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 [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.
“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 [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 [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 [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.
© Inner Temple Library 2025