‘The High Court has allowed a PI claim to be pursued by an employee against his former bosses – even though the parties settled an employment tribunal claim over the same matter years previously.’
Law Society's Gazette, 2nd September 2021
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal has rejected as “too binary” the approach taken by a High Court judge when striking out a negligence claim against lawyers over their former client’s capacity to litigate.’
Legal Futures, 5th August 2021
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘The High Court (Saini J) has today handed down judgment in Warren v DSG Retail Ltd [2021] EWHC 2168 (QB) (available here: Warren v DSG judgment). It is pithy and important stuff for data protection litigation, especially as regards accidental data breaches and the recoverability of ATE premiums.’
Panopticon, 30th July 2021
Source: panopticonblog.com
‘A decision to strike out an “unmanageable” £5bn group action brought by 200,000 claimants over a dam collapse in Brazil can be appealed, the Court of Appeal has decided.’
Legal Futures, 28th July 2021
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘Gell v 32 St John’s Road (Eastbourne) Management Company Ltd (2021) EWCA Civ 789. This is one of those cases where the Court of Appeal says “It is perhaps surprising that in the 35 years since the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 was enacted the effect on a claim for service charges of the striking out of a defence has not been determined”, and my first reaction is that really, it is rather surprising that it has come up at all. Nonetheless, it has, and if you have spent 35 years waiting for clarity on this point, you are in luck. However, the judgment does have some significant things to say about referrals to the First Tier Tribunal (PC) from the courts, and the position after a struck out defence.’
Nearly Legal, 6th June 2021
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘Beware the pitfalls of bringing a claim at the last possible opportunity, and the prohibition against pleading new causes of action in the Reply to Defence … Martlett Homes Limited v. Mulalley & Co. Limited [2021] EWHC 296 (TCC).’
Mills & Reeve, 8th June 2021
Source: www.mills-reeve.com
‘In Begum v Maran (UK) Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 326, the Court of Appeal recently refused to dismiss a claim seeking damages from a UK-domiciled company following its sale of a ship to a third party, which arranged for its disposal in an unsafe manner. Although limited to arguability, it offers key insights into how duties could evolve into the consequences of corporates’ interactions with third parties.’
Law Society's Gazette, 7th June 2021
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘Boris Johnson no longer has a county court judgement against him after his lawyers sought to strike out a claim for a £535 debt for alleged defamation.’
BBC News, 13th May 2021
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Traditionally, claims against financial institutions involving allegations of fraud, LIBOR manipulation and unlawful means conspiracy have not been amenable to strike out or summary determination. However, the English courts are increasingly demonstrating a willingness to use the interim remedies of summary judgment and strike out involving allegations of fraud without the need for a full trial, in “appropriate” cases.’
Littleton Chambers, 7th April 2021
Source: littletonchambers.com
‘A solicitor has had her claim for victimisation by the Law Society struck out by an employment tribunal on the basis that, as the chair of a committee, she was not an employee or office-holder.’
Legal Futures, 25th March 2021
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘The final account is normally a wrap-up of the contractor’s valid claims for extra payment. It’s particularly helpful if claims were not submitted or assessed as works progressed. So, what happens if the contract doesn’t have a final account procedure but there are claims outstanding once the works are finished? Can a final account procedure be implied under section 110(3) of the Construction Act 1996?’
Practical Law: Construction Blog, 8th March 2021
‘During January 2021 the Court of Appeal handed down three judgments on appeals relating to strike out applications under CPR 3.4(2)(b): Allsop v Banner Jones Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 7, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP v BTI 2014 LLC [2021] EWCA Civ 9 and Tinkler v Ferguson [2021] EWCA Civ 18.’
Ropewalk Personal Injury Blog, 25th February 2021
Source: www.ropewalk.co.uk
‘A High Court judge has struck out claims brought by seven councils and the Greater Manchester Combined Authority for rescission of certain loans with Barclays which they said were affected by the LIBOR rigging affair of 2012.’
Local Government Lawyer, 23rd February 2021
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘In Allsop v Banner Jones Ltd and another, the Court of Appeal considered the application of Phosphate Sewage v Molleson to applications to strike out a claim on the basis of abuse of process. The decision is a detailed exploration of the scope of the doctrines of res judicata, collateral attacks of previous decision and abuse of process. As such it is valuable reading to litigators generally and particularly those in the field of professional negligence.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 12th February 2021
Source: hardwicke.co.uk
‘This note considers the judgment of Turner J in the Technology and Construction Court of 10 November 2020 in the case of Município de Mariana & Ors v BHP Group plc, BHP Billiton plc and BHP Group Ltd. In that judgment, Turner J struck out a claim by a very large group of claimants for compensation for damage caused by the 2015 collapse of the Fundão Dam in South Eastern Brazil, in which over 40 million cubic metres of tailings washed into the Doce River with massive human, environmental, and economic cost. This note presents the factual background of the case and sets out the most relevant features of the judgment for the practice of mass tort litigation in the multinational context.’
Blackstone Chambers, 15th February 2021
Source: www.blackstonechambers.com
‘On 5 February 2021, Master Cook handed down judgment in the case of Polmear and another v Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust [2021] EWHC 196 (QB), dismissing the Defendant’s application to strike out the claims and/or for summary judgment. He gave permission to appeal and made an order “leapfrogging” the appeal to the Court of Appeal, pursuant to CPR 53.23.’
No. 5 Chambers, 8th February 2021
Source: www.no5.com
‘Planning analysis: The High Court held that it was not an abuse of process to bring an ordinary civil claim concerning the construction of an agreement under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990) (a section 106 agreement). The judge said that, while the validity of a section 106 agreement is highly likely to be a question of public law, suitable only for judicial review (except where it is raised as a defence to an ordinary claim by a local planning authority to enforce an agreement), the construction of TCPA 1990, s 106 agreement was not different in principle to the construction of any contract.’
No. 5 Chambers, 22nd January 2021
Source: www.no5.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024