Bank Notes

J – Judgments and orders

8/2/24

YM (CARE PROCEEDINGS) (CLARIFICATION OF REASONS) [2024] EWCA Civ 71

The court gave guidance [90] as to when and how counsel may properly seek clarification of a trial judge’s reasons.

20/5/20

THE SERIOUS FRAUD OFFICE v LITIGATION CAPITAL LTD [2020] EWHC 1280 (Comm)

Considers the power under CPR 19.8A to make orders barring claims of non-parties in respect of trust property [70], the circumstances in which orders can be made against persons unknown [74], and the availability of equivalent relief under the court’s inherent jurisdiction in support of claims by receivers appointed under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to realise property.

7/5/20

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT v DEVANI [2020] EWCA Civ 612

The slip rule can be used to correct a court order where the order in question does not express what the Court actually intended at the moment of promulgation. It cannot be used where the order does express what the Court intended at the time but it subsequently appreciates that it should have intended something different. The suggestion that the rule cannot be used if the correction would produce a decision with the opposite effect to that promulgated is wrong. In the case of a simple failure of expression – most obviously a straightforward slip of the pen – the error can and should be corrected even if it alters the outcome (as initially expressed) by 180° [23].

18/3/20

BANK ST PETERSBURG PJSC v ARKANGELSKY [2020] EWCA Civ 408

Reviews principles on which an appellate court can interfere with findings of fact made by a trial judge [30] and the standard of proof required in respect of allegations of dishonesty [44]. In an unusual case in which both parties had behaved dishonestly, the trial judge had applied too high a standard of proof. He ought to have asked what explanation was more probable than not, having taken account of the nature and gravity of the allegation [51] [117]. He should also have stood back and considered the effects and implications of the facts he had found taken in the round [59]. A 22 month delay in writing the judgment had been inexcusable. The unwritten rule is that judgments should be delivered within 3 months [78] but the delay was not of itself a reason to allow the appeal. Also considers principles on which a claim can be barred by illegality [87], and the impact of ‘inequality of arms’ at trial [94].

14/3/14

OTKRITIE INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT LTD v URUMOV [2014] EWHC 755 (Comm)

If relevant recoveries are made prior to judgment which reduce the damage suffered by the claimant, they should usually reduce the amount of any judgment in favour of the claimant. If the defendants are jointly and severally liable, there should usually be no appropriation. Otherwise it might be correct that the claimants had a choice as to how recoveries were to be appropriated if what was proposed was not "obviously unsustainable".

23/5/13

CRINION v IG MARKETS LTD [2013] EWCA Civ 587

It is wrong for a judge to construct a judgment almost entirely on the basis of the written submissions of counsel for one party. The judge must demonstrate that he has brought his own independent judgment to bear and considered contrary submissions. On the facts the judge had done so despite extensive use of counsel’s submissions.

20/2/13

RE L & B (CHILDREN) [2013] UKSC 8

In civil proceedings a judge has power to reverse a decision at any time before his order is sealed. The power has to be exercised judicially, but is not limited to exceptional circumstances.