1 Aug 2023
TP Proceedings dismissed; costs of TP Proceedings awarded to TP and to be borne by Ds on party and party basis because the separability principle applied and Ds failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to deprive TP of costs; Ps ordered to pay Ds' costs of the main actions on an indemnity basis due to dubious claims and plaintiffs' conduct.
31 Oct 2000
Ming An's application to be joined as a third defendant is dismissed because its interest is identical to the second defendant's and can be adequately protected by resumption of representation for the second defendant; joinder would cause unnecessary pleadings, duplication and expense; therefore joinder is unnecessary and costs of the application should be borne by Ming An and its solicitors (nisi).
3 Jul 1995
The court granted leave to amend because the defendant's limitation defence under Article III(6) of the Hague-Visby Rules was not shown to be bound to succeed on the interlocutory application; the question whether the Rules apply to alleged breaches occurring after discharge is a substantive issue that should not be finally determined on this application.
5 Feb 1991
Judge applied objective s.27 knowledge test taking into account plaintiff's youth, lack of English, confusion over employment and payments and found plaintiff did not acquire requisite knowledge of the 2nd and 3rd defendants' potential liability until the 1st defendant served its defence and third party notices on 22 November 1983; accordingly the claims were within the three year period and not time-barred. Alternatively, had the claims been time‑barred, the court would have exercised its s.30 discretion to disapply the time‑bar because the delay was primarily due to solicitor and Legal Aid…
8 Sept 1987
The injunction was discharged because there was no clear and cogent evidence that the 2nd Defendant bank participated in or knowingly facilitated the fraud; the court will not restrain payment under a Letter of Credit absent compelling proof of fraud and there was no established cause of action against the issuing bank sufficient to justify the injunction in the form granted.