Practice and Procedure in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • Swain v Hillman
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 21 October 1999

    It is important that a judge in appropriate cases should make use of the powers contained in Part 24. In doing so he or she gives effect to the overriding objectives contained in Part 1. It saves expense; it achieves expedition; it avoids the court's resources being used up on cases where this serves no purpose, and I would add, generally, that it is in the interests of justice.

  • Denton and Others v Th White Ltd and Another; Decadent Vapours Ltd v Bevan and Others; Utilise Tds Ltd v Cranstoun Davies and Others
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 04 July 2014

    A judge should address an application for relief from sanctions in three stages. If the breach is neither serious nor significant, the court is unlikely to need to spend much time on the second and third stages. We shall consider each of these stages in turn identifying how they should be applied in practice. We recognise that hard-pressed first instance judges need a clear exposition of how the provisions of rule 3.9(1) should be given effect.

  • Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society
    • House of Lords
    • 19 June 1997

    (1) Interpretation is the ascertainment of the meaning which the document would convey to a reasonable person having all the background knowledge which would reasonably have been available to the parties in the situation in which they were at the time of the contract.

  • Re Elgindata Ltd (No 2)
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 11 June 1992

    Of these principles the first, second and fourth are expressly recognised or provided for by rules 2(4), 3(3) and 10 respectively. The third depends on well established practice. Moreover, the fourth implies that a successful party who neither improperly nor unreasonably raises issues or makes allegations on which he fails ought not to be ordered to pay any part of the unsuccessful party's costs. It was because of his disregard of that principle that the judge erred in this case.

  • O'Reilly v Mackman
    • House of Lords
    • 25 November 1982

    The public interest in good administration requires that public authorities and third parties should not be kept in suspense as to the legal validity of a decision the authority has reached in purported exercise of decision-making powers for any longer period than is absolutely necessary in fairness to the person affected by the decision.

  • M'Alister or Donoghue (Pauper) v Stevenson
    • House of Lords
    • 26 May 1932

    You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. The answer seems to be persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question.

  • Amalgamated Investment & Property Company Ltd v Texas Commerce International Bank Ltd
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 31 July 1981

    When the parties to a transaction proceed on the basis of an underlying assumption—either of fact or of law—whether due to misrepresentation or mistake makes no difference—on which they have conducted the dealings between them—neither of them will be allowed to go back on that assumption when it would be unfair or unjust to allow him to do so. If he does seek to go back on it, the courts will give the other such remedy as the equity of the case demands.

See all results
Law Firm Commentaries
See all results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT