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: 2003 To: 2003

This page lists 58 cases, and was prepared on 21 May 2019.

 
Piggott v Aulton (Deceased) Times, 19 February 2003; [2003] EWCA Civ 24; [2003] RTR 540
29 Jan 2003
CA
Lord Justice Sedley, Lord Justice Simon Brown, Lady Justice Arden
Civil Procedure Rules, Wills and Probate, Limitation
The claimant had issued proceedings against the deceased after his death, but before a personal representative had been appointed. They later discontinued and re-issued against the person appointed by the court to defend the action. The defendant then said the proceedings were an abuse of process, and pleaded a limitation defence. Held: The deceased was not a person in law, and the first action had no proper defendant, and the two actions were not the same. The person appointed to defend was not a personal representative at law. There was an identity between him and the deceased, but only to the extent of the requirement to provide a defendant, and the appointment did not relate back to the death. The case fell within Shapland, not Walkley, and the judge could apply section 33 to allow the action.
Limitation Act 1980 33 - Civil Procedure Rules 19.8(2)(b)(ii)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Myers (Suing As the Personal Representative of Cyril Rosenberg Deceased and of Marjorie Rosenberg Deceased) v Design Inc (International) Limited [2003] EWHC 103 (Ch)
31 Jan 2003
ChD
The Hon Mr Justice Lightman
Civil Procedure Rules

Civil Procedure Rules 25.1(1)(l)
[ Bailii ]
 
Credit Agricole Indosuez v Unicof Ltd and others [2003] EWHC 77 (Comm)
4 Feb 2003
ComC

Litigation Practice, Civil Procedure Rules
One of the defendants applied to have judgement set aside. He had been served out of the jurisdiction, and complained that the evidence upon which leave to serve out of the jurisdicion had been applied for was false. Held: Even though the prospects of a successful defence may be low, the court had, maybe unintentionally, been misled and this was an occasion on which it would be proper to set aside a judgement in default.
Civil Procedure Rules 6.24(1)(a)
[ Bailii ]
 
Jones v University of Warwick Times, 07 February 2003; [2003] EWCA Civ 151; Gazette, 20 March 2003; [2003] 1 WLR 954
4 Feb 2003
CA
Woolf LCJ, Hale, Latham LJJ
Litigation Practice, Evidence, Civil Procedure Rules, Human Rights
The claimant appealed a decision to admit in evidence a tape recording, taken by an enquiry agent of the defendant who had entered her house unlawfully. Held: The situation asked judges to reconcile the irreconcilable. Courts should be reluctant to create rules which would deny the admission of genuine evidence. Where a party behaved in a reprehensible manner, the court should look to other methods of marking the unlawful behaviour, including costs awards, but the court was required to get to the truth. A party’s behaviour in the conduct of litigation, although very blameworthy, may not result in the claim or defence being struck out, or even in evidence being excluded. Any infringement under article 8.1 was justified under article 8.2.
Civil Procedure Rules 32.1(2) - European Convention on Human Rights 8.1 8.2
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Fay v Chief Constable of Bedfordshire Police Times, 13 February 2003; Gazette, 10 April 2003
6 Feb 2003
QBD
Davies J
Civil Procedure Rules, Police
The claimant had begun proceedings for the return of money held by the respondent. His action was stayed for inactivity, and the respondent later had the claim struck out on the basis that it would be an abuse of process to proceed. Held: The claim could still be tried without unfairness, and accordingly it should not have been struck out. The court applied Taylor rather than Grovit. Strinking out th claim would not best serve the interests of justice. The defendant had no title to the money, but the court made an order for costs of earlier parts of the action in favour of the respondent.
Civil Procedure Rules 51.19(1)
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Douglas, Zeta-Jones, Northern and Shell Plc v Hello! Limited, Hola SA, Junco, The Marquesa De Varela, Neneta Overseas Limited, Ramey; CA 12-Feb-2003 - [2003] EWCA Civ 139; [2003] EMLR 585
 
Parker v C S Structured Credit Fund Ltd and another Times, 10 March 2003; Gazette, 17 April 2003
12 Feb 2003
ChD
Gabriel Moss QC
Litigation Practice, Civil Procedure Rules
The claimant alleged a breach of a share sale agreement, and sought information in advance of discovery. Held: The court's power to order information to be provided in anticipation of discovery was not to be used as a fishing expedition. The Gidrxsime case did not establish a free standing right to order disclosure. There must be shown a solid base for the court to exercise its powers. The bringing forward of general discovery would disturb the operation of the Rules.
Civil Procedure Rules 25.1(1)(g)
1 Cites


 
Dyson Appliances Limited v Hoover Limited (No 4) Times, 18 March 2003; Gazette, 17 April 2003; [2003] EWHC 624 (Pat)
18 Feb 2003
PatC
Laddie J
Costs, Civil Procedure Rules, Intellectual Property
The court refused to make an order for a payment of interim costs when the substantive claim for costs remained to be heard. The claimant had accepted a payment in entitling it to its costs, but now sought an interimn award before the full costs could be assessed. Any rule allowinmg a judge to make such an assessment could not apply where the judge had not heard the substantive claim. In this case the costs judge would be blind to the underlying issues. Application refused.
Civil Procedure Rules 14
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
P and O Nedlloyd BV Aktieselskabet Dampskibsselskabet Svendborg v Utaniko Limited/East West Corporation (No 2) Times, 21 February 2003; [2003] EWCA Civ 174; Gazette, 10 April 2003; [2003] 1 Lloyd's Rep 265
19 Feb 2003
CA
Lord Justice Laws, Lord Justice Brooke, Lord Justice Mance
Costs, Civil Procedure Rules
The claimants had made a Part 36 offer at first instance, but the matter was appealed. Having won at appeal they sought their costs on an indemnity basis of the appeal also. Held: If a party wished to protect itself by a Part 36 offer, it must be made both at first instance, and again before the appeal.
Civil Procedure Rules 36
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Day Morris Associates v Voyce and Another [2003] EWCA Civ 189
26 Feb 2003
CA
Lord Justice Sedley Mrs Justice Black
Agency, Contract, Civil Procedure Rules
The claimant estate agents appealed dismissal of their claim for commission. The owners were splitting up, and there was to begin with no clear instruction to market the property. Later the property was sold privately, but to a buyer introduced by the claimant to Mrs Voyce. The agent asked the court to go beyond its normal appellate function to remedy a defect in the trial in that the judge had relied upon a point unargued by the parties, as to whether Mrs Voyce had accepted the offer to act. Held: The parties wre given some latitude in the scope of their arguments. The judge had not clearly identified the contractual history. A contractual acceptance has to be a final and unqualified expression of assent to the terms of the offer. Here Mrs Voyce's behaviour had been enough to constitute such acceptance. Appeal allowed.
Civil Procedure Rules 52.11(3)(b)
[ Bailii ]
 
ABCI v Banque Franco-Tunisienne and others [2003] EWCA Civ 205; [2003] 2 Lloyd's Rep 146
27 Feb 2003
CA

Civil Procedure Rules
"The thinking behind the CPR was that they would speak for themselves and that courts would not have to refer to an ever increasing body of authority in order to apply them."
Civil Procedure Rules 44.3 44.4
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Douglas and Others v Hello Ltd and others [2003] EWCA Civ 332
3 Mar 2003
CA
The Lord Woolf Of Barnes, Lord Justice Kennedy And Lord Justice Scott Baker
Litigation Practice, Civil Procedure Rules
Statements had been obtained from a witness by the claimants, but not included amongst the evidence. At a point during the trial, a defendant asked for and was given leave to include the evidence. He now appealed leave given to the claimant to cross examine the witness having taken the statement themselves. Held: One purpose of the new rules was to remove excess technicality. The judge could be relied upon to ensure that any further difficulties which migt arise as a result of allowing cross examination, could be dealt with.
Civil Procedure Rules 32
[ Bailii ]
 
Khiaban v Beard [2003] EWCA Civ 358; Times, 17 April 2003; Gazette, 15 May 2003
10 Mar 2003
CA
Lord Justice Ward and Lord Justice Dyson
Civil Procedure Rules
The parties disputed liability for a road traffic accident in which both vehicles were damaged. The claimant paid an insurance excess of £125. The two insurers agreed to accept a decision of the court on liability to allocate the repair costs, and the claimant brought an action to recover £125. The district judge ordered the claimant to increase his claim to reflect the full amount of his loss and on refusal struck it out. The claimant appealed. Held: Appeal allowed. The Civil Procedure Rules 1998 did not prevent a claimant limiting his claim; there was nothing objectionable in the practice of bringing subrogated claims in traffic cases, limited to the excess to use the small claims track, to get a decision on liability.
Civil Procedure Rules
[ Bailii ]
 
Independiente Ltd and others v Music Trading On-Line (HK) Ltd and others [2003] EWHC 470 (Ch)
13 Mar 2003
ChD
The Vice-Chancellor
Intellectual Property, Civil Procedure Rules
The claimants claimed damages for the sale by the defendants in the UK of CD's manufactured for sale only in the far East. The defendants challenged the right of a claimant phonographic society to have the right to sue on behalf of its members. Held: The right to issue representative actions varies with the nature of the claim. Did members of the society have a common interest in preventing parallel imports as opposed to preventing copyright piracy? Yes. The claims were all of the same nature and it was to be expected that the members would have a complaint. It was not necessary to require the claimants to circularise their members to obtain specific authority under CPR 19.6(2).
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 18 22 33 - Civil Procedure Rules 19.6(2)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Crosbie v Munroe, Motor Insurer's Bureau [2003] EWCA Civ 350; Times, 25 March 2003; Gazette, 22 May 2003
14 Mar 2003
CA
Lord Justice Schiemann, Lord Justice Brooke and Lord Justice Jonathan Parker
Costs, Civil Procedure Rules
The claim had been settled before action, and costs only proceedings had been instigated. He appealed a decision as to the award of costs in that case. The question was whether the phrase 'the proceedings which gave rise to the assessment proceedings' referred to the only actual proceedings, the costs claim, or to the settled claim. Held: CPR 47.19 does not contain any simple mechanism for deciding how the costs of the assessment proceedings should fall if the offer is accepted or refused (when with hindsight it should have been accepted). 44.12A had been introduced to deal with costs only cases. Until the time the substantive claim is settled, the "proceedings" relate to liability and the amount of any compensation. After the substantive claim is settled, the "proceedings" relate to the assessment of the costs the paying party has to pay.
Civil Procedure Rules 44.12A
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Staines v Walsh, Howard [2003] EWHC 458 (Ch)
14 Mar 2003
ChD
The Hon Mr Justice Goldring
Jurisdiction, Civil Procedure Rules, Contract
The claimant sought an account from the defendant share broker for the proceeds of share transactions. The defendant said the matter should be tried in Hong Kong. Held: The claimant must show a good arguable case. Here there was evidence to support the claimant's assertion of the use of an address in England, and a case was therefore shown. There were clear English connections, and the contract was asserted to have been made in England. England was the forum conveniens.
Civil Procedure Rules 6.20 - Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990 - Rome Convention 3
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Dollfus Mieg et Cie v CWD International Ltd; LBJ Regents Ltd and another v Dolifus Mieg et Cie Times, 19 April 2003
17 Mar 2003
QBD
Havelock-Allan J
Jurisdiction, Civil Procedure Rules, European
The applicant was a Part 20 defendant in a cross action brought between two other parties. It sought to have its own claim against the original claimant heard as a counterclaim. Held: Article 6 should not be construed so widely as to allow a cross claim by someone other than the original defendant to the counterclaim. The normal domicile rule could not support such a derogation.
Civil Procedure Rules 20 - Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001 6(3)
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Phillips v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis Times, 02 April 2003; [2003] EWCA Civ 382; Gazette, 29 May 2003
20 Mar 2003
CA
Phillips MR, Rix LJ, Scott Baker LJ
Litigation Practice, Civil Procedure Rules
In a claim aganst the police, it had become apparent that some parts of the trial would require the examination of detailed documents. The defendant appealed a refusal of its request for the matter to be heard without a jury. Held: The Act and the Rules explicitly acknowledged the possibility of splitting a trial between jury and non-jury elements, but the judge had erred in his assessment by failing to recognise the different context of a civil as opposed to a criminal trial. In many cases, once it became clear that some issue would require judge alone trial, the rest of the trial should follow, for example issues of credibility of the same witness fell within both sections. A court should ask, would there be a prolonged examination of documents, could that be made by a jury, and if not should the court nevertheless use its discretion to order jury trial. The court should have ordered trial by judge alone.
Supreme Court Act 1981 69 - Civil Procedure Rules
[ Bailii ]
 
Tasyurdu v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] EWCA Civ 447; Times, 16 April 2003
24 Mar 2003
CA
Phillips MR, Sedley LJ
Civil Procedure Rules, Legal Professions
The case was listed to be heard on the Monday. On the Friday before it had been settled. The court complained of the lawyers that they had not informed the court, and that consequently much of the judge's time over the weekend had been wasted in preparatrion. The parties must recognise that a judge would now make such preparations, and act accoridingly.
Civil Procedure Rules 1.3
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Barrett v Universal-Island Records Ltd and Another Times, 24 April 2003; Gazette, 05 June 2003; [2003] EWHC 625 (Ch)
28 Mar 2003
ChD
Laddie J
Civil Procedure Rules, Intellectual Property
The claimants sought unpaid royalties. The defendants sought to have the claim struck out as an abuse of process. Held. Such interlocutory applications alleging abuse of process should now be dealt with on the same footing as other applications for summary relief. The court had to be able to say with a high degree of confidence and on summary investigation that the claim of abuse was made out and would succeed. It was not proper to allow such investigations to turn into a mini-trial. This case did have unresolved issues and had to be allowed to go to trial.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Bates v Microstar Ltd and Another Times, 15 April 2003; Gazette, 05 June 2003
28 Mar 2003
ChD

Civil Procedure Rules
The applicant sought leave to commence proceedings in another jurisdiction. It had earlier obtained a freezing order against the defendant's assets by giving an undertaking not to issue proceedings without leave. Held: Permission should be given. The purpose of the exceptional procedure of making a freezing order at the same time was to ensure that the success of an action was not defeated by assets being hidden. When looking to a request to be released from such an undertaking the court should look to CPR 11.1(2) to see what elements had to be queried as to the fairness or justice of such a release. Here, the claimant would not obtain any benefit from his action in England without the foreign proceedings, the defendants abroad were the directors of the company here, and without the freezing order no complaint could have been made about the new action. In these circumstances, the applicant was to be released from his undertaking.
Civil Procedure Rules 1.1(2)

 
Amalgamated Metal Trading Ltd v City of London Police Financial Investigation Unit and others [2003] EWHC 703 (Comm); [2003] 1 WLR 2711
3 Apr 2003
ComC

Criminal Practice, Financial Services, Civil Procedure Rules
The company provided trading services in financial futures. They became concerned as to the integrity of their client, and its relationship with shareholders and other companies where parties came to be arrested for fraud in the US. They sought a declaration that funds they had received were not the proceeds of criminal conduct. Held: The new power to grant an interim declaration is unexplored, but commended in Bank of Scotland -v- A. Nevertheless the approach adopted by the claimant in this case was inappropriate. They should have waited until other proceedings commenced, and then contested them. It was not appropriate to seek to require from police justification for not consenting to dealing with funds.
Proceeds of Crime Act 1995 903A - Civil Procedure Rules 25.2(1)(b
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
E D and F Man Liquid Products Ltd v Patel and Another [2003] EWCA Civ 472; Times, 18 April 2003; Gazette, 19 June 2003; [2003] CP Rep 51; [2003] CPLR 384; [2003] CPLR 349; [2003] QB 1556; [2003] 3 WLR 667
4 Apr 2003
CA
Lord Justice Potter Lord Justice Peter Gibson
Civil Procedure Rules
The rules contained two occasions on which a court would consider dismissal of a claim as having 'no real prospect' of success. Held: The only significant difference between CPR 24.2 and 13.3(1), is that under the first the overall burden of proof rests upon the claimant to establish that there are grounds for his belief that the respondent has no real prospect of success whereas, under the latter, the burden rests upon the defendant to satisfy the court that there is good reason why a judgment regularly obtained should be set aside. In this case the facts would satisfy either test whatever the difference. The evidence did not establish that anyone had ever used the search term 'Mr Spicy' but rather the defendants had been found by using the term 'spicy'. The court must disregard prospects of success which are false, fanciful or imaginary. Inclusion of the word "real" means that the claimant must have a case which is better than merely arguable.
Potter LJ said that in evaluating the prospects of success of a claim or defence the judge is not required to abandon her critical faculties: "It is certainly the case that under both rules, where there are significant differences between the parties so far as factual issues are concerned, the court is in no position to conduct a mini-trial: see per Lord Woolf MR in Swain v Hillman [2001] 1 All ER 91 at 95 in relation to CPR 24. However, that does not mean that the court has to accept without analysis everything said by a party in his statements before the court. In some cases it may be clear that there is no real substance in factual assertions made, particularly if contradicted by contemporary documents. If so, issues which are dependent upon those factual assertions may be susceptible of disposal at an early stage so as to save the cost and delay of trying an issue the outcome of which is inevitable . ."
Civil Procedure Rules 13.3(1)(a) 24.2(a)(ii)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Mamidoil-Jetoil Greek Petroleum SA v Okta Crude Oil Refinery AD Times, 19 June 2003
4 Apr 2003
CA
Clarke LJ, Richards J
Civil Procedure Rules
Though the rules did not set down any timetable, it was a requirement of a proposed appellant to go ahead promptly. A reasonable time was within 14 days to apply to set aside a permission given to appeal.
Civil Procedure Rules 52.9
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Knowsley Housing Trust v Revell; Helena Housing Ltd v Curtis [2003] EWCA Civ 496; Times, 17 April 2003; Gazette, 19 June 2003
9 Apr 2003
CA
Lord Justice Peter Gibson Lord Justice Waller And Lord Justice Jonathan Parker
Housing, Local Government, Civil Procedure Rules
The local authority landlord commenced proceedings for possession, but then transferred the properties to a registered social landlord. The tenants objected that the new landlords could not continue the proceedings. Held: The transfer moved tenants from the secure tenancy regime to the assured tenancy regime, with different notices and procedures. The notices were not significantly different. The court laid out a procedure to be followed which would allow substitution of the new landlord.
Civil Procedure Rules
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Arundel Corporation (an Overseas Company) v Mohammed Ramzan Khokher [2003] EWCA Civ 491
9 Apr 2003
CA
Lord Justice Mummery Lord Justice Keene
Landlord and Tenant, Civil Procedure Rules
In the course of an application under the Landlord and Tenant Act, the landlord sought to adduce on appeal evidence that the tenant and his solicitors had sought to deceive the court. Held: The application should not be heard in private since the balance was in favour of public justice. The evidence was sufficiently credible, and its effect would be sufficiently significant within the appeal to justify admission.
Landlord and Tenant Act 1988 1 - Civil Procedure Rules
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Frankson and Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Johns v Same; CA 8-May-2003 - Times, 12 May 2003; [2003] 1 WLR 1952; [2003] EWCA Civ 655
 
Cranfield and Another v Bridgegrove Ltd; Claussen v Yeates etc [2003] EWCA Civ 656; Times, 16 May 2003; [2003] 1 WLR 2441
14 May 2003
CA
Lord Justice Ward, Lord Justice Waller and Lord Justice Dyson
Civil Procedure Rules, Company
In each case claims had been late in being served and extensions in time were sought and refused. Held: The recent authorities were examined. The words 'has been unable to serve' in CPR 7.6(3)(a) include all cases where the court has failed to serve, including mere oversight. The court's discretion might then be exercised according to the source of the inability. The power to dispense with service should not be used to undermine requirements for timely service. A claimant may serve the claim form on a defendant company either by leaving it at, or by sending it by post to, the company's registered office, or by serving it in accordance with one of the methods permitted by the CPR, but it is the original claim form which must be served. There are two conditions precedent for the operation of the provisions of CPR 6.5(6), namely that (a) no solicitor is acting for the party to be served, and (b) the party has not given an address for service. If those conditions are satisfied, then the rule states that the document to be sent must be sent or transmitted to, or left at, the place shown in the table. In the case of an individual, that means at his or her usual or last known residence.
Civil Procedure Rules 6.9 7.6(3)(a) - Companies Act 1985 725(1)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Dyson Limited v The Registrar of Trade Marks Times, 23 May 2003; [2003] EWHC 1062 (Ch); Gazette, 17 July 2003
15 May 2003
ChD
The Honourable Mr Justice Patten
Intellectual Property, Human Rights, Civil Procedure Rules
Applications for trade marks on behalf of the claimant had been rejected. Acquired distinctiveness was a significant issue, and the question of whether the appeal was a review or a rehearing was significant. In this appeal, the parties had given oral evidence, and the Registrar contended that any further appeal to the High court should be by way of review only. The CPR were not excluded, but would provide for a review only. Held: It was insufficient to characterise the decision as administartive. The appointed officer was accepted not to be an independent tribunal. The decision to be made would involve private rights and the right to a fair trial was engaged. The question was whether the court was obliged to order a rehearing rather than a review whenever an ex parte hearing had taken place. It was for the court to decide whether a rehearing was appropriate. The need to comply with Art 6.1 meant that a rehearing had to be available if needed. In this case a review was adequate. The mark sought had to be used, up to the relevant date, as a trade mark. It is otherwise difficult to see how the feature (a clear bin) could come to be regarded in the minds of the public as a guarantee of origin. On that basis the court would have dismissed the appeal on acquired distinctiveness.
Trade Marks Act 1994 76 - Trade Mark Rules 2000 (S.I. 2000 No. 136) 54(1) - Civil Procedure Rules 52.11(1) - European Convention on Human Rights 6.1
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
GKN Westland Helicopters Ltd and Another v Korean Air Lines Co Ltd; Press Tech Controls Ltd v Same Times, 11 June 2003; [2003] EWHC 1120 (COMM)
19 May 2003
Comm
Morison J
Civil Procedure Rules, Costs
The sum accepted as a payment in, in an air carriage case was capable of being the 'amount of damages' awarded under the convention. That it exceeded the amount offered in settlement negotiations meant that the rights to costs under article 22.4 disappeared, but costs could still be awarded under CPR 44.12(1)(b).
Warsaw Convention 22.4 - Civil Procedure Rules 44.12(1)(b)
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Omega Engineering Inc v Omega SA Times, 29 September 2003
20 May 2003
ChD
Pumfrey J
Civil Procedure Rules
An 'unless' order had been agreed between the parties, but the order had not allowed for what would happen if either party sought permission to appeal. The respondent argued that the claimant could not have an extension of time pending the outcome of his application for permission, saying that the court was now functus officio. Held: It is not normally permissible to look back on the old Rules of the Supreme Court when interpreting the new CPR. A stay could be allowed in this case. First, given the overriding objective, it was felt unlikely that the new rule was intended to be more strict than under the former rule, which would allow a stay. The power to extend time did not come to an end wit hth edrawing and entry of the order.
Civil Procedure Rules 3.12(a)

 
DK, KR, CGE, DHM, PS, RM, DJ, GOM v Bryn Alyn Community (Holdings) Ltd (In Liquidation) and Royal and Sun Alliance PLC [2003] EWCA Civ 782
22 May 2003
CA
Lord Justice Auld, Lord Justice Waller And Lord Justice Mantell
Civil Procedure Rules, Costs

Civil Procedure Rules 36
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Moscow City Council v Bankers Trust Company and Another Times, 01 September 2003
5 Jun 2003
QBD
Cooke J
Arbitration, Civil Procedure Rules
Proceedings before an arbitrator were governed by rule 62.10, which provided its own entire code, and imposed a presumption in favour of privacy. The principles of Scott v Scott need not apply. Scott would now be decided under analogous reasonings under the Human Rights Act.
Civil Procedure Rules 62.10 - Arbitration Act 1996 68 - European Convention on Human Rights A-6
1 Cites


 
National Westminster Bank Plc v Feeney [2003] EWCA Civ 950
11 Jun 2003
CA

Civil Procedure Rules

Civil Procedure Rules 51
[ Bailii ]
 
Societe Eram Shipping Company Limited and others v Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corp Ltd, Compagnie Internationale de Navigation Times, 13 June 2003; [2003] UKHL 30; Gazette, 17 July 2003; [2003] 3 WLR 21; [2003] 3 All ER 465; [2003] 2 Lloyd's Rep 405; [2003] ILPr 36; [2003] 2 All ER (Comm) 65; [2004] 1 AC 260; [2003] 1 CLC 1163; [2003] 2 LLR 405
12 Jun 2003
HL
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough Lord Millett
Jurisdiction, Civil Procedure Rules
The appeal concerned a final third party debt order (formerly a garnishee order). A judgment in France was registered here for enforcement. That jurisdiction was now challenged. Held: A third party debt order is a proprietary remedy operating by attachment against the property of the judgment debtor. The property so attached is the chose in action represented by the debt of the third party to the judgment debtor. On the making of the interim order that chose in action is bound, frozen, attached or charged in the hands of the third party. Subject to any monetary limit which may be specified in the order, the third party is not entitled to deal with that chose in action by making payment to the judgment debtor or any other party at his request. When a final or absolute order is made the third party is obliged (subject to any specified monetary limit) to make payment to the judgment creditor and not to the judgment debtor, but the debt of the third party to the judgment debtor is discharged pro tanto. That discharge is central to the jurisdiction, and an order cannot be made where a discharge is not obtained.
Lord Hoffmann said: "it is a general principle of international law that one sovereign state should not trespass upon the authority of another, by attempting to seize assets situated within the jurisdiction of the foreign state or compelling its citizens to do acts within its boundaries."
Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 - Civil Procedure Rules 72
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ House of Lords ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Snowstar Shipping Company Limited v Graig Shipping Plc, Fortis Bankhull S1069 [2003] EWHC 1367 (Comm)
13 Jun 2003
QBD
Mr Justice Morison
Civil Procedure Rules

