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.

Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Co SAL and another (No 2) – WLR Daily

Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Co SAL and another (No 2) [2011] EWCA Civ 21; [2011] WLR (D) 11

“Save in exceptional circumstances, para 4.2 of the Practice Direction supporting CPR Pt 32 required the deponent of an affidavit to identify the source of the relevant information or belief stated in the affidavit. If the source was a person that person must, save in exceptional circumstances, be identified with sufficient certainty to enable to person against whom the affidavit was directed to investigate the information or belief in accordance with the rules of court or other relevant legal principles.”

WLR Daily, 21st Janaury 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.

Swain-Mason and others v Mills & Reeve (a firm) – WLR Daily

Swain-Mason and others v Mills & Reeve (a firm) [2011] EWCA Civ 14; [2011] WLR (D)

“In determining whether to grant a late application to amend a pleading a balance was always to be struck. The court was concerned with doing justice, but justice to all litigants, and thus where a last-minute amendment was sought the onus would be heavy on the amending party to show the strength of the new case and why justice to him, his opponent and other litigants required him to be able to pursue it.”

WLR Daily, 21st January 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.

Huscroft v P & O Ferries Ltd – WLR Daily

Huscroft v P & O Ferries Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 148; [2010] WLR (D) 348

“CPR r 3.1(3), which permitted a court to attach conditions to the making of an order, was intended to control the future conduct of proceedings and not to punish previous misconduct.”

WLR Daily, 4th January 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.

Barclays Bank plc v Guy – WLR Daily

Barclays Bank plc v Guy [2010] EWCA Civ 1396; [2010] WLR (D) 321

“Where an application was made to reopen a refusal of permission to appeal by the Court of Appeal, the criteria to be applied should be the same as where application was made, pursuant to CPR r 52.17(1), to reopen a final judgment reached after a full trial.”

WLR Daily, 9th December 2010

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.

Emerald Supplies Ltd and another v British Airways plc – WLR Daily

Emerald Supplies Ltd and another v British Airways plc [2010] EWCA Civ 1284; [2010] WLR (D) 294

“For a case to fall within CPR r 19.6, a claimant who had brought a representative action on behalf of the claimant and other representative claimants had to show at all stages of the proceedings that the interest of the claimant and all potential represented claimants was same.”

WLR Daily, 19th November 2010

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.

C v D and another – WLR Daily

C v D and another [2010] EWHC 2940 (Ch); [2010] WLR (D) 292

“A time-limited offer was not capable of being an offer within the meaning of CPR Pt 36, which established that an offer must be capable of acceptance unless and until withdrawn by service of a notice within CPR r 36.9(2).”

WLR Daily, 18th November 2010

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.

Aktas v Adepta; Dixie v British Polythene Industries plc – WLR Daily

Aktas v Adepta; Dixie v British Polythene Industries plc [2010] EWCA Civ 1170 ; [2010] WLR(D) 269

“Negligent failure to serve a claim form in time for the purposes of CPR rr 7.5/7.6 was not in itself an abuse of process. Nevertheless, failure to serve on time had always been dealt with strictly. This was because in England, unlike most civil law jurisdictions, proceedings were commenced when issued and not when served. But it was not until service that the defendant was given proper notice of the proceedings. The additional time between issue and service was thus, in a way, an extension of the limitation period. A claimant could issue proceedings on the last day of the limitation period and still enjoy a further four-month period before service. The strictness with which the time for service was supervised thus had valid public interest underpinnings which were quite separate from the doctrine of abuse of process.”

WLR Daily, 26th October 2010

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.

Broomleigh Housing Association Ltd v Okonkwo – WLR Daily

Broomleigh Housing Association Ltd v Okonkwo [2010] EWCA Civ 1113; [2010] WLR (D) 251

“If, following an application by a creditor for an order to gain information from a judgment debtor, the debtor failed to attend court the judge should not use a committal order, even when suspended, as little more than a vehicle for fixing a date for an effective adjourned hearing. A judge had a discretion whether to make such an order and should exercise it, and be seen to exercise it, with due regard to its seriousness.”

WLR Daily, 13th October 2010

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.

Procedure Rules – updates to civil rules come into force – Ministry of Justice

“Updates to the rules on how some types of civil cases are managed or prepared for court come into force on 1 October.”

Full story

Ministry of Justice, 1st October 2010

Source: www.justice.gov.uk

Lockheed Martin Corpn v Willis Group Ltd – WLR Daily

Lockheed Martin Corpn v Willis Group Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 927; [2010] WLR (D) 225

“Where a party was to be substituted on the grounds of mistake under CPR r 19.5 there was no further formal jurisdictional requirement that the mistake was not misleading to the other party or did not cause reasonable doubt as to the identity of the party intended to be sued.”

WLR Daily, 5th August 2010

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.

Hoist UK Ltd v Reid Lifting Ltd – WLR Daily

Hoist UK Ltd v Reid Lifting Ltd; [2010] EWHC 1922 (Ch); [2010] WLR (D) 215

“CPR r 38.5(3) should be construed as meaning that discontinuance did not affect any proceedings to deal with any question of costs, whether or not such proceedings had already been commenced at the date of discontinuance.”

WLR Daily, 30th July 2010

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.

Leo Pharma A/S and another v Sandoz Ltd – WLR Daily

Leo Pharma A/S and another v Sandoz Ltd; [2010] EWHC 1911 (Pat); [2010] WLR (D) 214

“A sealed court order which had been drawn up and agreed by the parties at the request of the court could not be corrected under the slip rule contained in CPR 40.12(1) unless it had an unintended effect which was inconsistent with the intention of the court.”

WLR Daily, 30th July 2010

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.

Contract law does not bind ‘Part 36’ offers to settle, rules Court of Appeal – OUT-LAW.com

“An offer to settle court proceedings that is made under Part 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules in England and Wales can still be accepted after it has been rejected, unless a formal withdrawal has been made, the Court of Appeal has ruled.”

Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 2nd July 2010

Source: www.out-law.com

Gibbon v Manchester City Council; L G Blower Specialist Bricklayer Ltd; Reeves and another – WLR Daily

Gibbon v Manchester City Council; L G Blower Specialist Bricklayer Ltd; Reeves and another [2010] EWCA Civ 726; [2010] WLR (D) 161

“Although basic concepts of offer and acceptance clearly underpinned CPR Pt 36 it should not be understood as incorporating all the rules of law governing the formation of contracts; rather it should be read and understood according to its terms without importing other rules derived from the general law, save where that was clearly intended.”

WLR Daily, 28th June 2010

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.

Roberts v Gill & Co – WLR Daily

Roberts v Gill & Co [2010] UKSC 22; [2010] WLR (D) 130

“A beneficiary under a will who had commenced proceedings against solicitors he alleged had acted negligently in connection with the estate could not, after the relevant limitation period had expired, amend his claim so as to also claim on behalf of the estate by way of a derivative action.”

WLR Daily, 21st May 2010

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.

Bilta (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) v Nazir and others – WLR Daily

Bilta (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) v Nazir and others [2010] EWHC 1086 (Ch); [2010] WLR (D) 129

“An application for a stay of legal proceedings made under s 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996 was not subject to the procedural rules contained in CPR Pt 11 for challenging the jurisdiction of the court. An application for an extension of time to serve the defence was not a step in the proceedings to answer the substantive claim and the defendant was not debarred from seeking a stay by s 9(3) of the Act.”

WLR Daily, 19th May 2010

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.

Lord Woolf raps solicitors for CPR failings – Law Society’s Gazette

“Lord Woolf has blamed lawyers, the judiciary and government for blunting the impact of his 10-year-old reforms to the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR).”

Full story

Law Society’s Gazette, 22nd October 2009

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd and another v Baskan Gida Sanayi Ve Pazarlama AS and others – WLR Daily

Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd and another v Baskan Gida Sanayi Ve Pazarlama AS and others [2009] EWHC 1696 (Ch); [2009] WLR (D) 242

“There was no general principle that where an otherwise successful party had put forward a dishonest case in relation to an issue in the litigation, the general rule in CPR r 44.3(2)(a) that costs should follow the event should be displaced.”

WLR Daily, 15th July 2009

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.

Civil justice system: why we are doing well but can do better – The Times

“Ten years ago I took on the task of looking at how we could reform our slow and costly civil justice system. The resulting proposals were enshrined in new civil procedure rules (CPR). They were intended to transform, and I believe did transform, the legal system. The object was to create a new way of conducting civil litigation in England and Wales.”

Full story

The Times, 11th June 2009

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Roult v North West Strategic Health Authority – Times Law Reports

Roult v North West Strategic Health Authority

Court of Appeal

“There was no power in the context of personal injury litigation to vary the terms of a settlement where there had been an unforeseen event which destroyed the assumption on which the settlement was made.”

The Times, 8th June 2009

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Civil Procedure Rules: 10 years of change – Law Society’s Gazette

“If you are a civil litigator able to remember serving a writ on behalf of a plaintiff, as well as the days of pleadings, interrogatories, further and better particulars, affidavits and discovery, then you are, shall we say, of a certain vintage. For solicitors who have entered practice in the past decade, these terms are relics of the days before claimants and claim forms, statements of case, requests for further information, witness statements and disclosure.But 10 years on from the implementation of the Civil Procedure Rules, have the reforms laboured over by Lord Woolf provided much more than a change in terminology?”

Full story

Law Society’s Gazette, 28th May 2009

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Roult (by his mother and litigation friend) v North West Strategic Health Authority – WLR Daily

Roult (by his mother and litigation friend) v North West Strategic Health Authority [2009] EWCA Civ 444; [2009] WLR (D) 164

“There was no power pursuant to CPR r 3.1 in the context of personal injury litigation to vary the terms of a settlement where there had been an unforseen event which destroyed the assumption on which the settlement was made.”

WLR Daily, 21st May 2009

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.

Emerald Supplies Ltd v British Airways plc – WLR Daily

Emerald Supplies Ltd v British Airways plc [2009] EWHC 741 (Ch); [2009] WLR (D) 136

“The court had no jurisdiction to make a representation order under CPR r 19.6 where the criteria for inclusion in the class depended on the outcome of the action itself.”

WLR Daily, 9th April 2009

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.

Have the Woolf reforms worked? – The Times

“The changes made ten years ago have been a disaster for the civil justice system and need a radical rethink.”

Full story

The Times, 9th April 2009

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Bovale Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another – Times Law Reports

Bovale Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another

Court of Appeal

“While a judge had no power to alter the Civil Procedure Rules or vary any practice direction, either by a judgment or purported practice direction, he did have an inherent jurisdiction to include procedural directions of a general application where there was a gap in the rules or in the practice directions.”

The Times, 23rd March 2009

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.

Bovale Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and another – WLR Daily

Bovale Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and another [2009] EWCA Civ 171; [2009] WLR (D) 94

A judge had no power to alter the Civil Procedure Rules either by a judgment or practice direction or to vary or alter any practice direction which was binding on the court to which it was directed. Where there was a gap in the Rules or practice directions pending the giving of a practice direction, a judge had inherent jurisdiction to include procedural directions of general application in his judgment.”

WLR Daily, 12th March 2009

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.

Civil Procedure Rules: Cost Capping Orders Response Paper – Ministry of Justice

“A consultation being conducted on behalf of the Civil Procedure Rule Committee on proposals to amend part 44 of the Civil Procedure Rules by inserting rules on costs capping orders. The consultation also proposes amendments to the Costs Practice Direction to provide guidance on costs capping. The proposals are drawn from current case law and so do not propose new policy.”

Full story

Ministry of Justice, 23rd February 2009

Source: www.justice.gov.uk

Raja v Van Hoogstraten (No 9) – Times Law Reports

Raja v Van Hoogstraten (No 9)

Court of Appeal

“Since the introduction of the Civil Procedure Rules, applications for the setting aside of orders made without notice were governed by rule 23.10, and determined by the court exercising the discretion given by that rule in accordance with the overriding objective to do justice.”

The Times, 4th February 2009

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.

The Woolf Reforms: A singular event or an ongoing process? – Speech by Sir Anthony Clarke, Master of the Rolls

The Woolf Reforms: A singular event or an ongoing process?

Speech by Sir Anthony Clarke, Master of the Rolls

British Academy, 2nd December 2008

Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk

Civil Procedure Rule – Amendments – The Bar Council

“There are two new provisions which are outside the usual timetable for amendments to the CPR.”

Full story

The Bar Council, 10th December 2008

Source: www.barcouncil.org.uk

Football Association Premier League Ltd and others v QC Leisure Ltd and others (Union des Associations Europeenes de Football, British Sky Broadcasting Ltd, Setanta Sports sarl, Groupe Canal Plus SA and Motion Picture Association intervening) – WLR Daily

Football Association Premier League Ltd and others v QC Leisure Ltd and others (Union des Associations Europeenes de Football, British Sky Broadcasting Ltd, Setanta Sports sarl, Groupe Canal Plus SA and Motion Picture Association intervening)

“The court had jurisdiction under CPR r 19.2(a) to join parties as claimants to national court proceedings in which questions had been referred to the Court of Justice of the European Communities where the joinder applications were solely for the purpose of making submissions to the Court of Justice on the referred questions.”

WLR Daily, 14th November 2008

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.

Civil Procedure Rule Committee annual report 2008 – Ministry of Justice

“Civil Procedure Rule Committee annual report 2008.”

Full report

Ministry of Justice, 12th November 2008

Source: www.justice.gov.uk

Costs-capping power for courts – Law Society’s Gazette

“Courts will have formal powers to make costs-capping orders under changes proposed by the civil procedure rule committee.”

Full story

Law Society’s Gazette, 18th September 2008

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Civil Procedure Rules: costs capping orders – Ministry of Justice

“A consultation being conducted on behalf of the Civil Procedure Rule Committee on proposals to amend part 44 of the Civil Procedure Rules by inserting rules on costs capping orders. The consultation also proposes amendments to the Costs Practice Direction to provide guidance on costs capping. The proposals are drawn from current case law and so do not propose new policy.”

Full consultation

Ministry of Justice, 12th September 2008

Source: www.justice.gov.uk

Civil Procedure Rules – 47th Update – The Bar Council

“The latest Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) are due to come into force fully on 1 October 2008. There are changes in a large number of areas.”

Full story

The Bar Council, 2nd September 2008

Source: www.barcouncil.org.uk

Leofelis SA and Another v Lonsdale Sports Ltd and Others – Times Law Reports

Leofelis SA and Another v Lonsdale Sports Ltd and Others

Court of Appeal

“It was appropriate for economy of documentation in appeals for parties to cooperate in making the bundles as convenient as possible, even in ways which the Practice Direction to Part 52 of the Civil Procedure Rules might not allow.”

The Times, 23rd July 2008

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.

Review of Part 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules: Service of Documents [CP 14/07] – Ministry of Justice

“The post-consultation report contains a summary of responses to the consultation, a detailed response to the specific questions raised in the report and the next steps following the consultation.”

Response to consultation (PDF)

Ministry of Justice, 18th March 2008

Source: www.justice.gov.uk

Regina (George Wimpey UK Ltd) v Tewkesbury Borough Council – Times Law Reports

Regina (George Wimpey UK Ltd) v Tewkesbury Borough Council

Court of Appeal

“The Court of Appeal had power to grant permission to appeal to a party who had not been in the case at first instance.”

The Times, 25th February 2008

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.

