Civil Procedure Cases http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/BlogId/633/Default.aspx en-GB registration@casecheck.co.uk Wed, 08 Feb 2012 02:03:17 GMT Wed, 08 Feb 2012 02:03:17 GMT http://backend.userland.com/rss Blog RSS Generator Version 0.0.0.0 The Standard of Proof in Civil Claims: The House of Lords made clear that only two standards of proof are recognised by the common law: the balance of probabilities and beyond reasonable doubt. The test of the balance of probabilities was, however, flexible in its application: a court may have to look at the facts more critically or anxiously where there was an inherent unlikelihood of an occurrence taking place, a serious allegation or consequences following from the proof of the relevant fact. Where an allegation was not inherently improbable, a court should not consider potential adverse consequences against an individual if a finding were to be made against him. These were all matters of ordinary experience, requiring the application of good sense by a court or tribunal. http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/14571/Default.aspx http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/14571/Default.aspx#Comments http://www.casecheck.co.uk/Default.aspx?tabid=1184&EntryID=14571 Wed, 11 Jun 2008 00:00:00 GMT 0 http://www.casecheck.co.uk/DesktopModules/BlogPlus/Trackback.aspx?id=14571 Purpose of Pleadings. The Privy Council, hearing conjoined appeals from the Court of Appeal of The Bahamas, held that the ultimate purpose of one party’s pleadings was to inform the other party of the case against them. The fact that the precise ambit or extent of the relief sought might be a matter for argument did not justify allowing an application to be struck out for want of prosecution where the basic allegations were sufficiently clear. Any lack of clarity could be corrected by appropriate particulars being ordered. http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/13917/Default.aspx http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/13917/Default.aspx#Comments http://www.casecheck.co.uk/Default.aspx?tabid=1184&EntryID=13917 Wed, 20 Jun 2007 00:00:00 GMT 0 http://www.casecheck.co.uk/DesktopModules/BlogPlus/Trackback.aspx?id=13917 Appeals against the Same Order. It would stultify the procedure introduced by the Administration of Justice Act 1969 s.12 and s.13 if different appeals against the same order were to proceed in parallel in different courts. The words “leave is granted” in s.13(2) had to be understood to refer to an unconditional grant of leave or a grant of leave subject to conditions which were accepted or http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/13837/Default.aspx http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/13837/Default.aspx#Comments http://www.casecheck.co.uk/Default.aspx?tabid=1184&EntryID=13837 Wed, 23 May 2007 00:00:00 GMT 0 http://www.casecheck.co.uk/DesktopModules/BlogPlus/Trackback.aspx?id=13837 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. http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/13586/Default.aspx http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/13586/Default.aspx#Comments http://www.casecheck.co.uk/Default.aspx?tabid=1184&EntryID=13586 Wed, 31 Jan 2007 00:00:00 GMT 0 http://www.casecheck.co.uk/DesktopModules/BlogPlus/Trackback.aspx?id=13586 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. http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/13503/Default.aspx http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/13503/Default.aspx#Comments http://www.casecheck.co.uk/Default.aspx?tabid=1184&EntryID=13503 Wed, 24 Jan 2007 00:00:00 GMT 0 http://www.casecheck.co.uk/DesktopModules/BlogPlus/Trackback.aspx?id=13503 Challenge to validity of a person’s title to land. A challenge to the validity of a person's title to land was held to be res judicata and not capable of being re-litigated. http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/13504/Default.aspx http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/13504/Default.aspx#Comments http://www.casecheck.co.uk/Default.aspx?tabid=1184&EntryID=13504 Wed, 17 Jan 2007 00:00:00 GMT 0 http://www.casecheck.co.uk/DesktopModules/BlogPlus/Trackback.aspx?id=13504 Where an application for judicial review turned on the proportionality of the defendant's actions, the disclosure of documents would be ordered more readily than in an application where such an issue did not arise. In cases involving issues of proportionality, disclosure should be carefully limited to the issues which required it in the interests of justice. http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/13425/Default.aspx http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/13425/Default.aspx#Comments http://www.casecheck.co.uk/Default.aspx?tabid=1184&EntryID=13425 Wed, 13 Dec 2006 00:00:00 GMT 0 http://www.casecheck.co.uk/DesktopModules/BlogPlus/Trackback.aspx?id=13425 Appeal against civil penalty – no rehearing permitted. It was not appropriate to direct a rehearing of an appeal against a civil penalty for dishonest conduct where the evidence sought to be adduced on the rehearing