Pannone LLP v Aardvark Digital Ltd – WLR Daily

Posted July 14th, 2011 in appeals, civil procedure rules, consent orders, law reports, time limits by tracey

Pannone LLP v Aardvark Digital Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 803;  [2011] WLR (D)  223

“The court had power to extend the time for compliance with a court order, pursuant to CPR r 3.1(2)(a), and to grant relief from a sanction prescribed by a court order as the consequence of a failure to comply within a specified time, pursuant to CPR r 3.8, even where the order had been made by consent.”

WLR Daily, 12th July 2011

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Millburn-Snell and others v Evans – WLR Daily

Millburn-Snell and others v Evans [2011] EWCA Civ 577; [2011] WLR (D) 179

“To bring a claim on behalf of an intestate’s estate a claimant should first obtain a grant of administration as a claim purportedly brought by a claimant without a grant of administration was an incurable nullity. CPR r 19.8(1) did not confer on the court jurisdiction to correct deficiencies in the manner in which proceedings had been instituted. It was concerned only with directions for the forward prosecution towards trial of validly instituted proceedings.”

WLR Daily, 25th May 2011

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Committee Reports Findings on “Super-injunctions” – Judiciary of England and Wales

Posted May 20th, 2011 in anonymity, civil procedure rules, injunctions, reports by tracey

“A Committee chaired by the Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger, has published its findings on super-injunctions, anonymity injunctions and open justice.Its report has been made to the Lord Chief Justice, the Lord Chancellor, and the Civil Procedure Rules Committee.”

Full report

Judiciary of England and Wales, 20th May 2011

Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk

North Shore Ventures Ltd v Anstead Holdings Inc and others – WLR Daily

Posted April 20th, 2011 in civil procedure rules, disclosure, evidence, law reports, private hearings by sally

North Shore Ventures Ltd v Anstead Holdings Inc and others [2011] EWHC 910 (Ch); [2011] WLR (D) 138

“Para 1.5 of Practice Direction 39A supplementing CPR Pt 39 did not deem a hearing to be in private which had not been listed as a private matter. The general rule for proceedings to be held in public unless otherwise stated applied to proceedings not listed in private.”

WLR Daily, 13th April 2011

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

The Lawyer’s great debate: e-disclosure – The Lawyer

Posted March 21st, 2011 in civil procedure rules, disclosure, electronic filing, news by sally

“One of the biggest issues in litigation management at the moment is e-disclosure.”

Full story

The Lawyer, 21st March 2011

Source: www.thelawyer.com

Regina (Parsipoor) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Regina (Salih and another) v Same – WLR Daily

Regina (Parsipoor) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Regina (Salih and another) v Same [2011] EWCA Civ 276; [2011] WLR (D) 97

“A claimant in a claim for judicial review was entitled to an oral hearing even where the claims were academic.”

WLR Daily, 17th March 2011

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Regina (Medical Justice) v Secretary of State for the Home Department – WLR Daily

Posted March 21st, 2011 in appeals, civil procedure rules, judicial review, law reports by sally

Regina (Medical Justice) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 269; [2011] WLR (D) 95

“Where a party sought permission to appeal from a judge and permission was granted on terms, that party had no right to appeal against those terms by reason of section 54(4) of the Access to Justice Act 1999, unless the party concerned was not present at the permission hearing at which the terms were imposed. The proper course was either to accept the terms, or to treat them as a refusal of permission and to make a fresh application under section 54(4) to the appropriate appeal court for permission.”

WLR Daily, 16th March 2011

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Bank of Scotland v Pereira and others – WLR Daily

“A party against whom a judgment in default of appearance had been given was entitled to apply to set aside that decision, if she met the three conditions in CPR r 39.3, and could seek to appeal against the default judgment under CPR Pt 52 whether or not she could comply with the rule 39.3 conditions. The Court of Appeal gave guidelines on the interrelationship between an application to set aside and an appeal against the same judgment.”
WLR Daily, 10th March 2011
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Cecil and others v Bayat and others – WLR Daily

Cecil and others v Bayat and others [2011] EWCA Civ 135; [2011] WLR (D) 51

“The claimants in a proposed action for breach of contract and damages were not entitled unilaterally to decide to postpone service of their claim form out of the jurisdiction under CPR 7.6(1). They should have served the form in the period of its initial validity, and, if they were not in a financial position to proceed immediately with the claim, they should have issued an application seeking a stay, or an extension of the time for procedural steps to be taken. The fact that the claimants spent the period of initial validity seeking a conditional fee agreement and after-the-event insurance was not a valid reason for their not having served the claim form, since their funds were sufficient to serve the claim even if they were not then in a position to fund the entire course of the litigation.”

WLR Daily, 21st February 2011

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Hydropool Hot Tubs Ltd v Roberjot and another – WLR Daily

Posted February 9th, 2011 in affidavits, civil procedure rules, contempt of court, law reports by sally

Hydropool Hot Tubs Ltd v Roberjot and another [2011] EWHC 121 (Ch); [2011] WLR (D) 38

“CPR r 32.14 had no application to an allegation of contempt by knowingly swearing a false affidavit.”

