Emerald Supplies Ltd v British Airways plc [2009] EWHC 741 (Ch); [2009] WLR (D) 136
“The court had no jurisdiction to make a representation order under CPR r 19.6 where the criteria for inclusion in the class depended on the outcome of the action itself.”
WLR Daily, 9th April 2009
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.
“The changes made ten years ago have been a disaster for the civil justice system and need a radical rethink.”
The Times, 9th April 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Bovale Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another
Court of Appeal
“While a judge had no power to alter the Civil Procedure Rules or vary any practice direction, either by a judgment or purported practice direction, he did have an inherent jurisdiction to include procedural directions of a general application where there was a gap in the rules or in the practice directions.”
The Times, 23rd March 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
“A judge had no power to alter the Civil Procedure Rules either by a judgment or practice direction or to vary or alter any practice direction which was binding on the court to which it was directed. Where there was a gap in the Rules or practice directions pending the giving of a practice direction, a judge had inherent jurisdiction to include procedural directions of general application in his judgment.”
WLR Daily, 12th March 2009
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.
“A consultation being conducted on behalf of the Civil Procedure Rule Committee on proposals to amend part 44 of the Civil Procedure Rules by inserting rules on costs capping orders. The consultation also proposes amendments to the Costs Practice Direction to provide guidance on costs capping. The proposals are drawn from current case law and so do not propose new policy.”
Ministry of Justice, 23rd February 2009
Source: www.justice.gov.uk
Court of Appeal
“Since the introduction of the Civil Procedure Rules, applications for the setting aside of orders made without notice were governed by rule 23.10, and determined by the court exercising the discretion given by that rule in accordance with the overriding objective to do justice.”
The Times, 4th February 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
The Woolf Reforms: A singular event or an ongoing process?
Speech by Sir Anthony Clarke, Master of the Rolls
British Academy, 2nd December 2008
Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk
“There are two new provisions which are outside the usual timetable for amendments to the CPR.”
The Bar Council, 10th December 2008
Source: www.barcouncil.org.uk
“The court had jurisdiction under CPR r 19.2(a) to join parties as claimants to national court proceedings in which questions had been referred to the Court of Justice of the European Communities where the joinder applications were solely for the purpose of making submissions to the Court of Justice on the referred questions.”
WLR Daily, 14th November 2008
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.
“Civil Procedure Rule Committee annual report 2008.”
Ministry of Justice, 12th November 2008
Source: www.justice.gov.uk
“Courts will have formal powers to make costs-capping orders under changes proposed by the civil procedure rule committee.”
Law Society’s Gazette, 18th September 2008
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
“A consultation being conducted on behalf of the Civil Procedure Rule Committee on proposals to amend part 44 of the Civil Procedure Rules by inserting rules on costs capping orders. The consultation also proposes amendments to the Costs Practice Direction to provide guidance on costs capping. The proposals are drawn from current case law and so do not propose new policy.”
Ministry of Justice, 12th September 2008
Source: www.justice.gov.uk
“The latest Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) are due to come into force fully on 1 October 2008. There are changes in a large number of areas.”
The Bar Council, 2nd September 2008
Source: www.barcouncil.org.uk
Leofelis SA and Another v Lonsdale Sports Ltd and Others
Court of Appeal
“It was appropriate for economy of documentation in appeals for parties to cooperate in making the bundles as convenient as possible, even in ways which the Practice Direction to Part 52 of the Civil Procedure Rules might not allow.”
The Times, 23rd July 2008
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
“The post-consultation report contains a summary of responses to the consultation, a detailed response to the specific questions raised in the report and the next steps following the consultation.”
Response to consultation (PDF)
Ministry of Justice, 18th March 2008
Source: www.justice.gov.uk
Regina (George Wimpey UK Ltd) v Tewkesbury Borough Council
Court of Appeal
“The Court of Appeal had power to grant permission to appeal to a party who had not been in the case at first instance.”
The Times, 25th February 2008
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
Martin v Triggs Turner Barton (a Firm) and Others
“The court was entitled to make an order to ensure that specific disclosure was carried out properly.”
The Times, 5th February 2008
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
“The Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to entertain an application by, and to grant permission to, someone who had not been a party to the proceedings in the court below, to enable them to appeal against the decision of the court below. The word “appellant” as defined in CPR Pt 52 did not exclude someone who had not been a party to the proceedings below and the rule should be interpreted in order to meet the overriding objective of enabling the court to deal with cases justly.”
WLR Daily, 31st January 2008
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.
Disproportionate exercise of judicial power
Lambeth London Borough Council v Onayomake
Court of Appeal
“Where a counterclaim had been made on substantial grounds in a possession action, it was a disproportionate exercise of judicial power to strike out a defence and counterclaim when the defendant’s legal representative had failed to file a check list on time.”
The Times, 2nd November 2007
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication
A UK Perspective on EU Civil Justice – Impact on Domestic Dispute Resolution (pdf)
Speech by Sir Anthony Clarke, Master of the Rolls.
EU Civil Justice Day Conference, 25th October 2007
Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024