Adrian Zuckerman
Professor of Civil Procedure

adrian.zuckerman@univ.ox.ac.uk

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

University of Oxford

 

Faculty of Law

 

 

Reading list for the BCL/M Jur course of

 

Principles of Civil Procedure

 

 

 

 

                  MT 2007

 

20 September 2007


Contents

 

Readings for Principles of Civil Procedure............................................................................................... iii

Civil Procedure Rules................................................................................................................................... iii

Choosing tutorial topics.............................................................................................................................. iii

General reference.......................................................................................................................................... iii

Abbreviations............................................................................................................................................... iv

I – GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF PROCEDURAL JUSTICE.................................................................................. 1

1.            Procedural justice............................................................................................................................ 1

2.            Three-dimensional justice.............................................................................................................. 1

II – THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL............................ 2

1.            Right of effective access to the court.......................................................................................... 2

2.            Right to an independent and impartial tribunal.......................................................................... 2

3.            Right to equality in procedure...................................................................................................... 3

4.            Right to an adversarial process.................................................................................................... 3

5.            Right to a public hearing and judgment...................................................................................... 3

6.            Right to a hearing within a reasonable time................................................................................ 4

7.            Right to a reasoned decision......................................................................................................... 4

III – THE ADVERSARIAL SYSTEM & COURT CONTROL OF PROCESS.................................................. 5

1.            Adversarial system......................................................................................................................... 5

2.            Case management........................................................................................................................... 5

IV – COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS......... 8

1.            Issue and service............................................................................................................................ 8

2.            Statements of case.......................................................................................................................... 8

V – INTERIM REMEDIES............................................. 10

1.            General............................................................................................................................................ 10

2.            Cross undertaking in damages.................................................................................................... 10

3.            Freezing injunctions..................................................................................................................... 10

4.            Interim payment orders................................................................................................................ 11

5.            Security for costs.......................................................................................................................... 11

VI – SUMMARY ADJUDICATION: DISPOSAL WITHOUT TRIAL............................................................. 13

1.            Default judgment........................................................................................................................... 13

2.            Striking out..................................................................................................................................... 13

3.            Summary judgment....................................................................................................................... 13

VII – ACCESS TO EVIDENCE..................................... 15

1.            Disclosure and inspection........................................................................................................... 15

2.            Search orders................................................................................................................................. 16

3.            Expert evidence............................................................................................................................. 16

4.            Assessors...................................................................................................................................... 17

VIII – EXCEPTIONS TO INSPECTION.................... 18

1.            Legal professional privilege........................................................................................................ 18

2.            Public interest immunity............................................................................................................... 19

3.            Privilege against self-incrimination............................................................................................ 19

4.            Protection of confidentiality........................................................................................................ 19

5.            Without prejudice communications........................................................................................... 20

X – SETTLEMENT WITHOUT COURT ADJUDICATION................................................................ 21

1.            Alternative dispute resolution.................................................................................................... 21

2.            Offers to settle............................................................................................................................... 21

IX – FUNDING LITIGATION....................................... 22

1.            Costs............................................................................................................................................... 22

2.            Types of fee and funding systems............................................................................................. 22

XI – MULTI–PARTY AND GROUP LITIGATION 25

1.            General............................................................................................................................................ 25

2.            Representative proceedings....................................................................................................... 25

3.            Group litigation............................................................................................................................. 25

XII – public litigation......................................... 27

1.            Right of effective access to the court........................................................................................ 27

2.            Standing......................................................................................................................................... 27

3.            Interventions................................................................................................................................. 27

4.            Limited procedural exclusivity.................................................................................................... 27

5.            Time limit for commencing proceedings.................................................................................... 28

5.            Parties............................................................................................................................................. 28

7.            Service............................................................................................................................................ 28

8.            Permission to bring proceedings for judicial review................................................................ 28

9.            Course of evidence....................................................................................................................... 28

10.          Interim remedies............................................................................................................................ 28

11.          Disclosure and inspection........................................................................................................... 28

12.          Costs............................................................................................................................................... 29

XIII – APPEAL.................................................................... 29

1. General....................................................................................................................................................... 29

2. Principles of the CPR Regime................................................................................................................. 30

3. First Appeal.............................................................................................................................................. 30

4. Case Management Appeals................................................................................................................... 30

5. Second Appeals....................................................................................................................................... 30

6. Hypothetical Appeals............................................................................................................................. 30

7. Review or Rehearing............................................................................................................................... 30

8. Reopening Final Appeals....................................................................................................................... 31

 


Readings for Principles of Civil Procedure

 

This reading list should be approached with two considerations in mind. First, students are not expected to read everything on this list. However, before attending lectures and seminars, students should, at the minimum, have read the relevant chapters in Zuckerman on Civil Procedure (2nd ed, 2006) as well as any additional readings that have been specifically assigned. For the purposes of tutorials, more detailed coverage is expected. Secondly, this list is far from comprehensive. It is a general reading list. Consequently, students may find it helpful to undertake research that goes beyond this list for the purposes of their tutorials, although this depends on the specifity of the topics that they select.

 

Civil Procedure Rules

 

It would be helpful for students to bring the relevant Parts of the Civil Procedure Rules to the lectures and seminars. The Civil Procedure Rules (along with the Practice Directions and Pre-Action Protocols) can be accessed at this website: <http://www.justice.gov.uk/civil/procrules_fin/menus/rules.htm>.

 

Choosing tutorial topics

 

Students are free to propose any topic raising issues of civil procedure that they wish for their tutorials. However, in selecting topics, it is important to bear in mind that one of the aims of the tutorials is to ensure that students achieve sufficient coverage of the course for the purposes of the exam. Accordingly, it is advisible that students select discrete topics. Taking two tutorials in a single area, particularly in a relatively narrow area, is likely to reduce the probability that the student will be adequately prepared for the exam.

 

Students may find it helpful to consult past exam papers for the purposes of selecting or developing a tutorial topic. Past exam papers can be found at the following website: <http://missun29.offices.ox.ac.uk/pls/oxam/main>. In consulting past exam papers, students should be aware that simply because certain topics have been examined in the past is no guarantee that those topics will be examined in the future. Because the areas of civil procedure that are studied in this course depend to an extent on the interests of the students and tend to focus on recent developments, the topics examined vary from year to year.

 

General reference

 

Andrews, English Civil Procedure (2003)

Bayles, ‘Principles for legal procedure’ (1986) 5 Law & Philosophy 33

Civil Procedure Rules–the White Book Service (2007)

                  Cranston & Zuckerman (eds), Reform of Civil Procedure: Essays on ‘Access to Justice’ (1995)

                  Department of Constitutional Affairs, <http://www.dca.gov.uk/index.htm > (formerly the Lord Chancellor’s Department)

Issacharoff, Civil Procedure (2005)

Jacob, The Fabric of English Civil Justice (1987) chs 1–3

Zuckerman, Zuckerman on Civil Procedure: Principles of Practice (2nd ed, 2006)

                  Zuckerman (ed), Civil Justice in Crisis: Comparative Perspectives of Civil Procedure (1999) 3-21

 


Abbreviations

 

ALJ – Australian Law Journal

CCA 1984 – County Courts Act 1984

CJQ – Civil Justice Quarterly

CLJ – Cambridge Law Journal

CPR – Civil Procedure Rules 1998

CLSA 1990 – Courts and Legal Services Act 1990

DCA – Department of Constitutional Affairs

ECHR – European Convention on Human Rights (Human Rights Act 1998, Schedule I)

HRA 1998 – Human Rights Act 1998

ICLQ – International and Comparative Law Quarterly

JR – Judicial Review

LCD – Lord Chancellor’s Department

LQR – Law Quarterly Review

MLR – Modern Law Review

OJLS – Oxford Journal of Legal Studies

PD – Civil Procedure Rules Practice Direction

RSC – Rules of the Supreme Court 1965 (Schedule I, CPR for those still in force)

SCA 1981 – Supreme Court [Senior Courts] Act 1981


I – GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF PROCEDURAL JUSTICE

 

1.              Procedural justice

 

General

Rawls, A Theory of Justice (1999) at 85–86

Dworkin, A Matter of Principle (1986) ch 3

Posner, ‘An economic approach to legal procedure and judicial administration’ (1973) 2 JLS 399

Fuller, ‘Forms and Limits of Adjudication’ (1978) 92 Harv LR 353

Allison, ‘Fuller’s Analysis of Polycentric Disputes and the Limits of Adjudication’

   (1994) 53 CLJ 367

Galligan, Discretionary Powers: A Legal Study of Official Discretion (1990) ch 1

Jolowicz, On the Nature and Purposes of Civil Procedural Law, International Perspectives on Civil Justice (1990)

 

Process values

Bayles, Procedural Justice—Allocating to Individuals (1990) Introduction & ch 6

Scott, ‘Two Models of the Civil Process’ (1975) 27 Stanford LR 937

Summers, ‘Evaluating and Improving Legal Processes: a Plea for “Process Values”’ (1974) 60 Cornell LR 1

Mashaw, ‘Administrative Due Process: The Quest for a Dignitary Theory’ (1981) 61 Boston U LR 885

Redish & Marshall, ‘Adjudicatory Independence and the Values of Procedural Due Process’ (1986) 95 Yale LJ 455

 

2.              Three-dimensional justice

 

Rectitude of outcome

Zuckerman ‘Quality and Economy in Civil Procedure: The Case for Commuting Correct Judgments for Timely Judgments’ (1994) 14 OJLS 353

Kaplow ‘The Value of Accuracy in Adjudication: An Economic Analysis’ (1994) 23 JLS 307

 

Overriding objective and proportionality principle

CPR 1.1   

Zuckerman on Civil Procedure (2006) ch 1

                  Arbuthnot Latham Bank v Trafalgar Holdings [1998] 2 All ER 181, [1998] 1 WLR 1426

Securum Finance Ltd v Ashton (No.1) [2001] Ch 291

Jones v University of Warwick [2003] 3 All ER 760, [2003] 1 WLR 954 at [25]

Izzo v Philip Ross & Co (a firm) [2002] BPIR 310

Gregory & Another v Turner [2003] 2 All ER 1114, [2003] 1 WLR 1149

                  Hertsmere Primacy Care Trust & Others v The Estate of Balasubramanium

Rabindra-Anandh [2005] 3 All ER 274

Black v Pastouna & Pastouna [2005] EWCA Civ 1389

 

 

 

 


II – THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL

 

                  HRA 1998, Sched 1 – ECHR art 6(1)

                  Zuckerman on Civil Procedure (2006) ch 2

                  Jacobs & White, The European Convention on Human Rights (3rd ed 2001)

                  Clayton & Tomlinson, The Law of Human Rights (2000) vol I, chs 6, 11

 

