England and Wales Case Law

GSX, R (on the application of) v The Crown Court at Southwark

The FCA and police made significant legal errors in seeking and executing the warrant, particularly regarding privileged material and the SIF, but did not act in bad faith or with egregious disregard for statutory safeguards. The statutory scheme provides for retention to be determined by the Crown Court under s.59, and the court should not grant exceptional relief depriving the interested parties of this opportunity.

Source excerpt

• Search warrants
• Legal professional privilege
• Disclosure
• Public interest immunity
• Retention of seized property

Read case analysis

Treo Noal GP Sarl & Ors v Stefan Emanuel Kowski & Ors

The court ordered that the first trial shall deal with all issues except validity of claimants' standing, which will be addressed only if necessary after the main trial. No order was made for cyber security expert evidence or narrative documents at this stage. Disclosure and expert issues were clarified, with permission for separate experts and precise formulation of disclosure issues.

Source excerpt

• Unlawful means conspiracy
• Fraudulent misrepresentation
• Bribery
• Fiduciary duty
• Disclosure
• Expert evidence

Read case analysis

Alame & Ors v Shell Plc & Anor

The High Court allowed a proposed all-spills causation amendment in Bille oil-spill litigation and granted permission for an aggravated damages amendment.

• Amendment of pleadings
• Causation
• Global claims
• Aggravated damages
• Disclosure
• Limitation

Read case analysis

Crane Bank Limited & Ors v DFCU Bank Limited & Ors

The court found that, where the parties had agreed to provide the requested customer files and related documents, no finding of breach was necessary. However, the selection of additional files must be objective and representative, not unilaterally determined by dfcu. The court ordered staged disclosure of the 40 requested customer files and 20 additional files, with deadlines and a process for resolving disputes. The court declined to order further witness statements or disclosure where the Claimants had not shown a possible failure to comply or where the information sought was already provid…

Source excerpt

• Disclosure
• Extended disclosure
• Document production
• Proportionality
• Case management

Read case analysis

Witness IIA126, R (on the Application of) v The Chairman of the Independent Inquiry Relating to Afghanistan

The Court declined to dismiss the Claimant’s disclosure requests (items 6-19) at this stage, holding it premature given the unexpired deadline and unresolved communication mechanisms. The Court adopted the Defendant’s proposal for a single-stage hearing for disclosure and CMP applications, finding it more efficient and appropriate given the nature of the issues and the need for expedition. The Court set directions for provision of gists and other case management matters, inviting parties to agree a draft order accordingly.

Source excerpt

• Judicial review
• Closed material procedure
• Disclosure
• Restriction orders
• Case management
• Inquiries

Read case analysis

STLC Europe Thirteen Leasing Limited v Qatar Airways Group QCSC

The court held that the claimant's proposed categories of confidential information relating to OFAC and US State Department communications are justified for inclusion in the confidentiality ring order due to their sensitivity and potential for harm if disclosed. The court rejected the defendant's proposals to impose additional liability and restrictions on confidentiality ring members as unduly onerous and unjustified, but accepted the defendant's proposed security measures as reasonable and proportionate. The court determined that requests for details of protective measures must be reasonabl…

Source excerpt

• Confidentiality ring
• Disclosure
• Sanctions
• Aircraft leasing

Read case analysis

Lauriane de Campos Braciforte v Jennifer Williams

Appeal over credit hire damages dismissed. The court held the claimant was not debarred for non-disclosure and was entitled to rely on impecuniosity.

• Credit hire
• Impecuniosity
• Disclosure
• Relief from sanction
• Credit-hire
• Relief-from-sanction

Read case analysis

Children: Parental Responsibility

M2 never had parental responsibility for RF and AF as she did not qualify under s42 HFEA due to natural conception; PR acquired by mistake is void ab initio. M2 is not granted PR for any child due to inability to accept court findings and risk of emotional harm to the children. F is granted PR for RF and AF due to demonstrated commitment and relationship. M2's contact with RF and AF must be supervised due to risk of emotional harm. FA lives with M1 and has no contact with M2. Applications for name change, baptism, foreign passports, and unrestricted travel are refused. The application to set…

Source excerpt

• Parental responsibility
• Child arrangements orders
• Declarations of parentage
• Prohibited steps orders
• Specific issue orders
• Change of name

Read case analysis

Children: Parental Responsibility, Re

M2 never had parental responsibility for RF and AF as the statutory criteria under section 42 HFEA were not met due to natural insemination; granting PR to M2 would not be in the children's best interests given her inability to accept court findings and risk of emotional harm. F is granted PR for RF and AF based on commitment and relationship. M2's contact with RF and AF must be supervised due to risk of emotional harm. FA lives with M1 and has no contact with M2. Section 91(14) order is made to restrict further applications for two years. Applications for baptism, travel, passports, and adop…

Source excerpt

• Parental responsibility
• Child arrangements
• Declarations of parentage
• Prohibited steps orders
• Special guardianship
• Adoption

Read case analysis

M5 Associates Limited v Simon Nevill Wetton & Anor

Claimant entitled to costs up to and including default judgment on standard basis; claimant to pay Mr Watkins' costs up to and including first hearing on standard basis; Mr Watkins to pay costs of second disclosure application and redetermination relating to him on standard basis due to disclosure failures and inaccurate evidence, but not on indemnity basis as no dishonesty found; no change to interest rate or period absent appeal or timely application to set aside.

Source excerpt

• Costs
• Guarantee
• Fraud
• Negligence
• Disclosure
• Interest

Read case analysis