Civil Procedure Rules 31.16
[ Bailii ]
 
A and D v B and E [2003] EWHC 1376 (Fam)
13 Jun 2003
FD
The Honourable Mr Justice Sumner
Children, Health, Civil Procedure Rules
In two separate actions, fathers with parental responsibility sought orders requiring the mothers of their children to ensure they received the MMR vaccine. Each mother objected, having suspicions as to the safety of the treatment. Specific issue orders were sought. Held: The court found the evidence given by the expert for the mother's unconvincing. There was no evidence of a medical reason for the children not to be immunised. Though part 35 of the Civil Procedure Rules did not apply directly in family proceedings, experts should follow the principles laid down. The interests of the child were paramount, and the decision made according to their best interests. immunisation is in these children’s best interests. Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights giving respect to private and family life is considered. There is an exception permitting the interference by the court for the protection of health.
Children Act 1989 1 8 - Civil Procedure Rules P35
1 Cites


 
Ali Reza-Delta Transport Co Ltd v United Arab Shipping Co Sag [2003] EWCA Civ 811; Times, 04 July 2003; Gazette, 11 September 2003
17 Jun 2003
CA
Lord Justice Peter Gibson, Lord Justice Tuckey And Mr. Justice Nelson
Civil Procedure Rules, Costs
The case had concluded. Offers of settlement had been made and the operative one included an offer on the interest payable. The court came to decide how the interest part of the offer was to be considered when assessing whether the judgment bettered the offer. It was noted that an offer on costs was to be disregarded, and it was claimed that in contradistinction, an offer relating to interest related to a central part of the matter judged. Held: The Appellants only offered to accept what they were claiming, and the offer of a concession on the interest uplift was irrelevant. Concessions as to uplift interest should also be left out of account as for costs.
Civil Procedure Rules 36.21
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Price v Price (Trading As Poppyland Headware) [2003] EWCA Civ 888; Times, 28 July 2003; [2003] 3 All ER 911
26 Jun 2003
CA
Lord Justice Brooke Lady Justice Hale Lord Justice Sedley
Personal Injury, Civil Procedure Rules
The claimant sought damages from his wife for personal injuries. He had been late beginning the claim, and it was served without particulars. He then failed to serve the particulars within 14 days. Totty and then Sayers had clarified the procedure for applications for extension of time. Held: The lower courts had failed to apply the rules as required by Sayers. The tension is between the interests of the administration of justice and the effect which the granting of relief would have on each party. Here the claimant had failed entirely to do what he ought under the rules. Justice could be achieved by a Walsh v Messeldine order, restricting the claimant to the issues and evidence made known the defendant before his default.
Civil Procedure Rules 3.9
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (Smith, Trevor) v Parole Board Times, 09 July 2003; [2003] EWCA Civ 1014; [2003] 1 WLR 2176
30 Jun 2003
CA
Woolf LCJ, Auld, Clarke LJJ
Civil Procedure Rules, Judicial Review
The applicant had been granted leave to present a petition for judicial review, but on certain grounds only. On the hearing, he sought again to present the case including the grounds upon which permission had not been granted. Held: The judge who heard the substantive application could hear an application based additionally upon grounds rejecetd by the judge giving leave, even if neither the legal nor factual situation had changed, and Opoku should be read accordingly. Each case must be looked at on its own merits. .
Civil Procedure Rules 54.15
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Lloyds Investment (Scandinavia) Ltd v Ager-Hanssen; ChD 15-Jul-2003 - [2003] EWHC 1740 (Ch)
 
Adoko v Office for the Supervision of Solicitors [2003] EWHC 1899 (Admin)
15 Jul 2003
Admn
Lord Justice Dyson, Mr Justice Gibbs
Legal Professions, Costs, Civil Procedure Rules
The applicant had been made subject of an order preventing his employment as a clerk by any firm of solicitors. A costs order accompanied that order. The order was later the subject of a default costs certificate. He sought to appeal that certificate. Held: The correct and only way to challenge such an order was application under CPR47.12. In any event there was required to be shown evidence demonstrating "a good reason why detailed assessment proceedings should continue" (CPR47.12(2)). No such reason was adduced. An appeal was not a possible route of challenge. Appeal dismissed.
Civil Procedure Rules 47.12
[ Bailii ]
 
