Tag: Litigation Practice

Re B (A Child): CA 18 Oct 2017

The court heard a case in which in the course of a child residence dispute F had made and sought to have use before the court, covert recordings of interviews and telephone conversations with practitioners.
Held: The actual matters had been decided adequately without the recordings, but the court acknowledged both the difficulties arising and the absence of authority, and said that an initation would be made to the Family Justice Council to consider the issue.

Judges:

Sir James Munby P FD, King LJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 1579

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children, Evidence, Litigation Practice

Updated: 02 June 2022; Ref: scu.597402

Constantin Medien Ag v Ecclestone and Others: ChD 22 Jul 2013

The claimant wished to allege the payment of a bribe by the defendants inducing the sale of a part of its shareholding in the F1 Group, and now sought advanced disclosure of certain documentation.
Held: The application was dismissed as against the first defendant.

Judges:

Vos J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 2674 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Torts – Other, Litigation Practice

Updated: 02 June 2022; Ref: scu.569402

Ebert v Official Receiver and others: CA 14 Mar 2001

The claimant, subject of a civil restraint order had been refused leave to bring certain proceedings.

Judges:

Chadwick, Buxton LJJ

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 340, [2001] 3 All ER 942, [2002] 1 WLR 320, [2002] BPIR 80, [2001] ACD 66

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Human Rights, Litigation Practice

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147468

Barings Plc and Ors v Co Lybrand and Ors: CA 5 May 2000

Appeal from decision that declared that the transcripts of certain interviews carried out on behalf of the Board of Banking Supervision in the course of an investigation into the collapse of the Barings Group were and still are subject to the restriction on disclosure contained in Part V of the Banking Act 1987

Judges:

Lord Woolf MR, Robert Walker LJ, Smith J

Citations:

[2000] Lloyd’s Rep Bank 225, [2000] EWCA Civ 148, [2000] 1 WLR 2353, [2000] 3 All ER 910

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Banking Act 1987

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Banking, Litigation Practice

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147181

Rhiannon Anderton v Clwyd County Council (2): QBD 25 Jul 2001

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.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice McCombe

Citations:

[2001] EWHC QB 161

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 6.7 6.14

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Phelps v Hillingdon London Borough Council; Anderton v Clwyd County Council; Gower v Bromley London Borough Council; Jarvis v Hampshire County Council HL 28-Jul-2000
The plaintiffs each complained of negligent decisions in his or her education made by the defendant local authorities. In three of them the Court of Appeal had struck out the plaintiff’s claim and in only one had it been allowed to proceed.

Cited by:

Cited – Brennan v Bolt Burdon and Others, London Borough of Islington, Leigh Day and Co CA 29-Jul-2004
The claimant sought damages for injury alleged to have been suffered as tenant of a house after being subjected to carbon monoxide poisoning, and also from her former solicitors for their delay in her claim. The effective question was whether the . .
Appeal from – Anderton v Clwyd County Council (No 2); Bryant v Pech and Another Dorgan v Home Office; Chambers v Southern Domestic Electrical Services Ltd; Cummins v Shell International Manning Services Ltd CA 3-Jul-2002
In each case, the applicant sought to argue that documents which had actually been received on a certain date should not be deemed to have been served on a different day because of the rule.
Held: The coming into force of the Human Rights Act . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Limitation, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.159917

Eagil Trust Co Ltd v Pigott-Brown: CA 1985

There is no duty on a judge, in giving his reasons, to deal with every argument presented by counsel in support of his case. When dealing with an application in chambers to strike out for want of prosecution a judge should give his reasons in sufficient detail to show the Court of Appeal the principles on which he has acted and the reasons that have led him to his decision. They need not be elaborate. It is sufficient if what he says shows the parties and, if need be, the Court of Appeal, the basis on which he has acted.

Judges:

Griffiths, Sachs LJJ

Citations:

[1985] 3 All ER 119

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Knight v Clifton CA 1971
When dealing with an application to strike out, the judge should record his reasons for the finding, but it is sufficient if what he says shows the parties and, if need be, the Court of Appeal the basis on which he has acted. The court also . .

Cited by:

Cited – Checkpoint Ltd v Strathclyde Pension Fund CA 6-Feb-2003
The tenants sought to challenge the arbitrator’s award setting the rent payable under the lease. They claimed that he had improperly refered to his own experience of the market, to support his decision, and this committed a serious irregularity . .
Cited – English v Emery Reimbold and Strick Ltd; etc, (Practice Note) CA 30-Apr-2002
Judge’s Reasons Must Show How Reached
In each case appeals were made, following Flannery, complaining of a lack of reasons given by the judge for his decision.
Held: Human Rights jurisprudence required judges to put parties into a position where they could understand how the . .
Cited – Sibley and Co v Reachbyte Ltd and Another ChD 4-Nov-2008
Solicitors appealed against a costs order made refusing them payment of all of Leading and Junior counsel’s fees.
Held: The leading counsel involved had not provided anything like a detailed account of the time he had spent on what was a . .
Cited – The Attorney General for Northern Ireland v Crawford and Another ChNI 4-May-2016
The AG sought leave to appeal against a decision by the tribunal for the removal of a trustee of a police charity.
Held: Permission was given. The decision of the tribunal was open to proper criticism. The appeal raised several important . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.179898

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 application for summary judgment.

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 1560

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 3.4

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Gerrard and Another v Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Ltd and Another QBD 27-Nov-2020
The claimants, a solicitor and his wife, sought damages in harassment and data protection, against a party to proceedings in which he was acting professionally, and against the investigative firm instructed by them. The defendants now requested the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.408791

Balamoody v United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting: Admn 18 Jul 1997

The applicant complained of having been struck off the register of nurses. He said that when he told the court that he wanted to appeal he was sent forms appropriate for a judicial review. He amended and submitted them. In correcting him, the court office again misled him.
Held: The court was unable to extend the time for filing the original appeal, but could treate the original document as an appeal and extend time for service.

Judges:

Scott Baker J

Citations:

[1997] EWHC Admin 704

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Low v Secretary of State for Wales 1993
Where a Notice of Motion was correctly addressed and was received in time in the Central Office, but then subsequently out of time in the Crown Office, it would be treated as having been constructively entered in the time in the Crown Office. . .
Cited – Mendip District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment and Castle Housing Society Limited 1993
The parties disputed what constituted an application under section 288 of the 1990 Act.
Held: Though the time limit for filing an application was absolute, a discretion remained with the court to allow subsequent service out of time in the . .

Cited by:

See also – Balamoody v United Kingdom Central Council; Balamoody v Manchester City Magistrates’ Court Admn 10-Jun-1998
The applicant had been convicted of offences relating to the management of his nursing home, and had been struck off the Register of Nurses.
Held: It was no defence to the criminal charges that a member of staff had failed in her duties. The . .
See Also – Balamoody v UKCC for Nursing Midwifery and Home Visitors EAT 15-Oct-1999
The claimant had complained that a decision of the respondent to cancel his nursing home registration was unlawful racial discrimination. He now appealed a decision to strike out his claim as vexatious and frivolous.
Held: It was not clear . .
See Also – Balamoody v UkCC for Nursing Midwifery and Home Visitors EAT 5-Dec-2000
The claimant’s claim of unlawful race discrimination had been dismissed as an abuse of process by the EAT. The Tribunal now considered whether the EAT had power to make such a decision.
Held: The 1993 Regulations were more generous to . .
See Also – Balamoody v United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing CA 14-May-2001
The applicant sought leave to appeal against a decision disallowing his complaint at his claim for race discrimination being struck out as scandalous, frivolous or vexatious. He said that the Tribunal had dismissed his claim without giving him . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health Professions, Litigation Practice

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.137649

Away Resorts Ltd v Morgan, Re Sandy Balls Estate: UTLC 16 Apr 2018

PARK HOMES – FTT procedure – protected site – parking – whether FTT has jurisdiction to direct that access to pitch be kept free of obstruction – whether order going further than necessary for the ‘just, expeditious and economical disposal of the proceedings’ – s.4(1), Mobile Homes Act 1983 – s.231A(4), Housing Act 2004 – appeal allowed

Citations:

[2018] UKUT 123 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing, Litigation Practice

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.623937

Tanfern Ltd v Cameron-MacDonald, Cameron-MacDonald: CA 12 May 2000

The court gave detailed guidance on the application of the new procedures on civil appeals in private law cases introduced on May 2. Appeals from a County Court District Judge’s final decision in a multi-track case could now go straight to the Court of Appeal. Appeals will generally be subject to leave being obtained. An appeal should only be allowed where the decision of the lower court was ‘wrong’ or where it was unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity in the proceedings. It is only in an ‘exceptional’ case that a second appeal may be sanctioned. The general rule is that the decision of the appeal court on the first appeal will be the final decision. It is no longer possible to pursue a second appeal merely because the appeal is properly arguable or has a real prospect of success.
‘A final decision includes the assessment of damages or any other final decision where it is ‘made at the conclusion of part of a hearing or trial which has been split up into parts and would, if made at the conclusion of that hearing or trial, be a final decision:’ article 1(3) of the Order of 2000; it does not include a decision only on costs. This means that if a judge makes a final decision on any aspect of a claim, such as limitation, or on part of a claim which has been directed to be heard separately, this is a final decision within the meaning of this provision.’

Judges:

Brooke LJ

Citations:

Times 17-May-2000, Gazette 15-Jun-2000, [2000] 1 WLR 1311, [2000] EWCA Civ 152, [2000] 2 All ER 801, [2000] EWCA Civ 3023

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004, Civil Procedure Rules

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Approved – G v G (Minors: Custody Appeal) HL 25-Apr-1985
The House asked when a decision, on the facts, of a first instance court is so wrong as to allow it to be overturned on appeal.
Held: The epithet ‘wrong’ is to be applied to the substance of the decision made by the lower court. ‘Certainly it . .

Cited by:

Applied – Slot and Slot v Isaac CA 12-Apr-2002
Leave to appeal was sought against a judge’s finding that he had no jurisdiction to hear an application for leave to appeal against another order itself refusing leave to appeal against a case management decision. The party had declined to make any . .
Explained – 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. . .
Cited – Price v Price (Trading As Poppyland Headware) CA 26-Jun-2003
The claimant sought damages from his wife for personal injuries. He had been late beginning the claim, and it was served without particulars. He then failed to serve the particulars within 14 days. Totty and then Sayers had clarified the procedure . .
Cited – Sarah Lloyd Jones and others v T Mobile (Uk) Ltd CA 31-Jul-2003
The claimant challenged a stautory notice. The Act required the notice to be fixed to the structure in question, but because of its location, the notice was not legible without going on to private land.
Held: Appeal lay here from the County . .
Cited – Totalise Plc v The Motley Fool Limited and Interative Investor Limited (2) CA 19-Dec-2001
The respondent operated a web site which contained a chat room. Defamatory remarks were made by a third party through the chat room, and the claimant sought details of the identity of the poster. The respondent refused to do so without a court . .
Cited – Ross v Stonewood Securities Ltd ChD 7-Oct-2004
The claimant appealed an order reducing his award of costs. . .
Cited – Uphill v BRB (Residuary) Ltd CA 3-Feb-2005
The court considered an application for leave for a second appeal.
Held: Pursuant to the Practice Direction, the court certified that though this was an application for leave, it could be cited: ‘the reference in CPR 52.13(2)(a) to ‘an . .
Cited – Law v Margarets Insurances Limited CA 27-Feb-2001
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 . .
Cited – Haw and Another v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court Admn 12-Dec-2007
The defendants appealed convictions for contempt of court, on the basis of having wilfully interrupted the court. The respondent said that no appeal lay.
Held: The statute was ambiguous, and ‘there can be no good reason why a person convicted . .
Cited – Ridsdill and others v Smith and Nephew Medical, Duffy, Whittleton EAT 22-Jun-2006
EAT Practice and Procedure – Striking-out/dismissal.
Chairman’s decision to strike out claims which had not been actively pursued and when there had been failure to comply with Tribunal orders. The appeal . .
Cited – Somerfield Stores Ltd v Spring (Sutton Coldfield) Ltd ChD 4-Aug-2010
The landlord had opposed the renewal of the claimant’s business tenancies saying that it wished to redevelop the sites. Before the matter came to trial, the landlord went into administration, and the tenant sought summary judgment. It now appealed . .
Cited – White v Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust and Another QBD 1-Apr-2011
The claimant doctor sued in defamation for letters written by the defendants to the Fitness to Practice Directorate. She now sought to appeal against a finding that she could not rely upon one letter which had come to her attention through . .
Cited – C v V CoP 25-Nov-2008
The court heard an appeal objecting to the appointment of a sibling as Deputy for the parents now lacking capacity. Both daughters had at one time been appointed under Enduring Powers of Attorney, acting jointly, but the daughters became estranged. . .
Cited – Roerig v Valiant Trawlers Ltd CA 28-Jan-2002
The claimant who was Dutch, was a widow of a fisherman who had died at sea. The question on appeal was ‘in assessing damages for loss of dependency should benefits resulting from the loss be deducted from the damages?’ The claimant’s position under . .
Cited – Dellal v Dellal and Others FD 1-Apr-2015
The families disputed a claim under the 1975 Act. The defendants now sought summary dismissal of the claim. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135758

Thurrock Borough Council v Secretary of State for the Enviroment, Transport and The Regions ex parte Terry Holding: CA 13 Dec 2000

Where the claimant was not out of time to bring an appeal, or he retained the right of appeal, or the works proposed involved were not new, and no amendment or substitute of a new claim was proposed, the court should exercise its discretion to amend the claim form so that an application for permission to appeal under section 289, should proceed as an application under section 288.

Citations:

Times 20-Dec-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 323

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 288 289, Civil Procedure Rules Part 1.1(1) 1.2 17.4

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning, Litigation Practice

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135643

Imutran Ltd v Uncaged Campaigns Ltd and Another: ChD 11 Jan 2001

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.’

Judges:

Sir Andrew Morritt

Citations:

Times 30-Jan-2001, Gazette 05-Apr-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

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Human Rights Act 1998 12(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd HL 5-Feb-1975
Interim Injunctions in Patents Cases
The plaintiffs brought proceedings for infringement of their patent. The proceedings were defended. The plaintiffs obtained an interim injunction to prevent the defendants infringing their patent, but they now appealed its discharge by the Court of . .

Cited by:

Approved – A v B plc and Another (Flitcroft v MGN Ltd) CA 11-Mar-2002
A newspaper company appealed against an order preventing it naming a footballer who, they claimed, had been unfaithful to his wife.
Held: There remains a distinction between the right of privacy which attaches to sexual activities within and . .
Cited – Barclays Bank Plc v Guardian News Media Ltd QBD 19-Mar-2009
The bank sought continuation of an injunction preventing publication by the defendant of papers leaked to relating to the claimant’s tax management. The claimant claimed in confidentiality. The papers did not reveal any unlawful activity. The . .
Cited – Theakston v MGN Ltd QBD 14-Feb-2002
The claimant, a celebrity sought to restrain publication by the defendant of information about his sex life, consisting of pictures of him in a brothel. The court considered the test for the grant of an injunction to restrain publication under the . .
Cited – Cream Holdings Limited and others v Banerjee and The Liverpool Daily Post and Echo Limited CA 13-Feb-2003
The defendants considered publication of alleged financial irregularities by the claimant, who sought to restrain publication. The defendants argued that under the Act, prior restraint should not be used unless a later court would be likely to . .
Cited – Bains and Others v Moore and Others QBD 15-Feb-2017
The claimant anti-asbestos campaigners complained that the defendant investigators had infringed their various rights of privacy. They now sought discovery to support the claim.
Held: the contents of the witness statements do show that it is . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Intellectual Property, Human Rights, Media

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135620

International Bulk Shipping and Services Ltd v The Mineral and Metals Trading Company of India; International Bulk Shipping and Services Ltd v The President of India; Himoff Maritime Enterprises Ltd v The President of India: ComC 16 Feb 1994

cw Arbitration – award – limitation period – cause of action arising – implied promise to perform award – breach – RSC Order 15 r.6 – misjoinder and non-joinder of party – principles – RSC Order 15 r.6 – joinder of party – proceedings a nullity – no power

Judges:

Waller J

Citations:

16 February 1994, Unreported, [1996] 2 Lloyds Rep 474

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Affirmed – International Bulk Shipping and Services Ltd v President of India and Another CA 11-Dec-1995
Actions to enforce arbitration awards were brought, each in the name of a ship-owning company. At the time of the arbitrations the assets of each company had vested in a trustee in bankruptcy appointed under New York law, but the trustee had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Arbitration, Litigation Practice

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.182567

Autexpo v Commission C-82/87: ECJ 8 May 1987

Order – 1. As a condition for the grant of an interim measure suspending the operation of a decision, article 83(2) of the rules of procedure requires that an application for such a measure must state the factual and legal grounds establishing a prima facie case for the interim measure applied for and the circumstances giving rise to urgency. The urgency required in regard to an application for interim measures must be assessed in the light of the need to adopt such measures in order to avoid serious and irreparable damage to the party requesting those measures.
2. The issue of the admissibility of the main application should not, in principle, be examined in proceedings relating to an application for interim measures but should be reserved for the examination of the main application so as not to prejudge the substance of the case; however, where an objection is raised that the main application to which the application for interim measures is an adjunct is manifestly inadmissible, it is necessary to establish the existence of certain factors which support the conclusion that the main application is prima facie admissible.

