Before: MR. JUSTICE NEWEY. B E T W E E N : SKELWITH (LEISURE) LIMITED (In Liquidation) Claimant. - and -
|
|
- Vivien Sutton
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CHANCERY DIVISION COMPANIES COURT [2015] EWHC 3487 (Ch) Before: No. HC Rolls Building Royal Courts of Justice Friday, 27 th November 2015 MR. JUSTICE NEWEY B E T W E E N : SKELWITH (LEISURE) LIMITED (In Liquidation) Claimant - and - (1) ALAN ARMSTRONG (2) MARGARET ARMSTRONG (3) BRIAN MATTOCKS (4) SIMON ARMSTRONG (5) RICHARD ARMSTRONG (6) POLAR HOLDINGS LIMITED (a company incorporated in the Isle of Man) (7) FLAXBY PARK LIMITED (a company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands) (8) DANIEL WARD (9) TOBIAS WARD Defendants Transcribed by (a trading name of Opus 2 International Limited) Official Court Reporters and Audio Transcribers 5 Chancery Lane, London EC4A 1BL Tel: Fax: info@beverleynunnery.com J U D G M E N T (As approved by the Judge)
2 A P P E A R A N C E S MR C. PARKER QC and MISS R. PAGE (instructed by Gateley) appeared on behalf of the Claimant. MR. M. WARWICK QC (instructed by PCB Litigation LLP) appeared on behalf of the First, Second, Fourth to Sixth Defendants. MR. H. JORY QC and MR T. FLETCHER (instructed by Newtons Solicitors Limited, Knaresborough) appeared on behalf of the Third Defendant. MR T. GRANT QC and MR. D. McCOMBE (instructed by Barker Gillette LLP) appeared on behalf of the Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Defendants.
3 MR. JUSTICE NEWEY: 1 I have before me an application by the remaining claimant, Skelwith (Leisure) Limited, for permission to amend its particulars of claim and join additional defendants. 2 As I explained in a judgment that I gave last month ([2015] EWHC 2830 (Ch)), the case concerns a property now known as Flaxby Golf Club. Skelwith is the registered proprietor of the Club, but it charged the property in favour of the first defendant, Mr Alan Armstrong, as security for obligations to the members of the Flaxby Partnership, which comprises Mr Armstrong and other members of his family and a Mr Brian Mattocks. Skelwith having failed to fulfil its obligations, Mr Armstrong made a demand for payment in January of this year. Subsequently, in February, a deed was executed to assign the benefit of Skelwith s indebtedness and the charge to the sixth defendant, Polar Holdings Limited, a company associated with the Armstrong family. Thereafter, on 11 February, Polar entered into two agreements for the sale of the Club to Flaxby Park Limited, a company whose shares are owned beneficially by a Mr Daniel Ward and his brother Tobias. Neither contract had, however, proceeded to completion by 19 February, when Skelwith and its shareholders, Mr Paul Ellis and Mr Darren Broadbent, applied without notice for, and were granted, an injunction restraining the members of the Flaxby Partnership (as the first to fifth defendants) and Polar from disposing of the Club. Flaxby Park was later added as the seventh defendant to the proceedings. 3 As they stand, the particulars of claim include allegations that the first, second and fourth to sixth defendants breached their duties under the Charge to take reasonable steps to obtain the best obtainable price for the [Club] and/or their fiduciary duties. Among other things, the defendants in question are said to have knowingly sold the property at a significant undervalue. 4 The particulars of claim originally contained, too, the allegation that the sales to Flaxby Park (and certain other transactions) were not valid and/or effective transactions and/or have not taken effect at law for various reasons. At the end of July, however, I heard applications by the then claimants and Flaxby Park to have matters disposed of summarily in their favour, and I concluded in my October judgment that the relevant paragraph of the particulars of claim fell to be struck out. A provision to that effect was, accordingly, included in an order I made on 8 October. 5 The application with which I am now concerned had been issued the previous day. Draft amended particulars of claim were served with the application notice, but the draft has been revised subsequently. Each version has provided for Flaxby Park to remain as a defendant and for the Ward brothers to be added as the eighth and ninth defendants. In their current form, the amended particulars
4 of claim would, among other things, introduce allegations that the Armstrong defendants, Polar, Flaxby Park and the Wards were parties to an unlawful means conspiracy; that Flaxby Park and the Wards knew or had notice of breaches of duty by the other defendants when Polar contracted to sell the Club; that the fact that Flaxby Park and the Wards are on notice of breaches of duty now is anyway sufficient to render the sale contracts unenforceable and liable to be set aside; that Polar had not become an equitable assignee; and that Mr Mattocks, as one of the Partners, did not take reasonable care to obtain a proper price for the Club. 6 In practical terms, the amendments would not add all that much to the existing claim against the first, second and fourth to sixth defendants (i.e. the Armstrong defendants and Polar), for whom Mr Mark Warwick QC appeared. While Mr Warwick s clients would for the first time face a claim for conspiracy, they are already said to have knowingly sold the Property at a significant undervalue. So far as these defendants are concerned, neither the size of the claim nor the facts requiring investigation would have altered much. 7 The key consequence of acceding to the application for permission to amend, from the point of view of Mr Warwick s clients, would be that the trial would have to be deferred. On 20 March of this year, an order for expedition was made by Mr Stuart Isaacs QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge. On the strength of that order, the trial has been fixed for 15 February 2016, with a time estimate of six to eight days. If, however, Skelwith is to be allowed to join the Ward brothers and to make the proposed allegations against them and Flaxby Park, there can be no question of maintaining that trial date. Flaxby Park and the Wards could not fairly be expected to be ready for trial by February, especially given the very serious nature of some of the allegations made against them. An order I made on 31 July provided for a draft of the trial bundle to be produced as soon as 14 December. Were, however, I to grant Skelwith permission to amend as asked, Flaxby Park and the Wards could not, I think, even be expected to have progressed as far as disclosure by 14 December. 8 The possibility of amendments being made to allege that Flaxby Park and the Wards were complicit in, or at least knew of, breaches of duty by other defendants has long been trailed. In a witness statement of 1 May, Mr Mario Betts, who was then acting for the claimants, asserted that it was their case that Flaxby Park was aware of the circumstances surrounding the sale and must have known that the ostensible sale price did not reflect the Property s true value. In a similar vein, Mr Betts referred in a witness statement of 5 June to the claimants having a second head of claim that Flaxby Park was not a bona fide purchaser without notice. On 17 July, Mr Betts made a further witness statement exhibiting draft amended particulars of claim which asserted that the Wards were and knew themselves to be parties to a transaction which was not at
5 arm s length and was at an undervalue or very likely to be at an undervalue. However, Mr Betts stressed in his witness statement that no application to amend the Particulars of Claim has yet been made. 9 In the event, no application for permission to amend was made until the application now before me was issued on 7 October. By then, Skelwith had gone into liquidation. Provisional liquidators had been appointed on 16 July on the application of HM Revenue and Customs, and a winding-up order was made on 21 September. A new legal team was instructed by Skelwith s provisional liquidators, now its liquidators. 10 A convenient summary of some of the principles applicable to applications to amend is to be found in the judgment of Carr J in Quah Su-Ling v Goldman Sachs International [2015] EWHC 759 (Comm). Carr J said this in paragraph 38: "Drawing these authorities together, the relevant principles can be stated simply as follows : a) whether to allow an amendment is a matter for the discretion of the court. In exercising that discretion, the overriding objective is of the greatest importance. Applications always involve the court striking a balance between injustice to the applicant if the amendment is refused, and injustice to the opposing party and other litigants in general, if the amendment is permitted; b) where a very late application to amend is made the correct approach is not that the amendments ought, in general, to be allowed so that the real dispute between the parties can be adjudicated upon. Rather, a heavy burden lies on a party seeking a very late amendment to show the strength of the new case and why justice to him, his opponent and other court users requires him to be able to pursue it. The risk to a trial date may mean that the lateness of the application to amend will of itself cause the balance to be loaded heavily against the grant of permission; c) a very late amendment is one made when the trial date has been fixed and where permitting the amendments would cause the trial date to be lost. Parties and the court have a legitimate expectation that trial fixtures will be kept; d) lateness is not an absolute, but a relative concept. It depends on a review of the nature of the proposed amendment, the quality of the explanation for its timing, and a fair appreciation of the consequences in terms of work wasted and consequential work to be done;
6 e) gone are the days when it was sufficient for the amending party to argue that no prejudice had been suffered, save as to costs. In the modern era it is more readily recognised that the payment of costs may not be adequate compensation; f) it is incumbent on a party seeking the indulgence of the court to be allowed to raise a late claim to provide a good explanation for the delay; g) a much stricter view is taken nowadays of non-compliance with the Civil Procedure Rules and directions of the Court. The achievement of justice means something different now. Parties can no longer expect indulgence if they fail to comply with their procedural obligations because those obligations not only serve the purpose of ensuring that they conduct the litigation proportionately in order to ensure their own costs are kept within proportionate bounds but also the wider public interest of ensuring that other litigants can obtain justice efficiently and proportionately, and that the courts enable them to do so." 11 Since the amendments for which permission is sought in the present case would cause the trial date to be lost, the application is appropriately categorised as a very late one. That acceding to the application would result in the trial having to be delayed is an important factor to be taken into account when deciding whether permission to amend should be given. As Carr J said, [t]he risk to a trial date may mean that the lateness of the application to amend will of itself cause the balance to be loaded heavily against the grant of permission. 12 In the present case, Mr Christopher Parker QC, who appeared with Miss Rowena Page for Skelwith, took me through a variety of materials which, he argued, show that the additional claims that Skelwith wishes to advance have good prospects of success. Mr Parker also highlighted the fact that the provisional liquidators were not appointed as liquidators until 24 September, no more than a couple of weeks before the application to amend was issued. He argued, too, that the core new allegation of the Wards more direct involvement had always been pleaded : just not in the right place (since it was to be found in a reply). Further, Mr Parker queried the extent to which the defendants would suffer prejudice if the trial date were vacated and pointed out that earlier cases have not concerned expedited trials. 13 Various matters, however, seem to me to weigh against granting Skelwith the permission to amend it seeks.
7 14 In the first place, I cannot see that the fact that the trial was fixed on an expedited basis makes its deferment any more acceptable. In fact, the contrary might have been thought to be the case. After all, the Court would not have ordered expedition unless it considered that the trial needed to take place quickly. 15 Secondly, the fact that the defendants will have been entitled to expect that the case would be heard in February is, to my mind, of very considerable importance. The point is the more significant because the first to fifth defendants are individuals (Yorkshire pig farmers, I gather) facing a very large claim (up to about 24 million) involving serious allegations and because, in the words of Mr Warwick, they have been diligence itself. 16 A third (and important) point is that Skelwith could have applied to make amendments along the lines of those now proposed much earlier. Even the latest version of the draft amended particulars of claim draws on documents produced by way of disclosure to only a very limited extent. Both they and Mr Parker s submissions as to the merits are principally derived from materials which have long been available to Skelwith. In fact, Skelwith felt able to allege that Flaxby Park knew that the ostensible sale price did not reflect the Property s true value by the beginning of May. By 17 July, it had had draft amended particulars of claim prepared, but it expressly disavowed any application to amend at that stage. 17 In the circumstances, it seems clear that an application for permission to amend could have been made long before 7 October. More specifically, Skelwith could, I think, have applied early enough to avoid any need for the trial date to be vacated. 18 That is not to say that the liquidators or the lawyers instructed by them have themselves been guilty of delay. While, however, responsibility for Skelwith s management will have passed from its directors to the liquidators, the claimant is Skelwith, not its liquidators, and it was open to Skelwith to apply to amend at a much earlier stage. 19 A fourth point is that I am unpersuaded by the argument that the core new allegation had always been pleaded : just not in the right place. What was alleged in the relevant reply was that Flaxby Park had or ought to have had knowledge of undervaluation. As Mr Thomas Grant QC, who appeared with Mr Duncan McCombe for Flaxby Park and the Wards, pointed out, that would not have been read as an allegation of actual knowledge even if it had been contained in the particulars of claim rather than a reply. As indicated in my October judgment, Flaxby Park and the Wards have been entitled to proceed on the basis that the only case they had to meet was that put forward in paragraph 31 of the particulars of claim.
8 20 A fifth point relates to the merits of the additional claims that Skelwith now wishes to advance. While (on the basis of the arguments I have heard) I would not go so far as to say that the claims for, for example, unlawful means conspiracy have no realistic prospects of success, the materials to which I was taken by Mr Parker do not by any means demonstrate an overwhelming case. 21 Sixthly, it is of some, albeit perhaps not very much, relevance that declining to grant permission to amend would not deny Skelwith the chance to obtain any redress for what it says happened. If the allegations it now wishes to put forward are well-founded, it can expect to succeed in its existing claims. 22 Seventhly, I have been persuaded by Mr Hugh Jory QC, who appeared with Mr Thomas Fletcher for Mr Mattocks, that there is an additional objection to the grant of permission to amend as regards his client. In their present form, the draft amended particulars of claim do not appear to me to explain the nature of the case advanced against him with sufficient clarity. 23 For all these reasons, I have concluded that I should not exercise my discretion to grant Skelwith permission to make the proposed amendments. The position may, however, be different as regards what is said in paragraph 33A of the current draft. The point made in that paragraph appears to turn essentially on law rather than evidence and not to depend on disclosure. On that basis, Flaxby Park should, on the face of it, be able to meet the allegation in time for a trial in Febuary. That may mean that it would be appropriate to grant Skelwith permission to make an amendment along the lines of the present paragraph 33A. Mr Grant, however, asked for more time to consider the proposed paragraph 33A, which was included in the draft amended particulars of claim for the first time this week. In the circumstances, I shall adjourn further consideration of whether Skelwith should be granted permission to make an amendment along the lines of paragraph 33A. In other respects, however, I shall dismiss the application for permission to amend, and I shall also decline to grant Skelwith permission to add the Wards as defendants.
(b) The test is that for summary judgment under CPR Part 24.
Late amendments and amendments after the expiry of the limitation period Whether a party obtains permission to amend can make or break a case. Litigants seeking to amend very late and/or after the expiry
More informationBUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES CIRCUIT COMMERCIAL COURT [2018] EWHC 3021 (Comm) Royal Courts of Justice Friday, 12 October 2018
WARNING: reporting restrictions may apply to the contents transcribed in this document, particularly if the case concerned a sexual offence or involved a child. Reporting restrictions prohibit the publication
More informationBefore: JUSTICE ANDREW BAKER (In Private) - and - ANONYMISATION APPLIES
If this Transcript is to be reported or published, there is a requirement to ensure that no reporting restriction will be breached. This is particularly important in relation to any case involving a sexual
More informationBefore : The Honourable Mr Justice Popplewell Between :
Neutral Citation Number: 2015 EWHC 2542 (Comm) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION COMMERCIAL COURT Case No: CL-2014-000070 Royal Courts of Justice, Rolls Building Fetter Lane, London,
More informationIN THE LIVERPOOL COUNTY COURT (APPEALS) County Court 35 Vernon Street Liverpool HIS HONOUR JUDGE PARKER
IN THE LIVERPOOL COUNTY COURT (APPEALS) A23YJ619 County Court 35 Vernon Street Liverpool 28 th April 2016 Before: HIS HONOUR JUDGE PARKER B e t w e e n: BRENDA DAWRANT Claimant/Respondent and PART AND
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CHANCERY DIVISION. Before: MR. JUSTICE LIGHTMAN. - and -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CHANCERY DIVISION HC0C00 [001] EWHC 1 (CH) Royal Courts of Justice Thursday, th May 00 Before: MR. JUSTICE LIGHTMAN B E T W E E N: HURST Claimant - and - LEEMING Defendant
More informationBefore: MR. JUSTICE BIRSS Between: VRINGO INFRASTRUCTURE, INC.
