|
Pelling v Bruce-Williams, CA (Civ Div) 25/7/2006
It was appropriate to discharge an injunction that prohibited the identification of a child in family proceedings where the proceedings were over. However in the instant case it was not appropriate to set the injunction aside as it had been correctly made at the time.
Ingraham & Ors v Glinton & Anr, PC (Bah) (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Steyn, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Lord Carswell, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood) 24/7/2006
The court had the power under the Rules of the Supreme Court 1978 (Bahamas) Ord.18 r.19(1)(a) to strike out a claim made under Art.28 of the Constitution regardless of the fact that such a claim was not available at common law.
Toth v Jarman, CA (Civ Div) 19/7/2006
A party who wished to call an expert with a potential conflict of interest should disclose details of that conflict at as early a stage in the proceedings as possible.
R v Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, CA (Civ Div) 13/7/2006; Independent, July 18, 2006
The court substituted a general restraint order made against a litigant for an extended civil restraint order as the judge had had no power to make a general civil restraint order against the litigant in circumstances where, for the purpose of the CPR Part 3 PD C para.4, no extended civil restraint order had ever been made against him at the time of the hearing.
Enfield LBC v Sivanandan, CA (Civ Div) 29/6/2006
The court exercised its discretion and declined to make a civil restraint order in respect of litigant who had repeatedly issued claims without merit because, in the circumstances, the point at which it would be right to make the order had not been reached.
|