Citations:

C-82/87, [1987] EUECJ C-82/87R

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Litigation Practice

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.134198

Steele v Steele: ChD 5 Jun 2001

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?

Citations:

Times 05-Jun-2001

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89533

Stevens v School of Oriental and African Studies and others: ChD 2 Feb 2001

It was not unfair or a denial of the applicant’s human rights, to strike out a second action which differed only marginally in the parties involved, from an earlier action already struck out by the court for delay, and where the claimant had not yet satisfied a costs order made against him arising from that earlier action.

Citations:

Times 02-Feb-2001

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Natural Justice, Litigation Practice, Human Rights

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89548

Starmer v Bradbury: CA 4 Apr 1994

District Judge holding arbitration has full discretion as to conduct of case. Validity of patent is res judicata – not to be re-opened. An appeal against a small claims arbitration must be for misconduct only and not on the facts.

Citations:

Times 11-Apr-1994, Ind Summary 04-Apr-1994, [1994] FSR 458

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89506

Cary v Commissioner of Police for The Metropolis Equality and Human Rights Commission: CA 17 Jul 2014

In a claim for sex discrimination by the police the court was asked whether the judge in the Central London County Court was right to overrule Mr Cary’s objection to a particular individual acting as an assessor on the ground that, for this type of case, an assessor is required to have specific experience and expertise in relation to issues of discrimination on the grounds of same sex sexual orientation.

Citations:

[2014] EWCA Civ 987, [2014] WLR(D) 320, [2014] CP Rep 42, [2015] ICR 71, [2014] Eq LR 707

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Discrimination, Litigation Practice

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.534415

Dubai Bank Ltd v Galadari (No 2): CA 1990

An ex parte Mareva injunction had been obtained. It was said that there had been material non-disclosure of important facts. The plaintiff bank had been under the control of the Galadaris between 1970 and 1985, when it was taken over by the Government of Dubai. The bank complained that large amounts of interest on certain deposits had been unlawfully diverted into their own pockets. The bank obtained an ex parte Mareva injunction and ancillary orders for disclosure of assets, but this was later discharged by Morritt J. on the grounds that important facts known to the Government of Dubai had not been disclosed.
Held: The court refused to interfere with his exercise of his discretion. It was submitted on behalf of the bank that even where there had been non-disclosure on an ex parte application, the court should only discharge an injunction or refuse to continue an injunction if the court was satisfied that the non-disclosure was a deliberate attempt to mislead the court or a wilful failure to inquire as to the obvious. The phrase ‘whose . . affidavits’ extends to any affidavit sworn by a deponent who is not a party, but which is procured by and filed or used on behalf of a party. A copy of an unprivileged document does not become privileged merely because the copy is made for litigious purposes.
Dillon LJ said: ‘It is now accepted in this Court that, even if there has been material non-disclosure, the Court has a discretion whether or not to discharge an order obtained ex parte and a discretion whether or not to grant fresh injunctive relief Discharge of the order is not automatic on any non-disclosure being established of any fact known to the applicant which is found by the Court to have been material.’
Staughton LJ said that the bank had put forward a good arguable case, and a prima facie case for likelihood of dissipation: ‘In any event there was also non-disclosure to be considered before the injunction was continued. The authorities show plainly that non-disclosure will, in an appropriate case, not only be a ground for discharging an ex parte order, but also a ground for refusing to make a fresh order inter partes. At least in one respect there was here non-disclosure which was in my view both serious and culpable. The Galadaris had specified what they said was their defence to the claim, and there can scarcely be any more important topic of disclosure than that. As to culpability, it is said the Dubai Bank did not know the facts, and that those whom they consulted in the Government of Dubai had forgotten them. But the letters were still in the Government’s possession . . Once serious and culpable non-disclosure was established, the Judge had a balancing task to perform. On the one hand if justice required that a fresh injunction should be granted (which in the Judge’s view it did not, but the contrary was arguable), it might be thought unjust to refuse one on the grounds of non-disclosure. On the other hand the Courts must uphold and enforce the duty of disclosure, as a deterrent to others, if they are not to be deceived on ex parte applications. The conflict between those principles is well illustrated in a passage from the judgment of Lord Justice Woolf in the Behbehani case.’

Judges:

Slade LJ, Dillon LJ

Citations:

[1990] 1 WLR 731, [1990] Ch 98, [1990] 1 Lloyds Rep 120

Statutes:

RSC (NI) Order Rulle 11

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Tweed v Parades Commission for Northern Ireland HL 13-Dec-2006
(Northern Ireland) The applicant sought judicial review of a decision not to disclose documents held by the respondent to him saying that the refusal was disproportionate and infringed his human rights. The respondents said that the documents were . .
Cited – Expandable Ltd and Another v Rubin CA 11-Feb-2008
The defendant’s witness statement referred to a letter written to him by the defendant’s solicitor. The claimant appealed refusal of an order for its disclosure.
Held: The appeal failed. The letter was protected by legal professional . .
See Also – Dubai Bank Ltd v Galadari CA 1990
A document created with a view to its being submitted to solicitors for advice does not, despite its purpose, attract privilege, even though the ‘pre-existing documents, and even documents on public records, have been selected by a solicitor for the . .
Cited – Expandable Ltd and Another v Rubin CA 11-Feb-2008
The defendant’s witness statement referred to a letter written to him by the defendant’s solicitor. The claimant appealed refusal of an order for its disclosure.
Held: The appeal failed. The letter was protected by legal professional . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Litigation Practice

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.247440

Re Palmer (A Deceased Debtor), Palmer v Palmer: CA 6 Apr 1994

Property had been conveyed to the deceased and the appellant, his widow, to be held as joint tenants. The deceased dies whilst under investigation for defalcations as a solicitor, and an insolvency administration order was obtained in the estate. The wife argued that by the doctrine of survivorship the house was already hers. The administrator said that the effect of the order was backdated so as to have severed the joint tenancy before the death, and that therefore the deceased’s interest passed into the administration.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The rule that a judicial act takes effect from the first moment of the day on which it is made is not universal. ‘the time has come to say the fiction should have no place when the true facts are known, at least in cases where the court’s jurisdiction is concerned. . . The respondent’s submission in the present case is that the insolvency administration order which was made on the 17th August 1991 is deemed by paragraph 12 of the 1986 Order (Sch.1 Part II) to take effect for the purposes of the vesting of property in the trustee as if it had been made on 22 November 1990, the date of Mr Palmer’s death. To this statutory fiction, it is submitted, must be added the common law fiction that the Order was made at the earliest moment of that day, and therefore whilst Mr Palmer was alive.’ The submission failed.

Judges:

Balcomve LJ, Evans LJ, Roch LJ

Citations:

Independent 06-Apr-1994, [1994] EWCA Civ 15

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Insolvency Act 1986 421

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – In Re Palmer, Deceased (A Debtor) ChD 25-Mar-1994
The court considered the effect of the doctrine of relation back on a property of which the bankrupt was formerly a joint tenant where the bankrupt had died after the act of bankruptcy but before adjudication.
Held: A deceased’s share in . .
Cited – Williams v Hensman 10-Jun-1861
A fund of money was bequeathed on trust to be invested so as to generate an income payable to A ‘the principal to go to her children at her death’.
Held: The will created a joint tenancy. The court set out three ways in which a joint tenancy . .
Cited – Burgess v Rawnsley CA 15-Apr-1975
. .
Cited – Wright v Mills 1859
A judgment was signed when the Court’s offices opened at 11 am but the defendant had died at 9.30 the same morning. The Court held that the judgment was regular, applying the rule that judicial acts, being acts of the Crown, have precedence over . .
Cited – Edwards v Regina CExc 1854
The process of execution in respect of a Crown debt prevailed over the transfer of the personal estate of a bankrupt to an official assignee which took place earlier on the same day. Significantly, the Court’s judgment added that even if the . .
Cited – Shelley’s case; Wolfe v Shelley 1581
If it is possible to do so, every word in a deed must be given effect. A judgment and the process known as recovery were effective even though the defendant had died in the early morning of the day on which, after his death, the court orders were . .
Cited – Clarke v Bradlaugh CA 1881
The defendant had sat and voted in parliament without taking the statutory oath. The writ was issued on the same day. The defendant argued that since the writ was deemed to have been issued at the start of the day, the events on which the claim was . .
Cited – Clarke v Bradlaugh CA 1881
The defendant had sat and voted in parliament without taking the statutory oath. The writ was issued on the same day. The defendant argued that since the writ was deemed to have been issued at the start of the day, the events on which the claim was . .
Cited – Re Seaford Dec’d CA 1968
A decree of divorce was made absolute by the court on the same day as, but some hours later than, the husband respondent had died. The court considered the general rule that a judicial act takes effect at the start of the day on which it is made. . .
Cited – Tabernacle Permanent Building Society v Knight 1892
The court considered (obiter) it’s lack of jurisdiction to make an order directing arbitrators to state their award in the form of a special case, at a time when the award had already been published earlier on the same day and the arbitrators . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Land

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85849

Regina v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Ex Parte Eastaway: HL 8 Nov 2000

Where the Court of Appeal had refused permission to apply for judicial review after a similar refusal by a judge, that decision was also, by implication, a refusal to grant permission to appeal against the judge’s decision, and there was no scope for a further appeal to the House of Lords. It is not the role of the highest court to correct errors in the application of settled law.