Neutral Citation Number: [2015] EWHC 1704 (Pat) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CHANCERY DIVISION PATENTS COURT Case No: HC-2012-000076 The Rolls Building 7 Rolls Buildings London EC4A 1NL Date: 08/06/2015
More informationBefore: MR. JUSTICE SNOWDEN IN THE MATTER OF RALLS BUILDERS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) Between :
Neutral Citation Number: [2016] EWHC 1812 (Ch) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CHANCERY DIVISION Case No: 0671 of 2012 Royal Courts of Justice Rolls Building Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL Before: Date: 20
More informationHIS HONOUR JUDGE S P GRENFELL Between :
Case No: 6LS90043 (previously 1995 P 0017) Neutral Citation Number:[2006] EWHC 2025 (QB) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEENS BENCH DIVISION LEEDS DISTRICT REGISTRY Before : HIS HONOUR JUDGE S P GRENFELL
More informationB e f o r e : MR. JUSTICE ARNOLD. OLYMPIC DELIVERY AUTHORITY - and -
Neutral Citation Number: [2012] EWHC 1114 (Ch) Case No. HC12F01409 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CHANCERY DIVISION Royal Courts of Justice 18th April 2012 B e f o r e : MR. JUSTICE ARNOLD OLYMPIC DELIVERY
More informationPART 5 DUTIES OF DIRECTORS AND OTHER OFFICERS CHAPTER 1 Preliminary and definitions 219. Interpretation and application (Part 5) 220.
PART 5 DUTIES OF DIRECTORS AND OTHER OFFICERS CHAPTER 1 Preliminary and definitions 219. Interpretation and application (Part 5) 220. Connected persons 221. Shadow directors 222. De facto director CHAPTER
More informationB e f o r e: MRS JUSTICE LANG. Between: THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF DEAN Claimant
Neutral Citation Number: [2016] EWHC 3775 (Admin) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT CO/4951/2016 Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL Thursday, 15 December
More informationGENERAL RULES ABOUT COSTS
PRACTICE DIRECTION PART 44 DIRECTIONS RELATING TO PART 44 GENERAL RULES ABOUT COSTS SECTION 7 SOLICITOR S DUTY TO NOTIFY CLIENT: RULE 44.2 7.1 For the purposes of rule 44.2 client includes a party for
More informationCHESTER CLARKE MARTHE CLARKE. and BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA JULIAN COMPTON. And
., 0 ;..1 1 ( {,.:-!rr e 1 J ST VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CIVIL SUIT N0.39 OF 1994 BETWEEN: CHESTER CLARKE MARTHE CLARKE Substituted Plaintiff Added Plaintiff and BANK OF
More informationand- ANDREW RONNAN AND SOLARPOWER PV LIMITED
Neutral Citation Number: [2014] EWHC 1774 (Ch) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CHANCERY DIVISION MANCHESTER DISTRICT REGISTRY HHJ Waksman QC sitting as a Judge of the High Court Case No: 2MA30319 The High
More informationRIGHTS OF LIGHT and SECTION 237 TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT Neil Cameron QC
RIGHTS OF LIGHT and SECTION 237 TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 Neil Cameron QC 1. Whether or not the judgment in HKRUK II (CHC) Limited v. Heaney [2010] EWHC 2245 (Ch) ( Heaney ) represents any change
More informationB e f o r e: LORD JUSTICE FLOYD EUROPEAN HERITAGE LIMITED
Neutral Citation Number: [2014] EWCA Civ 238 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION B2/2012/0611 Royal Courts of Justice Strand,London WC2A
More informationJUDGMENT. Bimini Blue Coalition Limited (Appellant) v The Prime Minister of The Bahamas and others (Respondents)
[2014] UKPC 23 Privy Council Appeal No 0060 of 2014 JUDGMENT Bimini Blue Coalition Limited (Appellant) v The Prime Minister of The Bahamas and others (Respondents) From the Court of Appeal of the Commonwealth
More informationBefore : THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ROTH Between :
Neutral Citation Number: [2018] EWHC 1830 (Ch) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CHANCERY DIVISION REVENUE LIST Case No: HC-2013-000527 Royal Courts of Justice Rolls Building, Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CIVIL) A.D RENEE FRANCIS MARIE FRANCIS. and KENNETH JAMES LUCIA JAMES. 1994: November 30; December 7.
SAINT LUCIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CIVIL) A.D. 1994 Suit No. 586 of 1994 BETWEEN: RENEE FRANCIS MARIE FRANCIS and Petitioners KENNETH JAMES LUCIA JAMES Respondents APPEARANCES: Mr. C. Landers for
More informationBEFORE: MR REGISTRAR JONES DAVID BROWN. - and - (1) BCA TRADING LIMITED (2) ROBERT FELTHAM (3) TRADEOUTS LIMITED
Neutral Citation Number [2016] EWHC 1464 (Ch) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CHANCERY DIVISION COMPANIES COURT Case No: CR-2016-000997 In The Matter Of TRADEOUTS LIMITED And In The Matter Of THE INSOLVENCY
More informationSally Anne Hyde v- Milton Keynes Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
Contents Sally Anne Hyde v- Milton Keynes Hospital NHS Foundation Trust 1 Kai Surrey (by his Mother and Litigation Friend Amy Surrey) v- Barnett & Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust 5 Nirjalmit Mehmi v- Mr
More informationIN THE CENTRAL LONDON COUNTY COURT. Before: DISTRICT JUDGE BROOKS. - and -
IN THE CENTRAL LONDON COUNTY COURT No. B00BM862 Thomas Moore Building Royal Courts of Justice Thursday, 9 th July 2015 Before: DISTRICT JUDGE BROOKS B E T W E E N : ONE HOUSING GROUP LTD Claimant - and
More informationBefore : MR JUSTICE KNOWLES CBE Between : (1) C1 (2) C2 (3) C3. - and
Neutral Citation Number: [2016] EWHC 1893 (Comm) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION COMMERCIAL COURT Case No: CL-2015-000762 Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Date: 29/07/2016
More informationPART 2 REGULATED ACTIVITIES Chapter I Regulated Activities 3. Regulated activities. Chapter II The General Prohibition 4. The general prohibition.
