules it would have been deemed to have been served on a Sunday, the day before the expiry of the period, but evidence suggested it was not received until after the expiration of the period. The defendant argued there was insufficient evidence of the date of posting to bring into effect the deeming provisions as to the date of service. No certificate had been supplied under 6.14. Held: There was no evidence as to the class of postage used, and no inference could be drawn that first class post had been used. The rules therefore deemed service out of time, as in fact had occurred. Nor would alternate service be ordered. This was a discretionary remedy, and the circumstances of this case did not justify it.
Civil Procedure Rules 6.7 6.14
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Aoot Kalmneft v Glencore International AG and Another Times, 20 November 2001
27 Jul 2001
QBD
Colman J
Arbitration, Civil Procedure Rules
When asking whether the time for appeal against an arbitrator's award should be extended, the court should look at several circumstances, including the length of the delay; whether the party was acting reasonably in all the circumstances in delaying; whether the other party had contributed to the delay; whether other party would suffer irremediable prejudice from the delay over and above mere loss of time if the application proceeded; whether the arbitration had continued during the period of delay what impact on progress or costs might arise from the extension; the strength of the application; and whether it would be unfair to deny the applicant opportunity to have the application determined.
Arbitration Act 1996 67 68 69 - Civil Procedure Rules 3.1(2)

 
Izzo v Philip Ross and Co (a Firm) Times, 13 August 2001; Gazette, 13 September 2001
31 Jul 2001
ChD
Neuberger J
Civil Procedure Rules, Litigation Practice
Whilst litigants in person should be allowed the assistance of a McKenzie friend, the duties of the friend should not normally include representation and advocacy. Nevertheless, each case should be viewed separately, and applications for permission should be attended to, even if only granted in exceptional circumstances. The litigant should understand that this is an indulgence by the court.
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Totty v Snowden; Hewitt v Wirral and West Cheshire Community NHS Trust; CA 31-Jul-2001 - Times, 10 August 2001; Gazette, 04 October 2001; [2001] 4 All ER 577; [2001] EWCA Civ 1415

 
 Regina (Leach) v Commissioner for Local Administration; QBD 2-Aug-2001 - Times, 02 August 2001; [2001] EWHC Admin 445

 
 Societe Eram Shipping Company Ltd v Compagnie International De Navigation and Others; CA 7-Aug-2001 - Gazette, 20 September 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1317; [2001] All ER (Comm) 721; [2001] 2 Lloyd's Rep 627; [2002] CLC 60; [2001] 2 LLR 627; [2001] CP Rep 112

 
 Hans David De Beer v Kanaar and Co (a Firm); CA 9-Aug-2001 - [2001] EWCA Civ 1318
 
Hubbard and Others v Lambeth Southwark and Lewisham Health Authority and Others Times, 08 October 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1455; [2002] Lloyds Rep Med 8; [2002] PIQR P14; [2001] CP Rep 117
7 Sep 2001
CA
Lord Justice Tuckey and Lady Justice Hale
Civil Procedure Rules, Human Rights, Litigation Practice
In a medical negligence case, the court ordered a pre-trial private meeting between the expert witnesses for the claimant and defendant. The claimant objected, fearing that pressure would be brought on his professional witness by his colleagues, thus denying him a fair trial under article 6. Held: The aim of the experts' meeting was to identify and limit the medical issues needed to be decided at trial. It was a necessary function, and the concerns of the claimant could be met by the recording of the meeting.
Civil Procedure Rules 35.12 - European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 6
[ Bailii ]
 
Bank of Credit and Commerce International Sa v Ali and others [2001] EWCA Civ 1438; [2002] CP Rep 11
20 Sep 2001
CA
Chadwick LJ
Civil Procedure Rules
Application to clarify terms of earlier order about status of findings by the Court of Appeal in representative applications.
Civil Procedure Rules
[ Bailii ]
 