Binks v Securicor Omega Express Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 993; Times, 27 August 2003
16 Jul 2003
CA
Mr Justice Maurice Kay Lord Justice Pill Lord Justice Carnwath
Litigation Practice, Civil Procedure Rules
The claimant sought damages for personal injury based upon one version of events. The defendant pleaded another, contrary, set of events and objected when the claimant sought to plead an alternative case to apply if the court found the defendants version of the facts. Held: The alternative set of facts could be pleaded without the claimant swearing a statement of truth. The claim in the alternative was to be allowed.
Civil Procedure Rules 22.1
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
London Borough of Hackney v Driscoll [2003] EWCA Civ 1037; Gazette, 18 September 2003; [2003] 1 WLR 2602
16 Jul 2003
CA
Lord Justice Brooke Lord Justice Kennedy Mr Justice Holman
Litigation Practice, Civil Procedure Rules
The defendant sought to set aside judgment entered in his absence. Held: The right of a defendant to have set aside a judgment where he had not known of the proceedings did not necessarily apply where, as here, he had attended one hearing, but did not attend a later hearing because he had not been notified of it.
It was necessary to clear up the issues undecided in White v Weston. Once a defendant knew of proceedings, the court had attained a jurisdiction over him, and the CPR applied. The CPR largely reproduced former practice. The new part of the rule gave the absent party opportunity to establish that he had a reasonable prospect of success, and a right of appeal, and balanced the interests of the opponent. The new rule was appropriate and had been applied correctly.
Civil Procedure Rules 39.3(5)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Sukui-Lennard v Croydon Primary Healthcare Trust Times, 14 August 2003; [2003] EWCA Civ 1192
22 Jul 2003
CA
Perter Gibson, Mance, Longmore LJJ
Employment, Discrimination, Civil Procedure Rules
The appellant sought to appeal a striking out of her complaint of race discrimination. She appealed from the Employment Appeal Tribunal which had rejected her appeal in its preliminary hearing procedure. Held: The Court of Appeal had the power to return a case to the full Employment Appeal Tribunal so that it could hear and determine points necessary for the decision in the Appeal. An appeal from a decision under the preliminary hearing procedure risked matters coming to the Court of Appeal which would be better have been resolved before the appeal. This case was one such.
Civil Procedure Rules 52.10(2)(b)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
O'Brien v Chief Constable of the South Wales Police [2003] EWCA Civ 1085; Times, 22 August 2003; Gazette, 02 October 2003
23 Jul 2003
CA
Lord Justice Brooke Lord Justice May Lord Justice Mantell
Evidence, Civil Procedure Rules
The claimant sought damages for malicious prosecution, and sought to adduce similar fact evidence. The defendant appealed an order admitting the evidence. Held: Comparisons between admission of similar fact evidence in civil and criminal proceedings were made. In general, the greater the putative force of the evidence the less ready a court should be to exclude it, but the court might do so where it might disproportionately affect the length of the trial, and particularly so in jury trials. The judge had properly directed himself in accordance with the CPR, and referred expressly to the discretion he was given and had exercised that discretion. Appeal dismissed.
There is a two stage test for the admission of similar fact evidence: "It follows that in civil proceedings, as opposed to criminal proceedings, the first question to be asked is whether the similar fact evidence is admissible. To be admissible it must be logically probative of an issue in the case, and the first part of the House of Lords' test in P must be applied to exclude evidence which is not sufficiently similar to the evidence in the case before the court. At this stage the inquiry must be fact-sensitive . . Once it is decided that the evidence is admissible, the court must then ask itself whether it ought, in its discretion, to refuse to allow it to be admitted (and if it is of that view it should remove the contention from the party's statement of case, or refuse to allow an amendment to include it, on the basis that an allegation which a party cannot prove ought not to form a part of its case). In deciding how to exercise its discretion, the matters listed in CPR 1(2) must loom large in the court's deliberations. In principle, the stronger the probative force of the similar fact evidence, the more willing the court should be not to exclude it, everything else being equal. On the other hand, the court should have a tendency to refuse to allow similar fact evidence to be called if it would tend to lengthen the proceedings and add to their cost or complexity unless there are strong countervailing arguments the other way . . "
Civil Procedure Rules 32.1(2)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Lucas v Barking, Havering and Redbridge Hospitals NHS Trust [2003] EWCA Civ 1102; Times, 28 August 2003; Gazette, 02 October 2003
23 Jul 2003
CA
Waller, Mantell, Laws LJJ
Evidence, Personal Injury, Civil Procedure Rules
The claimant appealed an order requiring him to disclose to the defendants the terms of the instructions given to the expert witness. Held: Rule 35.10(4) restriction applied to prevent the defendant from obtaining an order for the inspection he sought.
Civil Procedure Rules 31.14(2) 35.10(4)
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Independents' Advantage Insurance Company Ltd v Cook and Another [2003] EWCA Civ 1103
24 Jul 2003
CA

Professional Negligence, Civil Procedure Rules
"The power of the court to strike out a statement of case under CPR 3.4(2)(a) — and the related power to give summary judgment under CPR 24.2 — has an important place in the disposal of claims in accordance with the Civil Procedural Rules. The exercise of those powers, in an appropriate case, gives effect to the overriding objective set out in CPR Part 1."
Civil Procedure Rules 1
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Smithkline Beecham Plc/Basf Ag v Generics (UK) Limited / Smithkline Beecham Plc; CA 25-Jul-2003 - [2003] EWCA Civ 1109; Times, 25 August 2003; Gazette, 11 September 2003; [2003] 4 All ER 1302; [2004] 1 WLR 1479
 
ES v Chesterfield and North Derbyshire Royal Hospital NHS Trust [2003] EWCA Civ 1284; Gazette, 02 October 2003
25 Jul 2003
CA

Professional Negligence, Litigation Practice, Civil Procedure Rules
The claimant sought damages alleging that she had been injured by the defendants' negligence in conducting her birth. The parties sought determination of whether the court should restrict the number of expert witnesses. Held: Nothing in the rules set a specific limit of one such witness. Where the question was substantial and complex, the overriding objective required the court to keep a balance between the parties. Inevitably the defence would include evidence from the doctors themselves, and the claimant was not to be limited too strictly.
Civil Procedure Rules 35.1
[ Bailii ]
 
Hayes and others v Transco Plc [2003] EWCA Civ 1261
17 Sep 2003
CA
Lord Justice Brooke, Lord Justice Waller And Lord Justice Clarke
Employment, Civil Procedure Rules
The defendant appealed awards against it of disturbance payments to the claimants under their contracts of employment. The claimants had produced documents at the last minute before the trial but it was arguable that since these documents were those of the defendants, they should heve been disclosed anyway. Held: The evidence, however badly introduced had been admitted by agreement. However, the judge feared being unable to conclude the case, and so restricted cross-examination, and refused admission of further evidence in rebuttal. The trial suffered a serious procedural irregularity, and a retrial was ordered.
Civil Procedure Rules 52.3(b)
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]

 
 Downtex v Flatley; CA 2-Oct-2003 - [2003] EWCA Civ 1282
 
Harvey Shopfitters Ltd v ADI Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 1757; Times, 26 November 2003; Gazette, 02 January 2004
13 Nov 2003
CA
Dame E Butler Sloss, President, Brooke, Latham LJJ
Construction, Civil Procedure Rules
The court dismissed the claimants appeal, but discussed the need now for the parties to file core bundles at least one week before the hearing. Additional agreed bundles of authorities should have the appropriate passages clearly marked and filed within the same time scale. Failures to abide by these requirements will be dealt great disfavour.
Civil Procedure Rules 5.6 5.7 5.8
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]

 
 Jennings and Another v Cairns; CA 18-Nov-2003 - Times, 25 November 2003; [2003] EWCA Civ 1935
 
Sunrule Ltd v Avinue Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 1942; Gazette, 15 January 2004
26 Nov 2003
CA

Contract, Civil Procedure Rules, Company
The defendant company sought to appear by a lay representative in a small claims track case in a county court. The court did not allow that, and the only representative was a director with limited English. The company appealed. Held: The normal rule as to representation of companies did not apply in cases allocated in this way. A corporate party was entitled, as of right, to be represented by a lay representative at the trial of a small claim in a county court, whether or not the representative was an officer or an employee of the company.
Civil Procedure Rules 27.2(1)(h)
[ Bailii ]
 
Leigh v Michelin Tyre Plc [2003] EWCA Civ 1766; Times, 16 December 2003; [2004] 1 WLR 846; [2004] 1 Costs LR 148; [2004] 2 All ER 175; [2004] CP Rep 20
8 Dec 2003
CA
Lord Phillips Master Of The Rolls Lady Justice Arden Lord Justice Dyson
Civil Procedure Rules, Costs
The parties had submitted costs estimates which proved later to be quite inadequate. Held: It was a central principle of the Civil Procedure Rules that costs should be controlled. Solicitors should file costs estimates not only at the allocation questionnaire stage but also at the listing questionnaire. The practice direction was framed in mandatory terms. The court gave guidance as to how costs estimates might be taken into account when making an order for costs. The costs estimates given were a useful yardstick of the reasonableness of the costs claimed. Any substantial difference should be explained, and the absence of an explanation could also indicate unreasonableness. A reliance upon an opponent's low estimate in not offering a settlement was relevant, as also it would be if the case management would have been different.
Civil Procedure Rules 43PD 6.6
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Blackland Park Exploration Ltd v Environment Agency Times, 02 January 2004; [2003] EWCA Civ 1795
15 Dec 2003
CA
Simon Brown, Mummery, Scott Baker LJJ
Environment, Civil Procedure Rules, Environment
The landowner disposed of liquid waste into oil bearing strata via a deep borehole. At that depth, it would not mix with what was being extracted elsewhere. Held: The judge had been correct to refuse a declaration as to the lawfulness.
Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations 2002 (2002 No 1559) 3(2) 9 - Civil Procedure Rules 40.20
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Hansom and others v E Rex Makin and Wright [2003] EWCA Civ 1801
18 Dec 2003
CA
Lord Justice Keene Lord Justice Mance
Professional Negligence, Civil Procedure Rules, Litigation Practice
The court considered a strike out application. Held. Although there might be many cases where the possibility or otherwise of a fair trial is highly important to the exercise of discretion under CPR 3.9. it does not follow that where a fair trial is still possible, relief will necessarily be granted: "CPR 3.9 deals generally with the relief from sanctions imposed for failure to comply with a rule, practice direction or court order. It could not be the case that whenever such a sanction has been imposed and however flagrant or persistent the failure, the defaulting party could have it set aside by showing that a fair trial was still possible. The present appeal does not, however, involve flagrant or persistent misconduct, but, rather, all too familiar inefficiency and lack of diligence. And in such a case it is likely to be very material that a fair trial is still possible. But this cannot necessarily be decisive. All the circumstances must be considered. Prejudice to professional defendants is among them and it may exist even though it does not involve prejudice to the fairness of the trial process. In the present case, prejudice in the form of the detriment involved in having litigation hanging over professional defendants' heads was a decisive factor identified by the master and judge."
Civil Procedure Rules 3.9
1 Citers

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