|
Professional negligence claim – Law Society cause of action
Law Society v Sephton & Co (A Firm) & Ors, HL (Lord Hoffman, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Rodger or Earlsferry, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Lord Mance) 10/5/2006; (2006) NPC 56; Time, May 11, 2006
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.
Suspended order for committal
Northamptonshire CC v Daleman, CA (Civ Div) 23/5/2006
A suspended order for committal for contempt of court was properly made and was not open to challenge.
CPR r.6.9 – Power to dispense with service of claim form
Nussberger & Anr v Phillips & Anr, CA (Civ Div) 19/5/2006
In the circumstances the exercise of the power to dispense with service of the claim form under CPR r.6.9 had not achieved its intended effect of giving English proceedings priority over Swiss proceedings under the Lugano Convention Art.21, and even if it had been effective it would have been inappropriate to have used the power for that purpose.
Summary judgment for recovery order under Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
Woodstock v Director of the Assets Recovery Agency, CA (Civ Div) 18/5/2006
Where at a summary judgment stage it was not possible to say that a defendant was bound to be disbelieved on his contention that the source of his money was loans from friends and not unlawful conduct, there was clearly a triable issue and the Director of the Assets Recovery Agency should not have been granted summary judgment on her claim for a recovery order under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 s.243.
Jurisdiction issues
Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Plc & Anr v MK Digital Fze (Cyprus) Ltd & Ors, CA (Civ Div) 17/5/2006
A French company had failed to show that there was a good arguable case that the English court had jurisdiction under the Geneva Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road (CMR) Art.31 or under the Brussels Convention 1968 Art.2 or Art.5(1) to deal with proceedings brought in respect of the theft of a consignment of mobile phones.
Service out of the jurisdiction
Konkola Copper Mines Plc & Anr v Coromin & Ors, High Ct, 16/5/2006
It should not be open to a party seeking to justify service out of the jurisdiction in contravention of a foreign jurisdiction clause to rely as grounds for strong cause or reasons the risk of inconsistent decisions of different courts when he ought to have appreciated the existence of that risk at the time when he entered into the exclusive jurisdiction clause.
Arbitration
Norbrook Laboratories Ltd v Tank & Anr, High Ct (QBD Comm) 12/5/2006
An arbitrator's conduct in contacting witnesses directly but failing to inform the parties to the arbitration that he had done so and failing to keep or disclose a record of what they said constituted a failure to properly conduct the proceedings. In the circumstances that failure caused substantial injustice.
Administration of Justice Act 1960, s.12(1)(e) – Private hearings
In the matter of Bournemouth & Boscombe Athletic Community FC Ltd, High Ct (Ch D) 11/5/2006
An order under CPR r.39.2 that a hearing should take place in private did not carry with it an order prohibiting the publication of information relating to that hearing. The Administration of Justice Act 1960 s.12(1)(e) provided that a court should make an express order prohibiting publication.
Civil restraint order
Attorney-General v Perotti, High Ct (QBD Admin) 10/5/2006
A civil proceedings order for an indefinite time was necessary against a vexatious litigant who had pursued 15 pieces of litigation, most of which were totally devoid of merit.
Limitation Act 1980, s.14A
3M United Kingdom Plc & Anr v Linklaters & Paines (A Firm) CA (Civ Div) 3/5/2006
Tenants had failed to bring proceedings against their solicitors for negligence within three years of the date when they knew or ought to have known, for the purposes of s.14A of the Limitation Act 1980, that an assignment of a lease had caused the loss of the break clause which was personal to the original tenant, and that the damage attributable to that loss had occurred as a result of the acts and omissions of the solicitors.
Judge’s mistake regarding the nature of the application made
Seven v Gossage & Ors, CA (Civ Div) 2/5/2006
Where a judge had mistakenly believed he was dealing with an application for an extension of time and where he wrongly recorded in his order refusing that application that the claim was dismissed it would be disproportionate to allow the order to stand.
Social Security Administration Act 1992, s.117A – Jurisdiction to strike out claim
Revenue & Customs Commissioners v Hyde Industrial Holdings Ltd, CA (Civ Div) 28/4/2006
The Social Security Administration Act 1992 s.117A did not deprive the court of jurisdiction to strike out a claim to recover national insurance contributions. An order striking out such proceedings had been properly made but in the circumstances the court had erred in refusing to reinstate the claim on the Revenue's application.
Damages arising from intentional sexual assault – Non-extendable 6 year limitation
A v Hoare, CA (Civ Div) 12/4/2006
The Court of Appeal was bound by the decision of the House of Lords in Stubbings v Webb (1993) AC 498 to hold that although most claims for damages for physical or psychiatric injury now had an extendable three-year limitation period from the date of the claimant's knowledge, claims for damages arising out of an intentional sexual assault had a non-extendable six-year limitation period from the date of the assault.
Permission to appeal disciplinary findings refused
Phipps v GMC, CA (Civ Div) 12/4/2006
A doctor was refused permission to appeal against a decision upholding a finding that he was guilty of serious professional misconduct since none of the grounds of appeal advanced by him was arguable.
Jurisdiction to hear applications for closure orders
R v Commissioners of Police of the Metropolis, High Ct, 12/4/2006
The jurisdiction of the magistrates' court to hear applications for the making of a closure order was not dependent upon the initiating closure notice being valid. Whether the closure notice issued was defective fell to be determined by the magistrates' court and it could consider any relevant material and decide what weight to put on it.
Guidelines for applications for permission to enforce worldwide freezing order in foreign jurisdiction
Dadourian Group International Inc v Simms & Ors, CA (Civ Div) 11/4/2006
The Court of Appeal set out guidelines to apply when an application was made for permission to enforce a worldwide freezing order in a foreign jurisdiction.
Contempt proceedings – Procedural unfairness
Re P, CA (Civ Div) 11/4/2006
A contempt of court hearing had been procedurally unfair as there had been no written statement of the contempt for the appellant to answer to.
On the facts, no jurisdiction to set aside order for judgment in default
Richmond & Anr v Burch & Ors, High Ct (Ch D) 7/4/2006
A master had not had jurisdiction to set aside an order giving judgment in default, since in so doing he had varied or discharged an injunction, which under the CPR Practice Direction 2b para.2.2, he was not permitted to do.
Solicitors’ disciplinary proceedings
Constantinides v Law Society, High Ct (QBD Admin) 7/4/2006
The Solicitors' Disciplinary Tribunal had been entitled to read a decision of a High Court judge which made a finding of dishonesty against a solicitor and rely on the judgment as admissible to prove background facts in the context of the misconduct alleged. The tribunal was a skilled and expert body well able to reach its own conclusions, and its finding that the solicitor had acted dishonestly was justified.
Validity of ASBO should be challenged by appeal or application to vary
CPS v T, DC, 5/4/2006
The validity of an anti-social behaviour order could not be raised as a defence in proceedings for its breach, as the correct challenge to its validity was by way of an appeal or application to vary. Such an order should never include a provision "not to act in an anti-social manner", without further limitation or definition.
Abuse of process where grounds of challenge already raised in previous proceedings
Leibinger & Anr v Stryker Trauma Gmbh, High Ct (QBD Comm) 31/3/2006
Where two grounds of challenge to the jurisdiction and constitution of the arbitral tribunal had already been decided by a German court of competent jurisdiction, it was an abuse of process for them to be raised again in a challenge to the arbitrators’ jurisdiction in the English court. An application for an extension of time for the filing and serving of further detailed particulars of the grounds of challenge to the arbitrators' partial award on jurisdiction, and of evidence relating to those grounds, was refused where there was no adequate reason why the matters and evidence sought to be relied on had not been included in the claim form. |