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Steyn Lord Hoffmann Lord Clyde Lord Millett

Citations:

Times 08-Nov-2000, Gazette 30-Nov-2000, [2000] UKHL 56, [2000] 1 WLR 2222, [2000] 1 All ER 27

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 6, Supreme Court Act 1981 18(1A) 31(3), Access to Justice Act 1999 54, Civil Procedure (Amendment Rules) 2000 (SI 221/2000), Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876 3

Citing:

Cited – Practice Direction (Judicial Review: Appeals) CA 1982
The Court gave a practice direction on recourse to the Court of Appeal following refusal of leave to apply for judicial review by a Divisional Court or a single judge, describing such a refusal as ‘appealable to the Court of Appeal’. . .
Cited – Practice Direction (Court of Appeal) (Civil Division) CA 19-Apr-1999
As part of the modernisation and reform of civil procedure, all the principal Court of Appeal practice directions are consolidated now into this one document handed down by the court.
‘2. Permission to appeal
2.1 When is permission . .
Cited – Lane v Esdaile HL 5-May-1891
The court considered the extent of the House’s jurisdiction as an appellate court. Section 3 of the 1876 Act provided that an appeal should lie to the House of Lords from ‘any order or judgment of . . Her Majesty’s Court of Appeal in England’. The . .
Cited – Kemper Reinsurance Company v The Minister of Finance and others PC 5-May-1998
(Bermuda) An appeal Court did have jurisdiction to hear an appeal against the discharge of leave to apply for certiorari order, since this was outside scope of the rule in Lane v Esdaille.
Lord Hoffmann said: ‘Nevertheless, the limited nature . .
Cited – In re Housing of the Working Classes Act 1890, Ex parte Stevenson CA 1892
A party had applied to a judge for what in effect amounted to leave to appeal and had been refused.
Held: Wherever power is given to a legal authority to grant or refuse leave to appeal, the decision of that authority is, from the very nature . .
Cited – In re Poh HL 1983
The applicant had unsuccessfully applied to the Divisional Court for leave to apply for judicial review and renewed his application, equally unsuccessfully, to the Court of Appeal. He then petitioned for leave to appeal to the House of Lords.

Cited by:

See Also – Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Eastaway CA 6-Apr-2001
. .
See Also – Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Eastaway; Re Blackspur Group (No 3), Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Davies and Others (No 2) CA 13-Sep-2001
. .
See Also – Eastaway v The United Kingdom ECHR 20-Jul-2004
The applicant had been proceeded against after the collapse of companies in which he was involved with very substantial debts. The proceedings had begun in July 1990, and lasted nearly nine years.
Held: Where proceedings could be expected to . .
See Also – In Re Blackspur Group Plc; Secretary of State v Eastaway ChD 21-Jun-2001
The director was amongst a group against whom a director disqualification order was sought. He offered an undertaking, but the Secretary of State refused to accept this unless it was accompanied by a statement as to the factual basis on which it was . .
See Also – Eastaway v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and similar ChD 2-Mar-2006
. .
See Also – Eastaway v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry CA 10-May-2007
The applicant had been subject to company director disqualification proceedings. Eventually he gave an undertaking not to act as a company director, but then succeeded at the ECHR in a complaint of delay. He now sought release from his undertaking . .
Cited – Cooper v HM Attorney General QBD 30-Sep-2008
The claimant sought damages from the court saying that it had failed to properly apply European law. It had rejected his applications for judicial review.
Held: Any failure by the court was not sufficiently manifest to bring the case within . .
Cited – Coke-Wallis, Regina (on The Application of) v Institute of Chartered Accountants In England and Wales SC 19-Jan-2011
The appellant chartered accountant had been convicted in Jersey after removing documents from his offices relating to a disputed trust and in breach of an order from his professional institute. The court now considered the relevance and application . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Judicial Review

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85546

Regina v Bow County Court Ex parte Pelling: QBD 8 Mar 1999

Mr Pelling sought to act as a McKenzie friend. On being refused he sought judicial review of he decision to exclude him.
Held: Review was refused. A McKenzie friend has himself no locus to challenge a decision by a county court judge not to allow him to be present in a chambers appointment; that right belongs to the litigant only. A judge in chambers can exclude a McKenzie friend, but not when in open court.

Judges:

Otton LJ, Steel J

Citations:

Times 08-Mar-1999, [1999] EWHC Admin 181

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Collier v Hicks 7-Jun-1831
Trespass for assaulting, and turning plaintiff out of a police office. Plea, that two of the defendants, being justices of the peace, were assembled in a police office to adjudicate upon an information against AB for an offence against a penal . .
Cited – McKenzie v McKenzie CA 10-Jul-1970
Mr McKenzie was a litigant in person who wished to be assisted by a young Australian barrister, gratuitously, in the conduct of his case by sitting beside the husband in Court and prompting him. The hearing was in open Court . The friend’s conduct . .
Cited – Re G (Chambers Proceedings: McKenzie friend) CA 10-Jul-1991
A proposed McKenzie friend was a solicitor who was to be paid, but did not wish to be on the record. H appealed a refusal to allow him to be present in chambers. The Judge had taken the view that the proceedings were of a highly confidential nature . .
Cited – Re G (Chambers Proceedings: McKenzie friend) CA 10-Jul-1991
A proposed McKenzie friend was a solicitor who was to be paid, but did not wish to be on the record. H appealed a refusal to allow him to be present in chambers. The Judge had taken the view that the proceedings were of a highly confidential nature . .
Not binding – In Re H (A Minor) (Chambers Proceedings: Mckenzie Friend) CA 6-May-1997
A father sought ex parte, permission to appeal against orders in the county court. The first had refused to allow him to have a McKenzie friend in an application for contact to his daughter. The Recorder had taken the view that because the . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Brind HL 7-Feb-1991
The Home Secretary had issued directives to the BBC and IBA prohibiting the broadcasting of speech by representatives of proscribed terrorist organisations. The applicant journalists challenged the legality of the directives on the ground that they . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina v Bow County Court, Ex Parte Pelling CA 17-Dec-1999
Access to the court given to a McKenzie Friend should normally be given in matters in open court, but when it came to matters being heard in chambers, the judge had discretion as to who he would hear. The right is in any event that of the litigant, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85131

Regina v Bow County Court, Ex Parte Pelling: CA 17 Dec 1999

Access to the court given to a McKenzie Friend should normally be given in matters in open court, but when it came to matters being heard in chambers, the judge had discretion as to who he would hear. The right is in any event that of the litigant, and not of the McKenzie friend, who must remember the division between friend and advocate. A judge should normally give reasons for refusing to allow a friend to attend.
The court summarised its conclusions: ‘(1) In relation to proceedings in public, a litigant in person should be allowed to have the assistance of a McKenzie friend unless the judge is satisfied that fairness and the interests of justice do not require a litigant in person to have the assistance of a McKenzie friend. (2) The position is the same where the proceedings are in chambers unless the proceedings are in private. (3) Where the proceedings are in private then the nature of the proceedings which make it appropriate for them to be heard in private may make it undesirable in the interests of justice for a McKenzie friend to assist. (4) A judge should give reasons for refusing to allow a litigant in person the assistance of a McKenzie friend. (5) The assistance of a McKenzie friend is available for the benefit of the litigant in person and whether or not a McKenzie friend is paid or unpaid for his services, he has no right to provide those services; the court is solely concerned with the interests of the litigant in person.’

Judges:

Lord Woolf MR, Brooke and Robert Walker LJJ

Citations:

Times 18-Aug-1999, Gazette 17-Dec-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 2004, [1999] 1 WLR 1807, [1999] 2 FLR 1126

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Explained – McKenzie v McKenzie CA 10-Jul-1970
Mr McKenzie was a litigant in person who wished to be assisted by a young Australian barrister, gratuitously, in the conduct of his case by sitting beside the husband in Court and prompting him. The hearing was in open Court . The friend’s conduct . .
See Also – Regina v Bow County Court ex parte Dr Pelling Admn 30-Jun-1998
Dr Pelling applied for leave to challenge a refusal of permission to him to assist an applicant as a McKenzie friend. . .
Appeal from – Regina v Bow County Court Ex parte Pelling QBD 8-Mar-1999
Mr Pelling sought to act as a McKenzie friend. On being refused he sought judicial review of he decision to exclude him.
Held: Review was refused. A McKenzie friend has himself no locus to challenge a decision by a county court judge not to . .
Cited – In Re H (A Minor) (Chambers Proceedings: Mckenzie Friend) CA 6-May-1997
A father sought ex parte, permission to appeal against orders in the county court. The first had refused to allow him to have a McKenzie friend in an application for contact to his daughter. The Recorder had taken the view that because the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Noueiri v Paragon Finance Plc (Practice Note) CA 19-Sep-2001
Courts should be careful before allowing unqualified persons to represent other parties at court. Pleadings and similar documents must be signed by the party or their qualified legal representative. Others signing them may be in contempt of court . .
Cited – O and others (Children); In re O (Children), In re W-R (a Child), In re W (Children) CA 22-Jun-2005
In each case litigants in person had sought to be allowed to have the assistance and services of a Mackenzie friend in children cases. In one case, the court had not allowed confidential documents to be disclosed to the friend.
Held: The . .
See Also – Pelling, Regina (on the Application Of) v Bow County Court CA 22-Jan-2001
Application for permission to appeal from refusal of leave to bring judicial review. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85133

Practice Statement (Supreme Court: Judgments) (No 2): LCJ 2 Dec 1998

Reserved judgments handed down should be marked as such when subject to revision, and could be copied and published freely and without charge once the embargo on copies delivered to parties had been lifted.

Citations:

Times 02-Dec-1998, [1999] 1 WLR 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Robinson v Fernsby, Scott-Kilvert CA 19-Dec-2003
The judge had drafted his judgment and sent the drafts to the parties for comment. He then received additional written representations from one party, from which he realised that he had made an error, and issued a corrected judgment which a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85005

Practice Statement (Companies Court): ChD 19 Jan 2000

From January 2000, applications in company matters need not be heard only by a companies judge, and matters which had previously been listed on Mondays for this purpose need no longer be so listed. Urgent applications would also be dealt with by the applications judge.

Citations:

Times 19-Jan-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Company, Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.84999

Practice Note (Chancery Division: Civil Procedure Rules): ChD 4 May 1999

The procedures set down by the new CPR Part 23 should be followed in the interim applications and companies courts. Those appearing should also make themselves aware of the amendments in the new Guide to Chancery Practice.

Citations:

Times 04-May-1999

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules Part 23

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.84977

Murrell v Healy and Another: CA 5 Apr 2001

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.

Judges:

Waller, Dyson LJJ

Citations:

Times 01-May-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 486, [2001] 4 All ER 345, [2002] RTR 2

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice, Personal Injury, Damages

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.84140

Memory Corporation v Sidhu (No 2): CA 3 Dec 1999

Where a party applied to court for an ex parte order, counsel had direct duties to the court, and also the supporting legal team and clients had continuing and overlapping duties. There was little to be gained by trying to analyze these things too closely to apportion blame. Here counsel had applied to and misadvised the court on the practice, and documents produced were unreliable and possibly from an unlawful source. Where a defending party risked contempt proceedings, and was ordered to file affidavit evidence in respect of that matter, any claim for privilege against self-incrimination should be made before the affidavit is made. It was inappropriate to be asked first to file the affidavit, and then to ask the court to inspect and decide. The privilege was available to be exercised in contempt proceedings within the same proceedings as the main action.
Mummery LJ said that: ‘It cannot be emphasised too strongly that in an urgent without notice hearing for a freezing order as well as for a search order or any other form of interim injunction, there is a high duty to make full, fair and accurate disclosure of material information to the court and to draw the court’s attention to significant factual, legal and procedural aspects of the case. It is the particular duty of the advocate to see that the correct legal procedures and forms are used, that a written skeleton argument and properly drafted order are prepared by him personally and lodged with the court before the oral hearing, and that at the hearing the court’s attention is drawn by him to unusual features of the evidence adduced, to the applicable law and to the formalities and procedure to be observed.’
Robert Walker LJ discussed the apparent gathering of evidence by unlawful means and said that this has not in general led to its exclusion under the English law of evidence. It was far from obvious that concerns of this nature ‘should be added to the heavy responsibilities already undertaken by lawyers who are making a without notice application, except perhaps in circumstances where the evidence in question is of central importance to the application’. Even when the evidence is of central importance, for example evidence relating to the sale of contraband goods in a case of piracy of intellectual property rights, trap orders and other conduct involving impersonation or deception have been commonplace in the Chancery Division for a century or more, and do not seem to have attracted censure.

Judges:

Mummery LJ, Robert Walker LJ

Citations:

Times 15-Feb-2000, Gazette 27-Jan-2000, Times 03-Dec-1999, [2000] EWCA Civ 9, [2000] 1 WLR 1443

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

On Appeal from – Memory Corporation Plc and Another v Sidhu ChD 21-May-1999
Where counsel proposing an asset freezing order fails to mention a case relevant to the issue, the order need not thereby be discharged. This is as against a failure to disclose a material fact, which would lead to a discharge of the order. . .
Approved – Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Al Alawi and Others ComC 3-Dec-1998
The claimants had brought proceedings against their former sales manager for accepting bribes and secret commission from outsiders. In support of their claim the claimants had obtained a search and seizure order and a worldwide freezing injunction, . .

Cited by:

See Also – Memory Corporation Plc, Datrontech Hong Kong Limited v Sukhbir Singh Sidhu, Sunsar Limited ChD 3-Nov-1999
. .
Cited – John Louis Carter Fourie v Allan Le Roux and others CA 7-Mar-2005
The defendant’s company in South Africa had become insolvent and the claimant had recovered judgment for arrears of rent. They obtained a freezing order against the defendant. The defendant appealed saying the court did not have jurisdiction, and . .
Cited – Fourie v Le Roux and others HL 24-Jan-2007
The appellant, liquidator of two South African companies, had made a successful without notice application for an asset freezing order. He believed that the defendants had stripped the companies of substantial assets. The order was set aside for . .
Cited – Franses v Al Assad and others ChD 26-Oct-2007
The claimant had obtained a freezing order over the proceeds of sale of a property held by solicitors. The claimant was liquidator of a company, and an allegation of wrongful trading had been made against the sole director and defendant. The . .
Cited – Tchenguiz and Others v Imerman CA 29-Jul-2010
Anticipating a refusal by H to disclose assets in ancillary relief proceedings, W’s brothers wrongfully accessed H’s computers to gather information. The court was asked whether the rule in Hildebrand remained correct. W appealed against an order . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Litigation Practice, Human Rights, Contempt of Court

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.83628

Lonhro Plc and Others v Fayed and Others (No 5): CA 6 Oct 1993

The plaintiff sought to amend a conspiracy claim, based on arrangements to publish defamatory statements, by adding a claim for damage to reputation and feelings.
Held: Such a claim could not be made in conspiracy. A Plaintiff’s motives in commencing proceedings, as to whether they constituted an abuse of process, are only assessable by the judge at trial, and not on an interlocutory application. The action was re-instated. ‘[N]o one has a right to a reputation which is unmerited. Accordingly one can only suffer an injury to reputation if what is said is false. In defamation the falsity of the libel or slander is presumed; but justification is a complete defence.’
Dillon LJ said: ‘In my judgment, if the plaintiffs want to claim damages for injury to reputation or injury to feelings, they must do so in an action for defamation, not in this very different form of action. Injury to reputation and to feelings is, with very limited exceptions, a field of its own and the established principles in that field are not to be side-stepped by alleging a different cause of action. Justification, truth, is an absolute defence to an action for defamation and it would, in my judgment, be lamentable if a plaintiff could recover damages against defendants who had combined to tell the truth about the plaintiff and so had destroyed his unwarranted reputation. But that would be the consequence if damages for injury to reputation and injury to feelings could be claimed in a ‘lawful means’ conspiracy action. To tell the truth would be wrongful. I see no difference in this regard between general reputation and commercial or business reputation.’

Judges:

Stuart-Smith, Dillon LJ

Citations:

Gazette 06-Oct-1993, Gazette 29-Sep-1993, [1993] 1 WLR 1489

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Foaminol Laboratories Ltd v British Artide Plastics Ltd 1941
There is no justification for artificially excising from the damages recoverable for breach of contract that part of the financial loss which might or might not be the subject of a successful claim in defamation. A claim for mere loss of reputation . .

Cited by:

Cited – Greene v Associated Newspapers Ltd CA 5-Nov-2004
The claimant appealed against refusal of an order restraining publication by the respondent of an article about her. She said that it was based upon an email falsely attributed to her.
Held: ‘in an action for defamation a court will not impose . .
Cited – Ashley and Another v Sussex Police CA 27-Jul-2006
The deceased was shot by police officers raiding his flat in 1998. The claimants sought damages for his estate. They had succeeded in claiming damages for false imprisonment, but now appealed dismissal of their claim for damages for assault and . .
Cited – Hannon and Another v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Another ChD 16-May-2014
The claimants alleged infringement of their privacy, saying that the defendant newspaper had purchased private information from police officers emplyed by the second defendant, and published them. The defendants now applied for the claims to be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Defamation, Torts – Other

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.83189

Haiselden v P and O Properties Ltd: CA 28 May 1998

Where one party was a litigant in person and the other was legally represented, the legal advisers had a duty to inform the court and the other party where a patent mistake had been made. The small claim had been referred to full hearing by mistake and not to arbitration. The claim for andpound;1000 by the LIP was mistakenly tried rather than arbitrated as a small claim, the award of costs against plaintiff should be set aside. It was wrong of a legally assisted party to take advantage.

Judges:

Thorpe, Mantell LJJ

Citations:

Times 16-Jul-1998, Gazette 28-May-1998, [1998] EWCH Civ 773

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice, Personal Injury

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.81137

Hamilton v Al-Fayed and Others (No 3): QBD 13 Jul 2001

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.

Judges:

The Hon Mr Justice Morland

Citations:

Times 25-Jul-2001, [2001] EWHC QB 389

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 4(1)

Costs, Defamation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.81197

Don King Productions Inc v Warren King and Another (No 2): ChD 18 Jun 1998

An application for a Mareva injunction made ex parte was exceptionally justified when a partner failed to explain unaccounted for receipts after a full opportunity had been given, and there was no logical or innocent basis for the concealment of receipts.

Citations:

Times 18-Jun-1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Don King Productions Inc v Warren and Others ChD 13-Apr-1998
Where partnership terms required benefit of all contracts to be assigned to the partnership, this included unassignable personal contracts which were to be held in trust for partnership, unless stated otherwise.
Lightman J said: ‘The existence . .
See Also – Don King Productions Inc v Warren; Roberts; Centurion Promotions Limited (Formerly Sports Network Limited); Sports Network Usa, Inc; Time Warner Entertainment Company, Lp and Sport International, Inc CA 19-Nov-1998
Contracts between the members of a firm and third parties, and which were subject to the partnership contract, but which were expressed to be personal and incapable of assignment, were still held on trust for the partnership, and renewals made . .

Cited by:

See Also – Don King Productions Inc v Warren; Roberts; Centurion Promotions Limited (Formerly Sports Network Limited); Sports Network Usa, Inc; Time Warner Entertainment Company, Lp and Sport International, Inc CA 19-Nov-1998
Contracts between the members of a firm and third parties, and which were subject to the partnership contract, but which were expressed to be personal and incapable of assignment, were still held on trust for the partnership, and renewals made . .
See Also – Don King Productions Inc v Warren and Others ChD 13-Apr-1998
Where partnership terms required benefit of all contracts to be assigned to the partnership, this included unassignable personal contracts which were to be held in trust for partnership, unless stated otherwise.
Lightman J said: ‘The existence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80094

Dubai Bank Ltd and Another v Galadari and Others: ChD 19 Feb 1992

Photocopies of documents are discoverable even if they may not be themselves good evidence of the documents of which they are copies.

Citations:

Gazette 19-Feb-1992

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Dubai Bank Ltd v Galadari CA 1990
A document created with a view to its being submitted to solicitors for advice does not, despite its purpose, attract privilege, even though the ‘pre-existing documents, and even documents on public records, have been selected by a solicitor for the . .
See Also – Dubai Bank Ltd v Galadari and Others (No 5) 25-Jun-1990
A British court can legitimately decide whether a foreign plaintiff company was lawfully incorporated. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80150

Cox v Bankside Members Agency Ltd and Others: QBD 27 Jan 1995

Some agents had policies against which there were likely to be various calls, either because several claims were being pursued against the same agents by different Lloyd’s Names, or because the policies were group policies covering several agents against each of which claims were being pursued, by different Lloyd’s Names. The essential issue was whether each claim ascertained as against an agent exhausted the agent’s insurance cover pro tanto, or whether all claims falling individually within a policy’s scope ranked or could be treated as ranking pari passu against the policy in whatever order they were ascertained against the insured agent or agents.
Held: Lloyds claims are to have priority of payment according to time of orders. The statutory transfer under the Act occurred notwithstanding that the insured’s liability to the third party had not yet been extinguished. The statutory transfer to the third party of the insured’s right against his insurer takes place at the moment of his bankruptcy.
Phillips J said: ‘In a situation of solvency, the ranking of claims against the EandO underwriter depends upon the order in which the third party Names establish liability against the assured by judgment, arbitration award or settlement, thereby giving rise to a vested right on the part of the assured to indemnity in accordance with the terms of the cover. The same is true in a situation of insolvency. If the insolvency occurs after third party Names have established quantified liability, the right or rights to indemnity that were thereby established in the assured agent will be transferred to the Names upon the assured becoming formally insolvent. If quantified liability has not been established at the date of insolvency, a third party Name asserting a claim will have transferred under the Act merely an inchoate or contingent right. If before that Name establishes a quantified claim, other quantified claims are established which exhaust the cover, his contingent right will be rendered nugatory.’ Phillips J summarised the relationship between the insurers and the solicitors acting: ‘Where underwriters instruct a solicitor to conduct the defence, they thereby create the relationship of solicitor and client between the solicitor and the assured . . The normal consequence of this is that the assured becomes liable to pay the solicitor’s costs, even if the underwriters were also liable for those costs . . Those costs are properly deemed to be incurred by the assured, even if they are funded by underwriters. . .’

Judges:

Phillips J

Citations:

Times 27-Jan-1995, [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 437

Cited by:

Appeal from – Cox v Bankside Members Agency Ltd and Others CA 16-May-1995
Successful Lloyds names were entitled to enforce their claims in the normal time sequence. The transfer of the rights of the insured against the insurer under section 1(1) the 1930 Act takes place on the event of insolvency, even if the insured’s . .
Cited – Centre Reinsurance International Co and Another v Curzon Insurance Ltd ChD 12-Feb-2004
It was a necessary part of the system of statutory transfers of insurance obligations under the Act, that the rights should be transferred before exhaustion of any policy excess, and notwithstanding the insolvency. The rights (inchoate at this . .
Cited – First National Tricity Finance Ltd v OT Computers Ltd; In re OT Computers Ltd (in administration) CA 25-May-2004
The company had gone into liquidation. They had sold consumer policies as extended warranties on behalf of the claimant. The company had insured its own joint liability under the contracts, and the claimant sought information from the company’s . .
Cited – Law Society of England and Wales and others v Shah and others ChD 30-Nov-2007
Solicitor firms had been made bankrupt leaving a shortfall after thefts from client accounts of over 12 million pounds. The thief had diappeared, and the other partners were now discharged form bankruptcy. The Law Society accepted that it could not . .
Cited – Teal Assurance Company Ltd v WR Berkley Insurance (Europe) Ltd SC 31-Jul-2013
An international engineering company had several layers of professional indemnity insurance. The top later did not cover claims originating in the US or Canada. The several insurers now disputed apportionment of liability between them. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Insolvency, Insurance

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79586

Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Anchor Foods Ltd (No 3): ChD 8 Jul 1999

The Civil Procedure Rules have not changed the common law rules which say that an interlocutory order for costs could not be varied by another judge sitting at first instance, except only in exceptional circumstances where it appeared for example that fraud might be involved. To do so would be for the court to act as an appellate capacity on a matter it had decided itself: ‘when the court makes an order, only in the most exceptional circumstances such as those involving fraud or the slip rule, could the court revisit the order even where it is for costs. The court cannot act as an appellate court in respect of its own orders. It is not even as if the circumstances in which I am asked to revisit the order were not contemplated at the time when the order for costs was made.’

Judges:

Neuberger J

Citations:

Gazette 11-Aug-1999, Times 28-Sep-1999, [1999] EWHC 834 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

See also – Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Anchor Foods Ltd (No 2) ChD 24-Mar-1999
The claimant intended to seek recovery of a very substantial sum from the defendant. On learning of the defendant’s intention to sell its assets, it sought an order freezing them.
Held: The court has the discretion to order a freezing of a . .
See also – Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Anchor Foods Limited Admn 26-Jun-1998
The court heard an appeal by the Commissioners from the VAT Duties Tribunal that ‘Spreadable butter’ and ‘Ammix butter’ from New Zealand made and imported by the respondent are ‘manufactured directly from milk or cream’, and are not ‘recombined . .