1.              Right of effective access to the court

                 

C. Gearty, Osman Unravels (2002) 65 Modern Law Review 87

 

Golder v UK (1980) 1 EHRR 524

Ashingdane v UK (1985) 7 EHRR 528

Stubbings v UK (1996) 23 EHRR 213

Pérez de Rada Cavanilles v Spain (1998) 29 EHRR 109

Campbell & Fell v UK (1985) 7 EHRR 165

Airey v Ireland (1979) 2 EHRR 305

R v Lord Chancellor; ex p Witham [1998] QB 575

Ex p Lightfoot [2000] QB 597

Matthews v Ministry of Defence [2003] 1 AC 1163

Brown v Stott [2003] 1 AC 681

P, C and S v UK [2002] 3 FCR 1

Ford v Labrador [2003] 1 WLR 2082

Bhamjee v Forsdick (No 2) [2004] 1 WLR 88

   Moat Housing Group vHarris [2006] QB 606

R (Kumar) v Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs [2007] 1 WLR 536

O’Halloran v UK (app nos. 15809/02 and 25624/02, 27th June 2007)

McGonnell v UK [2000] 30 EHRR 289

R v Home Secretary, ex parte Leech [1993] 4 All ER 539

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Daly [2001] 2 AC 532

 

 

2.              Right to an independent and impartial tribunal

 

                  Note, ‘Disqualification of Judges and Justices in the Federal Courts’ (1973) 86 Harv LR 736

                  Leubsdorf, ‘Theories of Judging and Judge Disqualification’ (1987) 62 NYULR 237

                  Malleson, ‘Safeguarding Judicial Impartiality’ (2002) 22 Legal Studies 53

                  Bassett, ‘Recusal and the Supreme Court’ (2004) 56 Hastings LJ 657

                  Alconbury Developments Ltd [2001] 2 WLR 1389, [2001] UKHL 23

                  Begum v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council [2003] 2 WLR 388

 

Apparent bias

In re Medicaments and related Classes of Goods (No 2) [2001] 1 WLR 700

Locabail (U.K.) Ltd v Bayfield Properties Ltd. [2000] QB 451

Porter v McGill [2002] 2 AC 357

Taylor Lawrence [2003] QB 528

Jones v DAS Legal Expenses Insurance Co Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 1071                

Lawal v Northern Spirit Ltd [2004] 1 All ER 187

Sengupta v Holmes [2002] EWCA 1104

Smith v Kvaerner Cementation Foundations Ltd [2006] 3 All ER 593, [2007] 1 WLR 370

AWG Group Ltd v Morrison [2006] 1 All ER 967, [2006] 1 WLR 1163

R v Pintori [2007] EWCA Crim 1700

Howell v Lees-Millais [2007] EWCA Civ 720

R (Ware) v Neath Port Talbot Council [2007] EWHC 913 (Admin).

Smits v Roach (2006) 80 ALJR 1309, (2006) 228 ALR 262

S & M Motor Repairs Pty Ltd v Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty Ltd (1988) 12 NSWLR 358

Auckland Casino Ltd v Casino Control Authority [1995] 1 NZLR 142

 

Presumed bias/disqualification for interest

Olowofoyeku, ‘The Nemo Judex Rule: The Case Against Automatic Disqualification’ [2000] Public Law 456

R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate; ex p Pinochet Ugarte (No 2) [2000] 1 AC 119

Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337

Auckland Casino Ltd v Casino Control Authority [1995] 1 NZLR 142

 

Waiver

   Goudkamp, ‘The Rule Against Bias and the Doctrine of Waiver’ (2007) 26 CJQ 310

   Millar v Dickson (Procurator Fiscal, Elgin) [2002] 3 All ER 1041, [2002] 1 WLR 1615 at [31]

   Jones v DAS Legal Expenses Insurance Co Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 1071

   Smith v Kvaerner Cementation Foundations Ltd [2006] 3 All ER 593, [2007] 1 WLR 370

   Vakauta v Kellya (1989) 167 CLR 568

                  Auckland Casino Ltd v Casino Control Authority [1995] 1 NZLR 142

   Smits v Roach (2006) 80 ALJR 1309, (2006) 228 ALR 262

 

3.              Right to equality in procedure

 

CPR 1.1(2)(a)

Dombo Beheer BV v Netherlands (1994) 18 EHRR 213

Nideröst-Huber v Switzerland (1998) 25 EHRR 709

Maltez v Lewis The Times 4 May 1999

                  De Haes & Gijsels v Belgium (1997) 25 EHRR 1

Gustave Pordea v Times Newspapers Limited [2000] IL Pr 763 Cases (F) (Cour de Cassation, France)

 

4.              Right to an adversarial process

 

Mantovanelli v France (1997) 24 EHRR 370 at [33]

Ruiz-Mateos v Spain (1993) 16 EHRR 505

Bank of Scotland v A Ltd [2001] 3 All ER 58, [2001] 1 WLR 751

Ex p Pelling [1999] 2 All ER 582

Paragon Finance v Noueiri [2001] 1 WLR 2357

Gregory v Turner [2003] 2 All ER 1114, [2003] 1 WLR 1149

 

5.              Right to a public hearing and judgment

 

SCA 1981, s 67

CPR 39.2

Campbell & Fell v UK (1985) 7 EHRR 165

Pretto v Italy (1984) 6 EHRR 182                               

Ex p Guardian Newspapers [1999] 1 All ER 65, [1999] 1 WLR 2130

SmithKline Beecham v Connaught [1999] 4 All ER 498

Barings v Coopers & Lybrand [2000] 3 All ER 910, [2000] 1 WLR 2353

Lilly Icos Ltd v Pfizer Ltd [2002] 1 All ER 842, [2002] 1 WLR 2253 at [9]

Janan George Harb v King Fahd Bin Abdul Aziz [2005] EWCA Civ 632

 

6.              Right to a hearing within a reasonable time

 

Dyer (Procurator Fiscal, Linlithgow) v Watson [2004] 1 AC 379 at [52]

                  Annodeus Ltd v Gibson The Times 3 March 2000

Unión Alimentaria Sanders SA v Spain (1990) 12 EHRR 24 esp at [35]

Scopelliti v Italy (1994) 17 EHHR 493

Markass Car Hire v Cyprus [2002] 51591/99 (ECtHR)

Mitchell v UK The Times 28 December 2002

                             

7.              Right to a reasoned decision

 

                  Jolowicz ‘A Duty to Give Reasons’ (2000) 59 CJQ 265           

                  English v Emery Richmond & Strick Ltd [2002] 3 All ER 385, [2002] 1 WLR 2409

            North Range Shipping Ltd v Seatrans Shipping Corp [2002] 4 All ER 390, [2002] 1 WLR 2397 at [27]


III – THE ADVERSARIAL SYSTEM & COURT CONTROL OF PROCESS

 

1.              Adversarial system

 

Zuckerman on Civil Procedure (2006) ch 10

Damaska, The Faces of Justice and State Authority (1986) at 103ff

Golding, ‘On the Adversary System and Justice’ in R Bronaugh Philosophical Law: Authority, Equality, Adjudication, Privacy (1978) at 95

Miller, ‘The Adversary System: Dinosaur or Phoenix’ (1984) 69 Minn LR 1

Langbein, ‘German Advantage in Civil Procedure’ (1985) 52 U Chic LR 823

Schlosser, ‘Trial Court Procedures in Continental Europe’ in Platto (ed), Trial and Court Procedures Worldwide (1991) at 77–101

Gottwald, ‘Simplified Civil Procedure in West Germany’ (1983) 31 AJCL 687

Jolowicz, ‘The Woolf Report and the Adversary System’ (1996) 15 CJQ 198

Woolf, ‘The Additional Responsibilities of the Judiciary in the New Millennium’, in Markeninis (ed) The Clifford Chance Millennium Lectures: The Coming Together of the Common Law and the Civil Law (2000)

Jolowicz, ‘Adversarial and Inquisitorial Models of Civil Procedure’ (2003) 52 ICLQ 281.

Davies, ‘The Reality of Civil Justice Reform: why we must abandon the essential elements of our system’ (2003) 12 Journal of Judicial Administration 155.

 

2.              Case management

 

General

CPR 1.1, CPR 1.4, CPR 3

CPR 26CPR 29

PD 26 – PD 29

Scott, ‘Caseflow Management in the Trial Court’ in Zuckerman & Cranston (eds) Reform of Civil Procedure: Essays on ‘Access to Justice (1995)

McPhilemy v Times Newspapers [1999] 3 All ER 775

Tancic v Times Newspapers The Times 12 January 2000

GKR Karate UK v Yorkshire Post [2000] 2 All ER 931, [2000] 1 WLR 2571

 

Theory of management

Woolf, Access to Justice: Interim Report (1995) pp 7–8, 26–53 & 150–52

Woolf, Access to Justice: Final Report (1996) pp 14–77, 104–111                           

Woolf Report reviews (1995) 14 CJQ 92, (1996) 15 CJQ 273, (1997) 16 CJQ 17

Zuckerman, ‘Lord Woolf’s Access to Justice: Plus ça Change…’ (1996) 59 MLR 773

Resnik, ‘Managerial Judges’ (1982) 96 Harv LR 374

Flanders, ‘Blind Umpires—A Response to Prof Resnik’ (1984) 35 Hastings LJ 505

                  Marcus, ‘Déjà-vu All Over Again? An American Reaction to the Woolf Report’ in Zuckerman & Cranston (eds) Reform of Civil Procedure: Essays on ‘Access to Justice (1995)

                  Zander, ‘The Woolf Report: Forwards or Backwards for the New Lord Chancellor?’ (1997) 16 CJQ 208

 

Party freedom and court control

Zuckerman on Civil Procedure (2006) ch 10

CPR 1.1, CPR 1.4, CPR 3.8, CPR 3.9

Jolowicz, ‘Adversarial and Inquisitorial Models of Civil Procedure’ (2003) 52 ICLQ 281

Air Canada v Secretary of State for Trade (No 2) [1983] 1 All ER 910 at 919

Re Enoch & Zaretsky, Bock & Co [1910] 1 KB 327

Ashmore v Corp of Lloyd’s [1992] 2 All ER 486

Beachley Property v Edgar [1997] PNLR 197                          

Mortgage Corp v Sandoes [1997] PNLR 263                            

Khiaban v Beard [2003] EWCA Civ 358 at [13]

 

Control under the court’s inherent jurisdiction

SCA 1981, s 42

CPR 3.11

                  Grepe v Loam (1887) 37 ChD 168

Attorney-General v Times Newspapers Ltd [1974] AC 273 at 294

Balogh v St Albans Crown Court [1975] QB 73

In re de Court The Times 27 December 1997

Ebert v Venvil [2000] Ch 484

HM Attorney-General v Ebert [2002] 2 All ER 789

Bhamjee v Forsdick [2004] 1 WLR 88

Attorney-General v Pepin [2004] EWCA Civ 1299

R (Kumar) v Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs [2007] 1 WLR 536

Connah v Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust [2006] EWCA Civ 1616

 

Delay and other non-compliance

Zuckerman on Civil Procedure (2006) ch 10, 10.73 – 10.171

CPR 3.4 – 3.10

van Rhee (ed), The Law’s Delay: Essays on Undue Delay in Civil Litigation (2004)

Piggot, ‘Relief from Sanctions and the Overriding Objective’ (2005) 24 CJQ 103

Scott, ‘Is Court Control the Key to Reduction in Delay?’ (1983) 53 ALJ 16

Key, ‘Abuse of Process and Dismissal for Want of Prosecution’ (1999) 115 LQR 208

Birkett v James [1978] AC 297, (1998) 17 CJQ 223

Grovit v Doctor [1997] 1 All ER 417, [1997] 1 WLR 640, (1997) 16 CJQ 289

            Arbuthnot Latham Bank v Trafalgar Holdings [1998] 2 All ER 181, [1998] 1 WLR 1426, [2001] Cam LJ 56

Biguzzi v Rank Leisure [1999] 4 All ER 934, [1999] 1 WLR 1926

                  Re Swaptronics Ltd The Times 17 August 1999

UCB Corporate Services v Halifax (SW) Ltd [1999] CPLR 691

Walsh v Misseldine [2000] CPLR 201 at [92]

Cohort Construction (UK) Ltd v M Julius Melchior [2001] CP Rep 23

Sayers v Clarke-Walker [2002] 3 All ER 490, [2002] 1 WLR 3095

                  Woodhouse v Consignia plc [2002] 2 All ER 737, [2002] 1 WLR 2558

Robert v Momentum Services Ltd [2003] 2 All ER 74, [2003] 1 WLR 1577

Price v Price [2003] 3 All ER 911

Hansom v Makin & Wright [2003] EWCA Civ 1801

Flaxman-Binns v Lincolnshire CC [2004] 1 WLR 2232

B v B [2005] EWCA Civ 237

Batistatos v Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales (2006) 80 ALJR 1100, (2006) 227 ALR 425, (2007) 26 CJQ 186

 

Adjournments

North British Housing Association Ltd v Matthews [2005] 2 All ER 667, [2005] 1 WLR 3133

 

Pre-commencement conduct

Woolf, Access to Justice: Final Report (1996) p 275              

CPR 1.1

                  CPR Pre-Action Protocols (esp Pre-Action Protocol for Personal Injury Claims at [2.4])

Stoke on Trent City Council v Walley [2006] 4 All ER 1230, [2007] 1 WLR 352

 

 

 

                 

 


IV – COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS

 

1.              Issue and service

 

                  Zuckerman on Civil Procedure chs 3-4

                  CPR 7CPR 10

                  PD 6 (‘Service’), PD 7 (‘The Claim Form’), PD 10

                  RSC Ord 81

                  Woolf, Access to Justice: Final Report (1996) pp 120–23

 

General   

                  R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Saleem [2000] 4 All ER 814, [2001] 1 WLR 443

                                                    

Methods

   Consignia plc v Sealy [2002] 3 All ER 801 at [29]  

                  Nanglegan v Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust [2001] 3 All ER 793, [2002] 1 WLR 1043

Abbey Nat’l v Frost [1999] 2 All ER 206, [1999] 1 WLR 1080

 

Errors

                  Elmes v Hygrade Food Products [2001] EWCA Civ 121

                  Infantino v MacLean [2001] 3 All ER 802

                  Anderton v Clwyd County Council [2002] 3 All ER 813, [2002] 1 WLR 3174

                  Wilkey v British Broadcasting Corporation [2002] 4 All ER 1177, [2003] 1 WLR 1

 

Limitation and extension of time

CPR 7.6

Limitation Act 1980, ss 33, 35

Vinos v Marks & Spencer [2001] 3 All ER 784

Godwin v Swindon BC [2001] 4 All ER 641, [2002] 1 WLR 997

Anderton v Clwyd County Council [2002] 3 All ER 813, [2002] 1 WLR 3174

Cranfield v Bridgegrove [2003] 3 All ER 129, [2003] 1 WLR 2441

Price v Price [2003] 3 ALL ER 911

Hashtroodi v Hancock [2004] 3 All ER 530, [2004] 1 WLR 3206

Parsons v George [2004] 1 WLR 3264, [2004] 3 All ER 633

Morgan Est (Scotland) Ltd v Hanson Concrete Products Ltd [2005] 3 All ER 135, [2005] 1 WLR 2557

Mohammed Akram v Richard Benjamin Adam [2005] 1 All ER 741, [2005] 1 WLR 2762

Steele v Mooney [2005] 2 All ER 256, [2005] 1 WLR 2819

Collier v Williams [2007] 1 All ER 991, [2006] 1 WLR 1945

Kuenyehia v International Hospitals Group Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 21

Estate Acquisition and Development Ltd v Wiltshire [2006] EWCA Civ 533

Nelson v Clearsprings (Management) Ltd [2007] 2 All ER 407, [2007] 1 WLR 962

Thomas v The Home Office [2007] 1 WLR 230, (2007) 26 CJR 168

St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council v Barnes [2007] 3 All ER 525, [2007] 1 WLR 879

O’Byrne v Aventis Pasteur [2007] 1 WLR 757

 

Service outside jurisdiction

Kamali v City & Country Properties Ltd [2007] 1 WLR 1219, (2007) CJQ 279

 

2.              Statements of case

 

Zuckerman on Civil Procedure (2006) ch 6

CPR 16–18, 22

PD 16–18, 22

Jacob, ‘The Present Importance of Pleadings’ (1960) 13 CLP 171

Woolf, Access to Justice: Interim Report (1995) pp 153–63

Woolf, Access to Justice: Final Report (1996) pp 118–20

Robert v Momentum Services Ltd [2003] 2 All ER 74, [2003] 1 WLR 1577

                  Loveridge v Healey [2004] EWCA Civ 173

 

Amendment

Gale v Superdrug Stores [1996] 3 All ER 468, [1996] 1 WLR 1089

                  Stewart v Engel [2000] 3 All ER 518, [2000] 1 WLR 2268

                  Goode v Martin [2001] 3 All ER 562

Hall v Motor Sport Vision Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 702

Maguire v Molin [2002] 4 All ER 325, [2003] 1 WLR 644

                  Furini v Bajwa [2004] 1 WLR 1971

                  Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Ltd [2007] 1 WLR 1203

 

 

 


V – INTERIM REMEDIES

 

1.              General

                 

                  Zuckerman on civil Procedure (2006) ch 9

                  SCA 1981, ss 37 & 72

                  CPR 25

                  PD 25 (‘Interim Injunctions’)

                  Collins, ‘Provisional and Protective Measures in International Litigation’ in Essays in International Litigation and the Conflict of Laws (1994)

                  Grunert, ‘Interlocutory Remedies in England and Germany: A Comparative Perspective’ (1996) 15 CJQ 18

                  Leubsdorf, ‘The Standard for Preliminary Injunctions’ (1978) 91 Harv LR 525

                  D Lichtman, ‘Uncertainty and the Standard for Preliminary Relief’ (2003) 70 U Chi                                   L Rev 197

                  Keay, ‘Whither American Cyanamid?: Interim Injunctions in the 21st Century’ (2004) 23 CJQ 132

                  American Cyanamid v Ethicon [1975] AC 396, (1975) 91 LQR 168

                  Polly Peck Internatinal v Nadir (No 2) [1992] 4 All ER 769

                  Cayne v Global Natural Resources [1984] 1 All ER 225

                  R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex p Factortame (No2) [1991] 1 AC 603

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

                  Czarnikow-Rionda SugarTrading Inc v Standard Bank London Ltd [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 187

                  Marks & Spencer Plc v Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer [2004] 3 All ER 773, [2004] 1 WLR 2331                           

                  R (Teleos plc) v Customs and Excise Commissioners (Interim Relief) [2005] 1 WLR 3007

 

Quantifiability of harm

                  American Hospital Supply Corp v Hospital Products Inc 780 F 2d 589 (1986)

                  Mullinex, ‘Burying (With Kindness) the Felicific Calculus of Civil Procedure’ (1987) 40 Va L Rev 541

 

2.              Cross undertaking in damages

                 

                  Zuckerman on Civil Procedure (2006) ch 9, 9.109 ff

                  SCA 1981, s 37(2)

                  CPR 25

                  PD 25 (‘Interim Injunctions’) para 5.1

                  Hoffmann-La Roche & Co v Secretary of State for Trade & Industry [1975] AC 295

                  Allen v Jambo Holdings Ltd [1980] 2 All ER 502, [1980] 1 WLR 1252

                  Cheltenham & Gloucester BS v Ricketts [1993] 4 All ER 276, [1993] 1 WLR 1545

                  Kirklees MBC v Wickes Building Supplies Ltd [1993] AC 227

                  Oxy-Electric Ltd v Zainuddin [1990] 2 All ER 902, [2004] 1 WLR 3206

                  Air Express v Ansett Transport Industries (1979) 146 CLR 249

                  Customs and Excise Commissioners v Anchor Foods Ltd (No 2) [1999] 3 All ER 268, [1999] 1 WLR 1139

 

3.              Freezing injunctions

                 

   Zuckerman on Civil Procedure (2006) ch 9            

   SCA 1981, s 37

                  CPR 25

                  PD 25 (‘Interim Injunctions’)

                  Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, s 25

                  Brussels Convention 1968, Art 24

                  Lugano Convention

                  Capper, ‘The Trans-jurisdictional Effects of Mareva Injunctions’ (1996) 15 CJQ 211                  Devonshire, ‘Mareva Injunctions and Third Parties: Exposing the Subtext’ (1999) 62 MLR 539

                 

General

                  Mareva v International Bulk Carriers SA [1980] 1 All ER 213

                  Ninemia Maritime Corp v Trave Schiffahrts GmbH & Co [1984] 1 All ER 398, [1983] 1 WLR 1412

                  Polly Peck International Plc v Nadir (Asil) (No 2) [1992] 4 All ER 769

                  Den Norske Bank ASA v Antonatos [1999] QB 271

                  Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Anchor Foods Ltd [1999] 3 All ER 268, [1999] 1 WLR 1139

                  Motorola Credit Corporation v Uzan [2002] EWCA Civ 989

                  Parker v CS Structured Credit Fund Ltd [2003] 1 WLR 1680

                  Schmidt v Wong [2006] 1 All ER 677, [2006] 1 WLR 561

                  Fourie v Le Roux [2007] 1 All ER 1087, [2007] 1 WLR 320

                  Customs and Excise Commissioners v Barclays Bank plc [2007] 1 AC 181

 

Foreign aspects

   Collins, ‘The Territorial Reach of Mareva Injunctions’ (1989) 105 LQR 262

                  The Siskina [1979] AC 210

                  Mercedes-Benz v Leiduck [1996] AC 284

                  Babanaft International Co SA v Bassatne [1990] Ch 13

                  Republic of Haiti v Duvalier (Mareva Injunction) (No 2) [1990] 1 QB 202

                  Derby & Co Ltd v Weldon (No 1) [1990] Ch 48

                  Derby & Co v Weldon (Nos 3 & 4) [1990] Ch 65

                  Dadourian Group International Inc v Simms [2006] 3 All ER 48, [2006] 1 WLR 2499

                  Dadourian Group International Inc v Simms [2007] 2 All ER 329

 

Ancillary Relief

                  Bekhor & Co Ltd v Bilton [1981] QB 923

                  Arab Monetary Fund v Hashim (No 5) [1992] 2 All ER 911

 

4.              Interim payment orders

 

                  Zuckerman on Civil Procedure (2006) ch 9

                  CPR 21.1, CPR 25.6CPR 25.9

                  PD 25 (‘Interim Payments’)

                  SCA 1981, s 32

                  CCA 1984, s 50

                  Schott Kem v Bentley [1991] 1 QB 61

                  Shanning International v George Wimpey International [1988] 3 All ER 475, [1989] 1 WLR 981

                  British & Commonwealth Holdings Plc v Quadrex Holdings Inc (No 1) [1989] QB 842 from 863

                  Andrews v Schooling [1991] 3 All ER 723, [1991] 1 WLR 783

                  Harmon CFEM Façade (UK) Ltd v Corporate Officer of the House of Commons The Times 15 November 2000

 

5.              Security for costs

 

   Zuckerman on Civil Procedure (2006) ch 9, 9.149 ff

   CPR 25.12CPR 25.15

   CPR 3.1(5)

   CPR 25, PD 2 4, 4

   Companies Act 1985, s 726

   Sir Lindsay Parkinson & Co Ltd v Triplan Ltd [1973] QB 609

                  Keary Developments Ltd v Tarmac Construction Ltd [1995] 3 All ER 534                                Nasser v United Bank of Kuwait [2002] 1 All ER 401, [2002] 1 WLR 1868

                  Olatawra v Abiloye [2002] 4 All ER 903, [2003] 1 WLR 275

                  CIBC Mellon Co v Mora Hotel Corp NV [2003] 1 All ER 564

                  De Beer v Kanaar & Co [2002] EWHC 688

                  Dar International FEF Co v Aon Ltd [2004] 3 All ER 986, [2004] 1 WLR 1395

                  King v Telegraph Group Ltd [2005] 1 WLR 2282

                  Investment Invoice Financing Ltd v Limehouse Board Mills Ltd [2006] 1 WLR 985

                  Al-Koronky v Time-Life Entertainment Group [2006] EWCA Civ 1123

 

 

 


VI – SUMMARY ADJUDICATION: DISPOSAL WITHOUT TRIAL

 

1.              Default judgment

 

                  Zuckerman on Civil Procedure (2006) ch 8            

                  CPR 12 - 13

                  PD 12

                  The ‘Saudi Eagle’ [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 221

BCCI (Overseas) Ltd (in liq) v Habib Bank [1998] 4 All ER 753, [1999] 1 WLR 42

                  Thorn v MacDonald Plc The Times 15 October 1999

                  E D & F Man Liquid Products Ltd v Patel [2003] EWCA Civ 472 at [8]

                  Hackney LBC v Driscoll [2003] 4 All ER 1205, [2003] 1 WLR 2602

 

2.              Striking out

 

                  Zuckerman on Civil Procedure (2006) ch 8

                  CPR 3.4

                  PD 3 (‘Striking Out a Statement of Case’)

                  Woolf, Access to Justice: Interim Report (1995) pp 12–15

 

No reasonable grounds

                  Arrow Nominees Inc v Blackledge [2000] 2 BCLC 167

                  Royal Brompton Hospital NHS v Hammond (No 5) [2001] EWCA Civ 550

                  Three Rivers DC v Bank of England (No 3) [2003] 2 AC 1

                  TP v UK [2001] 2 FCR 289

                  Matthews v Ministry of Defence [2003] 1 AC 1163 at [3]

                  Begum v Tower Hamlets LBC [2003] 2 AC 430

                  Nomura International Plc v Granada Group Ltd [2007] EWHC 642

 

Abuse of process

                  Zuckerman on Civil Procedure (2006) ch 10

                  Jolowicz, ‘Abuse of the Process of Court: Handle with Care’ (1990) 43 CLP 77

                  Norglen Ltd (In Liquidation) v Reeds Rains Prudential Ltd [1998] 1 All ER 218 at 226

                  Oxy-Electric Ltd v Zainuddin [1990] 2 All ER 902, [2004] 1 WLR 3206                    AB v Wyeth & Brother Ltd (No 2) The Times 1 December 1993

                  Grovit v Doctor [1997] 1 All ER 417, [1997] 1 WLR 640, (1997) 16 CJQ 289

                  Hunter v Chief Constable of West Midlands [1982] AC 529

                  Walpole v Partridge & Wilson [1994] QB 106

                  Ashmore v British Coal Corp [1990] 2 QB 338

Bradford & Bingley Building Society v Seddon [1999] 4 All ER 217, [1999] 1 WLR 1482

                  Johnson v Gore Wood [2001] 1 All ER 481 at 499

                  National Westminster Bank plc v Rabobank Nederland [2006] EWHC 2959

 

3.              Summary judgment

 

                  Zuckerman on Civil Procedure (2006) ch 8

                  CPR 24, CPR 1.4

                  PD 3 (‘Striking Out a Statement of Case’), PD 24

                  Issacharoff & Lowenstein, ‘Second Thoughts About Summary Adjudication’ (1990) 100 Yale LJ 73

                  O’Brien, ‘The New Summary Judgment: Raising the Threshold of Admission’ (1999) 18 CJQ 132

                  Ching, ‘Civil Procedure: Part 24—How Real is a Real Prospect of Success?’ (1999) 8 Nott LJ 28

                  Note, ‘The Right to a Fair Hearing and Summary Disposal’ (2000) 19 CJQ 341

   Woolf, Access to Justice: Interim Report (1995) pp 37–38

                  Woolf, Access to Justice: Final Report (1996) pp 123–24

 

General                     

                  S v Gloucestershire County Council [2000] 3 All ER 346, [2001] 2 WLR 909

                  Swain v Hillman [2001] 1 All ER 91

                  Three Rivers DC v Bank of England (No 3) [2001] 2 All ER 513 at 546

                  Equitable Life Assurance Society v Ernst & Young [2003] EWCA Civ 1114

                  Doncaster Pharmaceuticals Group Ltd v Bolton Pharmaceutical Company 100 Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 661

 

Conditional orders

                  MV Yorke Motors v Edwards [1982] 1 All ER 1024, [1982] 1 WLR 444

                  Sweetman v Shepherd The Times 29 March 2000

                  Foot & Bowden v Anglo Europe Corp Ltd (Unreported, Court of Appeal, 17 February 2000)

 

Overlap with power to strike out

                  CPR 3.4

                  PD 3

                  Taylor v Midland Bank Trust Co (Unreported, Court of Appeal, 21 July 1999)

                  S v Gloucestershire CC [2000] 3 All ER 346, [2001] 2 WLR 909

                  Marsh v Chief Constable of Lancashire [2003] EWCA Civ 284 at [55]

 

Submission of No Case to Answer

                  Graham v Chorley Borough Council [2006] EWCA Civ 92

 


VII – ACCESS TO EVIDENCE

 

1.              Disclosure and inspection

 

                  Zuckerman Civil Procedure (2006) ch 2

   CPR 31

   PD 31

                  Hollander, Documentary Disclosure (2003)

                  Brazil, ‘The Adversary Character of Civil Discovery’ (1978) 31 Vand LR 295

                  Frankel, ‘The Search for Truth Continued: More Disclosure, Less Privilege’ (1982) 54 U Col LR 51

                  Marcus, ‘Myth and Reality in Protective Order Litigation’ (1983) 69 Cornell LR 1

                  Woolf, Access to Justice: Interim Report (1995) pp 164–80

                  Woolf, Access to Justice: Final Report (1996) pp 124–30

                                  

General

                  Lonrho Plc v Fayed (No 3) The Times 24 June 1993

                  Logicrose v Southend United Football Club Ltd [1988] 1 WLR 1256

                  Arrow Nominees Inc v Blackledge [2000] CP Rep 59

                  Douglas v Hello! Ltd (No 3) [2003] 1 All ER 1087 at [86]

                  Dyson Appliances Ltd v Hoover Ltd (No 3) [2002] EWHC 500

                  Chan U Seek v Alvis Vehicles Ltd [2005] 3 All ER 155, [2005] 1 WLR 2965

                  Dian AO v Davis Frankel & Mead [2005] 1 All ER 1074, [2005] 1 WLR 2951, (2006) 25 CJQ 137

                  Tweed v Parades Commission for Northern Ireland (Northern Ireland) [2007] 1 AC 650

 

Non-parties

                  CPR 31.17

                  SCA 1981, s 34 and CCA 1984, s 53 (both as amended by Civil Procedure (Modification of Enactments) Order 1998)

                  Norwich Pharmacal Co v Customs & Excise Commissioners [1974] AC 133

                  Bankers Trust Co v Shapira [1980] 3 All ER 353, [1980] 1 WLR 1274

                  British Steel Corp v Granada Television Ltd [1981] 1 AC 1096

                  X Ltd v Morgan-Grampian (Publishers) Ltd [1991] 1 AC 1

                  Goodwin v UK (1996) 22 EHRR 123

                  Re Howglen Ltd [2001] 1 All ER 376

                  Frankson v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] 1 WLR 1952

 

Protection of journalistic sources

                  ECHR art 10

                  Contempt of Court Act 1981, s 10

                  Ashworth Hosptial Authority v MGN Ltd [2002] 4 All ER 193, [2002] 1 WLR 2033

                  Mersey Care NHS Trust v Ackroyd (No 2) [2007] EWCA Civ 101

 

Pre-action disclosure

                  Zuckerman on Civil Procedure (2006) ch 14, 14.71 ff

                  CPR 31.16, CPR 25

                  CPR Pre-action protocols (various)        

                  Civil Procedure Act 1997, s 8

   SCA 1981, s 33 and CCA 1984, s 52         (both as amended by Civil Procedure (Modification of Enactments) Order 1998)

                  Scott, ‘Pre-action Disclosure: Legislation and Protocols’ (2001) 20 CJQ 213

                  Black v Sumitomo Corporation [2003] 3 All ER 643, [2002] 1 WLR 1562

                  Three Rivers DC v Bank of England (Disclosure) (No 1) [2002] 4 All ER 881, [2003] 1 WLR 210

                  Three Rivers DC v Bank of England (Disclosure) (No 4) [2005] 1 AC 610

                  Sowerby v Charlton [2006] 1 WLR 568

 

Subsequent use of disclosed materials

                  Zuckerman on Civil Procedure (2006) ch 14

                  Gibbons, ‘Subsequent Use of Documents Obtained Through Disclosure in Civil Proceedings—The “Purpose of the Proceedings” Test’ (2001) 20 CJQ 303

                  Riddick v Thames Board Mills [1977] QB 881

                  Crest Homes Plc v Marks [1987] AC 829

                  Cobra Golf Inc v Rata [1996] FSR 819

                  Taylor v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [1997] 4 All ER 887

                  SmithKline Beecham Biologicals SA v Connaught Labs Inc [2000] FSR 1

                  Lilly Icos Ltd v Pfizer Ltd (No 2) [2002] 1 All ER 842, [2002] 1 WLR 2253 at [25]

                  SmithKline Beecham plc v Generics (UK) Ltd [2003] 4 All ER 1302, [2004] 1 WLR 1479

 

Witness statements

                  Zuckerman on Civil Procedure (2006) ch 19

                  CPR 32, 22, PD 32

                  Comfort Hotels v Wembley Stadium [1988] 3 All ER 53, [1988] 1 WLR 872

                  Society of Lloyd’s v Jaffray The Times 3 August 2000

                  McPhilemy v Times Newspapers Ltd (No 2) [2000] 1 WLR 1732

                  Bansal v Cheema (Unreported, Court of Appeal 2 March 2000)

                  Douglas v Hello! Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 332

Tajik Aluminium Plant v Hydro Aluminium AS [2005] 4 All ER 1232, [2006] 1 WLR 767

 

2.              Search orders

                 

                  Zuckerman on Civil Procedure (2006) ch 14

                  Dockray & Thomas, ‘Anton Piller Orders: The New Statutory Scheme’ (1998) 17 CJQ 272

                  Civil Procedure Act 1997, s 7 (see (1997) 16 CJQ 188)

                  SCA 1981, ss 37 & 72

                  CPR 25

                  PD 25 (‘Interim Injunctions’) 3 ff.

                  Anton Piller v Manufacturing Processes Ltd [1976] Ch 55

                  Columbia Pictures Industries v Robinson [1987] Ch 38

                  Lock International Plc v Beswick [1989] 3 All ER 373, [1989] 1 WLR 1268

                  IBM (UK) v Prima Data International Ltd [1994] 4 All ER 748, [1994] 1 WLR 719
                  Chappell v UK
(1990) 12 EHRR 1, (1990) LQR 173

                  Coca-Cola Co v Aytacli (Contempt: Committal) [2003] EWHC 91

                  Hammerton v Hammerton [2007] EWCA Civ 248

 

3.              Expert evidence

 

                  Zuckerman on Civil Procedure (2006) ch 20

                  CPR 32, 25

                  PD 35

                  Blom-Cooper, ‘Experts and Assessors: Past, Present & Future’, (2002) 21 CJQ 341

                  Davies, ‘Court Appointed Experts’, CJQ 23 (2003) 367

                  Heerey, ‘Recent Australian Developments’ (2003) 23 CJQ 386

                  Davies, ‘A Response to Peter Heerey’ (2003) 23 CJQ 396

                  Jacob, ‘Court-Appointed Experts v Party Experts: Which is Better?’ (2003) 23 CJQ 400

                  Jolowicz, ‘A Note on Experts’, (2003) 23 CJQ 408

                  The ‘Ikarian Reefer’ [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 68

   Mantovanelli v France (1997) 24 EHRR 370

   Grobbelaar v Sun Newspapers Ltd The Times 12 August 1999

                  Vernon v Bosley (No 2) [1997] 1 All ER 614 at 647

                  Daniels v Walker [2000] 1 WLR 1382

                  Holmes v SGB Services Plc [2001] EWCA Civ 354

                  Carlson v Townsend [2001] 3 All ER 663, [2001] 1 WLR 2415

   Peet v Mid-Kent Area Healthcare NHS Trust [2002] 3 All ER 688, [2002] 1 WLR 210

   Factortame Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment (No 2) [2003] QB 381

   Bennett v Compass Group UK & Ireland [2002] EWCA Civ 642

                  Calden v Dr Nunn [2003] EWCA Civ 200

                  Beck v Ministry of Defence [2005] 1 WLR 2206

Lucas v Barking, Havering & Redbridge Hospitals NHS Trust [2003] 4 All ER 720, [2004] 1 WLR 220

                  Jackson v Marley Davenport Ltd [2004] 1 WLR 2926

                  Phillips v Symes (No 2) [2005] 4 All ER 519, [2005] 1 WLR 2043

                  Hajigeorgiou v Vasiliou [2005] 3 All ER 17, [2005] 1 WLR 2195

                  Wright v Sullivan [2006] 1 WLR 172

                  Jakto Transport Ltd v Hall [2005] EWCA Civ 1327

                  Armstrong v First York Ltd The Times 19 January 2005

                  Toth v Jarman [2006] 4 All ER 1276

                  General Medical Council v Meadow [2007] QB 462

                  Stallwood v David [2007] 1 All ER 206

 

4.              Assessors

 

Dwyer, ‘The future of assessors’ (2006) 25 CJQ 219

Procurator Fiscal v Kelly (Unreported, Court of Session (Inner House), 18 August 2000)

Ahmed v Oxford University [2003] 1 All ER 915, [2003] 1 WLR 995

 

 

 

 


VIII – EXCEPTIONS TO INSPECTION

 

1.              Legal professional privilege

 

                  Zuckerman on Civil Procedure (2006) ch 15

                  CPR 31, CPR 35.10  

                  Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, s 10

                  Andrews, ‘Equity and Legal Professional Privilege’ (1989) 105 LQR 608

                  Uff, ‘Recent Developments in LPP’ (2004) 23 CJQ 161

                  Mahoney, ‘Reforming Litigation Privilege’ (2001) 30 Comm Law World Rev 66

                 

Scope

                  R v Derby Magistrates Court; ex p B [1996] AC 487

                  Calcraft v Guest [1898] 1 QB 759

                  R v McClure [2001] 1 SCR 445

                  Carter v Managing Partner of Northmore Hale Davy & Leake (1995) 183 CLR 121, cf Evidence Act 1995 (Cth, NSW & Tas), s 123

                  Federal Trade Commissioners v Grolier Inc 462 US 19 (1983)

                  R (Morgan Grenfell & Co Ltd) v Special Commissioners of Income Tax [2003] 1 AC 563

                 Three Rivers DC v Bank of England (Disclosure) (No 3) [2003] QB 1556 at [26]

                  Three Rivers DC v Bank of England (Disclosure) (No 4) [2005] 1 AC 610

                  Re L (a Minor) (Police Investigation: Privilege) [1997] AC 16.

                  Waugh v British Railways Board [1980] AC 521

                  Paragon Finance plc v Freshfields (a firm) [1999] 1 WLR 1183 at 1188

                  Ventouris v Mountain [1991] 3 All ER 472, [1991] 1 WLR 607

                  Balabel v Air India [1988] Ch 317

                  R v Cox & Railton (1884) 14 QBD 153

                  Barclays Bank plc v Eustice [1995] 4 All ER 511, [1995] 1 WLR 1238

                  Campbell & Fell v UK (1985) 7 EHRR 165

                  Campbell v UK (1992) 15 EHRR 137

                  B v Auckland District Law Society [2003] 2 AC 736

                  Kuwait Airways Corpn v Iraqi Aiways Co (No 6) [2005] 1 WLR 2734 

                  Blank v Canada (Minister of Justice) [2006] 2 SCR 319

                  UpJohn v United States 449 US 383 (1981), (1982) 57 NYULR 442

                  United States of America v Philip Morris Inc [2004] EWCA Civ 330

 

Copies and equitable protection—confidentiality

                  Calcraft v Guest [1898] 1 QB 759

                  Ashburton v Pape [1913] 2 Ch 469

                  Butler v Board of Trade [1971] Ch 680

                  Goddard v Nationwide BS [1987] QB 670

                  Guinness Peat v Fitzroy Robinson Partnership [1987] 2 All ER 716, [1987] 1 WLR 1027

                  Derby & Co Ltd v Weldon (No 8) [1990] 3 All ER 762, [1991] 1 WLR 73

                  IBM Corp v Phoenix International [1995] 1 All ER 413

                  Sumitomo Corporation v Credit Lyonnais Rouse Ltd [2002] 4 All ER 68, [2002] 1 WLR 479

                                  

Inadvertent disclosure and waiver

                  Zuckerman on Civil Procedure (2006) ch 15.67-15.90

                  CPR 31.20

                  Paragon Finance Plc v Freshfields [1999] 1 WLR 1183

                  Bourns Inc v Raychem Corp (No 3) [1999] 3 All ER 154

                  Al-Fayed v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2002] EWCA Civ 780

                  ISTIL Group Inc v Zahoor [2003] 2 All ER 252

                                  

Fundamental right vs rule of evidence

                  Baker v Campbell (1983) 153 CLR 52

                  AG for the Northern Territory v Maurice (1986) 161 CLR 475 esp at 480, 490

   R v Derby Magistrates Court, ex p B [1996] AC 487

                  Re L (a Minor) (Police Investigation: Privilege) [1997] AC 16.

