Officeholders and employees of the Respondent company applied for recovery of their costs from the Respondent, subject to detailed assessment. The appellants had acted in response to claim to remove them from office. The costs claimed included time spent on work involving both special expertise and work which would not ordinarily be recovered under a costs order in a case where solicitor and counsel had been instructed. It was argued on behalf of the appellants that time spent on particular task ...
|
Defence not previously raised: Once it was accepted that a defendant had not previously had to raise an argument which she later asserted in an amended defence and counterclaim, there was no abuse of process in sending a matter to court that had not been previously adjudicated upon and such a course did not offend the public interest.
|
Application to extend time for validity of claim form: In refusing an application to set aside a without notice order to extend time for the validity of a claim, a master had asked himself the wrong question and failed adequately to consider the implications of the order on the defendant.
|
Conflict of Laws – Determining domicile and jurisdiction to hear case: The court held that the underlying purpose of Art. 6 of Council Regulation 44/2001was to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments in separate proceedings. Where a defendant in one set of proceedings was domiciled in England and other defendants in separate English proceedings were domiciled outside England, Art.6.1 applied as the claims in both proceedings were so closely connected it was expedient to hear the claims togeth ...
|
Injunctions – Enforcement: An appeal against a third party debt order made against an unincorporated animal rights association, which was effectively an appeal against an order continuing an injunction, could not be entertained by the judge as he had made the original order in respect of the injunction. Further, the master who had made the debt order was not under any obligation to consider the position of the association's hidden or anonymous members in the absence of any representations by the ...
|
CPR Part 36: Where a defendant rejected a claimant's Part 36 offer and was subsequently successful in court, there was no reason to depart from the general rule, under CPR r.44.3(2), that costs followed the event. Whilst the conduct of the parties could be taken into consideration, the refusal to accept a Part 36 offer was not included as conduct that could be taken into account under CPR r.44.3(5).
|
Case to be brought in a single action with election of remedies available: As a general rule of public policy, a claimant must bring forward his entire case in a single action and, where he had a choice of remedies, elect which remedy to pursue. A second action seeking a proprietary remedy in connection with a claim for which damages had been awarded and paid was an abuse of process.
|
Case Management Orders in MMR / MR vaccine group litigation: The court made orders in relation to case management of the MMR/MR vaccine litigation. In particular, it made orders in relation to disclosure of medical records and in relation to those claimants who had discontinued their claims but who wished to resurrect them.
|
Application to Stay Proceedings: The court refused an application by Zambian defendants to stay English proceedings as against them and rejected their argument that fresh proceedings should be commenced in Zambia because that would be fairer for them in the conduct of their defence.
|
Striking Out: Parts of defences to trade mark infringement actions in which the defendants relied on the EC Treaty (Nice) Art.81 were struck out because there was no sufficient nexus between the relief sought in the actions and the alleged breach of Art.81.
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 |