civil procedure news - westlaw ukwbus.westlaw.co.uk/pdf/2013/0113.pdf · district judge dismissing...

CIVIL PROCEDURE NEWS

Issue 1/2013 January 30, 2013

CONTENTS

Costs where settlement of judicial review claim

CPR Forms

Recent cases

1

CIVIL PROCEDURE NEWS Issue 1/2013 January 30, 2013

2

In BriefCases

■ AWUKU v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT [2012] EWHC 3690 (Admin), December 10, 2012, D.C., unrep. (Sir John Thomas (PQBD) & Cranston J.)

Judicial review claim – urgent ex parte application for permission – duties of legal representatives

CPR rr.23.4 & 54.4, Human Rights Act 1998 Sch.1 Pt I art.8, Practice Direction 23A para.3, Practice Direction 54A para.18. Over-stayer (D) facing detention and removal making unsuccessful application to First-tier Tribunal and judicial review claim and, by July 2012, rights of appeal fully exhausted. Throughout those proceedings, in which, amongst other things, art.8 issues advanced by D, D making no mention of the existence of a daughter in the UK. On October 29, 2012, D detained and removal directions set. D then making asylum application and, on November 12, 2012, making ex parte application to Administrative Court for the urgent consideration of a judicial review application. In the judicial review claim D’s challenge to removal raising issues not raised before, including the existence of a daughter in the UK, but no explanation given in urgent application as to why they had not been raised previously. Divisional Court stating, (1) renewed applications and ex parte applications should not be made in cases that are not properly arguable, (2) it has always been the professional obligation of solicitors and counsel to satisfy themselves that a claim being advanced on such application is one that they can properly make, (3) applications to the court on an ex parte basis must be scrutinised diligently and carefully by qualified lawyers, (4) the relevant court forms now require the lawyers to certify (a) on a renewal (Form 86b) that the reasons for the refusal of permission as totally without merit have been considered and that the claim is properly arguable, and (b) on an application out of hours that the application is in compliance with professional obligations, (5) in the instant case D’s solicitors had failed to comply with those obligations, (6) the explanations given by the solicitors in their apology, which the court accepted, did not excuse. (See further “In Detail” section of this issue of CP News.) (See Civil Procedure 2012 Vol.1 paras 23.4.1, 23APD.3, 54.4,1 & 54APD.18.)

■ BEEVER v RYDER PLC [2012] EWCA Civ 1737, December 21, 2012, CA, unrep. (Etherton L.J. & Dame Janet Smith)

Claim struck out on court’s own motion and without hearing – relief from sanction

CPR rr.3.9 & 26.3, Costs Practice Direction para.6.4. Following traffic accident in September 2007, defendant company (D) admitting liability for injuries suffered by individual (C) and making interim payments for claim then believed to be limited to £50,000. At end of limitation period in September 2010, C issuing claim form and serving it on D for claim then alleged to exceed £500k (subsequently advanced to £2.5m). Upon C’s failure to file and serve an allocation questionnaire by March 4, 2011, court, of its own motion, ordering that, unless the questionnaire was served by March 14, the claim would be struck out. Questionnaire filed and served by C on March 10 incomplete in that it did not contain a schedule of costs to date and an estimate of future costs as required by para.6.4. By letter of May 24, 2011, D alerting the court, but not C, to this omission. On March 15, 2011, judgment for C entered with damages to be assessed. Court giving directions for quantum trial and parties communicating during preparations for that trial. On June 14, 2011, acting on its own motion, but possibly prompted by D, court ordering C to file and serve the costs schedule by July 5. By letter to court of August 10, 2011, D complaining that C had not complied with that order. On August 18, 2011, of its own motion, and without giving C any opportunity to be heard or make representations, court making order that, unless the costs schedule that ought to have been filed and served with the allocation questionnaire was filed and served by August 31, 2011, the claim would be struck out. C failing to comply with this order and his claim struck out accordingly. District judge dismissing C’s application for relief from sanction. Circuit judge allowing C’s appeal. Single lord justice granting D permission for second appeal to the Court of Appeal. Held, dismissing appeal, (1) the circuit judge, for the reasons he gave, was entitled to interfere with the district judge’s order dismissing C’s application for sanction relief, (2) in any event, the circuit judge would have been entitled to set aside that order and to exercise his discretion afresh because, in the circumstances, the district judge was ignorant of, and therefore unable to take account of, a highly relevant factor, (3) that factor was that D had failed to copy to C the letter to the court of August 10, 2011, (4) that failure was a breach of good practice and, together with the factor that the court thereupon made the unless order of its own motion without giving the claimant the opportunity to be heard or to even to make written representations, were highly relevant factors falling outside the ambit of the CPR


3

r.3.9 criteria that were relevant, not only to the circuit judge’s right to interfere, but also to the exercise of his own discretion. Court explaining that where a judge on the first appeal concludes that the judge below has erred and that he must exercise his discretion afresh, the judge should consider the various r.3.9 factors for himself and then explain his own assessment of the significance and weight of all the relevant circumstances. Court noting circuit judge’s concern about and disapproval of the practice of solicitors who, by writing to the court pointing out a failure to comply with a rule of court or the breach of an order rather than applying to the court for a further order or for the imposition of a sanction for the prior failure or breach, in effect invite the court to act of its own motion. Lewis v Barnett (t/a Windmill Racing Stables) [2003] EWCA Civ 1981, Moat Housing Group-South Ltd v Harris [2006] Q.B. 606, CA, Fred Perry (Holdings) Ltd v Brands Plaza Trading Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 224, [2012] F.S.R. 28, CA, ref’d to. (See Civil Procedure 2012 Vol.1 paras 3.9.1, 3.9.2 & 43PD.6.)

■ DANIEL v REVENUE AND CUSTOMS COMMISSIONERS [2012] EWCA Civ 1741, December 21, 2012, CA, unrep. (Rix & Tomlinson L.JJ. and Morgan J.)

Permission to proceed with judicial review claim – claim stayed pending statutory appeal

CPR rr.3.1(2)(f) & 54.10, Senior Courts Act 1981 s.31A. HMRC (C) making, and inspector (by decision letter) upholding, two determinations adverse to an individual taxpayer (D), one to the effect that D was not non-resident during 1999/2000 tax year (during which year D made very substantial gain from share disposal) and the other to effect that D was negligent in completing his tax return for that year. D challenging these decisions by issuing a statutory appeal (SA) in First-tier Tribunal and also by commencing judicial review proceedings (JR) in Administrative Court (contending that D had failed to follow their own published guidance). JR proceedings transferred to Tax and Chancery Chamber by Administrative Court judge under s.31A. At a combined case management hearing in respect of both proceedings, held by a tribunal judge (sitting as both a judge of the First-Tier and of the Upper Tribunal), judge (1) giving directions for the hearing of the SA proceedings in the period May to July 2012, (2) granting D permission to proceed with the JR claim, but (3) staying that claim until 28 days after the release of the First-tier Tribunal’s decision in the SA proceedings. Tribunal judge granting D permission to appeal against the stay. Held, dismissing D’s appeal, (1) there can be no hard and fast rule for determining whether, and if so which, proceedings should be stayed in circumstances such as these, (2) the appropriate course must inevitably be determined on a case by case basis, (3) it would be unrealistic to assume that, if the JR claim was not stayed and D succeeded on it, D would then secure a determination in his favour from C without the sort of forensic exercise which the SA proceedings would in any event involve (i.e. disclosure of documents and testing of evidence), (4) the resolution of the JR claim would not dispose of the issues between the parties, as there was an underlying factual dispute which could only be resolved in the SA proceedings, (5) the tribunal judge’s case management decision fell within the range of reasonable decision-making and was not the sort of decision with which the Court of Appeal should interfere. R. (Hankinson) v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2009] S.T.C. 2158, R. (Lower Mill Estate Ltd and Conservation Builders) v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2008] B.T.C. 5743, R. (Davies) v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2011] UKSC 47, [2011] 1 W.L.R. 2625, SC, ref’d to. (See Civil Procedure 2012 Vol.1 paras 3.1.7, 54.10.2 & 54.10.4, and Vol.2 para.9A–176.)

■ HARRIES v STEVENSON [2012] EWHC 3447 (QB), November 30, 2012, unrep. (Morgan J.)Prescribed rate of return on investment of damages – whether different rate should be taken into account

CPR r.41.5, Damages Act 1996 ss.1 & 2, Damages (Personal Injury) Order 2001, Courts Act 2003 s.100. In clinical negligence claim, judgment on liability entered against defendant doctor (D) and directions given for trial of quantum. Claimant (C) serving schedule of loss and damage and D serving counter schedule. Significant disparities between sums in the schedules as to C’s future losses attributable to use of different discount rates in the calculations. C preferring a periodical payments order (PPO) to a lump sum. C making application for the determination of question whether he was entitled to seek an award of damages based on a more appropriate (lower) discount rate than that set by the Lord Chancellor in the 2001 Order for those heads of damage that would ordinarily be the subject of a PPO in a case where a defendant is unable or unwilling to make index linked periodical payments. Held, dismissing application, (1) it could not be said that it was clear that C would be denied a PPO, (2) accordingly, the matters relied upon by C as justifying the application of s.1(2) had not yet been established, (3) the approach that a court should adopt to s.1(2) is as detailed in Warriner v Warriner, (4) that approach was not affected by the narrowing of the circumstances in which a court might be prevented from making a PPO effected by the amendment of s.1(2) by s.100 coming to effect after the 2001 Order. Warriner v Warriner [2002] EWCA Civ 81, [2002] 1 W.L.R. 1703, CA, Cooke v United Bristol Healthcare NHS Trust [2003] EWCA Civ 1370, [2004] 1 W.L.R. 251, CA, ref’d to. (See Civil Procedure 2012 Vol.1 para.7.0.22, and Vol.2 paras 3F–36 & 3F‑43.)


4

■ INSIGHT GROUP LTD v KINGSTON SMITH [2012] EWHC 3644 (QB), December 18, 2012, unrep. (Leggatt J.)

Substituting new defendant after expiry of limitation period – mistake as to proper defendant

CPR r.19.5, Limitation Act 1980 s.35. On November 11, 2010, company (C) issuing claim form making claim against a professional firm, a limited liability partnership (D), for professional negligence in auditing second claimant and related fiduciary services. Particulars of negligence alleged spanning periods 1999 to 2006. Prior to May 1, 2006, members of firm practising as a partnership (X). On April 11, 2011, after limitation period had expired for starting a new action in relation to some of the claims asserted in the particulars of claim, Master making order (without a hearing) substituting X for D as defendant. On X’s application, Master setting aside that order and, because C had no viable claim against D, striking out C’s claim. Held, allowing C’s appeal, (1) the test to be applied (derived from case law) is whether it was possible to identify an intended defendant “by reference to a description which was more or less specific to the particular case”, (2) that test had to be interpreted as meaning identification “by reference to what description was material from a legal point of view to the claim made”, (3) D was named as defendant in the mistaken belief that it had provided the professional services which were the subject of the claim, (4) that was not simply an error of law as to the legal liability of D for prior negligence of the firm, (5) it was a mistake as to which body satisfied the description of auditor and provider of fiduciary services. Judge critically reviewing relevant authorities. Adelson v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 701, [2008] 1 W.L.R. 585, CA, Owners of the Sardinia Sulcis v Owners of the Al Tawwab [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 201, CA, Parkinson Engineering Services Plc v Swan [2009] EWCA Civ 1366, [2010] Bus. L.R. 857, CA, Irwin v Lynch [2010] EWCA Civ 1153, [2011] 1 W.L.R. 1364, CA, Nemeti v Sabre Insurance Co Ltd [2012] EWHC 3355 (QB), November 23, 2012, unrep., ref’d to. (See Civil Procedure 2012 Vol.1 para.19.5.7, and Vol.2 para.8–111.)

■ INTERFLORA INC v MARKS & SPENCER PLC [2012] EWCA Civ 1501, November 20, 2012, CA, unrep. (Hughes, Etherton & Lewison L.JJ.)

Trade mark infringement claim – consumer survey evidence – admissibility

CPR rr.1.4(2)(h) & 32.1. Company (C) operating flower delivery network bringing claim against retailers (D) for infringement of trade mark. C applying for permission to adduce evidence of witnesses who had responded to a survey conducted by them (D). Judge granting application ([2012] EWHC 1722 (Ch), [2012] F.S.R. 32). On appeal, D submitting that, whether or not the evidence was admissible, it should not be received because it was not probative of the issue in the case. Held, allowing D’s appeal, (1) a judge must evaluate the results of whatever material is placed before the court, and (2) even if the evidence is technically admissible, should not let it in unless satisfied (a) that it “is likely to be of real value” (the reliability of the survey is likely to play an important part in that evaluation) and (b) that the likely utility of the evidence justifies the costs involved, (3) in a case of trade mark infringement in which the issue is one of deception in relation to the provision of ordinary consumer goods or services, these criteria are likely to be satisfied only in a special or unusual case, (4) on an application to admit survey evidence or evidence from respondents to a survey (or pilot survey) should be made as early as possible in the course of case management, (5) the standard form of order should make it clear that (a) a party may conduct a pilot survey (as the basis for a further survey) without permission, but at his own risk as to costs, (b) no further survey may be conducted or adduced in evidence without the court’s permission, and (c) no party may adduce evidence from respondents to any survey without the court’s permission. Court examining the many authorities on the relevance and admissibility of survey evidence in trade mark infringement and other intellectual property claims. Dalgety Spillers Foods v Food Brokers Ltd [1994] F.S.R. 504, esure Insurance Ltd v Direct Line Insurance Plc [2008] EWCA Civ 842, [2009] Bus. L.R. 438, CA, Imperial Group Plc v Philip Morris Ltd [1984] R.P.C. 293, ref’d to. (See Civil Procedure 2012 Vol.1 paras 1.4.10, 32.1.1 & 32.1.4, and Vol.1 para.2F–14.4.)

■ JSC BTA BANK v ABLYAZOV [2012] EWCA Civ 1551, November 28, 2011, CA, unrep. (Maurice Kay, Rix & Toulson L.JJ.)

Recusal of judge – designated judge trying committal application

CPR rr.1.1, 1.3 & 39.3, Human Rights Act 1998 Sch.1 Pt I art.6, Admiralty and Commercial Courts Guide para.D4.3. In August 2009, foreign bank (C) commencing proceedings in Commercial Court against several defendants for substantial fraud and obtaining freezing order against the principal defendant, C’s former chairman (D). At CMC in March 2011, designated judge making orders and giving directions for trial and, shortly afterwards, trial listed to be heard by that judge. On February 16, 2012, same judge finding D guilty of contempt of court for acting in breach of the freezing order and (in D’s absence) sentencing him to 22 months imprisonment. In doing so, judge not accepting evidence given by D on oath. Judge also making order, debarring D from defending claims unless he both surrendered


5

to custody and made proper disclosure of all his assets and dealings with them. Court of Appeal dismissing D’s appeals. Subsequently, trial fixed to start on November 6, 2012, with three month estimate. Pre‑trial review held on October 2, 2012. On October 19, D making recusal application. On November 1, 2012, judge holding that D had waived any right to apply for his recusal, that there was in any event no real possibility of any bias, and rejecting the application. D applying to Court of Appeal for permission to appeal, held, granting permission but dismissing the appeal, (1) in considering the application of the doctrine of apparent bias it is relevant to consider, through the eyes of the fair-minded and informed observer, that an arrangement under which a particular judge is designated to deal with a complex civil claim throughout its pre-trial and trial stages is not only convenient but also just, (2) if a designated judge, in dealing with a matter arising before trial, judges it fairly and judicially, he is not “pre-judging” the case by reference to extraneous matters or predilections or preferences, and a fair-minded and informed observer would not consider that there was an possibility of bias, (3) special problems relevant to the question of pre-judgment apparent bias may arise where, for instance, a designated judge has had to be exposed during pre‑trial applications to such things as significant privileged documentation, (4) in the instant case, in dealing with the committal proceedings the judge had not considered at all the essential causes of action on which C based its claims and any issues decided in those proceedings would play only a small role in the trial, (5) D’s failure to object to the designated judge serving as trial judge until trial was imminent was an unequivocal, informed and voluntary waiver of any right to apply for his recusal, (6) parties to civil proceedings are under an obligation “to help the court to further the overriding objective” (rr.1.1 and 1.3), (7) by delaying his recusal application, with the consequence that the court and the other parties invested time and resources in preparing for a trial which, if the trial judge had to be replaced and the trial postponed for a substantial and indefinite period, would be wasted, D acted in breach of that duty. Authorities on apparent bias extensively reviewed. Davidson v Scottish Ministers (No. 2) [2004] UKHL 34, 2005 1 S.C. (HL) 7, Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF [2008] EWCA Civ 117, [2008] 1 W.L.R. 2528, CA, Locabail (UK) Ltd v Bayfield Properties Ltd [2000] Q.B. 451, CA, ref’d to. (See Civil Procedure 2012 Vol.1 para.1.3.2, and Vol.2 paras 2A–64, 9A–48 & 11–14.)

■ MANNION v GINTY [2012] EWCA Civ 1667, November 21, 2012, CA, unrep. (Mummery, Jackson & Lewison L.JJ.)

Defence struck out by procedural unless order – relief from sanction

CPR r.3.9, Human Rights Act 1998 Sch.1 Pt I arts 6 & 8. In March 2008, man (C) commencing proceedings against woman (D) making claim for transfer to him by her of beneficial ownership of a flat. D not complying with court’s order for mutual disclosure by May 29, 2009, or with subsequent unless (defence strike out) order extending time to October 27, 2009. On December 22, 2009, at hearing at which both parties represented, judge giving judgment for C, but suspending enforcement on terms that D should make and serve application for relief from sanction by January 18, 2010. On October 22, 2010. D applying for relief against sanction. On November 23, 2010, judge dismissing application and authorising execution of transfer of property to C. On May 17, 2012, D’s application for permission to appeal to High Court struck out by operation of an unless (directions) order made by the Court (and with which D’s non‑compliance was attributable to failure of D’s representatives to file documents in time). On October 4, 2012, High Court judge making order dismissing D’s application (made on August 10, 2012) for relief against sanction. D applying to Court of Appeal for permission to appeal against that order, on ground that the refusal of sanction relief was disproportionate and would infringe her rights under arts 6 and 8 because it would result in D losing her home without her defence ever having been tried on the merits. Held, dismissing appeal, the court’s power to make summary orders disposing of a party’s proceedings (in this case, D’s defence) where its own orders are not complied with may be exercised compatibly with art.6, (2) the power is not removed merely because a dispute relates to someone’s home, but art.8 does require that the court should consider the effect which the strike out or the refusal of relief from sanctions would have, (3) there was no fault to be found with the judge’s approach or with the exercise of his discretion. Court stating (a) that the culture of toleration of delay and non-compliance with court orders, and (b) that it is vital for the Court of Appeal to uphold robust fair case management decisions. Fred Perry (Holdings) Ltd v Brands Plaza Trading Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 224, [2012] F.S.R. 28, CA, ref’d to. (See Civil Procedure 2012 Vol.1 paras 3.9.1 & 3.9.2.)

