|
Horton v Sadler & Anr, HL (Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hoffman, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Carswell, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood) 14/6/2006; Times, June 19, 2006
Where a claimant in a personal injury action had initially issued proceedings before the time limit had expired and had brought a second action in respect of the same injuries after expiry, the court could use its discretion under the Limitation Act 1980 s.33 to disapply the three-year time limit. The decision in Walkley v Precision Forgings Limited (1979) 1 WLR 606 was overruled, as it had deprived claimants of a right that Parliament had intended them to have, and had given rise to much unsatisfactory jurisprudence.
Raja v Van Hoogstraten & Ors, High Ct (Ch D) 12/6/2006
By murdering the opposing party, who was a vital witness to the litigation, the defendant had rendered a fair trial no longer possible and had denied himself the right to proceed with his defence and counterclaim.
Hands v Morrison Construction Services Ltd, High Ct (Ch D) 16/6/2006
A pre-action disclosure order was made where it would offer a real prospect of achieving the objective of more focused proceedings.
Taylor & Anr v Rive Droite Music Ltd, High Ct (Ch D) 9/6/2006
As the claimants had shown that there was a real risk that any judgments made in their favour would not be satisfied, freezing orders in varying amounts were made against the defendant.
Hammond Suddards (A Firm) v Jebb, CA (Civ Div) 26/5/2006
The judge had taken into account all relevant factors when awarding interest on indemnity costs and had correctly exercised his discretion in the level of interest awarded.
Total E&P Soudan SA v Edmonds & Ors, High Ct, 22/5/2006
In the circumstances the jurisdictional threshold under CPR r.31.16(3) for ordering pre-action disclosure was satisfied and as a matter of discretion the court granted the application for pre-action disclosure in its entirety.
A-G of Zambia v Meer Care & Desai (A Firm) & Ors, High Ct (Ch D) 22/5/2006
A claim alleging that the second and eighth defendants had participated in a conspiracy to defraud had been sufficiently pleaded and it would not be appropriate to strike it out.
Hobson & Ors v Ashton Morton Slack Solicitors & Ors, High Ct, 18/5/2006
Potential proceedings against several firms of solicitors and a trade union for the recovery of costs deducted from compensation recovered on their behalf under claims-handling agreements were not suitable for a group litigation order.
|