FINANCIAL SERVICES ACT 2008 (Chapter 8) Arrangement of Sections PART 1 THE REGULATOR AND THE REGULATORY OBJECTIVES 1. The Financial Supervision Commission. 2. Exercise of functions to be compatible with
More informationBefore: MR RECORDER BERKLEY MISS EASHA MAGON. and ROYAL & SUN ALLIANCE INSURANCE PLC
IN THE COUNTY COURT AT CENTRAL LONDON Case No: B53Y J995 Court No. 60 Thomas More Building Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL Friday, 26 th February 2016 Before: MR RECORDER BERKLEY B E T W
More informationB e f o r e: LORD JUSTICE LEWISON LORD JUSTICE FLOYD
A2/2014/1626 Neutral Citation Number: [2015] EWCA Civ 984 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE MANCHESTER DISTRICT REGISTRY QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION (HIS HONOUR JUDGE ARMITAGE QC) Royal
More informationAlbon (t/a NA Carriage Co) v Naza Motor Trading Sdn Bhd (No 4) [2007] APP.L.R. 07/31
JUDGMENT : Mr Justice Lightman: Chancery Division. 31 st July 2007 INTRODUCTION 1. I have given a series of judgments on interlocutory applications in this action. The action relates to the business dealings
More informationGuide to the Patents County Court Small Claims Track
Guide to the Patents County Court Small Claims Track 1. General 1.1. Introduction This Guide applies to the small claims track within the Patents County Court (PCC). It is written for all users of the
More informationGalliford Try Construction Ltd v Mott MacDonald Ltd [2008] APP.L.R. 03/14
JUDGMENT : Mr Justice Coulson : TCC. 14 th March 2008 Introduction 1. This is an application by the Defendant for an order that paragraphs 39 to 48 inclusive of the witness statement of Mr Joseph Martin,
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: KENSINGTON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED AND. MONTROW INTERNATIONAL LIMITED (In Provisional Liquidation)
BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS CLAIM NO. 41 OF 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: KENSINGTON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED AND MONTROW INTERNATIONAL LIMITED (In Provisional Liquidation) Applicant Respondent Appearances:
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF GIBRALTAR. -and-
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GIBRALTAR BETWEEN: No 2014-C-110 CHEVRON CORPORATION Claimants -and- (1) AMAZONIA RECOVERY LIMITED (2) WOODSFORD LITIGATION FUNDING LIMITED (3) PABLO ESTENIO FAJARDO MENDOZA (4)
More informationA BILL. entitled CORPORATE SERVICE PROVIDER BUSINESS ACT 2012
Corporate Service Provider Business Act 2012 - Draft 6.xml gnjohnson 27 February 2012, 16:00 DRAFT A BILL entitled CORPORATE SERVICE PROVIDER BUSINESS ACT 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
More informationPractice Guideline 9: Guideline for Arbitrators on Making Orders Relating to the Costs of the Arbitration
Practice Guideline 9: Guideline for Arbitrators on Making Orders Relating to the Costs of the Arbitration 1. Introduction 1.1 One of the most difficult and important functions which an arbitrator has to
More informationIn the Circuit Court, Sixth Judicial Circuit In and for Pasco and Pinellas Counties, Florida
In the Circuit Court, Sixth Judicial Circuit In and for Pasco and Pinellas Counties, Florida Administrative Order No. PA/PI-CIR-99-46 Standards of Professional Courtesy and Professionalism Implementation
More informationBefore: DISTRICT JUDGE EMMA KELLY. - and -
IN THE NUNEATON COUNTY COURT No. B00NU180 Warwickshire Justice Centre Vicarage Street Warwickshire, CV11 4WX Friday, 18 th December 2015 Before: DISTRICT JUDGE EMMA KELLY B E T W E E N : HINCKLEY & BOSWORTH
More informationA guide to civil proceedings in Guernsey
JERSEY GUERNSEY LONDON MAURITIUS BVI SINGAPORE GUERNSEY BRIEFING August 2015 A guide to civil proceedings in Guernsey This briefing is intended to provide a high-level overview of how one brings proceedings
More informationGuernsey case management and civil proceedings
JERSEY GUERNSEY LONDON BVI SINGAPORE GUERNSEY BRIEFING August 2015 Guernsey case management and civil proceedings Proactive case management is a concept that pervades modern Guernsey civil procedure. This
More informationBERMUDA COMPANIES AND LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP) AMENDMENT ACT : 41
QUO FA T A F U E R N T BERMUDA COMPANIES AND LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP) 2017 : 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Citation Amends section 2 Amends section 86 Inserts Part VIA
More informationJudgement As Approved by the Court
Neutral Citation Number: [2007] EWCA Civ 1166 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION MR JUSTICE WYN WILLIAMS
More informationGUIDE TO ARBITRATION
GUIDE TO ARBITRATION Arbitrators and Mediators Institute of New Zealand Inc. Level 3, Hallenstein House, 276-278 Lambton Quay P O Box 1477, Wellington, New Zealand Tel: 64 4 4999 384 Fax: 64 4 4999 387
More informationSOLICITORS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL. IN THE MATTER OF THE SOLICITORS ACT 1974 Case No and. Before:
The Tribunal s Order is subject to appeal to the High Court (Administrative Court) by the Respondent. The Order remains in force pending the High Court s decision on the appeal. SOLICITORS DISCIPLINARY
More informationBERMUDA COMPANIES AND LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP) AMENDMENT ACT : 41
QUO FA T A F U E R N T BERMUDA COMPANIES AND LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP) 2017 : 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Citation Amends section 2 Amends section 86 Inserts Part
More informationDirectors and Shareholders Reference Guide to Summary Proceedings in the Delaware Court of Chancery
Directors and Shareholders Reference Guide to Summary Proceedings in the Delaware Court of Chancery Sheldon K. Rennie 302.622.4202 srennie@foxrothschild.com Carl D. Neff 302.622.4272 cneff@foxrothschild.com
More information(1) THOMAS IAN SINCLAIR (2) SOKOL HOLDINGS INC. - and -
[2015] EWHC 3888 (Comm) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION COMMERCIAL COURT BEFORE: No: CL-2014-00472 7 Rolls Building Fetter Lane London EC4A 1NL Friday, 20 November 2015 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL
More informationVIRGIN ISLANDS The Company Management Act, Arrangement of Sections
NO. 8 of 1990 VIRGIN ISLANDS The Company Management Act, 1990 Arrangement of Sections Sections 1. Short title 2. Interpretation PART 1 Preliminary PART II Licences 3. Requirement of licence. 4. Application
More information04 Apr 2018 FL IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES FINANCIAL LIST (QBD)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES FINANCIAL LIST (QBD) 04 Apr 2018 FL-2017-000004 BEFORE: MRS JUSTICE ROSE IN PRIVATE 4 April 2018 B E T W E E N: PUTNAM SPV
More informationLIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIPS (DISSOLUTION AND WINDING UP) (JERSEY) REGULATIONS 2018
Limited Liability Partnerships (Dissolution and Winding Up) Arrangement LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIPS (DISSOLUTION AND WINDING UP) (JERSEY) REGULATIONS 2018 Arrangement Regulation PART 1 3 INTRODUCTION
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CHANCERY DIVISION 2014 EWHC 1223 (Ch) 7, Rolls Building, Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL. B e f o r e :
Case No. 2012/7925 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CHANCERY DIVISION 2014 EWHC 1223 (Ch) 7, Rolls Building, Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL. Wednesday 26th February, 2014 B e f o r e : MR JUSTICE HENDERSON
More informationFederal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2000
Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2000 Commencement: 1st May 2000 In exercise of the powers conferred on me by section 254 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 and all powers
More informationGUIDE TO CORPORATE ADMINISTRATION ORDERS IN GUERNSEY
GUIDE TO CORPORATE ADMINISTRATION ORDERS IN GUERNSEY CONTENTS PREFACE 1 1. Introduction 2 2. When may an Administrator be appointed under Guernsey Law? 2 3. When is a Company Insolvent under Guernsey Law?
More informationVictoria House 7 October 2016 Bloomsbury Place London WC1A 2EB. Before: THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ROTH (President)
Neutral citation [2016] CAT 20 IN THE COMPETITION APPEAL TRIBUNAL Case No: 1262/5/7/16 (T) Victoria House 7 October 2016 Bloomsbury Place London WC1A 2EB Before: THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ROTH (President)
More informationPRACTICE DIRECTION: INSOLVENCY PROCEEDINGS PART ONE: GENERAL PROVISIONS
PRACTICE DIRECTION: INSOLVENCY PROCEEDINGS PART ONE: GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. Definitions 1.1 In this Practice Direction: (1) The Act means the Insolvency Act 1986 and includes the Act as applied to limited
More informationJUDGMENT. In the matter of an application by Hugh Jordan for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland)
Hilary Term [2019] UKSC 9 On appeal from: [2015] NICA 66 JUDGMENT In the matter of an application by Hugh Jordan for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland) before Lady Hale, President Lord Reed, Deputy President
More informationTHE COURTS ACT. Rules made by the Chief Justice, after consultation with the Rules Committee and the Judges, under section 198 of the Courts Act
THE COURTS ACT Rules made by the Chief Justice, after consultation with the Rules Committee and the Judges, under section 198 of the Courts Act 1. Title These rules may be cited as the Supreme Court (International
More informationBefore: LORD JUSTICE THORPE LORD JUSTICE LLOYD and LORD JUSTICE PATTEN Between: KOTECHA
Neutral Citation Number: [2011] EWCA Civ 105 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM LEICESTER COUNTY COURT (HER HONOUR JUDGE HAMPTON) Case No: B2/2010/0231 Royal Courts of Justice Strand,
More informationA PRACTITIONER Practitioner
NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2015] NZLCDT 44 LCDT 003/15 IN THE MATTER of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 BETWEEN THE CANTERBURY STANDARDS COMMITTEE (No 1) Applicant
More informationGUIDE TO ASSET FREEZING INJUNCTIONS IN GUERNSEY
GUIDE TO ASSET FREEZING INJUNCTIONS IN GUERNSEY CONTENTS PREFACE 2 1. The Mareva Injunction 3 2. When is a Mareva Injunction available? 3 3. Other factors for the Plaintiff to consider 4 4. The Terms of
More informationAdjudication in a new landscape
Adjudication in a new landscape Charles Auld, St John s Chambers Published on 13 th March 2014 Introduction 1. Under the Land Registration Act 1925 disputes were referred to the Solicitor to HM Land Registry.