■ R. (JAFFAR) v GOVERNMENT OF SPAIN [2012] EWHC 3692 (Admin), November 28, 2012, unrep. (Sir John Thomas (PQBD))

Extradition appeals – case management

CPR rr.3.1(2)(b) & 52.3, Practice Direction 52D para.21.1, Extradition Act 2003 Pt 2. President of Queen’s Bench Division explaining that applications for adjournment of appeals under Pt 2 of the 2003 Act (Extradition to category


6

2 territories) (ss.103, 105, 108 and 110) had become prevalent and that the granting of such applications created Divisional Court listing problems. President announcing new case management arrangements (designed to reduce the incidence of adjournment applications) under which a date will be fixed 35 days after lodging of the appeal for a CMC at which the readiness of the case, its length and the date for its hearing will be examined, and before which parties should make application for particular orders. (See Civil Procedure 2012 Vol.1 paras 3.1.3 & 52.3.3, and Second Supplement para.52DPD.22.)

■ R. (NAUREEN) v SALFORD CITY COUNCIL [2012] EWCA Civ 1795, January 15, 2013, CA, unrep. (Moore-Bick, Etherton & Jackson L.JJ.)

Costs after settlement before trial – interim relief – judicial review claim

CPR r.44.3. Failed asylum-seekers (C) bringing judicial review proceedings against local authority. Judge giving directions for hearing together of permission application and substantive claim and granting C interim relief. Upon Secretary of State granting C exceptional leave to remain, C consenting to order withdrawing their claim. Judge making no order for costs. Court of Appeal dismissing C’s appeal. (See further “In Detail” section of this issue of CP News.) R. (Bahta) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 895, [2011] 5 Costs L.R. 857, CA, Harripaul v Lewisham LBC [2012] EWCA Civ 266, [2012] H.L.R. 24, CA, R. (M) v Croydon LBC [2012] EWCA Civ 595, [2012] 1 W.L.R. 2607, CA, ref’d to. (See Civil Procedure 2012 Vol.1 paras 44.3.7 & 54.12.5.)

■ ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC v HICKS [2012] EWCA Civ 1665, December 5, 2012, CA, unrep. (Lewison L.J.)

Application for permission to appeal to Court of Appeal adjourned – jurisdiction to make security for costs order

CPR rr.3.1, 25.13 & 25.15. Bank commencing proceedings against former owners of a football club. Judge dealing with several case management issues. Defendants applying for permission to appeal. Single lord justice adjourning application to full court, with an appeal to follow if permission is granted. Respondents (C) applying for order against several of the defendants, individual (D1) and corporate (D2), for security for their costs of the appeal on grounds that D1 were resident out of the jurisdiction and that there was reason to believe that D2 would be unable to pay C’s costs if ordered to do so. Held, granting application and ordering security in the sum of £153k, (1) under r.25.15 the Court of Appeal has power to order security “for costs of an appeal”, (2) strictly speaking r.25.15 did not apply to C’s application because, as yet, there was no “appeal” but simply an adjourned application for permission to appeal, (3) the facts that r.25.15 was not engaged was purely a technical point and in the circumstances the Court had power under r.3.1 to make the order sought, (4) that the application for permission to appeal should be stayed pending the provision of security. Great Future International Ltd v Sealand Housing Corp [2003] EWCA Civ 682, ref’d to. (See Civil Procedure 2012 Vol.1 paras 3.1.4, 3.1.5 & 25.15.1.)

■ SAN VICENTE v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT [2012] EWHC 3585 (Admin), December 12, 2012, unrep. (Philip Mott QC)

Application to amend claim – claim subject to statutory time limit

CPR rr.17.1 & 17.4, Town and Country Planning Act 1990 s.288. Inspector’s decision, allowing developer’s appeal against authority’s initial refusal of planning permission, confirmed by Secretary of State (D1). Within the six‑week time limit fixed by s.288(3), local residents (C) (acting in person) opposing the development bringing claim in High Court challenging D1’s decision under that section. Planning authority (D2) and developer (D3) joined as defendants. After expiry of the s.288(3) six-week time limit, C (now represented) applying for permission to amend their claim by substituting new grounds. Application opposed by D1 and D3. Held, granting application in part, (1) under r.17.1(2) the amendments could be made with the permission of the court, (2) in the circumstances, r.17.4 (and the restrictions therein on amendment) did not apply, because C’s application was not an application to substitute a new claim after “a period of limitation” (within the meaning of r.17.4(1)(b)) had expired, (3) there is no authority to support the proposition that the court has no jurisdiction to allow an amendment to add new grounds of claim after the expiry of the s.288(3) time limit. Cobbold v Greenwich LBC August 9, 1999, CA, unrep., Eco-Energy (GB) Ltd v First Secretary of State [2004] EWCA Civ 1566, [2005] 2 P. & C.R. 5, CA, ref’d to. (See Civil Procedure 2012 Vol.1 paras 17.3.5, 17.4.1 & 19.5.2.)


7

■ SAYERS v CHELWOOD [2012] EWCA Civ 1715, December 19, 2012, CA, unrep. (Arden, Jackson & Richards L.JJ.)

Discretion to disapply relevant limitation period – burden on claimant

CPR r.3.4, Limitation Act 1980 ss.11, 14 & 33. In October 2006, individual (C) instructing solicitors to pursue personal injury claim against former employer (D), alleging that D’s failure to provide protective equipment up until May 2000 (when he left D’s employment) caused hearing loss and tinnitus. Claim form issued on September 29, 2009. Following service of defence, in which D pleaded that claim was statute barred, claim allocated to fast track and question of limitation ordered to be tried as a preliminary issue. Deputy district judge holding (1) that C’s date of knowledge for purposes of s.14 was (as C alleged) June 2006, alternatively (2) that if the date was (as D submitted) some time in 2002, he would have exercised his discretion under s.33 and allowed the action to proceed. Circuit judge allowing D’s appeal. Single lord justice granting C permission for second appeal. On appeal, C conceding that his date of knowledge was in 2002, but submitting that circuit judge erred in not exercising his discretion under s.33 in his favour. Held, dismissing appeal, (1) the burden of persuading the court by evidence and argument relevant to the criteria set out in s.33 that it would be equitable to disapply the limitation period and to allow the action to proceed is on the claimant, (2) such a claimant is seeking the indulgence of the court, and such indulgence is exceptional in the sense that the claimant is seeking an exemption from the normal consequences of failing to commence proceedings within the limitation period, (3) in the light of subsequent higher authority, the statement in the Court’s judgment in the Bryn Alyn case, to the effect that the burden on the claimant was “a heavy burden”, could no longer be maintained, and the circuit judge erred in relying on it, (4) the discretion is broad and unfettered and how difficult or easy it is for the claimant to discharge it in a particular case will depend upon the facts, (5) a fresh consideration of the factors in s.33 supported the conclusion that, in the circumstances of this case, it would not be appropriate to disapply s.11 and enable the claim to proceed. Relevant authorities extensively reviewed. KR v Bryn Alyn Community (Holdings) Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 85, [2003] Q.B. 1441, CA, Horton v Sadler [2006] UKHL 27, [2007] 1 A.C. 307, HL, A v Hoare [2008] UKHL 6, [2008] A.C. 844, HL, AB v Ministry of Defence [2010] EWCA Civ 1317, November 22, 2010, CA, unrep., Davies v Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change [2012] EWCA Civ 1380, October 25, 2012, CA, unrep., ref’d to. (See Civil Procedure 2012 Vol.2 para.8–92.)

Statutory Instruments ■ CIVIL LEGAL AID (PROCEDURE) REGULATIONS 2012 (SI 2012/3098)

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 ss.8 to 12. Provides for the making of determination that an individual qualifies for civil legal services under s.9 (general cases) and s.10 (exceptional cases), and for the withdrawal of such determinations. (The types of case for which civil legal aid may be made available are set out in Pt 1 of Sch.1 of the 2012 Act.) In force April 1, 2012.

■ LEGAL AID, SENTENCING AND PUNISHMENT OF OFFENDERS ACT 2012 (COMMENCEMENT NO. 5 AND SAVING PROVISION) ORDER 2013 (SI 2013/77)

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2013 Pt 2, Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 ss.58, 58AA & 58C, Access to Justice 1999 s.30. Brings into force on April 1, 2013, provisions in Pt 2 effecting (1) the repeal of s.30 (recovery where body undertakes to meet costs liabilities), (2) the amendment of s.58 (conditional fee agreements), and s.58AA (damages-based agreements), and (3) the insertion of s.58C (recovery of insurance premiums by way of costs). Also brings into force on that date repeal of s.30 (recovery where body undertakes to meet costs liabilities). Brings certain Pt 2 provisions into force at an earlier date (January 19, 2013) for law-making purposes. Confirms saving made by 2012 Act (in s.48) for diffuse mesothelioma proceedings, and adds saving for insolvency proceedings and for publication and privacy proceedings (as defined). (See Civil Procedure 2012 Vol.2 paras 9A–380+, 9B–138+ & 9B–141.1+.)

■ OFFERS TO SETTLE IN CIVIL PROCEEDINGS ORDER 2013 (SI 2013/93)CPR Pt 36, Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 s.55. Payment of additional amount to successful claimant. Prescribes methods for calculation of additional amount where claim (1) is only for an amount of money, (2) includes both a claim for an amount of money and a non-monetary claim, (3) is a non-monetary claim only. Enables rules of court (to be brought into force on April 1, 2013) to be made accordingly. In force February 12, 2013.


