‘God, we are told, loves a trier. Perhaps fortunately, the Court of Appeal takes a less emollient approach with an unlawful money lender who has been repeatedly featured on this site.’
NearlyLegal, 23rd April 2014
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘In the brave new world created by the Court of Appeal decision in Mitchell v Newsgroup Newspapers Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1537, claimants whose claims have been struck out for failure to comply with a rule, practice direction or order are honing in on second actions as a way of bringing their litigation back to life. The threatened slew of professional negligence suits post-Mitchell could be avoided if lawyers subject to a Mitchell strike-out are able to placate their clients by simply re-issuing proceedings against the defendant.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 13th March 2014
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) has taken the unusual step of striking out a case against two solicitors in the middle of the hearing, after the integrity of the investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) was thrown into question.’
Legal Futures, 14th March 2014
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘A High Court judges has sent a strong message to county courts about dealing with applications for relief from sanctions in a case where “a wholesale and flagrant disregard” of directions occurred.’
Litigation Futures, 25th November 2013
Source: www.www.litigationfutures.com
“The case of Mr John Scarborough v Canterbury Christ Church University (Scarborough) which was recently decided carries potentially significant implications in terms of bringing a case that may fall under separate heads of action.This article discusses this decision and its practical effect on future litigation.”
Hardwicke Chambers, 7th November 2013
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
“An increasing number of reports are emerging of hardline decisions by district judges over non-compliance with the CPR or breach of orders and directions.”
Litigation Futures, 19th November 2013
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
W H Newson Holding Ltd and others v IMI plc and others [2013] EWCA Civ 1377: [2013] WLR (D) 432
“On its true interpretation, section 47A of the Competition Act 1998, which permitted a claimant to bring a follow-on claim to recover damages based on a finding of an infringement of competition law by the Commission of the European Union, permitted a claimant to bring a conspiracy claim provided that all the ingredients of the cause of action could be established by infringement findings in the Commission’s decision.”
WLR Daily, 12th November 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“On the 13th May 2003 whilst acting in the course of his employment with Fairclough Homes Limited (‘Fairclough’), Shaun Summers (‘Mr Summers’) fell from a truck and sustained both a fractured bone in his right hand and a fractured left heel bone. On the 28th October 2003 Fairclough admitted liability for the accident through its insurers (‘the admission’). Mr Summers went on to issue a claim for personal injury and associated losses on the 10th May 2006 but, having examined his medical records (which appeared to cast doubt on Mr Summers’ account of the accident), Fairclough applied for permission to withdraw their admission and served an Amended Defence in relation to liability. On the 28th August 2007, following a trial before HHJ Tetlow (‘the Judge’), Mr Summers obtained judgment against Fairclough with damages to be assessed.”
Sovereign Chambers, 25th September 2013
Source: www.sovereignchambers.co.uk
Binns and another v Firstplus Financial Group plc [2013] EWHC 2436 (QB); [2013] WLR (D) 361
“Where a claimant had obtained an award pursuant to alternative dispute resolution (‘ADR’) and subsequently brought a civil claim where the only potential advantage in bringing that litigation was the possibility of an additional award in respect of legal costs, the claim was to be struck out under CPR r 3.4(2).”
WLR Daily, 24th July 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Singh v Reading Borough Council [2013] EWCA Civ 909; [2013] WLR (D) 306
“An employer’s improper activities in gathering evidence for the purpose of defending a claim of discrimination brought by an employee were not covered by judicial proceedings immunity.”
WLR Daily, 25th July 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Sian Cox, barrister, Harcourt Chambers analyses the court’s power to strike out in family proceedings and considers in the light of the Court of Appeal judgment in Vince v Wyatt, the circumstances in which such applications may succeed.”
Family Law Week, 29th May 2013
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
“Morshead Mansions has been involved in a quite astonishing amount of litigation. Bailii throws up 13 hits, cases in the LVT, Lands Tribunal, High Court and Court of Appeal. It’s really must be the most awful burden on all those involved. And now, there is another case to add to the list, Di Marco v Morshead Mansions Ltd [2013] EWHC 1068 (Ch).”
NearlyLegal, 14th May 2013
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
Wyatt v Vince: [2013] EWCA Civ 495; [2013] WLR (D) 166
“The court should not allow either party to a former marriage to be harassed by claims for financial relief which were issued many years after the divorce and had no real prospect of success. Such claims should be struck out under FPR r 4.4(1)(b) as an abuse of process.”
WLR Daily, 8th May 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“It seems that the courts – and in particular Central London Court – are taking an increasingly intolerant approach to fraudulent and exaggerated claims, and are visiting the consequences of such claims on the solicitors, as well as the unsuccessful claimant.”
Hardwicke Chambers, 18th April 2013
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
“The Government has set out plans to ‘streamline’ the employment tribunal system, which will include a new power to ‘strike out’ claims with little chance of success before they proceed to a full hearing.”
OUT-LAW.com, 18th March 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
“The Court of Appeal has refused an appeal against the strike out of a libel claim against the BBC in relation to a review of an electric sports car by the ‘Top Gear’ programme. The judge below had been correct in concluding that there was no sufficient prospect of the manufacturer recovering a substantial sum of damages such as to justify continuing the case to trial.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 6th March 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“The decision is of significance, because it is the first strike out of a fraudulent/exaggerated claim following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Summers v Fairclough Homes Limited [2012] 1 WLR 2004. Summers is authority for the proposition that under CPR 3.4(2) the court has power to strike out a statement of case on the ground that it is an abuse of process at any stage in the proceedings, including – but in very exceptional circumstances – at the end of a trial.”
Hardwicke Chambers, 31st February 2013
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
“The High Court has overturned a cost judge’s ruling that a redacted after-the-event (ATE) insurance certificate did not comply with the Costs Practice Direction (CPD) because it did not show what premiums would have been payable had the case concluded earlier than it did.”
Litigation Futures, 6th December 2012
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
“In this age of active case management, judges are rightly expected to take a robust approach to dealing with the cases before them. But sometimes robustness can be taken too far – as illustrated by the Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Labrouche v Frey [2012] EWCA Civ 881, [2012] All ER (D) 33 (Jul).”
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 23rd July 2012
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
“The rule against reflective loss and the extent to which a shareholder could sue for loss primarily suffered by and primarily belonging to a company did not extend to loss suffered by holders of a debenture.”
WLR Daily, 16th July 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024