More informationResponse of Property Litigation Association to Chancery Modernisation Review
Response of Property Litigation Association to Chancery Modernisation Review The Property Litigation Association ("PLA") represents 1,200 members. Members spend at least 50% of their time working on Property
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF ROONEY v. IRELAND. (Application no /10) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 31 October 2013
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF ROONEY v. IRELAND (Application no. 32614/10) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 31 October 2013 This judgment is final. It may be subject to editorial revision. ROONEY v. IRELAND 1 In the case
More informationJudicial Review and Pre-permission Costs Karen Ashton and Anne McMurdie Public Law Solicitors The Public Law and Judicial Review North Conference 2014
Judicial Review and Pre-permission Costs Karen Ashton and Anne McMurdie Public Law Solicitors The Public Law and Judicial Review North Conference 2014 17 July 2014 Introduction 1. In this session we examine
More informationNeutral Citation Number: [2009] EWHC 2452 (QB) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN S BENCH DIVISION Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL
Case No: HQ09XO3460 & IHQ09/1716 Neutral Citation Number: [2009] EWHC 2452 (QB) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN S BENCH DIVISION Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL Wednesday, 26 August 2009
More informationGUIDE TO ASSET FREEZING INJUNCTIONS IN THE CAYMAN ISLANDS
GUIDE TO ASSET FREEZING INJUNCTIONS IN THE CAYMAN ISLANDS CONTENTS PREFACE 1 1. Cayman Islands Jurisdiction of Choice 2 2. When is a Mareva Injunction Available? 2 3. Other Factors for the Plaintiff to
More informationBefore: LORD JUSTICE HOLROYDE MRS JUSTICE ANDREWS DBE. - and - J U D G M E N T
WARNING: reporting restrictions may apply to the contents transcribed in this document, particularly if the case concerned a sexual offence or involved a child. Reporting restrictions prohi bit the publication
More informationApplicant Seal PENAL NOTICE ]1 DISOBEY THIS ORDER YOU MAY BE HELD TO BE IN CONTEMPT OF COURT AND MAY BE IMPRISONED, FINED OR HAVE YOUR ASSETS SEIZED.
FREEZING INJUNCTION Before The Honourable Mr Justice IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE [ ] DIVISION [ ] Claim No. Dated Applicant Seal Respondent Name, address and reference of Respondent PENAL NOTICE IF YOU
More informationAlternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) In Chapter 36 of his Final Report Jackson LJ wrote:
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) In Chapter 36 of his Final Report Jackson LJ wrote: 4.2 I recommend that: (i) There should be a serious campaign (a) to ensure that all litigation lawyers and judges
More informationBefore: LORD CARLILE OF BERRIEW QC Sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court Between:
Neutral Citation Number: [2009] EWHC 443 (Admin) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION ADMINISTRATIVE COURT Case No: CO/8217/2008 Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Date: 10
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN: ST. KITTS NEVIS ANGUILLA NATIONAL BANK LIMITED. and CARIBBEAN 6/49 LIMITED
SAINT CHRISTOPHER AND NEVIS CIVIL APPEAL NO.6 OF 2002 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN: ST. KITTS NEVIS ANGUILLA NATIONAL BANK LIMITED and CARIBBEAN 6/49 LIMITED Appellant Respondent Before: The Hon. Mr.
More informationINTECO BETEILIGUNGS AG. and SYLMORD TRADE INC
J IN THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE VIRGIN ISLANDS COMMERCIAL DIVISION CLAIM NO: BVIHCM (COM) 120 of 2012 Between: INTECO BETEILIGUNGS AG and SYLMORD TRADE INC Respondent
More informationBefore : DAVID CASEMENT QC (Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) Between :
Neutral Citation Number: [2015] EWHC 7 (Admin) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION ADMINISTRATIVE COURT Case No: CO/5130/2012 Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Date: 09/01/2015
More informationDirectors' Duties in Guernsey
Directors' Duties in Guernsey March 2018 1. OVERVIEW 1.1 This note provides a brief synopsis of the common law duties owed by directors of companies ("companies") incorporated in the Island of Guernsey
More informationAFRICAN STAR DIAMONDS (PVT) LTD versus JUDY NYAMUCHANJA and MEMORY MUNHENGA and SHERIFF OF THE HIGH COURT N.O
1 AFRICAN STAR DIAMONDS (PVT) LTD versus JUDY NYAMUCHANJA and MEMORY MUNHENGA and SHERIFF OF THE HIGH COURT N.O HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE MAKONI J HARARE, 16 February and 17 May 2017 Opposed application T.