WLR Daily, 7th February 2011

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Co SAL and another (No 2) – WLR Daily

Posted January 24th, 2011 in affidavits, civil procedure rules, disclosure, evidence, law reports by sally

Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Co SAL and another (No 2) [2011] EWCA Civ 21; [2011] WLR (D) 11

“Save in exceptional circumstances, para 4.2 of the Practice Direction supporting CPR Pt 32 required the deponent of an affidavit to identify the source of the relevant information or belief stated in the affidavit. If the source was a person that person must, save in exceptional circumstances, be identified with sufficient certainty to enable to person against whom the affidavit was directed to investigate the information or belief in accordance with the rules of court or other relevant legal principles.”

WLR Daily, 21st Janaury 2011

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Swain-Mason and others v Mills & Reeve (a firm) – WLR Daily

Posted January 24th, 2011 in amendments, civil procedure rules, law reports, pleadings by sally

Swain-Mason and others v Mills & Reeve (a firm) [2011] EWCA Civ 14; [2011] WLR (D)

“In determining whether to grant a late application to amend a pleading a balance was always to be struck. The court was concerned with doing justice, but justice to all litigants, and thus where a last-minute amendment was sought the onus would be heavy on the amending party to show the strength of the new case and why justice to him, his opponent and other litigants required him to be able to pursue it.”

WLR Daily, 21st January 2011

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Huscroft v P & O Ferries Ltd – WLR Daily

Posted January 5th, 2011 in civil procedure rules, costs, law reports, payment into court by sally

Huscroft v P & O Ferries Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 148; [2010] WLR (D) 348

“CPR r 3.1(3), which permitted a court to attach conditions to the making of an order, was intended to control the future conduct of proceedings and not to punish previous misconduct.”

WLR Daily, 4th January 2011

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Barclays Bank plc v Guy – WLR Daily

Posted December 10th, 2010 in appeals, civil procedure rules, jurisdiction, law reports by sally

Barclays Bank plc v Guy [2010] EWCA Civ 1396; [2010] WLR (D) 321

“Where an application was made to reopen a refusal of permission to appeal by the Court of Appeal, the criteria to be applied should be the same as where application was made, pursuant to CPR r 52.17(1), to reopen a final judgment reached after a full trial.”

WLR Daily, 9th December 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Emerald Supplies Ltd and another v British Airways plc – WLR Daily

Emerald Supplies Ltd and another v British Airways plc [2010] EWCA Civ 1284; [2010] WLR (D) 294

“For a case to fall within CPR r 19.6, a claimant who had brought a representative action on behalf of the claimant and other representative claimants had to show at all stages of the proceedings that the interest of the claimant and all potential represented claimants was same.”

WLR Daily, 19th November 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

C v D and another – WLR Daily

Posted November 19th, 2010 in civil procedure rules, law reports, part 36 offers, time limits by sally

C v D and another [2010] EWHC 2940 (Ch); [2010] WLR (D) 292

“A time-limited offer was not capable of being an offer within the meaning of CPR Pt 36, which established that an offer must be capable of acceptance unless and until withdrawn by service of a notice within CPR r 36.9(2).”

WLR Daily, 18th November 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Aktas v Adepta; Dixie v British Polythene Industries plc – WLR Daily

Posted October 27th, 2010 in civil procedure rules, law reports, limitations, negligence, service by sally

Aktas v Adepta; Dixie v British Polythene Industries plc [2010] EWCA Civ 1170 ; [2010] WLR(D) 269

“Negligent failure to serve a claim form in time for the purposes of CPR rr 7.5/7.6 was not in itself an abuse of process. Nevertheless, failure to serve on time had always been dealt with strictly. This was because in England, unlike most civil law jurisdictions, proceedings were commenced when issued and not when served. But it was not until service that the defendant was given proper notice of the proceedings. The additional time between issue and service was thus, in a way, an extension of the limitation period. A claimant could issue proceedings on the last day of the limitation period and still enjoy a further four-month period before service. The strictness with which the time for service was supervised thus had valid public interest underpinnings which were quite separate from the doctrine of abuse of process.”

WLR Daily, 26th October 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Broomleigh Housing Association Ltd v Okonkwo – WLR Daily

Posted October 14th, 2010 in civil procedure rules, committals, law reports by sally

Broomleigh Housing Association Ltd v Okonkwo [2010] EWCA Civ 1113; [2010] WLR (D) 251

“If, following an application by a creditor for an order to gain information from a judgment debtor, the debtor failed to attend court the judge should not use a committal order, even when suspended, as little more than a vehicle for fixing a date for an effective adjourned hearing. A judge had a discretion whether to make such an order and should exercise it, and be seen to exercise it, with due regard to its seriousness.”

WLR Daily, 13th October 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Procedure Rules – updates to civil rules come into force – Ministry of Justice

Posted October 4th, 2010 in civil procedure rules, news by sally

“Updates to the rules on how some types of civil cases are managed or prepared for court come into force on 1 October.”

Full story

Ministry of Justice, 1st October 2010

Source: www.justice.gov.uk

Lockheed Martin Corpn v Willis Group Ltd – WLR Daily

Posted August 9th, 2010 in appeals, civil procedure rules, law reports, limitations, mistake, substitution by sally

Lockheed Martin Corpn v Willis Group Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 927; [2010] WLR (D) 225

“Where a party was to be substituted on the grounds of mistake under CPR r 19.5 there was no further formal jurisdictional requirement that the mistake was not misleading to the other party or did not cause reasonable doubt as to the identity of the party intended to be sued.”

WLR Daily, 5th August 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.