|
FFSB Ltd v Seward & Kissel LLP, PC (Bah) (Lord Hoffman, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Sir Christopher Rose) 13/03/2007
An order for service outside the jurisdiction of the Bahamas of a third party notice was reinstated since it was at least arguable that the action was founded on a tort committed within the jurisdiction.
Bishara v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, CA (Civ Div) 26/03/2007
The judge had erred in granting summary judgment in a claim for personal injuries as it was not possible to say that no duty of care was owed until the claim had been advanced and the evidence tested.
Nesbitt v Holt, CA (Civ Div) 26/03/2007
Proceedings in the high court, which raised the issue of whether a representative of the Citizens' Advice Bureau had had authority to settle an employment claim, and about which the employment tribunal had already made a finding, had not been an abuse of process because on the facts it would not be manifestly unfair to require the representative to defend the proceedings.
Colman v Scott & ors, High Court, 9/02/02
In the last issue of PI Brief Update, we reported the following about this case: “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.” We have since had drawn to our attention an order of the Court of Appeal of 26/1/07 involving the Claimant's original case against the GMC. That order makes clear that the Claimant agreed to withdraw her Taylor v Lawrence application on the basis that the GMC did not claim its costs in that application and further the Court of Appeal (which had before them the pleadings in Colman v Scott & ors) stayed the enforcement of existing costs orders the GMC had against the Claimant for three months “in order to enable possible to negotiations to take place between the parties and their representatives with a view to disposing of all the litigation between the parties.”
Smith v Hampshire County Council, CA (Civ Div) 22/03/2007
In the circumstances a claim for education neglect was statute-barred because the claimant had had relevant knowledge for the purposes of the Limitation Act 1980 s.14 more than three years before the commencement of proceedings, and the limitation period should not be disapplied under s.33 of the Act because of the serious prejudice to the defendant.
Elektrim SA v Vivendi Universal SA & Ors, High Ct (Comm) 20/03/2007
Before the court could consider granting an injunction to restrain an arbitration governed by the Arbitration Act 1996 a claimant had to demonstrate that the prosecution of the arbitration was an act which would entitle the court to invoke the jurisdiction to grant injunctions under the Supreme Court Act 1981 s.37 and that the grant of an injunction was consistent with the statutory scheme of the 1996 Act.
Janik v Standards Board for England & Anr, High Ct (Admin) 20/03/2007
In the exceptional circumstances a case tribunal of the Adjudication Panel for England had been entitled to determine a case, alleging breach by a former local authority councillor of a code of conduct, in the absence of that individual who had presented a medical certificate in support of his contention that he was unfit to attend the hearing.
La Caisse Regional du Credit Agricole Nord de France v Ashdown, High Ct, 15/03/2007
An order for a French judgment to be registered in England was set aside where the evidence showed that the judgment was not enforceable in France as required by Regulation 44/2001 Art.38.
Butland v Powys City Council, High Ct (Admin) 15/03/2007
An indication by an individual that he wished to have all future correspondence relating to a noise investigation by a local authority sent to a particular address did not mean that that address was a proper address for the service of a noise abatement notice pursuant to the Environmental Protection Act 1990 s.160, as a noise abatement notice was not a form of communication by letter and did not come within the meaning of the word correspondence.
Matthews v Metal Improvements Co Inc, CA (Civ Div) 14/03/2007
A judge giving the claimant permission to accept out of time a sum paid into court had not identified any fact that made it unjust to make the usual order for the claimant to pay the defendant's costs after the expiration of 21 days from the payment into court.
Halifax Life Ltd v Equitable Life Assurance Society, High Ct (Comm) 13/03/2007
It was open to the High Court to direct an expert who had made an expert's determination in his capacity as an umpire in a dispute between parties to state further reasons for his determination.
Les Laboratoires Servier v Apotex Inc, High Ct (Ch D: Patents Ct) 13/03/2007
Where a party made an application at a late stage for permission to withdraw an admission, there had to be plausible grounds for supposing that the admission made was false in fact. In the instant case, the evidence relied on by the claimant patentees did not throw doubt on the correctness of the admission that they had made.
A-G v BBC, CA (Civ Div) 12/03/2007
Where an injunction that prevented the publication of documents and of the legal argument involved in relation to the "cash for honours" investigation had been varied by consent so that only the reporting of the legal argument was restricted the judge had erred in refusing to discharge the injunction in relation to that legal argument.
Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust, CA (Civ Div) 07/03/2007; Times, March 19, 2007
In whistleblowing cases, a similar approach to that taken in discrimination cases was appropriate, namely, that a claim for unfair dismissal should not be struck out except in the most obvious and plain circumstances, especially in fact-sensitive cases.
The Trustee in Bankruptcy of Richard Canty v Canty, CA (Civ Div) 05/03/2007
The judge had been right to make a committal order and impose a sentence of six months' imprisonment against a bankrupt who had failed to give up his property after a possession order had been made against him.
Reader & Ors v Molesworths Bright Clegg Solicitors, CA (Civ Div) 02/03/2007
Pursuant to the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 s.1, if at the moment of his death, an injured claimant had an existing cause of action arising from the wrongful act that caused his injuries, and if he died as the result of the same wrongful act, a second cause of action for the benefit of his dependants would come into being at that moment. That action for bereavement or dependency would not be extinguished where the original personal injury claim had been discontinued.
Cheshire Building Society v Dunlop Haywards (DHL) Ltd, High Ct, 02/03/2007
An application for pre-action disclosure was refused where the case of the party seeking disclosure was not specifically formulated and it was not clear that the duty by way of standard disclosure would extend to the documents sought.
Campaign Against Arms Trade v BAE Systems Plc, High Ct, 26/02/2007
An application for the respondent to disclose documents or information identifying the source of a leaked email, under the principle in Norwich Pharmacal Co v Customs & Excise Commissioners (1973) 117 SJ 567, would be granted where the requirements for the court's discretionary equitable jurisdiction were satisfied and the disclosure was a necessary and proportionate response in all the circumstances.
Del-Grosso v Payne & Payne (A Firm) CA (Civ Div) 01/03/2007
In negligence proceedings brought against a firm of solicitors, a judge had erred in allowing an amendment to the particulars of claim as the new cause of action did not arise from the same or substantially the same facts as the original cause of action as required by the Limitation Act 1980 s.35.
McFaddens Solicitors v Chandrasekaran, CA (Civ Div) 26/02/2007
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.
|