Black and Another v Sumitomo Corporation and others [2002] 1 WLR 479; [2001] EWCA Civ 1471
28 Sep 2001
CA
Wallr LJ
Civil Procedure Rules
The defendants had been given extended time to comply with an order for pre-action discovery. Leave to appeal had been granted, with a stay, but there was confusion as to whether expedition was also ordered. The current date had been fixed, but application was now made for that date to be vacated. Held: The court would not proceed on the basis that expedition was ordered, but both sides wanted the issue resolved quickly. Sumitomo would not be greatly prejudiced by having to arrange a backup for counsel. The application was refused and the date fixed would remain.
Civil Procedure Rules 61.6(3)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Brown and Brown v Fenwick [2001] EWCA Civ 1481
4 Oct 2001
CA
Ward LJ
Civil Procedure Rules
Renewed application for leave to appeal: "Quite how securely the door to the Court of Appeal should be shut by narrowly confining CPR 52.13(2)(a) to new points or principle, and precisely what the interrelationship is between (2)(a) and (2)(b), are matters which may need to be subject to further and fuller argument if this Court is to be able to correct plain injustices."
Civil Procedure Rules 52.13(2)(a)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Collins v CPS Fuels Ltd [2002] CP Rep 6; [2001] EWCA Civ 1597
9 Oct 2001
CA
Judge, Jonathan Parker LJJ, Bodey J
Litigation Practice, Civil Procedure Rules
Appeal against dismissal of claim for damages on basis that it was an abuse being a second attempt to litigate a matter already decided.
Civil Procedure Rules 3.4(2)(b)
[ Bailii ]
 
Godwin v Swindon Borough Council [2002] 1 WLR 997; [2001] 4 All ER 641; [2001] EWCA Civ 1478
10 Oct 2001
CA
Lord Justice Pill, Lord Justice May And Mr Justice Rimer
Limitation, Civil Procedure Rules, Personal Injury, Limitation
The claimant appealed against an order striking out his claim for personal injuries. The claim had been issued in time, but not served. An extension of time was granted, and the notice sent by first class post the day before that period expired. The defendant had claimed that the rules deemed service on the second day after posting, and therefore the day after expiry of the extension of time. In this case they had in fact received the notice on that last day. Did the deeming provision override the facts? Held: The provision should be read to allow for contrary evidence. The appeal was allowed. CPR 6.9 cannot be invoked to dispense with service "when what would be done is in substance that which CPR 7.6(3) forbids."
May LJ described Practice Directions as "subordinate to the rules" and as "at best a weak aid to the interpretation of the rules themselves."
CPR Part 6 contains general rules about service of documents and does not only apply to service of a claim form.
Civil Procedure Rules 6.7(1)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
London Borough of Tower Hamlets v William A Merrick and Thames Magistrates' Court Gazette, 01 October 2001; [2001] EWHC Admin 799
17 Oct 2001
Admn
Stanley Burnton J
Rating, Civil Procedure Rules
The authority requested a liability order for rates arrears over several years. On appeal, it was held that there was nothing in the regulations to a liability order to be restricted to one year. That a demand had to be served for each year did not require separate proceedings. Convenience and the minimising of costs suggested that one set of proceedings was appropriate, and this appeared confirmed by the regulations. If such an application was made, the judge had no discretion to make individual orders for each year..
Non-Domestic Rating (Collection and Enforcement) (Local Lists) Regulations 1989 - Civil Procedure Rules Part 7.3
[ Bailii ]
 
