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: 2004 To: 2004

This page lists 35 cases, and was prepared on 21 May 2019.


 
 Douglas and others v Hello! Ltd and others; ChD 23-Jan-2004 - [2004] EWHC 63 (Ch); HCO100644
 
William John Henry Johnson v Gore Wood and Co [2004] EWCA Civ 14; Times, 17 February 2004
27 Jan 2004
CA
Lord Justice Potter Lady Justice Hale Lady Justice Arden
Civil Procedure Rules
The defendant had made a substantial payment into court in protracted proceedings. Held: The comparison between the payment in and the eventual amount of damages awarded should be assessed on the basis of the damages calculated as at the date of the payment in, and not at any later date. The rules were not to be given a strained construction.
Civil Procedure Rules 36.19
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]

 
 Yell Ltd v Garton; CA 2-Feb-2004 - [2004] EWCA Civ 87
 
Regina (G) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal; Regina (M) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal [2004] EWHC 588 (Admin); Times, 13 May 2004
25 Mar 2004
Admn
Mr Justice Collins
Immigration, Judicial Review, Civil Procedure Rules
The applicants sought judicial review of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal's refusal of leave to appeal. The court had to decide whether such a right survived section 101 of the 2001 Act. Held: The right to have a judicial review could only be removed by the clearest of words. A right remained, but it was severely circumscribed because of the alternative and preferred forms of challenge. The procedure was not discriminatory because by its nature it could only apply to non-nationals.
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 101(3) - Civil Procedure Rules 54.25(4)
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Flaxman-Binns v Lincolnshire County Council [2004] EWCA Civ 424; Times, 27 May 2004; [2004] 1 WLR 2232
5 Apr 2004
CA
Lord Justice Clarke Lord Phillips Of Worth Matravers, Mr Lord Justice Jacob
Education, Professional Negligence, Civil Procedure Rules
When looking at whether to lift a stay on an action imposed before the coming into effect of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court should look at each of the items listed in the rule, and should then stand back and look at the overall needs of justice.
Civil Procedure Rules 39.2
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Rose v Lynx Express Ltd. and Bridgepoint Capital (Nominees) Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 447; Times, 22 April 2004; [2004] 1 BCLC 455
7 Apr 2004
CA
Lord Justice Peter Gibson Mr Justice Keene Lord Justice Mance
Company, Litigation Practice, Civil Procedure Rules
In an request for pre-action discovery it was plainly wrong for the court to seek to decide in advance any element of the virtues of the case. Held: The appeal should be allowed. The case was arguable and should be allowed to proceed.
Peter Gibson LJ said: "We have reservations about the approach adopted by the judge. We are concerned whether it is possible, and it is in our view certainly unsatisfactory, to have a situation in which what is described as a straightforward issue of construction is decided one way for one purpose, but may later be re-argued and possibly decided differently during the course of subsequent proceedings. Further, whether or not the determination would be binding at the trial of the substantive claim, there are practical dangers about considering any substantive issue, and particularly the core issue in the action, in the context of an application for pre-action disclosure. At the pre-action stage, the parties may not have thought through or seen all the implications of the issue in the same way as they will have done by the time when it comes to be tried. Any pre-action determination will have to take place in the light of assumptions about the factual circumstances, which may prove incomplete or incorrect. The actual factual circumstances, when known, may throw up problems about a particular construction of the articles which may not have been apparent at the pre-action stage. We think therefore that courts should be hesitant, in the context of an application for pre-action disclosure, about embarking upon any determination of substantive issues in the case. In our view it will normally be sufficient to found an application under CPR 31.16(3) for the substantive claim pursued in the proceedings to be properly arguable and to have a real prospect of success, and it will normally be appropriate to approach the conditions in CPR 31.16(3) on that basis."
Civil Procedure Rules 31.16(3)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Kerry Cox v Lawrence Jones [2004] EWHC 1006 (Ch)
6 May 2004
ChD
Mann, The Honourable Mr Justice Mann
Family, Evidence, Media, Civil Procedure Rules
In the course of the hearing some of the claimant's allegations were dropped. Newspapers having taken an interest in the case sought disclosure of the full document. Held: The parts of the statements not relied upon included allegations against third parties who would have no opportunity of reply, and which allegations were not pursued. The names would be deleted. The court made available the documents required under 5.4 but not further.
Civil Procedure Rules 5.4 32.13
[ Bailii ]
 
Kabushiki Kaisha Sony Computer Entertainment Inc (t/a Sony Computer Entertainment Inc) v Ball and Others [2004] EWHC 1192 (Ch)
17 May 2004
ChD
Pumfrey J
Contempt of Court, Civil Procedure Rules
The claimant sought an order for the defendant to be pursued for contempt of court having filed a statement of truth which was known to be false.
Civil Procedure Rules 32.14
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Texuna International Ltd v Cairn Energy Plc [2004] EWHC 1102 (Comm)
17 May 2004
ComC
Gross J
Civil Procedure Rules, Costs
Where the court concludes that it may be effectively impossible to enforce an order for payment of costs, then this situation would provide "an objective justification for the court exercising its discretion to make an order for payment of the full amount of the costs likely to be ordered against a claimant if unsuccessful in the litigation".
Civil Procedure Rules 25.13(1)(a) 25.13(2)(a)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina on the Application Ofben Pharis v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] EWCA Civ 654; Times, 27 May 2004
25 May 2004
CA
Lord Justice Laws Lord Justice Tuckey Lord Justice Brooke
Immigration, Civil Procedure Rules
The claimant appealed refusal of judicial review of the respondent's decision to remove him to Nigeria. Held: The appeal was refused. The court said that in future the lodging of a notice of appeal should automatically stay any process of removal pending the appeal. This informal practice had been subject of considerable abuse, with spurious appeals.
Immigration (Removal Directions) Regulations 2000 4(1) - Civil Procedure Rules - Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002
[ Bailii ]
 
Hashtroodi v Hancock [2004] EWCA Civ 652; Times, 04 June 2004; [2004] 1 WLR 3206
27 May 2004
CA
Lord Justice Thorpe Mr Justice Bennett Lord Justice Dyson
Civil Procedure Rules, Limitation
The claimant had issued proceedings in time, but then the limitation period expired before it was served, and in the meantime the limitation period had expired. The defendant appealed against an automatic extension of time for service granted to the claimant. Held: The Rules should generally be interpreted without reference to case law under the old rules. The court had an unfettered discretion to extend time for service where there was good reason. A more calibrated approach was not necessary. If there was a good reason for the delay, and extension would normally be granted, but the court might well refuse one where the reason was weaker. This was a matter of principle, and the court declined further to expand upon it. In this case the reason was not good, and the extension should not have been granted.
Dyson LJ said: "It has often been said that a solicitor who leaves the issue of a claim form almost until the expiry of the limitation period, and then leaves service of the claim form until the expiry of the period of service is imminent courts disaster." and "It follows that this is a case where there is no reason for the failure to serve other than the incompetence of the claimant's legal representatives. Although this is not an absolute bar, it is a powerful reason for refusing to grant an extension of time."
Civil Procedure Rules 7.5(2)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
XL London Market Ltd, Brockbank Personal Lines Ltd v Zenith Syndicate Management Ltd, Acott and Tilley Capital Ltd [2004] EWHC 1182 (Comm)
27 May 2004
ComC
The Honourable Mr Justice Langley
Civil Procedure Rules

Civil Procedure Rules 31.18
[ Bailii ]
 
Huntingdon Life Sciences Group Plc Huntingdon Life Sciences Limited, Brian Cass (for and on Behalf of the Employees of the First Claimant Pursuant To Cpr Part 19.6) v Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty [2004] EWHC 1231 (QB)
28 May 2004
QBD
Mackay The Honourable Mr Justice Mackay
Civil Procedure Rules, Human Rights, Torts - Other
The claimant companies conducted forms of medical research to which the respondents objected, and showed their objections by a wide variety of acts and threats which the claimants sought to have stopped. The defendants sought discharge of an interim injunction. Held: The case of Burris was instructive. New powers were available including ASBOs and under the Public Order Act 1986, but the order was continued until trial.
Civil Procedure Rules 19.6 - European Convention on Human Rights 10 11 - Protection from Harassment Act 1997 - Public Order Act 1986 16
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Booth v Phillips and Others [2004] 1 WLR 3292; Times, 27 July 2004; [2004] EWHC 1437 (Admlty)
17 Jun 2004
ComC
Nigel Teare QC
Jurisdiction, Civil Procedure Rules, Transport
The claimant was widow of an engineer who died on the defendant's vessel in Egypt. She sought damages, but first had to establish jurisdiction. Held: Permission to serve out of the jurisdiction The ordinary and natural meaning of damage was not restricted to the actual event of the death, but rather included the damage which was sufferred, namely the loss of support, which occurred within the jurisdiction. The English court had jurisdiction, and could order service out of the jurisdiction.
Civil Procedure Rules 6.20 - Civil Procedure Act 1997 2(7)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Scribes West Limited v Relsa Anstalt and Another (No 1) [2004] EWCA (Civ) 835; Times, 08 July 2004; [2005] CP Rep 2; [2005] 1 Costs LR 18
1 Jul 2004
CA
Mr Justice Brooke Lord Justice Mance Lord Justice Dyson
Civil Procedure Rules
The court handed down a New Practice Direction 52 for grounds of appeal, decisions in permissions to appeal, notices to respondents of appeals, appeal bundles etc.
Civil Procedure Rules 52 - Law of Property Act 1925 141(2)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Flynn v Scougall [2004] EWCA (civ) 873; Times, 21 July 2004; [2004] 1 WLR 3069
13 Jul 2004
CA
Lord Justice May Lord Justice Brooke Potter, Lord Justice Potter
Civil Procedure Rules
The defendant had made a payment into court. She then applied to reduce the amount paid in, but the claimant accepted the original sum before that application was heard. The defendant appealed saying that their application operated as a stay. Held: The rules did not spell out the answer. The defendant could have made an urgent application not on notice, but had not done so.
May LJ said: "There is no need for an unseemly rush to establish procedural advantage. If, exceptionally, the defendant wishes within the 21 days to withdraw or reduce a Part 36 payment, he should apply for permission to do so and inform the claimant of his application. If the claimant wishes to accept the Part 36 payment within the 21 days without permission, he should give the requisite written notice of acceptance. The stage is then set for the Court to decide the defendant's application in the light of the claimant's notice of acceptance."
Civil Procedure Rules 36
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Parsons and Another v George and Another [2004] EWCA (Civ) 912; Times, 28 July 2004; [2004] 1 WLR 3264
13 Jul 2004
CA
Lord Justice Clarke Vice-Chancellor, The Vice-Chancellor Lord Justice Dyson
Landlord and Tenant, Litigation Practice, Civil Procedure Rules
The claimant sought to begin proceedings to renew his business tenancy, but the proceedings were issued in the wrong name. He sought to amend the proceedings to substitute the correct defendant, but that application was out of time. Held: Proceedings under the 1954 Act were not within the proceedings listed by CPR 19.5 since the 1954 Act was silent as to the addition or substitution of parties to proceedings. The assumption was that such amendments were to be allowed because the Act did not proscribe them. The extension of CPR 17.4 to limitation periods in some other statutes is within the powers of the rules committee.
Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 Part II - Civil Procedure Rules 29(3)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Speed Investments Ltd and Another v Formula One Holdings Limited and Others Times, 10 September 2004
19 Jul 2004
ChD
Lewison J
Civil Procedure Rules
An application for summary judgment should not be heard at the same time as a challenge to the jurisdiction of the court. That was the price that a plaintiff paid in asking a court to bring a foreign defendant before a court in England - that defendant had to be given opportunity to challenge the jurisdiction of the court.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Blackham v Entrepose UK [2004] EWCA Civ 1109; Times, 28 September 2004
27 Jul 2004
CA

Personal Injury, Civil Procedure Rules, Costs
The claimant had succeeded in his claim for damages for personal injuries, but there had been a payment in. There were cross appeals, as to the proportion of costs awarded, and by the defendant saying that the interest awarded should have been added to award before testing whether the payment had been beaten. Held: The court should first examine what the payment in was expressed to represent and then consider whether the amount for which he has directed judgment to be entered, as compared with that payment, is less than that amount. Had the court done so, the award would not have bettered the payment in, and the costs award would be different. Appeal allowed. Cross appeal dismissed.
Civil Procedure Rules 36.20
[ Bailii ]
 
'Bow Spring', Owners of Ship v 'Manzanillo Ii', Owners of Ship [2004] EWCA Civ 1007; Times, 19 August 2004
28 Jul 2004
CA
Lord Justice Clarke Lord Justice Sedley Lord Phillips Of Worth Matravers, MR
Transport, Civil Procedure Rules
There had been a collision at sea. Held: (Addendum) Where the admiralty court sought advice from assessors, modern good practice required that the advice should be disclosed to the parties advisers and that they have opportunity to comment. Nautical assessors are experts within the Rules. The practice set out in the Hannibal did not fulfil art 6 requirements. Had counsel seen the advice, opportunity might have been taken to clarify a point central to the issues.
Civil Procedure Rules 35.15(4) - European Convention on Human Rights 6
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Basil Shiblaq v Kahraman Sadikoglu (No 2) [2004] EWHC 1890 (Comm)
30 Jul 2004
ComC
Colman J
Civil Procedure Rules
The court considered whether there had been effective service of proceedings on defendants in Turkey. Evidence was given as to the effectiveness of such service in Turkish law. Held: The defendant's application to set aside the judgment in default succeeded. The claimant's applications in respect of CPR 3.10 and CPR 6.9 were refused. The Civil Procedure Rules should not be used to attempt to subvert the Hague Convention: "Where it is sought to apply CPR6.9 retrospectively, if the effect of dispensing with service is to place the defendant in the same position as he would have been in if service had not been by an impermissible method but by a method provided for by such service convention, no order should be made."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Firstdale Ltd v Quinton [2004] EWHC 1926 (Comm); Times, 27 October 2004
5 Aug 2004
ComC
Mr Justice Colman
Contract, Civil Procedure Rules
In the course of a long dispute, the defendant's solicitors had indicated that they would accept service of proceedings. Just before the limitation period expired, the papers were served directly in the client. The defendants solicitors said that this was invalid service, and that later service out of time could not revive the claim. Held: The nature of the claim had changed (it had been assigned) since the solicitors had given the indication, and the papers served direct were in respect of a different claim, for which an indication had not been given. The service stood. The notice of assignment of the debt was valid though not dated.
Civil Procedure Rules 6.5(4) - Law of Property Act 1925 136
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Jackson v Marley Davenport Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 1225; Times, 07 October 2004
9 Sep 2004
CA
Peter Gibson LJ, Tuckey LJ, Longmore LJ
Civil Procedure Rules
The claimant sought expert evidence to support her claim for personal injuries. A draft report was produced, followed by a final report which was disclosed. She appealed an order requiring disclosure of the draft report. Held: The appeal succeeded. The rules required disclosure of a report. They could not be read to require disclosure of all reports. The report had litigation privilege at the time it was created, and retained that characteristic.
Civil Procedure Rules Part 35
[ Bailii ]
 
Braybrook v The Basildon and Thurrock University NHS Trust [2004] EWHC 3352
7 Oct 2004

Sumner J
Civil Procedure Rules, Litigation Practice
Sumner J gave guidance on the withdrawal of an admission under the CPR: "From the cases and the CPR I draw the following principals:
1. In exercising its discretion, the court will consider all the circumstances of the case and seek to give effect to the overriding objective.
2. Among the matters to be considered will be:
(a) The reasons and justifications for the Application which must be made in good faith;
(b) The balance of the prejudice to the parties and whether a party has been the author of any prejudice they might suffer;
(c) The prospect of success of any issue arising from the withdrawal of an admission;
(d) The public interest in avoiding possible satellite litigation, disproportionate use of court resources and the impact of any strategic manoeuvoring.
3. The nearer any Application is to a final hearing, the less chance of success it will have, even if the party making the Application can establish clear prejudice. This may be decisive if the application is made shortly before the hearing."
Civil Procedure Rules 14
1 Citers


 
Crouch v King's Healthcare NHS Trust [2004] EWCA Civ 1332
15 Oct 2004
CA
Lord Justice Waller Lord Justice Mance And Sir Christopher Staughton
Professional Negligence, Costs, Civil Procedure Rules
The defendants sought approval of their practice of making a written offer to the claimants rather than making a payment into court. The offer had been accepted but only after the defendant had purported to withdraw it. Held: 'it certainly is not open to any defendant to decree unilaterally that where a money claim is being made against it, it will not make a payment into court but will make a written offer on the basis that Part 36 will apply as though he had made a payment into court. ' in making the decision, the judge had been exercising a discretion, and that exercise should not be disturbed.
Civil Procedure Rules 836 44
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Kesslar v Moore and Tibbits [2004] EWCA Civ 1551
3 Nov 2004
CA

Civil Procedure Rules, Limitation
Addition of new party after expiry of limitation period.
Civil Procedure Rules
[ Bailii ]

 
 Johnson v Medical Defence Union Ltd; ChD 9-Nov-2004 - Times, 25 November 2004; [2004] EWHC 2509 (Ch); [2005] 1 WLR 750; [2005] FSR 28; [2005] 1 All ER 87
 
Shahar v Tsitsekkos and others [2004] EWHC 2659 (Ch); Times, 30 November 2004
17 Nov 2004
ChD
Mann J
Jurisdiction, Civil Procedure Rules
The defendant wished to make a claim against another party outside the jurisdiction and was granted permission to serve documents which were headed 'defence and counterclaim'. The proposed defendant argued that such a document could be served in this way. Held: The defendant should apply to the court for leave to add the party outside the jurisdiction, and the claim allowed would be treated as a counterclaim within Rule 20.
Civil Procedure Rules 20
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (Shah) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal. Secretary of State for the Home Department, interested party Times, 09 December 2004
22 Nov 2004
CA
Ward, Sedley, Carnwath LJJ
Immigration, Civil Procedure Rules
The applicant had fled Pakistan to claim asylum. His application for judicial review of the decision to reject his request for asylum failed. It had been decided in Scotland. He appealed. Held: It was not open to the Secretary of State to raise on appeal a question as to jurisdiction which had not been raised at first instance. The procudure for disputing jurisdiction was covered by the CPR. A challenge had to be filed within 14 days of acknowledgment of service. Even so, the claimant's renewed application for judicial review was dismissed.
Civil Procedure Rules Part II
1 Cites


