Archive for the 'civil procedure rules' Category

North Shore Ventures Ltd v Anstead Holdings Inc and others – WLR Daily

North Shore Ventures Ltd v Anstead Holdings Inc and others [2011] EWHC 910 (Ch); [2011] WLR (D) 138

“Para 1.5 of Practice Direction 39A supplementing CPR Pt 39 did not deem a hearing to be in private which had not been listed as a private matter. The general rule for proceedings to be held in public unless otherwise stated applied to proceedings not listed in private.”

WLR Daily, 13th April 2011

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

The Lawyer’s great debate: e-disclosure – The Lawyer

“One of the biggest issues in litigation management at the moment is e-disclosure.”

Full story

The Lawyer, 21st March 2011

Source: www.thelawyer.com

Regina (Parsipoor) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Regina (Salih and another) v Same – WLR Daily

Regina (Parsipoor) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Regina (Salih and another) v Same [2011] EWCA Civ 276; [2011] WLR (D) 97

“A claimant in a claim for judicial review was entitled to an oral hearing even where the claims were academic.”

WLR Daily, 17th March 2011

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Regina (Medical Justice) v Secretary of State for the Home Department – WLR Daily

Regina (Medical Justice) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 269; [2011] WLR (D) 95

“Where a party sought permission to appeal from a judge and permission was granted on terms, that party had no right to appeal against those terms by reason of section 54(4) of the Access to Justice Act 1999, unless the party concerned was not present at the permission hearing at which the terms were imposed. The proper course was either to accept the terms, or to treat them as a refusal of permission and to make a fresh application under section 54(4) to the appropriate appeal court for permission.”

WLR Daily, 16th March 2011

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Bank of Scotland v Pereira and others – WLR Daily

“A party against whom a judgment in default of appearance had been given was entitled to apply to set aside that decision, if she met the three conditions in CPR r 39.3, and could seek to appeal against the default judgment under CPR Pt 52 whether or not she could comply with the rule 39.3 conditions. The Court of Appeal gave guidelines on the interrelationship between an application to set aside and an appeal against the same judgment.”
WLR Daily, 10th March 2011
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Cecil and others v Bayat and others – WLR Daily

Cecil and others v Bayat and others [2011] EWCA Civ 135; [2011] WLR (D) 51

“The claimants in a proposed action for breach of contract and damages were not entitled unilaterally to decide to postpone service of their claim form out of the jurisdiction under CPR 7.6(1). They should have served the form in the period of its initial validity, and, if they were not in a financial position to proceed immediately with the claim, they should have issued an application seeking a stay, or an extension of the time for procedural steps to be taken. The fact that the claimants spent the period of initial validity seeking a conditional fee agreement and after-the-event insurance was not a valid reason for their not having served the claim form, since their funds were sufficient to serve the claim even if they were not then in a position to fund the entire course of the litigation.”

WLR Daily, 21st February 2011

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Hydropool Hot Tubs Ltd v Roberjot and another – WLR Daily

Hydropool Hot Tubs Ltd v Roberjot and another [2011] EWHC 121 (Ch); [2011] WLR (D) 38

“CPR r 32.14 had no application to an allegation of contempt by knowingly swearing a false affidavit.”

WLR Daily, 7th February 2011

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.


June 2017
M T W T F S S
« May    
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930  

Categories