|
Tweed v Parades Commission for Northern Ireland; HL (Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hoffman, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Carswell, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood) 13/12/2006; Times, December 15, 2006
Where an application for judicial review turned on the proportionality of the defendant's actions, the disclosure of documents would be ordered more readily than in an application where such an issue did not arise. In cases involving issues of proportionality, disclosure should be carefully limited to the issues which required it in the interests of justice.
Aird & Anr v Prime Meridian Ltd, CA (Civ Div) 21/12/2006
Where an expert joint statement was made pursuant to CPR r.35.12 and was not privileged, it did not acquire without prejudice status because it was used in mediation.
Dadourian Group International Inc & Ors v Simms & Ors, CA (Civ Div) 20/12/2006
When deciding whether to release a party in whose favour a freezing order had been made from an undertaking not to use, in contempt proceedings, information obtained from the other party as a result of the order, the court should consider whether it would be just and convenient for that information to be so used for the purpose of enforcing or policing the freezing order.
Quietfield Ltd v Vascroft Construction Ltd, CA (Civ Div) 20/12/2006
The judge was right to refuse summary judgment to enforce an adjudicator's decision where the adjudicator had erred in treating his own decision in an earlier adjudication as conclusive in relation to an extension of time in a subsequent adjudication: the alleged entitlement to an extension of time relied on in the later adjudication was substantially different from the claim put forward and rejected in the first adjudication.
Simms v Conlon & Anr, CA (Civ Div) 20/12/2006
In the circumstances it was not an abuse of the court process to challenge the factual findings in an earlier action as it was not manifestly unfair to the parties to the later proceedings that the same issues should be relitigated and to permit such relitigation did not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
Diamond v Mansfield & Ors, High Ct, 20/12/2006
Whilst the Bar Council, when considering or dealing with a prosecution in respect of a disciplinary matter, had to apply the principles of natural justice and could not act out of improper motive, malice or bad faith, that was a duty owed to all its members and did not arise out of a contract with any one individual member.
Tankaria & Ors v Morgan & Ors, High Ct (Ch D) 19/12/2006
Given that the claimants had been largely successful in relation to the relief claimed in Part 8 proceedings issued against the defendant solicitors, the master had been wrong to make no order as to costs. Having regard to the issues on which the claimants had succeeded, they were awarded 75 per cent of their costs.
Sayers & Ors v Smithkline Beecham Plc & Ors, High Ct, 11/12/2006
The court made orders in relation to the case management of the MMR/MR vaccine litigation, in particular as to the extension of time for the serving of particulars of claim and a medical report and for relief from the sanction of striking out, and also as to whether the status of the litigation as group litigation should be brought to an end.
Olafsson v Gissurarson, High Ct, 8/12/2006
A master should not have exercised his discretion under CPR r.3.10 to rectify an error in respect of service of proceedings outside the jurisdiction in the instant circumstances where service was not by one of the prescribed methods under Icelandic law.
Cattley & Ors v Pollard, High Ct (Ch D) 7/12/2006
The Limitation Act 1980 s.21(1)(a) did not apply to dishonest assistance claims and the normal primary period of limitation of six years from the date of the accrual of the cause of action applied. In the circumstances, s.21(3) and s.32 of the Act applied to postpone the running of the primary period of limitation with the consequence that the dishonest assistance claims were not time barred.
Richardson v Watson, CA (Civ Div) 6/12/2006; Times, December 13, 2006
Where a claimant had not given timely notice of her claim to the Motor Insurers' Bureau and the MIB was not prepared to overlook the fact, there was no objection in principle to the claimant discontinuing proceedings and commencing a fresh action in which a timely notice was given to the MIB.
Corbett v South Yorkshire Strategic Health Authority, CA (Civ Div) 6/12/2006
A case management decision not to adjourn the determination of the appropriate measure of indexation for periodical payments due to the claimant for his future care pending the outcome of an appeal to the Court of Appeal in another case had been appropriate.
CC v AB, High Ct, 4/12/2006
There was no general rule that an adulterer could never obtain an injunction to restrain the publication of matters relating to his adulterous relationship. In the circumstances an interim injunction was granted to restrain the respondent from publicising the fact that the applicant had had an affair with the respondent's wife.
The Stax Claimants v Bank of Nova Scotia Channel Islands Ltd & Ors, High Ct (Ch D) 30/11/.2006
The court declined to make a final ruling on whether certain lead cases would be selected for trial from those of 45 claimants, although it favoured that route, and directed that a further case management conference should be held when the claimants had clarified issues in respect of after the event insurance and their attitude to the lead case approach.
|
