

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. Â
		Litigation Practice - From: 1999 To: 1999 This page lists 239 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018. Â Â The Giovanna; 1999 - [1999] 1 LLR 867 Â Nicholls v BBC [1999] EMLR 791 1999 Media, Litigation Practice Injunction granted to protect new identity of 'supergrass' 1 Citers Â Service Corporation International plc v Channel Four Television [1999] EMLR 83 1999 ChD Lightman J Media, Litigation Practice, Defamation The court considered an application for an interlocutory injunction to restrain a broadcast, based on copyright. The defendant argued that this was merely an attempt to circumvent difficulties in a defamation action. Held: Where an interim injunction in defamation would have been refused under the rule in Bonnard, it would be right to refuse such an injunction for parallel jurisdictions (in this case trespass and breach of copyright). Lightman J said: "The plaintiffs claim that they are entitled to this relief on three grounds and I must consider each in turn. But before I do so I should consider the cause of action which is now disclaimed, and which was the initial basis of complaint, namely defamation. The reason that defamation is not and cannot be invoked is because no interlocutory injunction could be granted on this ground in view of the defendants' plain and obvious intention to plead to any such claim the defence of justification. The invocation of other causes of action is necessary if there is to be any arguable claim to an interlocutory injunction. The rule prohibiting the grant of an injunction where the claim is in defamation does not extend to claims based on other causes of action despite the fact that a claim in defamation might also have been brought, but if the claim based on some other cause of action is in reality a claim brought to protect the plaintiffs' reputation and the reliance on the other cause of action is merely a device to circumvent the rule, the overriding need to protect freedom of speech requires that the same rule be applied: : see Microdata v Rivendale [1992] FSR 681 and Gulf Oil v Page [1987] 1 Ch 327 at 334. I have great difficulty in seeing the three alternative claims made in this case as other than attempts to circumvent the rule and to seek protection for the plaintiffs' reputation." 1 Cites 1 Citers Â Â Re M (Contact: Family Assistance: McKenzie Friend); CA 1999 - [1999] 1 FLR 75 Â Regina v Medicines Control Agency ex parte Smith and Nephew (Primecrown Ltd intervening) [1999] RPC 705. 1999 ChD Jacob J Litigation Practice, Licensing The court considered liability to third partries under a cross-undertaking given to the court: "Whether the recoverable damage is that which is foreseeable by the plaintiff or that which is directly caused by the injunction is not in point. None of the differing views expressed in the cases go so far as to say that the injunctee can claim for damage not suffered by him. Nor do the very words of the undertaking (which is the foundation of the jurisdiction) suggest that he can recover more than that which he has suffered, whether that damage is foreseeable by the injunctor or not. Thus while I have sympathy with Mr Howe's "flexible approach" I do not think it can go so far as to require the "wrongful injunctor" to pay for damage not suffered by the injunctee at all. I think this consideration also disposes of Mr Howe's Linden Gardens point. In that case the House of Lords held that damages for breach of a contract between a developer and a builder should include the damage suffered by the purchaser from the developer. The parties could be treated as having entered into the contract on the basis that the developer would be entitled to enforce its contractual rights on behalf of purchaser who suffered the actual damage. The case depended on the parties having full knowledge that the developer was going to pass the property on to the purchaser, so the builder knew exactly who would be suffered if his work was inadequate. Mr Howe suggested that in this case there is a parallel in that S&N expected to have to pay for trading losses. So they did, but they did not undertake to pay for trading losses, they only undertook to pay for Primecrown's losses. The analogy with Linden Gardens breaks down." 1 Cites 1 Citers Â Jagan v Ganpat and Others (1999) 60 WIR 270 1999 Commonwealth, Litigation Practice (Court of Appeal in Guyana) An appellate court ought to act very cautiously before deciding to overturn findings of fact by a trial judge, even where it inclines to the view that the trial judge's treatment of the evidence in a written judgment had not been as thorough as it might have been. 1 Citers Â Woods v Chaleff [1999] EWCA (Civ) 1522 1999 Litigation Practice Whether an amendment should be allowed to pleadings shortly before the trial. 1 Citers Â Corporacion Nacional Del Cobre De Chile v Metallgesellschaft Ag Ltd and Others Times, 06 January 1999 6 Jan 1999 ChD Litigation Practice The overriding need for efficiency in litigation meant that a party could be absolutely barred from serving interrogatories before the procedure of discovery had been completed. Ord 14 application was a proper litigation purpose to support interrogatory. Â Â Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Al Alawi and Others; QBD 6-Jan-1999 - Times, 06 January 1999; [1999] 1 WLR 1964; [1998] EWHC 1202 (Comm); [1999] 1 Lloyd's Rep 478; [1999] 1 All ER 703; [1999] 1 All ER (Comm) 1 Â Â Ropaigealach v Barclays Bank plc; CA 6-Jan-1999 - Times, 06 January 1999; Gazette, 10 February 1999; [1998] EWCA Civ 1960; [2000] QB 263; [1999] 4 All ER 235 Â Â Burke v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police; CA 12-Jan-1999 - [1999] EWCA Civ 548 Â James Kassi v Muriel John and Neloo Ahmed [1999] EWCA Civ 542 12 Jan 1999 CA Litigation Practice Leave to appeal was sought out of time on the basis that eth original judgment had been obtained by fraud. Held: The courts had looekd at the issues raised in this appeal before and rejected the allegation of fraud. Leave refused. [ Bailii ] Â Â Regina v Wrexham Borough Council ex parte Kathleen Wall; Michael Berry and Ann Purcell and Ann Marie Whitehouse (No 1); Admn 12-Jan-1999 - [1999] EWHC Admin 17 Â Prankerd [1999] EWCA Civ 545 12 Jan 1999 CA Litigation Practice An application came on for leave to appeal. The claimant reminded the court that the judge had refused an earlier application, and requested the court to recuse itself. It did. [ Bailii ] Â Dee Valley Water Plc v Judith Karen Jones (Formerly Savage) [1999] EWCA Civ 554 13 Jan 1999 CA Litigation Practice Leave to appeal out of time refused. [ Bailii ] Â Â SmithKline Beecham Biologicals SA v Connaught Laboratories Inc; ChD 14-Jan-1999 - Times, 14 January 1999 Â Sandra Joan Webster; Stewart Grant Forbes Webster v Vincent and Co Solicitors (a Firm); Stewart Grant Forbes Webster; Sandra Joan Webster v Vincent and C [1999] EWCA Civ 572 14 Jan 1999 CA Litigation Practice Refusal of leave to appeal - second appeal. [ Bailii ] Â Marc Rich an Co Holding Gmbh v Krasner, Graff and others [1999] EWCA Civ 581 15 Jan 1999 CA Litigation Practice As with other without notice applications, the court insists on full and complete disclosure by the applicant of everything which might affect the decision whether or not to grant the order. There is a high obligation upon such an applicant to put everything relevant before the Judge, whether it may help or hinder his cause. Â Â Worldwide Corporation Limited v Marconi Communications Limited (Formerly GPT Limited) and GPT (Middle East) Limited; CA 18-Jan-1999 - [1999] EWCA Civ 601 Â Â Trustor Ab v Smallbone and others; CA 19-Jan-1999 - [1999] EWCA Civ 609 Â Practice Direction (Supreme Court: References to the Court of Justice of the European Commission) Times, 19 January 1999 19 Jan 1999 LCJ Litigation Practice Detailed directions given to ensure that references to the court are harmonised and posed in the way which will best assist the court and ensure the question to be answered is clear. Â Rahman Irvani v Ali Irvani [1999] EWCA Civ 616 20 Jan 1999 CA Litigation Practice Application for leave to appeal - granted - doubts as to whether the defendant had been improperly refused opportunity to consider his position. [ Bailii ] Â Woodford and Ackroyd (a Firm) v Ann Elizabeth Burgess Times, 01 February 1999; [1999] EWCA Civ 620 20 Jan 1999 CA Litigation Practice A High Court judge sitting at a pre-trial review of an action has the power to rule on the admissibility of a party's expert evidence, including also making an order for a trial of that issue. The need for speedy disposal of cases required this power. Rules of the Supreme Court Order 33 R 3 [ Bailii ] Â Susan Maher v Shaharukh Nazir Selma Nazir [1999] EWCA Civ 632 21 Jan 1999 CA Land, Litigation Practice Application for security for costs. [ Bailii ] Â Peachgrove Limited v Jan Howarth [1999] EWCA Civ 641 22 Jan 1999 CA Litigation Practice The defendant unsuccessfully sought leave to appeal against an order made against him in the county court. 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Mohammed Ashraf v Mohammed Akram [1999] EWCA Civ 640 22 Jan 1999 CA Chadwick LJ, Sedley LJ Litigation Practice The parties had had a fight and claimed against each other for assault. The judge had to identify which party had started the fight. Having heard their evidence and that of the claimant's son, the judge warned counsel that he could not decide the issue; and in due course, without apparently any express explanation for his difficulties, he dismissed both claims by reference to the burden of proof. Held: The judge had been entitled so to do. Chadwick LJ: the case was of the exceptional type described in Morris and he distinguished Sewell as being a case in which the evidence was expert and inherently credible. Sedley LJ: there would be the occasional case in which the common path to the resolution of the ultimate issue, namely who was telling the truth, was blocked by an intractable evidential tangle. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Mayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Southwark v Gertrude Beegun and Basil Neville [1999] EWCA Civ 652 25 Jan 1999 CA Litigation Practice, Housing [ Bailii ] Â London Borough of Waltham Forest; Elaine Patricia Gosling and Paul Browning v Esme Baker [1999] EWCA Civ 651 25 Jan 1999 CA Litigation Practice [ Bailii ] Â Nikitenko v Leboeuf Lamb Greene and Macrae (A Firm) and Another Times, 26 January 1999 26 Jan 1999 ChD Litigation Practice The fundamental issue for the court when considering a mandatory interim order had to be which course of action would cause the least injustice if it was wrong. This might outweigh the usual need to establish a strong case before the order is made. Â Â E D Lacey v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions v East Hertfordshire District Council; Admn 26-Jan-1999 - [1999] EWHC Admin 59 Â Regina v Bedfordshire County Council ex parte Langford Action Group [1999] EWHC Admin 64 28 Jan 1999 Admn Landlord and Tenant, Litigation Practice [ Bailii ] Â Â Milne v Kennedy and Others; CA 28-Jan-1999 - Times, 11 February 1999; [1999] EWCA Civ 668 Â Lewis v Freighthire Ltd Unreported, 01-Feb-99 1 Feb 1999 CA Litigation Practice Application for amendment of pleadings - basis whether there exists 'a serious issue to be tried.' 1 Citers Â Â AEI Rediffusion Music Ltd v Phonographic Performance Ltd; CA 1-Feb-1999 - Gazette, 24 March 1999; Times, 03 March 1999; [1999] 1 WLR 1507; [1999] EWCA Civ 834 Â Halifax Plc v Costas Georgiou; Philippos Savva Stephanou; S Dogrucan; Salman Kortelli; Hanim Caliskan and Kamal Erecir [1999] EWCA Civ 711 4 Feb 1999 CA Litigation Practice [ Bailii ] Â National Westminster Bank Plc v Paul Anthony Greenwood and Maureen Anne Greenwood [1999] EWCA Civ 713 4 Feb 1999 CA Litigation Practice Appeal adjoured pending outcome of Etridge. [ Bailii ] Â Cooper v P and O Stena Line Ltd Times, 08 February 1999 8 Feb 1999 AdCt Personal Injury, Litigation Practice A party, defending a personal injury claim, who wished to assert that the plaintiff was malingering, must accept that this is akin to an allegation of fraud, and it must be specifically pleaded. It should not be for the Plaintiff to trawl through the expert reports, filed by the defendant, to discover such allegations. Rules of the Supreme Court Order 18 r 8(1)(a) Â Fathia Toumia v Home Office [1999] EWCA Civ 744 9 Feb 1999 CA Brooke, Clarke LJJ Torts - Other, limitation, Litigation Practice The claimant appealed against an order allowing the defendant to file an amended defence to his claim for false imprisonment. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â National Westminster Bank Plc v Mohammed Ashraf [1999] EWCA Civ 759 10 Feb 1999 CA Litigation Practice, Banking [ Bailii ] Â Peter Martin Maria Martin v Nigel John Carnie Keith Thomas [1999] EWCA Civ 760 10 Feb 1999 CA Litigation Practice [ Bailii ] Â Bank of Credit and Commerce International Sa (In Liquidation) v Ali and Another Times, 25 January 1999; Gazette, 17 February 1999; [1999] ICR 1068 17 Feb 1999 ChD Lightman J Employment, Litigation Practice A compromise of a claim involved a settlement with the value given, and a release did not import requirement for any consideration. A compromised claim could not be set aside for lack of knowledge, and no duty of disclosure of any wrongdoing existed. 1 Citers Â Regina v Mayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Tower Hamlets ex parte Mohamed Kowal Ali Khan [1999] EWHC Admin 152 18 Feb 1999 Admn Latham J Litigation Practice [ Bailii ] Â Â Flannery and Flannery v Halifax Estate Agencies Ltd, Trading As Colleys Professional Services; CA 18-Feb-1999 - Times, 04 March 1999; Gazette, 31 March 1999; [1999] EWCA Civ 811; [2000] 1 All ER 373; [2000] 1 WLR 377; (1999) 11 Admin LR 465; [1999] BLR 107; [2000] CP Rep 18; (1999) 15 Const LJ 313 Â Kingcastle Limited v Gary Christopher Wayne Owen-Owen Times, 18 March 1999; [1999] EWCA Civ 831 19 Feb 1999 CA Hirst LJ Litigation Practice In a claim for possession of residential premises, the defendant who was the gay partner of the deceased tenant, to have succeeded to his partner's tenancy as a member of his family. Held: A court may adjourn a case pending the outcome of an appeal to the House of Lords in an appropriate case even where the issue at stake has already been decided by the Court of Appeal, provided the court allowed for prejudice to either party. 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Â Unilever Plc v The Procter and Gamble Company; PatC 24-Feb-1999 - Times, 18 March 1999; [1999] EWHC Patents 250; [1999] FSR 849 Â Shell International Petroleum o. Ltd v Coral Oil Co. Ltd [1999] 2 Lloyds Rep. 606 1 Mar 1999 ComC Thomas J Litigation Practice ComC Jurisdiction – claim for injunction preventing continuation of proceedings in Lebanon – case where claim vexatious in true sense of the word. Â Jones v Vans Colina [1999] EWCA Civ 878 2 Mar 1999 CA Litigation Practice, Costs 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Â Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte Salem; HL 3-Mar-1999 - Gazette, 03 March 1999; Times, 12 February 1999; [1999] UKHL 8; [1999] 1 AC 450; [1999] 2 All ER 42; [1999] 2 WLR 483 Â Rose v British Steel Plc [1999] EWCA Civ 889 3 Mar 1999 CA Personal Injury, Litigation Practice Automatic strike out provisions. [ Bailii ] Â Nicholas Charles Cliffe and Melanie Jayne Carroll-Cliffe v Timothy G Forrester (No 2) [1999] EWCA Civ 898 4 Mar 1999 CA Lord Justice Brooke Litigation Practice The defendant requested access to the plaintiff's property to measure movement, as part of associated litigation, involving a negligent survey by the defendants. The plaintiffs claimed the building was beyond repair and required to be demolished. Held: The monitoring could have been carried out before. Decisions had already been made which would make the monitoring irrelevant, and permission was refused. [ Bailii ] Â Queen v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte SaSA Strajinovic [1999] EWCA Civ 924 8 Mar 1999 CA Litigation Practice [ Bailii ] Â Â Regina v Bow County Court Ex parte Pelling; QBD 8-Mar-1999 - Times, 08 March 1999; [1999] EWHC Admin 181 Â Hm Attorney General v Gleaves [1999] EWHC Admin 216 9 Mar 1999 Admn Litigation Practice, Criminal Practice The defendant had been made subject to a civil proceedings order but had begun criminal prosecutions from his prison cell against journalists. Held: The civil restraint order did not prevent the defendant commencing criminal actions. A criminal proceedings restraint order was made. Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 24(7) - Supreme Court Act 1981 42 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Sarah Hougie (Formerly Known As Sarah Rabinowitz) v Laurence Kranat [1999] EWCA Civ 958 11 Mar 1999 CA Peter Gibson, Auld LJJ Litigation Practice, Costs The plaintiff applied for an extension of time to file her appeal having been given leave ex parte. The defendant opposed the application. She had been awarded damages for wrongful eviction, but the level of damages awarded had been less than the sum paid in by the defendant, and so she was liable in costs. She said that the court had not taken account of a painting removed by the defendant. Her solicitors had been at fault in calculating the day on which the appeal had to be filed. Held: Leave to file the appeal out of time was given. The delay was trivial, and there had been no prejudice arising from it. 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Infante v Rai-Radiotelevisione Italiana Spa Times, 11 March 1999; Gazette, 17 March 1999 11 Mar 1999 CA Litigation Practice An appeal lies against the terms of a court order, not the reasoned judgment which underlay it. If a party wished to appeal and required an amendment to the order to make this possible he should apply on notice before appealing, and without delay. Â Â Bradford and Bingley Building Society v Seddon and Hancock; Walsh and Rhodes (Trading As Hancocks (a Firm); CA 11-Mar-1999 - Times, 30 March 1999; Gazette, 14 April 1999; [1999] 1 WLR 1482; [1999] EWCA Civ 944 Â Bankers Trust Company v P T Jakarta International Hotels and Development Times, 10 May 1999; [1999] 1 All ER (Comm) 785; [1999] 1 Lloyd's Rep 910 12 Mar 1999 ComC Cresswell J Arbitration, Litigation Practice Where an arbitration agreement referred to an arbitration under the rules of a major international scheme, by virtue of a standard form master agreement, this was sufficient and good reason to grant an injunction to enforce the reference. ComC Injunction restraining proceedings in a foreign court in breach of an arbitration agreement. Â Regina v Housing Corporation and Ujima Housing Association Limited ex parte Thanh Khanh Vu [1999] EWHC Admin 231 16 Mar 1999 Admn Litigation Practice Application by the Respondents to set aside leave which was granted on a renewed application. [ Bailii ] Â Akel v London Borough of Havering [1999] EWHC Admin 237 18 Mar 1999 Admn Personal Injury, Litigation Practice [ Bailii ] Â Downes Manor Properties Ltd v Bank of Namibia and An Times, 18 March 1999 18 Mar 1999 CA Litigation Practice The choice of a lawyer outside the UK to provide services as part of litigation did not excuse the failure to comply with an unless order made by the court. Such orders are intended to be punitive. The use of lawyers outside the UK was not extenuating. Â LR v Philip Charles Witherspoon; Frederick Orpen Sanders and Peter John Bostridge [1999] EWCA Civ 1025 18 Mar 1999 CA Children, Litigation Practice [ Bailii ] Â Morris and others v Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association [1999] EWCA Civ 1041; [1999] EWCA Civ 1042 19 Mar 1999 CA Litigation Practice 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Anyanwu and Ebuzoeme v South Bank Students' Union South Bank University; CA 19-Mar-1999 - [1999] EWCA Civ 1032 Â Unicoin Homes Plc v Thames Water Utilities Limited [1999] EWCA Civ 1057 22 Mar 1999 CA Litigation Practice [ Bailii ] Â Pamela Ann Watson v James Edward Woodhouse [1999] EWCA Civ 1053 22 Mar 1999 CA Litigation Practice Action for damages for personal injury - judgment but no progress on assessment of damages. [ Bailii ] Â Â Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Anchor Foods Ltd (No 2); ChD 24-Mar-1999 - Times, 01 April 1999; Gazette, 24 March 1999; [1999] EWHC 833 (Ch); [2000] CP Rep 19; [1999] 3 All ER 268; [1999] 1 WLR 1139 Â London Underground Limited v National Union of Rail Maritime and Transport Workers [1999] EWCA Civ 1081 24 Mar 1999 CA Litigation Practice Formal abandonment of application for leave to appeal. [ Bailii ] Â Ridley v London Borough of Lambeth [1999] EWCA Civ 1086 24 Mar 1999 CA Litigation Practice Leave to appeal refused. [ Bailii ] Â Mungroo and Another v Taylor Vintners (a Firm) [1999] EWCA Civ 1096 25 Mar 1999 CA Litigation Practice Application for leave to appeal (second application) The appeal had very little chance of success and leave was refused. [ Bailii ] Â Kearney v Calsonic Llaneli Radiators [1999] EWCA Civ 1107 26 Mar 1999 CA Litigation Practice Application for leave to appeal - dismissed. [ Bailii ] Â Stephen David Margulies v Marcus Jonathan Margulies; Martin David Paisner; Paisner and Co (a Firm) [1999] EWCA Civ 1127 29 Mar 1999 CA Litigation Practice [ Bailii ] Â Â Ebert v Birch (Liquidator of Europride Limited) Midland Bank Plc and and Ralph, Rabonowicz; CA 30-Mar-1999 - [1999] EWCA Civ 1130; [1999] 3 WLR 670; [1999] EWCA Civ 3043; [2000] Ch 484; [2000] BPIR 14 Â Bourns Inc v Raychem Corporation; Latham and Watkins (a Firm) Times, 12 May 1999; [1999] EWCA Civ 1128; [1999] 3 All ER 154 30 Mar 1999 CA Aldous LJ Intellectual Property, Litigation Practice, Jurisdiction Documents disclosed in support an application in a costs taxation, remained subject to implied duties of confidence, and they could not be used for any other purpose, including to support litigation abroad. Where questions of US law arose, a US court was the best place to decide those questions. Legal privilege is not lost under English law because it cannot be claimed in another country: "To suggest otherwise would mean that a court, when deciding whether to uphold a claim for privilege, would need to be informed as to whether privilege could be claimed in all the countries of the world. . . The fact that under a foreign law the document is not privileged or that the privilege that existed is deemed to have been waived is irrelevant. The crucial consideration is whether the document and its information remain confidential in the sense that it is not properly available for use. If it is, then privilege in this country can be claimed and that claim, if properly made, will be enforced." 