                  General Mediterranean Holdings SA v Patel [1999] 3 All ER 673, [2000] 1 WLR 272

                  R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Leech (No 2) [1994] QB 198

 

2.              Public interest immunity

 

                  Zuckerman on Civil Procedure (2006) ch 18

                  CPR 31

                  Conway v Rimmer [1968] AC 910

                  D v NSPCC [1978] AC 171

                  Air Canada v Secretary of State for Trade (No 2) [1983] 2 AC 394

                  Balfour v Foreign and Commonwealth Office [1994] 2 All ER 588, [1994] 1 WLR 681

                  R v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police, ex p Wiley [1995] 1 AC 274

                  Taylor v Anderton [1995] 1 WLR 447

 

3.              Privilege against self-incrimination

 

                  Zuckerman on Civil Procedure (2006) ch 17

                  ECHR art 6(1)

                  SCA 1981, s 72

                  Civil Evidence Act 1968, s 14

                  Theft Act 1968, s 31(1)            

                  Children Act 1989, s 98

 

Scope

                  Rank Film Distributors Ltd v Video Information Centre [1982] AC 380

                  A T & T Istel Ltd v Tully [1993] AC 45

                  Den Norske Bank ASA v Antonatos [1999] QB 271

                  Saunders v UK (1997) 23 EHRR 313

                  Attorney-General's Reference (No 7 of 2000) [2001] 1 WLR 1879 at [59]

                  R v Hertfordshire County Council, ex p Green Environmental Industries Ltd [2000] 2 AC 412

                  C Plc v P [2007] 3 WLR 437

 

Companies

                  United States v White 322 US 694 (1944)

                  Environmental Protection Authority v Caltex Refining Co Pty Ltd (1993) 178 CLR 477

                  Bierschbach and Stein, ‘Overenforcement’ (2005) 93 Geo LJ 1743

 

4.              Protection of confidentiality

 

   Zuckerman on Civil Procedure (2006) ch 14, 14.50 ff

   Contempt of Court Act 1981, s 10

   Science Research Council v Nassé [1980] AC 1028

                  British Steel Corp v Granada Television Ltd [1981] 1 AC 1096

                  Secretary of State for Defence v Guardian Newspapers [1985] AC 339

                  X Ltd v Morgan-Grampian (Publishers) Ltd [1991] 1 AC 1

                  Camelot Group Plc v Centaur Communications Ltd [1999] QB 124

                  MS v Sweden (1999) 28 EHRR 313

                  Frankson v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] 1 WLR 1952

 

In proceedings concerning children

                  R v Hampshire CC ex p K [1990] 2 QB 71

   Re D [1996] AC 593

                  Re C (a minor) [1997] 2 WLR 322

                  Re W (minors) [1998] 2 All ER 801, [1999] 1 WLR 205

 

5.              Without prejudice communications

 

                  Zuckerman on Civil Procedure (2006) ch 16

                  CPR 36.19

                  Rush & Tompkins Ltd v Greater London Council [1989] AC 1280

                  Cheddar Valley v Chaddlewood Homes [1992] 4 All ER 942, [1992] 1 WLR 820

                  Unilever Plc v Proctor & Gamble Co [1999] 2 All ER 691, [1999] 1 WLR 1630

                                   aff’d [2001] 1 All ER 783, [2000] 1 WLR 2436

                  Gnitrow Ltd v Cape Plc [2000] 3 All ER 763, [2000] 1 WLR 2327

                  Bradford & Bingley Plc v Rashid [2006] 4 All ER 705, [2006] 1 WLR 2066


X – SETTLEMENT WITHOUT COURT ADJUDICATION

 

1.              Alternative dispute resolution

 

   CPR 1.3, CPR 26.4

                  Woolf, Access to Justice: Final Report (1996) ch 18

   LCD, ‘ADR—A Discussion Paper’ (Nov 1999)

   LCD, ‘ADR Discussion Paper: Summary of Responses’ (May 2000)

   Partington, ADR: Recent Developments, Future Challenges (2004) CJQ 99

                  Fox, Justice in the twenty-first century (2000) ch 10

   Dyson v Leeds City Council [2000] CP Rep 42

   Dunnett v Railtrack Plc [2002] 2 All ER 850, [2002] 1 WLR 2434

   Halsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust [2004] 4 All ER 920, [2004] 1 WLR 3002

Reed Executive plc v Reed Business Information Ltd [2004] 4 All ER 942, [2004] 1 WLR 3026

   Burchard v Bullard [2005] EWCA Civ 358

   Daniels v The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2005] EWCA Civ 1312

   Hickman v Blake-Lapthorn [2006] EWHC 12

 

2.              Offers to settle

 

                  Zuckerman on Civil Procedure (2006) ch 25

                  CPR 36, CPR 37

                  PD 36, PD 37

   Posner, Economic Analysis of Law (5th ed, 1998) at 633–634

                  Woolf, Access to Justice: Interim Report (1995) pp 194–98

                  Woolf, Access to Justice: Final Report (1996) pp 112–15

                  LCD, ‘Payments into Court in Satisfaction of Claims’ (August 2001)

                  Roberts, ‘Settlement as Civil Justice’ (2000) 63 MLR 739

 

General

                  Ford v GKR Construction Ltd [2000] 1 All ER 802, [2000] 1 WLR 1397

                  Reid Minty (a firm) v Taylor [2002] 2 All ER 150, [2002] 1 WLR 2800

                  Johnsey Estates (1990) Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment [2001] EWCA                   Civ 535 at [32]

                  AL Barnes Ltd v Time Talk (UK) Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 402

                  English v Emery Richmond & Strick Ltd [2002] 3 All ER 385 at [110]-[116]

                  Mitchell v James [2003] 2 All ER 1064, [2004] 1 WLR 158

                  Ali-Reza-Delta Transport v United Arab Shipping Co [2003] 3 All ER 1297, [2004] 1 WLR 168

                  Garratt v Saxby [2004] 1 WLR 2152

                  Flynn v Scougal [2004] 3 All ER 609, [2004] 1 WLR 3069

                  Crouch v King’s Healthcare NHS Trust [2005] 1 All ER 207, [2005] 1 WLR 2015

                  Capital Bank plc v Stickland [2005] 2 All ER 544, [2005] 1 WLR 3914

                  McLoughlin v Jones [2006] EWCA Civ 1167

 

Offers outside Part 36

                  Calderbank v Calderbank [1975] 3 All ER 333, [1975] 3 WLR 586

                  Cutts v Head [1984] Ch 290

                  Amber v Stacey [2001] 2 All ER 88, [2001] 1 WLR 1225

                  Neave v Neave [2003] EWCA Civ 325 at [10]

 


IX – FUNDING LITIGATION

 

1.              Costs

 

                  Zuckerman on Civil Procedure (2006) ch 26

                  SCA 1981, s 51 (as amended by CLSA 1990, s 4 and AJA 1999, s 31)

                  CPR 43CPR 48

                  CPD (Costs Practice Direction)

                  Posner, ‘An Economic Approach to Legal Procedure and Judicial Administration’ (1973) 2 JLS 399, 399­-408, 417­-20, 441-48

                  Posner, Economic Analysis of Law (5th ed, 1998) §21.8 (pp 620-23)

                  Gravelle, ‘Regulating the Market for Civil Justice’ in Zuckerman & Cranston

                                   (eds) Reform of Civil Procedure: Essays on ‘Access to Justice’ (1995)

                  Peysner, ‘Predicability and Budgeting’ (2004) 23 CJQ 15

                  Woolf, Access to Justice: Interim Report (1995) pp 8-12, 199-206

                  Woolf, Access to Justice: Final Report (1996) pp 78-90

                                  

General Rule

                  Zuckerman on Civil Procedure (2006) ch 26

                  CPR 44.3

                  Re Elgindata (No 2) [1993] 1 All ER 232, [1992] 1 WLR 1207, (1993) 109 LQR 172, (1993) 109 LQR 550

                  Johnsey Estates (1990) Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment [2001] EWCA Civ 535 at [23]

                  Budgen v Andrew Gardner Partnership [2002] EWCA Civ 1125 at [26]

                  English v Emery Richmond & Strick Ltd [2002] 3 All ER 385, [2002] 1 WLR 2409 at [115]

McPhilemy v Times Newspapers Ltd (No 2) [2001] 4 All ER 861, [2002] 1 WLR 934

Petrotrade Inc v Texaco Ltd [2001] 4 All ER 853, [2002] 1 WLR 947
Reid Minty (a firm) v Taylor
[2002] 2 All ER 150, [2002] 1 WLR 2800

                  Kiam v MGN Ltd (No 2) [2002] 2 All ER 242, [2002] 1 WLR 2810

                  Brawley v Marczynski (No 2) [2002] 4 All ER 1067, [2003] 1 WLR 813

                  Callery v Gray (Nos 1 and 2) [2002] 3 All ER 417, [2002] 1 WLR 2000

                  Home Office v Lownds [2002] 4 All ER 775, [2002] 1 WLR 2450

                  Lynch v Paul Davidson Taylor [2004] 1 WLR 1753

                  University of East London Higher Education Corp v Barking & Dagenham LBC [2005] 3 All ER 416, [2005] 2 WLR 1334

                  Agassi v Robinson (HM Inspector of Taxes) [2006] 1 All ER 900, [2006] 1 WLR 2126

 

Non-Parties

                  Zuckerman on Civil Procedure (2006) ch 26

                  CPR 48.2

                  Aiden Shipping Co Ltd v Interbulk Ltd [1986] AC 965

   Symphony Group Plc v Hodgson [1994] QB 179

   Tolstoy-Miloslavsky v Aldington [1996] 2 All ER 556, [1996] 1 WLR 736, (1996) 15 CJQ 90

   Hamilton v Al Fayed (No 2) [2003] QB 1175

                  The ‘Ikarian Reefer’ (No 2) [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 621 aff’d [2000] 1 All ER 37, [2000] 1 WLR 603

                  Globe Equities Ltd v Globe Legal Services Ltd [1999] BLR 232

                  Arkin v Borchard Lines Ltd [2005] 3 All ER 613, [2005] 1 WLR 3055

2.              Types of fee and funding systems

 

General

                  Zuckerman on Civil Procedure (2006) ch 26

                  Gravelle & Waterson, ‘No Win, No Fee: Some Economics of Contingent Legal

                  Fees’ (1993) 103 Economic Journal 1205

                  Posner, Economic Analysis of Law (5th ed, 1998) §21.9 (pp 624–632), §21.16 (pp 646–650)

                  Zander, ‘The Government’s Plans on Legal Aid and Conditional Fees’ (1998) 61 MLR 538

Walters & Peysner, ‘Event-triggered Financing of Civil Claims: Lawyers, Insurers and the Common Law’ (1999) Nott LJ 8

                  LCD, ‘Community Legal Service: Financial Conditions for Funding’ (March 2001)

                  R v Legal Aid Board, ex p Duncan The Times 23 February 2000

                                  

Conditional fee agreements

                  Zuckerman on Civil Procedure (2006) ch 26

                  CPR 43.2, CPR 48

                  PD 48 (‘Costs—Special Cases’) s 55

                  CLSA 1990, ss 58-58B (as amended by AJA 1999, ss 27-28)

                  Ashby & Glasser, ‘The Legality of Conditional Fee Uplifts’ (2005) 24 CJQ 130

                  Glasser, ‘Solving the Litigation Crisis’ [1994] The Litigator 14

                  Bebchuck & Chang, ‘An Analysis of Fee-shifting based on the Margin of

                                  Victory’ (1996) 25 JLS 371

                  Walters, ‘Contigency Fees Arrangements at Common Law’ (2000) 116 LQR 371

                  Kunzlik, ‘Conditional Fees: The Ethical and Organisational Impact on the Bar’ (1999) 62 MLR 850

                  Moorhead, ‘Conditional Fee Agreements, Legal Aid and Access to Justice’ (2000) 33 U Brit Col LR 471

     LCD, ‘Conditional Fees: Sharing the Risks of Litigation: The Government’s Conclusions’ (February 2000)

                  Peysner, ‘What’s Wrong with Contingency Fees’ (2001) 10 Nottingham LJ 22

                  Zander, ‘Where are we heading with the funding of civil litigation?’ (2003) 23 CJQ 23

                  Peysner, ‘Finding Predictable Costs’ (2003) 22 CJQ 349

                  Abel, ‘American Hambuger Stand in St Paul’s Cathedral: Replacing Legal Aid with Conditional Fees in English Personal Injury Litigation’ (2001) 51 De Paul L Rev 253

                  Kalish, ‘The English Costs War, 2000-2003, and a Moment of Repose’ (2004) 83 Neb L Rev 114

                  Hollins v Russell [2003] 4 All ER 590, [2003] 1 WLR 2487

                  Factortame Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment (No 2) [2003] QB 381

                  Hodgson v Imperial Tobacco Ltd [1998] 2 All ER 673, [1998] 1 WLR 1056

                  Callery v Gray (Nos 1 and 2) [2002] 3 All ER 417, [2002] 1 WLR 2000

                  Callery v Gray (No 2) [2001] 4 All ER 1, [2001] 1 WLR 2142

                  Awwad v Geraghty & Co [2001] QB 570

                  Halloran v Delaney [2003] 1 All ER 775, [2003] 1 WLR 28

                  Thornley v Lang [2004] 1 All ER 886, [2004] 1 WLR 378

                  King v Telegraph Group Ltd [2005] 1 WLR 2282

                  Campbell v MGN Ltd (No 2) [2005] 4 All ER 793, [2005] 1 WLR 3394

                  Garbutt v Edwards [2006] 1 All ER 553, [2006] 1 WLR 2907

                  Garrett v Halton Borough Council [2007] 1 All ER 147, [2007] 1 WLR 554

                  Gaynor v Central West London Buses Ltd [2007] 1 All ER 84, [2007] 1 WLR 1054

                  Kew v Bettamix Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 1535

                  Rogers v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council [2007] 1 All ER 354, [2007] 1 WLR 808

                  Campbells Cash and Carry Pty Ltd v Fostif Pty Limited (2006) 229 ALR 58, (2006) 80 ALJR 1441, (2007) 26 CJQ 288

 

Legal expenses insurance

                  AJA 1999, ss 29 & 30

                  Samuels, ‘Legal Expenses or Litigation Insurance’ (1998) 17 CJQ 16

                  Murphy v Young & Co’s Brewery Plc [1997] 1 All ER 518, [1997] 1 WLR 1591

 

Wasted costs orders

                  Zuckerman on Civil Procedure (2006) ch 26

                  CLSA 1990, ss 4 & 62

                  SCA 1981, s 51(6) (as amended)

                  CPR 44, CPR 48.7

                  PD 29 at [5.2(3)], PD 48 (‘Costs—Special Cases’) at [53]        

                  Jones & Armstrong, ‘Living in Fear of Wasted Costs’ (1994) 13 CJQ 208

                  Evans, ‘The Wasted Costs Jurisdiction’ (2001) 64 MLR 51

                  Ridehalgh v Horsefield [1994] Ch 205

                  Arthur JS Hall & Co v Simons [2002] 1 AC 615

                  Medcalf v Mardell (Wasted Costs Order) [2003] 1 AC 120

   Tolstoy-Miloslavsky v Aldington [1996] 2 All ER 556, [1996] 1 WLR 736, (1996) 15 CJQ 90

                  Re Freudiana Holdings Ltd The Times 4 December 1995

                  Re O (A Minor: Costs) [1997] 1 FLR 465

                  Manzanilla Ltd v Corton Property & Investments (No 2) [1997] 3 FCR 389, (1998) 17 CJQ 7

                  Re Boodhoo (A Solicitor) [2007] EWCA Civ 14

                  Regent Leisuretime Ltd v Skerrett [2006] EWCA Civ 1032

 

Pre-emptive costs orders

                  Zuckerman on Civil Procedure (2006) ch 26

                  SCA 1981, s 51

                  CPR 44.3

                  CPR 48.6A (group litigation)

                  Scott, ‘Pre-emptive Costs Orders’ (1998) 17 CJQ 219, (2001) 20 CJQ 208

                  Davies v Eli Lilly & Co [1987] 3 All ER 94, [1987] 1 WLR 1136

                  McDonald v Horn [1995] 1 All ER 961

                  Hodgson v Imperial Tobacco Ltd [1998] 2 All ER 673, [1998] 1 WLR 1056

                  R v Lord Chancellor, ex p CPAG [1998] 2 All ER 755, [1999] 1 WLR 347, (1998) 17 CJQ 219

                  R v Hammersmith & Fulham LBC, ex p CPRE London Branch [2000] Env LR 544

                  R (Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament) v Prime Minister (Costs) [2002] EWHC 2712

                  AB v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust [2003] EWHC 1034

                  Smart v East Cheshire NHS Trust [2003] EWHC 2806

                  R (Ministry of Defence) v Wiltshire and Swindon Coroner [2005] 4 All ER 40, [2006] 1 WLR 134

                  Henry v British Broadcasting Corporation [2006] 1 All ER 154

                  R (Corner House Research) v Secretary of State for Trade [2005] 4 All ER 1, [2005] 1 WLR 2600

                  Knight v Beyond Properties Pty Ltd [2007] 1 All ER 91, [2007] 1 WLR 625

                  Tierney v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2006] EWHC 3275

R (River Thames Society) v First Secretary of State [2006] EWHC 2829 at [9]-[12]

                  Willis v Nicolson [2007] EWCA Civ 199, (2007) 26 CJQ 271

R (Bullmore) v West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust [2007] EWCA Civ 609 at [9]-[18]

                  Wilkinson v Kitzinger [2006] 2 FCR 537


XI – MULTI–PARTY AND GROUP LITIGATION

 

1.              General

 

                  Zuckerman on Civil Procedure (2006) ch 12

                  CPR 19

                  Mulheron, Group Litigation (2004)

                  Woolf, Access to Justice: Final Report (2006) ch 17

 

2.              Representative proceedings

 

                  Zuckerman on Civil Procedure (2006) ch 12

                  CPR 19, Pt II

                  SCA 1981, s 51

                  LCD, ‘Representative Claims: Proposed New Procedures’ (February 2001)

                  Seymour, ‘Representative Procedures and the Future of Multi-party Actions’ (1999) 62 MLR 564

                  Mulheron, ‘From Representative Rule to Class Action: Steps Rather Than Leaps’ (2005) 24 CJQ 424

                  Duke of Bedford v Ellis [1901] AC 1

                  Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v Newman Industries Ltd [1981] Ch 229

                  Smith v Cardiff Corpn [1954] 1 QB 210

                  National Bank of Greece v Outhwaite [2001] Lloyd’s Rep IR 652

                  Howells v Dominion Insurance Co Ltd [2005] EWHC 552

 

3.              Group litigation

 

General

                  Zuckerman on Civil Procedure (2006) ch 12

                  CPR 19, pt III

                  PD 19 (‘Group Litigation’)

                  Mulheron, ‘Some Difficulties with Group Litigation Orders – and Why a Class Action is Superior (2005) 24 CJQ 40

                  Cramton, ‘Individualised Justice, Mass Torts, and ‘Settlement Class Actions’: An                   Introduction’ (1995) 80 Cornell L Rev 811

                  Glenn, ‘The Dilemma of Class Action Reform’ (1986) 6 OJLS 262

   Hedley, ‘Group Personal Injury Litigation and Public Opinion’ (1994) 14 LS 70

                  Parker, Scott, Lacey & Braithwaite, ’Regulating Law’ (2005) (see in particular the introduction, the conclusion and the chapter on Regulating Torts by Jane Stapleton)

                  Black, ’Critical Reflections on Regulation’, 27 Australian Journal of Legal Philosophy 1

                  Cane, ’Tort Law as Regulation’, 31 Comm L World Rev 305.

                  Baldwin & Cave, Understanding Regulation: Theory, Strategy and Practice (1999)

                  Davies v Eli Lilly & Co [1987] 3 All ER 94, [1987] 1 WLR 1136

                  Lubbe v Cape plc (No 2) [2000] 4 All ER 268, [2000] 1 WLR 1545

                  Taylor v Nugent [2004] 3 All ER 671, [2004] 1 WLR 1129

 

Management

                  AB v John Wyeth & Brother Ltd (1993) 12 BMLR 50

                  AB v John Wyeth & Brother Ltd (No 2) (1994) 18 BMLR 38

                  Horrocks v Ford Motor Co Ltd The Times 15 February 1990

                  Ross v Owners of ‘The Bowbelle’ [1997] 1 WLR 1159

                  Chapman v Chief Constable South Yorkshire (1990) 134 SJ 726

 

Conflicting interests

                  Miller, ‘Some Agency Problems in Settlement’ (1987) 16 JLS 189

   Cappelletti & Garth, ‘Finding an Appropriate Compromise: A Comparative Study of

                  Individualistic Models and Group Rights in Civil Procedure’ (1983) 2 CJQ 111 esp at 132ff

                  Shapiro, ‘Class Actions: The Class as Party and Client’ (1998) Notre Dame LR 913

                  Coffee, ‘Class Wars: The Dilemma of the Mass Tort Class Action’ (1995) 95 Col LR 1343

                  Dam, ‘Class Actions: Efficiency, Compensation, Deterrence and Conflict of Interest’ (1975) 4 JLS 47      

                  Barrow v Bankside Members Agency Ltd [1996] 1 All ER 981, [1996] 1 WLR 257

 

Costs

                  CPR 48.6A

                  Mildred, ‘Cost-Sharing in Group Litigation: Preserving Access to Justice’ (2002) 65                               MLR 597

                  Davies v Eli Lilly & Co [1987] 3 All ER 94, [1987] 1 WLR 1136

                  Nash v Eli Lilly & Co [1993] 4 All ER 383, [1993] 1 WLR 782

                  Solutia UK Ltd v Griffiths [2001] EWCA Civ 736

                  AB v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust [2003] EWHC 1034

 

Comparative perspective—USA

   R 23 Fed R Civ P (in Wright, Miller & Kane Federal Practice & Procedure vol 7A)

   Miller, ‘Of Frankenstein Monsters and Shining Knights: Myth, Reality and the Class

                                  Action Problem’ (1979) 92 Harv L Rev 664

                  Coffee, ‘The Regulation of Entrepreneurial Litigation: Balancing Fairness and                        Efficiency in the Large Class Action’ (1987) 54 U Chic LR 877

