Receiver’s Remuneration. The CPR r.69.7(2) did not override the scheme whereby a receiver's remuneration and expenses were to be paid out of the receivership assets.
|
Applications for Pre-action Disclosure. Generally, when considering an application under CPR r.31.16 for pre-action disclosure, the court did not need to and should not embark upon a consideration of difficult legal issues such as justiciability and convenient forum that could more appropriately be raised after proceedings had been started.
|
Champerty. A claimant's action had not been champertous as the mere fact that litigation services had been provided in return for a promise of a share of the proceeds was not by itself sufficient to justify that promise being held to be unenforceable.
|
Summary Judgment. On the evidence available to him a judge had erred in awarding summary judgment enforcing an adjudicator's decision as there was a real prospect of showing that the adjudicator had acted without jurisdiction.
|
Antisocial Behaviour Order. A judge had been entitled to make an anti-social behaviour order against the appellant pursuant to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 s.1(1)(a); however, the terms of the order were not specific enough and required amendment.
|
Construction of undertakings in settlement agreement. Where a settlement involved the defendants making an undertaking to the court not to carry out certain acts, the correct construction of the settlement agreement was that they had also given the undertakings to the claimants. The claimants were therefore entitled to bring proceedings for damages for breach of contract based on the defendants' alleged breaches of the undertakings.
|
Time Limits: Care Standards Tribunal. The Care Standards Tribunal had erred in law in extending the 28-day time limit for lodging an appeal against a decision of the Chief Inspector of Schools to cancel an individual's status as registered provider of childcare.
|
Limitation Act 1980 S. 14(2). The proper approach to the question raised by the Limitation Act 1980 s.14(2) in relation to a claimant seeking to bring a personal injury claim outside the three-year period specified in s.11(4)(a) was to consider the reaction to the injury, as opposed to its possible consequences, of a reasonable person in the objective circumstances of the actual claimant, while disregarding his actual personal attributes.
|
Freezing Order without notice. It was very difficult to visualise a case where the grant of a freezing order, made without notice, could be said to have been properly made in the absence of any formulation of the case for substantive relief that the applicant for the order intended to institute.
|
The words "in respect of a contract" in the CPR r.6.20(5) did not require that the claim arose under a contract; they required only that the claim related to or was connected with the contract.
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |