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.  














Litigation Practice - From: 2001 To: 2001

This page lists 255 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Amec Developments Limited v Jury's Hotel Management (UK) Limited [2001] EGLR 81
2001

Anthony Mann QC
Litigation Practice, Damages
A hotel had been built so as to encroach across a building line in breach of covenant, allowing the hotel to have 25 more rooms than it would otherwise have enjoyed. The court considered conflicting evidence as to the capital value of the additional rooms. Held: The court set out in detail its approach to the hypothetical negotiation for a licence to breach the covenant in great detail, including a preference for Amec's method of arriving at the incremental value of the additional rooms, and awarded £375,000, nearly 20 per cent of the increased value on that view. The correct date for assessing damages is normally the date before the building works in question are started.
1 Citers


 
Aquarius Financial Enterprises v Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's (2001) 151 New LJ 694
2001

Toulson J
Litigation Practice

1 Citers


 
Darren Watson v Chief Constable of Cleveland Police [2001] EWCA Civ 1547
2001
CA
Sir Murray Stuart-Smith
Litigation Practice
The Court of Appeal should only interfere with a judge's decision to limit cross-examination if the decision is outside an acceptable range of decisions at which a judge can legitimately arrive
1 Citers



 
 Charlesworth v Road Relay; 2001 - [2001] 1 WLR 230

 
 Mubarak v Mubarak; CA 2001 - [2001] 1 FLR 698

 
 Gangway Ltd v Caledonian Park Investments (Jersey) Ltd; 2001 - [2001] 2 Lloyd's Rep 715
 
Liverpool Roman Catholic Archdeacon Trustees Inc v Goldberg (No 2) [2001] 1 WLR 2337; [2001] 4 All ER 950; [2001] Lloyds Rep Prosecution 518
2001

Evans Lombe J
Litigation Practice
The claimant brought proceedings for professional negligence against a barrister specialising in tax. The Defendant wished to rely upon the expert evidence of another tax barrister in the same set of chambers as him, who was a friend of many years' standing. In his expert report, the proposed expert said that he did not believe his relationship with the defendant would affect his evidence, but accepted that his personal sympathies were engaged to a greater degree than would probably be normal with an expert witness. Held: The court may take a different view from that of the parties as to whether an expert has a conflict of interest which might lead the court to reject the independence of his opinion. By the admission that his personal sympathies were engaged to a greater degree than would probably be normal with an expert witness, the expert had rendered his evidence unacceptable on the grounds of public policy that justice must be seen to be done as well as done.
Evans Lombe J said: "However, in my judgment, where it is demonstrated that there exists a relationship between the proposed expert and the party calling him which a reasonable observer might think was capable of affecting the views of the expert so as to make them unduly favourable to that party, his evidence should not be admitted however unbiased the conclusions of the expert might probably be. The question is one of fact, namely the extent and nature of the relationship between the proposed witness and the party."
1 Citers


 
Kooltrade v XTS Ltd [2001] IPD 25018
2001


Litigation Practice
The court refused an application by the claimant, made after judgment, to add additional defendants. It was no longer possible to re-open the judgment, and the capacity of the purported additional defendants to defend had been prejudiced.


 
 Carter Holt Forests Ltd v Sunnex Logging Ltd; 2001 - [2001] 3 NZLR 343

 
 In re S (A Child) (Family Division: Without Notice Orders); FD 2001 - [2001] 1 FLR 308; [2001] 1 WLR 211; [2001] 1 All ER 362

 
 Boxall v Waltham Forest Borough Council; 2001 - (2001) 4 CCLR 258

 
 Re B (Disclosure to other parties); FD 2001 - [2001] 2 FLR 1017

 
 Milne v Telegraph Ltd; QBD 2001 - [2001] EMLR 760
 
Imutran Ltd v Uncaged Campaigns Ltd and Another Times, 30 January 2001; Gazette, 05 April 2001; [2001] EWHC Ch 31; [2001] 2 All ER 385; [2002] FSR 2; [2001] HRLR 31; [2001] EMLR 21; [2001] CP Rep 28; [2001] ECDR 16
11 Jan 2001
ChD
Sir Andrew Morritt
Litigation Practice, Intellectual Property, Human Rights, Media
The test for whether an interim injunction should be granted restraining publication of material claimed to be confidential, where such a grant would infringe the right to freedom of expression was slightly different under the 1998 Act. The established test was whether the claimant had a real prospect of succeeding at trial in restraining publication, but the new test was whether he was likely to do so. Nevertheless the difference was so small as to make any calculation fruitless.
The court was asked to restrain the publication of confidential documents, and the effect of the section. The defendants argued that the requirement of likelihood imposed a higher standard than that formulated in American Cyanamid, but the claimant said that his case satisfied whatever the standard was applied. Theoretically and as a matter of language likelihood is slightly higher in the scale of probability than a real prospect of success. But the difference between the two is small. The court could not imagine many (if any) cases which would have succeeded under the American Cyanamid test but will now fail because of the terms of section 12(3). The court applied the test of likelihood without any further consideration of how much more probable that now has to be.
Sir Andrew Morritt set out the approach to be taken: "Of course, the defendants' right to freedom of expression is an element in their democratic right to campaign for the abolition of all animal xenotransplantation or other experimentation. But they may continue to do that whether the injunction sought by Imutran is granted or not. The issue is whether they should be free to do so with Imutran's confidential and secret documents. Many of those documents are of a specialist and technical nature suitable for consideration by specialists in the field but not by the public generally. Given the provisos to the injunction sought there would be no restriction on the ability of the defendants to communicate the information to those specialists connected with the regulatory bodies denoted by Parliament as having special responsibility in the field."
Human Rights Act 1998 12(3)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Practice Direction (Judgments: Form and Citation) Times, 16 January 2001
16 Jan 2001
LCJ

Litigation Practice
The need to cite judgments consistently, and the growth of reporting cases on the Internet, required the amendment of the systems of reporting cases on the world wide web. Judgments will in future be set with paragraph but not page numbering. Cases will have a number assigned when the judgment is handed down, and that numbering will be used in the Court of Appeal and Administrative courts and later extended to other divisions of the High Court.

 
Irving v Penguin Books Ltd and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 114
17 Jan 2001
CA

Defamation, Litigation Practice
Application for leave to appeal out of time against judgment and a stay of the costs award until the appeal.
[ Bailii ]
 
Rall v Hume [2001] EWCA Civ 153
17 Jan 2001
CA
Potter, Sedley LJJ
Litigation Practice

[ Bailii ]

 
 Grobbelaar v News Group Newspapers and Another; CA 18-Jan-2001 - [2001] EWCA Civ 1213
 
HM Attorney General v Times Newspaper, Kelsey and Leppard [2001] EWCA Civ 38
19 Jan 2001
CA
Waller LJ, Robert Walker LJ, Mance LJ
Media, Litigation Practice
Previous proceedings had been settled by an undertaking given by the newspaper to refrain from publishing certain material subject to provisos. It later sought a variation, the terms of which were not agreed by the Attorney General. It was then learned that the material was to be published in Russia. Held: The matter came on as an urgent appeal but would require full argument, and an immediate order was refused.
[ Bailii ]
 
Pelling, Regina (on the Application Of) v Bow County Court [2001] EWCA Civ 122
22 Jan 2001
CA

Litigation Practice

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Mutch v Allen [2001] EWCA Civ 76; [2001] PIQR P26; [2001] CPLR 200; [2001] CP Rep 77
22 Jan 2001
CA
Simon Brown, Longmore LJJ
Litigation Practice, Personal Injury
Defendant's appeal against part of an order made on a pretrial review. The part of the order appealed against is that by which the judge reversed an order previously made in the action on the case management conference by which the defendant was allowed to put written questions to the claimant's medical experts under the provisions of CPR Part 35.6
[ Bailii ]
 
Kattos v Prettys (A Firm) [2001] EWCA Civ 53
22 Jan 2001
CA

Litigation Practice
Effect of compromise agreement on existing order for costs.
[ Bailii ]
 
Nanglegan v Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust Times, 14 February 2001; [2002] 1 WLR 1043; [2001] EWCA Civ 127
23 Jan 2001
CA

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

[ Bailii ]
 
M J Mellor Joinery and Buildings Services (A Firm) v Needham and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 46
24 Jan 2001
CA

Litigation Practice
Further adjournment of application for leave to appeal, but further hearing to be on paper only.
[ Bailii ]
 
Network Multimedia Television Ltd v Jobserve Ltd Times, 25 January 2001
25 Jan 2001
ChD

Litigation Practice
Where one party had been granted an ex parte injunction, but the other party then applied to have it discharged on the basis that the application had been made with a material nondisclosure, the following, and new guidelines should be considered by the judge when the original party then requested the continuation of the injunction. Whether or not the two applications should be held together was a matter of convenience only, and much depended on the particular case. The court should allow for the likely extent of any delay, prejudice to the defendant of continuation of the defendant in the light of the possibility of the material non-disclosure, prejudice to the claimant where the injunction might later be continued on its merits allowing for the fact that the claimant might later face prejudice from the court because of the material non-disclosure, the precise grounds of which the discharge was sought, allowing for the degree of seriousness of the allegation, the relationship of the applicants, and any substantive issues of law, and the urgency of the original application, allowing the possibility that the more urgent the case, the more excusable might be the non-disclosure.

 
Demite Ltd v Hanmer Webb-Peploe and others [2001] EWCA Civ 106
25 Jan 2001
CA

Litigation Practice

[ Bailii ]
 
Gulf Azov Shipping Company Ltd and Another v Idisi and others [2001] EWCA Civ 54
25 Jan 2001
CA
Mance LJ
Litigation Practice
An order was made for the defendant to put up security for costs in order to pursue an appeal. The order had been for the security to be in cash. Application was now made for the security to be by way of a guarantee or bond. Held: The proposed bond was not satisfactory.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Mensah, Application for Permission; Mensah v Royal Berkshire and Battle Hospitals NHS Trust [2001] EWCA Civ 98
26 Jan 2001
CA

Litigation Practice, Discrimination, Employment

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
SMC Engineering (Bristol) Ltd v Fraser and Another Times, 26 January 2001
26 Jan 2001
CA

Litigation Practice, Legal Professions
In a County Court case, one party complained that the solicitors representing the other party, a corporation, had previously acted for them. The court made an order requiring the corporate litigant to appoint another firm of solicitors. The corporation appealed. The order was lifted. Its form was objectionable in that it positively required the appointment of a different firm. A proper order was merely an order that the solicitors should not continue to represent that litigant.

 
Senior and Another v Pearson and Ward (A Firm) [2001] EWCA Civ 229
26 Jan 2001
CA

Litigation Practice, Limitation
An amendment outside the limitation period against solicitors alleging a failure to advise was permitted, where the original allegation was simply that the solicitors had acted without or in disregard of instructions.
Limitation Act 1980
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
CPL Mechanical and Pipe Installation Specialists Ltd v Durr Industries Incorporated [2001] EWCA Civ 89
29 Jan 2001
CA
Sedley, Jonathan Parker LJJ
Contract, Litigation Practice
Renewed application for leave to appeal agaist refusal to set aside judgment in default.
[ Bailii ]
 
Affymetrix Inc; Affymetrix UK Ltd and Beckman Coulter Inc (2) [2001] EWCA Civ 1227
30 Jan 2001
CA

Evidence, Litigation Practice

[ Bailii ]

 
 Attorney-General v Times Newspapers Ltd; CA 31-Jan-2001 - Times, 31 January 2001; Gazette, 01 March 2001
 
Frewin v Boski and others [2001] EWCA Civ 120
31 Jan 2001
CA
May LJ
Litigation Practice
Application for permission to appeal.
[ Bailii ]

 
 Stevens v School of Oriental and African Studies and others; ChD 2-Feb-2001 - Times, 02 February 2001

 
 Prashar v Secretary of State For Environment, Transport and Regions; CA 2-Feb-2001 - [2001] EWCA Civ 1231; [2001] 3 PLR 116

 
 Kuwait Airways Corporation v Iraqi Airways Company and Another (No 2); HL 8-Feb-2001 - Gazette, 15 February 2001; Times, 14 February 2001; [2001] 1 Lloyd's Rep 485; [2001] 1 WLR 429; [2001] UKHL 72
 
Sally Rall v Ross Hume Gazette, 08 March 2001; Times, 14 March 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 146; [2001] 3 All ER 248; [2001] CPLR 239; [2001] CP Rep 58
8 Feb 2001
CA
Potter LJ
Personal Injury, Litigation Practice, Civil Procedure Rules
A surveillance film of a claimant was a document within the rules. The rules make no specific provision for the admission of such material for the purposes of cross examination of a claimant. A party proposing to use such material was under all the obligations which would apply to other documents as to disclosure and inspection. Application for the use of such material must be made at the first practicable opportunity. Where video evidence is available which, according to one party substantially undermines the case of the other, it should be admitted to allow cross examination on it.
Potter LJ said: "For the purposes of disclosure, a video film or recording is a document within the extended meaning contained in CPR 31.4. A defendant who proposes to use such a film to attack a claimant's case is therefore subject to all the rules as to disclosure and inspection of documents contained in CPR 31. Equally, if disclosure is made in accordance with CPR 31, whether as part of standard disclosure under CPR 31.6 or the duty of continuing disclosure under CPR 31.11, the claimant will be deemed to admit the authenticity of the film unless notice is served that the claimant wishes the document to be proved at trial. If the claimant does so, the defendant will be obliged to serve a witness statement by the person who took the film in order to prove its authenticity. If the claimant does not challenge the authenticity of the film, however, it is, in the absence of any ruling by the court to the contrary, available to the defendant for the purposes of cross-examining the claimant and/or the claimant's expert medical witnesses at court."
and "It is therefore necessary in the interests of proper case management and the avoidance of wasted court time that the matter be ventilated with the judge managing the case at the first practicable opportunity once a decision has been made by a defendant to rely on video evidence obtained."
Where the authenticity of such evidence is not challenged: "the issue was whether or not the defendant should be prevented from exercising what prima facie was his right to cross-examine the plaintiff by putting to her for her comment such parts of the video as the defendant thought appropriate for the purposes of undermining her case . . In principle, as it seems to me, the starting point on any application of this kind must be that, where video evidence is available which, according to the defendant, undermines the case of the claimant to an extent that would substantially reduce the award of damages to which she is entitled, it will usually be in the overall interests of justice to require that the defendant should be permitted to cross-examine the plaintiff and her medical advisors upon it, so long as this does not amount to trial by ambush."
Civil Procedure Rules 31.4
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Wake v Page and Another Times, 09 February 2001; [2001] RTR 291
9 Feb 2001
CA
Kennedy LJ
Insurance, Estoppel, Litigation Practice, Road Traffic
Insurers were quite entitled to insist upon service of the statutory seven day notice of an intention to sue. In the absence of a notice very were not liable even though they were fully aware of the possibility of action. However regrettable it was there was no representation from the Insurers that they would waive their right for formal notice, and no equitable estoppel arose. A prudent solicitor would be well advised to ensure that the insurance company received written notice within seven days after the commencement of proceedings.
1 Citers



 
 Barings Plc (In Liquidation) and Another v Coopers and Lybrand (A Firm) and Others etc; ChD 9-Feb-2001 - Times, 07 March 2001; Gazette, 29 March 2001; [2001] EWHC Ch 17
 
Havard v Howells [2001] EWCA Civ 152
12 Feb 2001
CA

Litigation Practice

[ Bailii ]
 
Cosgrove and Another v Pattison and Another Times, 13 February 2001
13 Feb 2001
ChD

Litigation Practice
The court set down a non-exhaustive list of factors to be considered where one party wanted to bring in its own expert after the court had ordered a single joint expert. These were: the number of dispute were the expert's evidence was expected to be relevant, the reasons asserted for needing the additional expert, the amount at stake, the likely effect on the trial, including any delay, any other special features, and the overall justice to the parties.


 
 Lloyds TSB Bank Plc v Mccoll and Another; CA 13-Feb-2001 - [2001] EWCA Civ 465

 
 Gulf Azov Shipping Company Ltd and Another v Chief Humphrey Irikefe Idisi and others; CA 14-Feb-2001 - [2001] EWCA Civ 247

 
 Colley v Council for Licensed Conveyancers; CA 14-Feb-2001 - [2001] EWCA Civ 259

 
 Regina (Tshikangu) v Newham London Borough Council; QBD 15-Feb-2001 - Times, 27 April 2001; [2001] EWHC Admin 92
 
Purvis and Another v Penny and others [2001] EWCA Civ 218
16 Feb 2001
CA

Litigation Practice
Application for adjournment refused.
[ Bailii ]
 
Standard Chartered Bank v Pakistan National Shipping Corporation and others [2001] EWCA Civ 225
19 Feb 2001
CA

Litigation Practice
Formal Order
[ Bailii ]
 
Newman v Whitbread Plc [2001] EWCA Civ 326
26 Feb 2001
CA

Personal Injury, Litigation Practice
The claimant sought damages after falling down stairs at work. She said that the stairway did not comply with the British Standards in breach of the Regulations. The employer responded that the non-compliance was merely techical, and could not have affected the accident. The employer appealed saying that the judge had taken a point unargued in the pleadings. Held: The court applied the test in Waghorn to ask whether the defendants would have argued their case differently if the point had been pleaded. They would have done so. It was now not proper to call for a re-trial. The appeal succeeded.
Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 5(1)
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Practice Note (Court of Appeal, Civil Division: Short Warned List and Special Fixtures List) Times, 27 February 2001
27 Feb 2001
CA

Litigation Practice
The Special Fixtures list for cases before the Court of Appeal Civil Division is created, and amendment made to procedures for listing cases to be called on at short notice, or placed on call. Cases should be assigned to the list where the court considered it might be taken by counsel with no previous knowledge of the case on half a day's notice or longer as the court directed.

 
Bermuda International Securities Ltd v KPMG (A Firm) Times, 14 March 2001; Gazette, 12 April 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 269
27 Feb 2001
CA

Litigation Practice
The case management powers of judges allowed a judge to order extensive pre-action discovery of documents. It is not appropriate at this stage in the development of the case management approach to lay down restrictive rules, and it must be for judges to use their discretion. The power only extended to documents which might be later ordered to be produced, and the court needed a clear idea of the likely issues in the case. Although the defendants had unreasonably resisted discovery, it remained appropriate that the costs of production should be borne by the party making the application.
Civil Procedure Rules 31.16
[ Bailii ]
 
Michael G S Law v Margarets Insurances Limited [2002] EWCA Civ 30
27 Feb 2001
CA
Simon Brown, Longmore LJJ
Insurance, Litigation Practice
The defendant sought to set aside a judgment entered against it for the cost of repairs to the claimant's boat engine, saying that they were not the insurers but merely the insurance brokers. Their appeal had been incorrectly prepared and had been dismissed. Held: Though this was a second level appeal, the judge had erred in having misunderstood the overriding objective so as to achieve a result which manifestly incorrect: Justice demanded that these relatively venial earlier errors should not have been regarded as incurable to the extent of allowing this apparently inappropriate judgment to stand. " Judgment in default was set aside.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Savings and Investment Bank Ltd (in Liquidation) v Fincken Times, 02 March 2001; Gazette, 20 April 2001
2 Mar 2001
ChD

Limitation, Litigation Practice
The process of testing whether a new cause of action was proposed by an amendment of pleadings to bring into question application of the Limitation Acts, was conducted by asking at what level of abstraction was it claimed that there were one or two causes. Is a different duty relied upon, the nature and extent of the breach, and what is the group of material facts relied upon.
Limitation Act 1980 35
1 Citers



 
 Compagnie Noga D'Importation et d'Exportation SA v Abacha; ComC 5-Mar-2001 - [2001] 3 All ER 513; [2001] CP Rep 93; [2001] EWHC QB B1
 
Pugh v Cantor Fitzgerald International Times, 20 March 2001; Gazette, 03 May 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 307
7 Mar 2001
CA

Litigation Practice, Damages
Where judgment had been entered with damages to be assessed, the issues which could be raised on the assessment of damages were any directly affecting that assessment, but the defendant could not raise an issue which would impugn the judgement leading to the assessment. It was not always however clear that an issue had been settled by the judgment in such a way as to create an estoppel.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Curtis v Curtis [2001] EWCA Civ 469
8 Mar 2001
CA

Litigation Practice
The mother sought leave to call in evidence in proceedings for contact, an affidavit sworn by the father's previous solicitors when applying to be removed from the record, which related the contents of telephone calls from the father to their offices. The affidavit had been served by mistake on the mother's solicitors. It showed the husband to have a violent nature. Held: The evidence was to be admitted. The communications with the solicitors were not part of any attempt to obtain legal advice and were not privileged, and in the course of the conversations the father had committed offences under the 1984 Act.
Telecommunications Act 1984
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Mincoff Science and Gold (Now Known As 'Mincoffs Solicitors') v Ganatra [2001] EWCA Civ 373
8 Mar 2001
CA

Litigation Practice
The claimant sought leave to appeal out of time, and for a further adjournment for his poor health. Held: The application was in principle wrong, and the intended appeal was without merit. Leave refused.
[ Bailii ]

 
 Contradictors v The Attorney General of New Zealand; The Public Trustee and Pritchard; PC 8-Mar-2001 - [2001] UKPC 10
 
Skyparks Group Plc v Feliciana Marks, Shanti Shah [2001] EWCA Civ 319
9 Mar 2001
CA

Litigation Practice

[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina (McCann and Others) v Manchester Crown Court; CA 9-Mar-2001 - Times, 09 March 2001; [2001] 1 WLR 1084; [2001] EWCA Civ 281
 
Chakravarti v Rapat Freight Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 394
9 Mar 2001
CA
Chadwick LJ
Employment, Litigation Practice
Renewed application for permission to appeal.
[ Bailii ]
 
Gulf Azov Shipping Company Ltd and others v Idisi and others [2001] EWCA Civ 491; [2001] EWCA Civ 505
9 Mar 2001
CA

Litigation Practice
Application for permission to appeal against assessment of damages. Refused.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
L (Minor), P (Father) v Reading Borough Council Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police Gazette, 03 May 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 346; [2001] 1 WLR 1575
12 Mar 2001
CA

Professional Negligence, Police, Litigation Practice
A social worker and police officer interviewed a child and father on allegations of sexual abuse made by the mother. No criminal proceedings followed, but the father alleged that the misrepresentation of the interviews by the officer and social worker led to later care proceedings. The allegations were false. The court allowed an appeal against an order striking out the case against the police officer. Having interviewed the father, and it having been decided that no criminal proceedings would follow, a duty of care had arisen as between the officer and the interviewee as to the future use of the material from the interview. The case against the police should not be struck out on the basis of a witness immunity in these circumstances.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Marsh v Frenchay NHS Trust Times, 13 March 2001
13 Mar 2001
QBD

Litigation Practice, Damages
The circumstances required to allow a person to withdraw money paid into court. The new rules created a flexibility unavailable under the old rules, and the case law associated with the old pre-Woolfe rules should not now determine how such applications are dealt with.
Civil Procedure Rules Part 36
1 Citers


 
Ebert v Official Receiver and others [2001] EWCA Civ 340; [2001] 3 All ER 942; [2002] 1 WLR 320; [2002] BPIR 80; [2001] ACD 66
14 Mar 2001
CA
Chadwick, Buxton LJJ
Human Rights, Litigation Practice
The claimant, subject of a civil restraint order had been refused leave to bring certain proceedings.
[ Bailii ]
 
Beedell v West Ferry Printers Ltd Times, 05 April 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 400; [2001] ICR 962
15 Mar 2001
CA

Litigation Practice, Employment
It could be correct for an appeal to be dismissed rather than allow an appeal against the grant of leave to appeal. The subject matter was important and highly controversial, even if the law appeared to be clear and the appeal to be hopeless. To revoke the leave to appeal would leave no way of settling the controversy, but to dismiss the appeal would leave open the possibility of an application in turn to the House of Lords for leave to appeal.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
C v C (Custody: Affidavit) Times, 16 March 2001
16 Mar 2001
CA

Family, Litigation Practice
A firm of solicitors wishing to withdraw, swore an affidavit to support their application. The affidavit included evidence of misbehaviour by the client. In error the affidavit was later sent to the wife's solicitors, who sought its admission as example of the sort of behaviour about which she complained. It was admissible. In reality the calls did not seek legal advice and did not benefit from privilege. They were admissible.

 
C Inc Plc v L and Another [2001] 2 All ER (Comm) 446; [2001] 2 Lloyd's Rep 459; [2001] CLC 1054; [2001] EWHC 550 (Comm); [2007] 1 WLR 320
16 Mar 2001
ComC
Aikens J
Litigation Practice
The court was asked as to the scope of the court's power to grant a freezing order over the assets of a person who is resident out of the jurisdiction and against whom no substantive claim had yet been brought by the Claimant.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Westminster City Council v Unison [2001] EWCA Civ 404
20 Mar 2001
CA

Employment, Litigation Practice

[ Bailii ]
 
In Petition of Her Majesty's Advocate for an Order Under the Vexatious Actions Act and Answers for Bell [2001] ScotCS 72
23 Mar 2001
SCS
Lord Coulsfield
Litigation Practice

[ Bailii ] - [ ScotC ]
 
Malhan v Malhan [2001] EWCA Civ 613
27 Mar 2001
CA
Arden LJ
Litigation Practice
Application for leave to appeal against strike out of action as abuse of process.
[ Bailii ]
 
Queensbridge Investments Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 597
28 Mar 2001

Master Venne
Litigation Practice

[ Bailii ]
 
Flynn v Robin Thompson and Partners and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 453
29 Mar 2001
CA
Henry LJ
Litigation Practice
Application to reinstate dismissed.
[ Bailii ]
 
Steeds v Peverel Management Services Limited Times, 16 May 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 419
30 Mar 2001
CA

Limitation, Personal Injury, Litigation Practice, Professional Negligence
Where it was not the claimant's fault that proceedings had not been issued within the appropriate time limit, the judge when considering exercise of his discretion to admit the claim, should not be tempted to refuse to admit it on the basis that the claimant would have a clear claim for negligence against the solicitor who should have issued the proceedings. The judge was wrong to seek to distinguish the case and deny that the delay at issue related to periods only after the expiration of the limitation period. The judge had been wrong to conclude that the Civil Procedure rules required the claimant to have issued proceedings much earlier, since those rules could only affect the conduct of proceedings once they had been issued.
Limitation Act 1980 33(3)(a)
[ Bailii ]

 
 Barry v Ablerex Construction (Midlands) Ltd; CA 30-Mar-2001 - Times, 03 April 2001; Gazette, 01 June 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 433
 
Regina v Lichfield District Council and Another; Ex Parte Lichfield Securities Ltd Times, 30 March 2001; Gazette, 26 April 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 304
30 Mar 2001
CA

Judicial Review, Litigation Practice, Planning
The rules required a judge at trial on a judicial review case to consider the issue of whether there had been any undue delay in bringing the case. Nevertheless, where this issue had already been fully argued at a preliminary hearing, the judge could properly exclude a further attempt to argue the point. The judge's duties as case manager required him to consider whether new material was to be introduced, or a different aspect was to be put, some relevant matter had been overlooked by the first judge, or he had said that it might be reconsidered at trial.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Prentice v Hereward Housing Association and Another Times, 30 March 2001
30 Mar 2001
CA

Litigation Practice
A re-trial should be ordered in a civil matter where a defendant sought to bring new cogent evidence which raised a prima facie case that the court had been deceived by the other party at trial. In this case the evidence could not have been obtained easily in readiness for the first trial, and therefore the old standard as set out in Ladd v Marshall was established, but the interests of justice also required that a new trial be ordered.

 
Banks and Another v Cox and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 492
3 Apr 2001
CA
Sedley LJ
Litigation Practice

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Clark v Ardington Electrical Services [2001] EWCA Civ 585
4 Apr 2001
CA

Litigation Practice, Costs

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Murrell v Healy and Another Times, 01 May 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 486; [2001] 4 All ER 345; [2002] RTR 2
5 Apr 2001
CA
Waller, Dyson LJJ
Litigation Practice, Personal Injury, Damages
Documents held by an insurance company after settling a personal injuries claim by the same claimant but as regards a later unconnected claim were admissible, since they went to an issue in the later case, namely the nature and extent of the injury from the first occasion. They were admissible even though they had been used as part of without prejudice negotiations.
[ Bailii ]
 
Riniker v University College London (Practice Note) [2001] 1 WLR 13
5 Apr 2001
CA

Employment, Litigation Practice
The Employment Appeal Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal which does not set out to disturb any part of the order made by the original tribunal. There is no inherent power in the Court of Appeal to bypass the prohibition in subsection of the 1999 Act against hearing an appeal from a refusal of permission.
Access to Justice Act 1999 54(4)
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Practice Direction on the Citation of Authorities Times, 01 May 2001; [2001] 1 WLR 1002
9 Apr 2001
LCJ
Lord Chief Justice
Litigation Practice
The court laid down rules for restricting the citation of authorities, which rules are to be applied in all courts except criminal courts. The increase in the number of judgments series being available had come to be problematic for all involved, and the need for economy and efficiency required restrictions. Cases cited should be relevant and useful. An advocate has a duty to draw the court's attention to cases adverse to his own which were not cited by his opponent. Certain classes of judgments should not in future be referred to. Courts would pay more attention to the comments of a judge suggesting that the law was relevant to the particular case only. When citing a case, the advocate must state the proposition of law it supported, identifying relevant parts of the judgement. Bundles must include certificates by advocates as to compliance with this direction. Citations of judgments from foreign jurisdictions must follow the same rules and additionally confirm that the same proposition of law could not be supported from UK judgments.
1 Citers



 
 Alexander v Arts Council of Wales; CA 9-Apr-2001 - Times, 27 April 2001; Gazette, 01 June 2001; [2002] 1 WLR 1840; [2001] EWCA Civ 514; [2001] 4 All ER 205; [2001] EMLR 27

 
 The Royal Brompton Hospital National Health Service Trust v Hammond and Others (No 5); CA 11-Apr-2001 - Times, 11 May 2001; Gazette, 07 June 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 550; [2001] BLR 297; [2001] Lloyd's Rep PN 526
 
Banca Carige Spa Cassa Di Risparmio Di Genova E Imperia v Banco Nacional De Cuba and Another [2001] EWHC 562 (Ch); [2001] 2 Lloyd's Rep 147; [2001] 2 BCLC 407; [2001] BPIR 407; [2001] Lloyd's Rep Bank 203; [2001] 1 WLR 2039; [2001] 3 All ER 923
11 Apr 2001
ChD
Lightman J
Insolvency, Jurisdiction, Litigation Practice
Application to discharge order declaring that leave was not needed for service of proceedings on the defendant out of the jurisdiction.
[ Bailii ]
 
Banks and Another v Cox and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 589
20 Apr 2001
CA
Jonathan Parker LJ
Litigation Practice

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Paragon Finance Plc v Noueiri [2001] EWCA Civ 603; [2001] 1 WLR 2357
24 Apr 2001
CA
Keene LJ
Land, Litigation Practice
Application for leave to appeal.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Cooke v Secretary of State for Social Security [2001] EWCA Civ 734; [2002] 3 All ER 279
25 Apr 2001
CA
Hale LJ, Clarke LJ and Butterfield J
Benefits, Litigation Practice
Although production of a new medical report, or of a new medical opinion, could evidence a relevant change of circumstances, to support the claim that the threshold had been reached so as to allow a review of a decision to grant benefits, it did not in itself suffice to constitute such a change, without which the jurisdiction to review did not exist. Specialist tribunals, chaired as they usually are by a lawyer, have an appropriate balance of experience and expertise amongst their members. The court set out the principles to be applied on hearing applications for second tier appeals from specialist tribunals. Hale LJ urged appropriate caution in giving permission to appeal from the Social Security Commissioners, because of their particular expertise in a highly specialised area of the law, where it was "quite probable that . . the Social Security Commissioner will have got it right".
The court set out the principles to be applied on hearing applications for second tier appeals from specialist tribunals.
1 Citers

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

[ Bailii ]
 
Pedley, Regina (on the Application Of) v Birmingham County Court [2001] EWCA Civ 670
26 Apr 2001
CA
Keene LJ
Litigation Practice
Renewed application for leave to appeal out of time.
[ Bailii ]
 
Zazulak (T/A Stefco Precision and General Engineers) v Dickenson and Another (T/A Asset and Finance Leasing) and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 630
27 Apr 2001
CA

Litigation Practice

[ Bailii ]

 
 Poplar Housing and Regeneration Community Association Ltd v Donoghue; CA 27-Apr-2001 - Gazette, 11 May 2001; Gazette, 07 June 2001; Times, 21 June 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 595; [2002] QB 48; [2001] All ER (D) 210
 
Price v Elf Print Media Ltd and others [2001] EWCA Civ 622
30 Apr 2001
CA
Aldoes LJ
Litigation Practice
Application for leave to appeal against strike out of claim.
[ Bailii ]

 
 Pervaiz v Chelsea Building Society; CA 1-May-2001 - [2001] EWCA Civ 767

 
 Clarkson v Gilbert and others; CA 1-May-2001 - [2001] EWCA Civ 766
 
Brooks v Middleton [2001] EWCA Civ 899
1 May 2001
CA

Litigation Practice, Trusts

[ Bailii ]

 
 Cornish v Hutchins; CA 1-May-2001 - [2001] EWCA Civ 846
 
Synstar Computer Service (UK) Ltd v ICL (Sorbus) Ltd and Another Times, 01 May 2001; Gazette, 07 June 2001
1 May 2001
ChD

Litigation Practice
The complainant alleged that the ties between the separate defendants' businesses were anti-competitive. Held: That issue was best decided by the Competition Commission Appeal Tribunal. The issues might also give rise to litigation of the instant nature. It was inappropriate for the same issues to be litigated in parallel, and accordingly the present proceedings should be stayed pending the decision by the tribunal on an appeal from the decision of the Director General of Fair Trading to refuse to undertake an investigation of the alleged restrictive practices.
Competition Act 1998 2


 
 Boyce v Wyatt Engineering and Others; CA 1-May-2001 - Times, 14 June 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 692

 
 Bentley v Jones Harris and Co; CA 1-May-2001 - [2001] EWCA Civ 1724; [2001] EWCA Civ 692
 
Keith Davy (Contractors) Ltd v Ibatex Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 740
2 May 2001
CA
Schiemann,Mummery, Tuckey LJJ
Contract, Litigation Practice

[ Bailii ]
 
Abacha and Another v Compagnie Noga D'Importantion Et D'Exportation Sa [2001] 3 All ER 513; [2001] EWHC QB B1; [2001] CP Rep 93
3 May 2001
QBD
Rix LJ
Litigation Practice
The court had handed to the parties a draft judgement, but one party then asked the judge to reconsider it.
Rix LJ referred to the need to balance the concern for finality against the "proper concern that courts should not be held by their own decisions in a straitjacket pending the formality of drawing up the order". He continued: "Provided that the formula of 'exceptional circumstances' is not turned into a straitjacket of its own, and the interests of justice and its constituents as laid down in the overriding principle are held closely to mind, I do not think that the proper balance will be lost. Clearly, it cannot be in every case that a litigant should be entitled to ask the judge to think again. Therefore, on one ground or another the case must raise considerations, in the interests of justice, which are out of the ordinary, extraordinary or exceptional. An exceptional case does not have to be uniquely special. 'Strong reasons' is perhaps an acceptable alternative to 'exceptional circumstances'. It will necessarily be in an exceptional case that strong reasons are shown for reconsideration."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Mobil North Sea Ltd and Another v P J Pipe and Valve Company (T/A P J Valves Or P J Valve Ltd) [2001] EWCA Civ 741; [2001] 2 All ER (Comm) 289
3 May 2001
CA
Aldous LJ, May LJ, Rix LJ
Contract, Litigation Practice

[ Bailii ]

 
 Balchin v Chief Constable of Hampshire Constabulary; CA 4-May-2001 - Times, 04 May 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 538
 
C Inc Plc v L and Another Times, 04 May 2001; [2001] 2 Lloyds Law Reports 459; [2001] 2 All ER (Comm) 446
4 May 2001
QBD
Aikens J
Jurisdiction, Litigation Practice
The plaintiff had obtained judgment against L, only then to find that she claimed that all only apparent assets were held by her on trust for or as agent for her husband who was overseas. The plaintiff therefore now set out to add him, and to claim an asset freezing injunction against him. Held: The court had power to order the assets of that third party to be frozen, even though they were not a party to the action, and no judgment existed against them. The court also has power to order him to be joined as a party, rather than for proceedings to be issued against him. Even though judgment had been obtained, the parties remained in dispute as to the means of payment, and that dispute remained part of the original proceedings. The word 'proceedings' in rule 19(2) should be interpreted widely and extend to circumstances where judgment had been obtained but not yet satisfied. The rule did not require that the disputed issue should be as between the existing parties. The court had the power to join the third party. The purpose of an asset freezing order "remains the protection of assets so as to provide a fund to meet a judgment obtained by the claimant in the English Courts".
The court considered the effect of the decision in Cardile: "It seems to me that the High Court of Australia has stated that, in Australia, the assets of a third party can be frozen in aid of enforcing a pending or actual judgment, even where those assets are not beneficially owned by the actual or potential judgment debtor. The necessary precondition for power to make a freezing order over the third party's assets is that the actual or potential judgment creditor should have some legal right to get at the third party's funds. However, on my reading of the judgments, particularly pars. 57 and 121, the High Court of Australia is stating that there must be some casual link between the fact that the claimant has obtained a judgment against the principal defendant and thus has a legal right, as a consequence of the liability giving rise to the judgment, to go against the assets of the third party. I will delay deciding whether English law permits the exercise of the freezing order jurisdiction where there is such a casual link until I have considered the remaining two factors I have identified. "
and "If there is a claim for substantive relief by A against B (whether or not in the English Court), or A has obtained a judgment against B (in the English Court), then the English Court can grant a freezing order against the assets of C. But, generally, it must be arguable that those assets, even if in C's name, are, in fact, beneficially owned by B.
The crucial question is whether the Court can go one stage further. Does it have the power to grant a freezing order against the assets of C when: (i) A has a substantive right against B (e.g. in the form of a judgment); (ii) the assets of C are not, even arguably, beneficially owned by B. The answer, to my mind, depends on how one interprets the phrases 'ancillary' and 'incidental to and dependent upon' used by Lords Browne-Wilkinson and Mustill in the Channel Tunnel case. In the Cardile case the High Court of Australia has, effectively, given those phrases a broad interpretation. But, critically, the High Court of Australia held that the right of A to a freezing order against C is dependent upon A having a right against B and that right itself giving rise to a right that B can exercise against C and its assets. Therefore the freezing order sought by A against C is 'incidental to' A's substantive right against B and it is also 'dependent upon' that right."
Civil Procedure Rules 19.4(2)(a), 6.30(2), 6.20(3)
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Reavey and others v Century Newspapers Ltd and Another [2001] NIQB 17
4 May 2001
QBNI

Litigation Practice, Defamation
The plaintiffs sought orders against the defendants and each of them to enable the plaintiffs to sue for defamation or malicious falsehood certain persons whose identities are at present unknown to the plaintiffs but which are allegedly known to the defendants and each of them and who were the source of information relayed by the two defendants in Parliament and under absolute privilege. The plaintiffs aver that the defendants and each of them are, or have been, in possession of certain documents and information which would identify those persons thus enabling the plaintiffs to sue them for defamation.
[ Bailii ]
 
Atutu v Meaby and Co (A Firm) [2001] EWCA Civ 666
4 May 2001
CA
Longmore LJ
Litigation Practice
Application for leave to appeal from strike out of claim. Held: Refused - inordinate delay.
[ Bailii ]
 
Douce v Staffordshire County Council [2001] EWCA Civ 769
4 May 2001
CA

Litigation Practice
Appeal against summary judgment =- rejected
[ Bailii ]
 
Ayobiojo v Easyspace Ltd and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 665
4 May 2001
CA

Litigation Practice
Application for leave to appeal against refusal to grant interim mandatory injunction - no prospect of such order being made on interim basis.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 TP And KM v The United Kingdom; ECHR 10-May-2001 - 28945/95; (2001) 34 EHRR 42; [2001] ECHR 332; [2001] 2 FLR 549; (2001) 3 LGLR 52; [2001] 2 FCR 289; (2001) 4 CCL Rep 398; [2001] Fam Law 590
 
Hm Attorney General Ebert v Ebert [2001] EWCA Civ 707
11 May 2001
CA

Litigation Practice

[ Bailii ]
 
Noel v Rowland [2001] EWCA Civ 809
15 May 2001
CA
Waller LJ
Litigation Practice

[ Bailii ]
 
Render v Howard [2001] EWCA Civ 754
16 May 2001
CA
Longmore LJ
Litigation Practice
Application for permission to appeal
[ Bailii ]
 
Banks and Another v Cox and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 821
17 May 2001
CA

Litigation Practice

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Wrexham County Borough Council v Berry [2001] EWCA Civ 813
18 May 2001
CA
Sedley LJ
Litigation Practice
Renewed application for permission to appeal.
[ Bailii ]
 
De Crittenden v Bayliss [2001] EWCA Civ 916
21 May 2001
CA

Litigation Practice
The defendant sought leave to appeal saying the agreement under which the plaintiff had sued was champertous. Leave given.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Foenander v Bond Lewis and Co; CA 23-May-2001 - Times, 18 June 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 759; [2002] 1 WLR 525

 
 Haq v Singh and Another; CA 25-May-2001 - Times, 10 July 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 957; [2001] 1 WLR 1594
 
Hammersmith Hospitals NHS Trust and others v Troup Bywaters and Anders (a Firm) [2001] EWCA Civ 793
25 May 2001
CA
Lord Justice Brooke, Lord Justice Sedley And Lord Justice Dyson
Evidence, Professional Negligence, Litigation Practice
Correctly construing apparently sceptical expert witness as to "reasonable body of professional opinion" in a fact rich case.
[ Bailii ]
 
Kirin Amgen Inc and Others v Transkaryotic Therapies Inc and Others Times, 01 June 2001; Gazette, 14 June 2001
1 Jun 2001
ChD

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

 
Birmingham v Javed [2001] EWCA Civ 1021
2 Jun 2001
CA
Judge LJ
Litigation Practice
Application to re-instate - dismissed.
[ Bailii ]
 
Steele v Steele Times, 05 June 2001
5 Jun 2001
ChD

Litigation Practice
The court gave the following points for consideration as to whether to order determination of a preliminary issue. Could the determination of a preliminary issue dispose of the whole or any part of the case, or could it significantly reduce the costs? If it related to an issue of law, what was the extent of factual differences to be settled before that issue could be presented, or to what extent were the facts agreed? Would the process unreasonably fetter either party or the court later in the case? Might the enquiry increase costs, or delay, or lead to amendments in the pleadings, and was it just or right to order trial of the preliminary issue?

 
Khan-Ghauri v Dunbar Bank Plc [2001] EWCA Civ 1003
6 Jun 2001
CA

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


 
Admiral Scaffolding Group Ltd v Simms and others [2001] EWCA Civ 908
8 Jun 2001
CA

Litigation Practice, Contempt of Court

[ Bailii ]
 
Whitehead (T/A Patrick Whitehead Partnership) v Jenks and Cattell Engineering Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 882
8 Jun 2001
CA

Litigation Practice
application for a stay of a hearing on quantum
[ Bailii ]
 
Frederick Edward Barlow; David William Barlow v BOC Limited and Edwards High Vacuum International Limited Times, 10 July 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 854
8 Jun 2001
CA

Litigation Practice
The rule which prevented use of material under the Act applied only to prevent its use in criminal proceedings for purposes other than for the stated purpose when the request had been made. There is no bar on statements being used in civil proceedings. An action was brought against the defendants for misfeasance. In parallel criminal proceedings, evidence was obtained of the existence of undisclosed bank accounts in Switzerland, and that evidence was used to obtain freezing orders. The defendant's appeal was dismissed.
Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 3
[ Bailii ]
 
McPhilemy v Times Newspapers Ltd and others [2001] EWCA Civ 871; [2001] EMLR 34
12 Jun 2001
CA
Simon Brown LJ, Chadwick LJ, Longmore LJ
Litigation Practice, Defamation

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
McPhilemy v Times Newspapers Ltd; Liam Clarke and and Andrew Neil (No 3) Times, 19 June 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 933
12 Jun 2001
CA
Lord Justice Simon Brown, Lord Justice Chadwick, Lord Justice Longmore
Defamation, Litigation Practice
In defamation proceedings the defendant had invited one issue to be left to the jury. After losing the case, the defendant sought to appeal, arguing that the jury's verdict was perverse. It was held that such an appeal amounted to an abuse of process, and if allowed, would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. The issue was central to the judgment. The admission that the issue was referred to the jury by the defendant's mistake, because there was only one proper verdict, but that could not allow the reversal of an express request to the judge to put that issue to the jury.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Allied Dunbar Assurance Plc v Ireland [2001] EWCA Civ 1129
12 Jun 2001
CA

Litigation Practice
Appeal against summary judgement in case alleging fraud - fraud denied - appeal successful.
[ Bailii ]
 
Brighton and Hove City Council v Gill [2001] EWCA Civ 1240
13 Jun 2001
CA
Mance LJ
Litigation Practice
Application for leave to appeal adjourned.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
CIBC Mellon Trust Company and others v Stolzenberg [2001] EWCA Civ 982
15 Jun 2001
CA
Chadwick LJ
Litigation Practice
Application for leave to appeal, for an extension of time to appeal, and for a stay of execution pending the hearing of the appeal.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Irving v Penguin Books Ltd and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 935
15 Jun 2001
CA

Litigation Practice
The applicant had lost his defemation case. He employed solicitors to commence an appeal. He now sought an adjournment of the appeal saying that he had dismissed the solicitors.
[ Bailii ]
 
Malhan v Malhan [2001] EWCA Civ 952
18 Jun 2001
CA
Arden LJ
Litigation Practice
Renewed application for leave to appeal.
[ Bailii ]
 
Pitts v Hartman and others [2001] EWCA Civ 962
19 Jun 2001
CA
Kay LJ
Litigation Practice
Application to set aside order dismissed by consent
[ Bailii ]
 
Hm Attorney General v Hellyer [2001] EWCA Civ 1168
19 Jun 2001
CA
Kay LJ
Litigation Practice
Application for permission to appeal against civil proceedings order.
Supreme Courts Act 1981 42
[ Bailii ]
 
Hoath v Cripps Harries Hall [2001] EWCA Civ 986
19 Jun 2001
CA

Litigation Practice

[ Bailii ]

 
 Igwemma v The Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police; CA 20-Jun-2001 - Times, 20 July 2001; Gazette, 31 August 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 953

 
 White v White; CA 21-Jun-2001 - [2001] EWCA Civ 955
 
MRW Technologies v Cecil Holdings Unreported, 22 June 2001
22 Jun 2001

Garland J
Litigation Practice
The court heard an appeal against a Master's order which had given the defendant permission under rule 36.6(5) to withdraw a Part 36 payment. Held: The same considerations apply to giving permission to withdraw money in court as to refusing permission to take it out. He inclined, following Marsh v. Frenchay Healthcare, to a more flexible approach to take account of the overriding objective.
Civil Procedure Rules 36.6(5)
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Cachie and Others v Faluyi [2001] EWCA Civ 998; [2001] 1 WLR 1966; [2001] CP Rep 102; [2002] 1 All ER 192; [2002] PIQR P5
27 Jun 2001
CA
Henry, Brooke LJJ
Personal Injury, Litigation Practice
The claimant appealed against an order striking out his claim, though it raised a novel point under the 1976 Act. Did section 2(3) of the Act, providing: "Not more than one action shall lie for and in respect of the same subject-matter of complaint.", mean that if a writ was issued in a Fatal Accidents Act claim brought on behalf of a deceased's dependants but never served, this automatically precluded the bringing of a new action some years later?
Fatal Accidents Act 1976 2(3)
[ Bailii ]
 
In re Norris, Application by Norris Times, 29 June 2001; Gazette, 26 July 2001; [2001] 1 WLR 1388; [2001] UKHL 34; [2001] 3 FCR 97; [2001] 3 All ER 961
28 Jun 2001
HL
Hope, Browne-Wilkinson, Clyde, Hutton, Hobhouse LL
Criminal Practice, Litigation Practice
The applicant's husband had been made the subject of a drugs confiscation order. Part of this was an order against the house. She had failed in asserting that the house was hers. Her appeal to a civil court had been disallowed as an abuse. It was held that the civil court was looking to different issues. In the Crown Court the onus had been on the husband. She had no right of representation, and her interests were not the same as those of her husband. She was to be allowed to challenge the order made. As the registered proprietor, the burden of proof lay on customs and excise.
Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough referred to earlier cases: "These are illustrations of the principle of abuse of process. Any such abuse must involve something which amounts to a misuse of the litigational process. Clear cases of litigating without any honest belief in any basis for doing so or litigating without having any legitimate interest in the litigation are simple cases of abuse. Attempts to relitigate issues which have already been the subject of judicial decision may or may not amount to an abuse of process. Ordinarily such situations fall to be governed by the principle of estoppel per rem judicatam or of issue estoppel (admitted not to be applicable in the present case). It will be a rare case where the litigation of an issue which has not previously been decided between the same parties or their privies will amount to an abuse."
Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ House of Lords ]
 
Noel-Johnson v Gopee and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 1002
28 Jun 2001
CA

Landlord and Tenant, Litigation Practice
Application for leave to appeal.
[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Secretary of State for Education and Employment ex parte Amraf Training plc Times, 28 June 2001
28 Jun 2001
CA

Litigation Practice, Administrative, Judicial Review
On a complaint in public law, if a party wishes to raise allegations of victimisation in the nature of malice, ill will, or undisclosed ulterior motive, in the course of proceedings, these matters had to be raised clearly and explicitly. It was inappropriate to raise such issues clearly only on appeal. Here the judge could not be criticised for taking the evidence as it was presented to him. Evidence as to victimisation introduced only at that later stage would not be admitted.

 
Lloyd v John Lewis Partnership [2001] EWCA Civ 1529
1 Jul 2001
CA
Sir Murray Stuart-Smith, Aldous, Chadwicj LJJ
Litigation Practice
The judge allowed the defendant’s submission of no case to answer without putting them to their election and again the claimant’s appeal succeeded. The trial judge had been persuaded that the rule in Alexander -v- Rayson had been altered by the Civil Procedure Rules "and that as a general rule a judge was not required to put defence counsel to his election, although there might be exceptional circumstances in which he would do so". Held: The Civil Procedure rules did not change the rule: "Since the judge determined the point there has been a decision of this court on the point. It is called Boyce -v- Wyatt Engineering and Others . In paragraphs 4 to 6 of the judgment, Mance LJ (with which the other members of the court agreed) said that, on the contrary, the general rule was as stated in Alexander -v- Rayson. There were good reasons for that rule and it should be, as a general rule, adopted unless there are circumstances which indicate the contrary. It is unnecessary to refer to what Mance LJ said in any more detail, it can be read by those who wish to do so. I have no doubt that if the judge had had the benefit of that authority, rather than the authority to which he was referred, he would have come to the conclusion that he should put the defendants' counsel to his election. What he would have elected to do we do not know. But it seems to me that there is really nothing in this point bearing on the appeal because the judge made his decision. If he was right on the question of causation, then the appeal fails: if he was wrong on that point, then the appeal succeeds and there will have to be a new trial or continuation of this trial by Judge Cooke."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Clibbery v Allan and Another; FD 2-Jul-2001 - Times, 02 July 2001; Gazette, 05 July 2001; [2001] 2 FLR 819
 
Practice Note (Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Listing Windows and Hear-By Dates Times, 25 July 2001
4 Jul 2001
CA

Litigation Practice
The court handed down a table of revised listing windows and hear-by dates for the Court of Appeal. The timetable had now been reduced so that nearly all appeals would be held within 10 months, and most much more quickly. Applications for expedited hearings would be heard before a single judge. Applications to fix a date beyond the hear-by date would also be heard by a single judge, but would only be granted or compelling reasons.

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

 
Wesley Jessen Corporation and Another v Coopervision Ltd Times, 31 July 2001; Gazette, 09 August 2001
4 Jul 2001
ChD
Neuberger J
Intellectual Property, Litigation Practice
Patents cases should be dealt with in the Patents County Court or the Patents court as appropriate. Factors suggesting the Patents County Court included that the parties were smaller sized companies or of lesser means, or the length of the hearing, and the availability of an earlier listing. Longer cases might be more appropriate for the High Court, since such cases might also be more complex. The effects on those other than the actual parties should also be considered. Those involved in cases and the court should bear in mind the possibility of transferring cases.

 
Melhuish v Waters [2001] EWCA Civ 1174
5 Jul 2001
CA

Wills and Probate, Litigation Practice
A settlement had been reached on the morning of the trial, embodied in a consent order. The applicant sought leave to appeal, denying that he had consented. He now applied for an adjournment of his application. Held: The application for the adjournment was unsupported by justification and was too late. The applications for adjournment and for leave were refused.
[ Bailii ]
 
Van Dijk v Wilkinson (T/A Hff Construction) [2001] EWCA Civ 1085
5 Jul 2001
CA
latham lj
Litigation Practice
Permission to bring additional evidence on appeal
[ Bailii ]
 
Mehmet v Macerio-Lindstrom [2001] EWCA Civ 1124
5 Jul 2001
CA

Litigation Practice
Application for leave to appeal.
[ Bailii ]
 
British Waterways Board, petition for Judicial Review [2001] ScotCS 182
5 Jul 2001
OHCS
Lord McCluskey
Litigation Practice, Judicial Review
Motion in a petition for judicial review
[ Bailii ] - [ ScotC ]
 
Liverpool Roman Catholic Archdiocesan Trust v David Goldberg QC (No 3) Times, 14 August 2001; Gazette, 23 August 2001; [2001] EWHC Ch 396; [2001] 1 WLR 2337
6 Jul 2001
ChD
Evans-Lombe J
Evidence, Litigation Practice
Where parties settled a matter after the draft of the judgment had been delivered to them, and the terms of the settlement required the non-publication of the judgment, the judge nevertheless retained the power to publish that judgment. Held: The judge limited the judgment to that and the following issue. The defendant's expert witness was a friend of the defendant, working from the same barrister's set. He admitted his friendship for the defendant was closer than would be the case normally. The court disallowed admission of his evidence, since the risk of his evidence being coloured by this relationship was incompatible with the special duties owed to the court and all parties. However objective his evidence might in fact be, it was incompatible with the need for justice to be seen to be done.
Civil Evidence Act 1972 3
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Denekamp v Vaughan (T/A Gabb and Co) [2001] EWCA Civ 1154
10 Jul 2001
CA

Litigation Practice

[ Bailii ]
 
Hamilton v Al-Fayed and Others (No 3) Times, 25 July 2001; [2001] EWHC QB 389
13 Jul 2001
QBD
The Hon Mr Justice Morland
Costs, Defamation, Litigation Practice
Where a person funded another's court action as an act of charity, it should be exceptional to order that third party to contribute to the costs of the successful opponent. Nevertheless there could be no absolute rule against such orders. There is a clear distinction between those who act in this way as pure funders, and those who funded litigation from some contractual obligation. Another relevant consideration was whether the funder had information to suggest that the claimant had a reasonable prospect of success, or whether he acted as some quixotic philanthropist.
Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 4(1)
[ Bailii ]

 
 J J Harrison (Properties) Ltd v Harrison; CA 16-Jul-2001 - [2001] EWCA Civ 1295
 
St Brice and Another v Southwark London Borough Council Times, 06 August 2001; Gazette, 13 September 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1138; [2002] 1 WLR 1537
17 Jul 2001
CA
Kennedy LJ, Chadwick LJ, Rix LJ
Human Rights, Housing, Litigation Practice
The council having obtained a possession order, suspended on terms, through court proceedings, later sought to enforce the order by a warrant for possession issued without first giving notice to the tenant. The tenant alleged that the grant of the warrant was in breach of his right to a fair trial. Held: The hearing at which the possession order had been granted satisfied the applicant's right to a fair trial. The issue of the warrant merely gave effect to the order, and did not alter the tenant's legal status, nor make any decision about his rights. Proportionality had been considered at the first hearing. The choice of the County Court rather than the High Court was made without reference to any characteristic of the applicant, and could not be said to be discriminatory.
The issue of a warrant was an administrative and not a judicial process.
Kennedy LJ: "the routine enforcement of court orders …should not normally entail a separate hearing". There is a need for "court administration [to be] flexible and efficient".
Rix LJ: "An efficient procedure for routine execution of the court's orders is in the public interest".
Housing Act 1985 85 - European Convention on Human Rights Art 6
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Samaroo and Sezek v Secretary of State for the Home Department; CA 17-Jul-2001 - Times, 20 June 2001; Gazette, 09 August 2001; Gazette, 06 September 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 795; [2001] EWCA Civ 1139; [2002] 1 WLR 348; [2001] UKHRR 1150; [2002] INLR 55
 
Uttley v Uttley Unreported, 18 July 2001
18 Jul 2001

Hallett J
Litigation Practice
The Claimant complained about the late disclosure of surveillance evidence. Held: Balancing the Defendant's entitlement to use surveillance evidence effectively, against the general case management goal of openness and a "cards on the table" approach, the court found in favour of the Defendant.
Hallett J said: "In my judgment, in the circumstances of this case -and I emphasise in the circumstances of this case -the defendant's solicitors were entitled to hold on to the video recording for a reasonable period of time. This was not simply a case of trying to ambush the claimant at trial. The defendant's insurers not surprisingly wished to assess the evidence in their possession with the claimant's up-to-date account before disclosing it. I say not surprisingly in the light of the history of the litigation as I have outlined it. They wanted to use it effectively as cross-examination material. I accept therefore the explanation from Mr Curtis to which I have already referred.
What therefore is a reasonable time in the circumstances of this litigation?
Mr Curtis made it plain in August 2000 that although the defendant's insurers were prepared to wait for the witness statement until the report from the doctor was available, they wished to have the claimant's up-to-date witness statement at the same time. They were operating on the basis the medical report would be available within a reasonable time.
They also indicated they had no objection to there being an interim statement from the claimant which could be updated if necessary. They wished to have this material, as they said in their letter, to assess their position when it came to possible negotiations and attempts at settlement. They continued to press for the witness statement and up-to-date schedule, but the claimant's solicitors seemed to indicate that one would be available as soon as possible. Despite that fact, no up-to-date witness statement or schedule was produced until December.
In my judgment the defendant's solicitors were entitled to press for an up-to-date witness statement and schedule, and to press for documents of that kind in the summer of 2000. They were entitled to know what the claimant was saying himself, not merely what he had reported to Dr Supramamian. It is right to say that on receipt of the doctor's report in October the defendant's insurers would know what the claimant had told him, but it is not unknown in my experience for a claimant to say that a doctor has misunderstood what he or she has said or has failed to record other significant matters that have been said. I entirely understand and sympathise therefore with Mr Curtis' attitude that he wished to know what the claimant himself was saying.
In any event, it became clear in October that the doctor had to reconsider the question of how the accident occurred yet the trial date was looming in January 2001. I agree entirely with the Master that the claimant's solicitors should and could have served an up-to-date witness statement from the claimant long before the time that they did. Once served, I have no doubt the video recording would have been served upon them."
1 Citers



 
 Infantino v Maclean; QBD 20-Jul-2001 - Times, 20 July 2001

 
 Barings Plc (In Liquidation) and Another v Coopers and Lybrand and Others; CA 20-Jul-2001 - Times, 19 October 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1163
 
Watchtower Investments Ltd v Payne and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 1261
20 Jul 2001
CA

Litigation Practice
Amendment of judges order on handing down
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Hawkins v Keppe Shaw, Solicitors (a Firm); CA 20-Jul-2001 - Times, 25 September 2001; Gazette, 27 September 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1160
 
Sumitomo Corporation v Credit Lyonnais Rouse Limited Times, 15 August 2001; Gazette, 06 September 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1152; [2001] 2 Lloyd's Rep 517; [2002] 4 All ER 68; [2002] CP Rep 3; [2001] CPLR 462; [2001] 2 LLR 517; [2002] 1 WLR 479
20 Jul 2001
CA
Phillips MR, Parker LJ, Mustill L
Litigation Practice, Legal Professions
Documents had been translated from the Japanese, for the purposes of the litigation. The claimant refused disclosure, arguing that they were privileged, and protected from disclosure, having been prepared for the court proceedings. Held: The court ordered disclosure. Whatever level of privilege attached to the original applied also to the translation, and no additional confidentiality was created. In this case there was no element of selection from various materials to create a confidence under Lyell v Kennedy exception. That exception included documents themselves protected from disclosure.
1 Cites

1 Citers

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

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Gwembe Valley Development Company Ltd v Koshy and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 1306
25 Jul 2001
CA

Litigation Practice
Application to amend order under slip rule.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Fox v Graham Group Ltd Times, 03 August 2001
26 Jul 2001
ChD
Neuberger J
Litigation Practice
A litigant in person contacted the court to request an adjournment on the grounds of her illness. Held: A first request for an adjournment from a litigant in person should be considered carefully, and refused only in appropriate circumstances. Such adjournments were costly to the court, the other party, and to other litigants through the court time wasted. Nevertheless, the court should proceed in his absence only where the court was satisfied either that the litigant in person should not be granted the relief he sought, or that the application or appeal was hopeless.

 
Markos v Goodfellow and Barke and Barke [2001] EWCA Civ 1324
26 Jul 2001
CA
Pill LJ
Litigation Practice
There was a boundary dispute. The judge in the County Court had made an error. Counsel had offered to apply to amend the order under the slip rule, and therefore the judge had refused leave to appeal. Held: This was an application for leave to apply for a second appeal, and such appeals only very rarely succeed. The procedure adopted was not open to the judge under the rules. Whilst the applicant should not be encouraged to continue the dispute because the likely costs would be disproportionate, "I well understood [the] J wishing to bring an end to matters and doing so in the manner he did to achieve proportionality. But the proper processes of the law are involved, and in my judgment it is arguable that the procedure which he followed was not a[n] appropriate one in the circumstances."
Access to Justice Act 1999 - Civil Procedure Rules 52.2.(3) 52.2.(4) PD 52 4.8
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 In re Medicaments and Related Classes of Goods (No 4); CA 26-Jul-2001 - Times, 06 August 2001; Gazette, 06 September 2001
 
Paige v Webb [2001] EWCA Civ 1220
26 Jul 2001
CA
Lord Justice Laws, Lord Justice Mummery, Sir Anthony Evans
Land, Contract, Litigation Practice, Registered Land
The claimant sought rescission of a consent order for specific performance made in an earlier action. The purchasers had not complied simply with the order, but had sought to bring back certain parts of the original contract. Held: Once an order for specific performance has been made, the matter of how the contract is to be performed lies with the court, not the parties. The consent order itself referred back to the contract, and the remaining conditions still applied. The consent order should not be rescinded on these grounds. The seller had refused to complete without delivering a deed of rectification, nevertheless that would not in the circumstances pose any practical problem.
Land Registration Act 1925 110(2)
1 Cites


 
Mousaka Inc v Golden Seagull Maritime Inc Times, 03 October 2001
30 Jul 2001
QBD
Steel J
Human Rights, Litigation Practice, Arbitration
There has been no change to the rule that a judge refusing leave to appeal from an arbitration award, need not give his reasons. The rationale is that the question is a threshold one, of whether a particular standard had been reached. It was not a situation where a detailed examination was to be undertaken, and accordingly reasons were not appropriate. The position has not changed under the Human Rights Act.
Arbitration Act 1996 69 - Human Rights Act 1998
1 Cites


 
Grupo Torras Sa and Another v Al-Sabah and others [2001] EWCA Civ 1370
30 Jul 2001
CA

Litigation Practice
The hearing followed others concluding that the claimant had been defrauded of substantial sums by the defendants. The parties sought clarifications.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Totty v Snowden; Hewitt v Wirral and West Cheshire Community NHS Trust; CA 31-Jul-2001 - Times, 10 August 2001; Gazette, 04 October 2001; [2001] 4 All ER 577; [2001] EWCA Civ 1415
 
Izzo v Philip Ross and Co (a Firm) Times, 13 August 2001; Gazette, 13 September 2001
31 Jul 2001
ChD
Neuberger J
Civil Procedure Rules, Litigation Practice
Whilst litigants in person should be allowed the assistance of a McKenzie friend, the duties of the friend should not normally include representation and advocacy. Nevertheless, each case should be viewed separately, and applications for permission should be attended to, even if only granted in exceptional circumstances. The litigant should understand that this is an indulgence by the court.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Nottingham City Council v Zain (a Minor) Times, 29 August 2001; Gazette, 11 October 2001; Gazette, 15 November 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1248; [2002] 1 WLR 607; [2003] HLR 16
31 Jul 2001
CA
Lord Justice Mance, Lord Justice Schiemann, Lord Justice Keene
Local Government, Litigation Practice
The council had power under the Act to seek, in its own name, an injunction to prevent an alleged drug-dealer minor to enter a housing estate, and put an end to public nuisances. The authority was not acting outside its powers if it considered the action expedient for the protection of the inhabitants of its area. The fact that the acts complained of were also criminal acts, could not prevent the authority pursuing its case. Even so, it should be recognised that there were arguments against such actions by local authorities, and courts had in the past refused such applications.
Local Government Act 1972 222
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Ropaigealach v Allied Irish Bank Plc [2001] EWCA Civ 1381
29 Aug 2001
CA

Litigation Practice
Use of charging orders to enforce payment of costs orders.
Charging Orders Act 1979 1(5)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Zappia Middle East Construction Co Ltd and Another v Clifford Chance (A Firm) [2001] EWCA Civ 1383
30 Aug 2001
CA

Legal Professions, Litigation Practice

[ Bailii ]
 
Cameron, Regina (on the Application Of) v Central London County Court [2001] EWCA Civ 1412
31 Aug 2001
CA

Employment, Litigation Practice

[ Bailii ]
 
Hubbard and Others v Lambeth Southwark and Lewisham Health Authority and Others Times, 08 October 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1455; [2002] Lloyds Rep Med 8; [2002] PIQR P14; [2001] CP Rep 117
7 Sep 2001
CA
Lord Justice Tuckey and Lady Justice Hale
Civil Procedure Rules, Human Rights, Litigation Practice
In a medical negligence case, the court ordered a pre-trial private meeting between the expert witnesses for the claimant and defendant. The claimant objected, fearing that pressure would be brought on his professional witness by his colleagues, thus denying him a fair trial under article 6. Held: The aim of the experts' meeting was to identify and limit the medical issues needed to be decided at trial. It was a necessary function, and the concerns of the claimant could be met by the recording of the meeting.
Civil Procedure Rules 35.12 - European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 6
[ Bailii ]
 
Alan Raymond Myles v Barry Heywood [2001] ScotSC 16
10 Sep 2001
ScSf

Scotland, Human Rights, Litigation Practice
The pursuer craved from the Sheriff an interim interdict against the Procurator Fiscal from proceeding with a criminal charge. Held: the Sheriff sitting in a civil court has no power to restrain criminal proceedings by the Procurator Fiscal, even though the pursuer sought to enforce his Convention rights. The general rule, under the 1947 Act, is that interdict against the Crown cannot be granted.
European Convention on Human Rights Article 8 - Crown Proceedings Act 1947 21(1) 42 43
[ Bailii ]
 
Barnes v Woolwich Plc and others [2001] EWCA Civ 1470
18 Sep 2001
CA

Litigation Practice

[ Bailii ]

 
 Noueiri v Paragon Finance Plc (Practice Note); CA 19-Sep-2001 - Times, 04 October 2001; Gazette, 18 October 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1402; [2001] 1 WLR 2357; [2002] CP Rep 5; [2002] Fam Law 16; [2002] 1 Costs LR 12; [2001] NPC 138
 
Sarwar v Alam Times, 11 October 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1401; [2002] RTR 12; [2001] 4 All ER 541; [2002] 1 WLR 125; [2002] 1 Costs LR 37; [2002] Lloyd' Rep IR 126; [2002] PIQR P15
19 Sep 2001
CA
Judge Halbert, District Judge Wallace
Litigation Practice, Damages, Costs, Legal Professions, Insurance
Litigation had followed an accident. The claimant, a passenger, sought and won damages for personal injuries. He had taken out legal expenses insurance, and at dispute was the recovery of the cost of that insurance. He had been unaware of having the insurance and had also paid out for after the event insurance. He sought to recover the costs of the legal expenses insurance. A challenge of a judge's award in costs only proceedings should only rarely succeed. In such questions, the danger of conflicts of interest between the various insurance companies is real, and had been provided for in the regulations. Solicitors should inspect the client's various policies to clarify what legal expenses insurance was available. The need to provide free choice of solicitors did not override common provisions for small cases referring such matters to insurance panel solicitors. In a case where a passenger sued his driver, it was not appropriate for his choice of solicitor to be determined by the defendant's insurers, and after the event legal expenses insurance was a proper and reasonable expense and should be recoverable.
Insurance Companies (Legal Expenses Insurance) Regulations 1990 - Conditional Fee Agreements Regulations 2000 - Civil Procedure Rules 44.12A
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
H M Attorney-General v Ebert [2001] EWHC Admin 695; [2002] 2 All ER 789
21 Sep 2001
Admn
Lord Justice Brooke, Mr Justice Harrison
Litigation Practice, Human Rights
The defendant had instituted over 80 fruitless actions over years. He had been made subject to a vexatious litigant order, but the Attorney General now requested additional injunctive relief. This was a very extreme instance of extreme litigation. He had since applied for permission over 150 times to begin different kinds of proceedings. He had come to conclude that one judge was corrupt and biased against him, and his actions had led to his being requested to leave the courts. He was interrupting the smooth administration of justice. Every citizen has a right of access to a court both at common law and pursuant to ECHR Article 6. This right of access is not absolute. There is a distinction between controlling the issue of proceedings, and physical disturbances of court proceedings. An injunction in precise terms was to be granted to exclude the defendant from the Royal Courts of Justice save as provided.
Supreme Court Act 1981 42
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Kuwait Airways Corporation v Iraqi Airways Company [2001] EWCA Civ 1496
4 Oct 2001
CA

Litigation Practice
Grant of leave to appeal (formal)
[ Bailii ]
 
Jacobs v Waner [2001] EWCA Civ 1612
5 Oct 2001
CA
Thorpe LJ
Litigation Practice
Application for leave to appeal out of time.
[ Bailii ]
 
V v C [2001] EWCA Civ 1509
6 Oct 2001
CA
Lord Justice Brooke, Lord Justice Waller, Lord Justice Longmore
Litigation Practice
The defendant faced an application for summary judgment and also a criminal investigation and possible criminal proceedings in respect of the same matters. He said that to provide a detailed defence to the claim he would have to give information that would or might assist a prosecution, and that to proceed with summary judgment would require him to "buy" his right not to incriminate himself at the price of having judgment entered against him, or to forgo that right with the attendant risks to the criminal process under way against him. Held: The privilege against self-incrimination was a privilege against being compelled on pain of punishment to provide evidence or information, and the privilege did not give rise to a defence in civil proceedings or to a right not to plead a defence in civil proceedings. As to whether there should be a stay to avoid prejudice to the summary trial, it was a matter of discretion and the judge's decision to proceed with the application for summary judgment and to give summary judgment could not be successfully impugned. There is no right to silence in civil proceedings. If a defendant had a positive defence, the criminal law now expected him to raise it at an early stage if there was to be no danger of adverse inferences being drawn or adverse comment made; so that disclosure of a defence in civil proceedings was unlikely to disadvantage a defendant in criminal proceedings. It was legitimate to start from the position that a positive defence was likely to exculpate rather than incriminate; and the judge was entitled to take into account that the defendant had chosen not to provide any answer to the claimant's allegations. The reasoned judgment would be available to the prosecuting authorities, but it was fanciful to say that it would be used by the prosecutor. The fact of judgment did not take them any further than the assertions in the points of claim. Finally, there was no risk of a potential juror being affected by publicity.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Chitolie v National Westminster Bank Plc [2001] EWCA Civ 1498
9 Oct 2001
CA

Litigation Practice
Appeal against refusal of leave to appeal.
[ Bailii ]
 
Collins v CPS Fuels Ltd [2002] CP Rep 6; [2001] EWCA Civ 1597
9 Oct 2001
CA
Judge, Jonathan Parker LJJ, Bodey J
Litigation Practice, Civil Procedure Rules
Appeal against dismissal of claim for damages on basis that it was an abuse being a second attempt to litigate a matter already decided.
Civil Procedure Rules 3.4(2)(b)
[ Bailii ]
 
Rakusens Ltd v Baser Ambalaj Plastik Sanayi Ticaret AS Gazette, 01 November 2001; Times, 09 November 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1820
11 Oct 2001
CA
Buxton, Arden, LJJ, Bodey J
Litigation Practice, Company
A company had sought and obtained leave to serve proceedings on a foreign based company, by serving documents on a local agent. The local agent was an independent contractor, who received and transmitted orders to the company, but who, themselves, had no authority to bind the company in contract. Held: The section allowed service at a 'place of business' within the jurisdiction. As a commission agent, unable to conclude business for the defendants, the address was not a place of business of the defendants. The claim was not validly served.
Companies Act 1985 695(2)
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]

 
 Fuller v Strum; CA 11-Oct-2001 - [2001] EWCA Civ 1551
 
Watson v Cleveland Police [2001] EWCA Civ 1547
12 Oct 2001
CA

Litigation Practice
The defendant appealed an award of damages in favour of the applicant for assault by police officers whilst held in police custody. The said the judge should have allowed the claimant's criminal record in in full. Held: The judge had directed the jury correctly. However as to damages, the award of exemplary damages was exessive, and was reduced.
Criminal Procedure Act 1865 6
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Perotti v Watson [2001] EWCA Civ 1600
15 Oct 2001
CA

Litigation Practice
Application for permission to appeal against assets freezing orders taken to enforce costs awards.
[ Bailii ]
 
Multicultural Media Centre for the Millennium Ltd v Millennium Commission Times, 16 November 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1687
19 Oct 2001
CA
Lord Justice Judge, Lord Justice Chadwick and Lord Justice Jonathan Parker
Litigation Practice, Insolvency
Where a court was faced with a situation where both parties wished to proceed, but one wanted to put in an affidavit which the other had not had chance to examine, it became impossible for that judge to proceed fairly. A winding up order made under such circumstances was set aside. The case was remitted to another judge of the Chancery Division.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Zazulak (T/A Stefco Precision and General Engineers) v Dickinson and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 1629
23 Oct 2001
CA

Litigation Practice
Refusal of leave to appeal
[ Bailii ]

 
 Knauf UK GmbH v British Gypsum Ltd and Another; CA 24-Oct-2001 - Times, 15 November 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1570; [2002] 1 WLR 907

 
 Director General of Fair Trading v First National Bank; HL 25-Oct-2001 - Times, 01 November 2001; [2002] 1 AC 481; [2001] UKHL 52; [2001] 3 WLR 1297; [2002] 1 LLR 489; [2001] 2 All ER (Comm) 1000; [2002] 1 All ER 97; [2002] ECC 22; [2002] 1 Lloyd's Rep 489
 
Best v Charter Medical of England Ltd and Another Times, 19 November 2001; Gazette, 06 December 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1588
26 Oct 2001
CA
Lord Justice Peter Gibson, Lord Justice Walker, Lord Justice Keene
Defamation, Litigation Practice
The Civil Procedure Rules did not alter the previous practice in defamation actions, that the words to be relied upon should be pleaded in detail, save only in exceptional circumstances. The case had been properly struck out, as disclosing no reasonable cause of action, where the claimant had failed to establish the words used.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Mehta v Evans Dodd (A Firm of Solicitors) and others [2001] EWCA Civ 1693
26 Oct 2001
CA

Litigation Practice
Applications for leave to appeal and to be released from undertaking refused.
[ Bailii ]
 
Pearson and others v Ahmed (Male) [2001] EWCA Civ 1626
30 Oct 2001
CA
Brooke LJ
Litigation Practice, Personal Injury
Application for discovery of additional documents for appeal.
[ Bailii ]
 
Chitolie and Another v Henmans Solicitors and others [2001] EWCA Civ 1674
31 Oct 2001
CA

Litigation Practice
The second claimant had begun proceedings. She was subject to a Grepe v Loam order, but had not obtained consent. The first plaintiff had joined in the action despite having no interest and making no claim. Appeal against strike out refused.
[ Bailii ]
 
Hall v Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council [2001] EWCA Civ 1717
1 Nov 2001
CA
Simon Brown, Schiemann, Buxton LJJ
Personal Injury, Litigation Practice

[ Bailii ]
 
Versailles Trade Finance Ltd (in administrative receivership) v Clough Times, 01 November 2001; Gazette, 08 November 2001
1 Nov 2001
CA
Brooke LJ, Waller LJ and Longmore LJ
Litigation Practice, Human Rights
A defendant to civil proceedings could not use the privilege against self-incrimination as a defence against an application for summary judgement, where his plea amounted to no more than a request to the court to prevent the other party relying upon information and material already in its possession. Where criminal proceedings were anticipated or uncompleted, a stay might be granted where the civil procedure would create a real risk of self-incrimination.

 
Bentley v Jones Harris and Company [2001] EWCA Civ 1678; [2001] EWCA Civ 1724
2 Nov 2001
CA
Latham LJ, Burton J
Litigation Practice
Latham LJ said: "it will only be in a rare case that the judge should be asked to determine the issues before him before all the evidence has been completed. However, it seems to me that, if a judge concludes at the end of a claimant's evidence, whether on the application of the defendant or of his own motion, that the claimant has no real prospect of success or, in other words, is bound to fail, on his assessment of the evidence before him at that stage, he is in my view entitled to give judgment for the defendant, in the same way as if there had been an application at an earlier stage in the proceedings for summary judgment under CPR Part 24.2. In that way he will be giving effect, in the circumstances of a trial, to the overriding objective and in particular to the need to contain within limits the expenditure of time and costs on the particular case before him."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Veitch v Avery [2001] EWCA Civ 1971
5 Nov 2001
CA

Litigation Practice
Application for leave to appeal - adjourned for on notice hearing.
[ Bailii ]

 
 MP (a Child) v Mid-Kent Healthcare Trust; CA 5-Nov-2001 - Times, 19 November 2001; Gazette, 14 December 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1703; [2002] CPLR 27; (2002) 65 BMLR 43; [2002] Lloyd's Rep Med 33; [2002] 3 All ER 688; [2002] 1 WLR 210
 
Savings and Investment Bank Ltd (in Liquidation) v Fincken Times, 15 November 2001; Gazette, 14 December 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1639
6 Nov 2001
CA
Lord Justice Peter Gibson, Lord Justice Robert Walker and Lord Justice Keene
Litigation Practice, Limitation
When the court was asked to decide whether a proposed form of amendment to the pleadings would add an issue which was out of time, the court must look to the pleadings before and after the proposed amendment, and the factual issues which would have to be proved to support each version. The mere addition of a new remedy for the same cause of action was not a new claim.
Limitation Act 1980 3
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Hanley v Stage and Catwalk Ltd (T/A Acorn Studios) and others [2001] EWCA Civ 1739
7 Nov 2001
CA

Litigation Practice

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Pinnock v Croydon Church Housing Association [2001] EWCA Civ 1763
8 Nov 2001
CA

Litigation Practice
Application dismissed for want of prosecution in absence of appellant and no application for adjournment.
[ Bailii ]
 
Snell and Others v Young and Co Ltd and Others [2001] EWHC QB 449
9 Nov 2001
QBD

Litigation Practice

[ Bailii ]
 
Thibierge and Comar Sa v Rexam Cfp Limited
9 Nov 2001
ChD
Mr Justice Jacob
Intellectual Property, Litigation Practice
An appeal from the Patents Office relating to an exercise of discretion required that it should be shown that there was error of principle. It has to be shown that the decision maker below exercised his discretion under a mistake of law, or in disregard of principle, or under a misapprehension as to the facts, or that he took into account irrelevant matters or failed to exercise his discretion, or the conclusion which he reached in the exercise of his discretion was "outside the generous ambit within which a reasonable disagreement is possible".
1 Citers


 
Regina v Ebert [2001] EWHC Ch 457
12 Nov 2001
ChD
Mr Justice Patten
Litigation Practice
An order had been made enjoining the respondent from entering the Royal Courts of Justice, or commencing proceedings, without written leave. Some insolvency applications remained outstanding. The applications made several repetitions of applications already refused. No new evidence or arguments were put forward. 'Mr. Ebert has either lost touch with the realities of his position or is simply concerned to maintain a vendetta.' Permission refused.
Supreme Court Act 1981 42

 
Ropaigealach v Allied Irish Bank Plc [2001] EWCA Civ 1790; [2001] 47 EGCS 146; [2002] 1 EGLR 83; [2002] 03 EG 130
12 Nov 2001
CA
Hale LJRix LJ
Litigation Practice

Charging Orders Act 1977
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Graham v Central Manchester Healthcare Trust [2001] EWCA Civ 1697
13 Nov 2001
CA
May LJ
Litigation Practice, Professional Negligence

[ Bailii ]
 
Halifax Plc v Chandler [2001] EWCA Civ 1750
13 Nov 2001
CA
Chadwick LJ, Clarke LJ
Litigation Practice
The claimant had sought payment of a substantial shortfall debt from the defendant after repossessing and selling the defendant's home. It compromised that debt, and was paid, but now sought to re-open the compromise on the basis of an alleged misrepresentation by the defendant as to his means. A world-wide asset freezing order had been granted. The defendant applied for further funds to be released from the sums frozen. Held: The appeal failed. The defendant had not shown that his position had changed since the order had been made. However the court dounted that the original order had been correctly granted, and was concerned that an order should not prevent dealings in the ordinary course of business.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Moon v Kent County Council and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 1877
15 Nov 2001
CA

Litigation Practice

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
AP (Uk) Ltd v West Midlands Fire and Civil Defence Authority [2001] EWCA Civ 1917
16 Nov 2001
CA

Costs, Litigation Practice
Whether, if it is right to require a claimant to put up security for the costs of an action, it may be appropriate that the security given should be by way of a charge on the claimants' own property in favour of the defendant and, if so, in what circumstances.
[ Bailii ]
 
Brown and Another v Bennett and Others (No 2) Times, 21 November 2001; Gazette, 10 January 2002
16 Nov 2001
ChD
Justice Neuberger
Legal Professions, Costs, Litigation Practice
The power to make a wasted costs order did not apply only against advocates in court, and not only against the applicant's own representatives. The test was as to the causing of additional costs. In this case several barristers had been involved at different stages. The defendants asserted that they should have appreciated that there was no prospect of success in an allegation of fraud. A decision to plead fraud, within the terms of the barristers' code of conduct, was a matter of professional judgement. An order should be made only if the view reached by counsel that he could plead dishonesty was unreasonable or reckless. In this case also the claimants insisted on retaining their legal privilege, and accordingly the barristers were unable properly to defend their decisions.
Supreme Court Act 1981 51
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Barnes v Woolwich Plc [2001] EWCA Civ 1406
18 Nov 2001
CA

Litigation Practice

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

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Zazulak v (T/A Stedco Precision and General Engineers) v Dickenson and Another (T/A Asset and Finance Leasing) and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 1786
19 Nov 2001
CA

Litigation Practice
Refusal of leave to appeal - new evidence - sale of leased goods - valuation
[ Bailii ]
 
Woolwich Plc v Barnes [2001] EWCA Civ 1801
20 Nov 2001
CA

Litigation Practice
Applications for leave to appeal against court orders - no prospect of success. Applications refused.
[ Bailii ]
 
Clarke (executor of the will of Francis Bacon, deceased) v Marlborough Fine Art (London) Ltd and Another Times, 04 December 2001; Gazette, 17 January 2002; [2002] 1 WLR 1731
20 Nov 2001
ChD
Patten J
Civil Procedure Rules, Litigation Practice, Evidence
A party will not be allowed to file pleadings which required him to make contradictory statements of truth in a unified claim. The alternative may be for the proceedings to go ahead as separate, non-unified claims. When considering whether there was evidence to support an amendment, the court should apply the same test as for an application for summary judgment or to strike out. Hearsay evidence now being generally admissible, the requirement to state the source of any hearsay was procedural, and went as to weight, and did not the attribution to be based upon non-hearsay evidence.
Civil Procedure Rules 38 - Civil Evidence Act 1995
1 Citers


 
Genira Trade and Finance Inc v CS First Boston and Standard Bank (London) Limited [2001] EWCA Civ 1733
21 Nov 2001
CA

Banking, Litigation Practice
The court considered the circumstances under which it could be called upon to assist a foreign court. Held: It is the duty and pleasure of the court to give all such assistance as it can to the requesting court within the limits imposed by the 1975 Act from which the jurisdiction to make orders of this kind is derived.
Evidence (Proceedings in other Jurisdictions) Act 1975
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Shyam Jewellers Limited v M Cheeseman; CA 29-Nov-2001 - [2001] EWCA Civ 1818
 
