Tchenguiz brothers can sue Iceland’s Kaupthing Bank – BBC News
“A High Court judge has ruled that the Tchenguiz brothers can sue Kaupthing Bank for £1bn ($1.6bn) damages.”
BBC News, 16th March 2011
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
Category: striking out
In re Stakefield (Midlands) Ltd and others – WLR Daily
In re Stakefield (Midlands) Ltd and others [2010] WLR (D) 249
“A defendant to disqualification proceedings brought by the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform would not be entitled to have the proceedings struck out on the basis that the Secretary of State had committed a breach of duty by failing to obtain evidence or otherwise to investigate. Where, however imperfect the investigations might have been, the Secretary of State had in fact assembled evidence of a defendant’s unfitness to be concerned in the management of a company, it was for the court to determine at trial whether the Secretary of State had made out his case.”
WLR Daily, 13th October 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“World’s worst tennis pro” loses Telegraph libel case – The Lawyer
“The High Court has thrown out a defamation claim brought against the Daily Telegraph by tennis player Robert Dee, who claimed the paper had defamed him by dubbing him the ‘world’s worst tennis pro’.”
The Lawyer, 28th April 2010
Source: www.thelawyer.com
Enron Coal Services Ltd (in liquidation) v English Welsh and Scottish Railway Ltd – Times Law Reports
Enron Coal Services Ltd (in liquidation) v English Welsh and Scottish Railway Ltd
Court of Appeal
“A challenge to a finding by a regulator of infringement of a prohibition, including the prohibition on the abuse of a dominant position, should be made to the Competition Appeal Tribunal under section 46 of the Competition Act 1998. A claim for damages based on a definitive finding of infringement by a regulator was to be made under section 47A of the 1998 Act, as inserted by section 18(1) of the Enterprise Act 2002.”
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Ul-Haq and Another v Shah – Times Law Reports
Court of Appeal
“It was not possible to strike out a genuine claim on the ground that the claimant had been involved in a fraud upon the court in respect of an associated claim.”
The Times, 14th July 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Masood and others v Zahoor and others – WLR Daily
Masood and others v Zahoor and others [2009] EWCA 650; [2009] WLR (D) 231
“Where a claimant relied on a forged document he forfeited the right to have an adjudication of his claim, and it was irrelevant that the defendant also relied on forged documents. There was no weighing or balancing exercise to be carried out.”
WLR Daily, 7th July 2009
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Enron Coal Services Ltd (in liquidation) v English Welsh & Scottish Railway Ltd – WLR Daily
“The jurisdiction of the Competition Appeal Tribunal under s 47A of the Competition Act 1998 was limited to the determination of follow-on claims for damages based on a finding by a regulator of infringement of a relevant prohibition. Such a finding was not only a pre-condition to the making of a s 47A(1) claim, it also determined and defined the claim’s limits and the tribunal’s jurisdiction in respect of it. The Court of Appeal had jurisdiction under s 49 of the 1998 Act to hear an appeal against a strike-out decision of the tribunal under r 40 of the Competition Appeal Tribunal Rules 2003, whether that decision was to strike out or not to strike out a claim.”
WLR Daily, 2nd July 2009
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Ul-Haq and others v Shah – WLR Daily
Ul-Haq and others v Shah [2009] EWCA Civ 542; [2009] WLR (D) 197
“There was no general rule of law which permitted a court to strike out a genuine claim on the grounds that the claimant had been involved in a fraud upon the court in respect of an associated claim.”
WLR Daily, 18th June 2009
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Pickthall Ltd v Hill Dickinson LLP and another – WLR Daily
Pickthall Ltd v Hill Dickinson LLP and another [2009] EWCA Civ 543; [2009] WLR (D) 183
“It was an abuse of process for a party to issue proceedings on the day before the limitation period expired in the knowledge that the cause of action was vested not in him but in his trustee in bankruptcy, despite the party’s intention of later seeking an assignment of the cause of action and amending the claim form so that the assignment (which had been obtained after the expiration of the limitation period) could be pleaded.”
WLR Daily, 12th June 2009
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Stuart v Goldberg Linde and another – WLR Daily
Stuart v Goldberg Linde and another [2008] EWCA Civ 2 [2008] WLR (D) 4
“In determining whether a claim was an abuse of the process of the court on the ground that it should have been included in a previous action, the prospects of the claim’s success or failure and delay in bringing it (falling short of a statutory time bar or laches) were not generally relevant.”
WLR Daily, 18th January 2008
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