Financial Services Authority v Rourke Times, 12 November 2001; Gazette, 29 November 2001; [2002] CP Rep 14
19 Oct 2001
ChD
Mr Justice Neuberger
Banking, Civil Procedure Rules
The applicant sought a declaration that the defendant had acted in breach of the Act, in accepting sums by way of deposit, without being authorised, and had made prohibited statements to attract such deposits. Could a civil court make such a finding which would be equivalent to a finding of guilt of a criminal offence? The Civil Procedure Rules provided: 'The court may make binding declarations whether or not any other remedy is claimed.' This power is wide, and indeed wide enough. In this case no criminal proceedings were pending, and a criminal court could if necessary assess the fairness of any subsequent proceedings. "when deciding whether to grant a declaration or not, the court should take into account justice to the claimant, justice to the defendant, whether the declaration would serve a useful purpose and whether there are any other special reasons why or why not the court should grant the declaration".
Banking Act 1987 3 35 - Civil Procedures Rules 40.20
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Cordle v Cordle Times, 07 December 2001; Gazette, 04 January 2002; [2002] 1 WLR 1441; [2001] EWCA Civ 1507; [2002] 1 FCR 97; [2002] 1FLR 207
15 Nov 2001
CA
Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, President and Lord Justice Thorpe
Family, Civil Procedure Rules
The former practice in ancillary relief applications where a circuit judge hearing an appeal from a district judge could admit new evidence and hear the case de novo should not survive the new rules, and should cease. An appeal to the circuit judge is not a re-hearing but a review of the exercise of the district judge's exercise of a discretion. Appeals from a district judge could only be allowed for procedural irregularity, or a plainly wrong exercise of the judge's discretion. Fresh evidence should not be admitted unless there was a real need to do so on the application of the more liberal rules for the admission of fresh evidence recognised as necessary in Family proceedings.
Access to Justice Act 1999 - Civil Procedure Rules 52.11
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Asiansky Television Plc and Another v Bayer-Rosin [2001] EWCA Civ 1792; [2002] CPLR 111; [2001] EWCA 1792
19 Nov 2001
CA
Clarke, Mance, Dyson LJJ
Litigation Practice, Civil Procedure Rules
The court considered the circumstancs allowing a striking out. Held: Consideration should be given to the question whether striking out the claim or defence would be disproportionate and, except perhaps where striking it out would be plainly proportionate, the judge should give reasons why it was proportionate in the particular case. Only in a case of 'flagrant' abuse would a court be likely to strike out an action where a fair trial was still possible. "The essential question in every case is: what is the just order to make, having regard to all the circumstances of the case? As May LJ put it [in Purdy v Cambran [2000] CP Rep 67 at para 51] it is necessary to concentrate on the intrinsic justice of a particular case in the light of the overriding objective. The cases to which I have referred emphasise the flexible nature of the CPR and the fact that they provide a number of sanctions short of the draconian remedy of striking out the action. It is to my mind important that the Master or Judge exercising his discretion should consider alternative possibilities short of striking out."
As to a review, Clarke LJ said: "On a review of a decision like that of Master Eyre which involved the exercise of discretion the appeal court, subject to one proviso [ where the appeal court receives fresh evidence], is limited to considering whether he took account of irrelevant considerations, or failed to take account of relevant considerations, or whether he was wrong in the sense described by Lord Fraser in G v G in the passage quoted by Brooke L.J."
Civil Procedure Rules
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Clarke (executor of the will of Francis Bacon, deceased) v Marlborough Fine Art (London) Ltd and Another Times, 04 December 2001; Gazette, 17 January 2002; [2002] 1 WLR 1731
20 Nov 2001
ChD
Patten J
Civil Procedure Rules, Litigation Practice, Evidence
A party will not be allowed to file pleadings which required him to make contradictory statements of truth in a unified claim. The alternative may be for the proceedings to go ahead as separate, non-unified claims. When considering whether there was evidence to support an amendment, the court should apply the same test as for an application for summary judgment or to strike out. Hearsay evidence now being generally admissible, the requirement to state the source of any hearsay was procedural, and went as to weight, and did not the attribution to be based upon non-hearsay evidence.
Civil Procedure Rules 38 - Civil Evidence Act 1995
1 Citers


 
Coll v Tattum Times, 03 December 2001; Gazette, 17 January 2002
21 Nov 2001
ChD
Justice Neuberger
Civil Procedure Rules
Where a defendant had failed to file an acknowledgement of service or defence in time, and the claimant sought judgment in default, the defendant could not, as of right, file an acknowledgement and defence late. He must apply to the court for relief, but an extension of time might normally be granted.
Civil Procedure Rules Part 10 Part 15

 
Tarajan Overseas Ltd v Kaye Times, 22 January 2002; [2001] EWCA Civ 1859
27 Nov 2001
CA
Lord Justice Tuckey and Mr Justice Pitchford
Civil Procedure Rules
The court had the power to order a party to attend before it, but the case management powers should not be used improperly to put pressure on a party to drop proceedings. Here a court had ordered the claimants board of directors to attend from the British Virgin Islands. That order was varied to require attendance of their UK representatives.
Civil Procedure Rules 3.1(2)(c)
[ Bailii ]

 
 Shyam Jewellers Limited v M Cheeseman; CA 29-Nov-2001 - [2001] EWCA Civ 1818
 
Rouse v Freeman Times, 08 January 2002
30 Nov 2001
QBD
Justice Gross
Civil Procedure Rules
A party could be present in court in the person of his legal representative. Despite the new rules, the court should be reluctant to strike out a claim for the absence of a party in person, where his personal presence was irrelevant or most unlikely to be of significant assistance.
1 Cites


 
Markos v Goodfellow and others [2001] EWCA Civ 2031
30 Nov 2001
CA
Pill LJ
Civil Procedure Rules
The parties had been involved in a bitter and protracted boundary dispute. The judge had found a minimal encroachment, and awarded nominal damages. He had made an error in the order. At an appeal counsel was given leave to apply to amend the oder under the slip rule (r40.12). Held: The amendment was not the correction of an accidental slip or omission, and the judge on the first appeal had misdirected himself. The judge had misdirected himself on the consequences of a finding of fact. The order allowing the slip rule amendment had allowed the party to make unacceptable alterations. Leave was given to appeal against the refusal of leave.
Civil Procedure Rules 40.12 52 PD 4.8
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Black v Sumitomo Corporation [2003] 3 All ER 643; [2002] 1 Lloyd's Rep 693; [2002] CPLR 148; [2002] 1 LLR 693; Times, 25 January 2002; [2001] EWCA Civ 1819; [2002] 1 WLR 1562
3 Dec 2001
CA
Lord Justice Ward, Lord Justice May, And, Lord Justice Rix
Jurisdiction, Civil Procedure Rules
The claimants proposed pre-action discovery which was resisted. Held: A purpose of pre-action disclosure is to assist those who need disclosure as a vital step in deciding whether to litigate at all or to provide a vital ingredient in the pleading of their case. The rules required first that disclosure would be desirable in the interest of justice, and second that such an order would be fair to the parties if litigation was commenced, or would assist the parties to avoid litigation, or to save costs in any event. It was necessary not to confuse the jurisdictional and the discretionary aspects. There were two stages which may be hard to differentiate fully, but that may not be entirely necessary if they were satisfied. Rix LJ said: "In appropriate circumstances, where the jurisdictional thresholds have been crossed, the court might be entitled to take the view that transparency would be what the interests of justice and proportionality most required".
Civil Procedure Rules 31.16(3)(d)
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Elvee Ltd v Taylor and others Times, 18 December 2001; Gazette, 14 February 2002; [2001] EWCA Civ 1943; [2002] FSR 48; (2002) 25(3) IPD 25017
6 Dec 2001
CA
Sir Andrew Morritt VC, Chadwick LJ
Litigation Practice, Intellectual Property, Civil Procedure Rules, Employment
Where a party seeking injunctive relief departed from normal practice, in this case by applying to the Queen's Bench rather than the Chancery Division for an injunction in an intellectual property case, they must file an explanation of why they had departed from that practice. Where a court did not give its reasons for a decision immediately, it should nevertheless be delivered promptly, and in the case of any delay, the reason for the delay should be explained to the parties.
Civil Procedure Rules Part 25 paragraph 8.5
[ Bailii ]

 
 Goode v Martin; CA 13-Dec-2001 - Times, 24 January 2002; [2001] EWCA Civ 1899; [2001] 3 All ER 562; [2002] 1 WLR 1828
 
Law Society v Southall Times, 07 January 2002; [2002] BPIR 336
14 Dec 2001
CA
Lord Justice Peter Gibson, Lord Justice Mantell and Mr Justice Wall
Civil Procedure Rules, Legal Professions, Limitation
In making a strike out decision under Part 24, the court of first instance was exercising a discretion which an appellate court should be reluctant to disturb. The court should only interfere in the case of a manifest error. The Law Society had intervened in the legal practice of the respondent's late husband. The court had struck out a claim by the Society that the home had not been validly transferred to her. That decision was not outside those open to the court on the evidence. There was no applicable limitation period in a case concerning gifts made by the debtor.
Civil Procedure Rules Part 24
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Cowl and Others v Plymouth City Council Times, 08 January 2002; Gazette, 27 February 2002; [2001] EWCA Civ 1935; (2002) 5 CCL Rep 42; [2002] ACD 11; [2002] CP Rep 18; [2002] 1 WLR 803; [2002] Fam Law 265
14 Dec 2001
CA
The Lord Chief Justice Of England And Wales, Lord Justice Mummery, And, Lord Justice Buxton
Local Government, Civil Procedure Rules
It remains of overriding importance for parties to seek to avoid litigation wherever possible. In this case, a dispute between a local authority and some of the inhabitants of one of its residential homes. The courts now have ample power within the rules to find other ways forward. In this case, the court might of its own initiative, hold an inter partes hearing for the parties to explain what they had done to resolve the dispute without involving the courts. The parties should be asked why a complaints procedure or some other form of alternative dispute resolution had not been used or adapted to resolve or reduce the issues in dispute. Enough is now known about alternative dispute resolution to make the failure to adopt it, in particular when public money was involved, indefensible.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Hammond Suddard, Solicitors v Agrichem International Holdings Limited [2001] EWCA Civ 191; [2001] EWCA Civ 1915; [2001] EWCA Civ 2065
18 Dec 2001
CA
Lord Justice Clarke, And, Mr Justice Wall
Costs, Legal Professions, Civil Procedure Rules
The appellant sought staying the order for him to pay costs pending the results of an appeal, and the respondent sought security for costs in fighting the appeal, and a striking out in default of payment, and for security for payment of the judgement debt. The applicant company is a limited liability company registered in the Virgin Islands and without assets within the jurisdiction. The solicitors had claimed for their costs in representing the claimant, and the claimant wished to counterclaim asserting professional negligence. The appellant filed papers showing the company's dire financial condition, but the court considered it inadequate. Held: There was no risk of the appeal being stifled by the costs being paid. An order for security for costs was appropriate in the light of the applicant's failure to disclose detailed assets. Here, leave to appeal had been refused, then granted by a single Lord Justice, and where compelling reason existed, the court could impose conditions on the appeal going ahead. The difficulty of enforcing any award, and failure of the claimant to give full disclosure, was such a compelling reason, and the court should exercise its discretion in ordering security for the judgement debt appealed against. The decision may have been different if the court had concluded that the appeal might be stifled. When considering a stay, the court should ask i) what were the risks of the appeal being stifled if a stay was refused, and ii) if a stay was granted, but the appeal failed, would the respondent be able to enfoiorce the judgment, and iii) if the stay were refused and the appeal succeeded, but the order enforced in the interim what prejudice would attach to the appellants.
Civil Procedure Rules 25.13(2)(b), 25.15(1), 52.9(1)(c)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]

 
 Totalise Plc v The Motley Fool Limited and Interative Investor Limited (2); CA 19-Dec-2001 - Times, 10 January 2002; Gazette, 27 February 2002; [2001] EWCA Civ 1897; [2002] 1 WLR 2450; [2002] EMLR 358; [2003] 2 All ER 872; [2002] FSR 50; [2002] CP Rep 22; [2002] EMLR 20; [2002] 1 WLR 1233; [2002] Masons CLR 3
 
Konamaneni v Rolls Royce Industrial Power (India) Limited Times, 31 January 2002; [2001] EWHC Ch 470; [2002] 1 WLR 1269
20 Dec 2001
ChD
Justice Lawrence Collins
Jurisdiction, Company, Civil Procedure Rules
The claimants founded their action on the assertion that the defendants had been corrupt in obtaining contracts in India. The defendants argued that the English courts had no jurisdiction. The claimants held various small shareholdings in a company used as a vehicle for paying bribes, and sought return of the money paid. It was a derivative action. Held: The company should normally be claimant in such an action. Such claims need not be restricted to English companies, and the English courts were the appropriate lex fori for this claim, but only if there was no other appropriate forum. The parties could offer to submit to Indian jurisdiction, and the defendant had done so. The courts of the place of incorporation will almost invariably be the appropriate forum for issues which relate to the existence of the right of shareholders to sue on behalf of the company. Most of the witnesses would be in India. The Indian connections of this case were overwhelming.
Civil Procedure Rules 19.9 6.21 2(a)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Sayers and Others v Smith Kline Beecham plc and Others; X, Y, Z and Others v Schering Health Care Ltd and Others; Afrika and Others v Cape plc Times, 15 January 2002; Gazette, 06 March 2002; [2001] EWCA Civ 2017
21 Dec 2001
CA
Lord Justice Mummery, Lord Justice Buxton, And, Lord Justice Longmore
Personal Injury, Litigation Practice, Civil Procedure Rules
The case concerned the management of substantial multi-party actions, and in particular the form of costs orders. The claimants sought a payment of the 'common costs' element to be made payable as the appropriate relative common issues were resolved. Held: The purpose of the new rules was to clarify the sharing of the burden of costs, not to prescribe what orders should be made and when. As to discontinuing claimants, the current form of order should continue. The advantages of amending such orders to crystallise the costs of a discontinuing party were outweighed by the potential injustice.
Civil Procedure Rules Part 19 Section III
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.