Hawes v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary; S v S; S v S: CA 20 May 1993

Separate notices of appeal are not required for appeals against orders made in the same proceedings at the same trial or hearing. ‘There are three notices of appeal before us. Mr Hawes challenges three separate rulings of the judge during the course of the hearing. The fact that it was thought necessary to file three separate notices of appeal seemed curious. Counsel for Mr Hawes explained that the conventional view is that separate notices of appeal are required whenever separate orders are made at the same trial of one action. The understanding is apparently that if there are several rulings on, for example, objections to the admissibility of evidence which result in multiple orders there must be a separate notice of appeal in respect of each order. That view of the requirements of the rules is supported by a note in The Supreme Court Practice, 1993, Volume 1, at paragraph 59/1/1, which appears at page 910 of that volume. It read as follows: ‘Where two or more orders have been made by the court or tribunal below then separate notices of appeal will be required in respect of each order.’ Such a requirement seems unnecessary and wasteful. There is nothing in the wording of the rule which demands such a practice, and the rules ought to be construed in order to promote economical disposal of cases. There seems no good reason why this procedure should continue. I would hope that the ever vigilant editors of The Supreme Court Practice will find it possible to amend the note in a further supplement in order to make it clear that in respect orders made in one action at one hearing it is only necessary to file one notice of appeal.’

Judges:

Steyn LJ

Citations:

Times 20-May-1993

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Distinguished – Dixon v Allgood CA 14-Apr-1999
A party wishing to apply for leave to appeal against orders made on separate preliminary hearings within the same action need not issue one application for each order, but can combine them into one application. In this case the issues were related . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.81283

Hannays v Baldeosingh: PC 1 Apr 1992

There was no jurisdiction for appellate court to strike out a reply once a defence had been admitted.

Citations:

Gazette 01-Apr-1992

Litigation Practice, Commonwealth

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.81219

Grovewood Holding Plc v James Capel and Co Ltd: ChD 15 Aug 1994

A champertous arrangement is unlawful. The action was time barred. It was not an assignment of the cause of action. Such a claim by a liquidator will not be permitted to proceed. The court granted a stay in an action being funded pursuant to a champertous arrangement by the liquidator. He held that that, whether or not the expressions of opinion in Martell that, in a case of maintenance, a stay should not be ordered remained good law (see further below), there was no doubt that the court was free, in the case of a champertous agreement, to grant a stay on the basis that it constituted a continuing abuse of process which the court, as well as the defendants, had an interest in bringing to an end.
Lightman J said: ‘This ground ceases to have any force with the abolition of the crime of maintenance, and the recognition of so many grounds for a stay which do not constitute defences, e.g. absence of authority of the plaintiff’s solicitors, forum non conveniens or the fact that the action is brought for a collateral (improper) purpose.’

Judges:

Lightman J

Citations:

Independent 20-Sep-1994, Times 15-Aug-1994, [1995] Ch 80

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Martell v Consett Iron Co Ltd ChD 1955
In a case of maintenance (as opposed to champerty), a stay should not be ordered. The laws relating to maintenance and champerty must develop to accommodate to changing times. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Abraham and Another v Thompson and Others ChD 12-May-1997
The court may issue a stay of proceedings pending disclosure of the source of funding of an action, without there needing to be any suggestion of champerty or other illegality. The first plaintiff was ordered to disclose to the 5th and 6th . .
Cited – Abraham and Another v Thompson and Another CA 24-Jul-1997
The plaintiffs appealed an order that they should disclose who if any had funded their case. The case concerned failed business ventures in Portugal. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.81063

H J Banks and Co Ltd and Others v British Coal Corporation: QBD 10 Aug 1994

No cause of action could be pursued where the European Commission only can decide liability and no decision had yet been made. An action would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction rather than be stayed until the decision was made.

Judges:

Mance J

Citations:

Times 10-Aug-1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At ECJ – H J Banks and Co Ltd v British Coal Corporation ECJ 13-Apr-1994
The European Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over ECSC treaty disputes. The duty of sincere cooperation imposed the obligation on the national court to mitigate as far as possible in the interests of the Community the risk of a conflicting . .

Cited by:

See Also – Coal Authority v H J Banks and Company Ltd; H J Banks and Company Ltd v The Coal Authority and Anoher ComC 20-Dec-1996
ComC Summary judgment under RSC Order 14 – claim for royalties – previous decision of the European Commission – claim for damages for breach of article 4 European Coal and Steel Treaty. The defence to the Coal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Utilities, European

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.81098

Gulf Bank Ksc v Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd: QBD 24 Aug 1993

A foreign contract was within the purview of Order 11 of the Rules of the Supreme Court. The presence of an indemnity clause which was expressly subject to UK law made the rest of the contract also subject to UK law. The indemnity clause was still part of the contract despite government decree.

Citations:

Gazette 17-Nov-1993, Ind Summary 30-Aug-1993, Times 24-Aug-1993

Litigation Practice, International, Contract

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.81090

Habib Bank Ltd v Ahmed: QBD 2 Nov 2000

The fact that public policy would sometimes allow the refusal of registration of a foreign judgment did not provide an opportunity to a party here to re-litigate the issue when he had had an opportunity to do so before the foreign court and had failed to take it. Foreign judgments may not be registered if they could be shown to have been obtained by fraud. Here documents were prepared in accordance with Islamic practice, and there was no evidence that any such fraud existed.

Citations:

Times 02-Nov-2000, Gazette 09-Nov-2000

Statutes:

Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933

International, Litigation Practice

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.81110

Grant v Travellers Cheque Associates Limited: CA 19 Apr 1995

Right to jury trial in county court for fraud needs proof of detriment.

Citations:

Times 19-Apr-1995

Statutes:

County Courts Act 1984 66(3)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.80981

Global Container Lines Ltd v Bonyad Shipping: QBD 14 Jul 1998

Where companies had amalgamated and one had been a party to litigation, it was possible for the court to order the retrospective substitution of the new company even though the original party had disappeared in law.

Citations:

Times 14-Jul-1998

Citing:

See Also – Global Container Lines Limited v State Black Sea Shipping Company; Amber Seatrade SA and Clifton Navigation SA CA 16-Dec-1997
. .
See Also – Global Container Lines ltd v State Black Sea Shipping and Ors ComC 11-Sep-1997
Agreement for exclusive selling rights over vessel – authority of president of parent company to enter into ratification- whether terms (relating to period etc) sufficiently certain to be enforceable. Repudiation – interlocutory instruction . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Global Container Lines Limited v Bonyan Shipping Company CA 9-Nov-1998
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.80874

Georgiou and Another v Commissioners of Customs and Excise: QBD 19 Oct 1995

The VAT tribunal may assess whether the Commissioner had acted on the basis of his best judgment. Evans LJ discussed appeals on fact disguised as appeals on law: ‘There is a well-recognised need for caution in permitting challenges to findings of fact on the ground that they raise this kind of question of law. That is well seen in arbitration cases and in many others. It is all too easy for a so-called question of law to become no more than a disguised attack on findings of fact which must be accepted by the courts. As this case demonstrates, it is all too easy for the appeals procedure to the High Court to be misused in this way. Secondly, the nature of the factual inquiry which an appellate court can and does undertake in a proper case is essentially different from the decision-making process which is undertaken by the tribunal of fact. The question is not, has the party upon whom rests the burden of proof established on the balance of probabilities the facts upon which he relies, but, was there evidence before the tribunal which was sufficient to support the finding which it made? In other words, was the finding one which the tribunal was entitled to make? Clearly, if there was no evidence, or the evidence was to the contrary effect, the tribunal was not so entitled.
It follows, in my judgment, that for a question of law to arise in the circumstances, the appellant must first identify the finding which is challenged; secondly, show that it is significant in relation to the conclusion; thirdly, identify the evidence, if any, which was relevant to that finding; and, fourthly, show that that finding, on the basis of that evidence, was one which the tribunal was not entitled to make. What is not permitted, in my view, is a roving selection of evidence coupled with a general assertion that the tribunal’s conclusion was against the weight of the evidence and was therefore wrong. A failure to appreciate what is the correct approach accounts for much of the time and expense that was occasioned by this appeal to the High Court.’

Judges:

Evans LJ

Citations:

Times 19-Oct-1995, [1996] STC 463

Statutes:

Value Added Tax Act 1994 83 84

Cited by:

Cited – Gaines-Cooper v HM Revenue and Customs ChD 13-Nov-2007
The parties disputed the domicile of the tax-payer. He had a domicile of origin in the UK, but asserted that he had acquired a domicile of choice in the Seychelles. The Special Commissioners had allowed, in assessing the domicile at any time, of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT, Litigation Practice

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.80799

Gidrxsime Shipping Co Ltd v Tantomar Transporters Maritimos Ltd: QBD 27 May 1994

The disclosure of papers which are outside the jurisdiction can be ordered within Mareva proceedings, and after judgment.