8

In DetailCOSTS WHERE SETTLEMENT OF JUDICIAL REVIEW CLAIM

In R. (Naureen) v Salford City Council [2012] EWCA Civ 1795, January 15, 2013, CA, unrep., a local authority (D) rejected claims by failed asylum-seekers, a married couple (C), for accommodation and support. After sending appropriate Pre-Action Protocol letters, C commenced judicial review proceedings in the Administrative Court against D and immediately applied for interim relief. The substantive relief C claimed was a declaration that they were in need of care and attention for the purpose of the National Assistance Act 1948 s.21(1)(a), and a mandatory order requiring D to provide them with suitable accommodation and support. D resisted the claim. The council contended that Cs’ condition was not such that they needed “care and attention”. On December 10, 2010, a judge granted the interim relief sought by C and directed that the application for permission to proceed and the substantive claim should be tried together. With the consent of the parties, the judge reserved the question whether an order for the costs of the interim relief application should be made, and if so what order.

Thereafter the claim duly proceeded towards trial. However, on February 2, 2012, the Secretary of State granted one of the claimants exceptional leave to remain and it was clear that the other claimant would also be granted such leave. In those circumstances, because they could anticipate that they would become entitled to mainstream benefits, C no longer found it necessary to pursue their claim. Accordingly, the parties consented to an order (made on March 14, 2012) under which it was ordered that the claim be withdrawn and the question of costs be determined by the court on written submissions. On April 12, 2012 (the date is significant), after considering the parties’ submissions, a judge decided that there should be no order as to the costs of the claim. C appealed to the Court of Appeal against this decision. The court (Moore‑Bick, Etherton & Jackson L.JJ.) dismissed the appeal.

CPR r.44.3(2) states that the “general rule” as to the incidence of costs is that (a) “the unsuccessful party will be ordered to pay the costs of the successful party”, but (b) “the court may make a different order” if the circumstances demand. Rule 44.3(4) provides that such circumstances include (a) “the conduct of all the parties”, (b) the extent to which the successful party has succeeded, and (c) any admissible offer to settle, including any offer under Pt 36. According to r.44.3(5), the reference to “conduct” in this context includes conduct before, as well as during, the proceedings, and includes (a) “the extent to which the parties followed the Practice Direction (Pre-Action Conduct), or any relevant pre-action protocol”, (b) the reasonableness of raising or defending a particular issue, (c) the manner in which the litigation was conducted, (d) whether a successful claim had been exaggerated.

In recent years a number of judicial decisions have addressed the question of how these rules should be applied where civil proceedings are settled before trial. In the instant case the judge applied the factors in R. (Bahta) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 895, [2011] 5 Costs L.R. 857, CA, and Harripaul v Lewisham LBC [2012] EWCA Civ 266, [2012] H.L.R. 24, CA. That situation changed, however, six days after the judge’s decision. On May 8, 2012, the Court of Appeal handed down its decision in R. (M) v. Croydon LBC [2012] EWCA Civ 595, [2012] 1 W.L.R. 2607, CA. (For an account of that decision, see CP News Issue 6/2012.)

In the Croydon LBC case the Master of the Rolls stated (para.60) that, where a claim has been settled, there is a sharp difference between (i) a case where a claimant has been wholly successful whether following a contested hearing or pursuant to a settlement, and (ii) a case where he has only succeeded in part following a contested hearing, or pursuant to a settlement, and (iii) a case where there has been some compromise which does not actually reflect the claimant’s claims. His lordship added that, while in every case the allocation of costs will depend on the specific facts, there are some points which can be made about these different types of case.

In elaborating on the third of these cases the Master of the Rolls stated (para.63):

“In case (iii), the court is often unable to gauge whether there is a successful party in any respect, and, if so, who it is. In such cases, therefore, there is an even more powerful argument that the default position should be no order for


9

costs. However, in some such cases, it may well be sensible to look at the underlying claims and inquire whether it was tolerably clear who would have won if the matter had not settled. If it is, then that may well strongly support the contention that the party who would have won did better out of the settlement, and therefore did win.”

In the appeal in the instant case, in support of their contention that the judge erred in making no order for costs, and ought to have ordered D to pay their costs, C relied on (amongst others) the following factors: (1) that they achieved (a) the substantive benefit which they were seeking, namely long term housing and welfare support, and (b) an immediate benefit, namely interim relief, which they could not have achieved without bringing the claim, and (2) that their case was strong; if the claim had gone to trial, it was very likely that they would have won.

In giving the lead judgment of the Court (dismissing the appeal), Jackson L.J. dealt with these submissions. His lordship said that issues such as those arising now have to be dealt with on the basis of the Court’s judgment in the Croydon LBC case. His lordship’s judgment may be summarised as follows: (1) C achieved the objective of their claim, not by any court order or any concession made by D, but by the intervention of the Secretary of State, (2) the favourable intervention by a third party not involved in civil proceedings cannot be a reason to order a defendant to pay a claimant’s costs, (3) the fact that C obtained interim relief did not mean that they were successful in the claim and was not a reason for awarding to them the costs of the claim, (4) since the underlying dispute between the parties never came to trial, there was no basis upon which the judge could have ordered that the reserved costs of the interim relief application should be paid by D, (5) it is not the function of a court hearing a costs appeal to give a substantive decision about a claim which never came to trial, (6) in the circumstances it could not be argued that, on the material before the judge it was either wrong or perverse of him to have concluded that it was not possible “to say which side would have won absent the settlement”.

Jackson L.J. noted that the consent order under which C’s claim was withdrawn appeared to have been stamped and issued by the court office, without any involvement of a judge. His lordship said the order should not have been made “administratively”, but ought to have been made by a judge. If parties settle all substantive issues in litigation and wish the court to determine costs on the basis of written submissions, the proper practice is that the draft order to that effect should be placed before a judge for approval; the judge will then decide whether the court is willing to deal with costs in this way (para.51).

AMENDMENTS TO CPR FORMS

In Issue 8/2012 of CP News (September 14, 2012), it was explained that, by CPR Update 59, new practice directions were introduced and some existing practice directions amended partly (but only partly) for the purpose of reflecting changes made to the Rules by the Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 2) Rules 2012 (SI 2012/2208) coming into effect on October 1, 2012. The changes made to the rules and to the practice directions by these means were included in Supplement 2 of the 2012 edition of the White Book. However, by mid-January 2013, CPR Update 59 had not been published by the TSO. Why it has not been is a mystery. (Subscribers who pay several hundred pounds a year for this service have cause for complaint.)

The long delays that can occur between the coming into force of new practice directions, and amendments to existing practice directions, and the inconveniences that this cause, have been noted in these pages previously. The process by which practice directions are made is subject to legislation and, though complicated, is clear (see White Book 2012 Vol.2 paras 12–3 and 12–4). Whilst statutory instruments inserting new rules and amending existing rules are always published properly and in advance of their coming into effect, the same cannot be said of new and amended practice directions. This really is a disgrace.

The same problems arise with court forms. Before the CPR came into effect, prescribed forms to be used in High Court and in the county court proceedings were readily available in printed form, and everyone knew where they stood. When the revised Rules of the Supreme Court were enacted and published in 1965, prescribed forms were included in appendices. Prescribed forms for county court proceedings were published in a statutory instrument (updated according to need). There were, in addition, for both level of court practice forms, with the county courts having rather more of them than the High Court.


10

For obvious reasons when the CPR came into effect, new arrangements had to be made for the making and publication of forms. CPR r.4(1) states that “forms set out in a practice direction shall be used in the cases to which they apply”. The relevant practice direction is Practice Direction 4. Paragraph 1 explains that “the forms to be used in civil proceedings” are as listed in three tables. Table 1 lists forms that are referred to or required by particular CPR rules, or by practice directions supplementing particular Parts of the CPR (the “N” Forms). Table 2 (the “Practice Forms”) contains forms that were previously contained in Appendix A to the RSC 1965 and also the Queen’s Bench Masters’ and Chancery Masters’ Practice Forms. Table 3 lists county court forms (in use before April 26, 1999 that will have continued to be used on or after that date).

As explained above, the process by which practice directions are made is clear. The same cannot be said of the arrangements for issuing new forms and amendments to existing forms. Further, the arrangements for publishing new forms and amendments to existing forms are highly unsatisfactory. For judges, practitioners and court staff, knowing that there is an appropriate form for a particular process is one thing; finding the most recent version of it is quite another. The arrangements are unsatisfactory because publication takes place in the CPR Updates published by the TSO on instructions from the Ministry of Justice. As explained above, such publication often comes well after the commencements for the material contained in them. Consequently, if a new form is introduced or an old form amended, judges, practitioners and court staff may be unaware of this until well after the relevant commencement date. The numerous websites that purport to contain up‑to‑date forms are of little help. They are difficult to penetrate and do not clearly flag up new forms and recent changes to old forms. The form found on one website may not be the same as the one found on another. A further difficulty is that the same form may be given different titles. In any event, what is the validity of a form on a website? (There can even be inconsistencies between Ministry of Justice and HM Courts and Tribunal Service websites; and search boxes can often fail to identify forms that undoubtedly exist.) Obviously, circumstances may arise in which a form has to be modified urgently, with the result that timely publication of the change is not possible.

When a CPR Update includes a new form, or amends an existing form, that will often be done as a consequence of a change to a rule or a practice direction provision. But that will not always be the case. (There have been instances of CPR Forms being re-issued several times, just for the purpose of correcting the postal codes of provincial court offices.) The, as yet, unpublished Update 59 amended eight “N” Forms and introduced one new “N” Form. The new form is N210C; it is also included in Annex 2 to Part 81 (see White Book 2012 Supplement 2 para.81PD.19). That form is relevant to r.81.15(7) and deals with a very rare procedure.

