Click the case name for better results:

Nelson and Another v Clearsprings (Management) Ltd: CA 22 Sep 2006

The defendant did not appear at the trial and now appealed the judgment. The claim form and court papers had been served by post at the wrong address. The question was whether a defendant wanting to set aside a judgment was required to persuade the court to exercise its discretion or whether he was entitled … Continue reading Nelson and Another v Clearsprings (Management) Ltd: CA 22 Sep 2006

Hughes v Carratu International Plc: QBD 19 Jul 2006

The claimant wished to bring an action against the defendant enquiry agent, saying that it had obtained unlawful access to details of his bank accounts, and now sought disclosure of documents. The defendant denied wrongdoing, and said it had returned all papers to solicitors. Held: The proposed respondents had not been fully candid, and a … Continue reading Hughes v Carratu International Plc: QBD 19 Jul 2006

Cleary, Regina (on the Application of) v Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court and others: Admn 26 Jul 2006

The police sought the closure of premises under an anti-social behaviour order. Held: A body seeking such an order had an obligation to serve written copies of the evidence upon which they wished to rely on the proposed respondent. The respondent had therefore been entitled to the adjournment he sought but was refused by the … Continue reading Cleary, Regina (on the Application of) v Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court and others: Admn 26 Jul 2006

Hardy and others v Pembrokeshire County Council and Another: CA 19 Jul 2006

The court considered the consequences of delay in applications for judicial review: ‘It is important that those parties, and indeed the public generally, should be able to proceed on the basis that the decision is valid and can be relied on, and that they can plan their lives and make personal and business decisions accordingly.’ … Continue reading Hardy and others v Pembrokeshire County Council and Another: CA 19 Jul 2006

Estate Acquisition and Development Ltd v Wiltshire and Another: CA 4 May 2006

The defendants appealed a decision that they had no sufficient reason for not attending court on the day of the trial. Held: The fact that the defendants had a continuing commercial relationship with the claimants was not enough to justify an inference that they should be aware of proceedings served at a former address. In … Continue reading Estate Acquisition and Development Ltd v Wiltshire and Another: CA 4 May 2006

Rhone-Poulenc Rorer International Holdings Inc and Another v Yeda Research and Development Co Ltd: ChD 16 Feb 2006

The patent application had been presented to the European Patent Office and granted only after 13 years. The claimant now appealed refusal to allow amendment of its claim to allow a claim in its sole name. The defendant argued that it was out of time. Held: The appeal succeeded: ‘ the long-standing rule of practice … Continue reading Rhone-Poulenc Rorer International Holdings Inc and Another v Yeda Research and Development Co Ltd: ChD 16 Feb 2006

Hawley v Luminar Leisure Plc Ase Security Services Limited, Mann: CA 1 Feb 2006

The defendant had made a part 36 offer of settlement. The claimant did not accept it, but then tried to accept it after the trial had begun. Held: The risks of litigation were such that situations would often alter when a case came on for trial. It was implied in a part 36 offer that … Continue reading Hawley v Luminar Leisure Plc Ase Security Services Limited, Mann: CA 1 Feb 2006

Collier v Williams and others: CA 25 Jan 2006

Various parties appealed refusal and grant of extensions of time for service of claim forms. Held: The court gave detailed guidance. The three central issues were the proper construction of the rule, the question of whether the court could reconsider an application made without notice and on paper, and whether the Hashtroodi guidance was being … Continue reading Collier v Williams and others: CA 25 Jan 2006

A and D v B and E: FD 13 Jun 2003

In two separate actions, fathers with parental responsibility sought orders requiring the mothers of their children to ensure they received the MMR vaccine. Each mother objected, having suspicions as to the safety of the treatment. Specific issue orders were sought. Held: The court found the evidence given by the expert for the mother’s unconvincing. There … Continue reading A and D v B and E: FD 13 Jun 2003

Carillion Construction Ltd v Devonport Royal Dockyard Ltd: CA 16 Nov 2005

The parties had disputed payments for subcontracting work on a major project. The matter had been referred to arbitration, and the claimants now appealed refusal of leave to appeal the adjudicator’s award. Held: The dispute was complex and substantial. Nevertheless, the adjudicator ‘not only took the initiative in ascertaining the facts but also applied his … Continue reading Carillion Construction Ltd v Devonport Royal Dockyard Ltd: CA 16 Nov 2005

Asia Pacific (Hk) Ltd. and others v Hanjin Shipping Co Ltd (Hanjin Pennsylvania): ComC 7 Nov 2005

Various cargo owners sought damages against the owners of the ship which had suffered an explosion with the loss of the cargo. The defendants asserted limitation. Some claimants had agreed an extension of time. Proceedings were then issued but served only eventually made with letters claimed to be equivocal. The question was what constituted service. … Continue reading Asia Pacific (Hk) Ltd. and others v Hanjin Shipping Co Ltd (Hanjin Pennsylvania): ComC 7 Nov 2005

Garbutt and Another v Edwards and Another: CA 27 Oct 2005

The client challenged his opponent’s solicitors bill of costs, saying that the other side had not been given an estimate of costs. The solicitor acted on several matters for the client and had not given a formal estmate. Held: The absence of the estimate should not deprive the solicitor of payment for the work undertaken … Continue reading Garbutt and Another v Edwards and Another: CA 27 Oct 2005

Burchell v Bullard and others: CA 8 Apr 2005

Each side had succeeded in part on their claims and counterclaims, but the Respondent was andpound;5,000 out of pocket. Each party had been ordered to pay the costs of the other. Held: The appeal succeeded. The judge had correctly recognised the difficulty of settling costs on an issue by issue basis, but should have considered … Continue reading Burchell v Bullard and others: CA 8 Apr 2005

Polanski v Conde Nast Publications Ltd: HL 10 Feb 2005

The claimant wished to pursue his claim for defamation against the defendant, but was reluctant to return to the UK to give evidence, fearing arrest and extradition to the US. He appealed refusal of permission to be interviewed on video tape. Held (Majority): The appeal succeeded, and the judge’s order allowing the evidence to be … Continue reading Polanski v Conde Nast Publications Ltd: HL 10 Feb 2005

Shahar v Tsitsekkos and others: ChD 17 Nov 2004

The defendant wished to make a claim against another party outside the jurisdiction and was granted permission to serve documents which were headed ‘defence and counterclaim’. The proposed defendant argued that such a document could be served in this way. Held: The defendant should apply to the court for leave to add the party outside … Continue reading Shahar v Tsitsekkos and others: ChD 17 Nov 2004

Riyad Bank and others v Ahli United Bank (Uk) Plc: CA 23 Nov 2005

A renewed application for leave to appeal was made as regards a valuation element of the judgment. New expert evidence was sought to be admitted. Held: Leave was refused: ‘the Court of Appeal should be particularly cautious where what is intended is to put in, in effect, further cross-examination of a witness, including an expert, … Continue reading Riyad Bank and others v Ahli United Bank (Uk) Plc: CA 23 Nov 2005

The United States of America v Nolan: SC 21 Oct 2015

Mrs Nolan had been employed at a US airbase. When it closed, and she was made redundant, she complained that the appellant had not consulted properly on the redundancies. The US denied that it had responsibility to consult, and now appealed. Held: The appeal failed (Lord Carnworth dissenting). That the exact situation might not have … Continue reading The United States of America v Nolan: SC 21 Oct 2015

International Finance Corporation v Utexafrica SPRL: ComC 9 May 2001

The defendant applied to have set aside judgement entered against him in default of acknowledgment of service. Held: The authorities make it plain that, in order to satisfy the test for resisting a summary claim for for wrongful repudiation and/or breach of contract, a defendant has to demonstrate a defence which is not ‘false, fanciful … Continue reading International Finance Corporation v Utexafrica SPRL: ComC 9 May 2001

Markos v Goodfellow and Barke and Barke: CA 26 Jul 2001

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 … Continue reading Markos v Goodfellow and Barke and Barke: CA 26 Jul 2001

Basil Shiblaq v Kahraman Sadikoglu (No 2): ComC 30 Jul 2004

The court considered whether there had been effective service of proceedings on defendants in Turkey. Evidence was given as to the effectiveness of such service in Turkish law. Held: The defendant’s application to set aside the judgment in default succeeded. The claimant’s applications in respect of CPR 3.10 and CPR 6.9 were refused. The Civil … Continue reading Basil Shiblaq v Kahraman Sadikoglu (No 2): ComC 30 Jul 2004

Rose v Lynx Express Ltd. and Bridgepoint Capital (Nominees) Ltd: CA 7 Apr 2004

In an request for pre-action discovery it was plainly wrong for the court to seek to decide in advance any element of the virtues of the case. Held: The appeal should be allowed. The case was arguable and should be allowed to proceed.Peter Gibson LJ said: ‘We have reservations about the approach adopted by the … Continue reading Rose v Lynx Express Ltd. and Bridgepoint Capital (Nominees) Ltd: CA 7 Apr 2004

Douglas and others v Hello! Ltd and others: ChD 23 Jan 2004

Judges: Lindsay J Citations: [2004] EWHC 63 (Ch), HCO100644 Links: Bailii Statutes: Civil Procedure Rules 44 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: Cited – Ford v GKR Construction and Others CA 22-Oct-1999 Where a party wished to put the other at risk of payment of costs by the making of an offer, it was vital that … Continue reading Douglas and others v Hello! Ltd and others: ChD 23 Jan 2004

Polanski v Conde Nast Publications Limited: CA 11 Nov 2003

The claimant sought damages for defamation. He feared arrest and extradition to the US if he came to England, and was granted an order allowing him to give evidence by video link. The defendant appealed that order. Held: There was no absolute rule which would allow the order made. The judge had considered that if … Continue reading Polanski v Conde Nast Publications Limited: CA 11 Nov 2003

Downtex v Flatley: CA 2 Oct 2003

The claimants sought damages for defamation and breach of contract. The claimants had purchased a business from the defendant, which contract included a clause requiring the defendant to say nothing damaging about the business. The defendant asserted qualified privilege. The defendant was alleged to have told suppliers, by means of anonymous letters, that they were … Continue reading Downtex v Flatley: CA 2 Oct 2003

Cranfield and Another v Bridgegrove Ltd; Claussen v Yeates etc: CA 14 May 2003

In each case claims had been late in being served and extensions in time were sought and refused. Held: The recent authorities were examined. The words ‘has been unable to serve’ in CPR 7.6(3)(a) include all cases where the court has failed to serve, including mere oversight. The court’s discretion might then be exercised according … Continue reading Cranfield and Another v Bridgegrove Ltd; Claussen v Yeates etc: CA 14 May 2003

Vento v The Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (No 2): CA 20 Dec 2002

The claimant had been awarded damages for sex discrimination, including a sum of andpound;25,000 for injury to feelings. The respondent appealed. Held: The Court of Appeal looked to see whether there had been an error of law in the employment tribunal decision. It did not look to see whether the Employment Appeal Tribunal had erred … Continue reading Vento v The Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (No 2): CA 20 Dec 2002

Mohamad Al Fayed v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis: CA 29 May 2002

During an action, advice from counsel had been inadvertently disclosed to the claimants. The defendant sought to restrain use of the papers in the trial. It was accepted that the papers attracted legal professional privilege, but the police also sought public interest immunity. Held: A solicitor considering documents released to him owes no duty to … Continue reading Mohamad Al Fayed v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis: CA 29 May 2002

Factortame Ltd and others v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions): CA 28 Jan 2002

A part 36 offer had been made and declined. A significant amendment was made to the defendant’s pleadings on the basis of information which had always been available to him. The claimant then accepted the payment in. Should the claimant be regarded as the successful party for costs purposes. Held: Costs remain at the discretion … Continue reading Factortame Ltd and others v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions): CA 28 Jan 2002

Kellar v BBR Graphic Engineers (Yorks) Ltd: ChD 2002

The court was asked whether the district judge had applied the right test on an application to set aside a statutory demand because the conclusions of the district judge referred to a real prospect of success, the test used in CPR 24.2, rather than the test of genuine triable issue. Held: The debate as to … Continue reading Kellar v BBR Graphic Engineers (Yorks) Ltd: ChD 2002

Godwin v Swindon Borough Council: CA 10 Oct 2001

The claimant appealed against an order striking out his claim for personal injuries. The claim had been issued in time, but not served. An extension of time was granted, and the notice sent by first class post the day before that period expired. The defendant had claimed that the rules deemed service on the second … Continue reading Godwin v Swindon Borough Council: CA 10 Oct 2001

MacDonald v Taree Holdings Ltd: ChD 28 Dec 2000

It was wrong to deprive a party of his costs because only of his failure to serve an appropriate schedule of costs at least 24 hours before the summary assessment hearing. The court should consider first, a brief adjournment, and second whether the case should be stood over for a detailed assessment, and third whether … Continue reading MacDonald v Taree Holdings Ltd: ChD 28 Dec 2000

GKR Karate (UK) Limited v Porch, Yorkshire Post Newspaper, Holmes: QBD 17 Jan 2000

The claimant sought damages alleging defamation. The judge ordered certain elements of the case to be heard first, and others, if necessary later. Although the case had been begun under the old rules, the new civil procedure regime gave the judge much wider powers of management, and defamation cases were notoriously expensive and lengthy and … Continue reading GKR Karate (UK) Limited v Porch, Yorkshire Post Newspaper, Holmes: QBD 17 Jan 2000

Gregson v Channel Four Television Corporation: CA 11 Jul 2000

It was possible to amend pleadings outside of the limitation period, where the alteration to identify the correct party was genuine and the mistake had not mislead any party. In this case there was no reasonable doubt about who had been intended to be sued. The overriding objective and rule 17.4(3) could either be applied … Continue reading Gregson v Channel Four Television Corporation: CA 11 Jul 2000

Police of The Metropolis v Brown: QBD 31 Jul 2018

‘The appeal concerns the operation of the qualified one-way costs shifting regime (known as ‘QOCS’) contained in Section II of Part 44 of the Civil Procedure Rules (‘CPR’). The Judge decided that QOCS applied, automatically, to protect Ms Brown against any adverse costs order which might be made against her in the Police’s favour. The … Continue reading Police of The Metropolis v Brown: QBD 31 Jul 2018

X, Regina (on the Application of) v Y School: Admn 21 Feb 2007

The court was asked whether a school was entitled to refuse to allow a Muslim girl to wear the niqab full face veil at school. The reasons were ‘first educational factors resulting from a teacher being unable to see the face of the girl with a niqab; second the importance of a uniform policy as … Continue reading X, Regina (on the Application of) v Y School: Admn 21 Feb 2007

Moroney v Anglo-European College of Chiropractice: CA 1 Nov 2009

The claimant appealed saying that on an application under Rule 3.4, the judge had without forewarning him struck out his case under part 24. Held: There is an overlap between the summary judgment and strike out jurisdictions to the extent that the court may treat an application under CPR 3.4(2)(a) as if it was an … Continue reading Moroney v Anglo-European College of Chiropractice: CA 1 Nov 2009

Thomas v News Group Newspapers Ltd: CA 18 Jul 2001

The publication of articles in a newspaper describing how a ‘black clerk’ had complained about the allegedly racist comments of two policemen was said to have caused the claimant to receive racist hate mail. Held: The court considered the type of conduct which had to be proved to bring the case within the statute. Publication … Continue reading Thomas v News Group Newspapers Ltd: CA 18 Jul 2001

Sally Rall v Ross Hume: CA 8 Feb 2001

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 … Continue reading Sally Rall v Ross Hume: CA 8 Feb 2001

Regina v Taylor and Crabb: CACD 22 Jul 1994

The defendants had stood trial at the Central Criminal Court for murder. At the trial a witness anonymised as Miss A was allowed to give evidence anonymously, without revealing her address, behind a screen so arranged that she, the judge, jury and counsel could see each other directly but she and the defendants could not, … Continue reading Regina v Taylor and Crabb: CACD 22 Jul 1994

Tennero Ltd v Arnold: QBD 6 Jul 2006

The court considered an application for permission to appeal. The Defendant had not attended the trial, but had applied by letter for an adjournment, which was refused. The trial proceeded and resulted in an order against the Defendant. He applied unsuccessfully under rule 39.3(3) to set the judgment aside, and he also appealed in effect … Continue reading Tennero Ltd v Arnold: QBD 6 Jul 2006

Sony Computer Entertainment and Others v. Ball and Others: ChD 17 May 2004

Pumfrey J considered the test to be applied when a party applied for leave to commence proceedings for contempt of court against another party: ‘It seems to me, in the light of the judgment in Malgar v. Leach, that the discretion to permit applications of this nature to proceed must be exercised with very great … Continue reading Sony Computer Entertainment and Others v. Ball and Others: ChD 17 May 2004

Hildebrand v Hildebrand: 1992

The parties in ancillary relief proceedings sought orders for discovery. H had been to the wife’s flat surreptitiously on five occasions, and taken photocopies of so many documents obtained by him in the course of those visits (but returned after photocopying) that the photocopies themselves would now ‘fill a crate’, as the judge was told. … Continue reading Hildebrand v Hildebrand: 1992

Prosecutor v Furundzija: 1 Apr 1999

(International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia) The court described the main features of the law against torture: ‘There exists today universal revulsion against torture: as a USA Court put it in Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, ‘the torturer has become, like the pirate and the slave trader before him, hostis humani generis, an enemy of all … Continue reading Prosecutor v Furundzija: 1 Apr 1999

Atlantic Bar and Grill Ltd v Posthouse Hotels Ltd: 2000

The third defendant sought an order that the costs of the claim for an injunction against him, once it was discontinued on the second day of trial, should be assessed on an indemnity basis. Held: The order should be made. The power of the court under Rule 38.6 to ‘order otherwise’ clearly includes power, in … Continue reading Atlantic Bar and Grill Ltd v Posthouse Hotels Ltd: 2000

Fay v Chief Constable of Bedfordshire Police: QBD 6 Feb 2003

The claimant had begun proceedings for the return of money held by the respondent. His action was stayed for inactivity, and the respondent later had the claim struck out on the basis that it would be an abuse of process to proceed. Held: The claim could still be tried without unfairness, and accordingly it should … Continue reading Fay v Chief Constable of Bedfordshire Police: QBD 6 Feb 2003

1-800 Flowers Inc v Phonenames Ltd: CA 17 May 2001

When making a summary assessment of costs, the court should look primarily to the facts of the particular case before it. It would be proper to bear in mind its own experience of comparable cases. Having made that assessment, it was also proper to look at the total claimed to judge whether it was reasonable … Continue reading 1-800 Flowers Inc v Phonenames Ltd: CA 17 May 2001

Black v Sumitomo Corporation: CA 3 Dec 2001

The claimants proposed pre-action discovery which was resisted. Held: A purpose of pre-action disclosure is to assist those who need disclosure as a vital step in deciding whether to litigate at all or to provide a vital ingredient in the pleading of their case. The rules required first that disclosure would be desirable in the … Continue reading Black v Sumitomo Corporation: CA 3 Dec 2001

KU (A Child) v Liverpool City Council: CA 27 Apr 2005

(Practice Note) The solicitor appealed an order which made the success fee payable different at different stages of the court action. Held: The court had no power to make such an order. To the extent that the CPR might suggest otherwise they were wrong. ‘a practice direction has no legislative force. Practice directions provide invaluable … Continue reading KU (A Child) v Liverpool City Council: CA 27 Apr 2005

Regina on the Application of Davies (No 2) v HM Deputy Coroner for Birmingham: CA 27 Feb 2004

The claimant appealed against a costs order. She had previously appealed against an order of the High Court on her application for judicial review of the inquest held by the respondent. Held: The coroner, and others in a similar position should not generally be expected to pay the costs of an appeal against an order … Continue reading Regina on the Application of Davies (No 2) v HM Deputy Coroner for Birmingham: CA 27 Feb 2004

In re T (Children): SC 25 Jul 2012

The local authority had commenced care proceedings, alleging abuse. After lengthy proceedings, of seven men and two grandparents, all but one were exonerated. The grandparents had not been entitled to legal aid, and had had to mortgage their house for legal costs. Despite being exonerated, the judge followed the normal practice of not awarding costs … Continue reading In re T (Children): SC 25 Jul 2012

Amin Rasheed Shipping Corp v Kuwait Insurance Co: HL 1983

A claimant must show good reason why service on a foreign defendant should be permitted. This head of jurisdiction was an exorbitant jurisdiction, one which, under general English conflict rules, an English court would not recognise as possessed by any foreign court in the absence of some treaty providing for such recognition. Comity dictated that … Continue reading Amin Rasheed Shipping Corp v Kuwait Insurance Co: HL 1983

Wilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry; Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (No 2): HL 10 Jul 2003

The respondent appealed against a finding that the provision which made a loan agreement completely invalid for lack of compliance with the 1974 Act was itself invalid under the Human Rights Act since it deprived the respondent lender of its property rights. It was also argued that it was not possible to make a declaration … Continue reading Wilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry; Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (No 2): HL 10 Jul 2003

Taylor and others v Midland Bank Trust Company Limited: CA 21 Jul 1999

Stuart-Smith LJ rationalised the possible conflict between Part 24 and the practice direction to Part 24 in its original form by saying that the correct view of the effect of the practice direction is to be gleaned from the heading to the paragraph which reads ‘the court’s approach’. It indicates no more than examples of … Continue reading Taylor and others v Midland Bank Trust Company Limited: CA 21 Jul 1999

The Mayor and Commonalty and Citizens Of The City Of London v Reeve and Company Ltd, G Lawrence Wholesale Meat Company Ltd, Citigen (London) Ltd: TCC 25 Feb 2000

CS CPR 24.2(a)(i) – Summary judgment against Part 20 Claimant – Whether no real prospect of success Indemnity – Indemnity against loss etc suffered by reason of indemnifier’s breach of contract – Date of accrual of cause of action – Breaches giving rise to claims by third parties – Whether cause of action accrues when … Continue reading The Mayor and Commonalty and Citizens Of The City Of London v Reeve and Company Ltd, G Lawrence Wholesale Meat Company Ltd, Citigen (London) Ltd: TCC 25 Feb 2000

Marsh v Frenchay NHS Trust: QBD 13 Mar 2001

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. Citations: Times 13-Mar-2001 Statutes: Civil Procedure Rules Part 36 Cited by: … Continue reading Marsh v Frenchay NHS Trust: QBD 13 Mar 2001

International Distillers and Vintners Ltd v J F Hillebrand (UK) Ltd and Others: QBD 25 Jan 2000

An application was made to substitute one defendant in an action for an existing one. Under the old rules, the applicant would have to have shown both that the substitution arose from a genuine mistake and also that the new defendant had not been prejudiced. The new rules stated no such requirements, but the court … Continue reading International Distillers and Vintners Ltd v J F Hillebrand (UK) Ltd and Others: QBD 25 Jan 2000

Godfrey Morgan Solicitors (A Firm) v Armes: CA 2 May 2017

‘The issue in this appeal is whether a defendant joined to proceedings by way of amendment outside the limitation period, and sued in the alternative to the existing defendant, has been added to the claim as a new party or has been substituted for the existing defendant, for the purposes of the Civil Procedure Rules … Continue reading Godfrey Morgan Solicitors (A Firm) v Armes: CA 2 May 2017

Siskina (owners of Cargo lately on Board) v Distos Compania Naviera SA: HL 1979

An injunction was sought against a Panamanian ship-owning company to restrain it from disposing of a fund, consisting of insurance proceeds, in England. The claimant for the injunction was suing the company in a Cyprus court for damages and believed the company to have no other assets from which to meet the hoped-for damages award … Continue reading Siskina (owners of Cargo lately on Board) v Distos Compania Naviera SA: HL 1979

Assicurazioni Generali Spa v Arab Insurance Group (BSC): CA 13 Nov 2002

Rehearing/Review – Little Difference on Appeal The appellant asked the Court to reverse a decision on the facts reached in the lower court. Held: The appeal failed (Majority decision). The court’s approach should be the same whether the case was dealt with as a rehearing or as a review. Tanfern was limited to appeals from … Continue reading Assicurazioni Generali Spa v Arab Insurance Group (BSC): CA 13 Nov 2002

HM Customs and Excise v Barclays Bank Plc: HL 21 Jun 2006

The claimant had served an asset freezing order on the bank in respect of one of its customers. The bank paid out on a cheque inadvertently as to the order. The Commissioners claimed against the bank in negligence. The bank denied any duty of care. Held: The bank’s appeal succeeded. The bank owed a duty … Continue reading HM Customs and Excise v Barclays Bank Plc: HL 21 Jun 2006

AXA General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others: SC 12 Oct 2011

Standing to Claim under A1P1 ECHR The appellants had written employers’ liability insurance policies. They appealed against rejection of their challenge to the 2009 Act which provided that asymptomatic pleural plaques, pleural thickening and asbestosis should constitute actionable harm for the purposes of an action of damages for personal injury. Held: The insurers’ appeals failed. … Continue reading AXA General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others: SC 12 Oct 2011

M v M (Breaches of orders: Committal): CA 28 Jul 2005

The mother sought to appeal refusal of a judge to commit the father for contempt in not complying many times with court orders related to residence and contact. Held: Leave was required for such an appeal. The rules distinguished between an appeal against a committal where leave was not required, and against any other order … Continue reading M v M (Breaches of orders: Committal): CA 28 Jul 2005

Swain v Hillman: CA 21 Oct 1999

Strike out – Realistic Not Fanciful Chance Needed The proper test for whether an action should be struck out under the new Rules was whether it had a realistic as opposed to a fanciful prospect of success. There was no justification for further attempts to explain the meaning of what are clear words. The judge … Continue reading Swain v Hillman: CA 21 Oct 1999

Vedanta Resources Plc and Another v Lungowe and Others: SC 10 Apr 2019

The claimants alleged negligence causing them personal injury and other losses arising from pollution from mining operations of the defendants in Zambia. The company denied jurisdiction. In the Court of Appeal the defendants’ appeals were dismissed. Held: The appeals failed save that the UK was not the proper jurisdiction to bring the case. The claim … Continue reading Vedanta Resources Plc and Another v Lungowe and Others: SC 10 Apr 2019

Wall v The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc: ComC 7 Oct 2016

Claimant may be ordered to disclose funder The claimant alleged the misselling of interest rate sawp agreements by the defendant to his companies, leading to losses of andpound;700 million. The defendant now applied for disclosure of the identity of any third party funding the claimant’s litigation, and if appropriate the associated costs order. Held: RBS … Continue reading Wall v The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc: ComC 7 Oct 2016

Bessant and others v South Cone Incorporated; in re REEF Trade Mark: CA 28 May 2002

The Reef pop group applied to register ‘REEF’ for Classes 25 and 26 – e.g. T-shirts, badges, etc. South Cone opposed them as registered proprietors of ‘Reef Brazil’ for the footwear which also was included in Class 25. South’s reputation was primarily amongst surfers. The Hearing Officer conducted a ‘multi-factorial’ comparison, and rejected the opposition … Continue reading Bessant and others v South Cone Incorporated; in re REEF Trade Mark: CA 28 May 2002

Vilnius City, the District Court of v Barcys: Admn 22 Mar 2007

The court considered whether it had jurisdiction to apply the Rules to extend time to appeal against discharge of an extradition request. The notice of appeal was not filed (or served) within seven days. Held: Latham LJ said: ‘I acknowledge the force of this argument. But it begs the question as to what power the … Continue reading Vilnius City, the District Court of v Barcys: Admn 22 Mar 2007

Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police: HL 19 Nov 1981

No collateral attack on Jury findigs. An attempt was made to open up in a civil action, allegations of assaults by the police prior to the making of confessions which had been disposed of in a voir dire in the course of a criminal trial. The plaintiffs had imprisoned having spent many years after conviction … Continue reading Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police: HL 19 Nov 1981

Multiplex Construction (Uk) Ltd v Honeywell Control Systems Ltd: TCC 8 Feb 2007

Application for permission to appeal. Jackson J considered whether permission to appeal should have been requested at the hearing: ‘It seems to me that I have got to interpret the provisions of Rule 52.3 and the provisions of the Practice Direction in a manner which is obviously consonant with the intentions of those who drafted … Continue reading Multiplex Construction (Uk) Ltd v Honeywell Control Systems Ltd: TCC 8 Feb 2007

Roberts v Parole Board: HL 7 Jul 2005

Balancing Rights of Prisoner and Society The appellant had been convicted of the murder of three police officers in 1966. His tariff of thirty years had now long expired. He complained that material put before the Parole Board reviewing has case had not been disclosed to him. Held: The appeal failed (by a majority). The … Continue reading Roberts v Parole Board: HL 7 Jul 2005

Woodhouse v Consignia Plc; Steliou v Compton: CA 7 Mar 2002

The claimant continued an action brought in her late husband’s name. The action had begun under the former rules. After the new rules came into effect, the action was automatically stayed, since no progress had been made for over a year. Her application to lift the stay was refused, and she appealed. Held: The automatic … Continue reading Woodhouse v Consignia Plc; Steliou v Compton: CA 7 Mar 2002

Middleton, Regina (on the Application of) v Coroner for the Western District of Somerset: HL 11 Mar 2004

The deceased had committed suicide in prison. His family felt that the risk should have been known to the prison authorities, and that they had failed to guard against that risk. The coroner had requested an explanatory note from the jury. Held: The jury should indeed have been given opportunity to explain their verdict: ‘By … Continue reading Middleton, Regina (on the Application of) v Coroner for the Western District of Somerset: HL 11 Mar 2004

Regina (Holding and Barnes plc) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions; Regina (Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others) v Same and Others: HL 9 May 2001

Power to call in is administrative in nature The powers of the Secretary of State to call in a planning application for his decision, and certain other planning powers, were essentially an administrative power, and not a judicial one, and therefore it was not a breach of the applicants’ rights to a fair hearing before … Continue reading Regina (Holding and Barnes plc) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions; Regina (Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others) v Same and Others: HL 9 May 2001

Beasley v Alexander: QBD 9 Oct 2012

The parties had disputed liability for personal injuries in a road traffic accident. The court had held the defendant liable, but held over the assessment of damages. The defendant sought to refer to the fact of his offer of settlement when assessing the costs of the liability trial. Held: CPR r 36.13(2) did not permit … Continue reading Beasley v Alexander: QBD 9 Oct 2012