                  Labowitz, ‘Class Actions in the Federal System and in California: Shattering the Impossible Dream’ (1974) 23 Buffalo L Rev 601

                  Berry, ‘Ending Substance’s Indenture to Procedure …’ (1980) 80 Col L Rev 299

 

Comparative perspective––Australia

                  Fox, Justice in the twenty-first century (2000) ch 4


XII – public litigation

 

                  Fordham, ‘The New Procedure: Is it Working?’ [2002] JR 14

 

1.              Right of effective access to the court

 

   R (M) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal [2005] 2 All ER 165, [2005] 1 WLR 1445

   Ewing v Office of the Deputy Prime Minister [2006] 1 WLR 1260

   R (Kumar) v Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs [2006] EWCA Civ 990

 

2.              Standing

 

*Schiemann K., Locus Standi [1990] Public Law 342

*Cane P., Standing up for the Public [1995] Public Law 276

C. Harlow, ‘Public Law and Popular Justice’ (2002) 65 Modern Law Review 1

 

*R v Environment Secretary, ex parte Rose Theatre Trust [1990] 1 QB 504, QBD

*R v Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, ex parte World Development Movement [1995] 1 All ER 611

R v Secretary of State for Employment, ex parte EOC [1994] 1 All ER 910

R v Foreign Secretary, ex parte Rees-Mogg [1994] 2 WLR 115

 

 

3.              Interventions

 

S Hannett, ‘Third Party Intervention: in the Public Interest?’ [2003] Public Law 150

M Arshi and C O’Cinneide, ‘Third Party Interventions: the Public Interest Reaffirmed’ [2004] Public Law 69

 

In re Northern Ireland Human Rights Commissions [2002] UKHL 25 

R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate; ex p Pinochet Ugarte (No 2) [2000] 1 AC 119

 

 

 

4.              Limited procedural exclusivity

 

   Zuckerman on Civil Procedure (2006) ch 3.71-3.81

   SCA 1981, s 31

   CPR 8, 54

 

   O’Reilly v Mackman [1983] 2 AC 237

   Clark v University of Lincolnshire and Humberside [2000] 3 All ER 752, [2000] 1 WLR 1988

   Carter v Commercial Developments Ltd v Bedford Borough Council [2001] EWHC Admin 669

   R (Heather) v The Leonard Cheshire Foundation [2002] 2 All ER 936 at [36]-[39]

   Capital One Developments Ltd v Customs & Excise Commissioners [2002] EWHC 197

   Rhondda Cynon Taff Borough Council v Watkins [2003] 1 WLR 1864

   Stancliffe Stone Co Ltd v Peak District National Park Authority [2005] EWCA Civ 747

                  D v Home Office [2006] 1 All ER 183, [2006] 1 WLR 1003 at [103]-[112]  

   Bunney v Burns Anderson plc v Timothy James & Partners Ltd [2007] EWHC 1240 at [23]-[48]

 

5.              Time limit for commencing proceedings

 

                  SCA 1981, s 31(6) and (7)

                  CPR 54.5

   R (Burkett) v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council [2002] 3 All ER 97, [2002] 1 WLR 1593

   R (Elliott) v Electoral Commission [2003] EWHC 395 at [25]-[41]

                  R (Young) v Oxford City Council [2002] EWCA Civ 990 at [27]-[41]

                  Chrichton v Wellingborough Borough Council [2004] Env LR 11 at [50]-[61]

 

5.              Parties

 

                  CPR 19

   R (River Thames Society v First Secretary of State [2006] EWHC 2829 at [1]-[8]

 

7.              Service

 

                  CPR 54.7-54.15

   Ewing v Office of the Deputy Prime Minister [2006] 1 WLR 1260 at [12]-[16]

   R (Montpeliers and Trevors Association) v Westminster City Council [2006] LGR 304 at [11]-[17]

 

8.              Permission to bring proceedings for judicial review

 

Generally

                  SCA 1981, s 31(3)

                  CPR 54.4

                  Re S [2004] EWHC 491 at [72]

 

Appeals against refusal to grant permission

                  Zuckerman on Civil Procedure (2006) ch 23.72-23.74

                  CPR 52.15

                  R (Werner) v IRC [2002] EWCA Civ 979

 

9.              Course of evidence

 

                  CPR 32.1

                  R (PG) v Ealing London Borough Council [2002] EWHC 250, (2002) 21 CJQ 193

 

10.            Interim remedies

 

                  CPR 54.10

   R (Ashworth Hospital Authority) v Mental Health Review Tribunal for West Midlands and Northwest Region [2002] EWCA Civ 923 at [31]-[48]

 

11.            Disclosure and inspection

 

                  Sanders, ‘Disclosure of Documents in Claims for Judicial Review’ [2001] JR 194

   Tweed v Parades Commission for Northern Ireland (NI) [2007] 1 AC 650

 

 

12.            Costs

 

Generally

                  SCA 1981, s 51

   CPR 44

   Leventhal, ‘Costs Principles on Taking Judgment in a Judicial Review Case’ [2005] JR 139

   Ewing v Office of the Deputy Prime Minister [2006] 1 WLR 1260 at [21]-[25]

                  R (Boxall) v Waltham Forest LBC (2001) 4 CCL Rep 258

 

Costs at the permission stage

                  Practice Note (Administrative Court) [2004] 2 All ER 994

   R (Mount Cook Land Ltd) v Westminister City Council [2003] EWCA Civ 1346, [2004] JR 49, [2004] JR 55

   Payne v Caerphilly County Borough Council [2004] EWCA Civ 433

   Ewing v Office of the Deputy Prime Minister [2006] 1 WLR 1260 at [40]-[47]

 

Costs after the permission stage

   R (Bateman) v Legal Services Commission [2001] EWHC Admin 797

                  R (Smeaton) v Secretary of State for Health (No 2) [2002] EWHC 886, (2003) 22 CJQ 75

                  R (Boxall) v Waltham Forest LBC (2001) 4 CCL Rep 258

 

Costs orders against inferior courts and tribunals

   R v Liverpool Justices, ex p Roberts [1960] 2 All ER 384, [1960] 1 WLR 585

   R v Newcastle-under-Lyme Justices; ex p Massey [1995] 1 All ER 120, [1994] 1 WLR 1684

   R (Towry Law Financial Services Plc) v Financial Ombudsman Service Ltd [2002] EWHC 1603

                  R (Davies) v Birmingham Deputy Coroner [2004] 3 All ER 543, [2004] 1 WLR 2739

 

Non-parties

   CPR 48.2

   Ewing v Office of the Deputy Prime Minister [2006] 1 WLR 1260 at [26]-[32]

 

Pre-emptive costs orders

   R (Corner House Research) v Secretary of State for Trade [2005] 4 All ER 1, [2005] 1 WLR 2600 at [73]-[81]

   R (Goodson) v Bedfordshire and Luton Cornoner [2005] EWCA Civ 1172

   R (River Thames Society v First Secretary of State [2006] EWHC 2829 at [9]-[12]

   R (Bullmore) v West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust [2007] EWCA Civ 609 at [9]-[18]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

XIII – APPEAL

 

1. General

 

CPR 52

Access to Justice Act 1999, s 54 and s56

Access to Justice (Destination of Appeals) Order 2000

Zuckerman, Civil Procedure Ch 23 and 24

Woolf Access to Justice: Final Report ch 14

Bowman, Report to the Lord Chancellor by the Review of the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) (1997) (LCD)

Noble & Schiff, The Right to Appeal and Workable Systems of Justice, [2002] MLR 676

Andrews, A New System of Civil Appeals and a New Set of Problems, [2000] CLJ 464

Jolowicz, The New Appeal: Re-hearing or Revision or What?, (2001) 20 CJQ 7

 

2. Principles of the CPR Regime

 

Ahmed v Stanley A Coleman & Hill [2002] EWCA Civ 935

Tanfern Ltd v Cameron-MacDonald [2000] 1 WLR 1311

Sayers v Clarke-Walker (A firm)[2002] EWCA Civ 645; [2002] 3 ALL ER 490

Robert v Momentum Services Ltd [2003] EWCA iv 299; [2003] ALL ER 74

Smith v Brough [2005] EWCA Civ 261

Clark (Inspector of Taxes) v Perks [2000] 1 WLR 17

Jolly v Jay [2002] EWCA Civ 277

Foenander v Bond Lewis & Co [2001] EWCA Civ 759; [2001] 2 ALL ER 1019

R (Sivisubramaniam) v Wandsworth County Council [2002] EWCA Civ 1738; [2003] 2 ALL ER 160

 

3. First Appeal

 

Swain v Hillman [2001] 1 ALL ER 91

Morris v Bank of India [2004] EWCA Civ 1286

 

4. Case Management Appeals

 

Royal & Sun Alliance v T & N Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1964

Moy v Pettman Smith (A firm) [2002] EWCA Civ 875 (CA); 2005 UKHL 7, [2005] 1 ALL ER 903 (HL)

 

5. Second Appeals

 

Tanfern Ltd v Cameron-MacDonald [2000] 1 WLR 1311

Uphill v BRB (Residuary) Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 60; [2005] 3 ALL ER 264

Cramp v Hastings [2005] EWCA Civ 1005; [2005] 4 ALL 1014

 

6. Hypothetical Appeals

 

Sun Alliance Co. of Canada v Jervis [1994] AC 111

Ainsbury v Millington [1987] 1 ALL ER 929

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Salem [1999] 1 AC 450

Bowman v Fels [2005] EWCA Civ 226; [205] 4 ALL ER 609

 

7. Review or Rehearing

 

Tanfern Ltd v Cameron-MacDonald [2000] 1 WLR 1311

El De Pont de Nemours & Co v ST Dupont [2003] EWCA Civ 1368; [2004] FSR 15

Fowler De Pledge v Smith [2003] EWCA Civ 703

Assicurazioni Generali Spa v Arab Insurance Group [2002] EWCA Civ 1642; [2003] 1 WLR 577

 

8. Reopening Final Appeals

 

CPR 52.17

 

Jonesco v Beard [1930] AC 298

Flower v Lloyd (1877) 6 ChD 297

Ex parte Pinochet (No 2) [2000] AC 119

Taylor v Lawrence [2002] EWCA Civ 90; [2002] 3 WLR 640

Seray-Wurie v London Borough of Hackney (CA) 25 June 2002 (unreported)

Matlaszek v Bloom Camillin [2003] EWCA Civ 154

Couwenbergh v Valkova [2004] EWCA Civ 676

Pell v Express Newspapers [2005] EWCA Civ 46

Re Layla Uddin [2005] EWCA Civ 52; [2005] 1 WLR 2398

First Discount Ltd v Guinness & Others & Cranston [2007] EWCA Civ 378

Sir William Jaffrey & Others v The Society of Lloyds [2007] EWCA Civ 586