The forms amended by Update 59 are as follows:

N16 (Injunction Order)

N19 (Limited Civil Restraint Order)

N19A (Extended Civil Restraint Order)

N19B (General Civil Restraint Order)

N117 (General form of undertaking)

N242 (Notice of payment into court (under order – Part 37)

N460 (Reasons for allowing or refusing permission to appeal)

It may be noted that Form N463 (Judicial review – application for urgent consideration) is not among the forms listed in Update 59 as being amended. Nevertheless, that form was amended in October 2012. The nature of and the significance of the amendment was explained by Sir John Thomas in R. (Hamid) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 3070 (Admin), October 30, 2012, unrep. In that case, Sir John took practitioners task for not complying with the amended form. As was explained in the account of the Hamid case given in CP News Issue 10/2012, by the amendment to Form N463 an additional section headed “Justification for request for immediate consideration” is added in which the applicant is required to give the date and time when it was first appreciated that an immediate application might be necessary, to provide reasons for any delay in making the


11

application, and to state what efforts have been made to put the defendant and any interested party on notice of the application.

In principle, forms should follow rules and practice directions. The function of rules and the function of forms are quite distinct. The function of forms is to assist in the implementation of what rules say. They are concerned with practice, not with procedure. It would not be right to introduce through form amendments, what were in effect new rules of court (particularly those apparently imposing new practice requirements on parties stating what the court expects them to do and how they should do it). That would outflank the rule‑making process and the safeguards inherent in that process.

In the recent case of Awuku v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 3690 (Admin), December 10, 2012, D.C., unrep., Sir John Thomas refers to other Administrative Court forms apparently recently amended (that case is summarised in the “ In Brief” section of this issue of CP News). This was done, not for the purpose of reflecting a change in court rules or practice directions or to implement some useful modification to practice, but for the quite different purpose of forcing practitioners to focus on professional obligations that ought to be second nature to them. It is regrettable that this should have proved necessary. Sir John, sitting in a Divisional Court, said (para.4) that it has always been the professional obligation of solicitors and counsel, when renewing applications or making applications on an ex parte basis, to satisfy themselves that the claim being advanced is one that they can properly make. This is particularly important and the onus on counsel and solicitors is high. His lordship added (para.5):

“Recent additions have been made to the forms used by this court, because it appeared that that professional obligation was not being followed. The forms now require the lawyers to certify (1) on a renewal that the reasons for the refusal of permission as totally without merit have been considered and that the claim is properly arguable, and (2) on an application out of hours that the application is in compliance with professional obligations. It should have been wholly unnecessary for this court to have so specified in its forms because it has long been accepted that renewed applications and ex parte applications should not be made in cases that are not properly arguable.”

Obviously, the precipitate amendment of forms explained by Sir John Thomas in the Awuku case can be regarded as an exceptional step to meet an immediate need. It in no way detracts from the force of the point that the introduction of new forms and the amendment of exiting forms relevant to civil proceedings should be properly published and in timely manner.


12

Absencefailure to attend trial

general note, [2012] 9/8general note

failure to attend trial, [2012] 9/8

permission to appealcase summary, [2012] 2/2oral hearings, [2012] 1/2–[2012] 1/3, [2012] 1/6

Absence of respondentpermission to appeal

oral hearing, [2012] 1/6, [2012] 1/2–[2012] 1/3

Abuse of processdisproportionate procedure

case summary, [2012] 6/5re-allocation of claims, [2012] 6/5

fraudulent claimscase summary, [2012] 7/5striking out, [2012] 7/5

striking outcase summary, [2012] 6/5, [2012] 7/5disproportionate procedure, [2012] 6/5, [2012] 6/7–[2012] 6/8fraudulent claims, [2012] 7/5

Addition of new partieswrongly constituted claim

case summary, [2012] 10/4named claimant having no cause of action, [2012] 10/4

Addition of partiesharassment

case summary, [2012] 10/6–[2012] 10/7persons unknown, [2012] 10/6–[2012] 10/7

persons unknownadding named defendant, [2012] 10/6–[2012] 10/7harassment, [2012] 10/6–[2012] 10/7

Adjournmentaffirming order where party

lacked capacitycase summary, [2012] 3/3general note, [2012] 3/7–[2012] 3/8

appealscase summary, [2012] 8/3test to be applied, [2012] 8/3

barristersavailability of leading counsel, [2012] 9/3–[2012] 9/4case summary, [2012] 9/3–[2012] 9/4

capacityaffirming order where party lacked capacity, [2012] 3/3case summary, [2012] 3/3general note, [2012] 3/7–[2012] 3/8

failure to attend trialaffirming order where party lacked capacity, [2012] 3/3case summary, [2012] 3/3

general noteaffirming order where party lacked capacity, [2012] 3/7–[2012] 3/8capacity, [2012] 3/7–[2012] 3/8

Patents Court claimsavailability of leading counsel, [2012] 9/3–[2012] 9/4case summary, [2012] 9/3–[2012] 9/4

video evidencecase summary, [2012] 8/5–[2012] 8/6ill health of party, [2012] 8/5–[2012] 8/6

Administrative Courtcosts

case summary, [2012] 6/3–[2012] 6/4general note, [2012] 6/6–[2012] 6/7settlement, [2012] 6/3–[2012] 6/4

general note

costs, [2012] 6/6–[2012] 6/7urgent applications, [2012] 10/9–[2012] 10/10

urgent applicationscase summary, [2012] 10/5general note, [2012] 10/9–[2012] 10/10procedural guidance, [2012] 10/5, [2012] 10/9–[2012] 10/10

Admissibilitygeneral note

notice of objection, [2012] 2/5–[2012] 2/7

notice of objectiongeneral note, [2012] 2/5–[2012] 2/7

After the event insurancelegal costs insurance premiums

case summary, [2012] 8/4Amendments

judicial decision-makingcase summary, [2012] 5/3statements of case, [2012] 5/31, [2012] 5/3

Appeal noticessecond appeals

case summary, [2012] 5/4Appeals

academic appealscase summary, [2012] 2/2–[2012] 2/3

adjournmentcase summary, [2012] 8/3test to be applied, [2012] 8/3

bundles, [2012] 1/4, [2012] 1/5, [2012] 1/4, [2012] 1/5Civil Procedure Rules, [2012] 8/8contempt of court

case summary, [2012] 6/3proportionality, [2012] 6/3

deathcase summary, [2012] 4/2protected party, [2012] 4/2

delaybreach of Convention right, [2012] 3/2

The selection of headings in this index has been informed by Sweet & Maxwell’s Legal Taxonomy. Subject headings in the index conform to keywords provided by the Legal Taxonomy. These keywords provide a means of identifying similar concepts in other Sweet & Maxwell publications and online services to which keywords from the Legal Taxonomy has been applied. Suggestions to [email protected].

CUMULATIVE INDEX to CIVIL PROCEDURE NEWS

issues Jan to Dec 2013 [1 to 10]

[references are to [year] issue/page]


13

case summary, [2012] 3/2documents for appeal

appeal bundles, [2012] 1/4, [2012] 1/5case summary, [2012] 2/4”extraneous to the issues to be considered”, [2012] 1/4, [2012] 1/5general note, [2012] 1/5

extensions of timecase summary, [2012] 6/5notice of appeal, [2012] 6/5

general notedocuments for appeal, [2012] 1/5

judicial reviewcase summary, [2012] 10/5–[2012] 10/6refusal of permission to appeal, [2012] 10/5–[2012] 10/6

practice directions, [2012] 8/9, [2012] 8/9–[2012] 8/10, [2012] 10/11protective costs orders

case summary, [2012] 3/4public interest, [2012] 3/4

public interestcase summary, [2012] 3/4protective costs orders, [2012] 3/4

reliefcase summary, [2012] 4/3robust decision making by first instance judge, [2012] 4/3

transfer of proceedingscase summary, [2012] 5/3–[2012] 5/4transfer from High Court to Court of Appeal, [2012] 5/3–[2012] 5/4

Applications without noticefreezing injunctions, [2012] 3/3–[2012] 3/4

case summary, [2012] 3/3–[2012] 3/4exceptions to order, [2012] 3/3–[2012] 3/4general note, [2012] 3/8

general notefreezing injunctions, [2012] 3/8

Appointmentsarbitrators

case summary, [2012] 10/4permission to appeal where failure of appointment procedure, [2012] 10/4

receiverscase summary, [2012] 10/5interests of justice, [2012] 10/5representation of defendant, [2012] 10/5

Arbitratorsappointments

case summary, [2012] 10/4permission to appeal where failure of appointment procedure, [2012] 10/4

permission to appealappointment, [2012] 10/4case summary, [2012] 10/4

Assessmentcosts

case summary, [2012] 2/4low‑value road traffic accident claims, [2012] 1/4

Barristersadjournment

availability of leading counsel, [2012] 9/3–[2012] 9/4

Bundlesappeals, [2012] 1/4, [2012] 1/5

Capacityadjournment

affirming order where party lacked capacity, [2012] 3/3case summary, [2012] 3/3general note, [2012] 3/7–[2012] 3/8

general noteadjournment, [2012] 3/7–[2012] 3/8

Case managementcontrol orders

case summary, [2012] 5/4effect on CPR of statutory provisions, [2012] 5/4

Case management directionsexpert evidence

change of expert, [2012] 5/2case summary, [2012] 5/2permission to substitute, [2012] 5/2