Citations:

Times 27-May-1994, Gazette 13-Jul-1994, [1995] 1 WLR 299

Cited by:

Cited – Parker v C S Structured Credit Fund Ltd and another ChD 12-Feb-2003
The claimant alleged a breach of a share sale agreement, and sought information in advance of discovery.
Held: The court’s power to order information to be provided in anticipation of discovery was not to be used as a fishing expedition. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Litigation Practice

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.80817

Francisco v Diedrick: QBD 3 Apr 1998

Once a prima facie case is shown, the silence of defendant in civil action where accused of causing death adds to evidence to strengthen case.

Citations:

Times 03-Apr-1998

Litigation Practice

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.80657

Form N293: Certificate of Judgement or Order: Preparation by Plaintiff: QBD 16 Nov 1994

Plaintiff’s were encouraged to complete the judgment form to speed the transfer to the High Court.

Citations:

Gazette 16-Nov-1994

Litigation Practice

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.80634

Formica Ltd v Export Credits Guarantee Department: ComC 19 Oct 1994

A guarantor was entitled to see documents created by the company in chasing a debt. Procedure – specific discovery – common interest relied upon by applicant for discovery – insurance – documents brought into existence in furtherance of a common interest.

Judges:

Colman J

Citations:

Times 19-Oct-1994

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Jones (Margaret), Regina v Milling and others HL 29-Mar-2006
Domestic Offence requires Domestic Defence
Each defendant sought to raise by way of defence of their otherwise criminal actions, the fact that they were attempting to prevent the commission by the government of the crime of waging an aggressive war in Iraq, and that their acts were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Litigation Practice

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.80635

Dynaspan (UK) Ltd v H Katzenberger Baukonstruktionen Gmbh and Co Kg and Another: ChD 21 Feb 1995

Court may order security for costs against Plaintiff corporate and resident in North Ireland.

Citations:

Ind Summary 27-Mar-1995, Times 21-Feb-1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs, Litigation Practice

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.80190

E D and F Man (Sugar) Ltd v Haryanto: ChD 24 Nov 1995

Enforcement by judgment on co-ordinate jurisdiction judgment is discretionary: ‘ . . having regard to the decision in Re A Debtor [1977] Ch 310 that s 24(1) of the 1980 Act bars after six years rights of action including proceedings in the form of bankruptcy proceedings, based on an earlier judgment.’

Judges:

Patten J

Citations:

Times 24-Nov-1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed to – ED and F Man (Sugar) v Haryanto CA 17-Jul-1996
An action may be brought on a judgment to enforce it, if it is still within the relevant limitation period: ‘Suing on a judgment, at all events for the first time, cannot be said to defeat legislative policy. That is plain from the very language of . .
Cited – Re A Debtor 1977
Corporate insolvency proceedings based on a statutory demand for monies due under a previous judgment are an ‘action on a judgment’ within s 24 rather than a method of enforcing or executing the judgment. They are barred by s 24 if brought more than . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – ED and F Man (Sugar) v Haryanto CA 17-Jul-1996
An action may be brought on a judgment to enforce it, if it is still within the relevant limitation period: ‘Suing on a judgment, at all events for the first time, cannot be said to defeat legislative policy. That is plain from the very language of . .
Cited – Bennett v The Governor and Company of the Bank of Scotland CA 23-Jul-2004
The bank had obtained judgment against the defendant, but had failed to act upon it, and the judgment became unenforceable. It then began later proceedings on the original debt (still within the applicable limitation period). The defendant said this . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.80204

Ernst and Young (A Firm) v Butte Mining Plc: ChD 22 Mar 1996

Notice of discontinuance set aside; obtained by solicitor relying on mistake.

Citations:

Times 22-Mar-1996

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.80360

Europa Property and Financial Services Ltd v Stubbert: CA 18 Mar 1992

Court has power to overturn Judge’s exercise of discretion to refuse summary judgment. If a defendant appealed against an Order 14 judgment, then on the question as to what order it was appropriate to make under Order 14, the judge in chambers had a completely free discretion and in those circumstances ought not to have declined to order summary judgment simply because there was no cross-appeal.

Citations:

Gazette 18-Mar-1992, Times 25-Nov-1991

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.80381

Deeny and Others v Littlejohn and Co (A Firm): ChD 19 Jan 1995

Lloyds litigation could properly be brought on Chancery rather than QBD.

Citations:

Times 19-Jan-1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Deeny v Littlejohn and Co and Others QBD 23-Feb-1995
All future Lloyds litigation to begin in QBD commercial court for efficiency. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.79877

Dagnell and Another v J L Freedman and Co and Others: HL 5 Apr 1993

The plaintiffs, trustees of the will, sued the solicitors who had prepared it in negligence. They issued the writ some 7 months before the limitation date for their claim, but did not then serve it. They were advised first to make an application to the court (a Beddoe application, see In re Beddoe [1893] 1 Ch 547 (CA)) to safeguard their position as to costs. They issued their application a few weeks before the expiry of the limitation period and some months later obtained an ex parte extension of the validity of the writ, subsequently further extended, in order to cover actual service, which was finally effected some 9 months after limitation expired. In those days a writ was valid for an initial 12 months. The defendant solicitors challenged those extensions and were initially unsuccessful (Hoffmann J) and then succeeded by a majority in this court.Delays arising from the need to make a Beddoe application do not justify a delay in the service of a writ nor an extension of time for service.
Lord Browne-Wilkinson stated that the starting point of any consideration of extension of the period for service must be that a defendant has a right to be sued, if at all, by means of a writ issued within the limitation period and served within the period of its initial validity.

Judges:

Lord Browne-Wilkinson

Citations:

Ind Summary 05-Apr-1993, Gazette 23-Jun-1993, [1993] 1 WLR 388

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – In re Beddoe, Downes v Cottam CA 1893
In case of doubt as to the desirability of the intended proceedings (whether as plaintiff or defendant), trustees may apply to the court for directions. This will protect the trustees from adverse costs orders. If given leave to sue or defend by the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.79779

District Judge’s Direction Long Vacation Business 1993: LCJ 16 Jun 1993

This Practice Direction lists the business to which will be accepted during the long vacation.

Citations:

Gazette 16-Jun-1993

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.80065

Cooper v P and O Stena Line Ltd: AdCt 8 Feb 1999

A party, defending a personal injury claim, who wished to assert that the plaintiff was malingering, must accept that this is akin to an allegation of fraud, and it must be specifically pleaded. It should not be for the Plaintiff to trawl through the expert reports, filed by the defendant, to discover such allegations.

Citations:

Times 08-Feb-1999

Statutes:

Rules of the Supreme Court Order 18 r 8(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Litigation Practice

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.79482

C T Bowring and Co (Insurance) Ltd v Corsi and Partners Ltd: CA 28 Jun 1994

The plaintiff had obtained a Mareva injunction, later discharged by agreement. The defendant sought an inquiry as to damages on the cross-undertaking given when the injunction was granted, alleging that it had suffered substantial loss. The hearing of that application was expected to last some 5 days and the plaintiff applied under s726 for an order for security on the grounds that the defendant would be unable to pay any costs awarded against him.
Held: Order 23 (together with s726) provided a complete and exhaustive code as regards the award of security and excluded the possibility of relying on inherent jurisdiction to award security against a defendant. It stated also that, if another category of case emerged in which it was felt that security should be available, it had to be provided for by legislation. A court might be persuaded to impose a term requiring the giving of security as an earnest of good faith if it were in real doubt as to the genuineness of the defendant’s claim, but that this possibility would only be available in an extreme case and should not be regarded as letting in by the back door a general inherent jurisdiction to order security which does not exist.

Judges:

Dillon LJ, Millett LJ

Citations:

Independent 14-Jul-1994, Gazette 07-Sep-1994, Times 28-Jun-1994, [1994] 2 Lloyds Rep 567

Statutes:

Companies Act 1985 726(1), RSC Order 23

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Abraham and Another v Thompson and Another CA 24-Jul-1997
The plaintiffs appealed an order that they should disclose who if any had funded their case. The case concerned failed business ventures in Portugal. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.79704

Cheltenham and Gloucester Building Society v Grant: CA 23 May 1994

The District Judge is to exercise his discretion informally on suspending possession, and need not apply the rules of evidence rigidly. He may consider that the defendant has sufficent means to support a clearance of the arrears over a reasonable period of time and thus to suspend the rder for possession, without taking direct evidence from him.

Citations:

Ind Summary 23-May-1994, Times 09-May-1994

Statutes:

Administration of Justice Act 1970, Administration of Justice Act 1973 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing, Litigation Practice, Land, Evidence

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.79010

CJ Nichols and Associates Ltd v Penningtons: ChD 5 Apr 1993

Judge may continue to hear a case even if a payment in has been disclosed to him.

Citations:

Ind Summary 05-Apr-1993

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.79169

Bristol and West Building Society v Brandon: QBD 9 Mar 1995

A second Order 14 application is permissible if it is based upon a different factual or legal basis to the first application.

Citations:

Times 09-Mar-1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.78591

Antigua and Barbuda Enterprises Ltd v Attorney General of Antigua and Barbuda: PC 9 Jun 1993

(Antigua and Barbuda) An action was not to be dismissed under Order 34, rule 11(1)(b) for a failure to apply to set it down.

Citations:

Gazette 09-Jun-1993, [1993] 1 W LR 1052

Jurisdiction:

Commonwealth

Cited by:

Mentioned – Lewis v Henry St Hillaire and others PC 22-May-1996
(Saint Vincent and The Grenadines) A writ was issued, but little progress was made. The respondent applied for a declaration that the action had been abandoned and was incapable of being revived.
Held: The provision was one local to the home . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.77816

ABC Ltd and Another v HM Revenue and Customs: CA 7 Jul 2017

Temporary approval pending appeal was preferred

The company challenged refusal of fit and proper approval for registration as wholesaler of duty paid alcohol.
Held: The appeals were allowed in part. HMRC, having once concluded that the applicant was not fit and proper was not free to approve them pending their appeal. Better was a temporary approval under the 1979 Act.
Burnett LJ said: ‘A claimant seeking an injunction would need compelling evidence that the appeal would be ineffective. It would call for more than a narrative statement from a director of the business speaking of the dire consequences of delay. The statements should be supported by documentary financial evidence and a statement from an independent professional doing more than reformulating his client’s stated opinion. Otherwise, a judge may be cautious about taking prognostications of disaster at face value. It should not be forgotten that a trader who sees ultimate failure in the appeal would have every incentive to talk up the prospects of imminent demise of the business, in an attempt to keep going pending appeal. Equally, material would have to be deployed which provided a proper insight into the prospects of success in an appeal. There is no permission filter for an appeal to the F-tT. The High Court would not intervene in the absence of a detailed explanation of why the decision of HMRC was unreasonable. It must not be overlooked that the F-tT is not exercising its usual appellate jurisdiction in these types of case where it makes its own decision. Finally, there would have to be detailed evidence of the attempts made to secure expedition in the F-tT and the reasons why those attempts failed. Whilst the jurisdiction exists to grant interim relief in this way, its use is likely to be sparing because steps (i) and (ii) identified above should provide practical relief in cases which justify it and the circumstances in which it would be appropriate for injunctive relief to issue will be rare.’

Judges:

Patten, King, Burnett LJJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 956, [2017] WLR(D) 463, [2018] 1 WLR 1205

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979 88C, Commissioners of Revenue and Customs Act 2005 9, Finance Act 2015

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – CC and C Ltd v Revenue and Customs CA 19-Dec-2014
This appeal arises in the context of the regime which permits wholesale trading in alcoholic drinks and other dutiable goods which are held in, or moved between, excise warehouses without giving rise to an ‘excise duty point’ and thus attracting . .
Cited – Harley Development Inc. And, Trillium Investment Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue Co PC 14-Mar-1996
Hong Kong – ‘Their Lordships consider that, where a statute lays down a comprehensive system of appeals procedure against administrative decisions, it will only be in exceptional circumstances, typically an abuse of power, that the courts will . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – OWD Ltd (T/A Birmingham Cash and Carry) and Another v Revenue and Customs SC 19-Jun-2019
The wholesalers sought approval from the respondent for the wholesale supply of duty-paid alcohol. Approval was refused, but the parties sought a means of allowing a temporary approval pending determination by the FTT. The two questions considered . .
Cited – JJ Management Consulting Llp and Others v Revenue and Customs CA 22-Jun-2020
HMRC has power to conduct informal investigation
The taxpayer, resident here, but with substantial oversea business interests, challenged the conduct of an informal investigation of his businesses under the 2005 Act, saying that HMRC, as a creature of statute, are only permitted to do that which . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Licensing, Litigation Practice

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.588986

Diamond Services South East Ltd v Ogedengbe (T/A As Praise Embassy – Bright Steps Nursery): QBD 16 Apr 2018

Application to set aside judgment entered indefault.

Judges:

Hill QC DM

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 773 (QB)