Practical Law

London Borough of Havering (and others) v Persons Unknown (and others) [2021] EWHC 2648 (QB) was a case heard in the Queen’s Bench Division in October 2021 and relates to injunctions and abuse of process. It is always tempting when an injunction has been sought and an interim order granted that an applicant sees an … Continue reading Failure to promptly pursue proceedings to a final hearing after obtaining interim injunction may be abuse of process →

The case of Lifestyle Equities CV and another v Ahmed and another was heard by the Court of Appeal (Civil Division), and judgment was given  by Birss LJ on 7 May 2021. The matter arose from a trademark dispute. The claimant brought proceedings for infringement of registered trademarks and passing off against several defendants. Several … Continue reading An accessory is liable to account for its own profits, not those of the principal →

In Investohills Vesta v Petergrow Limited and others, the court had to consider, on an application by the claimant (Investohills Vesta), whether a sworn affidavit would be necessary in order to comply with with a worldwide freezing order (WFO). The judge (Nicholas Thompsell, sitting as a deputy High Court Judge) had to balance the current … Continue reading COVID-19 and swearing affidavits remotely: Investohills Vesta v Petergrow Limited and others →

The High Court’s recent decision in King and others v Kings Solutions Group Limited and others considered CPR 38.7 and re-examined the case law on abuse of process as set out in Henderson v Henderson. The case was heard by Tom Leech QC, sitting as a Judge of the Chancery Division of the High Court.

The recent judgment in Lancaster and others v Peacock QC is an interesting decision which provided rare guidance on the procedure for choosing sample claimants in group litigation.

The judgment in SC v University Hospitals Southampton NHS Foundation Trust is of interest due to the current COVID-19 pandemic and the way it is affecting the court system, as it discusses the circumstances where a case is suitable for a remote hearing under the current guidelines. Johnson J heard the matter on 4 June … Continue reading The suitability of remote hearings: SC v University Hospitals Southampton NHS Trust →

There have been a number of hearings in Jalla v Royal Dutch Shell in the last month. On 9 March 2020, Stuart -Smith J ordered on jurisdiction, and on 30 March he gave another ruling relating to the disclosure of the damages-based agreement entered into by the claimants on the matter. On 2 March 2020, Stuart-Smith … Continue reading Limitation issues in Jalla v Royal Dutch Shell →

AA v Persons unknown and three others revolved around anonymity applications to the court.

This was an appeal bought by Jet 2 Holidays Ltd. The appeal related to an application by the claimant for permission to bring committal proceedings against the defendant for contempt. Karl and Laura Hughes, the defendants, had intimated a claim against Jet 2 Holidays Ltd, the claimants, in relation to holiday sickness.

Brothers Enterprise Limited v New World Hospitality UK Limited, decided in 2017, raises important points for practitioners advising on applications for injunctive relief.

The case of Willers v Joyce and another (in substitution for and in their capacity as executors of Albert Gubay (deceased) revolved around a suite of litigation that has been ongoing since the 1990s.

The case of Bostani and others v Pieper and another related to the enforcement of a Tomlin order which had been previously entered into by the parties. The court was asked to decide whether the Limitation Act 1980 applied to such agreements. Jacobs J heard the application of the claimants on 4 March 2019.

The case of R (on the application of British American Tobacco (UK) Limited) v Secretary of State for Health discussed CPR 5.4C(2) and the case law surrounding this discrete area of practice.

In the case of FM Capital Partners Limited v Marino and others, Peter McDonald Eggars QC, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court considered the application of the third respondent, Mr Yoshiki Ohmura, to vary a worldwide freezing order. His judgment considers the definition of assets in freezing orders and in particular in … Continue reading Varying worldwide freezing orders: FM Capital Partners Limited v Marino and others →

In BCS Corporate Acceptances Limited and others v Terry, Morris J discussed third party debt orders and whether such an order could be made over sums held in solicitors’ client accounts.

The recent case of Wards Solicitors v Hendawi has revisited the common issue of setting aside a default judgment. The matter was heard by HHJ Paul Matthews at the Bristol District Registry.

The question of adequate disclosure required by a defendant to a worldwide freezing order (WFO) was discussed in the case of PJSC Tatneft v Gennady Bogolyubov and others.

The recent case of Barclay v Tuck discussed the settled principles that a court has to consider when an application for committal is made. Spencer J heard the case on 14 May 2018.

In Su v Clarksons Platou Futures Ltd and another, section 14A of the Limitation Act 1980 was carefully considered by the Court of Appeal.

The High Court has recently ordered an injunction against an unknown third party and provided for alternative service by text message. In the case of NPV v QEL and ZED, all parties have been anonymised to protect their identities, and in particular NPV, a successful businessman.

The Supreme Court has recently given judgment in JSC BTA Bank v Khrapunov.

HHJ Waksman has recently granted a freezing order against persons unknown, in the case of CMOC v Persons Unknown.

Teare J in the High Court has ordered that the claimant in a personal injury case should pay back the damages he received from insurers, plus costs and interest, in UK Insurance Ltd v Gentry.