could and should have been dealt with in the previous hearings. http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/13219/Default.aspx http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/13219/Default.aspx#Comments http://www.casecheck.co.uk/Default.aspx?tabid=1184&EntryID=13219 Fri, 18 Aug 2006 00:00:00 GMT 0 http://www.casecheck.co.uk/DesktopModules/BlogPlus/Trackback.aspx?id=13219 Professional negligence claim – Law Society cause of action. The Law Society's cause of action in negligence against accountants in respect of negligent reports on a solicitor's practice accrued when it first received a claim on the Solicitors' Compensation Fund from a client whose money was misappropriated by the solicitor, because until such a claim was actually made no loss or damage had been sustained by the fund. http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/12899/Default.aspx http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/12899/Default.aspx#Comments http://www.casecheck.co.uk/Default.aspx?tabid=1184&EntryID=12899 Wed, 10 May 2006 00:00:00 GMT 0 http://www.casecheck.co.uk/DesktopModules/BlogPlus/Trackback.aspx?id=12899 Limitation Act 1980 – Date of knowledge. The requisite knowledge for the purposes of the Limitation Act 1980 s.14A(8)(a) was knowledge of the facts constituting the essence of the complaint of negligence. In the circumstances the relevant date was not when the claimant first knew that he might have a claim for damages but the earlier date when he first knew enough to justify setting about investigating the possibility that the defendant's advice was defective. http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/12718/Default.aspx http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/12718/Default.aspx#Comments http://www.casecheck.co.uk/Default.aspx?tabid=1184&EntryID=12718 Wed, 01 Mar 2006 00:00:00 GMT 0 http://www.casecheck.co.uk/DesktopModules/BlogPlus/Trackback.aspx?id=12718 Reinstatement of claim which had been struck out. Where a blameless absent litigant whose case had been struck out was seeking its reinstatement, and where there had been no delay and there was no likelihood of prejudice to the other parties, it was for the other parties to show that the case had no chance of success. Prima facie justice required that the case be reinstated. http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/12716/Default.aspx http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/12716/Default.aspx#Comments http://www.casecheck.co.uk/Default.aspx?tabid=1184&EntryID=12716 Tue, 28 Feb 2006 00:00:00 GMT 0 http://www.casecheck.co.uk/DesktopModules/BlogPlus/Trackback.aspx?id=12716 Judicature (Civil Procedure Code) Law (Jamacia): The Supreme Court of Jamaica was not deprived of jurisdiction to set aside a judgment in default of defence under s.258 of the Judicature (Civil Procedure Code) Law (Jamaica), even though damages had been subsequently assessed and a final judgment had been entered. Further, it was held that where an order to set aside a default judgment had been made without jurisdiction, a judge of a co-ordinate jurisdiction had no power to set it aside. http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/12120/Default.aspx http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/12120/Default.aspx#Comments http://www.casecheck.co.uk/Default.aspx?tabid=1184&EntryID=12120 Mon, 25 Jul 2005 00:00:00 GMT 0 http://www.casecheck.co.uk/DesktopModules/BlogPlus/Trackback.aspx?id=12120 Admissibility of Similar Fact Evidence: It was incorrect that similar fact evidence was only admissible in a civil case if it was likely to be reasonably conclusive of a primary issue in the proceedings or, alternatively, if it had enhanced relevance so as to have substantial probative value. The correct test was whether the evidence was potentially probative in the proceedings. http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/11937/Default.aspx http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/11937/Default.aspx#Comments http://www.casecheck.co.uk/Default.aspx?tabid=1184&EntryID=11937 Thu, 28 Apr 2005 00:00:00 GMT 0 http://www.casecheck.co.uk/DesktopModules/BlogPlus/Trackback.aspx?id=11937 Fresh evidence which related to the question of whether the respondent had lied at trial and deliberately inflated his claim for loss of earnings was an insufficient basis for an appeal against the trial judge’s conclusive finding against the appellant for assault and battery. Even if the appellant had been able to demonstrate to the requisite standard of proof that the respondent had deliberately inflated his claim, it would not have been right to set aside the entire judgment. As far as liability was concerned, it was not a close run case. The appellant had shot the respondent in the face whilst trying to rob his wife’s bar. http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/11739/Default.aspx http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/11739/Default.aspx#Comments http://www.casecheck.co.uk/Default.aspx?tabid=1184&EntryID=11739 Tue, 08 Mar 2005 00:00:00 GMT 0 http://www.casecheck.co.uk/DesktopModules/BlogPlus/Trackback.aspx?id=11739