Winkler and Another v Shamoon and Others: ChD 15 Feb 2016

The claimants sought a declaration as against the residuary beneficiaries (wife and daughter) under the will, saying that the claimants had a beneficial interest in company shares within the estate. The defendants fild acknowledgments of service but asserting expressly that they did not submit to the jurisdiction of the court. The claimants said that the … Continue reading Winkler and Another v Shamoon and Others: ChD 15 Feb 2016

TSN Kunststoffrecycling Gmbh v Jurgens: CA 25 Jan 2002

The claimant sought to register and enforce here, a judgment obtained by default in Germany. It was argued that he had not had, under section 27(2) sufficient opportunity to make a proper reply to the proceedings, and that the Brussels Convention created a right of appeal outside the range of appeals under the Civil Procedure … Continue reading TSN Kunststoffrecycling Gmbh v Jurgens: CA 25 Jan 2002

Kay and Another v London Borough of Lambeth and others; Leeds City Council v Price and others and others: HL 8 Mar 2006

In each case the local authority sought to recover possession of its own land. In the Lambeth case, they asserted this right as against an overstaying former tenant, and in the Leeds case as against gypsies. In each case the occupiers said that the recovery of possession interfered with their right respect for their family … Continue reading Kay and Another v London Borough of Lambeth and others; Leeds City Council v Price and others and others: HL 8 Mar 2006

Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No 2): SC 19 Jun 2013

The bank challenged measures taken by HM Treasury to restrict access to the United Kingdom’s financial markets by a major Iranian commercial bank, Bank Mellat, on the account of its alleged connection with Iran’s nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programmes. The bank sought to have the direction given under section 7 of the 2008 Act. … Continue reading Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No 2): SC 19 Jun 2013

Unison, Regina (on The Application of) v Lord Chancellor: SC 26 Jul 2017

The union appellant challenged the validity of the imposition of fees on those seeking to lay complaints in the Employment Tribunal system. Held: The appeal succeeded. The fees were discriminatory and restricted access to justice. The consequence of the order had been very substantially to reduce the number of cases coming before the tribunal, and: … Continue reading Unison, Regina (on The Application of) v Lord Chancellor: SC 26 Jul 2017

Home Office v Lownds (Practice Note): CA 21 Mar 2002

The respondent had been ordered to pay costs of over pounds 16,000 in an action for clinical negligence where the final award was only pounds 4,000. The Secretary of State appealed claiming that the costs were disproportionate. Held: In such cases the court must undertake a two stage examination. First it should look at the … Continue reading Home Office v Lownds (Practice Note): CA 21 Mar 2002

Masterman-Lister v Brutton and Co, Jewell and Home Counties Dairies (No 1): CA 19 Dec 2002

Capacity for Litigation The claimant appealed against dismissal of his claims. He had earlier settled a claim for damages, but now sought to re-open it, and to claim in negligence against his former solicitors, saying that he had not had sufficient mental capacity at the time to accept the offer. Held: There is no definition … Continue reading Masterman-Lister v Brutton and Co, Jewell and Home Counties Dairies (No 1): CA 19 Dec 2002

Hughes Jarvis Ltd v Searle and Another: CA 15 Jan 2019

The claimant and director appealed from orders associated with a finding of contempt of court. The Director, the case having been adjourned overnight during the course of his evidence, and despite warnings to the contrary had sought to communicate with his solicitors and counsel. He had then been remanded in custody overnight despite that that … Continue reading Hughes Jarvis Ltd v Searle and Another: CA 15 Jan 2019

Malgar Ltd v R E Leach Engineering Ltd: ChD 1 Nov 1999

The Civil Procedure Rules could not change the substantive law. It therefore remained necessary for it to be shown that in addition to knowing that what was said was false, the party had to have known that what was being said was likely to interfere with the course of justice. No new category of contempt … Continue reading Malgar Ltd v R E Leach Engineering Ltd: ChD 1 Nov 1999

Cutts v Head and Another: CA 7 Dec 1983

There had been a trial of 35 days regarding rights of way over land, which had proved fruitless, and where some orders had been made without jurisdiction. The result had been inconclusive. The costs order was now appealed, the plaintiff complaining that the judge had failed to take into account an offer of settlement made … Continue reading Cutts v Head and Another: CA 7 Dec 1983

Chellaram and Another v Chellaram and others (No 2): ChD 16 Apr 2002

One of the defendants had not been properly served by posting the proceedings to an address at which he stayed on his very occasional visits to London. The proceedings had not been issued for the purposes of service abroad, because at the time of deemed service under CPR 6 he was not physically within the … Continue reading Chellaram and Another v Chellaram and others (No 2): ChD 16 Apr 2002