Cited by:

See also – Customs and Excise v Anchor Foods Ltd (No.4) ChD 18-Oct-1999
. .
See Also – Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Broomco (1984) Ltd (Formerly Anchor Foods Ltd) CA 17-Aug-2000
When an appeal is lodged in a VAT dispute, the discretion as to whether to require the appellant to lodge security for costs in the appeal, was a decision exclusively to be decided by the tribunal itself. A decision as to such security could not be . .
Cited – CS v ACS and Another FD 16-Apr-2015
Rule Against Appeal was Ultra Vires
W had applied to have set aside the consent order made on her ancillary relief application accusing the husband of material non-disclosure. She complained that her application to have the order varied had been refused on the ground that her only . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79364

Charlesworth v Relay Roads Ltd: ChD 31 Aug 1999

It remains possible to amend pleadings after judgment but before the order is drawn up, provided the party involved complies with the appropriate procedures. This may apply even though it would require the presentation of further evidence and argument to the court.

Judges:

Nueberger J

Citations:

Times 31-Aug-1999, [2000] 1 WLR 230

Citing:

See Also – Charlesworth v Relay Roads Limited, Haley and Others PatC 1-Feb-1999
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Paulin ChD 13-May-2005
The director sought to appeal an order disqualifying him form acting as a company director.
Held: The disqualification proceedings were properly charactised as insolvency proceedings and therefore there was no requirement for permission to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.78990

Cheddar Valley Engineering Ltd v Chaddlewood Homes Ltd: ChD 15 Jul 1992

Without Prejudice negotiations continue on that basis till clearly altered.

Judges:

Jules Sher QC

Citations:

Gazette 15-Jul-1992, [1992] 1 WLR 820

Cited by:

Cited – Brown v Rice and Another ChD 14-Mar-2007
The parties, the bankrupt and her trustee, had engaged in a mediation which failed at first, but applicant said an agreement was concluded on the day following. The defendants denied this, and the court as asked to determine whether a settlement had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79000

Caribbean Gold Ltd v Alga Shipping Ltd (The Nova Scotia): QBD 2 Jun 1993

The time for service of a writ was extended after an excusable error by solicitors. The writ had been issued but the guidance given had been confusing.

Citations:

Gazette 02-Jun-1993

Citing:

Appealed to – Caribbean General Insurance Co Ltd v Frizzell Insurance Brokers CA 4-Nov-1993
The judge was wrong to re-instate a case after there had been repeated breaches of unless orders by the plaintiff. Peremptory orders of the court must be obeyed unless excusable. . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Caribbean General Insurance Co Ltd v Frizzell Insurance Brokers CA 4-Nov-1993
The judge was wrong to re-instate a case after there had been repeated breaches of unless orders by the plaintiff. Peremptory orders of the court must be obeyed unless excusable. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.78902

Busby v Cooper; Busby v Abbey National plc; Busby v Lumby: CA 2 Apr 1996

The claimant sought damages after having bought a house after receiving an allegedly negligent report on the concrete. She had asked to be allowed to add a third party (the local authority who had passed the building) as a defendant, but the request was outside the primary limitation period and was refused and again on appeal. She now sought to appeal.
Held: Her appeal was allowed. It was within the court’s jurisdiction to try issues relationg to the primary facts which would decide how the limitation rules would be applied. Section 14(10(b) operated to extend the time limit provided in 14(4)(a), and therefore it was not necessary to issue a new set of proceedings. The joining of a third party after the initial limitation period had expired, remained possible. The claim was justiciable.

Citations:

Times 15-Apr-1996

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 14A(4)(a) 14A(4)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Followed – Davies v Reed Stock and Co Ltd 1984
. .
Distinguished – Welsh Development Agency v Redpath Dorman Long Ltd CA 4-Apr-1994
A new claim was not deemed to have been made until the pleading was actually amended for limitation purposes, and should not be allowed after the limitation period had expired. The date of the application for leave to amend was not at issue. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.78778

C Inc Plc v L and Another: QBD 4 May 2001

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.’

Judges:

Aikens J

Citations:

Times 04-May-2001, [2001] 2 Lloyds Law Reports 459, [2001] 2 All ER (Comm) 446

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 19.4(2)(a), 6.30(2), 6.20(3)

Citing:

Cited – Cardile v LED Builders PTY Limited 1999
(High Court of Australia) The respondent (‘LED’) twice sought relief from Eagle Homes PTY Limited (‘Eagle’) for copyright infringement. Anticipating the proceedings the only shareholders and controllers of Eagle, the claimants arranged the . .

Cited by:

Cited – 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 . .
Cited – HM Revenue and Customs v Egleton and others ChD 19-Sep-2006
The claimants had applied for the winding up of a company for very substantial sums of VAT due to it. Anticipating that hearing, it now sought restraining orders against the director defendants, alleging that there had been a carousel or missing . .
Cited – Trade Credit Finance No Ltd and Another v Bilgin and others ComC 3-Nov-2004
. .
Cited – Messer Griesheim Gmbh v Goyal Mg Gases Pvt Ltd ComC 7-Feb-2006
The claimant sought to have set aside its own judgment obtained by default so as to apply for a second judgment. The first would not be enforceable abroad against the defendant, because a default judgment was not enforceable in India. The second . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.78800

Brown and Another v Bennett and Others (2): ChD 13 Jun 2000

The decision whether to order sequential or simultaneous disclosure of skeleton arguments was for each case. In construction cases simultaneous disclosure was usually appropriate, and this was also normal in Chancery. Nevertheless in complicated cases it might be sensible and was within the judge’s discretion to order sequential disclosure, with the claimant going first. The rules are silent because of this discretion.

Citations:

Times 13-Jun-2000

Litigation Practice

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78688

Brown and Another v Bennett and Others (No 2): ChD 2 Nov 2000

An expert witness should not be compelled to attend court where the party who instructed him had been unable to satisfy him that he was able to pay the expert’s fees. To hold otherwise would be to endanger the system of expert witnesses by allowing potential manipulation, by issuing a sub poena instead of paying the fee. In such circumstances the practice should remain that a witness summons should be issued only in exceptional cases.

Citations:

Times 02-Nov-2000

Litigation Practice

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78689

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v Baker Norton Pharmaceuticals Inc and Another: CA 26 Apr 2001

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.’

Judges:

Aldous LJ

Citations:

Times 26-Apr-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 414

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules Part 40.12 (1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See also – Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v Baker Norton Pharmaceuticals Inc, Napro Biotherapeutics Inc CA 23-May-2000
. .
Cited – Herbert George Snell and others v Robert Young and Co Limited and others CA 21-Nov-2002
The claimants had sought damages for poisoning from organophosphates used in sheep dipping. Evidence linking the injuries to the use of the chemicals had not been found, and the actions struck out as an abuse of process. The group litigation had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78601

Brinks Ltd and Another v AbuSaleh and Others: ChD 6 Mar 1995

A delay in issuing Order 14 proceedings is not in itself relevant.

Citations:

Ind Summary 06-Mar-1995

Cited by:

See Also – Brinks Ltd v AbuSaleh and Others (No 3) ChD 23-Oct-1995
A person must know of the existence of an obligation of trust to be liable as an accessory to an act in breach of that trust. A person cannot be liable for dishonest assistance in a breach of trust unless he knows of the existence of the trust or at . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78582

Birmingham Post and Mail Ltd v Birmingham City Council: QBD 12 Nov 1993

The name of a person with a notifiable disease could be withheld pending an appeal, but any anonymity given by court to party must end when it would not be needed for the purposes of justice. The power to make an order under s.11 must be exercised carefully and cannot be used simply to protect privacy or avoid embarrassment An open ended order was inappropriate.

Citations:

Times 25-Nov-1993, Independent 25-Nov-1993

Statutes:

Public Health (Control of Diseases) Act 1984 37, Contempt of Court Act 1981 11

Cited by:

Cited – Allen v The Grimsby Telegraph and Another QBD 2-Mar-2011
The claimant sought to prevent publication of his name in the context of the making of a Sexual Offences Prevention Order (SOPO). He had been convicted of offences against sex workers. An order had been made preventing disclosure of his address, but . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Litigation Practice

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78418

Berliner Bank v Karageorgis and Another: ComC 20 Oct 1995

A plaintiff can insist on automatic judgment despite the availability of proceedings abroad.
cw Procedure – RSC Order 13 – RSC Order 19 r.2 – failure to acknowledge service – failure to serve a defence – trial on the merits – inherent jurisdiction of court.

Citations:

Times 27-Nov-1995, [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 426

Litigation Practice

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78360

Biosource Technologies Inc v Axia Genetics Plc (In Administration): ChD 25 Nov 1999

The rule which prevents a company in administration being prosecuted without the leave of the court, was not intended only to restrict creditors. Here another company wanted to bring patent infringement proceedings, but were first to be required to obtain the court’s consent.

Citations:

Times 25-Nov-1999, Gazette 25-Nov-1999

Statutes:

Insolvency Act 1986 11(3)(d)

Insolvency, Litigation Practice, Intellectual Property

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78409

Barry v Ablerex Construction (Midlands) Ltd: CA 30 Mar 2001

It was appropriate to reduce the interest discount rate used to calculate damages awards in personal injury cases for future losses, from 3 per cent to 2 per cent. This reflected the general reduction in such interest rates since the Act came into effect. The House of Lords had set down guidelines for the discount rate to be applied on the award of damages for future losses. The decision had been expressed to apply only until the Act was put into effect. The parties sought to argue that they were not bound since the limitation was not essential to the decision, and the Lord Chancellor was thought to be about to announce a rate under the Act. The Court of Appeal stated that whilst guidelines were not immutable principles of law, they were clearly to be applied, and the time scale, set down in the judgement, was just as much part of the guidelines as the rate.

Judges:

Hnry, Judge, Hale LJJ

Citations:

Times 03-Apr-2001, Gazette 01-Jun-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 433

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Damages Act 1996

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Barry v Ablerex Construction (Midlands) Ltd QBD 22-Mar-2000
After a delay of delay 5 years, the judge deducted two years interest from the award to reflect the plaintiff’s delay. . .
Cited – Wells v Wells; Thomas v Brighton Health Authority; etc HL 16-Jul-1998
In each of three cases, the plaintiffs had suffered serious injury. They complained that the court had made a substantial reduction of their damages award for loss of future earnings and the costs of future care.
Held: The appeals succeeded. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Eagle (By Her Litigation Friend) v Chambers CA 29-Jul-2004
The claimant had been severely injured, and a substantial damages award made. Cross appeals were heard as to the several elements awarded. The claimant sought as part of her award of damages for personal injuries the fees she would have to pay to . .
Cited – Tortolano v Ogilvie Construction Ltd SCS 21-Feb-2013
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Litigation Practice, Damages

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78259

Barings Plc and Another v Coopers and Lybrand (A Firm) and Others: ChD 13 Aug 1996

The need to reach one conclusion justified service of proceedings overseas on a firm’s partners, where there was a genuine issue to be decided

Citations:

Times 13-Aug-1996, Gazette 23-Oct-1996, [1996] EWCA Civ 1025

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Barings Plc and Another v Coopers and Lybrand (A Firm) and Others CA 6-Dec-1996
Whether a duty of care exists from the auditors of a subsidiary, towards its parent company is a triable issue. . .
Cited – Johnson v Gore Wood and Co HL 14-Dec-2000
Shareholder May Sue for Additional Personal Losses
A company brought a claim of negligence against its solicitors, and, after that claim was settled, the company’s owner brought a separate claim in respect of the same subject-matter.
Held: It need not be an abuse of the court for a shareholder . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Company, Litigation Practice

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78229

Bank of England v Gibson: QBD 9 May 1994

A court need not be satisfied as to the exact date of a theft, in order to make a finding that a theft had happened. The level of proof required in civil fraud cases will vary with the seriousness of allegation.

Citations:

Times 09-May-1994, Ind Summary 30-May-1994

Criminal Practice, Litigation Practice

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78155

Bankers Trust Company v P T Jakarta International Hotels and Development: ComC 12 Mar 1999

Where an arbitration agreement referred to an arbitration under the rules of a major international scheme, by virtue of a standard form master agreement, this was sufficient and good reason to grant an injunction to enforce the reference.
ComC Injunction restraining proceedings in a foreign court in breach of an arbitration agreement.

Judges:

Cresswell J

Citations:

Times 10-May-1999, [1999] 1 All ER (Comm) 785, [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 910

Arbitration, Litigation Practice

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78163

David John Baron v Brian Lovell: CA 27 Jul 1999

A party to litigation must ensure that an agent attending had sufficient knowledge and authority to deal with issues raised at a pre-trial review, and where he failed in this he could be penalised in indemnity costs or interest at higher rates than usual on damages. An agent had no knowledge of why an expert’s report had not been served, and the report remained excluded.
Brooke LJ said: ‘If a defendant’s lawyers choose not to send a representative with appropriate authority to attend a pre-trial review and choose not to ensure that the client (who in this case should be equated with the defendant’s insurer) attends the review, the judge, who is likely to be the trial judge, is likely to note their absence. If he considers that that party has acted unreasonably in this way in connection with the litigation in breach of a direction of the court, there may come a time when he decides that it is appropriate to make an order for indemnity costs against that party, or to exercise his power to award interest on damages at a much higher rate than what is usual, if those powers are available to him. The whole trust of the CPR regime is to require the parties to behave reasonably towards each other in the conduct of the litigation. The old antagonistic point scoring, which used to drag personal injuries cases out and run up costs, should now be at an end.’

Judges:

Brooke LJ

Citations:

Times 14-Sep-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 1977

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 1998 R 29

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Reid Minty (a firm) v Taylor CA 2002
New CPR govern Indemnity Costs awards
The defendant had successfully defended the main claim and now appealed against the refusal of an order for costs on an indemnity basis even though judge thought that the claimants had behaved unreasonably. He had said that some conduct deserving of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78238

Bank of Credit and Commerce International Sa (In Liquidation) v Ali and Another: ChD 17 Feb 1999

A compromise of a claim involved a settlement with the value given, and a release did not import requirement for any consideration. A compromised claim could not be set aside for lack of knowledge, and no duty of disclosure of any wrongdoing existed.

Judges:

Lightman J

Citations:

Times 25-Jan-1999, Gazette 17-Feb-1999, [1999] ICR 1068

Cited by:

See also – Bank of Credit and Commerce International Sa (In Compulsory Liquidation) v Munawar Ali, Sultana Runi Khan And Others (No 3) ChD 25-Jun-1999
In order for an employee to claim that his employer was conducting his business in an unlawful manner so as to destroy the relationship of trust and confidence between them, the activity had to be such that the employee could not reasonably be . .
At First Instance – Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA v Ali, Khan and others (No 1); BCCI v Ali HL 1-Mar-2001
Cere Needed Releasing Future Claims
A compromise agreement which appeared to claim to settle all outstanding claims between the employee and employer, did not prevent the employee later claiming for stigma losses where, at the time of the agreement, the circumstances which might lead . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Litigation Practice

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78147

Bank of Credit and Commerce International (Overseas) Ltd (In Liquidation) v Habib Bank Ltd: ChD 20 Jul 1998

Where judgment was entered in default but there was some significant defect in that judgment it would not in future be set aside automatically, but the court should look to the merits, correct the error, consider the merits and then decide what to do.

Citations:

Times 20-Jul-1998

Statutes:

Rules of the Supreme Court Order 13 1

Litigation Practice

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78136

Charlesworth v Relay Roads Ltd and Others: PatC 20 Jul 1999

Application by the defendants for permission to amend their Defence and Counterclaim and Particulars of Objections and to call further evidence to support those amendments in circumstances where, not only has the hearing of the action been completed, but judgment has been handed down, although, crucially, the order has not been drawn up.

Judges:

Neuberger J

Citations:

[1999] EWHC 829 (Pat), [2000] RPC 300, [2000] CP Rep 37, [2000] CPLR 109, [2000] 1 WLR 230, [1999] 4 All ER 397

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property, Litigation Practice

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.567878

Crescent Farm (Sidcup) Sports Ltd v Sterling Offices Ltd: 1972

The plaintiffs, as purchasers, and the first defendants, as sub-purchasers, were parties to a conveyance of land which provided that the purchasers had the option of re-purchasing if, within the following 20 years, the first defendants wanted to sell the land or any part of it. Within that period the first defendants contracted to sell, and then conveyed, the land to the second defendants without any release from the option. In the course of the proceedings for damages for, among other things, breach of contract and conspiracy, the plaintiffs issued a summons for disclosure from the second defendants of instructions to counsel by the first defendants and the opinion of counsel, which had been sent by the first defendants to the second defendants.
Held: The second defendants’ claim for privilege should be upheld and the plaintiffs’ summons dismissed. It was clearly established that privilege of a predecessor in title enures for the benefit of his successor. The second defendants had received the documents at issue as successors in title.

Judges:

Goff J

Citations:

[1972] Ch 533, [1971] 3 All ER 1192, [1972] 2 WLR 91

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Minet v Morgan CA 1873
A connection with litigation is not a necessary condition for legal privilege to be attracted to a document.
The law on legal privilege had not at once reached a broad and reasonable footing, but reached it by successive steps. . .

Cited by:

Cited – In re Konigsberg (A Bankrupt) 1989
The court considered in the context of legal privilege the distinction between the disclosure of a document and its use at trial. Parties who grant a joint retainer to solicitors do not retain any confidence as against one another.
A bankrupt’s . .
Cited – X v Y Ltd (Practice and Procedure – Disclosure) EAT 9-Aug-2018
Iniquity surpasses legal advice privilege
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Disclosure
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Striking-out/dismissal
An Employment Judge struck out paragraphs of the Claimant’s claim as they depended on an email in respect of which legal advice privilege was claimed. . .
Cited – Shlosberg v Avonwick Holdings and Others ChD 7-Mar-2016
Application for order disallowing a firm from acting for the defendants. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Legal Professions

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.621168