|
Bols Distilleries & Anr v Superior Yacht Services Ltd, PC(Gib)(Lord Hoffman, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe) 11/10/2006; [2006] UKPC 45
The fact that a draft agreement included a jurisdiction clause could not be evidence that the parties had agreed on that jurisdiction, since at the time of the draft agreement many fundamental matters remained to be resolved and there was nothing in the evidence to suggest that the clause itself was ever discussed and agreed in meetings, emails or telephone calls.
Almeida v Opportunity Equity Partners Ltd, PC(Cl)(Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Steyn, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood) 3/10/2006
While a judge had acted improperly in making excessive interventions in the course of a trial, his conduct had not been such as to render the trial unfair and there was no reason to suppose there was a real possibility that he was biased.
GMC v Meadow & Anr, CA (Civ Div) 26/10/2006; Times, October 31, 2006; Independent, October 31, 2006
An expert medical witness had no immunity from disciplinary proceedings before the Fitness to Practise Panel of the General Medical Council in respect of his evidence in a murder trial, but had not in the circumstances been guilty of serious professional misconduct by giving statistical evidence in a mistaken belief as to its validity.
Keen Philips v Field, CA (Civ Div) 26/10/2006
The court's general case management power to extend time and to act on its own initiative was not cut down by the CPR r.3.8. The court was not powerless to extend time unless or until an application for relief from a sanction was made by the party in default.
Stallwood v David & Anr, High Ct, 25/10/2006
Under CPR Part 35 there were circumstances in which a party dissatisfied with an amended opinion from their expert after the experts' discussion could obtain permission to rely on evidence adduced from an additional expert.
St. Helen’s Metropolitan Borough Council v Barnes, CA (Civ Div) 25/10/2006; Independent, October 27, 2006
For the purposes of the expiry of the limitation period under the Limitation Act 1980 s.11(3) a claim was "brought" when a claimant's request for the issue of a claim form was delivered to the correct court office during its opening hours.
Miller v Garton Shires & Anr, CA (Civ Div) 25/10/2006
There was no principle or practice that the court could not summarily dismiss a claim where there was untested paper evidence supporting it.
B Borough Council v S & Anr, High Ct (Fam D) 23/10/2006
The decision of a local authority to seek without notice relief in order to facilitate the move of an elderly man to hospital constituted a reasonable and proportionate approach to promote a vulnerable adult’s welfare.
O’Byrne v Aventis Pasteur MSD Ltd & Anr, High Ct, 20/10/2006
In an application for the substitution of a new party under the Limitation Act 1980, s.35(6)(a) of the Act could not be interpreted to mean that a party's name was not given "in mistake" where a claimant, even though under a mistake at the time when the action was commenced, was not under any mistake about the identity of the party against whom it was intending to proceed at the time when the limitation period expired.
Jessup & Ors v Wetherell & Anr, High Ct, 20/10/2006
The cause of action against solicitors for a failure to pursue a claim expeditiously accrued when the earlier claim was "doomed to failure", which on the facts of the instant case was around the time when an application to strike out that claim was pending.
Thomas v Home Office, CA (Civ Div) 19/10/2006
It was open to the parties to agree under CPR r.2.11 to extend time for the service of a claim form under CPR r.7.5. The written agreement of the parties under r.2.11 of the Rules did not have to be in a single document and could be constituted by an exchange of letters.
Philips & Ors v Symes & Ors, High Ct (Ch D) 16/10/2006
An order imposing a two-year stay on all proceedings between the parties relating to matters raised in an action between them was not a civil restraint order. The court had exercised its case management powers under CPR r.3.1(2) to achieve the overriding objective.
CGU International Insurance Plc & Ors v Astrazeneca Insurance Co Ltd, CA (Civ Div) 16/10/2006; Independent, October 24, 2006
The Court of Appeal had a residual jurisdiction to enquire into unfairness in the process of a refusal of permission to appeal under the Arbitration Act 1996 s.69(8) but there was no such unfairness in the instant case.
Oxford University v Webb, High Ct, 13/10/2006
Despite its efforts to avoid the formal trappings of an organisation, the Animal Liberation Front was a coherent organisation that was capable of being represented in a legal action.
Cinpres Gas Injection Ltd v Melea Ltd, High Ct (Ch D: Patents Ct) 9/10/2006
The fact that a crucial witness had committed perjury in proceedings before the Patent Office did not affect the decision reached in those proceedings, as the party for whose benefit the perjury operated had not suborned or knowingly relied on the perjury.
Pakistan v Zardari & Ors, High Ct (Comm) 6/10/2006
Applications to set aside an order allowing service out of the jurisdiction were refused where a foreign government had demonstrated that its claim for the proceeds of sale of a property located within the jurisdiction had a real prospect of success and that there was a serious issue to be tried.
Casey v Cartwright, CA (Civ Div) 5/10/2006
The Court of Appeal gave guidance on the procedure to be followed where a defendant in a low-velocity road traffic claim sought to adduce his own expert evidence on causation.
Nesheim v Kosa, High Ct (Ch D) 4/10/2006
It had been right to grant a party in a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 retrospective permission for service outside the jurisdiction where to deny him permission would be contrary to the overriding principles of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998.
|