Certificates of points of lawpermission to appeal

case summary, [2012] 3/5restraint orders, [2012] 3/5

Chancery Divisionfreezing injunctions

communications with the court, [2012] 1/8

interim applicationscase summary, [2012] 2/3electronic drafts, [2012] 1/8new procedure, [2012] 1/8

search orderscommunications with the court, [2012] 1/8

Charging ordersinstalments, [2012] 10/7, [2012] 10/10–[2012] 10/11Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007

(Commencement Order No.8) 2012, [2012] 10/7, [2012] 10/10–[2012] 10/11

Citation of authoritiespractice directions, [2012] 5/8

Civil Procedure Rulesamendments

anti-terrorism legislation proceedings, [2012] 1/4appeals, [2012] 8/9–[2012] 8/11contempt of court, [2012] 8/11–[2012] 8/12designated money claims, [2012] 1/4, [2012] 3/5Parts, to, [2012] 1/4, [2012] 1/8, [2012] 1/5, [2012] 3/5, [2012] 8/9–[2012] 8/12small claims, [2012] 8/12

appeals, [2012] 8/8contract law, [2012] 10/12rule-making power, [2012] 10/12

Claim formsextensions of time

case summary, [2012] 6/2libel, [2012] 6/2

libelcase summary, [2012] 6/2extensions of time, [2012] 6/2

servicecase summary, [2012] 2/4permitted methods, [2012] 5/5service out of jurisdiction, [2012] 5/5trespassers, [2012] 2/4

time limitscase summary, [2012] 7/3–[2012] 7/4when action brought, [2012] 7/3–[2012] 7/4

Collateral contractsservice out of jurisdiction

case summary, [2012] 2/2claim “in respect of a contract”, [2012] 2/2standard of proof, [2012] 2/2

Committal for contemptfraudulent claims

case summary, [2012] 10/3–[2012] 10/4sentencing, [2012] 10/3–[2012] 10/4

ordercase summary, [2012] 2/2transfer of proceedings to High Court, [2012] 1/2

sentencingcase summary, [2012] 10/3–[2012] 10/4fraudulent claims, [2012] 10/3–[2012] 10/4


14

Conditional fee agreementsgeneral note

success fees, [2012] 9/6–[2012] 9/8

guidelinesgeneral note, [2012] 9/6–[2012] 9/8

success feesgeneral note, [2012] 9/6–[2012] 9/8recovery of success fee, [2012] 9/6–[2012] 9/8

Conditional permissionpermission to appeal

case summary, [2012] 9/5, [2012] 10/7costs between the parties, [2012] 9/5reasons for imposing conditions, [2012] 9/5, [2012] 10/7

Consent ordermental patients

case summary, [2012] 10/2–[2012] 10/3validity where no litigation friend, [2012] 10/2–[2012] 10/3

Consent orderspossession claims

abandonment of claims, [2012] 8/5, [2012] 8/7–[2012] 8/8case summary, [2012] 8/5second claims, [2012] 8/5

Contempt of courtappeals

case summary, [2012] 6/3proportionality, [2012] 6/3

Civil Procedure Rulesamendment, [2012] 8/11–[2012] 8/12

county courtsgeneral note, [2012] 7/6–[2012] 7/8jurisdiction, [2012] 7/6–[2012] 7/8

custodycase summary, [2012] 10/5debarring orders, [2012] 10/5

debarring orderscase summary, [2012] 10/5custody, [2012] 10/5general note, [2012] 10/8–[2012] 10/9

general notedebarring orders, [2012] 10/8–[2012] 10/9

restraint orderscase summary, [2012] 2/3speciality, [2012] 2/3

specialitycase summary, [2012] 2/3restraint orders, [2012] 2/3

Control orderscase management

case summary, [2012] 5/4effect on CPR of statutory provisions, [2012] 5/4

CostsAdministrative Court

case summary, [2012] 6/3–[2012] 6/4general note, [2012] 6/6–[2012] 6/7settlement, [2012] 6/3–[2012] 6/4, [2012] 6/6–[2012] 6/7

assessmentcase summary, [2012] 2/4low‑value road traffic accident claims, [2012] 1/4

settlementAdministrative Court, [2012] 6/3–[2012] 6/4case summary, [2012] 6/3–[2012] 6/4

Costs between the partiesgeneral note

reallocation, [2012] 5/7–[2012] 5/8variation of order, [2012] 5/7–[2012] 5/8

permission to appealcase summary, [2012] 9/5conditions, [2012] 9/5

reallocationcase summary, [2012] 5/5general note, [2012] 5/7–[2012] 5/8variation of order, [2012] 5/5

Costs ordersdetailed assessment

approval of compromise on behalf of child, [2012] 4/2case summary, [2012] 4/2

interestcase summary, [2012] 3/4–[2012] 3/5

part 36 offerscase summary, [2012] 9/4

case summary, [2012] 10/2claimant’s costs after expiry of relevant period, [2012] 9/4split trials, [2012] 10/2

County courts@g

contempt of court, [2012] 7/6–[2012] 7/8

contempt of court@g, [2012] 7/6–[2012] 7/8general note, [2012] 7/6–[2012] 7/8

jurisdiction, [2012] 7/6–[2012] 7/8

general noteinterest, [2012] 3/6–[2012] 3/7

interestgeneral note, [2012] 3/6–[2012] 3/7

Court documentsredaction

case summary, [2012] 4/4supply of documents to non-party, [2012] 4/4

supply of documents to non-partycase summary, [2012] 4/4redaction, [2012] 4/4

Custodycontempt of court

case summary, [2012] 10/5debarring orders, [2012] 10/5

debarring orderscase summary, [2012] 10/5contempt of court, [2012] 10/5general note, [2012] 10/8–[2012] 10/9

general notedebarring orders, [2012] 10/8–[2012] 10/9

Deathappeals

case summary, [2012] 4/2protected party, [2012] 4/2

permission to appealcase summary, [2012] 4/2protected party, [2012] 4/2

Defamatory meaningrulings on meaning

case summary, [2012] 5/2Default judgments

conditions for grantcase summary, [2012] 4/3certificate of service, [2012] 4/3

Delayappeals

breach of Convention right, [2012] 3/2case summary, [2012] 3/2

Designated money claimsCivil Procedure Rules

centralisation of functions, [2012] 1/6, [2012] 1/7, [2012] 3/5

definition, [2012] 1/7National Civil Business Centre, [2012] 1/6, [2012] 1/7preliminary stages, [2012] 1/7

Detailed assessmentcosts orders



15

Dilapidationsgeneral note

pre-action protocols, [2012] 1/7–[2012] 1/8

pre-action protocolsgeneral note, [2012] 1/7–[2012] 1/8

Discretionjudicial decision-making

mode of trial, [2012] 9/2limitation periods

case summary, [2012] 9/3discretionary exclusion, [2012] 9/3personal injury claims, [2012] 9/3

mode of trialjudicial decision-making, [2012] 9/2

Dissolved companiespersonal injury claims

case summary, [2012] 8/4–[2012] 8/5restoration of company to register, [2012] 8/4–[2012] 8/5

restorationcase summary, [2012] 8/4–[2012] 8/5personal injury claims, [2012] 8/4–[2012] 8/5

Documentary hearsayexpert witnesses

case summary, [2012] 2/2Expert evidence

case management directionscase summary, [2012] 5/2change of expert, [2012] 5/2, [2012] 5/6–[2012] 5/7permission to substitute, [2012] 5/2, [2012] 5/6–[2012] 5/7

permission to substitute, [2012] 5/2, [2012] 5/6–[2012] 5/7statements of case

case summary, [2012] 5/3departure from pleaded defence, [2012] 5/33

Expert witnessesdocumentary hearsay

case summary, [2012] 2/2Extensions of time

additional evidence on appealcase summary, [2012] 3/2

appealscase summary, [2012] 6/5notice of appeal, [2012] 6/5relief, [2012] 6/5

bringing proceedingsadditional evidence on appeal, [2012] 3/2case summary, [2012] 3/2

claim formscase summary, [2012] 6/2libel, [2012] 6/2

judicial reviewcase summary, [2012] 7/4renewed application for permission to proceed, [2012] 7/4

particulars of claimcase summary, [2012] 3/5exercise of discretion, [2012] 3/5

reliefappeals, [2012] 6/5

renewed application for permission to proceed

judicial review, [2012] 7/4Failure to attend

general notesetting aside, [2012] 9/8

setting asidegeneral note, [2012] 9/8neither party attending, [2012] 9/8

Family Divisionfinancial orders

general note, [2012] 8/7multiplicity of proceedings, [2012] 8/7, [2012] 8/2transfer of proceedings, [2012] 8/2, [2012] 8/7

general notefinancial orders, [2012] 8/7

transfer of proceedingsfinancial orders, [2012] 8/2, [2012] 8/7multiplicity of proceedings, [2012] 8/2, [2012] 8/7

Financial ordersFamily Division

general note, [2012] 8/7multiplicity of proceedings, 2, [2012] 8/7transfer of proceedings, [2012] 8/2, [2012] 8/71, [2012] 8/2, [2012] 8/7

general noteFamily Division, [2012] 8/7

multiplicity of proceedingsFamily Division, [2012] 8/7

Fraudulent claimsabuse of process

case summary, [2012] 7/5striking out, [2012] 7/5

committal for contemptcase summary, [2012] 10/3–[2012] 10/4sentencing, [2012] 10/3–[2012] 10/4

Freedom of expressioninterim orders affecting rights of

third partiescase summary, [2012] 6/2

Freezing injunctionsapplications without notice, [2012] 3/3–[2012] 3/4

case summary, [2012] 3/3–[2012] 3/4exceptions to order, [2012] 3/3–[2012] 3/4general note, [2012] 3/8

cause of actioncase summary, [2012] 4/4jurisdiction, [2012] 4/4

Chancery Divisioncommunications with the court, [2012] 1/8

general noteapplications without notice, [2012] 3/8

interim injunctionscase summary, [2012] 4/4cause of action, [2012] 4/4

jurisdictioncase summary, [2012] 4/4cause of action, [2012] 4/4

Patents County Courtcase summary, [2012] 6/4–[2012] 6/5jurisdiction, [2012] 6/4–[2012] 6/5

Habeas corpuspower and control of applicant

case summary, [2012] 10/6Harassment

addition of partiescase summary, [2012] 10/6–[2012] 10/7persons unknown, [2012] 10/6–[2012] 10/7

persons unknowncase summary, [2012] 10/6–[2012] 10/7

Hearings in open courtdefamatory meaning

case summary, [2012] 5/2rulings on meaning, [2012] 5/2

rulings on meaningcase summary, [2012] 5/2defamatory meaning, [2012] 5/2

High Courtcommittal for contempt

transfer of proceedings to High Court, [2012] 1/2

transfer of proceedingscase summary, [2012] 7/2Patents County Court, [2012] 7/2

Injunctionscompetitive advantage

case summary, [2012] 3/4


16

springboard reliefcase summary, [2012] 3/4

Insolvency proceedingsgeneral note

transfer of proceedings, [2012] 8/7

practice directionsnew practice direction, [2012] 3/5

transfer of proceedingscase summary, [2012] 8/2Family Division, [2012] 8/2, [2012] 8/7general note, [2012] 8/7

Interestcosts orders

case summary, [2012] 3/4–[2012] 3/5

county courtsgeneral note, [2012] 3/6–[2012] 3/7

general notecounty courts, [2012] 3/6–[2012] 3/7

Interim injunctionscompetitive advantage

case summary, [2012] 3/4discharge

case summary, [2012] 2/2–[2012] 2/3

freezing injunctionscase summary, [2012] 4/4cause of action, [2012] 4/4

springboard reliefcase summary, [2012] 3/4

Interim ordersapplications

case summary, [2012] 8/2–[2012] 8/3period of notice, [2012] 8/2–[2012] 8/3

freedom of expressioncase summary, [2012] 6/2orders affecting rights of third parties, [2012] 6/2

Interim paymentsconditions for making order

case summary, [2012] 2/3, [2012] 3/2construction of CPR, [2012] 1/3reasons for not granting order, [2012] 3/2

Judicial decision-makingamendments

case summary, [2012] 5/3statements of case, [2012] 5/31, [2012] 5/3

discretionmode of trial, [2012] 9/2

libel

mode of trial, [2012] 9/2striking out

preliminary rulings of judge, [2012] 7/3, [2012] 7/8

Judicial reviewappeals

case summary, [2012] 10/5–[2012] 10/6refusal of permission to appeal, [2012] 10/5–[2012] 10/6

extensions of timecase summary, [2012] 7/4renewed application for permission to proceed, [2012] 7/4

permission to appealcase summary, [2012] 4/5general note, [2012] 4/7–[2012] 4/8jurisdictional error, [2012] 4/5renewal of applications, [2012] 4/5

Jurisdictionfreezing injunctions

case summary, [2012] 4/4cause of action, [2012] 4/4

Legal costs insurance premiumsafter the event insurance

case summary, [2012] 8/4Libel

claim formsextensions of time, [2012] 6/2

mode of trialcase summary, [2012] 9/2judge’s exercise of discretion, [2012] 9/2

Limitation periodsdiscretionary exclusion

personal injury claims, [2012] 9/3

personal injury claimscase summary, [2012] 9/3discretionary exclusion, [2012] 9/3

Mental patientsconsent order

case summary, [2012] 10/2–[2012] 10/3validity where no litigation friend, [2012] 10/2–[2012] 10/3

Minorspersonal injury


Mode of trialdiscretion

case summary, [2012] 9/2judicial decision-making, [2012] 9/2

libel

case summary, [2012] 9/2judge’s exercise of discretion, [2012] 9/2

Noticepersonal service

case summary, [2012] 10/3contractual notice of intended claim, [2012] 10/3

trespasserscase summary, [2012] 2/4

Noticesadmissibility

general note, [2012] 2/5–[2012] 2/7notice of objection, [2012] 2/5–[2012] 2/7

general noteadmissibility, [2012] 2/5–[2012] 2/7notice of objections, [2012] 2/5–[2012] 2/7

Notices seeking possessionpossession orders

case summary, [2012] 9/2confirmation of decision, [2012] 9/2reviews, [2012] 9/2

Oral hearingspermission to appeal

absence of respondent, [2012] 1/6, [2012] 1/2–[2012] 1/3

Oral submissionspreliminary rulings

striking out, [2012] 7/3, [2012] 7/8

striking outcase summary, [2012] 7/3preliminary rulings, [2012] 7/3, [2012] 7/8

Part 36 offersacceptance

case summary, [2012] 4/3–[2012] 4/4general note, [2012] 4/8

costs orderscase summary, [2012] 9/4

case summary, [2012] 10/2claimant’s costs after expiry of relevant period, [2012] 9/4split trials, [2012] 10/2

general noteacceptance, [2012] 4/8

non-compliance with provisionscase summary, [2012] 2/4

road traffic accidentscase summary, [2012] 2/4costs where damages not exceeding £10, 000, [2012] 1/4low value claims, [2012] 1/4

split trials


17

case summary, [2012] 10/2costs orders, [2012] 10/2

time limitscase summary, [2012] 2/4

Particulars of claimextensions of time

case summary, [2012] 3/5exercise of discretion, [2012] 3/5

Patents County Courtfreezing injunctions

case summary, [2012] 6/4–[2012] 6/5jurisdiction, [2012] 6/4–[2012] 6/5

search orderscase summary, [2012] 6/4–[2012] 6/5jurisdiction, [2012] 6/4–[2012] 6/5

transfer of proceedingscase summary, [2012] 7/2transfer from High Court, [2012] 7/2

Patents Court claimsadjournment

availability of leading counsel, [2012] 9/3–[2012] 9/4

application to vacate trial dateavailability of leading counsel, [2012] 9/3–[2012] 9/4

trialsapplication to vacate trial date, [2012] 9/3–[2012] 9/4case summary, [2012] 9/3–[2012] 9/4

Permission to appealabsence of respondent

case summary, [2012] 2/2general note, [2012] 1/6oral hearing, [2012] 1/6, [2012] 1/2–[2012] 1/3

arbitratorsappointment, [2012] 10/4

certificates of points of lawcase summary, [2012] 3/5restraint orders, [2012] 3/5

conditional permissioncase summary, [2012] 9/5, [2012] 10/7costs between the parties, [2012] 9/5reasons for imposing conditions, [2012] 9/5, [2012] 10/7

conditionssecurity for appeal costs, [2012] 6/4

costs between the partiescase summary, [2012] 9/5conditions, [2012] 9/5

death

case summary, [2012] 4/2protected party, [2012] 4/2

general noteabsence of respondent, [2012] 1/6setting aside, [2012] 1/6

judicial reviewcase summary, [2012] 4/5general note, [2012] 4/7–[2012] 4/8jurisdictional error, [2012] 4/5renewal of applications, [2012] 4/5

restraint orderscase summary, [2012] 3/5certificate of general public importance, [2012] 3/5

security for appeal costscase summary, [2012] 6/4conditions, [2012] 6/4

security for costsappeal having no real prospect of success, [2012] 9/4case summary, [2012] 9/4

setting asidecase summary, [2012] 2/2, [2012] 2/3, [2012] 2/2, [2012] 2/3, [2012] 4/2death, [2012] 4/2general note, [2012] 1/6order granted without knowledge of full facts, [2012] 1/3

unmeritous appealscase summary, [2012] 9/4no real prospect of success, [2012] 9/4

Personal injury claimsdissolved companies

case summary, [2012] 8/4–[2012] 8/5restoration of company to register, [2012] 8/4–[2012] 8/5

limitation periodscase summary, [2012] 9/3discretionary exclusion, [2012] 9/3

minorsapproval of compromise on behalf of child, [2012] 4/2case summary, [2012] 4/2

Personal servicenotice

case summary, [2012] 10/3contractual notice of intended claim, [2012] 10/3

Possession claimsconsent orders

abandonment of claims, [2012] 8/5, [2012] 8/7–[2012] 8/8

case summary, [2012] 8/5general note, [2012] 8/7–[2012] 8/8second claims, [2012] 8/5

general noteabandonment of claims, [2012] 8/7–[2012] 8/8consent orders, [2012] 8/7–[2012] 8/8right to respect for home, [2012] 8/8

rent arrearscase summary, [2012] 7/5routes of appeal, [2012] 7/5

right to respect for homecase summary, [2012] 8/2general note, [2012] 8/8trespassers, [2012] 8/2, [2012] 8/8

routes of appealcase summary, [2012] 7/5

trespasserscase summary, [2012] 8/2right to respect for home, [2012] 8/2

Possession ordersnotices seeking possession

case summary, [2012] 9/2confirmation of decision, [2012] 9/2reviews, [2012] 9/2

trespasserscase summary, [2012] 2/4service, [2012] 2/4

Practice directionsappeals, [2012] 8/9, [2012] 8/9–[2012] 8/10, [2012] 10/11citation of authorities, [2012] 5/8insolvency proceedings

new practice direction, [2012] 3/5

Pre-action protocolsdilapidations

general note, [2012] 1/7–[2012] 1/8, [2012] 1/7–[2012] 1/81

general notedilapidations, [2012] 1/7–[2012] 1/8

Protective costs ordersappeals

case summary, [2012] 3/4public interest, [2012] 3/4

Reallocationcosts between the parties

case summary, [2012] 5/5general note, [2012] 5/7–[2012] 5/8variation of order, [2012] 5/5

general notecosts between the parties,


18

[2012] 5/7–[2012] 5/8Receivers

appointmentscase summary, [2012] 10/5interests of justice, [2012] 10/5representation of defendant, [2012] 10/5

