nach oben

Erschienen in:

2018 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

3. First Instance Proceedings

verfasst von : Neil Andrews

Erschienen in: The Three Paths of Justice

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

This chapter contains a survey of the full range of proceedings in the first instance of litigation. It addresses these main topics. (1) The first encompasses initial measures that already produce tangible results and that sometimes result in early termination of lawsuits, i.e. interim payments, interim injunctions, default judgments, summary judgments and striking out of claims and defences. (2) The second group governs disclosure of all sorts ranging from pre-action disclosure to disclosure against third parties. (3) The third group concerns privileges and immunities against disclosure, i.e., legal advice privilege, litigation privilege and factual witness immunity. (4) The fourth group addresses different systems of expert testimony. (5) Finally, the chapter examines trial and evidence at trial.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Vorheriges Kapitel Principles and Transnational Dimensions

Nächstes Kapitel Appeals and Finality

R Aikens, ‘With A View to Despatch’, (now a Lord Justice of Appeal), in M Andenas and D Fairgrieve, Tom Bingham and the Transformation of the Law: A Liber Amicorum (Oxford University Press, 2009), 563–88; Neil Andrews, ‘Case Management and Procedural Discipline: Fundamentals of an Essential New Technique’, in CH van Rhee and F Yulin (eds), Civil Litigation in China and Europe (Ius Gentium, Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice) (Springer Publishing, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, New York, 2014), Chap. 16, at 335 to 347; A Clarke, The Supercase-Problems and Solutions’, (2007 Annual KPMG Forensic Lecture) and ‘The Woolf Reforms: A Singular Event or an Ongoing Process?’ in D Dwyer (ed), The Civil Procedure Rules Ten Years On (Oxford University Press, 2009); John Sorabji, English Civil Justice after the Woolf and Jackson Reforms: A Critical Analysis (Cambridge University Press, 2014) notably Chap. 6 and the conclusion to the book; D De Saulles, ‘Defending the Civil Justice System: The Function of Sanctions’ (2017) 36 CJQ 462–483; R Turner, ‘“Actively”: The Word that Changed the Civil Courts’, in Dwyer (above), Chap. 5; AAS Zuckerman, ‘Litigation Management under the CPR: A Poorly-used Management Infrastructure’ in D Dwyer (ed), The Civil Procedure Rules Ten Years On (Oxford University Press, 2009), Chap. 6, and A Clarke, ibid, Chap. 2; Neil Andrews, ‘A New Civil Procedural Code for England: Party-Control “Going, Going, Gone”’ (2000) 19 CJQ 19–38. Case management enjoys international support: Principle 14.1, ALI/UNIDROIT (2016), 33–4 (2.06–2.13).

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Speeches/lj-jackson-lecture-13-it-society.pdf.

Ibid, at 3.02 ff. See also remarks in his 22 November 2011 lecture, ‘Achieving a Culture Change in Case Management’ (http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Speeches/lj-jackson-speech-achieving-culture-change-casemanagement.pdf) at 4.5.

CPR 29.4.

CPR 29.8.

CPR 1.1(1): ‘These Rules are a new procedural code with the overriding objective of enabling the court to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost.

Kimathi v Foreign and Commonwealth Office [2017] EWHC 3005 (QB), [2017] 1 WLR 1081.

CPR 1.4(2); CPR 3.1(2); CPR Parts 26, 28, 29.

CPR 1.4(2)(a).

CPR 1.4(2)(f).

CPR 1.4(2)(e).

CPR 3.1(2)(f).

CPR 1.4(2)(a).

CPR 1.4(2)(d); 3.1(2)(j).

CPR 1.4(2)(c).

PD (26) 5.1, 5.2.

CPR 3.4(2).

CPR 3.1(2)(l).

CPR 3.1(2)(k).

CPR 1.4(2)(g).

CPR 1.4(2)(l).

eg, suggestion that video-conferencing should be used for short appeals: Black v Pastouna [2005] EWCA Civ 1389, [2006] CP Rep 11 (Brooke LJ).

CPR 1.4(2)(h) and 1.1(2)(c).

[2013] EWHC 4044 (QB), [2014] 1 WLR 2462, at [12].

Senior Courts Act 1981, s 6(1)(2).

Commercial Court Guide; R Aikens, ‘With A View to Despatch’, (now a Lord Justice of Appeal), in M Andenas and D Fairgrieve, Tom Bingham and the Transformation of the Law: A Liber Amicorum (Oxford University Press, 2009), 563–88; Neil Andrews, ‘Case Management in the English Commercial Court’, in R Stürner and M Kawano (eds), International Contract Litigation, Arbitration and Judicial Responsibility in Transnational Disputes (Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany, 2011), 285–298; A Colman, V Lyon, P Hopkins, J Mance, Commercial Court (6th edn, Informa Publishing, London, 2008); R Cranston, ‘Complex Litigation: the Commercial Court’ (2007) 26 CJQ 190.

‘Puisne’ is the adjective used to describe High Court judges who are knighted or decorated as ‘Dame’.

Commercial Court Guide, section D4.1 to 4.4.

Ibid, section D2.1.

CPR 3.8(2).

CPR 3.1(2)(f).

CPR 3.4(2)(c).

eg, Daltel Europe Ltd v Makki [2006] EWCA Civ 94, [2006] 1 WLR 2704.

For refusal to make a disproportionate order in respect of late disclosure of a witness report, Halabi v Fieldmore Holdings Ltd [2006] EWHC 1965 (Ch).

Hougie v Hewitt [2006] EWHC 2042 (Ch) (relief from striking out for breach of an ‘unless order’; litigant in person’s default mitigated by depression).

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Speeches/lj-jackson-speech-achieving-culture-change-casemanagement.pdf.

Ibid, at 1.8, noting M Legg, Case Management and Complex Civil Litigation (Federation Press, Sydney, 2011).

CPR 3.12 to 3.18; PD (3E); V Ramsey, ‘Implementation of the Costs Reforms’ (2013) 32 CJQ 112, 118–119; noting Lord Neuberger MR, Lecture, May 29, 2012: (http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Speeches/proportionate-costs-fifteenth-lecture-30052012.pdf).

CPR 3.12(1)(a)(b); or, CPR 3.12(1)(c), unless the claim is made by or or behalf of a person under 18.

Annexed to PD (3E).

CPR 3.18.

CPR 3.16.

PD (3E), 7.2.

[2007] EWCA Civ 463, [2007] 1 WLR 1864 (considered in Rybak v Langbar International Ltd [2010] EWHC 2015 (Ch).

[2007] EWCA Civ 463, [2007] 1 WLR 1864, at [30] (Moore-Bick LJ).

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Speeches/lj-jackson-speech-achieving-culture-change-casemanagement.pdf.

Ibid, at 3.1 ff.

Ibid, at 3.3.

AAS Zuckerman, ‘The Revised CPR 3.9: a Coded Message Demanding Articulation’ Reforms’ (2013) 32 CJQ 123; I Levy, ‘Lightening the Overload of CPR 3.9’ (2013) 32 CJQ 139.

Jackson FR (2010), 397; D De Saulles, ‘Defending the Civil Justice System: The Function of Sanctions’ (2017) 36 CJQ 462–483.

[2014] EWCA Civ 1408, [2015] 1 WLR 1825, at [9] to [16] [Moore-Bick LJ).

[2014] EWCA Civ 1633, [2015] 1 WLR 2472.

Mitchell v News Group Newspapers [2013] EWCA Civ 1537, [2014] 1 WLR 795; noted S Sime (2014) CJQ 133.

Sir Rupert Jackson, ‘Commercial Litigation: the Post-Jackson World’ (October 2014), at 4.11 (https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/litigation-post-jackson-world.pdf).

Denton v TH White Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 906, [2014] 1 WLR 3926; noted A Higgins (2014) CJQ 379; JR Williams, (2014) CJQ 394.

Lord Neuberger in BPP Holdings v Commissioners for HRC [2017] UKSC 55, [2017] 1 WLR 2945, at [29] referred to the Denton case as having made ‘clarifications’ of the Mitchell case; similar comment made by the same judge in Thevarajah v Riordan [2015] UKSC 78, [2016] 1 WLR 76, at [15].

eg, Summit Navigation Ltd v General Romania etc [2014] EWHC 398 (Comm), [2014] 1 WLR 3472, at [40] to [46].

CPR 3.9: ‘(1) On an application for relief from any sanction…the court will consider all the circumstances of the case, so as to enable it to deal justly with the application, including the need—(a) for litigation to be conducted efficiently and at proportionate cost; and (b) to enforce compliance with rules, practice directions and orders.’

[2014] EWCA Civ 906, [2014] 1 WLR 3926, at [32] and [35] (Lord Dyson MR, and Vos LJ agreeing).

Global Torch Ltd v Apex Global Management (No 2) [2014] UKSC 64, [2014] 1 WLR 4495, at [30] (Lord Neuberger).

R (Hysaj) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 1633, [2015] 1 WLR 2472, at [46] and [47].

Hysaj case, ibid, at [47].

[2016] EWCA Civ 153, [2016] 1 WLR 4530, at [30]; see also the encapsulation in Salford Estates (No 2) Ltd v Altomart Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 1408, [2015] 1 WLR 1825, at [17] to [20] (Moore-Bick LJ) and in R (Hysaj) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 1633, [2015] 1 WLR 2472, at [37] and [38] (Moore-Bick LJ).

[2016] EWCA Civ 153, [2016] 1 WLR 4530, at [38].

This is a summary of Jackson LJ’s chronicle at ibid, at [55] to [65].

Durrant v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary [2013] EWCA Civ 1624, [2014] 1 WLR 4313, at [49] and [51].

[2016] EWCA Civ 153, [2016] 1 WLR 4530, at [60].

[2014] EWCA Civ 906, [2014] 1 WLR 3926, at [89]: ‘There are many hidden costs flowing from adjournment of the trial…In addition to the increased costs there is wastage of resources…[And there will be] unnecessary delay for many other litigants awaiting their day in court.’

Herne Bay Steam Boat Co v Hutton [1903] 2 KB 683, CA; Krell v Henry [1903] 2 KB 740, CA; GH Treitel, Frustration and Force Majeure (3rd edn, 2015), 7-010 to 7-014 (postponement of coronation of Edward VII).

Clearway Drainage Systems Ltd v Miles Smith Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 1258, at [54] to [61].

Lakhani v Mahmud [2017] EWHC 1713 (Ch), [2017] 1 WLR 3482, at [17]; the main detriment on the facts was that more time had to be devoted to the costs budgeting exercise, and a hearing was prolonged (at [47], referring to the devotion of more ‘valuable court time’).

[2016] EWCA Civ 141, [2016] 1 WLR 2696, at [42] (Vos LJ).

R (Hysaj) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 1633, [2015] 1 WLR 2472, at [44], [45].

[2014] EWCA Civ 906, [2014] 1 WLR 3926, at [96].

R v R (Family Court; Procedural Fairness) [2014] EWHC 48, [2015] 1 WLR 2743, at [59] (Peter Jackson J).

Andrews ACP (2013) vol 1, 9.30 to 9.37.

ALI/UNIDROIT (2016).

[2009] EWCA Civ 202, at [36] and [37] (Rimer LJ, with the agreement of Wall and Aiken LJJ), citing Stolzenburg v CIBC Mellon Trust Co Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 827, at [161] (Arden LJ with the court’s agreement).

Global Torch Ltd v Apex Global Management (No 2) [2014] UKSC 64, [2014] 1 WLR 4495, at [23] (Lord Neuberger); but Lord Clarke at [48] dissented.

[2015] EWCA Civ 1260, [2016] 1 WLR 898 (both the Mitchell and Denton cases, 3.16 ff, were considered and held to be applicable).

Ibid, at [28].

Walton v Allman [2015] EWHC 3325 (Ch), [2016] 1 WLR 2053, at [35] to [39] (Snowden J) (both the Mitchell and Denton cases, 3.16 ff, were considered).

Salford Estates (No 2) Ltd v Altomart Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 1408, [2015] 1 WLR 1825, at [21] to [23] (Moore-Bick LJ).

R v R (Family Court; Procedural Fairness) [2014] EWHC 48, [2015] 1 WLR 2743, at [58] (Peter Jackson J), setting out Family Proceedings Rules 4.6(1)(g).

J Sorabji, English Civil Justice after the Woolf and Jackson Reforms: A Critical Analysis (Cambridge University Press, 2014), notably Chap. 6 and the conclusion to the book; J Sorabji, ‘Prospects for Proportionality: Jackson Implementation’ (2013) 32 CJQ 213; R Assy, ‘Briggs’ Online Court and the Need for a Paradigm Shift’ (2017) 36 CJQ 70.

CPR 25.6 to 25.9; and PD (25) ‘Interim Payments’; IS Goldrein (ed), Commercial Litigation: Pre-emptive Remedies (updated service).

s 20, Administration of Justice Act 1969.

Responding to the criticism made in Associated Bulk Carriers Ltd v Koch Shipping Inc [1978] 2 All ER 254, CA, of the narrowness of this regime.

CPR 25.1(1)(k) defines an interim payment as: ‘an order… for payment of any damages, debt or other sum (except costs) which the court may hold the defendant liable to pay.’

CPR 25.9.

CPR 38.2(2)(b).

Deutsche Bank AG v Unitech Global Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 119, [2016] 1 WLR 3598, at [56] to [70] (Longmore LJ).

CPR 25.7(2).

CPR 25.7(3); comparative discussion, R Zimmermann, Comparative Foundations of a European Law of Set-off and Prescription (Cambridge University Press, 2002).

Unreported, 10 May 2010.

[2012] EWCA Civ 57, [2012] 1 WLR 2375.

Ibid, at [37].

Ibid, at [32] to [36].

Ibid, at [38].

100

Rossetti Marketing Ltd v Diamond Sofa Co Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1021, at [65] to [68] (Lord Neuberger MR).

101

Revenue and Customs Commissioners v GKN Group [2012] EWCA Civ 57, [2012] 3 All ER 111, at [39].

102

Ibid, at [47] to [50].

103

Ibid, at [51]to [53].

104

[2009] EWCA Civ 204, [2010] 1 WLR 409, where the court at [43] enunciated various factors.

105

D Bean, Injunctions (10th edn, Sweet & Maxwell, 2010); S Gee, Commercial Injunctions (6th edn, London, 2015), Chap. 2; IS Goldrein (ed), Commercial Litigation: Pre-emptive Remedies (updated service); Zuckerman on Civil Procedure (3rd edn, Sweet and Maxwell, London, 2013), 10.06 ff.

106

s 37, Senior Courts Act 1981; the width of this power was noted in Cartier International AG v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 658, [2017] 1 All ER 700 (blocking injunctions against internet intermediaries; protection of trade marks; case proceeding to Supreme Court).

107

[2014] EWCA Civ 229, [2015] 1 WLR 771, at [24] ff (Underhill LJ); noted PG Turner [2014] 73 CLJ 493–496; and considering Bath and North East Somerset DC v Mowlen plc (Note) [2004] EWCA Civ 115, [2015] 1 WLR 785, at [15] (Mance LJ).

108

[2014] EWHC 4382 (Ch), [2015] 1 WLR 2094, at [106] (Judge Tim Kerr QC); Abbey Forwarding Limited (In Liquidation) v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2015] EWHC 225 (Ch), [2015] Bus LR 882, at [147] to [167].

109

Abbey Forwarding Limited (In Liquidation) v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2015] EWHC 225 (Ch), [2015] Bus LR 882, David Richards J; Abbey Forwarding Ltd v Hone (No 3) [2014] EWCA Civ 711, [2015] Ch 309 (where the extensive case law is cited). AAS Zuckerman, ‘The Undertaking in Damages—Substantive and Procedural Dimensions’ [1994] 53 CLJ 546–572; AAS Zuckerman, ‘Dispensation with Undertaking in Damages--An Elementary Injustice’ (1993) 12 CJQ 268; S Gee, ‘The Undertaking in Damages’ [2006] LMCLQ 181–201.

110

[2015] EWCA Civ 139, [2016] 1 WLR 160.

111

[2014] EWCA Civ 711, [2015] Ch 309, at [29] ff.

112

On borderline situations where the discharge of an injunction occurs for a technical or impressionistic reason: AAS Zuckerman, ‘The Undertaking in Damages—Substantive and Procedural Dimensions’ [1994] 53 CLJ 546, 560.

113

F Hoffmann-La Roche & Co AG v Secretary of State for Trade & Industry [1975] AC 295, 360–1, HL; American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396, 407–9, HL.

114

[2014] EWCA Civ 711, [2015] Ch 309, at [29] ff.

115

Lord Diplock in F Hoffmann-La Roche & Co AG v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [1975] AC 295, 361.

116

[2014] EWCA Civ 711, [2015] Ch 309, at [91] to [101].

117

Ibid, at [150], see also McCombe LJ at [106] and Arden LJ at [154] to [156].

118

Dictum in Smith v Day (1882) 21 Ch D 421, 428, CA (Brett LJ).

119

[2015] EWHC 225 (Ch), [2015] Bus LR 882 (David Richards J).

120

[2014] UKSC 55, [2015] AC 430.

121

Seaward v Paterson [1897] 1 Ch 545; Elliott v Klinger [1967] 1 WLR 1165; Z Ltd v A-Z and AA-LL [1982] QB 558, CA (containing a good survey of the principles); Attorney-General v Times Newspapers Ltd [1992] AC 191, HL; Att-Gen v Punch Ltd [2002] UKHL 50, [2003] 1 AC 1046, HL; Jockey Club v Buffham [2002] EWHC 1866 (QB), [2003] QB 462.

122

Attorney-General v Times Newspapers Ltd [1992] AC 191, HL.

123

[2011] EWCA Civ 409, [2011] EMLR 21, [2011] 2 FLR 617, [2011] Fam Law 690, at [38] to [43].

124

Report of the Committee on Super-Injunctions (Super-Injunctions, Anonymised Injunctions and Open Justice) (May 2011), at 2.33 (http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Reports/super-injunction-report-20052011.pdf).

125

[2003] QB 462, at [26] (Gray J), having considered the dicta of Lord Phillips MR in the Punch case Appeal [2001] EWCA Civ 403, [2001] QB 1028, at [86] to [88]; when the Punch case reached the House of Lords, Att-Gen v Punch Ltd [2002] UKHL 50, [2003] 1 AC 1046, assumed that the Spycatcher principle’s rationale is that the non-party should not destroy the forensic opportunity for the claimant to vindicate his right to confidentiality; such destruction would occur if the non-party gave publicity to the confidential information (eg, Lord Hope at [2003] 1 AC 1046, 1068–72).

126

Report (May 2011), cited above, at 2.33.

127

OPG v BJM [2011] EWHC 1059 (QB); and cf Gray J’s remarks in Jockey Club v Buffham [2002] EWHC 1866 (QB), [2003] QB 462, at [26].

128

[1975] AC 396, HL; A Swarup, ‘Rethinking American Cyanamid…’ (2012) CJQ 475.

129

Series 5 Software Limited v Clarke [1996] 1 All ER 853.

130

Ibid.

131

eg, Intelsec Systems Ltd v Grech-Cini [1999] 4 All ER 11, 25 and R v Secretary of State for Health, ex p Imperial Tobacco Ltd [2000] 1 All ER 572, 598, CA (Laws LJ); R v Secretary of State for Health ex p Imperial Tobacco Ltd [2001] 1 WLR 127, 131, 135, HL; Att-Gen v Punch [2002] UKHL 50, [2003] 1 AC 1046, at [74], [99], [100].

132

Cayne v Global Natural Resources Ltd [1984] 1 All ER 225, CA.

133

Office Overload Ltd v Gunn [1977] FSR 39, 44, CA (Bridge LJ).

134

Shephard Homes Ltd v Sandham [1971] Ch 340 (Megarry J); Locabail v Agroexport (‘The Sea Hawk') [1986] 1 WLR 657, CA; cf Akai Holdings Limited (in compulsory liquidation) v RSM Robson Rhodes LLP [2007] EWHC 1641 (Briggs J).

135

s 12, Human Rights Act 1998.

136

Notably, Cream Holdings Ltd v Banerjee [2004] UKHL 44, [2005] 1 AC 253, especially Lord Nicholls’ discussion of the test at [22] and [23]; Ntuli v Donald [2010] EWCA Civ 1276, [2011] 1 WLR 294, at [32] ff; Mosley v UK (Application 48009/08), [2012] EMLR 1, [2012] 1 FCR 99; (2011) 53 EHRR 30, at [47] ff.

137

Smith v Inner London Education Authority [1978] 1 All ER 411, CA; Express Newspapers Ltd v Keys [1980] IRLR 247; Thanet DC v Ninedrive Ltd [1978] 1 All ER 703.

138

[2012] EWCA Civ 156, [2012] 3 All ER 129, [2012] ICR 981 (considered in Generics (UK) Ltd v Yeda Research and Development Co Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 726).

139

[2012] EWCA Civ 156, at [67].

140

P Prescott (1975) 91 LQR 168–71 (case note).

141

[2013] EWCA Civ 583, [2014] 1 WLR 1264, at [41].

142

Ibid, at [30] to [41].

143

Sir David Eady, ‘Injunctions and the Protection of Privacy’ (2010) 29 CJQ 411. See also Khuja v Times Newspapers Ltd [2017] UKSC 49, [2017] 3 WLR 351.

144

Eady, ibid, at 425–7.

145

Ibid, at 425–7.

146

[2010] UKSC 1, [2010] 2 AC 697.

147

[2011] EWCA Civ 42, [2011] 2 All ER 324; on injunctions to protect confidentiality in the family context, Imerman v Tchenguiz [2010] EWCA Civ 908, [2011] 1 All ER 555.

148

JIH case [2011] EWCA Civ 42, [2011] 2 All ER 324, at [40].

149

Ibid, at [21]; on anonymity more generally, Pink Floyd Music Ltd v EMI Records Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 1429, [2011] 1 WLR 770.

150

IS Goldrein (ed), Commercial Litigation: Pre-emptive Remedies (updated service), Part A Sect. 5; Zuckerman on Civil Procedure (3rd edn, Sweet and Maxwell, London, 2013), 9.3 ff.

151

CPR 12.1 and 12.3; CPR 10.2 and CPR 15.3.

152

CPR 12.4(1)(a)–(c).

153

For exceptions, CPR 12.9, 12.10, 12.11.

154

CPR 12.4(2), 12.10, 12.11.

155

CPR 12.2; PD (2) 1.2.

156

Football Dataco Ltd v Smoot Enterprises Ltd [2011] EWHC 973 (Ch), [2011] 1 WLR 1978 (Briggs J).

157

Ibid, at [16].

158

Ibid, at [22] to [24].

159

Evans v Bartlam [1937] AC 473, 480, HL (Lord Atkin).

160

Considered in S v Beach [2014] EWHC 4189 (QB), [2015] 1 WLR 4701, at [40] and [79] ff (Warby J).

161

CPR 13.3.

162

The leading pre-CPR (but still illuminating) decision was Alpine Bulk Transport Co Inc v Saudi Eagle Shipping Co Inc (The Saudi Eagle) [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 221, CA; considered in Allen v Taylor [1992] 1 Personal Injury and Quantum Reports P 255, CA and Shocked v Goldschmidt [1998] 1 All ER 372, 376, CA (the last case concerned non-appearance at trial).

163

[2016] EWCA Civ 141, [2016] 1 WLR 2696, at [36], [37], [41] (Vos LJ).

164

S v Beach [2014] EWHC 4189 (QB), [2015] 1 WLR 4701, at [41] (Warby J).

165

Day v RAC Motoring Services Ltd [1999] 1 WLR 2150, CA.

166

Ibid, 2157.

167

Strachan v The Gleaner Co Ltd [2005] 1 WLR 3204, PC.

168

Clapp v Enron [2005] EWCA Civ 1511 at [36] ff, citing Odyssey (London) Ltd v OIC Run-off [2001] Lloyd’s Rep (Insurance) 1.

169

Burchmore v Hills (1935) 79 Law Journal Newspaper 30.

170

City Construction Contracts (London) Ltd v Adam, The Times 4 January, 1988, CA.

171

CPR 13.2, 12.3(1), (2).

172

CPR 13.2, 12.3(3).

173

CPR 13.2(c), 12.3(3)(b).

174

CPR 13.2, 12.3(3)(c), 14.4, 14.7.

175

Godwin v Swindon BC [2001] 4 All ER 641, CA, at [49] (May LJ), considering CPR 13.3(1)(b); Akram v Adam [2004] EWCA Civ 1601, [2005] 1 WLR 2762, at [42] and [43]; City & Country Properties Ltd v Kamali [2006] EWCA Civ 1879, [2007] 1 WLR 1219, at [17], noted J Sorabji (2007) 26 CJQ 279.

176

Andrews ACP (2018), 10.69.

177

eg, Iraqi Civilians v Ministry of Defence (No 2) [2016] UKSC 25, [2016] 1 WLR 2001; Howe v Motors Insurers’ Bureau (No 1) [2016] EWHC 640 (QB), [2016] 1 WLR 2707 (Stewart J); Haward v Fawcetts [2006] UKHL 9, [2006] 1 WLR 682, on s 14A, Limitation Act 1980; Bibliography, Section 3.10.

178

Senate Electrical Wholesalers Ltd v Alacatel Submarine Networks Ltd [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 243, CA; Laminates Acquisition Co v BTR Australia [2003] EWHC 2540 (Comm) (Cooke J).

179

Cremdean Properties v Nash (1977) 244 EG 547, CA.

180

eg, Customs & Excise v Barclays Bank plc [2006] UKHL 28, [2007] 1 AC 181; Deep Vein Thrombosis and Air Travel Group Litigation [2005] UKHL 72, [2005] UKHL 72, [2006] 1 AC 495.

181

eg, Mohammed v Ministry of Defence (No 1) (also known as Rahmatullah v MOD) [2017] UKSC 1, [2017] 2 WLR 287 (Act of State doctrine concerning engagement in foreign military engagement); see also Mohammed v Ministry of Defence (No 2) [2017] UKSC 1, [2017] 2 WLR 327 (ambit of UN Security Council resolution); Belhaj v Straw [2017] UKSC 3, [2017] 2 WLR 456 (no defence of state immunity); R (Al-Saadoon) v Secretary of State for Defence [2016] EWCA Civ 811, [2017] 2 WLR 219 (scope of human rights protection of foreigners at risk of violation of rights under Articles 1, 3, 5, European Convention).

182

IS Goldrein (ed), Commercial Litigation: Pre-emptive Remedies (updated service), Part A, section 6; Zuckerman on Civil Procedure (3rd edn, Sweet and Maxwell, London, 2013), 9.45 ff.

183

CPR 24.5.

184

Mellor v Partridge [2013] EWCA Civ 477,at [3] (case law quotations omitted here). ‘(i) The court must consider whether the claimant has a “realistic” as opposed to a “fanciful” prospect of success…(ii) A “realistic” claim is one that carries some degree of conviction. This means a claim that is more than merely arguable…; (iii) In reaching its conclusion the court must not conduct a “mini-trial”…(iv) This does not mean that the court must take at face value and without analysis everything that a claimant says in his statements before the court. In some cases it may be clear that there is no real substance in factual assertions made, particularly if contradicted by contemporaneous documents…(v) However, in reaching its conclusion the court must take into account not only the evidence actually placed before it…but also the evidence that can reasonably be expected to be available at trial…; (vi)… the court should hesitate about making a final decision without a trial, even where there is no obvious conflict of fact…, where reasonable grounds exist for believing that a fuller investigation into the facts of the case would add to or alter the evidence available to a trial judge and so affect the outcome of the case…(vii) On the other hand it is not uncommon for an application under Part 24 to give rise to a short point of law or construction and, if the court is satisfied that it has before it all the evidence necessary for the proper determination of the question and that the parties have had an adequate opportunity to address it in argument, it should grasp the nettle and decide it… [It] is not enough simply to argue that the case should be allowed to go to trial because something may turn up which would have a bearing on the question of construction…”.

185

Gohil v Gohil (No 2) [2015] UKSC 61, [2016] AC 849, at [49], and [50]; citing Etherton C’s review of the case law on the limits of document-based summary judgment in Allied Fort Insurance Services Ltd v Ahmed [2015] EWCA Civ 841, at [81], [89], [90].

186

[2017] EWHC 655 (Comm), [2017] 3 WLR 667.

187

[2012] UKSC 9, [2013] 1 AC 78.

188

Ibid, at [157]; Lord Kerr, ibid, at [214], doubted whether summary judgment was available here without a full ventilation of the case’s complicated issues.

189

Ibid, at [158] and [159].

190

PD (24), para 5.1(3).

191

PD (24), para 4; Yorke Motors Ltd v Edwards [1982] 1 WLR 444, HL.

192

PD (24), para 4 (see also PD (24), para 5, and footnote below).

193

PD (24), para 5; Deutsche Bank AG v Unitech Global Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 119, [2016] 1 WLR 3598, at [72] to [83] (Longmore LJ); noting that the power to imposes such conditions is derived from CPR 3.1(3) and that any appropriate condition is available.

194

Note to CPR 24.6, cross-referring to CPR 3.1(3); PD (24) 5.2.

195

Re Ford [1900] 2 QB 211.

196

CPR 37.2(1).

197

CPR 37.2(2).

198

[2015] EWCA Civ 1120, [2016] 1 WLR 1281 (notwithstanding the Glossary to the CPR purporting to have extended the defence to unliquidated sums: WB (2018), para 37.2.1.

199

s 1, Civil Procedure Act 1997, and Sch 1; and see Andrews ECP (2013), 1.04.

200

Andrews ACP (2018), 10.88 ff; Zuckerman on Civil Procedure (3rd edn, Sweet and Maxwell, London, 2013), 9.45 ff; D Giles and M Rifat, Vexatious Litigants and Civil Restraint Orders (Wildy Publishing, London, 2014).

201

Generally on abuse of process, Andrews ACP (2018), 10.103 ff; Andrews ECP (2013), Chap. 16.

202

CPR 3.4(2)(a) to (c).

203

[2015] EWCA Civ 1260, [2016] 1 WLR 898 (both the Mitchell and Denton cases, 3.16, ff, were considered).

204

[2000] 3 All ER 346, 370–3, CA.

205

S v Gloucestershire County Council [2001] Fam 313, 332, 342, CA.

206

Ibid, at 372–3.

207

[2001] 2 All ER 513, HL, notably at [90] ff, and [134] ff.

208

Three Rivers DC v Bank of England [2006] EWHC 816 (Comm) (12 April 2006), Tomlinson J at [1].

209

Sir Anthony Clarke MR, ‘The Supercase-Problems and Solutions’, 2007 Annual KPMG Forensic Lecture: available at (http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/speeches/kpmg_speech.pdf).

210

Andrews ECP (2013), 20–15 to 20–19.

211

AAS Zuckerman, ‘A Colossal Wreck—the BCCI/Three Rivers Litigation’ (2006) CJQ 287.

212

Three Rivers case [2001] 2 All ER 513, HL, at [90] ff, and [134] ff, especially at [180], [181].

213

[2012] UKSC 26, [2012] 1 WLR 2004, at [50]; noted AAS Zuckerman (2012) CJQ 377.

214

Ibid, at [50].

215

[2015] EWHC 2982, [2016] 1 WLR 1271.

216

[2015] EWCA Civ 685, [2015] 1 WLR 4534, citing case law at [16] to [20].

217

Ibid, at [22] and [24], on these two points.

218

Ibid, at [29].

219

Ibid, at [25], [31] and [32].

220

[2010] EWCA Civ 1170, [2011] QB 894.

221

Securum Finance Ltd v Ashton [2001] Ch 291, CA.

222

Aktas v Adepta [2010] EWCA Civ 1170, [2011] QB 894, CA, at [53].

223

Limitation Act 1980; Bibliography, Section 3.10 Limitation of Actions.

224

s 33, Limitation Act 1980.

225

[2010] EWCA Civ 1170, [2011] QB 894, at [72].

226

[2016] UKSC 43, [2016] 3 WLR 477; noted J Sorabji (2017) 36 CJQ 387–400; see also J Lee, ‘The Judicial Individuality of Lord Sumption’ (2017) 40 UNSWLJ 862, 880–6.

227

Grainger v Hill (18340) 4 Bing NC 212; 132 ER 769; Speed Seal Ltd v Paddington [1985] 1 WLR 1327 (W Wells (1986) 102 LQR 9; Tettenborn [1986] CLJ 200); earlier examination of this topic, Andrews, ECP (2003), 16.36 to 16.60; Clerk & Lindsell on Torts (21st edn, Sweet and Maxwell, London, 2014 and supplement), 16.09 ff.

228

Bibliography, Section 3.5.

229

Judicial support for the procedural tool of disclosure is collected in Tchenguiz v Grant Thornton UK LLP [2017] EWHC 45 (Comm), [2017] 1 WLR 2809, at [4] to [7] (Knowles J).

230

Tweed v Parades Commission for Northern Ireland [2006] UKHL 53, [2007] 2 All ER 273 at [2] (Lord Bingham).

231

For the inspiration, Lord Woolf, Access to Justice: Interim Report (London, 1995), Chap. 21, paras 1–9.

232

Especially, CPR 31.3(2), 31.7(2), 31.9(1).

233

CPR 31.6.

234

CPR 31.4.

235

See PD (31), paragraph 2A on the duty to disclose electronic data, including ostensibly ‘deleted’ documents: see the Appendix to this lecture.

236

ALI/UNIDROIT (2006), Principle 16.

237

Personal Management Solutions Ltd v Gee 7 Group Ltd [2015] EWHC 3859 (Ch), [2016] 1 WLR 2132 (Morgan J) (at [19] commenting that even if the application precedes commencement of proceedings, the court lack jurisdiction if the hearing of the application follows commencement; this appears to be the ratio, see facts as stated at [3]).

238

[2002] 1 WLR 1562, CA; Andrews ACP (2013) vol 1, 11.07 ff; for a successful application in a commercial context, Landis and Gyr Ltd v Scaleo Chip ET [2007] EWHC 1880 (QB), [2007] ILPr 53.

239

Smith v Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change [2013] EWCA Civ 1589, [2014] 1 WLR 2283, at [22] ff (Underhill LJ).

240

Ibid, at [39] (Longmore LJ).

241

Norwich Pharmacal Co v Commissioners for Customs and Excise [1974] AC 133, 203, HL (Lord Kilbrandon).

242

[2002] 1 WLR 2033, HL.

243

Ashworth Hospital Authority v MGN Ltd [2002] UKHL 29, [2002] 1 WLR 2033, HL (Lord Woolf CJ, for a clear exposition).

244

[2013] EWHC 2119 (Ch), [2014] Ch 400 (Mann J), notably at [52], {53], [55], [57], [65] and [71].

245

Ibid, at [72].

246

JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov (Tyschenko, Third Party) [2014] EWHC 2019 (Comm), [2015] 1 WLR 1547, at [70] ff, notably at [116] and [117].

247

In the USA, the fact that the remedy of injunction is ‘equitable’ places a claim for such relief outside the constitutional guarantee of jury trial: see G Hazard and M Taruffo, American Civil Procedure (Yale University Press, 1993), 130.

248

eg, no separate doctrine of shared ‘equitable’ mistake, The Great Peace [2003] QB 679, CA; no separate equitable principles of construction of contracts, BCCI v Ali [2001] UKHL 8, [2002] 1 AC 251, at [17].

249

eg, on the question whether a beneficial (as distinct from legal) owner has title to sue in the tort of negligence: Shell UK Ltd v Total UK Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 180, [2010] 3 All ER 1192 (beneficial owner competent to sue if joins legal owner as co-claimant).

250

AS Burrows, ‘We do this at Common Law but that in Equity’ (2002) 22 OJLS 1.

251

Norwich Pharmacal Co v Commissioners for Customs and Excise [1974] AC 133, HL; Carlton Film Distributors Ltd v VCI plc [2003] EWHC 616, [2003] FSR 47 (Jacob J); Bacon v Automattic Inc [2011] EWHC 1072 (QB), [2012] 1 WLR 753, at [45] (Tugendhat J); Patel v Unite [2012] EWHC 92 (QB); Rugby Football Union v Consolidated Information Services Ltd [2012] UKSC 55, [2012] 1 WLR 3333; M3 Property Ltd v Zedhomes Ltd [2012] EWHC 780 (TCC); Various Claimants v News Group Newspapers Ltd (No 2) [2013] EWHC 2119 (Ch), [2014] Ch 400.

252

Various Claimants case, ibid.

253

Mercantile Group (Europe) AG v Aiyele [1994] QB 366, CA (if the information is sought to assist enforcement after judgment, Hoffmann LJ observed that the ‘mere witness’ rule is in any case inapplicable).

254

P v T Ltd [1997] 1 WLR 1309 (Scott V-C).

255

Ashworth Hospital Authority v MGN Ltd [2002] UKHL 29, [2002] 1 WLR 2033, HL.

256

JSC BTA Bank v Solodchenko (No 2) [2010] EWHC 2843, [2011] 1 WLR 906 (Proudman J).

257

CPR 31.17; this rule concerns only documents: see CPR 31.17(3)(4); cf CPR 18.1 (‘further information’): this rule has been held to require a defendant to disclose details of its liability insurance, Harcourt v Griffin (Representative of Pegasus Gymnastics Club) [2007] EWHC 1500 (QB) (Irwin J).

258

Three Rivers DC v Bank of England (No 4) [2002] EWCA Civ 1182, [2003] 1 WLR 210, CA, at [32], [33].

259

[2011] EWHC 1566 (QB), at [29] to [31] (Tugendhat J).

260

[2017] EWHC 463, [2017] 1 WLR 3539.

261

CPR Part 31.

262

CPR 31.4.

263

PD (31), para 2A; see also Earles v Barclays Bank [2010] Bus LR 566, [2010] Bus LR 566 (Judge Simon Brown QC).

264

eg, Civil Evidence Act 1968, s 14.

265

CPR 31.10(2) and 31.15, subject to certain qualifications added at CPR 31.3(2); Form N 265, available on-line, is instructive.

266

For the inspiration, Lord Woolf, Access to Justice: Interim Report (1995), Chap. 21, para’s 1–9.

267

Compagnie Financière v Peruvian Guano Co (1882) 11 QBD 55, 63, CA.

268

Sir Johan Steyn (later Lord Steyn), preface to P Matthews and H Malek, Disclosure (5th edn, Sweet and Maxwell, 2016), p xiii; R Cranston, ‘Complex Litigation: the Commercial Court’ (2007) 26 CJQ 190, 203.

269

CPR 31.6.

270

Briggs CMR (2013), 6.19.

271

R Jackson, ‘Controlling the Costs of Disclosure’ (http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/publications-and-reports/review-of-civil-litigation-costs/lectures/controlling-costs-disclosure-lj-jackson-lecture-24112011).

272

Ibid, at 2.2.

273

CPR 31.5.

274

Seminar, Cambridge civil procedure class, February 2016. similarly, Tchenguiz v Grant Thornton UK LLP [2017] EWHC 45 (Comm), [2017] 1 WLR 2809, at [4] (Knowles J).

275

It would appear that (f) could include a combination of (c) and (d).

276

WB (2018), at 31.5.4.

277

Wallace Smith Trust Co v Deloitte Haskins & Sells [1997] 1 WLR 257, CA.

278

eg, when deciding whether to order specific disclosure under CPR 31.12.

279

Wallace Smith case [1997] 1 WLR 257, CA.

280

GE Capital etc v Bankers Trust Co [1995] 1 WLR 172, CA.

281

Neil Andrews, Principles of Civil Procedure (Sweet and Maxwell, London, 1994), 11-056.

282

Taylor v Serious Fraud Office [1999] 2 AC 177, 207, HL (Lord Hoffmann); Tchenguiz v Serious Fraud Office [2014] EWCA Civ 1409, at [55] to [66] (Jackson LJ); Tchenguiz v Grant Thornton UK LLP [2017] EWHC 45 (Comm), [2017] 1 WLR 2809, at [8] ff (Knowles J).

283

eg, Omar v Omar [1995] 1 WLR 1428; Watkins v AJ Wright (Electrical) Ltd [1996] 3 All ER 31; Miller v Scorey [1996] 1 WLR 1122; SMC Gibbons, ‘Subsequent use of documents obtained through disclosure in civil proceedings’ (2001) 20 CJQ 303.

284

Bowman v Fels [2005] EWCA Civ 226, [2005] 1 WLR 3083, at [88] (Brooke LJ).

285

CPR 31.22(4) supplementing CPR 31.22(1).

286

[1999] 4 All ER 498, 510, CA (Lord Bingham CJ).

287

Tchenguiz v Serious Fraud Office [2014] EWCA Civ 1409, at [55] to [66] (summary of principles at [66]).

288

Tchenguiz v Grant Thornton UK LLP [2017] EWHC 45 (Comm), [2017] 1 WLR 2809, at [19] to [21], and noting the wide meaning attaching to ‘use’, as noted in IG Index Ltd v Cloete [2014] EWCA Civ 1128, [2015] ICR 254, at [40] (Christopher Clarke LJ).

289

[2017] EWHC 45 (Comm), [2017] 1 WLR 2809, notably at [12], [15], [28], [29], [31] to [33].

290

SmithKline Beecham Biologicals SA v Connaught Laboratories Inc [1999] 4 All ER 498, 510, CA (Lord Bingham CJ).

291

e.g., an application for data access under the Data Protection Act 1998, where Schedule 7(10) provides protection, on which, Dawson-Damer v Taylor-Wessing LLP [2015] EWHC 2366 (Ch), [2016] 1 WLR 28.

292

Eurasian Natural Resources Corpn Ltd v Dechert LLP [2016] EWCA Civ 375, [2016] 1 WLR 5027 (where the authorities are examined at [49] ff by Gloster LJ); Property Alliance Group v Royal Bank of Scotland plc [2015] EWHC 1557 (Ch), [2016] 1 WLR 361, at [102] to [115]; see also relevant chapters in the works listed at Bibliography, Section 3.5 on the problem of inadvertent disclosure, CPR 31.20, Al-Fayed v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis (CA, unreported, 29 May 2002), at [16] (Clarke LJ); Rawlinson & Hunter Trustees SA v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2014] EWCA Civ 1129, [2015] 1 WLR 797, notably at [10] to [12] (Moore-Bick LJ); Property Alliance Group Ltd v Royal Bank of Scotland plc (No 3) [2015] EWHC 3341 (Ch): [2016] 4 WLR 3 (Birss J), at [43] ff; WB (2018) 31.20.1; Andrews ECP (2013), Chap. 28; Zuckerman on Civil Procedure (3rd edn, Sweet and Maxwell, London, 2013), 15.214 to 15.225.