HM Attorney General v Edwards [2001] EWCA Civ 1981
4 Dec 2001
CA

Litigation Practice
Application for leave to appeal against vexatious litigant order.
Supreme Court Act 1981 41
[ Bailii ]

 
 Coli Shipping (UK) Ltd v Andrea Merzario Ltd; CA 4-Dec-2001 - [2001] EWCA Civ 1872
 
Hall and others v Motor Sport Vision Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1873
6 Dec 2001
CA

Litigation Practice

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

 
Balamoody v United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting [2001] EWCA Civ 2097; [2002] IRLR 288; [2002] ICR 646
6 Dec 2001
CA
Henry LJ, Ward LJ, Sir Christopher Slade
Employment, Discrimination, Litigation Practice
The claimant had been struck from the register of nurses after convictions arising from failures of his staff at his nursing home with regard to drug management. He had then brought claims of unlawful race discrimination against the health authority and against the respondent. Those claims had been dismissed as frivolous, no valid comparator having been provided. The appellant said that the tribunal should have heard his evidence before deciding that his claim was frivolous. Held. The appeal was allowed and the case remitted. The court approved and applied the decision in Moore. The decision to strike out a claim was an exercise of discretion which should be disturbed only for an error of law or manifest unreasonableness. However the case might have proceeded on the basis of a hypothetial comparator. His complaint was not of the unfairness of the respondent's decision but as to its unlawfulness being, he said, based on racial grounds. It was incumbent on the tribunal to construct an hypothetical comparator. The tribunal and appeal tribunal had lost sight of the fundamental claim.
Nursing Homes and Mental Nursing Homes Regulations 1984 15(3) - Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 1993 13(2) - Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2001 15(2) - Race Relations Act 1976 1(1) 2 3(4)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Cullen v Whinhurst Investments Ltd and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 1927
7 Dec 2001
CA

Litigation Practice, Insolvency, Landlord and Tenant
Applications for leave to appeal.
[ Bailii ]
 
Gregory and Another, Regina (on the Application Of) v Turner and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 1952
7 Dec 2001
CA

Land, Litigation Practice
Application for leave to appeal.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
R (Children) v R (Children) [2001] EWCA Civ 1880
7 Dec 2001
CA
Lord Justice Thorpe Lord Justice Keene And Sir Swinton Thomas
Children, Litigation Practice
The parents sought defined contact arrangements after a divorce, with differing proposals. It was said that the father had been unable to move on following the relationship breakdown, and the mother sought a condition on contact that the father receive psychiatric assessment. The father came to reject the judge's independence. The court made contact orders but also orders restraining publication of the matters before the court, and against the husband. He now appealed, asking the order to be set aside because he had not been given a fair hearing. Held: The burden on a party in establishing bias is substantial. In his relationship with a litigant in person, the judge must be a shepherd and not a wolf. Parts of the order were immoderate and not supported by any evidence of need. The appeal was allowed in part, removing certain parts of the order, and extending the contact.
[ Bailii ]
 
Perotti v Watson and others [2001] EWCA Civ 2025
11 Dec 2001
CA

Litigation Practice

[ Bailii ]
 
Perotti v Watson and others [2001] EWCA Civ 2023
12 Dec 2001
CA

Litigation Practice

[ Bailii ]
 
Citadel Management Inc v Equal Ltd and others [2001] EWCA Civ 2058
12 Dec 2001
CA
Robert Walker LJ
Litigation Practice
Not on notice applicatin to re-instate appel struck out
[ Bailii ]
 
Akintola v Akintola [2001] EWCA Civ 1989; [2002] 1 FLR 701; [2002] Fam Law 263; 2002] 1 FCR 453
12 Dec 2001
CA
Thorpe LJ, Morland J
Family, Litigation Practice

[ Bailii ]

 
 Mahon, Regina (on the Application of) v Taunton County Court; Admn 13-Dec-2001 - [2001] EWHC Admin 1078
 
Perotti v Watson and others [2001] EWCA Civ 1993
13 Dec 2001
CA

Litigation Practice

[ Bailii ]
 
Bracken Partners Ltd v Gutteridge and Others [2001] EWHC 568 (Ch)
17 Dec 2001
ChD
Stanley Burnton J
Company, Litigation Practice
On notice applications by claimant for continuation of freezing order, and by the defendant for the discharge of the order.
[ Bailii ]
 
Walsh (as executrix of the estate of David G Walsh) and Others v Deloitte & Touche Inc , Trustee of the estate of Bre-X Minerals Limited , a bankrupt No 37 of 2000; [2001] UKPC 58
17 Dec 2001
PC
Lord Slynn of Hadley Lord Hoffmann Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Sir Martin Nourse Sir Kenneth Keith
Litigation Practice, Information, Commonwealth
(Bahamas) Shares were sold in a mining company whose prices had been buoyed by rumour, but where disclosure of difficulties had not been made, and eventually it became clear that samples had bee fraudulently salted. The company became insolvent, and the respondents appointed. They obtained a continuing Mareva injunction against the appellant as executor of her husband's estate in the Bahamas. Held: An officer of a company owes a fiduciary duty to the company not to use his knowledge of its affairs by making a profit from dealing in what he knows to be a false market in its shares. Interlocutory jurisdiction is ordinarily ancillary to substantive jurisdiction. There was evidence that the appellants had tried move assets beyond the jurisdiction. The judge's discretion had been exercised properly. An appeal on the ground of delay had not been pleaded.
1 Cites

[ PC ] - [ PC ] - [ PC ] - [ Bailii ]

 
 Gwembe Valley Development Co Ltd (in Receivership) v Koshy and Others (No 4); ChD 18-Dec-2001 - Times, 28 February 2002
 
Bank of China v NBM LLC and others Times, 10 January 2002; Gazette, 27 February 2002
18 Dec 2001
CA
Lord Justice Pill, Lord Justice Tuckey, And, Lord Justice Jonathan Parker
Litigation Practice, Banking
A world wide asset freezing order, should as regards property in other jurisdictions allow that those having control of such assets must be free to deal with them as required by local law and other legal obligations. An order had included a 'Baltic proviso' The appellant suggested it was not correct. Held: A third party should not be required to breach its contractual obligations. The onus should be upon the claimant to obtain relief from the local court rather than upon the third party. The proviso was properly included, and indeed it should be included in the standard form..
1 Cites


 
Bank of China v Nbm Llc and others [2001] EWCA Civ 1933
18 Dec 2001
CA

Litigation Practice
world wide freezing order
Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 25
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Morgan Grenfell and Co Ltd v Sace - Istituto Per i Servizi Assicurativi Del Commercio [2001] EWCA Civ 1932
19 Dec 2001
CA
Clarke, Mance, Dyson LJJ
Banking, Insurance, Litigation Practice
The claimants sought to recover under guarantees, issued by the respondent banks, underwriting export credit guarantees. Though described as guarantees, the agreements were in law and substance, contracts of insurance governed by Italian law. The respondents refused to pay alleging failure to disclose the absence of investigation of the financial viability of the payer. Held: The judge had had to find against a background of differing expert opinions on Italian Law and banking practice. These were for an English court, questions of fact, even though of a special nature. On an appeal against findings on such issues the Court of Appeal should be reluctant to reverse findings of fact. Italian insurance law differs from English law with respect to avoidance of liability of the insurer. In this case though the court differed from the judge as to its conclusions on Italian insurance and banking law, greater disclosure by the insured would not have affected the bankers minds, and the finding was upheld.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Gribbon v Lutton and Another Times, 04 December 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1956; [2002] 2 EGCS 100; [2002] NPC 2; [2002] QB 902; [2002] PNLR 19; [2002] 2 WLR 842; [2002] Lloyd's Rep PN 272
19 Dec 2001
CA
Lord Justice Pill, Lord Justice Robert Walker and Mr Justice Laddie
Professional Negligence, Litigation Practice, Estoppel
The defendant solicitors acted in obtaining and holding a deposit on the sale of land. They issued interpleader proceedings which decided that the deposit was payable to the purchaser. The vendor then sued the solicitors in negligence. The solicitors were faced with two courts making different and contradictory decisions on the same facts as to the destination of the deposit, and claimed that the decision of the first court was incorrect. Held: The solicitor had initiated the interpleader proceedings, and could not be heard to complain about it. The application was an abuse of process. The claim in negligence succeeded because the defendants had failed to secure for their client an enforceable bipartite agreement under which the deposit would be forfeit if the prospective purchaser did not proceed. No issue estoppel arose in their favour because they were not parties in any real sense to the original proceedings.
Laddie J, sitting as a judge of the Court of Appeal, said (as to Chillingworth): "All the judge was saying was that if that [the 10 July document] had been a binding contract, suitable wording could have been inserted into it to make the deposit non-refundable."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Watson and others v Perotti and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 2061
20 Dec 2001
CA

Litigation Practice

[ Bailii ]
 
Barnes v Tilbrooks Solicitors and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 2049
20 Dec 2001
CA

Litigation Practice
Applications for leave to re-instate application for leave to appeal. The applicant asked the judge to recuse himself the defendant having made allegations against several high court judges of a criminal conspiracy against him. Held: No basis had been put forward for the allegation that a conspiracy existed and the application was refused.
[ Bailii ]
 
Sayers and Others v Smith Kline Beecham plc and Others; X, Y, Z and Others v Schering Health Care Ltd and Others; Afrika and Others v Cape plc Times, 15 January 2002; Gazette, 06 March 2002; [2001] EWCA Civ 2017
21 Dec 2001
CA
Lord Justice Mummery, Lord Justice Buxton, And, Lord Justice Longmore
Personal Injury, Litigation Practice, Civil Procedure Rules
The case concerned the management of substantial multi-party actions, and in particular the form of costs orders. The claimants sought a payment of the 'common costs' element to be made payable as the appropriate relative common issues were resolved. Held: The purpose of the new rules was to clarify the sharing of the burden of costs, not to prescribe what orders should be made and when. As to discontinuing claimants, the current form of order should continue. The advantages of amending such orders to crystallise the costs of a discontinuing party were outweighed by the potential injustice.
Civil Procedure Rules Part 19 Section III
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Jobserve Limited v Network Multimedia Television Limited [2001] EWCA Civ 2018
21 Dec 2001
CA
Lord Justice Mummery, Lord Justice Longmore, And, Mr Justice Harrison
Commercial, Litigation Practice
The claimants sought to re-instate an injunction, claiming Jobserve were acting to abuse their dominant market position. The claimants asserted that European case law had decided the point in their favour. Both parties operated web-sites advertising jobs in the IT sector. The trade association through which most jobs became available, used the Jobserve service. Jobserve, itself not an agency, refused to accept advertisements from those who were agencies, claiming they were competitors. Held: There was an arguable case, and the injunction stood
Competition Act 1998 18
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
A Health Authority v Dr X and Others [2002] 1 FLR 1045; Times, 01 February 2002; [2001] Lloyds (Medical) 349; [2001] EWCA Civ 2014; [2002] Fam Law 342; [2002] 2 All ER 780; [2002] 2 FCR 357
21 Dec 2001
CA
Lord Justice Thorpe, Lord Justice Laws and Mr Justice Harrison
Litigation Practice, Children, Health Professions
Where, after a children case has been heard, a party wishes to apply for the release of papers, the application should be made before the judge who had heard the case. To do otherwise left the second judge making a difficult assessment with insufficient direct knowledge of the issues and people involved.
Children Act 1989
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Nasser v United Bank of Kuwait; CA 21-Dec-2001 - [2001] EWCA Civ 1454; [2001] 1 WLR 1868
 
Afrika and others v Cape Plc and others; X Y Z and Others v Schering health Care Ltd; Sayers and Others v Merck, Smithkline Beecham plc MMR/MR vaccine litigation [2001] EWCA Civ 2027
21 Dec 2001
CA

Consumer, Personal Injury, Litigation Practice
Claimants sought damages for personal injuries after immunisation with the MMR vaccine.
Civil Procedure Rules
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Gerrard Ltd v Read and Another Times, 17 January 2002; Gazette, 27 February 2002
21 Dec 2001
ChD
Justice Blackburn
Litigation Practice, Commercial
The applicant was party to a consent order, but appealed part of it which he now asserted was unlawful. Held: It is settled law that a consent order could be varied where the whole order was vitiated because some or all of it was unlawful. Nevertheless in this case the term was not unenforceable, and the order was not to be varied.
1 Cites


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