Redactioncourt documents

case summary, [2012] 4/4supply of documents to non-party, [2012] 4/4

supply of documents to non-partycase summary, [2012] 4/4

Reinsurancestay of proceedings

case summary, [2012] 10/2jurisdiction clauses, [2012] 10/2

Reliefappeals

case summary, [2012] 4/3extensions of time, [2012] 6/5robust decision making by first instance judge, [2012] 4/3

extensions of timeappeals, [2012] 6/5

unless orderscase summary, [2012] 6/3revocation of order, [2012] 6/3

Rent arrearspossession claims

case summary, [2012] 7/5routes of appeal, [2012] 7/5

Restorationdissolved companies

case summary, [2012] 8/4–[2012] 8/5personal injury claims, [2012] 8/4–[2012] 8/5

Restraint orderscontempt of court

case summary, [2012] 2/3speciality, [2012] 2/3

permission to appealcase summary, [2012] 3/5certificate of general public importance, [2012] 3/5

Right to respect for homepossession claims

case summary, [2012] 8/2trespassers, [2012] 8/2

Road traffic accidentspart 36 offers

case summary, [2012] 2/4costs where damages not exceeding £10, 000, [2012] 1/4low value claims, [2012] 1/4

Routes of appealpossession claims

case summary, [2012] 7/5Rulings on meaning

defamatory meaningcase summary, [2012] 5/2hearings in open court, [2012] 5/2

hearings in open courtcase summary, [2012] 5/2defamatory meaning, [2012] 5/2

Search ordersChancery Division

communications with the court, [2012] 1/8

Patents County Courtcase summary, [2012] 6/4–[2012] 6/5jurisdiction, [2012] 6/4–[2012] 6/5

Second appealsappeal notices

case summary, [2012] 5/4Security for costs

permission to appealappeal having no real prospect of success, [2012] 9/4case summary, [2012] 9/4

Sentencingcommittal for contempt

case summary, [2012] 10/3–[2012] 10/4fraudulent claims, [2012] 10/3–[2012] 10/4

Serviceclaim forms

case summary, [2012] 2/4permitted methods, [2012] 5/5service out of jurisdiction, [2012] 5/5trespassers, [2012] 2/4

Service by alternative permitted method

general noteservice out of jurisdiction, [2012] 1/5–[2012] 1/6

service out of jurisdictioncase summary, [2012] 1/2, [2012] 7/2general note, [2012] 1/5–[2012] 1/6permission to serve, [2012] 1/2, [2012] 1/5–[2012] 1/6retrospective validation of service, [2012] 7/2

Service out of jurisdictionclaim “in respect of a contract”

case summary, [2012] 2/2collateral contracts

case summary, [2012] 2/2standard of proof, [2012] 2/2

contract claims

general note, [2012] 2/7–[2012] 2/8

general notecontract claims, [2012] 2/7–[2012] 2/8jurisdictional gateways, [2012] 2/7–[2012] 2/8

jurisdictional gatewaysgeneral note, [2012] 2/7–[2012] 2/8

service by alternative permitted method

case summary, [2012] 1/2, [2012] 7/2general note, [2012] 1/5–[2012] 1/6permission to serve, [2012] 1/2, [2012] 1/5–[2012] 1/6retrospective validation of service, [2012] 7/2

Setting asidefailure to attend

general note, [2012] 9/8neither party attending, [2012] 9/8

general notefailure to attend, [2012] 9/8neither party attending, [2012] 9/8

neither party attendinggeneral note, [2012] 9/8

permission to appealcase summary, [2012] 2/2, [2012] 2/3, [2012] 4/2death, [2012] 4/2order granted without knowledge of full facts, [2012] 1/3

settlementcase summary, [2012] 10/2–[2012] 10/3validity where no litigation friend, [2012] 10/2–[2012] 10/3

Settlementcosts

Administrative Court, [2012] 6/3–[2012] 6/4case summary, [2012] 6/3–[2012] 6/4

setting asidecase summary, [2012] 10/2–[2012] 10/3validity where no litigation friend, [2012] 10/2–[2012] 10/3

Small claimsCivil Procedure Rules

amendment, [2012] 8/12Specialist lists

transfer of proceedings


19

case summary, [2012] 5/2jurisdiction of Masters, [2012] 5/2

Specialitycontempt of court

case summary, [2012] 2/3restraint orders, [2012] 2/3

Split trialspart 36 offers

case summary, [2012] 10/2costs orders, [2012] 10/2

Standard disclosureapplication to limit disclosure

case summary, [2012] 2/3–[2012] 2/4

variationapplication to limit disclosure, [2012] 2/3–[2012] 2/4case summary, [2012] 2/2–[2012] 2/4

Statements of caseexpert evidence

case summary, [2012] 5/3departure from pleaded defence, [2012] 5/3

Stay of proceedingsreinsurance

case summary, [2012] 10/2jurisdiction clauses, [2012] 10/2

Striking outabuse of process

case summary, [2012] 6/5, [2012] 7/5disproportionate procedure, [2012] 6/5, [2012] 6/7–[2012] 6/8fraudulent claims, [2012] 7/5

judicial decision-makingpreliminary rulings of judge, [2012] 7/3, [2012] 7/8

oral submissionscase summary, [2012] 7/3preliminary rulings, [2012] 7/3, [2012] 7/8

unless orderscase summary, [2012] 4/3–[2012] 4/4subsequent acceptance of Part 36 offer, [2012] 4/3–[2012] 4/4

Substitution of partieswrongly constituted claim

case summary, [2012] 10/4named claimant having no cause of action, [2012] 10/4

Success feesguidelines, [2012] 9/6–[2012] 9/8recovery of success fee, [2012] 9/6–[2012] 9/8

TCC claimstransfer of proceedings

case summary, [2012] 4/5general note, [2012] 4/6–[2012] 4/7new practice, [2012] 4/5

Terrorist offencesamendment to Civil Procedure Rules, [2012] 1/4proceedings under Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011, [2012] 1/4

Text messaginglive text-based communications

practice guidance, [2012] 2/4Time limits

claim formscase summary, [2012] 7/3–[2012] 7/4when action brought, [2012] 7/3–[2012] 7/4

part 36 offerscase summary, [2012] 2/4

Transfer of proceedingsappeals

case summary, [2012] 5/3–[2012] 5/4transfer from High Court to Court of Appeal, [2012] 5/3–[2012] 5/4

general noteinsolvency proceedings, [2012] 8/7multiplicity of proceedings, [2012] 8/7

High CourtPatents County Court, [2012] 7/2

insolvency proceedingscase summary, [2012] 8/2Family Division, [2012] 8/2, [2012] 8/7general note, [2012] 8/7

Patents County Courtcase summary, [2012] 7/2transfer from High Court, [2012] 7/2

specialist listscase summary, [2012] 5/2jurisdiction of Masters, [2012] 5/2

TCC claimscase summary, [2012] 4/5general note, [2012] 4/6–[2012] 4/7new practice, [2012] 4/5

Trespassersgeneral note

possession claims, [2012] 8/8notice

case summary, [2012] 2/4possession claims

case summary, [2012] 8/2

general note, [2012] 8/8right to respect for home, [2012] 8/2, [2012] 8/8

possession orderscase summary, [2012] 2/4service, [2012] 2/4

servicecase summary, [2012] 2/4claim form, [2012] 2/4

TrialsPatents Court claims

application to vacate trial date, [2012] 9/3–[2012] 9/4case summary, [2012] 9/3–[2012] 9/4

Unless ordersgeneral note

striking out, [2012] 4/8non-compliance

case summary, [2012] 6/3relief

case summary, [2012] 6/3revocation of order, [2012] 6/3

striking outcase summary, [2012] 4/3–[2012] 4/4general note, [2012] 4/8subsequent acceptance of Part 36 offer, [2012] 4/3–[2012] 4/4

Unmeritous appealspermission to appeal

case summary, [2012] 9/4no real prospect of success, [2012] 9/4

Urgent applicationsAdministrative Court

case summary, [2012] 10/5general note, [2012] 10/9–[2012] 10/10procedural guidance, [2012] 10/5, [2012] 10/9–[2012] 10/10

general noteAdministrative Court, [2012] 10/9–[2012] 10/10

Variationstandard disclosure

application to limit disclosure, [2012] 2/3–[2012] 2/4case summary, [2012] 2/2–[2012] 2/4

Video evidenceadjournment

case summary, [2012] 8/5–[2012] 8/6ill health of party, [2012] 8/5–[2012] 8/6


20

EDITOR: Professor I. R. Scott, University of Birmingham.Published by Sweet & Maxwell Ltd, 100 Avenue Road, London NW3 3PF.ISSN 0958-9821© Thomson Reuters (Professional) UK Limited 2012All rights reservedTypeset by EMS Print DesignPrinted by St Austell Printing Company, St Austell, Cornwall *584313*

T H E R U L E S

T H E I N S I G H T

T H E C O N F I D E N C E

WHITE BOOK 2013Y O U R S I N G L E S O U R C E F O R C I V I L P R O C E D U R E

P U B L I S H I N G MARCHP R I N T/ e B O O K /O N L I N E

civil procedure news - westlaw ukwbus.westlaw.co.uk/pdf/2013/0113.pdf · district judge dismissing...

Documents