Martin v Triggs Turner Barton (a Firm) and Others – Times Law Reports

Martin v Triggs Turner Barton (a Firm) and Others

“The court was entitled to make an order to ensure that specific disclosure was carried out properly.”

The Times, 5th February 2008

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication. 

George Wimpey UK Ltd v Tewkesbury Borough Council (MA Holdings Ltd, prospective appellant) – WLR Daily

George Wimpey UK Ltd v Tewkesbury Borough Council (MA Holdings Ltd, prospective appellant) [2008] EWCA Civ 12; [2008] WLR (D) 23

“The Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to entertain an application by, and to grant permission to, someone who had not been a party to the proceedings in the court below, to enable them to appeal against the decision of the court below. The word “appellant” as defined in CPR Pt 52 did not exclude someone who had not been a party to the proceedings below and the rule should be interpreted in order to meet the overriding objective of enabling the court to deal with cases justly.”

WLR Daily, 31st January 2008

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.

Lambeth London Borough Council v Onayomake – Times Law Reports

Disproportionate exercise of judicial power

Lambeth London Borough Council v Onayomake

Court of Appeal

“Where a counterclaim had been made on substantial grounds in a possession action, it was a disproportionate exercise of judicial power to strike out a defence and counterclaim when the defendant’s legal representative had failed to file a check list on time.”

The Times, 2nd November 2007

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication

A UK Perspective on EU Civil Justice – Impact on Domestic Dispute Resolution – Speech by Sir Anthony Clarke

A UK Perspective on EU Civil Justice – Impact on Domestic Dispute Resolution (pdf)

Speech by Sir Anthony Clarke, Master of the Rolls.

EU Civil Justice Day Conference, 25th October 2007

Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk

Southwark London Borough Council v Onayomake – WLR Daily

Southwark London Borough Council v Onayomake

“It was a disproportionate exercise of power to strike out a defence and counterclaim based on substantial grounds in a possession action merely because the defendant’s legal representative had failed to file a check list and had been late for the court management hearing to explain the failure.”

WLR Daily, 22nd October 2007

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.

Tasarruf Mevduati Sigorta Fonu v. Demirel and Another – Times Law Reports

Foreign judgment claim

Tasarruf Mevduati Sigorta Fonu v. Demirel and Another

Court of Appeal

“A claimant did not have to establish that a defendant had assets within the jurisdiction in order to obtain permission to serve a claim out of the jurisdiction to enforce a foreign judgment.”

The Times, 24th August 2007

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.

Courts taking a firmer hand to stop weak cases dragging on – The Times

“Judges are increasingly willing to step in to stop another expensive disaster such as BCCI or Equitable Life.”

Full story

The Times, 2nd August 2007

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Tasarruf Mevduati Sigorta Fonu v Demirel and another [2007] EWCA Civ 799 – WLR Daily

Tasarruf Mevduati Sigorta Fonu v Demirel and another [2007] EWCA Civ 799

The court had power under CPR r 6.20(9) to permit service outside the jurisdiction of a claim to enforce a foreign judgment where the defendant, who lived abroad, had no assets in the jurisdiction. Ordinarily it would not be just to permit service outside the jurisdiction unless there was a real prospect of a legitimate benefit to the claimant from the English proceedings.”

WLR Daily, July 30th 2007

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.

White v. Greensand Homes Ltd. and Another – Times Law Reports

Withdrawing mistaken admission

White v. Greensand Homes Ltd. and Another

Court of Appeal 

“The court was able to apply the overriding objective of the Civil Procedure Rules to allow a defendant to amend his defence and withdraw his admission made by mistake.”

The Times, 19th July 2007

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk  

Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.

Review of Part 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules: service of documents – Ministry of Justice

“This consultation paper seeks views on proposals to simplify the rules in Part 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 on service of documents within the jurisdiction and for service out of the jurisdiction.”

 Review of  Part 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules: service of documents

Ministry of Justice, 9th July 2007 

Source: www.justice.gov.uk


July 2020
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Categories