Mittal v Mittal: [2013] EWCA Civ ; [2013] WLR (D) 391
“Paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 to the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973 gave the courts of England and Wales jurisdiction to stay matrimonial proceedings in favour of competing prior proceedings in a non-member state.”
WLR Daily, 18th October 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Tim Amos QC and Duncan Brooks of Queen Elizabeth Building, counsel for the respondent, consider the issues and implications of the Court of Appeal’s important judgment in Mittal v Mittal.”
Family Law Week, 20th October 2013
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
“An attempt by MasterCard to avoid a multi-billion damages claim from a dozen retailers because the monthly due diligence costs charged by its lawyers at Jones Day could be as much as £700,000 has been rejected by the High Court.”
The Lawyer, 16th October 2013
Source: www.thelawyer.com
“Section 8(1) of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 allowed for a promisor to give a third party an enforceable substantive right subject to a procedural condition on which the promisor might but need not insist. Section 8(2) of the Act allowed for a promisor to give a third party an enforceable procedural right which the third party might but need not exercise, since the right was unilateral.”
WLR Daily, 17th April 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Where it was alleged that illegal actions of state agents constituted an abuse of the process of the court, it was not necessary to prove actual knowledge of that illegality for abuse of process to be established. There might be situations where mere recklessness or even negligent conduct could justify a stay on grounds of abuse of process.”
WLR Daily, 19th October 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“A claimant affected by, but not party to, a country guidance determination which was under appeal to the Court of Appeal was not entitled to an automatic stay of removal pending the outcome of the appeal. It was in the court’s discretion to grant a stay, but the court should not stay removal pending the decision of the Court of Appeal unless the claimant had adduced a clear and coherent body of evidence that the findings of the tribunal were in error.”
WLR Daily, 13th July 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Samsung Electronics (UK) Ltd v Apple Inc: [2012] EWCA Civ 729; [2012] WLR (D) 166
“Where the proprietor of a registered Community design, the validity of which was already in issue in proceedings before the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) or another Community design court, brought a counterclaim alleging infringement of the design against a claimant who had issued a claim in a Community design court seeking a declaration of non-infringement, the stay of proceedings required by article 91(1) of the Community Design Regulation was a stay of the counterclaim, not the claim.”
WLR Daily, 30th May 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Secretary of State for the Home Department v CB and another [2012] EWCA Civ 418; [2012] WLR (D) 112
“Where a court made a non-derogating control order in proceedings against a person under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, it had no jurisdiction to order a permanent stay of such proceedings under the Act nor under its case management powers in the Civil Procedure Rules, unless the controlled person requested such a course of action.”
WLR Daily, 3rd April 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The Employment Tribunal system is under attack! It is regularly exposed to criticism as being inefficient, costing those who participate in it too much money and amounting to a disproportionate burden on business. Such criticism has been made all the more fiercely of late both because of the economic climate and also because the Government has been reviewing the Employment Tribunal system with the express aim of reducing the burden placed on business by it.”
Full story (PDF)
11 KBW, 10th November 2011
Source: www.11kbw.com
Regina v F(S) [2011] EWCA Crim 1844; [2011] WLR (D) 242
“An application to stay criminal proceedings for abuse of process on grounds of delay and a submission of ‘no case to answer’ were two distinct matters which had to receive distinct and separate consideration. An application to stay for abuse of process on the grounds of delay could not succeed unless, exceptionally, a fair trial was no longer possible owing to prejudice to the defendant caused by the delay which could not fairly be addressed in the normal trial process, whereas on a submission of ‘no case’ the question was whether the evidence, viewed overall, was such that the jury could properly convict.”
WLR Daily, 21st July 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Fulham Football Club (1987) v Richards and another [2011] EWCA Civ 855; [2011] WLR (D) 241
“A dispute between a premier league football club and the first and second defendants, the chairman of the Football Association Premier League Ltd and the company itself, was covered by arbitration clauses in the rules of the company and the Football Association. Neither the Companies Act 2006 nor considerations of public policy prohibited the submission to arbitration of matters relating to an unfair prejudice petition under section 994 of the 2006 Act.”
WLR Daily, 21st July 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
FKI Engineering Ltd and another v Stribog Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 622; [2011] WLR (D) 178
“Where unrelated actions in different member states of the European Union subsequently became related by virtue of the amendment of the earlier action to include an issue related to the later action, the court seised of the later action had a discretion to stay that action on the grounds that it was no longer the court first seised for the purposes of article 28(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (‘the Judgments Regulation’).”
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.
Bilta (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) v Nazir and others [2010] EWHC 1086 (Ch); [2010] WLR (D) 129
“An application for a stay of legal proceedings made under s 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996 was not subject to the procedural rules contained in CPR Pt 11 for challenging the jurisdiction of the court. An application for an extension of time to serve the defence was not a step in the proceedings to answer the substantive claim and the defendant was not debarred from seeking a stay by s 9(3) of the Act.”
WLR Daily, 19th May 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.
“One of Britain’s most senior judges said yesterday that libel courts must not become places where religious and doctrinal differences are hammered out.”
The Independent, 18th May 2010
Source: www.independent.co.uk
“Where corresponding proceedings were in existence between the same parties in another jurisdiction, the court had no power to grant a stay, in favour of the courts of a non-EU country, of proceedings of which the court was properly seised under art 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.”
WLR Daily, 6th August 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.
Youell and Others v La Reunion Aerienne
Court of Appeal
“The mere fact that a claim was the subject of an arbitration agreement did not deprive a court, which could otherwise determine the substance of the claim, of its jurisdiction under Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, the Brussels I Convention.”
The Times, 27th 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.
Youell v La Reunion Aerienne [2009] EWCA Civ 175; [2009] WLR (D) 95
“Where a court could otherwise determine the substance of a claim, the mere fact that the claim was the subject of an arbitration agreement did not deprive the court of its jurisdiction under Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. What was critical was the nature of the claim.”
WLR Daily, 12th March 2009
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Court of Appeal
“A stay of an arbitration could be obtained only against a party to that arbitration agreement or a person claiming through such a party; a legal or commercial connection was not sufficient.”
The Times, 1st December 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.
“A stay under s 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996 could only be obtained against a party to an arbitration agreement or a person claiming through or under such a party and a mere legal or commercial connection was not sufficient.”
WLR Daily, 24th 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.
Court of Appeal
“Where there was a reasonable chance that the Court of Justice of the European Communities might decide a case pending before it so as to give a plaintiff a good claim in the English courts, the sensible answer was to stay the hearing of the claimant’s case so that it would not be snuffed out before the European Court decision became known.”
The Times, 27th June 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.
© Inner Temple Library 2024