|
Receiver’s Remuneration
Capewell v Revenue & Customs Commissioners & Anr, HL (Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffman, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Lord Mance) 31/01/2007; Times, February 1, 2007
The CPR r.69.7(2) did not override the scheme whereby a receiver's remuneration and expenses were to be paid out of the receivership assets.
Security for Costs
International Hospitals Group Ltd v Kuenyehia & Ors, CA (Civ Div) 27/02/2007
The judge had erred in refusing to make an order for security for costs against the respondents as they had failed to show that an order for security for costs would stifle their claim against the appellant.
Applications for Permission to Appeal
7E Communications Ltd v Vertex Antennentechnik Gmbh, CA (Civ Div) 26/02/2007
An application for permission to appeal could not be "leapfrogged" to the Court of Appeal.
Appeal against Summary Judgment
McFaddens Solicitors v Chandasekaran, CA (Civ Div) 26/2/2007
In allowing an appeal against the refusal of an application for summary judgment, the judge had conducted a review within the meaning of CPR r.52.11 rather than a re-hearing.
Disclosure Orders
Mersey Care NHS Trust v Ackroyd, CA (Civ Div) 21/02/2007; Times, February 26, 2007
Although an order against a newspaper for disclosure of a source, who had supplied confidential information in relation to a patient, had been made in earlier proceedings that resulted in the disclosure of the name of a journalist, a judge in later proceedings against the journalist for disclosure of the source's name had been entitled to refuse to order disclosure because his findings were based on different facts due to new evidence and the passage of time.
Settlement Offer not made under CPR Part 36
Hirst & Ors v Trustees of The Irk MacLaren Settlement & Anr, CA (Civ Div) 20/02/2007
The recorder had been correct to hold that an offer to settle was not a CPR Part 36 offer and had made no error of principle in his approach to a costs order.
Claims struck out – Abuse of Process
Colman v Scott & Ors, High Ct, 09/02/2007
Claims against officers and employees of the General Medical Council were struck out as a clear abuse of process where the claimant had previously brought unsuccessful claims arising from the same or similar grievances against the GMC itself.
Sweetman v Shepherd & Ors, High Ct, 02/02/2007
Where a claimant had issued proceedings in 1997 and had persistently failed to comply with directions and orders and had not progressed the litigation for long periods of time to the extent that his conduct of the case amounted to an abuse of process, it was just to strike out his claims.
Applications for Pre-action Disclosure
Nikitin & Ors v Butler & Ors, High Ct, 09/02/2007
Applications for Norwich Pharmaceutical orders and pre-action disclosure were refused where proceedings could fairly be brought and pursued without further disclosure and the applications and any order made on them would only serve to increase costs, not save them.
Independent Froebel Educational Institute v Sodexho Education Services Ltd, High Ct, 05/02/2007
The court declined to order pre-action disclosure where one of the necessary conditions under CPR r.31.16, namely, that the respondent would have been under a duty to disclose the classes of documents sought by way of standard disclosure had proceedings begun, had not been satisfied.
Total E&P Soudan SA v Edmonds & Ors, CA (Civ Div) 31/01/2007
Generally, when considering an application under CPR r.31.16 for pre-action disclosure, the court did not need to and should not embark upon a consideration of difficult legal issues such as justiciability and convenient forum that could more appropriately be raised after proceedings had been started.
Administration of Justice
Battista v Bassano & Anr, CA (Civ Div) 08/02/2007
In a case where a judge found one account of events to be more credible and reliable than another, there was no duty on him to give exhaustive reasons for his finding provided that he had shown the basis upon which he made his decision and had given enough detail for an appellate court to understand the rationale of his judgment.
Interim Payment Applications
Spillman v Bradfield Riding Centre, High Ct, 06/02/2007
The determination of the amount of an interim payment had to be in accordance with CPR r.25.7(4) rather than by consideration of the purpose for which the payment was sought.
Freezing Order
Director of the Assets Recovery Agency v Kean, High Ct (Admin) 31/01/2007
A property freezing order obtained by the Assets Recovery Agency was not discharged despite it having been obtained by non-disclosure and innocent misrepresentation at a without notice hearing, because the agency's misjudgment had not been serious and a broad, merits-based evaluation of all the circumstances found no abuse of process .
Champerty
Mansell v Robinson, High Ct, 30/01/2007
A claimant's action had not been champertous as the mere fact that litigation services had been provided in return for a promise of a share of the proceeds was not by itself sufficient to justify that promise being held to be unenforceable.
|