293

Privacy has also come into great prominence: Douglas v Hello! Ltd [2007] UKHL 21, [2008] 1 AC 1, at [272]; PJS v News Group Newspapers [2016] UKSC 26, [2016] AC 1081; an important Strasbourg decision is Mosley v UK (10 May 2011: Application 48009/08), at [132].

294

Relevant chapters in the works listed at Bibliography, Section 3.5.

295

Secretary of State for Health v Servier Laboratories Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1234, [2014] 1 WLR 4383, at [99] and [117].

296

Relevant chapters in the works listed at Bibliography, Section 3.5; Foskett on Compromise (8th edn, London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2015), Chap. 19; AFC Koo, ‘Confidentiality of Mediation Communications’ (2011) CJQ 192; J McEwan, ‘“Without Prejudice”: Negotiating the Minefield’ (1994) 13 CJQ 133.

297

Property Alliance Group v Royal Bank of Scotland plc [2015] EWHC 1557 (Ch), [2016] 1 WLR 361, at [52] ff.

298

On the need for special protection of ‘PII’ material, Rawlinson & Hunter Trustees SA v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2014] EWCA Civ 1129, [2015] 1 WLR 797, at [30] ff; on confidentiality rings in this context, R (Mohammed) v Secretary of State for Defence [2012] EWHC 3454 (Admin), [2014] 1 WLR 1071; Andrews ACP (2013) vol 1, 12.97 ff; and the relevant chapters in the works listed at Bibliography, Section 3.5.

299

Property Alliance Group v Royal Bank of Scotland plc [2015] EWHC 1557 (Ch), [2016] 1 WLR 361, at [40].

300

Relevant chapters in the works listed at Bibliography, Section 3.5; J Auburn, Legal Professional Privilege: Law & Theory (Hart Publishing, Oxford, 2000); HL Ho, ‘History and Judicial Theories of Legal Professional Privilege’ (1995) Sing J L Studies 558.

301

449 US 383 (1981).

302

R v Derby Magistrates’ Court, Ex p B [1996] AC 487, HL; B v Auckland District Law Society [2003] UKPC 38, [2003] 2 AC 736, PC, at [50] to [56] (Lord Millett).

303

B v Auckland District Law Society [2003] UKPC 38, [2003] 2 AC 736, PC at [44].

304

[2011] EWHC 2915 (Ch).

305

Ibid, at [34].

306

Ibid, at [34].

307

[2004] UKHL 48, [2005] 1 AC 610; noted Neil Andrews (2005) CJQ 185; S Partington and J Ward [2005] JBL 231; J Seymour [2005] CLJ 54; C Tapper (2005) 121 LQR 181; the leading historical survey is R v Derby Magistrates Court, Ex p B [1996] AC 487, HL; HL Ho, ‘History & Judicial Theories of Legal Professional Privilege’ (1995) Sing J L Studies 558.

308

[2004] UKHL 48, [2005] 1 AC 610, at [62], referring to Taylor LJ’s statement in Balabel v Air India [1988] Ch 317, 330, CA.

309

Neil Andrews, Principles of Civil Procedure (Sweet and Maxwell, London, 1994), 12-009.

310

eg, Morgan Grenfell case [2002] UKHL 21, [2003] 1 AC 563, at [39], Lord Hoffmann, citing Foxley v United Kingdom (2001) 31 EHRR 637, at [44].

311

AM & S Europe Ltd v Commission of the European Communities (Case 155/79) [1983] QB 878, ECJ, at [18] and [25].

312

Three Rivers (No 6) [2004] UKHL 48, [2005] 1 AC 610, at [120].

313

Ibid, at [38].

314

Property Alliance Group v Royal Bank of Scotland plc [2015] EWHC 1557 (Ch), [2016] 1 WLR 361, at [22] to [40] (Birss J).

315

Property Alliance Group v Royal Bank of Scotland plc (No 2) [2015] EWHC 1557 (Ch), [2016] 1 WLR 992, at [42] and [45] (Snowden J).

316

‘Lawyer’, in England and Wales, includes an ‘in house lawyer’: but not under the law of the EU; see the materials and cases cited at 2.51 on this point.

317

Three Rivers DC v Bank of England (No 5) [2003] EWCA Civ 474, [2003] QB 1556; distinguished in BBGP Managing General Partner Ltd v Babcock & Brown Global Partners [2010] EWHC 2176 (Ch), [2011] 2 All ER 297, [2010] 2 CLC 248, at [42] (Norris J) (agent entering into retainer with law firm and obtaining legal advice on behalf of its principal, a partnership; whole partnership a client, and not the agent).

318

Re L [1997] AC 16, HL.

319

[2003] EWCA Civ 474, [2003] QB 1556.

320

[2016] EWHC (Ch), [2017] 1 WLR 1991, at [26] to [96] (interviews of the bank employees by the bank’s lawyers falling outside ambit of legal professional privilege; employees not clients of lawyers; and exercise involved mere fact-gathering rather than giving or seeking of legal advice by client).

321

Ibid, at [131] ff.

322

449 US 383 (1981); cf the US material collected at Zuckerman on Civil Procedure (3rd edn, Sweet and Maxwell, London, 2013), 16.65 to 16.67, also noting J Sexton, ‘A Post-Upjohn Consideration of Corporate-Client Privilege’ (1982) 57 NYULR 442; see also A Higgins, Legal Professional Privilege for Corporations (Oxford University Press, 2014); Australian discussion in Esso v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1999) 201 CLR 49 (HCA).

323

[2016] EWHC (Ch), [2017] 1 WLR 1991, at [123] to [139].

324

[2013] UKSC 1, [2013] 2 AC 185; in England, legal advice privilege has been extended to trade mark and patent agents, and certain other ‘quasi-legal’ advisors, mostly by statute. In Bolkiah v KPMG [1999] 2 AC 222, HL, privilege arose in the dealings between ‘forensic accountants’ and potential witnesses; but this seems to have been rooted in litigation privilege.

325

[1972] 2 QB 102, 129, CA; not challenged on appeal, [1974] AC 405, 430–1, HL.

326

[2005] 1 AC 610, [2004] UKHL 48 at [35] (Lord Scott), at [57], (Lord Rodger), at [70] and [73] (Lord Carswell), also citing the Court of Appeal in Three Rivers (No 5) [2003] QB 1556, CA, at [35] (Longmore LJ).

327

Andrews ACP (2018), 12.30; note also the distinction between innocent consultation with a lawyer to parry a charge or meet an accusation, and nefarious attempts to conceal and stifle legal investigation or destroy evidence or concoct false or misleading evidence; on that distinction see Derby & Co Ltd v Weldon (No 7) [1990] 1 WLR 1156, 1174 E-G (Vinelott J); O’Rourke v Darbishire [1920] AC 681, 613, HL (Lord Sumner).

328

R (on the Application of Morgan Grenfell & Co Ltd) v Special Commissioners of Income Tax [2002] UKHL 21, [2003] 1 AC 563; Morgan Grenfell case, ibid, at [45], [46]; B v Auckland District Law Society [2003] UKPC 38, [2003] 2 AC 736, PC at [57] ff; Bowman v Fels [2005] EWCA Civ 226, [2005] 1 WLR 3083 at [85] ff.

329

[2016] EWCA Civ 1138, [2017] Ch 210, notably at [43] ff.

330

[2009] UKHL 15, [2009] 1 AC 908.

331

ss 27, 28, 32, Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, especially s 27(1).

332

[2009] UKHL 15, [2009] 1 AC 908, at [67] and [68].

333

Ibid, at [20] to [23] for details.

334

(1884) 14 QBD 153 (Stephen J).

335

Andrews ACP (2013) vol 1, 12.19.

336

R v Central Criminal Court, ex p Francis & Francis [1989] AC 346, HL.

337

Relevant chapters in the works listed at Bibliography, Section 3.5.

338

Axa Seguros SA v Allianz Insurance plc [2011] EWHC 268 (Comm), [2011] Lloyd’s Rep IR 544, at [13] to [16], [40] to [41], [49] to [52] (Christopher Clarke J); Property Alliance Group v Royal Bank of Scotland plc [2015] EWHC 1557 (Ch), [2016] 1 WLR 361, at [41] ff (Birss J), citing, at [42], Lord Carswell in Three Rivers (No 6) [2004] UKHL 48, [2005] 1 AC 610, at [102]; Property Alliance Group Ltd v Royal Bank of Scotland plc (No 3) [2015] EWHC 3341 (Ch), [2016] 4 WLR 3 (Birss J), at [18] ff.

339

An unsolicited communication with a potential witness would be privileged even if the witness has not indicated that he intends to respect confidence: ISTIL Group Inc v Zahoor [2003] 2 All ER 252, [2003] EWHC 165 (Ch), at [63] (Lawrence Collins J). On loss of confidentiality in this context, Axa Seguros SA v Allianz Insurance plc [2011] EWHC 268 (Comm), [2011] Lloyd's Rep IR 544, at [49] to [52] (Christopher Clarke J).

340

On the ‘dominant purpose’ test, Axa Seguros SA v Allianz Insurance plc [2011] EWHC 268 (Comm), [2011] Lloyd’s Rep IR 544, at [13] to [16], [40] to [41], [49] to [52] (Christopher Clarke J).

341

A ‘real prospect’ rather than a ‘mere possibility’: USA v Philip Morris Inc (No 1) [2004] EWCA Civ 330, [2004] 1 CLC 811; Brooke LJ at [66] to [69]; Axa Seguros SA v Allianz Insurance plc [2011] EWHC 268 (Comm), [2011] Lloyd’s Rep IR 544, at [13] to [16], [40] to [41], [49] to [52] (Christopher Clarke J).

342

Property Alliance Group Ltd v Royal Bank of Scotland plc (No 3) [2015] EWHC 3341 (Ch): [2016] 4 WLR 3 (Birss J), at [18] to [42].

343

Re Duncan [1968] P 306; Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co v Rennicks (UK) Ltd [1991] FSR 97, 99; Société Francaise Hoechst v Allied Colloids Ltd [1992] FSR 66; International Computers (Ltd) v Phoenix International Computers Ltd [1995] 1 All ER 413, 427 ff.

344

Re L [1997] AC 16, HL.

345

In the Three Rivers litigation, counsel for the Bank had conceded that the Bingham Inquiry was not an ‘adversarial’ procedure and that ‘litigation privilege’ could not, therefore, apply (on the basis of Re L [1997] AC 16, HL); for further discussion, Andrews ACP (2013) vol 1, 12.27 n 66.

346

[2012] CAT 6, [2012] Comp AR 188, at [39] to [47].

347

Ibid, at [28] to [33].

348

Property Alliance Group v Royal Bank of Scotland plc [2015] EWHC 1557 (Ch), [2016] 1 WLR 361, at [42] to [44].

349

Three Rivers (No 6) [2004] UKHL 48, [2005] 1 AC 610 acknowledged this distinction between legal advice and litigation privilege: see Lord Scott at [10], Lord Rodger at [50] and [51], and Lord Carswell at [65] and [72]; for further discussion, Andrews ACP (2013) vol 1, 12.30 n 72.

350

B Thanki (ed), The Law of Privilege (3rd edn, Oxford University Press, 2018), 1.09 to 1.11; 3.08 to 3.10.

351

cf the contention that there is overlap: Zuckerman on Civil Procedure (3rd edn, Sweet and Maxwell, London, 2013), 16.8.

352

Property Alliance Group v Royal Bank of Scotland plc [2015] EWHC 1557 (Ch), [2016] 1 WLR 361, at [49].

353

‘If it mattered I would of course consider the primary authorities…’; ibid, at [49].

354

‘… as you have no right to see your adversary’s brief, you have no right to see that which comes into existence merely as materials for the brief’: Anderson v Bank of British Columbia (1876) 2 Ch D 644, 656 (James LJ); cited with approval by Lord Simon of Glaisdale in Waugh v British Railways Board [1980] AC 521, 537, HL.

355

Other arguments are: the prospect of nit picking cross-examination concerning the drafting of witness statements, and the financial free-rider problem, Andrews ECP (2013), 27–34 ff.

356

Andrews ACP (2018), 12.49 ff.

357

CPR Part 35; PD (35); ‘Guidance for the Instruction of Experts to Give Evidence in Civil Claims’ (Civil Justice Council, 2014), para’s 48 to 62 (https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/experts-guidance-cjc-aug-2014-amended-dec-8.pdf); available in WB (2018), and on which WB (2018), 35.39; 35.16.; and see Bibliography, Section 3.8.

358

JA Jolowicz, On Civil Procedure (Cambridge University Press, 2000), 225.

359

For court assessors, see 3.123 below.

360

CPR 35.1 states: ‘Expert evidence shall be restricted to that which is reasonably required to resolve the proceedings.’

361

CPR 35.4(1) to (3).

362

The decision-making members of the relevant tribunal might themselves be ‘expert’: cf the constitution of Coroners Courts, medical appeal tribunals, etc. Such specialisation is not available amongst the ordinary judiciary (who are lawyers, learned, but not omniscient).

363

CPR 35.3(1); L Blom-Cooper (ed), Experts in Civil Courts (Oxford University Press, 2006), Chap. 11.

364

Or duty owed to ‘the instructing parties’, in the case of a ‘single, joint witness’ under CPR 35.7(2); or ‘any obligation’ owed by the expert to the person ‘by whom [the expert] is paid’); see CPR 35.3.

365

CPR 35.14(1).

366

(Former) Master John Leslie, Queen’s Bench Division, stated (Cambridge seminar, 2007) that he has only encountered two instances since April 1999; in one case the problem arose between a litigant in person and his appointed expert.

367

CPR 35.10(2).

368

PD (35), para 3.3.

369

Phillips v Symes (No 2) [2005] 1 WLR 2043 (Peter Smith J).

370

[2016] UKSC 6, [2016] 1 WLR 597, at [38] to [61].

371

Ibid, at [44].

372

Law Reform Committee’s 17th Report, ‘Evidence of Opinion and Expert Evidence’ (Cmnd 4489, 1970), 1 ff; JA Jolowicz, On Civil Procedure (Cambridge University Press, 2000), 224–5; PL Murray and R Stürner, German Civil Justice (Durham, USA, 2004), 280–2.

373

T Hodgkinson and M James, Expert Evidence: Law and Practice (4th edn, Sweet and Maxwell, London, 2015), Chap. 1; adding that sometimes an expert can refer to facts as a necessary preliminary to his expert evidence.

374

[2017] EWHC 663 (QB), [2017] 1 WLR 3189, at [56] to [72].

375

Kennedy v Cordia (Services) LLP [2016] UKSC 6, [2016] 1 WLR 597, at [44]; Armstrong v First York Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 277, [2005] 1 WLR 2751, at [28], approving Liddell v Middleton [1996] PIQR P36 at p 43; similarly, P v Home Office [2017] EWHC 663(QB), [2017] 1 WLR 3189, at [62] and [72].

376

Law Reform Committee’s 17th Report, ‘Evidence of Opinion and Expert Evidence’ (Cmnd 4489, 1970), 5.

377

[2012] EWHC 2198 (Ch), [2012] PNLR 35, at [38] (Newey J).

378

[2002] EWHC (QB) 294, at [43] (Buckley J), where the issue was whether a painting is by van Dyck.

379

Generally on judicial reasons and compliance with Article 6(1), Andrews ACP (2018), Chap. 27.

380

Arden LJ in Armstrong v First York Ltd [2005] 1 WLR 2751, CA at [33], noting the leading decision English v Emery Reimbold and Strick [2002] 1 WLR 2409, CA at [20], [21].

381

For a judge’s unjustified resort to the burden of proof to resolve a conflict of expert evidence: Stephens v Cannon [2005] EWCA Civ 222; CP Rep 31.

382

DN v London Borough of Greenwich [2004] EWCA Civ 1659, at [28] to [30] (appeal court unimpressed by the judge’s statement of reasons on a point of rival expert opinion, but declined to order a new trial).

383

[2002] EWHC (QB) 294, at [46].

384

Muller v King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2017] EWHC 128 (QB), [2017] QB 987, at [79] and [97] (Kerr J) considering, among other cases, Bolam v Friern Hospital [1957] 1 WLR 582, 587, reformulated in Bolitho v City & Hackney Health Authority [1998] AC 232, 241–3, H.L); see also Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11, [2015] AC 1430, at [87] to [93], [115].

385

Muller, ibid, at [79], summarising the qualification made by Lord Browne-Wilkinson’s formulation in Bolitho v City & Hackney Health Authority [1998] AC 232, 241–3, HL.

386

CPR 35.15; PD (35) 7.1 to 7.4; see the observations of Lord Bingham in T Bingham, The Business of Judging (Oxford University Press, 2000), 19–24; L Blom-Cooper (ed), Experts in Civil Courts (Oxford University Press, 2006), Chap. 8; DM Dwyer, ‘The Future of Assessors under the CPR’ (2006) 25 CJQ 219; T Hodgkinson and M James, Expert Evidence: Law and Practice (4th edn, Sweet and Maxwell, London, 2015), Chap. 5.

387

JA Jolowicz, On Civil Procedure (Cambridge University Press, 2000), Chap. 12; L Cadiet et E Jeuland, Droit Judiciare Privé (6th edn, Litec, Paris, 2009), 428 ff; PL Murray and R Stürner, German Civil Justice (Durham, USA, 2004), 280 ff.

388

Law Reform Committee’s 17th Report, ‘Evidence of Opinion and Expert Evidence’ (Cmnd 4489, 1970), 6.

389

Owners of the Ship Bow Spring [2005] 1 WLR 144, CA.

390

L Blom-Cooper (ed), Experts in Civil Courts (Oxford University Press, 2006), Chap. 5; T Hodgkinson and M James, Expert Evidence: Law and Practice (4th edn, Sweet and Maxwell, London, 2015), Chap. 5.

391

But proportionality might justify use of a ‘single, joint expert’ on an issue forming part of a larger case, eg, quantification of liability in an action for professional negligence against a defendant accountant might be the subject of a single, joint expert’s report, but the (prior) question of liability might be the subject of party-appointed experts; I am grateful to (former) Master John Leslie, Queen’s Bench Division, for this observation.

392

I am grateful to (former) Master John Leslie, Queen’s Bench Division, for the following insight into this practice: ‘If the parties cannot agree on a ‘single, joint expert’, I direct that they are to exchange the CVs of three (or some other number) experts, each party listing them in their order of preference; that they are then to send in written reasons as to why they do not accept the opponent’s proposed experts and why they say that their own are to be preferred and justifying their order of preference.’

393

A cheaper ‘single, joint expert’ might be appointed, if the more expensive expert’s fees are disproportionate to the case’s value: Kranidotes v Paschali [2001] EWCA Civ 357, [2001] CP Rep 81; T Hodgkinson and M James, Expert Evidence: Law and Practice (4th edn, Sweet and Maxwell, London, 2015), Chap. 4.

394

Peet v Mid-Kent Care Healthcare Trust [2001] EWCA Civ 1703, [2002] 1 WLR 210, at [24].

395

PD (35), para 2.2(6).

396

Daniels v Walker [2000] 1 WLR 1382, 1388, CA, where Lord Woolf admitted that cross-examination of a single, joint evidence is a possibility; similarly, Peet v Mid-Kent Care Healthcare Trust [2001] EWCA Civ 1703, [2002] 1 WLR 210, at [28] (Lord Woolf CJ).

397

R v R [2002] EWCA Civ 409 at [14] to [18] (Ward LJ); L Blom-Cooper (ed), Experts in Civil Courts (Oxford University Press, 2006), 5.37 to 5.39.

398

DM Dwyer, ‘The Effective Management of Bias in Civil Expert Evidence’ (2007) 26 CJQ 57, 78.

399

Daniels v Walker [2000] 1 WLR 1382, CA; Peet v Mid-Kent Care Healthcare Trust [2001] EWCA Civ 1703, [2002] 1 WLR 210; Cosgrove v Pattison [2001] CP Rep 68; The Times 13 February 2001, Neuberger J, suggesting eight factors; and Stallwood v David [2006] EWHC 2600 (QB), [2007] 1 All ER 206, Teare J, at [32] (noted AAS Zuckerman (2007) 26 CJQ 159).

400

Practice reported to author by (former) Master John Leslie, Queen’s Bench Division.

401

Brooke LJ in Armstrong v First York Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 277, [2005] 1 WLR 2751, at [28], approving a comment in Liddell v Middleton [1996] PIQR P36 at 43.

402

[2005] EWCA Civ 277, [2005] 1 WLR 2751.

403

For other cases on this topic: Jakto Transport v Derek Hall [2005] EWCA Civ 1327; Montracon v Whalley [2005] EWCA Civ 1383; Montoya v Hackney London Borough Council (unreported).

404

Sir Thomas Bingham MR in Abbey National Mortgages plc v Key Surveyors Ltd [1996] 1 WLR 1534, 1542, CA; A Edis, ‘Privilege and Immunity: Problems of Expert Evidence’ (2007) 26 CJQ 40, and DM Dwyer, ‘The Effective Management of Bias in Civil Expert Evidence’ (2007) 26 CJQ 57.

405

Lord Woolf, Access to Justice: Final Report (London, 1996), Chap. 13, at [19].

406

CPR 35.4(2); L Blom-Cooper (ed), Experts in Civil Courts (Oxford University Press, 2006), Chap. 4; experts not necessary on points of English law, eg in Morgan Chase Bank v Springwell Navigation Corporation [2006] EWHC 2755 (Comm), at [30] to [32], interpretation of commercial contracts (subject to English law), unless the parties have used technical expressions outside the expertise of the judge; eg, Kingscroft Insurance Co Ltd v Nissan Fire & Marine Insurance Co Ltd (No 2) [1999] Lloyd’s Insurance and Reinsurance Reports 603, 622 (Moore-Bick J).

407

Vasiliou v Hajigeorgiou [2005] EWCA Civ 236, [2005] 1 WLR 2195, applying Beck v Ministry of Defence [2003] EWCA Civ 1043, [2005] 1 WLR 2206 (note), even though in the Beck case the relevant order had not mentioned an expert by name.

408

Vasiliou case (applying Beck case), ibid.

409

Vasiliou case, ibid. considering CPR 35.4(2)(a); eg, in a High Court case involving very severe brain injury, assessment of the claimant’s mental capacity to conduct the litigation without Court of Protection direction was assessed by six experts: two neurologists, two neuro-psychologists, and two neuro-psychiatrists; I am grateful to (former) Master John Leslie, Queen’s Bench Division, for this illustration.

410

CPR 35.2 states: ‘a reference to an “expert” in this Part is a reference to an expert who has been instructed to give or prepare evidence for the purpose of court proceedings.’ T Hodgkinson and M James, Expert Evidence: Law and Practice (4th edn, Sweet and Maxwell, London, 2015), Chap. 4.

411

Vasiliou v Hajigeorgiou [2005] EWCA Civ 236, [2005] 1 WLR 2195, CA, at [20].

412

Harmony Shipping Co SA v Davis [1979] 1 WLR 1380, 1384–5, CA (Lord Denning MR).

413

CPR 35.11.

414

On the question of ‘accreditation’ and ‘training’, L Blom-Cooper (ed), Experts in Civil Courts (Oxford University Press, 2006), chapters 2 and 12.

415

N Madge in L Blom-Cooper (ed), Experts in Civil Courts (Oxford University Press, 2006), 4.33, noting Rollison v Kimberly Clark [2001] EWCA Civ 1456, [2002] CP Rep 10.

416

‘Guidance for the Instruction of Experts to Give Evidence in Civil Claims’ (Civil Justice Council, 2014), para 16 (https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/experts-guidance-cjc-aug-2014-amended-dec-8.pdf); available in WB (2018), 35.16; cf Akai Holdings Limited (in compulsory liquidation) v RSM Robson Rhodes LLP and Another [2007] EWHC 1641 (Briggs J).

417

R (Factortame Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (No 8) [2002] EWCA Civ 932, [2003] QB 381, at [54], [57], [87], [90], [91] (Lord Phillips MR); but an expert not acting as witness can validly agree a percentage return for litigation support: Mansell v Robinson [2007] EWHC 101 (QB).

418

Field v Leeds CC [2000] 1 EGLR 54 CA; R (Factortame Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (No 8) [2002] EWCA Civ 932, [2003] QB 381, at [70]; T Hodgkinson and M James, Expert Evidence: Law and Practice (4th edn, Sweet and Maxwell, London, 2015), Chap. 1 and DM Dwyer, ‘The Effective Management of Bias in Civil Expert Evidence’ (2007) 26 CJQ 57.

419

CPR 35.5; generally on expert reports, L Blom-Cooper (ed), Experts in Civil Courts (Oxford University Press, 2006), Chap. 6.

420

CPR 35.13.

421

CPR 35.10 and PD (35) 2.2; ‘Guidance for the Instruction of Experts to Give Evidence in Civil Claims’ (Civil Justice Council, 2014), para’s 48 to 62 (https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/experts-guidance-cjc-aug-2014-amended-dec-8.pdf); available in WB (2018), 35.16.

422

PD (35), para 2.2(1) for the latter requirement.

423

s 3(1), Civil Evidence Act 1972; CPR 35.3.1.

424

PD (35), para 1.5(a); for such a failure in the criminal context, Meadow v General Medical Council [2006] EWCA Civ 1390, [2007] QB 462.

425

PD (35), para 2.2(2).

Ibid, 2.2(6).

Ibid, 2.2(8).

CPR 35.10(2).

PD (35), para 3.3.

Normally the exchange is simultaneous; sometimes sequential: T Hodgkinson and M James, Expert Evidence: Law and Practice (4th edn, Sweet and Maxwell, London, 2015), Chap. 4.

431

Jackson v Marley Davenport Ltd [2004] 1 WLR 2926, CA, at [14] and [18].

432

See PD (35), para’s 5.1 to 5.3.

433

CPR 35.6(3).

434

CPR 35.10(3).

435

Lucas v Barking, Havering and Redbridge Hospitals NHS Trust [2003] EWCA Civ 1102, [2004] 1 WLR 220, at [34].

436

Ibid, at [36] (Waller LJ).

437

Morris v Bank of India (unreported, 15 Nov 2001, Chancery) (Hart J); Lucas v Barking, Havering and Redbridge Hospitals NHS Trust [2003] EWCA Civ 1102, [2004] 1 WLR 220, at [8].

438

eg, Carlson v Townsend [2001] 1 WLR 2415, CA; Jackson v Marley Davenport Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 1225, [2004] 1 WLR 2926, CA, at [13], [14], [22], cited in Vasiliou v Hajigeorgiou [2005] EWCA Civ 236, [2005] 1 WLR 2195, CA, at [28].

439

USA v Philip Morris [2004] EWCA Civ 330.

440

Kuwait Airways Corpn v Iraqi Airways Corp [2005] EWCA Civ 286, [2005] 1 WLR 2734, at [42].

441

The David Agmashenebeli (2001) CLC 942, Colman J: strong prima facie evidence that claimants had procured a surveyor’s report in order to present false evidence.

442

ISTIL Group Inc v Zahoor [2003] EWHC 165 (Ch), [2003] 2 All ER 252, at [112] (Lawrence Collins J).

443

CPR 35.10(4); Jackson v Marley Davenport Ltd [2004] 1 WLR 2926, CA, at [22] (Peter Gibson LJ); A Edis, ‘Privilege and Immunity: Problems of Expert Evidence’ (2007) 26 CJQ 40.

444

CPR 35.12; Practice Direction (35), para’s 9.1 to 9.8.

445

CPR 35.12(3).

446

PD 35, para 9.1.

447

Cambridge seminars 2002 to 2015.

Ibid, 9.4.

Ibid, 9.5.

Ibid, 9.7.

Ibid, 9.8.

Hubbard v Lambeth etc LBC [2001] EWCA Civ 1455; The Times 8 October 2001, at [29] (Hale LJ).

453

CPR 35.12(4).

454

Aird v Prime Meridian Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 1866, at [3].

455

[2011] UKSC 13, [2011] 2 AC 398.

456

Ibid, at [73].

457

[2006] EWHC 2600 (QB), [2007] 1 All ER 206; noted AAS Zuckerman (2007) 26 CJQ 159.

458

[2012] EWHC 2198 (Ch), [2012] PNLR 35, at [40] to [41] (Newey J).

459

PD (35) at para’s 11.1 to 11.4.

460

V Ramsey, ‘Implementation of the Costs Reforms’ (2013) 32 CJQ 112, 117.

461

H Genn, ‘Getting to the Truth: Experts and Judges in the “Hot Tub”’ (2013) 32 CJQ 275.

462

Ibid, 297–9.

463

H Raeschke-Kessler, in Newman (2014), Chap. 29; see also B Hanotiau, ‘The Conduct of the Hearings’, in Newman, op cit, Chap. 26 at 650–1; see also H Raeschke-Kessler, ‘Witness Conferencing’, op cit, Chap. 29; and S Nappert and F Fortese, ‘Assessing Expert Evidence’, op cit, Chap. 35.

464

H Raeschke-Kessler, ibid, at 694.

Ibid, 695.

Ibid, 695–696, 697.

Ibid, 697.

Ibid, 704.

Ibid, 698.

Ibid, 700.

Ibid, 702.

Ibid, 704.

CPR 39.5.

Briggs CMR (2013), 1.83.

475

Ibid, 7.53 to 7.58.

476

Ibid, 7.49 to 7.52.

477

Seagrove v Sullivan [2014] EWHC 4110 (Fam), [2015] Fam. Law 141, at [32], [37], [48] (Holman J).

478

Poshteh v Kensington and Chelsea RLBC [2017] UKSC 36, [2017] AC 624, at [44] to [47].

479

Practice Direction (Citation of Authorities) [2012] 1 WLR 780, at [10].

480

Briggs CMR (2013), 6.35 to 6.38.

481

Briggs CMR (2013), 2.7; 6.39, Chap. 7, notably 7.24 and 7.25, 7.28; and c 63 per cent overrun (7.16); and the overrun lasts circa 50 per cent longer than the estimate; need for fixed-ended trials and four day trial week, ibid. 4.6; 16.44 to 16.54.

482

Briggs CMR (2013), 7.17.

483

Ibid, 7.39 to 7.42.

484

One estimate is that circa 90 per cent settle: Briggs IR (2015), 2.24; but probably in the high 90s per cent.

485

Generally on consent judgments, Foskett on Compromise (8th edn, London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2015); and on Gohil v Gohil (No 2) [2015] UKSC 61, [2016] AC 849, see 4.17.

486

Briggs IR (2015), 1.115.

487

Ibid, 4.11.

488

s 69(1), Senior Courts Act 1981 (‘(a) a charge of fraud against that party; or (b) a claim in respect of malicious prosecution or false imprisonment’); s 66, County Courts Act 1984; Neil Andrews, ‘Development in English Civil Procedure: how far can the English Courts Reform their own Procedure?’ (1997) 2 ZZP Int 3, 4 (at nn 3 and 4) considering JIH Jacob, The Fabric of English Civil Justice (Stevens, London, 1987), 156–7 nn 16–8; on nineteenth century antipathy towards civil juries, J Getzler ‘Patterns of Fusion’ in P Birks (ed) The Classification of Obligations (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1997), Chap. 7, at 187 ff. A claimant alleging false imprisonment will normally be entitled to legal aid: R (Sisangia) v Director of Legal Aid Casework [2014] EWHC 3706 (Admin);[2015] 1 WLR 1891.

489

s 11, Defamation Act 2013; CPR 26.11(2); A Mullis and A Scott (2014) 77 MLR 87 106[ Yeo v Times Newspapers Ltd [2015] EWHC 2853, [2015] 1 WLR 971, at [79] and [80], (Warby J), suggesting that jury trial in this context will be quite exceptional; Fiddes v Channel Four Television Corpn [2010] EWCA Civ 730, [2010] 1 WLR 2245 (volume of video footage rendering trial by jury inappropriate).

490

Ward v James (No 2) [1966] 1 QB 273, CA (applied H v Ministry of Defence [1991] 2 QB 103, CA; Heil v Rankin [2001] QB 272, CA, at [25]); Aitken v Preston, The Times 21 May 1997, CA.

491

For the position in the USA, G Hazard and M Taruffo, American Civil Procedure (Yale University Press, 1993), 128 ff.

492

[2015] EWHC 3922 (QB), [2015] 1 WLR 4253, at [12] ff (also applying CPR 26.11(1) and deciding that an application for jury trial in respect of malicious prosecution or false imprisonment must be made within 28 days of the defence, and not within 28 days of any amendment to that original defence).

493

A Hajducki, Civil Jury Trials (2nd edn, Edinburgh, 2006).

494

Briggs IR (2015), 2.51; Briggs CMR (2013), 2.35.

495

Briggs CMR (2013), 1.84; 4.9; 7.36 to 7.38.

496

Briggs IR (2015), 3.21 to 3.23.

497

Three Rivers DC v Bank of England [2005] EWCA Civ 933, [2005] CP Rep 47.

498

For exceptions, CPR 39.2(1), CPR 39.2(3),and PD (39A) 1.5; the primary source is s 67, Senior Courts Act 1981; J Jaconelli, Open Justice (Oxford University Press, 2002); J Jacob, Civil Justice in the Age of Human Rights (Aldershot, 2007), Chap. 2; North Shore Ventures Ltd v Anstead Holdings Inc (No 2) [2011] EWHC 910 (Ch), [2011] 1 WLR 2265 (Floyd J); on exceptional restrictions for pre-trial hearings and interim decisions, Browne v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 295, [2008] QB 103, at [2] to [5]; on non-party access to witness statements once they have been brought into evidence, Blue v Ashley [2017] EWHC 1553 (Comm), [2017] 1 WLR 3630, at [13] ff (Leggatt J), on which 3.168 below; see also 2.16 (note 23); N Bird, ‘Open Justice in an Online Reform World’ (2017) 36 CJQ 23.

499

Physical frailty not a sufficient reason: Three Rivers DC v Bank of England [2005] EWCA Civ 933, [2005] CP Rep 47.

500

CPR 39.2(4); PD (39A) para 1.4A emphasising requirement of publicity under in Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

501

Polanski v Condé Nast Publications Ltd [2005] UKHL 10, [2005] 1 WLR 637; McGlinn v Waltham Contractors Ltd [2006] EWHC 2322 (TCC); in neither case was the relevant absentee’s reason for not coming to England held to bar use of video-linking (respectively, avoidance of extradition to the USA, and avoidance of tax liability within the UK).

502

CPR 39.3(5); which requires, among other things, proof of ‘a good reason’ for non-attendance at trial; Mohun-Smith v TBO Investments Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 403, [2016] 1 WLR 2919, where the authorities are considered and the first instance refusal to set aside the judgment was held to have been too draconian, and the applicant for relief was held not to have been guilty of sufficient delay; for the general common law principles governing this context, Gaydamak v UBS Bahamas Ltd (Bahamas) [2006] UKPC 8, [2006] 1 WLR 1097.

503

Fast-track: PD (28) para 8.2; multi-track: PD (29) para 10.2.

504

CPR 32.5(2).

505

Graham v Chorley BC [2006] EWCA Civ 92, [2006] CP Rep 24, at [29] ff (Brooke LJ) (‘no case to answer’ judgment in favour of the defendant, without hearing the defendant’s evidence, is highly perilous; judge must give appropriate weight to the fact that the defendant elected not to call witnesses).

506

Redfern (2015) 6.190 notes the absence of this within the civilian tradition, and thus the unsuitability of maintaining the ‘claimant has the last word’ approach in arbitration hearings where common law and civil law representatives are joined.

507

Or a direction to the jury; on judgments, CPR 40 and PD (40); on the court’s discretion whether to complete the giving of judgment once it has begun to deliver it (or after it has delivered it in draft form) Prudential Assurance Co v McBains [2000] 1 WLR 2000, CA; on the court’s power to re-open a case before perfecting a judgment, Stewart v Engel [2000] 1 WLR 2268, CA. On the last chance to seek permission to appeal from the first instance judge, Monroe v Hopkins (No 2) [2017] EWHC 645 (QB), [2017] 1 WLR 3587, at [11] and [15] (Warby J), at 4.05 below.

508

CPR 44.3, 44.7(a).

509

Bibliography, Section 3.7.

510

CPR 34.2.

511

CPR 34.7; PD (34) 3, referring to provisions applicable also to compensation for loss of time in criminal proceedings.

512

JD Wetherspoon v Harris [2013] EWHC 1088 (Ch), [2013] 1 WLR 3296, at [39].

513

CPR 32.10.

514

Alex Lawrie Factors Ltd v Morgan [2001] CP Rep 2; The Times 18 August 1999, CA.

515

CPR 22.1(1)(c), 22.3.

516

CPR 32.14.

517

[2015] EWHC 2982, [2016] 1 WLR 1271.

518

[2011] UKSC 13, [2011] 2 AC 398.

519

[2000] UKHL 38, [2002] 1 AC 615, 697; A Edis, ‘Privilege and Immunity: Problems of Expert Evidence’ (2007) 26 CJQ 40; on the scope of the immunity in the context of an affidavit, Martin Walsh v Paul Staines [2007] EWHC 1814 (Ch).

520

[2011] UKSC 13, [2011] 2 AC 398.

521

[2001] 1 AC 435, HL; similarly, L (A Child) v Reading BC [2001] EWCA Civ 346, [2001] 1 WLR 1575, 1593, CA.

522

[2014] EWCA Civ 1035, [2016] QB 231 (also held that witness immunity applies to claims under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 based on complaints to the police and statements made in support of them).

523

Ibid, at [57].

524

CPR 32.5(2), (3), (4).

525

[2017] EWHC 1553 (Comm), [2017] 1 WLR 3630, at [14].

526

Ibid, at [15] and [17] ff; on publicity, see also 2.16 (note 23), 3.160 (note 500).

527

K Grevling, ‘CPR 32.1(2): Case management Tool or Broad Exclusionary Power’, in D Dwyer (ed), The Civil Procedure Rules Ten Years On (Oxford University Press, 2009), 249.

528

CPR 32.1(1); GKR Karate (UK) Ltd v Yorkshire Post Newspapers Ltd [2000] 2 All ER 931, CA.

529

CPR 32.1(2)(3); Grobbelaar v Sun Newspapers Ltd The Times 12 August, 1999, CA (prolix defence in libel action); Three Rivers DC v Bank of England [2005] EWCA Civ 889, [2005] CP Rep 46 (upholding the Commercial Court judge’s humane restriction in a long-running trial).

530

Fast-track: CPR 28.3(1) and PD (28) para 8.4; CPR 32.1 (all tracks).

531

See MacLennan case [2013] EWHC 4044 (QB), [2014] 1 WLR 2462 (four notes below); see also A Colman (with V Lyon and P Hopkins), The Practice and Procedure of the Commercial Court (6th edn, London, 2008), 272–7.

532

CPR 3.1(2)(j)(l); on pre-CPR trial management, Ashmore v Corporation of Lloyd’s [1992] 1 WLR 446, HL; Thermawear Ltd v Linton The Times 20 October, 1995, CA.

533

CPR 32.2(3).

534

Ward v Guinness Mahon plc [1996] 1 WLR 894, CA, Grupo Torras SA v Al Sabah (No 2) The Times 17 April, 1997, CA.

535

Wright v Michael Wright (Supplies) Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 234, [2013] CP Rep 32, at [30] (see comments by Green J in the MacLennan case, next footnote, at [14]).

536

[2013] EWHC 4044 (QB), [2014] 1 WLR 2462, at [12].

537

[2005] EWCA Civ 889, [2005] CP Rep 46, at [43], [44].

538

[2003] EWCA Civ 1261, at [13] and [59] (Clarke LJ).

539

Ibid, at [54] to [58].

540

Briggs CMR (2013), 2.6, 6.26 (citing JD Wetherspoon v Harris [2013] EWHC 1088 (Ch), [2013] 1 WLR 3296, at [32] to [42]).

541

Bar Council, Reforming Civil Litigation (2013).

542

Briggs CMR (2013), 6.20 to 6.27.

543

Southwark LBC v Kofi-Adu [2006] EWCA Civ 281, [2006] HLR 33, at [148].

544

In re K (Children) [2015] EWCA Civ 543, [2015] 1 WLR 3801, at [31].

545

Ibid, at [52] to [62].

546

Ibid, at [62].

547

[2016] EWCA Civ 764, [2016] CP Rep 40, at [60] to [63].

548

[2004] EWHC 2945 (Ch), [2005] 1 WLR 345, at [74].

549

Ibid, at [76].

550

Rule 25 in ALI/UNIDROIT (2006), 137 ff.

551

Civil Evidence Act 1995, s 1.

552

Ibid, 1995 Act, s 4; Polanski v Condé Nast Publications Ltd [2005] UKHL 10, [2005] 1 WLR 637, at [36] (Lord Nicholls); S Salako, ‘The Hearsay Rule and the Civil Evidence Act 1995: Where are we Now?’ (2000) 19 CJQ 371.

553

Electromagnetic Geoservices ASA v Petroleum Geo-Services ASA [2016] EWHC 27 (Pat), [2016] 1 WLR 2353 (Birss J) (at [43] the rationale for this restriction is explained).

554

Springsteen v Masquerade Music Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 513, [2001] Entertainment and Media LR 654, CA.

555

O’Brien v Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2005] UKHL 26, [2005] 2 AC 534.

556

[2003] EWCA Civ 151, [2003] 1 WLR 954, CA.

557

This involved a tort (trespass) and an invasion of privacy (as recognised by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights).

558

Principle 19.1, ALI/UNIDROIT (2006), 40.

559

Ibid, Principle 19.3.

560

Ibid, Principle 19.4.

Titel: First Instance Proceedings
verfasst von: Neil Andrews
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Buch: The Three Paths of Justice
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-74831-3

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-74832-0

Copyright-Jahr: 2018
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74832-0_3

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"