Security for Costs. The judge had erred in refusing to make an order for security for costs against the respondents as they had failed to show that an order for security for costs would stifle their claim against the appellant.
|
Applications for Permission to Appeal
|
Appeal against Summary Judgment. In allowing an appeal against the refusal of an application for summary judgment, the judge had conducted a review within the meaning of CPR r.52.11 rather than a re-hearing.
|
An application for the respondent to disclose documents or information identifying the source of a leaked email, under the principle in Norwich Pharmacal Co v Customs & Excise Commissioners (1973) 117 SJ 567, would be granted where the requirements for the court's discretionary equitable jurisdiction were satisfied and the disclosure was a necessary and proportionate response in all the circumstances.
|
Settlement Offer not made under CPR Part 36
|
Applications for Pre-action Disclosure. Applications for Norwich Pharmaceutical orders and pre-action disclosure were refused where proceedings could fairly be brought and pursued without further disclosure and the applications and any order made on them would only serve to increase costs, not save them.
|
Administration of Justice. In a case where a judge found one account of events to be more credible and reliable than another, there was no duty on him to give exhaustive reasons for his finding provided that he had shown the basis upon which he made his decision and had given enough detail for an appellate court to understand the rationale of his judgment.
|
Interim Payment Applications. The determination of the amount of an interim payment had to be in accordance with CPR r.25.7(4) rather than by consideration of the purpose for which the payment was sought.
|
Where a claimant had issued proceedings in 1997 and had persistently failed to comply with directions and orders and had not progressed the litigation for long periods of time to the extent that his conduct of the case amounted to an abuse of process, it was just to strike out his claims.
|
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.
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |