Archive for the 'setting aside' Category

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.

Hackney London Borough Council v Findlay – WLR Daily

Hackney London Borough Council v Findlay [2011] EWCA Civ 8; [2011] WLR (D) 7

“Where a court had made an order for possession against a tenant in his absence, on an application to set aside that order under CPR r 3.1 the court should take all the circumstances into account under r 3.9, where the tenant could show for the purposes of r 39.3(5) that he had acted promptly when he found out about the possession order, had a good reason for not attending the trial and had a reasonable prospect of success on the application, giving precedence to the requirements of r 39.3(5).”

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.

Broda Agro Trade (Cyprus) Ltd v Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH – WLR Daily

Broda Agro Trade (Cyprus) Ltd v Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH [2010] EWCA Civ 1100; [2010] WLR (D) 246

“A party who had been named in arbitration proceedings could simply ignore the arbitration proceedings if he considered that he had not entered into the agreement and come to court to challenge the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal; but if he had taken part in the proceedings disputing the jurisdiction of the court or the tribunal’s exercise of their asserted substantive jurisdiction, his right was limited to challenging the award under s 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996.”

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.

Noble v Owens – WLR Daily

Noble v Owens [2010] EWCA Civ 224; [2010] WLR (D) 73

 “Where fresh evidence was adduced in the Court of Appeal tending to show that the judge at first instance had been deliberately misled the court would only allow the appeal and order a retrial where the fraud was either admitted or the evidence of it was incontrovertible. In any other case, the issue of fraud had to be determined before the judgment of the court below could be set aside.”

WLR Daily, 11th March 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.

Pitt and another v Holt and another – WLR Daily

Pitt and another v Holt and another [2010] WLR (D) 2

“A receiver appointed under the Mental Health Act 1983 by the Court of Protection was entitled to rely on the principle that, where a trustee exercised a discretion pursuant to the terms of the trust and the effect of the exercise was different from that intended, the court would set aside his action if it was clear that he would not have acted as he had, had he not failed to take into account considerations which he ought to have taken into account, or taken into account considerations which he ought not to have taken into account (‘the Hastings-Bass principle’).”

WLR daily, 19th January 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.

 

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.

Ansari v Ansari – Times Law Reports

Ansari v Ansari

Court of Appeal

“A charge on a property which was not in itself a reviewable disposition was not to be set aside as a result of setting aside the transfer of a property by a husband to defeat his wife’s rights, which was a reviewable disposition.”

The Times, 16th January 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.


March 2017
M T W T F S S
« May    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Categories