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Young, Young, Irby v Robson Rhodes and Frank Attwood Times, 11 May 1999; [1999] EWHC Ch 242; [1999] 3 All ER 524 30 Mar 1999 ChD Litigation Practice Where a merger was proposed between two accountancy firms, who had provided litigation support services to opposing sides in a case, it was necessary to separate the two halves most rigorously including physical separation in order to ensure no disclosure of material held for either side. 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Â MSC Mediterranean Shipping Co Sa v Polish Ocean Lines (The Tychy); CA 31-Mar-1999 - Times, 30 April 1999; Gazette, 06 May 1999; [1999] EWCA Civ 1150 Â Ursula Riniker v University College London [1999] EWCA Civ 1156 31 Mar 1999 CA Evans LJ Employment, Litigation Practice, Limitation The writ office of the High Court unjustifiably rejected a writ which the plaintiff asked to be issued and did not issue it until the limitation period had expired. The court held that it had inherent jurisdiction to direct that the writ should be treated as if it had been issued on the date when it should have been issued. 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Â Freeguardand another v Rogers and another; CA 31-Mar-1999 - [1999] EWCA Civ 1154 Â Â Paragon Finance Plc (Formerly National Home Loans Corporation Plc) v Hare and Others; ChD 1-Apr-1999 - Times, 01 April 1999 Â Chorion Plc and Others v Lane Times, 07 April 1999; Gazette, 26 May 1999; CH-1999 00233 7 Apr 1999 ChD Laddie J Employment, Litigation Practice A former executive director brought a claim for unfair dismissal in the Employment Tribunal. Chorion brought proceedings in the Chancery Division alleging wrongful acts committed by him while he was a senior executive. Held: There was an overlap in the issues to be tried in both sets of proceedings, and it was wrong to have two tribunals investigating what are essentially the same facts. In case of an overlap between issues before an Industrial Tribunal and the High Court, the Tribunal matter should be stayed pending the outcome of the other case. Laddie J reached his conclusion that such an Order should be granted because: "it would be wrong for essentially the same serious issues to be run in two separate tribunals . . I have come to the conclusion, notwithstanding the powerful arguments advanced by Mr Collins, it would be wrong for essentially the same issues to be run in two separate tribunals. It seems to me that in view of the allegations of dishonesty which are to be found permeating the whole of this dispute it is right and proper that the issues should be determined in one set of proceedings. I am of the view that the preferable forum is the High Court." 1 Citers Â Greenwich Ltd v National Westminster Bank Plc and Others Times, 13 April 1999; Gazette, 06 May 1999 13 Apr 1999 ChD Litigation Practice It is permissible for a court to order security for costs to be paid against a plaintiff limited company incorporated out of the jurisdiction, provided it appeared just to do so. There is no need to satisfy the apparent requirements of the Companies Acts. Companies Act 1985 726 - Rules of the Supreme Court Order 23 r 1(1)(a) Â James Dixon v Lancelot Guy Allgood Times, 30 April 1999; [1999] EWCA Civ 1163 14 Apr 1999 CA Litigation Practice, Costs A party wishing to apply for leave to appeal against orders made on separate preliminary hearings within the same action need not issue one application for each order, but can combine them into one application. In this case the issues were related also. 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Â Tradition (UK) Ltd, Tradition Bond Brokers Limited, Howard, Harland v Cantor Fitzgerald International; ChD 15-Apr-1999 - Times, 19 May 1999 Â Practice Direction (Court of Appeal) (Civil Division) Times, 26 April 1999; [1999] 1 WLR 1027 19 Apr 1999 CA Lord Woolf MR Litigation Practice As part of the modernisation and reform of civil procedure, all the principal Court of Appeal practice directions are consolidated now into this one document handed down by the court. "2. Permission to appeal 2.1 When is permission required? 2.1.1. Most appeals require the permission of the court below (the court which made the decision which is challenged) or of the Court of Appeal to bring an appeal. 2.1.2 Since 1 January 1999, permission has been required for all appeals except appeals against: (a) committal orders; (b) refusals to grant habeas corpus; and (c) secure accommodation orders made pursuant to section 25 of the Children Act 1989: see RSC, Ord. 59 r. 1B(1)(a)-(c). 2.1.3 The experience of the Court of Appeal is that many appeals and applications for permission to appeal are made which are quite hopeless. They demonstrate basic misconceptions as to the purpose of the civil appeal system and the different roles played by appellate courts and courts below. The court below has a crucial role in determining applications for permission to appeal. This guidance indicates how applicants, and courts, should approach the matter." "Renewed applications for permission to apply for judicial review 2.7.1 The applicant's advocate (and where any respondent will be represented at the Court of Appeal hearing, that party's advocate) must file four copies of their skeleton arguments with the Civil Appeals Office with the application bundles. 2.7.2 This applies only to renewed applications for permission to apply for judicial review. Where permission to apply has been granted and the substantive application for judicial review has been dealt with in the High Court, any application to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal against that decision will be governed by the general provisions for such applications." 1 Citers Â Â E A Wordsworth and others v Birtle Kitchen Co Ltd and Weston; CA 19-Apr-1999 - [1999] EWCA Civ 1200 Â Ebert v Venvil (Trustee In Bankruptcy); Wolff; Midland Bank Plc and Rabinowicz (Solicitor) [1999] EWCA Civ 1211 20 Apr 1999 CA Litigation Practice 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Regina v Portsmouth Hospitals Nhs Trust ex parte Carol Glass [1999] EWHC Admin 330 21 Apr 1999 Admn Scott-Baker J Litigation Practice 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Savage v Bailey [1999] EWCA Civ 1244 22 Apr 1999 CA Litigation Practice Stay of execution granted pending appeal. [ Bailii ] Â Â Federal Bank of Middle East Limited v Hadkinson and others; CA 22-Apr-1999 - Times, 28 May 1999; Gazette, 16 June 1999; [1999] EWCA Civ 1232 Â Electra Private Equity Partners (a Limited Partnership) and others v KPMG Peat Marwick (a Firm) and others [1999] EWCA Civ 1247; [2001] 1 BCLC 589 23 Apr 1999 CA Professional Negligence, Litigation Practice In interlocutory appeals some relaxation of the strictness of the conditions set down in Ladd v Marshall might be appropriate, according to the nature of the interlocutory hearing and the individual circumstances of the case. That would particularly be so where the battleground or its timing were not of the appellant's choice. 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Flynn v East Birmingham Health Authority [1999] EWCA Civ 1261 26 Apr 1999 CA Litigation Practice Application to set aside order dismissing appeal on failure to comply with directions. [ Bailii ] Â Practice Note (Court of Appeal Civil Division: Assessment of Costs) Times, 26 April 1999 26 Apr 1999 CA Litigation Practice The Court of Appeal will normally identify in advance those cases where it expected to apply a summary assessment of costs and at which a statement of costs would be required, though parties may propose such an assessment. Civil Procedure Rules Part 44 Â Practice Direction (Civil Procedure Rules) Times, 26 April 1999 26 Apr 1999 CA Litigation Practice Directions supplemental to the new Civil Procedure Rules are brought in from 26 April 1999 and apply in the QBD, Chancery and County Courts save in Family Cases. Long list of supplemental practice directions also handed down. Â Flynn v Robin Thompson and Partners [1999] EWCA Civ 1258 26 Apr 1999 CA Legal Professions, Litigation Practice Application for leave to appeal. [ Bailii ] Â Roderick Lewis Garner v Joyce Stonestreet Times, 28 May 1999; [1999] EWCA Civ 1307 29 Apr 1999 CA Litigation Practice A defendant who is unready to present his defence or part of it at the time of trial should understand that the court has the discretionary power to strike out a defence and to enter judgment by default. County Court Rules 1981 Order 9 Rule 6 [ Bailii ] Â Guardial Singh Saund v Hari Dev Jindal Partmount Limited [1999] EWCA Civ 1297 29 Apr 1999 CA Litigation Practice Application for leave to appeal out of time - action on loan - Tomlin order. [ Bailii ] Â Craig Osborne v Patricia Leighton [1999] EWCA Civ 1314 30 Apr 1999 CA Defamation, Litigation Practice The defendant being late in filing a defence to the claim for defamation, the claimant entered judgment in default. The defendant sought to have that set aside, and now sought her (substantial) costs. Held: The entry of judgment had been at fault, since the claim had also included a request for an injunction. Even had it not been it was inevitable that it would be set aside, and the order for costs on an indemnity basis was upheld. 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Practice Note (Chancery Division: Civil Procedure Rules) Times, 04 May 1999 4 May 1999 ChD Litigation Practice The procedures set down by the new CPR Part 23 should be followed in the interim applications and companies courts. Those appearing should also make themselves aware of the amendments in the new Guide to Chancery Practice. Civil Procedure Rules Part 23 Â Wecor Trust Reg v Psyche Erikson [1999] EWCA Civ 1356 6 May 1999 CA Litigation Practice [ Bailii ] Â St Albans Court Limited v Daldroch Estates Limited [1999] EWHC Ch 237 10 May 1999 ChD Litigation Practice Failure to provide proper skeleton arguments. [ Bailii ] Â Regina v Bow County Court ex parte Dr Michael John Pelling [1999] EWCA Civ 1374 10 May 1999 CA Litigation Practice Application for leave to appeal against refusal to allow Dr Pelling to act as Mckenzie friend. 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Christopher Mark Coore v Chief Constable of Leicestershire Constabulary [1999] EWCA Civ 1366 10 May 1999 CA Torts - Other, Police, Litigation Practice [ Bailii ] Â Al-Ani v Shubber [1999] EWCA Civ 1363; [1999] EWCA Civ 1498 10 May 1999 CA Lord Justice Swinton Thomas, Lord Justice Sedley Litigation Practice, Costs The claimant sought leave to appeal an order refusing his application for assets to be released from an injunction obtained by his former solicitors to preserve assets against their claim for costs. The court deprecated the fact that a relatively minor defamation action had been allowed to generate considerable satellite litigation. Held: the orders had been made properly and the request for leave to appeal failed. [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Urban Regeneration Agency; English Partnerships (Medway) Limited) v Mott Macdonald Group Limited; Mott Macdonald Civil Limited; Mott Macdonald Structural and Industrial Limited and Mott Macdonald Limited [1999] EWCA Civ 1388 11 May 1999 CA Litigation Practice [ Bailii ] Â Duffy v George Wimpey and Redpath Engineering Services Limited/ Trafalgar House Group Services and Hartlepool Pipework Services/Hartlepool Erection and Slp Engineering Teeside Limited [1999] EWCA Civ 1385 11 May 1999 CA Litigation Practice [ Bailii ] Â Manatee Towing Company and Another v Oceanbulk Maritime Sa and Another Times, 11 May 1999; [1999] 1 Lloyd's Rep 876; [1999] CLC 1197; Independent, 15 March 1999 11 May 1999 ComC Rix J Litigation Practice Old rules, restricting the power to disclose to documents relating to a matter at issue between the parties, were no longer applicable. The court could order disclosure of documents as between two parties which were relevant to an issue in related action. ComC An additional defendant to the counterclaim, who was also a defendant to the plaintiff's third party notice, may get discovery under RSC Order 24, rule 3 and/or 7, from the plaintiff, of documents relevant to an issue of quantum in the counterclaim, even though there was no issue of quantum as between him and the plaintiff. The question was treated as a matter of both jurisdiction and discretion and was decided in favour of the applicant for discovery in both respects. Order 24, rule 3's and 7's language "any party...... any other party.....relating to any matter in question in the cause or matter" contested with rule 2's "parties between whom pleadings are closed.... relating to any matter in question between them". 1 Citers Â Ebert v Birch and Another; Ebert v Verivil and Another Gazette, 12 May 1999 12 May 1999 CA Litigation Practice The court retains an inherent power to prohibit vexatious proceedings in addition to its statutory powers. The court would only do so for clear reason, and the claimant who was prohibited in this way remained protected because he retained the right to apply for leave to issue proceedings. Â Â Royal Bank of Scotland Plc v Ezekiel; CA 12-May-1999 - [1999] EWCA Civ 1398 Â Regina v Wandsworth County Court ex parte Saldanha [1999] EWHC Admin 440 14 May 1999 Admn Litigation Practice Application for leave to appeal - refused. [ Bailii ] Â Regina v Wandsworth County Court ex parte Saldanha [1999] EWHC Admin 441 14 May 1999 Admn Litigation Practice Application for leave to appeal. [ Bailii ] Â State of Qatar v Khalifa Unreported, 17 May 1999 17 May 1999 ComC Thomas J Litigation Practice ComC Freezing order in aid of foreign proceedings - question of whether disclosure should be ordered - proportionality and equality set over the parties. Â Abbey National Plc v Clive Travers and Co (a Firm) [1999] EWCA Civ 1426 18 May 1999 CA Lord Justice Simon Brown , Lord Justice Auld, Lord Justice Thorpe Professional Negligence, Litigation Practice, Legal Professions The defendants appealed an order for discovery saying it would infringe their duty of confidence to their clients. The firm had acted for the buyer, seller and lender. A fraud on the lender was alleged. The solicitors sought to rely upon the privilege without having asked the clients who owned it. Held: The issue of fraud or impropriety had been raised sufficiently in the pleadings to justify the request for dicslosure. 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Regina v Legal Aid Board ex parte Choudry [1999] EWHC Admin 467 20 May 1999 Admn Litigation Practice, Costs, Legal Aid [ Bailii ] Â Thames Water Authority v Snowcrest Limited [1999] EWCA Civ 1457 20 May 1999 CA Litigation Practice Application for leave to appeal. [ Bailii ] Â Â Shikari v Malik; CA 20-May-1999 - Times, 20 May 1999 Â Â Overseas Medical Supplies Limited v Orient Transport Services Limited; CA 20-May-1999 - [1999] EWCA Civ 1449; [1999] 2 Lloyd's Rep 273 Â Â Memory Corporation Plc and Another v Sidhu; ChD 21-May-1999 - Gazette, 16 June 1999; Times, 31 May 1999 Â Â Mathew v Her Majesty's Attorney General; Admn 24-May-1999 - [1999] EWHC Admin 493 Â St Alban's Court Ltd v Daldorch Estates Ltd Times, 24 May 1999 24 May 1999 ChD Litigation Practice Guidance was given for pre-trial preparation and presentation of skeleton arguments in the Chancery under the new procedures. The court must be given a summary of the case at the start, and core bundles of documents prepared. Â Deborah Anne Forster v Bilpot Limited [1999] EWCA Civ 1471 25 May 1999 CA Litigation Practice Inexcusable delay. [ Bailii ] Â McPhilemy v Times Newspapers Ltd and Others (2) Times, 26 May 1999; [1999] EWCA Civ 1464; [1999] 3 All ER 775; [1999] CPLR 533; [1999] EMLR 751 26 May 1999 CA Lord Woolf MR Defamation, Litigation Practice, Civil Procedure Rules The new Civil Procedure Rules did not change the circumstances where the Court of Appeal would interfere with a first instance decision, but would apply the new rules on that decision. Very extensive pleadings in defamation cases should now be otiose. In the modern era of witness statements, extensive and fully particularised pleadings are no longer as necessary as they used to be, so long as they still identify the issues, the extent of the dispute between the parties and the general nature of the case of the pleader. Lord Woolf MR said: "The need for extensive pleadings including particulars should be reduced by the requirement that witness statements are now exchanged. In the majority of proceedings identification of the documents upon which a party relies, together with copies of that party's witness statements, will make the detail of the nature of the case the other side has to meet obvious. This reduces the need for particulars in order to avoid being taken by surprise. This does not mean that pleadings are now superfluous. Pleadings are still required to mark out the parameters of the case that is being advanced by each party. In particular they are still critical to identify the issues and the extent of the dispute between the parties. What is important is that the pleadings should make clear the general nature of the case of the pleader. This is true both under the old rules and the new rules. The Practice Direction to CPR 16, paragraph 9.3 requires, in defamation proceedings, the facts on which a defendant relies to be given. No more than a concise statement of those facts is required. As well as their expense, excessive particulars can achieve directly the opposite result from that which is intended. They can obscure the issues rather than providing clarification. In addition, after disclosure and the exchange of witness statements pleadings frequently become of only historic interest." Civil Procedure Rules 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Heaton and Others v Axa Equity and Law Life Assurance Society Plc and Axa Equity and Law Unit Trust Managers Limited Times, 19 July 1999; [1999] EWHC Ch 229 27 May 1999 ChD Litigation Practice Where a plaintiff settled a claim against one of two defendants, the court would be ready to look carefully at the full details of the settlement to see whether or not the co-defendant was intended also to be released by or under the terms of that settlement. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Dr Bokhari and Bokhari v Mayne Nickless UK Limited [1999] EWCA Civ 1504 27 May 1999 CA Litigation Practice Where parties to county court proceedings are agreed as to the terms on which proceedings in the Court of Appeal Civil Division can be disposed of and require an order of the court to put those terms into effect, they lodge with the office a document signed by the parties setting out the terms of the proposed agreed order and a short statement of the matters relied on, justifying the making of the order, the authorities and statutory provisions relied on being quoted. [ Bailii ] Â Kuwait Oil Tanker Company Sak; Sitka Shipping Incorporated v Al Bader;Qabazard; Stafford and H Clarkson and Company Limited; Mccoy; Kuwait Petroleum Corporation and Others [1999] EWCA Civ 1528 28 May 1999 CA Litigation Practice The defendants having been found to have acted dishonestly to the tune of Â£130,000,000 sought a stay of execution pending an appeal. The judge had found that the appeal was arguable. 1 Cites 1 Citers Â Thompson v Hilson and Hilson [1999] EWCA Civ 1537 9 Jun 1999 CA Litigation Practice Application for leave to appeal. [ Bailii ] Â Motor Insurers' Bureau v Garrett [1999] EWCA Civ 1564 11 Jun 1999 CA Litigation Practice [ Bailii ] Â Â Matthews v Tarmac Bricks and Tiles Limited; CA 14-Jun-1999 - Gazette, 14 July 1999; Times, 01 July 1999; [1999] EWCA Civ 1574 Â Regina v Leeds Magistrates Court ex parte Balmforth [1999] EWHC Admin 558 17 Jun 1999 Admn Litigation Practice Application withdrawn by consent. [ Bailii ] Â Zipporah Mainwaring v Encyclopedia Britannica International Limited and Encyclopedia Britannica Incorporated [1999] EWCA Civ 1637 21 Jun 1999 CA Litigation Practice 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Turner and Another v Everett and Another [1999] EWCA Civ 1635 21 Jun 1999 CA Litigation Practice Application for leave to appeal refused. [ Bailii ] Â Gwembe Valley Development Company Limited (In Receivership) v Koshy; Lummus Agricultural Services Company Limited and Others [1999] EWCA Civ 1628 21 Jun 1999 CA Insolvency, Litigation Practice 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Worldwide Corporation Limited v Marconi Communications Ltd (Formerly Gpt Limited) and Gpt (Middle East) Limited Gazette, 14 July 1999; Times, 07 July 1999; [1999] EWCA Civ 1636 21 Jun 1999 CA Legal Professions, Litigation Practice Counsel, giving assurances in open court on behalf of his client, bound that client. This applied even though counsel might have been negligent, and / or might, in turn, be immune from suit. Courts must be able to rely, and act, upon assurances given by counsel. Decisions may be made as part of a litigation strategy which cannot be unwound. 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Dr Akena Adoko v Hussein Jemal Times, 08 July 1999; [1999] EWCA Civ 1643 22 Jun 1999 CA Defamation, Jury, Litigation Practice Where a notice of appeal had been lodged, which was intended to be against the order of one judge, but was in terms identifying a different court, and ample opportunity had been given to amend it after the mistake had been pointed out, the Court of Appeal would not allow an amendment at the hearing. Much court time had been wasted because papers were not in order. [ Bailii ] Â Worldwide Corporation Limited v Marconi Communications Limited (Formerly GPT Limited) and GPT (Middle East) Limited [1999] EWCA Civ 1650 22 Jun 1999 Waller, Mance LJJ Litigation Practice Application for leave to appeal. Original leading counsel had consented to the abandonment of parts of the claim. New leading counsel now sought to revive them. Held: The claim had little prospect of success. Leave to appeal refused. 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Worldwide Corporation Limited v Marconi Communications Limited (Formerly GPT Limited) and GPT (Middle East) Limited [1999] EWCA Civ 1649 22 Jun 1999 CA Litigation Practice Discussions following judgment [ Bailii ] Â Nascimento v Kerrigan Times, 23 June 1999 23 Jun 1999 CA Litigation Practice The Practice Direction requiring Skeleton Arguments to be prepared on applications for leave to appeal was not ultra vires, and correctly described the test to be applied by the court where an application for leave to appeal was made after leave to appeal had been refused at first instance. 1 Cites Â Modern Bookbinders Limited v Chris Newman (T/a Mantella Publishing) [1999] EWCA Civ 1657 23 Jun 1999 CA Litigation Practice Bail pending appeal. [ Bailii ] Â Oliver v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council Times, 07 July 1999; [1999] EWCA Civ 1656 23 Jun 1999 CA Litigation Practice, Torts - Other In a malicious prosecution case, there is no automatic right to have it tried before a jury. If that is to be applied for, the application must be made at the earliest possible directions hearing. Where, as in this case other factors suggested that a jury trial is not appropriate, then one need not be ordered. County Courts Act 1984 66 [ Bailii ] Â Â Piglowska v Piglowski; HL 24-Jun-1999 - Times, 25 June 1999; Gazette, 07 July 1999; Gazette, 20 October 1999; [1999] UKHL 27; [1999] 3 All ER 632; [1999] 1 WLR 1360; [1999] 2 FCR 481; [1999] 2 FLR 763; [1999] Fam Law 617 Â Joan Bell Pritchard v Ministry of Defence [1999] EWCA Civ 1671 24 Jun 1999 CA Litigation Practice Discussion of costs award. 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Sun Alliance Trust Company Ltd v Post Office [1999] EWCA Civ 1679 24 Jun 1999 CA Litigation Practice Application for permission to appeal - refused. [ Bailii ] Â Rodney Richards v Barbara Pickering (Also Known As Raines) [1999] EWCA Civ 1678 24 Jun 1999 CA Litigation Practice Formal refusal of leave to appeal. [ Bailii ] Â Companies Court (Skeleton Arguments: Time Limits) Times, 25 June 1999 25 Jun 1999 ChD Litigation Practice Parties to matters before the Companies Court of the Chancery Division are consistently failing to lodge skeleton arguments within the time limits set down. The judge hearing the case is prescribe what sanction is to be applied to the parties in the case as to costs adjournment or otherwise. Â Reichhold Norway ASA and Reichhold Chemicals Inc v Goldman Sachs International Times, 20 July 1999; [1999] EWCA Civ 1703; [1999] 2 Lloyd's Rep 567; [2000] 2 All ER 679; [1999] 2 LLR 567; [1999] 2 All ER (Comm) 174; [2000] 1 WLR 173 28 Jun 1999 CA Lord Bingham CJ Arbitration, Jurisdiction, Litigation Practice, International An application was made to stay proceedings to await the decision of a foreign court. At first instance, Moore-Bick J had held that a Court has an interest in deciding the order in which related proceedings should be tried "not only because the existence of concurrent proceedings may give rise to undesirable consequences in the form of inconsistent decisions, but also because the outcome of one set of proceedings may have an important effect on the conduct of the other" and the court may manage the order in which the proceedings are heard. Case management is appropriate even where the proceedings are taking place between different parties in different jurisdictions, but before an action which has been properly commenced here is stayed pending the outcome of proceedings between different persons in another jurisdiction is granted, the defendant must show "very strong reasons for doing so and the benefits which are likely to result from doing so clearly outweigh any disadvantage to the plaintiff" Held: The appeal failed. Counsel had accepted "that the grant of stays such as this would be a rarity, account always being taken of the legitimate interests of plaintiffs and the requirement that there should be no prejudice to plaintiffs beyond that which the interest of justice were thought to justify." 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Louise Mullard v Sharma and Another [1999] EWCA Civ 1699 28 Jun 1999 CA Litigation Practice Application for extension of time to set down appeal. [ Bailii ] Â Â Cadogan Properties Limited v Mount Eden Land Limited; CA 29-Jun-1999 - [1999] EWCA Civ 1709; [2000] IL Pr 722 Â Practice Direction (Mercantile Court: Bristol) Times, 30 June 1999 30 Jun 1999 LCJ Litigation Practice With immediate effect, the paragraph relating to the enabling of the presiding judges of the Western Circuit for the appointment or designation of judges of circuit judges in the Bristol Mercantile Court is withdrawn. 1 Cites Â Practice Note (Court of Appeal, Civil Division: Disposal of Bundles) Times, 30 June 1999 30 Jun 1999 CA Litigation Practice Parties to proceedings before the Court of Appeal must appreciate that, in general documents left with the Court for a hearing, will be destroyed after 21 days after the hearing is concluded. Parties are reminded to use copies when supplying the court, and when original documents are handed in, the return of these documents must be requested at the end of the hearing. Â British Mensa Limited v David Gallant [1999] EWCA Civ 1717 30 Jun 1999 CA Litigation Practice Application to reinstate applications for leave to appeal. 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Kruger Tissue (Manufacturing) Ltd v Qps Consultants Limited [1999] EWCA Civ 1735 1 Jul 1999 CA Litigation Practice Renewed application for leave to appeal - sanction for non-compliance with unless order. [ Bailii ] Â Lunnon v Singh Unreported 1 July 1999 1 Jul 1999 CA Litigation Practice Once judgment has been given, whether after a contested hearing or in default, for damages to be assessed, the defendant cannot dispute liability at the assessment hearing. 1 Citers Â Johnstone v C and S Commercial Consultants (a Firm) [1999] EWCA Civ 1751 2 Jul 1999 CA Litigation Practice Application for permission to appeal [ Bailii ] Â Eleanor Joy Bartlett v Martin Frank Conley Susan Anne Conley [1999] EWCA Civ 1748 2 Jul 1999 CA Litigation Practice Compromise. [ Bailii ] Â Alex Lawrie Factors Limited v Keith Morgan; Pamela R Morgan and Johathan K Turner Times, 18 August 1999; 146673 5 Jul 1999 CA Litigation Practice A statement of truth or affidavit must reflect the words and thoughts of the witness who signed it. It is not appropriate to include matters about which the witness could not themselves give evidence, including particularly complex arguments sought to be presented by the party's lawyer. 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Â Ebert v Venvill (Trustee In Bankruptcy); Woolf; Midland Bank Plc and Rabinowicz (a Solicitor); CA 5-Jul-1999 - [1999] EWCA Civ 1763; [2000] Ch 484 Â Mealey Horgan Plc v Horgan Times, 06 July 1999; [1999] STC 711 6 Jul 1999 QBD Buckley J Litigation Practice The failure to serve witness statements in time could be used disallow additional evidence to be served only in extreme circumstances. Such a failure can be marked in costs. An order to a party to make a payment into court should be used only in the case of repeated infringements of the rules. 1 Citers Â Â SmithKline Beecham Biologicals SA v Connaught Laboratories Inc; CA 7-Jul-1999 - Times, 13 July 1999; [1999] 4 All ER 498; [1999] EWCA Civ 1781; (2000) 51 BMLR 91; [1999] CPLR 505; [2000] FSR 1 Â Â Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Anchor Foods Ltd (No 3); ChD 8-Jul-1999 - Gazette, 11 August 1999; Times, 28 September 1999; [1999] EWHC 834 (Ch) Â Modica v Shell UK Limited [1999] EWCA Civ 1821 13 Jul 1999 CA Litigation Practice [ Bailii ] Â Smart v Smart [1999] EWCA Civ 1838 14 Jul 1999 CA Litigation Practice Application for leave to appeal to House of Lords refused. [ Bailii ] Â R T Donohue v Armco Inc [2000] 1 All ER (Comm) 425; [1999] 2 Lloyd's Rep 649; [1999] CLC 1748; [2000] ILPr 321 15 Jul 1999 ComC Aikens J Litigation Practice ComC The individual claimant wished to prevent proceedings being brought against him in NY by 5 Defendant companies, who wished to sue him there for damages for conspiracy; fraud; breach of fiduciary duty and for RICO statute damages. Several other individuals and companies associated with the Claimant were also being sued by the same 5 Defendant companies in NY and they wished to be joined in the English action in order that they could have an anti - suit injunction. Two of the 5 Defendants sought to set aside the leave to serve out of the jurisdiction, granted under O11 Rule 1 (1)(c): "necessary or proper party". The Claimant and the potential co-claimants alleged that some of the 5 Defendants were bound by English Exclusive Jurisdiction clauses. Held: (i) 2 of the defendants were subject to one exclusive jurisdiction clause; (ii) despite that there should be no anti-suit injunction because England was not the appropriate forum; NY was. (iii) the proceedings were not vexatious and oppressive; (iv) the co-claimants should not be joined because (i) either they could not get within O11 Rule 1 (1); or if they relied on exclusive jurisdiction clauses, it was not, in all the circumstances, "desirable" that they should be joined under part 19 of the CPR; (v) leave to serve out should be set aside as they could not satisfy the O11 Rule 4(2) test. 1 Citers Â Charlesworth v Relay Roads Ltd and Others [1999] EWHC 829 (Pat); [2000] RPC 300; [2000] CP Rep 37; [2000] CPLR 109; [2000] 1 WLR 230; [1999] 4 All ER 397 20 Jul 1999 PatC Neuberger J Intellectual Property, Litigation Practice Application by the defendants for permission to amend their Defence and Counterclaim and Particulars of Objections and to call further evidence to support those amendments in circumstances where, not only has the hearing of the action been completed, but judgment has been handed down, although, crucially, the order has not been drawn up. [ Bailii ] Â Cowland and Kendrick v District Judges of West London County Court [1999] EWCA Civ 1894 20 Jul 1999 CA Litigation Practice Application for leave to appeal in action for wrongful distress. County Courts Act 1984 123 [ Bailii ] Â Taylor and others v Midland Bank Trust Company Limited [1999] EWCA Civ 1917 21 Jul 1999 CA Stuart-Smith and Buxton LJJ and Rattee J Wills and Probate, Litigation Practice Stuart-Smith LJ rationalised the possible conflict between Part 24 and the practice direction to Part 24 in its original form by saying that the correct view of the effect of the practice direction is to be gleaned from the heading to the paragraph which reads "the court's approach". It indicates no more than examples of situations where it could be right to give summary judgment in favour of one party or the other. Civil Procedure Rules 1 Citers Â Dick Lucien Chitolie v Commissioners for HM Customs and Excise [1999] EWCA Civ 1926 22 Jul 1999 CA Litigation Practice Leave to appeal against refusal to award costs after withdrawal of bankruptcy petition. [ Bailii ] Â Denzil Williams v Jean Robertson (Wrongly Described As Robinson) [1999] EWCA Civ 1925 22 Jul 1999 CA Nuisance, Litigation Practice The claimant had sought orders alleging a nuisance caused by his neighbour's fir tree. He appealed a refusal of his claim which had been based upon the absence of any evidence to support it. Because of the long history of complaints between the parties, the court had also made a Grepe -v- Loam Order against the appellant. Held: The appellant had failed to state sufficiently particularly his complaints against the order. The Grepe v Loam order acted as a filter and not as a bar. Appeal refused. 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Esme Baker v London Borough of Waltham Forest [1999] EWCA Civ 1958 26 Jul 1999 CA Litigation Practice [ Bailii ] Â Â Biguzzi v Rank Leisure Plc; CA 26-Jul-1999 - Times, 05 October 1999; [1999] EWCA Civ 1972; [1999] 1 WLR 1926; [1999] 4 All ER 934; [2000] CP Rep 6; [2000] 1 Costs LR 67 Â Household Mortgage Corporation v Sayed Amdad Hussain (Aka Ahmed Hassan Syed) [1999] EWCA Civ 1962 26 Jul 1999 CA Litigation Practice [ Bailii ] Â David John Baron v Brian Lovell Times, 14 September 1999; [1999] EWCA Civ 1977 27 Jul 1999 CA Brooke LJ Litigation Practice A party to litigation must ensure that an agent attending had sufficient knowledge and authority to deal with issues raised at a pre-trial review, and where he failed in this he could be penalised in indemnity costs or interest at higher rates than usual on damages. An agent had no knowledge of why an expert's report had not been served, and the report remained excluded. Brooke LJ said: "If a defendant's lawyers choose not to send a representative with appropriate authority to attend a pre-trial review and choose not to ensure that the client (who in this case should be equated with the defendant's insurer) attends the review, the judge, who is likely to be the trial judge, is likely to note their absence. If he considers that that party has acted unreasonably in this way in connection with the litigation in breach of a direction of the court, there may come a time when he decides that it is appropriate to make an order for indemnity costs against that party, or to exercise his power to award interest on damages at a much higher rate than what is usual, if those powers are available to him. The whole trust of the CPR regime is to require the parties to behave reasonably towards each other in the conduct of the litigation. The old antagonistic point scoring, which used to drag personal injuries cases out and run up costs, should now be at an end." Civil Procedure Rules 1998 R 29 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Kevin Vincent Fitzsimons v Christine Dorothy Fitzsimons [1999] EWCA Civ 1981 27 Jul 1999 CA Litigation Practice [ Bailii ] Â Edwin John Stevens v R J Gullis and David Pile [1999] EWCA Civ 1978 27 Jul 1999 CA Lord Woolf MR Litigation Practice The new Civil Procedure Rules underline the existing duty which an expert owes to the Court as well as to the party which he represents. 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Motherwell Bridge Construction Limited (T/a MB Services) v Huntsman Chemical Company Limited [1999] EWCA Civ 2001 28 Jul 1999 CA Litigation Practice [ Bailii ] Â Inntrepreneur Pub Company (Gl) Limited (Formerly Known As Inntrepreneur Estates (Gl) Limited) v Dennis Birch; Johanna Mary Wasik; Anne Evelyn Birch; David Sharpe and Michael John Robinson [1999] EWCA Civ 1997 28 Jul 1999 CA Landlord and Tenant, Litigation Practice Application for leave to appeal out of time. [ Bailii ] Â Co-Operative Retail Services Ltd v Guardian Assurance Plc [1999] EWCA Civ 1994 28 Jul 1999 CA Litigation Practice [ Bailii ] Â Mullen v Birmingham City Council Times, 29 July 1999 29 Jul 1999 QBD David Foskett QC Litigation Practice Under the new rules, judges were required to take greater control over court proceedings, and accordingly had the power to entertaining a submission of no case to answer at the close of the claimant's case and without first requiring the defendant to elect not to offer any evidence. Civil Procedure Rules 3.1(2)(m) 1 Citers Â Metropolitan Resources Limited v British Railways Board and William Lucas Charles Batchelor [1999] EWCA Civ 2020 29 Jul 1999 CA Land, Litigation Practice [ Bailii ] Â Saab and Another v Saudi American Bank Times, 29 July 1999; Gazette, 11 August 1999 29 Jul 1999 CA Litigation Practice, International When serving an English writ on an oversea company's premises in London, it was not necessary for the allegation to be in respect of business issues wholly or even substantially arising here, only that there is a real element of such business conducted here. Companies Act 1985 694A - Oversea Companies and Credit and Financial Institutions (Branch Disclosure) Regulations 1992 (1992 No 3179) Â Maher v Nazir and Another [1999] EWCA Civ 2059 30 Jul 1999 CA Morritt LJ Litigation Practice Extension of time granted. [ Bailii ] Â Hardial Singh Virk v Gan Life Holdings Plc [1999] EWCA Civ 2047 30 Jul 1999 CA henry LJ, Potter LJ Litigation Practice Appeal against refusal of leave to amend particulars to substitute new defendant. [ Bailii ] Â Â Cobbold v London Borough of Greenwich; CA 9-Aug-1999 - [1999] EWCA Civ 2074 Â J M Clarke v Powys County Council [1999] EWCA Civ 2082 13 Aug 1999 CA Litigation Practice [ Bailii ] Â Adam Phones Ltd v Goldschmidt and Others Times, 17 August 1999; [1999] 4 All ER 486 17 Aug 1999 CA Jacob J Litigation Practice, Contempt of Court Especially given the new emphasis on proportionality, a party who brought contempt proceedings, in the case of an inadvertent breach of an injunction, with a view solely to creating costs for the other party, could expect to face those costs themselves. It was unwise to execute a complex search and seize order on a Saturday when the defendant would not have access to legal advice, and with no supervising solicitor. The mental element required of a contemnor is not that he either intends to breach or knows that he is breaching the court order or undertaking, but only that he intended the act or omission in question, and knew the facts which made it a breach of the order. Jacob J, applying Bhimji, said: "Since that judgment the Civil Procedure Rules have come into force. Their emphasis on proportionality and on looking at the overall conduct of the parties emphasises the point that applications for committal should not be seen as a way of causing costs when the defendant has honestly tried to obey the court's order." Civil Procedure Rules 1 Cites 1 Citers Â Â Regina v Durham County Council ex parte Rodney Huddleston; Admn 17-Aug-1999 - [1999] EWHC Admin 794 Â Singleton v Allied Bakeries Ltd; Slatter; Howards Hydrocare Ltd and Burnett [1999] EWCA Civ 2084 17 Aug 1999 CA Personal Injury, Road Traffic, Litigation Practice [ Bailii ] Â Faiza Pervaiz v Chelsea Building Society [1999] EWCA Civ 2089 18 Aug 1999 CA Litigation Practice Formal putting back of application for application for permission to appeal. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Â Powell v Chief Constable of North Wales Constabulary; CA 20-Aug-1999 - Times, 11 February 2000; [1999] EWCA Civ 2097 Â Â Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, ex parte O'Byrne; Admn 20-Aug-1999 - Times, 12 November 1999; [1999] EWHC Admin 811 Â Commercial Acceptances Limited v Townsend Investments Inc (a Corporate Body Accordingthe Laws of Liberia); Oakes; Oakes; Fairbairn and Malkins (a Firm) [1999] EWCA Civ 2098 20 Aug 1999 CA Litigation Practice, Legal Aid Application for stay of judgment pending grant of legal aid. [ Bailii ] Â Lubbe and others v Cape Plc Times, 03 December 1999; Gazette, 17 December 1999; [1999] EWCA Civ 2107 24 Aug 1999 CA Litigation Practice, International Although the court had previously decided to hear a multi-party case here, rather than in South Africa, the failure to disclose an impending group action was sufficient to transform the case leaving South Africa as clearly the most appropriate forum for the case, and to stay the actions commenced here. The House upheld the general principle that an available forum must be one in which the plaintiff can sue as of right, but treated an undertaking to submit to the alternative jurisdiction (in that case, an undertaking by the English holding company to submit to the jurisdiction of the South African court) as sufficient to show that the forum is available even though given after the application for a stay. 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Ebert v Midland Bank Plc and Malcolm Cohen and GA Auger of BDO Stoy Hayward (Receiver) [1999] EWCA Civ 2108 26 Aug 1999 CA Litigation Practice Application for leave to appeal against order refusing the claimant leave to commence proceedings - pending application for vexatious litigant order. [ Bailii ] Â Grunshaw v Gwynedd Council Times, 30 August 1999 30 Aug 1999 CA Litigation Practice A county court manager receiving a notice of appeal was obliged to enter it on the court record. He was not entitled to reject it on the basis that the rules would say that the appeal should be lodged elsewhere. In so acting the officer carried out a formal and administrative act. The making of a decision about entering the appeal was properly a judicial decision to be made by a judge. County Court Rules 1981 Order 4 Rule 9 Â R H Tomlinson (Trowbridge) Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment and Another Times, 31 August 1999 31 Aug 1999 CA Litigation Practice Under the CPR, a company could now appear at court in person and without a legal representative. The old rule has not been carried forward. However the old rule had been clear and in a case under those rules, the order that the company was not properly before the court was properly made. Civil Procedure Rules 1998 No 3132 Â Charlesworth v Relay Roads Ltd Times, 31 August 1999; [2000] 1 WLR 230 31 Aug 1999 ChD Nueberger J Litigation Practice It remains possible to amend pleadings after judgment but before the order is drawn up, provided the party involved complies with the appropriate procedures. This may apply even though it would require the presentation of further evidence and argument to the court. 1 Cites 1 Citers Â Re G, S and M (Wasted Costs) [1999] EWHC Fam 828; [2000] 1 FLR 52; [1999] 4 All ER 371; [1999] 3 FCR 303; [2000] Fam 104; [2000] 2 WLR 1007; [2000] Fam Law 24 20 Sep 1999 FD Wall J Legal Professions, Litigation Practice, Children The court discussed the duty of counsel and their instructing solicitors in proceedings under the Children Act 1989 to ensure that expert witnesses are kept up to date with events in the case; and, in particular, that before expert witnesses are called to give oral evidence, they have been sent and have read all relevant documents, particularly those which have emerged since their reports were written. Children Act 1989 [ Bailii ] Â Comninos v Prudential Assurance Company Ltd (The Ikarian Reefer no 2) [1999] EWCA Civ 3019; [2000] 1 All ER 37; [1999] 2 All ER (Comm) 673; [2000] 1 Lloyd's Rep 129; [2000] 1 WLR 603; [2000] Lloyd's Rep IR 230; [2000] CLC 22; [2000] 1 Costs LR 37; [2000] CP Rep 13; [2000] ILPr 490 12 Oct 1999 CA Simon Brown LJ, Waller LJ, Tuckey LJ Litigation Practice, Costs, Jurisdiction Mr Comninos challenged the jurisdiction of the court to have made an order for costs made against him. Supreme Court Act 1981 51 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â MacDonald and Another v Thorn Plc Times, 15 October 1999 15 Oct 1999 CA Litigation Practice A court faced an application to set aside a judgment entered into by default of the defendant filing a defence. He agreed that the defendant had a defence on the merits, but because the defendant had been dilatory in dealing with the matter before issue of proceedings, he refused to set aside the default judgment. It was held that the time before proceedings was irrelevant for this purpose, and must be disregarded. Â Â Customs and Excise v Anchor Foods Ltd (No.4); ChD 18-Oct-1999 - [1999] EWHC 835 (Ch) Â Â Federal Bank of the Middle East Limited v Charles Hadkinson and Others; ChD 20-Oct-1999 - Times, 07 December 1999; Gazette, 25 November 1999; [1999] EWHC Ch 201 Â Â Swain v Hillman; CA 21-Oct-1999 - Times, 04 November 1999; [2001] 1 All ER 91; [2001] CP Rep 16; [2000] PIQR 51; [1999] CPLR 779; [1999] EWCA Civ 3053 Â Lamothe and Others v Commissioner of Police Of the Metropolis [1999] EWCA Civ 3034 25 Oct 1999 CA Lord Bingham CJ, May LJ Police, Litigation Practice The court was asked as to the propriety of the procedure adopted by the circuit judge, who when considering a claim for false imprisonment, assault and trespass had initially acceded to an application by the defendant which was made without notice before deciding in the absence of the claimant first that the defendant's officers had reasonable grounds for believing the particular person was present in the premises and second that the claimants would be prohibited from asking any questions of the defendants' witnesses which might reveal the grounds for their belief. The ground of appeal was that the procedure adopted by the circuit judge was contrary to the ordinary rules of procedure and was unfair. Lord Bingham CJ explained that where the complaint was lack of particularity, then the defendant had three choices when faced with the contention that the claim should be struck out as disclosing no defence. They were first to accept that the paragraph should be struck out and second to contend that the paragraphs were unobjectionable while the third course which might be combined with the second course was to accept that the paragraphs were objectionable as they stood but to contend that they could be saved by amendment and by the addition of appropriate particulars. If the defendant felt inhibited from disclosing information, then this would be the proper subject of a claim for Public Iinterest Immunity. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Sullivan v Blanning Times, 27 October 1999 27 Oct 1999 CA Litigation Practice Where a court seal had been affixed to a document to show its receipt, but the document was not entered into the court records as received until later, when the application had become out of time, the only inference to be drawn by the court was that it had been received in time. Â Â Begum (Nipa) v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council; CA 1-Nov-1999 - Gazette, 17 November 1999; Times, 09 November 1999; [2000] 1 WLR 306; [1999] EWCA Civ 3051; [2000] COD 31; (2000) 32 HLR 445 Â Â Arrow Nominees Inc, Blackledge v Blackledge; ChD 2-Nov-1999 - Times, 08 December 1999; [1999] EWCA 198; [2000] BCLC 187 Â Sleeman v Highway Care Ltd Times, 03 November 1999 3 Nov 1999 CA Litigation Practice Where a court faced a situation where the time for oral submissions had overrun, it was open to him to order written submissions. He had the discretion whether or not to order sequential submissions or exchange, and could choose not to allow final oral submissions. Once having heard oral submissions, much was to be lost by delay in which the advantage of fresh impressions might be lost. Â Memory Corporation Plc and Another v Sidhu and Another [1999] EWHC 849 (Ch) 3 Nov 1999 ChD Arden J Litigation Practice, Human Rights The court was asked whether as a matter of principle the privilege against self-incrimination can be claimed by a defendant who has been ordered to attend for cross-examination on affidavit. [ Bailii ] Â Â Unilever plc v Procter and Gamble Company; CA 4-Nov-1999 - Times, 04 November 1999; Gazette, 17 November 1999; [1999] I P and T 171; [2000] 1 WLR 2436; [2000] FSR 344; [2000] RPC 344; [1999] EWCA Civ 3027; (2000) 23(1) IPD 23001; [2001] 1 All ER 783 Â Â Morgans (A Firm) v Needham; CA 5-Nov-1999 - Times, 05 November 1999; Gazette, 17 November 1999; [1999] EWCA Civ 560 Â In Re Blenheim Leisure (Restaurants) Ltd (No 3) Gazette, 17 November 1999; Times, 09 November 1999 9 Nov 1999 ChD Litigation Practice It was wrong in principle to go back to a judge to ask him to reconsider his own interlocutory decision. Such an approach should only be made with very strong reason, since it worked against finality and wasted court time. The order not having been drawn up, the judge had retained such jurisdiction, but should only exercise it with great care. Â In re Blenheim Leisure (Restaurants) Ltd (No 3) Times, 09 November 1999 9 Nov 1999 Neuberger J Litigation Practice Neuberger J gave examples of cases where a judge might revisit his decision: a plain mistake by the court, the parties' failure to draw to the court's attention a plainly relevant fact or point of law and the discovery of new facts after judgment was given. 1 Citers Â Â Interoute Telecommunications (UK) Ltd v Fashion Gossip Ltd and Others; ChD 10-Nov-1999 - Times, 10 November 1999 Â Little and Others v George Little Sebire and Co Times, 17 November 1999 17 Nov 1999 QBD Damages, Litigation Practice, Professional Negligence 1 Cites 1 Citers Â De Beauville v Swycher and Co and Another Unreported 22 November 1999 22 Nov 1999 Litigation Practice 1 Citers Â Johnson v Valks Times, 23 November 1999; Gazette, 01 December 1999; [2000] 1 WLR 1502; [2000] 1 All ER 450 23 Nov 1999 CA Robert Walker LJ, Swinton Thomas LJ Litigation Practice, Human Rights A person requiring leave to issue proceedings as a vexatious litigant, had also to obtain leave again before entering an appeal to the Court of Appeal. The entering of an appeal is either the institution of new proceedings, or an application requiring leave as an application in any civil proceedings instituted in any court. Sir Richard Scott, Vice-Chancellor observed: "As a general principle, if a judge of the High Court, to whom application is made by a vexatious litigant for permission to institute proceedings, grants that permission, the leave that is granted franks the proceedings. Every judgment at first instance now requires permission to appeal for the case to be taken further. An application for that permission will receive the attention of either the first instance judge or, as it maybe, the Court of Appeal. A vexatious appeal will not be permitted. So once the High Court has given permission for proceedings to be instituted, a further application to the High Court for permission to institute an appeal is, as it seems to me, superfluous. As at present, however, there is no escape from the requirement that a further application for permission to appeal must be made to the High Court. I propose, the point having come to my attention via Mr Johnson's proposed appeal, to raise the question with the Rules Committee and see whether we are able to amend the Rules so as to make it clear that no further application under s. 42 of the 1981 Act is needed once permission to institute proceedings has been granted." Supreme Court Act 1981 42(1A) 1 Citers Â Stanway v Attorney-General et al Times, 25 November 1999 25 Nov 1999 ChD Litigation Practice Where a defendant had brought a counter-claim against his co-defendants but had restricted that claim to issues raised already by the claim against himself, he was not to be prevented from commencing fresh proceedings against the co-defendants where the issues raised had not been dealt with in the first proceedings. The rules against relitigating issues were not being broken. Â Biosource Technologies Inc v Axia Genetics Plc (In Administration) Times, 25 November 1999; Gazette, 25 November 1999 25 Nov 1999 ChD Insolvency, Litigation Practice, Intellectual Property The rule which prevents a company in administration being prosecuted without the leave of the court, was not intended only to restrict creditors. Here another company wanted to bring patent infringement proceedings, but were first to be required to obtain the court's consent. Insolvency Act 1986 11(3)(d) Â Forrest and Another v Towry Law Financial Services Ltd and Others Gazette, 25 November 1999; Times, 03 December 1999 25 Nov 1999 CA Administrative, Litigation Practice, Financial Services Once a writ had been issued, the Ombudsman had no standing to hear a complaint. The applicant wished to preserve his rights against the defendant in negligence but to pursue a complaint first. It was held that the writ having been issued, it would first have to be stayed, adjourned or discontinued, before the Ombudsman could accept jurisdiction on the complaint. Â Macharia v Secretary of State for the Home Department Times, 25 November 1999; Gazette, 01 December 1999 25 Nov 1999 CA Immigration, Litigation Practice, Administrative The Immigration Appeal Tribunal does not have discretion, whether implied or otherwise, to admit new or further evidence without notice having first been given. The Rules explicitly required advance notice to be given, and nor was it proper for the tribunal itself to introduce evidence. The absence of a rule against such admission of evidence was not conclusive. Asylum (Appeals) Procedure Rules 1996 No 2070 Â Gulf Azov Shipping Company Ltd and Another v Idisi and others [1999] EWHC 283 (Comm) 26 Nov 1999 ComC Langley J Litigation Practice, Contempt of Court Application to deny to defendants the right to file evidence on application to set aside summary judgment where they were in contempt of court. ComC Applications by claimant for summary judgment and an order prohibiting the defendant from submitting evidence (i) opposing application for summary judgment or (ii) in support of its own application to set aside a judgment in default of defence; application by defendant to set aside judgment in default. Contempt of court – worldwide freezing order against defendant– breach of disclosure order - jurisdiction of the court to prohibit a contemnor from participation in proceedings in the same action in which the orders of which he is in contempt were made. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Practice Direction (Queen's Bench Division: Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Litigation Against the Ministry of Defence: Group Action (Group 1) and (Group 2) Times, 26 November 1999 26 Nov 1999 QBD Litigation Practice, Personal Injury Directions were given for the conduct of all the cases brought together as group actions under the above references, including for the transfer of them all to Royal Courts of Justice, for the commencement of future proceedings, the marking of all documents, and the assignment of Master Rose and Justice Buckley to hear issues arising. Â Phelps v Spon-Smith and Co (A Firm) Times, 26 November 1999; Gazette, 01 December 1999 26 Nov 1999 ChD Litigation Practice, Limitation It was possible to amend a writ to add a cause of action out of time where that cause had been included in the original pleadings served within the limitation period, but which had been omitted by mere error from the writ. Limitation Act 1980 25 - Rules of the Supreme Cour Order 20 Â SBJ Stephenson Ltd v Mandy [1999] EWHC 277 (QB) 1 Dec 1999 QBD Bell J Litigation Practice Application for order for costs againat a third party. [ Bailii ] Â Hazlett v Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council [2000] 4 All ER 887; [2001] 1 Costs LR 89 2 Dec 1999 QBD Lord Bingham of Cornhill CJ and Harrison J Legal Professions, Costs, Litigation Practice The need for a party claiming his costs to give evidence to prove his entitlement to costs rather than relying on the presumption in his favour, will not arise if the defendant simply puts the complainant to proof of his entitlement to costs. The complainant can rely on the presumption in his favour. The defendant must raise a genuine issue as to whether the complainant is liable for his solicitors’ costs before the complainant has to adduce evidence to show that his entitlement. The complainant is presumed to be personally liable for his solicitors’ costs and it should not normally be necessary for the complainant to have to adduce evidence to that effect. Harrison J said: "there is normally a presumption that the complainant will be personally liable for his solicitors' costs and it should not normally be necessary for the complainant to have to adduce evidence to that effect." and "Where, however, there is a genuine issue raised by the defendant as to whether the complainant has properly incurred costs in the proceedings, the position will be different. A defendant may, for instance, have grounds for believing that the complainant will not be liable to pay his solicitor's costs, whether because he has entered into an unlawful and unenforceable conditional fee arrangement with his solicitor or for any other reason. In those circumstances, where the defendant has raised a genuine issue as to whether the complainant has properly incurred costs in the proceedings, the complainant will be at risk if he continues to rely on the presumption that he is liable for his solicitor's costs. If he does not then adduce evidence to prove that he has properly incurred costs in the proceedings and the defendant can show by evidence or argument, that he has not, he would be most unlikely to succeed in recovering his costs. The need for a complainant to give evidence to prove his entitlement to costs rather than relying on the presumption in his favour will not, however, arise if the defendant simply puts the complainant to proof of his entitlement to costs. The complainant would be justified in relying on the presumption in his favour. It would be necessary for the defendant to raise a genuine issue as to whether the complainant is liable for his solicitors' costs before the complainant would be called upon to adduce evidence to show that he is entitled to his costs. It will be for the trial judge to decide whether or not the defendant has raised an issue which calls for proof by the complainant of his liability to costs. Prior notice of the issue to be raised by the defendant should be given to the complainant in sufficient time before the hearing to enable the complainant to deal with it properly at the hearing and to avoid the necessity of an adjournment at the defendant's expense." and "the mere non-acceptance by a defendant that an agreement between the complainant and his solicitor is a proper private fee agreement would not of itself be sufficient to call for evidence from the complainant. The defendant must show that there is a genuine reason for believing that it is not a proper private fee agreement before the complainant should need to consider adducing evidence to support the presumption in his favour." 1 Citers Â Â Aadan v Brent London Borough Council; CA 3-Dec-1999 - Times, 03 December 1999; (1999) 32 HLR 848 Â Â Worsley v Tambrands Ltd; CA 3-Dec-1999 - Gazette, 17 December 1999; Times, 11 February 2000; [1999] EWHC 273 (QB); [2000] PIQR P95 Â Â Memory Corporation v Sidhu (No 2); CA 3-Dec-1999 - Times, 15 February 2000; Gazette, 27 January 2000; Times, 03 December 1999; [2000] EWCA Civ 9; [2000] 1 WLR 1443 Â Messier-Dowty Ltd and Another v Sabena Sa and others [1999] EWHC 282 (Comm); [2001] WLR 2040 3 Dec 1999 ComC Langley J Personal Injury, Litigation Practice Application by 2 & 3 defendants for an order suspending proceedings in England pending production and consideration of expert report. Whether, pursuant to Supreme Court Act 1981 s. 49(3) and CPR 3.1(2)(f), there were “compelling circumstances” required to justify the Court making an order to stay proceedings. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Â Farah and Others v Home Office, British Airways Plc and Another; CA 6-Dec-1999 - Times, 26 January 2000 Â Â UCB Corporate Services Ltd (formerly UCB Bank plc) v Halifax (SW) Ltd; CA 6-Dec-1999 - Times, 23 December 1999; Gazette, 07 January 2000 Â Field and Another v Leeds City Council Times, 18 January 2000; Gazette, 03 February 2000; (2000) 17 EG 165; [1999] EWCA Civ 3013; [1999] CPLR 833 8 Dec 1999 CA Lord Woolf MR, Waller LJ, May LJ Litigation Practice, Housing, Evidence The parties were involved in a dispute as to repairs on a tenanted property. The court had ordered an independent surveyor's report. The claimant objected to the use by the defendant of an employee for this purpose, and was involved in their claims investigation department. Held: The judge's decision to exclude the evidence at an interim hearing when the impartiality had not been demonstrated. However, the court could not properly have rejected evidence from such a party without seeing a report prepared by him. He would otherwise have been qualified to report. The fact that a proposed epert witness was an employee of a party need not always debar him from acting. He needed to demonstrate that he was properly qualified, and that he understood that he first duty was to the court and not to his employer or the party calling him. Waller LJ said: "The question whether someone should be able to give expert evidence should depend on whether, (i) it can be demonstrated whether that person has relevant expertise in an area in issue in the case; and (ii) that it can be demonstrated that he or she is aware of their primary duty to the court if they give expert evidence. " Environmental Protection Act 1990 82 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Â Axa Insurance Co Ltd v Swire Fraser Ltd; CA 9-Dec-1999 - Times, 19 January 2000; [2000] CLC 665; [2001] CP Rep 17; [2000] CPLR 142 Â Greening and Another (Trading As Automania) v Williams Times, 10 December 1999 10 Dec 1999 CA Litigation Practice, Costs In order to establish a plea of tender before, the defendant had, in addition to making the actual payment into court, also to serve on the claimant the formal notice required under the rules to say that the payment had been made. In the absence of such, he achieved no protection form an award of costs. Notification by means of the pleadings in the action was not sufficient. Rules of the Supreme Court Ord 18 R 16 Â Natwest Lombard Factors Ltd v Arbis Times, 10 December 1999 10 Dec 1999 ChD Litigation Practice In order to mark the fundamental nature of the changes from the old civil procedure rules to the new, there can be no assumption made that phrases interpreted under the old rules would be interpreted identically under the new ones, even though the form of words chosen was identical. Â Powell v Chief Constable of North Wales Constabulary Unreported, 16 December 1999 16 Dec 1999 CA Roch LJ Litigation Practice Roch LJ said: "When an issue of public interest immunity is raised, the court's first duty is to weigh the public interest in preserving the immunity against the public interest that all relevant information which might assist a court to ascertain facts relevant to an issue upon which the court is required to adjudicate should be before the court. See the passage from the speech of Lord Diplock in D v. NSPCC cited in Schiemann's LJ's judgment. Clearly the second public interest will be stronger in criminal cases than in civil cases because, normally, what will be at stake in criminal cases, namely the good name and liberty of the accused, will be weightier than what will be at stake in civil proceedings. No doubt there will be cases where, in order to carry out this balancing exercise, the judge will have to have disclosed to him the information for which the immunity is sought . . Once the balance comes down in favour of preserving the immunity from disclosure, then the court has no further discretion. Once that point is reached, it becomes a rule of law that the material or information must be excluded from the case, see Marks v. Beyfus and the passages from that case cited by Schiemann LJ." 1 Cites 1 Citers Â Purdy v Cambran Unreported, 17 December 1999; [2000] CP Rep 67 17 Dec 1999 May LJ Litigation Practice It is necessary to concentrate on the intrinsic justice of a particular case in the light of the overriding objective. "For the reasons which I have just given, I think that the question is whether the claim has no real prospect of succeeding at trial and that it has to be answered having regard to the overriding objective of dealing with the case justly. But the point which is of crucial importance lies in the answer to the further question that then needs to be asked, which is - what is to be the scope of that inquiry? . . The method by which issues of fact are tried in our courts is well settled. After the normal processes of discovery and interrogatories have been completed, the parties are allowed to lead their evidence so that the trial judge can determine where the truth lies in the light of that evidence. To that rule there are some well-recognised exceptions. For example, it may be clear as a matter of law at the outset that even if a party were to succeed in proving all the facts that he offers to prove he will not be entitled to the remedy that he seeks. In that event a trial of the facts would be a waste of time and money, and it is proper that the action should be taken out of court as soon as possible. In other cases it may be possible to say with confidence before trial that the factual basis for the claim is fanciful because it is entirely without substance. It may be clear beyond question that the statement of facts is contradicted by all the documents or other material on which it is based. The simpler the case the easier it is likely to be take that view and resort to what is properly called summary judgment. But more complex cases are unlikely to be capable of being resolved in that way without conducting a mini-trial on the documents without discovery and without oral evidence. As Lord Woolf said in Swain v Hillman, at p 95, that is not the object of the rule. It is designed to deal with cases that are not fit for trial at all." Civil Procedure Rules 1 Citers Â Â In Re B (A Child) (Split Hearings: Jurisdiction); CA 17-Dec-1999 - Gazette, 17 December 1999; Times, 18 January 2000 Â Â Regina v Bow County Court, Ex Parte Pelling; CA 17-Dec-1999 - Times, 18 August 1999; Gazette, 17 December 1999; [1999] EWCA Civ 2004; [1999] 1 WLR 1807; [1999] 2 FLR 1126 Â Mann v Carnell [1999] HCA 66; [1999] 201 CLR 1; [1999] 168 ALR 86; [1999] 74 ALJR 378 21 Dec 1999 Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, Gummow and Callinan JJJ Commonwealth, Legal Professions, Litigation Practice Austlii (High Court of Australia) Practice and procedure - Preliminary discovery - Legal professional privilege - Loss of privilege - Waiver by disclosure to third party. Australian Capital Territory - Separation of powers - Representative government - Nature of relationship between the ACT Legislative Assembly and the ACT Executive. Words and phrases - "client legal privilege". "What brings about the waiver is the inconsistency, which the courts, where necessary informed by considerations of fairness, perceive, between the conduct of the client and maintenance of the confidentiality; not some over-riding principle of fairness operating at large. . Disclosure by a client of confidential legal advice received by the client, which may be for the purpose of explaining or justifying the client's actions, or for some other purpose, will waive privilege if such disclosure is inconsistent with the confidentiality which the privilege serves to protect . . considerations of fairness may be relevant to a determination of whether there is such inconsistency." 1 Citers [ Austlii ] Â Midas IT Services v Opus Portfolio Ltd Unreported, 21/12/1999 21 Dec 1999 ChD Blackburne J Equity, Litigation Practice The springboard relief jurisdiction has been created so as to deprive wrongdoers of the fruits of their breach of duty and to restore the position to before the wrongdoing. Â Morris and Others v Banque Arabe et Internationale D'Investissement Sa Times, 23 December 1999; Gazette, 07 January 2000 23 Dec 1999 ChD Litigation Practice, International A party which had been ordered to produce documents which were under its control but in a foreign jurisdiction, did not have the right to refuse to produce them on the grounds that this would require them to breach the laws of the jurisdiction in which they were held. That was clearly a relevant consideration, but the decision remained that of the court which had a wide discretion. Rules regarding the enforcement of illegal contracts were not directly comparable. Â
		Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.

swarb.co.uk - law index

Litigation Practice - From: 1999 To: 1999