Judgment Call 21 May 2012
21 May 2012
26 February 2014
10 June 2013
12 November 2013
28 February 2014
29 May 2013
An offer that did not specify a period of not less than 21 days, or any period, in compliance with Civil Procedure Rule r.36.2(2)(c) was not a Part 36 offer.
For the appellant PHI Group
Hardwicke’s Nigel Jones QC; Wright Hassall consultant Andrew Spooner
For the respondent Robert West Consulting
Atkin Chambers’ Martin Bowdery QC and Rónán Hanna; Mills & Reeve senior solicitor Matthew Hammond and associate Neil Davies
3 May 2012
A fixed-term employee who had been employed under a government training scheme for three years before commencing another fixed-term contract could rely on those periods of employment when claiming a declaration under Fixed-term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002 reg.9(5), even though those contracts fell within reg.18.
For the appellant Hudson
Barrister Jenny Andrews of a2emc Ltd instructed directly
For the respondent Department for Work and Pensions
No 5 Chambers’ Adam Farrer instructed directly
(Civ Div). Etherton LJ; Lewison LJ; Ward LJ.
3 May 2012
The mere fact that a claim was small should not automatically result in the court refusing to hear it; the real question was whether in any particular case there was a proportionate procedure by which the merits of a claim could be investigated; for example, allocating it to the small claims track in the County Court. It would only be right to strike out a claim as an abuse of process if there was no proportionate procedure by which it could be adjudicated.
The appellant Tony R Sullivan appeared in person
For the respondent Bristol Film Studios Ltd
11 South Square’s Benet Brandreth; Charles Cook & Co partner Chris Scroggs
9 May 2012
A judge had erred in his construction of a clause in a sub-sub-underlease, which was inconsistent with the relevant lease when read with the supplemental agreement. Statements made in the course of the precontractual negotiations were no more than statements of the negotiating stance at that point in time and could not be relied on as evidencing the parties’ objective aim in completing the transaction.
Appeal allowed, cross-appeal dismissed
For the respondent Scottish Widows Fund and Life Assurance Society
Maitland Chambers’ John McGhee QC; Dundas & Wilson associate Kate New
For the appellant BGC International (formerly Cantor Fitzgerald International)
Wilberforce Chambers’ Jonathan Seitler QC; Norton Rose partner Dorian Drew
The Pre-Action Protocol for Construction and Engineering Disputes did not say that it
was mandatory for parties to hold a without prejudice meeting prior to the commencement of proceedings. In the instant case, it had been unnecessary for the defendant to apply for a stay of the claimant’s proceedings in order to enable such a meeting to occur.
For the claimants Higginson Securities (Developments) Ltd & Spiritualist National Union
Three Dr Johnson’s Buildings’ Anthony Allston; Hansells partner Tim Eagle
For the defendant Hodson
Beale & Company consultant and of counsel Alistair Pye
A judge had given inadequate reasons for deciding that a claimant had not suffered an interference with his agricultural right of way following the erection of a fence that made the right of way impassable by a hay-baling machine.
For the appellant Zieleniewski
Falcon Chambers’ Caroline Shea; Wilsons partner Ben Sharples
For the respondents (1) Scheyd; (2) Pryor
Unity Street Chambers’ Toby Huggins; QualitySolicitors Farnfields senior associate
In the course of litigation conducted by the liquidator of a company and funded by the company’s major creditor, there had been such a high degree of cooperation and disclosure of confidential information between the two as to give rise to a strong inference that the ordinary duty of confidence owed to the liquidator by his solicitor had been displaced.
The solicitor had not acquired information that had to be kept confidential from the creditor and he could therefore act for the creditor in subsequent proceedings against the liquidator.
For the claimant Singla
11 Stone Buildings’ Reuben Comiskey; Stephenson Harwood associate Judith Davidge
For the defendants (1) Stockler; (2) Stockler Brunton
4 Stone Buildings’ Donald
Lilly; Stockler Brunton partner William Stockler