 
Akram v Adam [2004] EWCA Civ 1601; Times, 29 December 2004; [2005] 1 WLR 1762; [2005] 1 All ER 741
30 Nov 2004
CA
Lord Justice Brooke Lord Justice Keene Lord Justice Parker The Vice President Of The Court Of Appeal (Civil Division)
Civil Procedure Rules, Human Rights
The defendant sought to set aside a possession order made where he did not know of the proceedings. Held: The judge had a discretion, not a duty, to set aside a possession order made in such circumstances. Human rights law required the court to allow a defendant a right to be heard, but if on such a hearing, the court found that he had no real prospect of success then that right was not infinged by a rule which allowed the judgment to stand. Under the pre-CPR practice there was a difference between an irregular judgment, which could be set aside as of right, and a regular judgment, where the defendant had to show that he had a defence on the merits before the court would be prepared to have the judgment set aside.
Civil Procedure Rules 6.5(6) - European Convention on Human Rights 6
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Read v Edmed Times, 13 December 2004
8 Dec 2004
QBD
Bell J
Costs, Civil Procedure Rules
The claimant had offered to accept damages subject to a 50% finding of contributory negligence. The defendant did not accept. That was the exact order made. The claimant appealed refusal to award her costs on the standard basis to the time for acceptance of the offer and thereafter on an indemnity basis. Held: The judge had doubted his order and asked counsel to return on the following day to consider the issue. Neither counsel could explain why the CPR should exclude an award equal to the offer. The rules should encourage appropriate offers. The court exercised its discretion and awarded costs on a standard basis up to 28 days after the claimants offer, and thereafter on an indemnity basis, together with interest on the indemnity costs.
Civil Procedure Rules 36.21
1 Cites


 
In re Guardian Newspapers Ltd (Court Record: Disclosure) Times, 12 December 2004
8 Dec 2004
ChD
Park J
Civil Procedure Rules, Media
The newspaper sought disclosure of documents which had been referred to in statements filed in proceedings, but which had not been read out, because the case had been settled before the hearing. Held: Changes in court practice now meant that many fewer statements and documents came to be read out in court. The demands of open justice were at danger of being prejudiced. 'Members of the public should not lose the ability to know the contents of a witness's evidence which would have been given orally under earlier practices.' Permission was given.
Civil Procedure Rules

 
Deg-Deutsche Investitions - Undentwicklungs Gesellschaft Gmbh v Thomas Koshy Times, 07 January 2005; [2004] EWHC 2896 (Ch)
13 Dec 2004
ChD
Hart J
Civil Procedure Rules, Litigation Practice
The parties had been involved in protracted litigation where a freezing order had been made to support a claim which was eventually dismissed. The claimant sought to have set aside an earlier order made ordering him to pay costs on failing to have the order discharged. Held: The order had been made under the former Supreme Court Rules. The power under the new rules to revoke an order made under the rules did not operate retrospectively to allow revocation of an order made under the earlier rules.
Civil Procedure Rules 3.1(7)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
University of East London Higher Education Corporation v London Borough of Barking and Dagenham and others [2004] EWHC 2908 (Ch); Times, 03 January 2005
14 Dec 2004
ChD
Lightman J
Land, Costs, Civil Procedure Rules
The parties had litigated the sale of land free of restrictive covenants. Held: The rule that a party was entilted to its costs of defending an action under the Act for the discharge of a covenant at least as far as was necessary for it to have been able to establish whether it was proper to resist the application had survived the introduction of the Civil Procedure Rules (44.3(2)(b)). The circumstances justifying the rule were still applicable. It was reasonable also for the defendants to have had separate representation, and each was entitled to the appropriate costs. There had been a potential conflict of interest.
Law of Property Act 1925 84(20 - Civil Procedure Rules 44.3(2)(b)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Smithkline Beecham Plc and Another v Apotex Europe Ltd and others [2004] EWCA Civ 1703; Times, 12 January 2005; [2005] FSR 24; [2005] 2 Costs LR 293
16 Dec 2004
CA
Lord Justice Ward Lady Justice Arden Lord Justice Jacob
Intellectual Property, Costs, Civil Procedure Rules
Following its earlier main judgment in the case, the court made use of the CPR to award costs on an appeal. The overall result had been that the patent was found to be valid but not infringed. There had been huge costs. Smithkline sought costs on an indemnity basis, saying the court had certified the patent valid at first instance, and that the appeal was a subsequent proceeding when indemnity costs ought to be ordered under the 1977 Act. Apotex said that the appeal was part of the same proceedings. That was correct. Nevertheless the CPR also applied, and the court used rule 44.3 to take the costs questions on an issue by issue basis.
Patents Act 1977 65 - Civil Procedure Rules
1 Cites

1 Citers

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