More informationDisclosure: Responsibilities of a Prosecuting Authority
Disclosure: Responsibilities of a Prosecuting Authority Julie Norris A. Introduction The rules of most professional disciplinary bodies are silent as to the duties and responsibilities vested in the regulatory
More informationAPPEARANCES Mr B Brown QC and Mr M Treleaven for the Standards Committee Mr G Illingworth QC and Mr D Wood for the Practitioner
NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2013] NZLCDT 16 LCDT 020/12 IN THE MATTER of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 and the Law Practitioners Act 1982 BETWEEN WAIKATO BAY OF
More informationGuide: An Introduction to Litigation
Guide: An Introduction to Litigation Matthew Purcell, Head of Dispute Resolution Saunders Law Solicitors The aim of this guide This guide is designed to provide an outline of how to resolve a commercial
More informationBERMUDA RULES OF THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BERMUDA BX 1 / 1965
QUO FA T A F U E R N T BERMUDA RULES OF THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BERMUDA BX 1 / 1965 [made under section 9 of the Court of Appeal Act 1964 and brought into operation on 2 August 1965] TABLE OF CONTENTS
More informationGrossmitt v Biku [2008] SBHC 89; HCSI-CC 331 of 2007 (5 November 2008)
Grossmitt v Biku [2008] SBHC 89; HCSI-CC 331 of 2007 (5 November 2008) HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS Civil Case No. 331 of 2007 LAVALYN GROSSMITT AND ELMA KASA V REX BIKU 1st Defendant DELTA COMPANY LIMITED
More informationRotary Watches Ltd. v Rotary Watches (USA) Inc [2004] APP.L.R. 12/17
JUDGMENT : Master Rogers : Costs Court, 17 th December 2004 ABBREVIATIONS 1. For the purposes of this judgment the Claimant will hereafter be referred to as "RWL" and the Defendant as "USA". THE ISSUE
More informationFINANCIAL SERVICES AND MARKETS REGULATIONS 2015
FINANCIAL SERVICES AND MARKETS REGULATIONS 2015 *In this Annex, underlining indicates new text and strikethrough indicates deleted text, unless otherwise indicated. FINANCIAL SERVICES AND MARKETS REGULATIONS
More informationBefore : MASTER MATTHEWS Between : - and - THE BRITISH BOXING BOARD OF CONTROL
Neutral Citation Number: [2015] EWHC 2469 (Ch) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CHANCERY DIVISION Case No: HC-2014-001146 Rolls Building Royal Courts of Justice Fetter Lane, London, EC4 Date: 21/08/2015 Before
More informationCHILDREN COURT RULES, 2018
CHILDREN COURT RULES, 2018 CONTENTS Rule Page PART 1 CITATION, COMMENCEMENT AND POWERS Citation and Commencement Rule 1.1 Definitions Rule 1.2 Application of the Rules Rule 1.3 Effect of non-compliance
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY CIV [2016] NZHC SEAN TANE KELLY First Defendant. M S King for Defendants
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY CIV-2016-470-000140 [2016] NZHC 2577 BETWEEN WESTERN WORK BOATS LIMITED First Plaintiff SEAWORKS LIMITED Second Plaintiff AND SEAN TANE KELLY First Defendant
More informationTime to assess disputed solicitor s bill starts running only when a final bill with full narrative is delivered
Time to assess disputed solicitor s bill starts running only when a final bill with full narrative is delivered Dr Rahimian and Scandia Care Ltd v Allan Janes LLP [2016] EWHC B18 (Costs) Article by David
More informationCHAIR S DIRECTIONS (for Standard Dwellinghouse claims)
CHAIR S DIRECTIONS (for Standard Dwellinghouse claims) 1. Introduction 1.1 These directions are effective from 21 September 2015 and are issued pursuant to s114 of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services
More informationCH15 Common Form of Order for Sale
CH15 Common Form of Order for Sale IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No: CHANCERY DIVISION Master [name] [day, month, year] BETWEEN: ABCDEFG -and- HIJKLMNOP Claimant Defendant ORDER UPON the application
More informationNO About this consultation paper. Introduction 3. Background 3-5. The Standard of Proof Rule The Proposed New Rules 9-10
INDEX PAGE NO About this consultation paper Introduction 3 Background 3-5 The Standard of Proof Rule 5 5-8 The Proposed New Rules 9-10 Equality Impact Assessment 10 How to Respond 11 Appendix A: Draft
More informationBankruptcy petition dismissed where creditor failed in requirement to bring statutory demand to debtor s attention
Bankruptcy petition dismissed where creditor failed in requirement to bring statutory demand to debtor s attention Antony Canning v. Irwin Mitchell LLP [2017] EWHC 718 (Ch) Article by David Bowden Executive
More informationBefore : MR JUSTICE DAVID RICHARDS Between :
Neutral Citation Number: [2015] EWHC 270 (Ch) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CHANCERY DIVISION Case No: HC-2014-000704 Royal Courts of Justice Rolls Building, Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL Date: 13 February
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE DAVID BICKFORD ST LUCIA ESTATES LIMITED
SAINT LUCIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE SUIT NO:864/99 BETWEEN: DAVID BICKFORD Petitioner VS ST LUCIA ESTATES LIMITED Respondent Appearance Mr. K. Monplaisir Q.C. with Mr. M. Maraj for Petitioner Mr.
More informationPART 6: RESOLVING ISSUES AND PRESERVING RIGHTS
PART 6: RESOLVING ISSUES AND PRESERVING RIGHTS What this Part is about: This Part is designed to resolve issues and questions arising in the course of a Court action. It includes rules describing how applications
More informationPrince Edward Island. Small Claims Section Actions Where the Debt or Damages Claimed Do Not Exceed $16,000.
Prince Edward Island Small Claims Section Actions Where the Debt or Damages Claimed Do Not Exceed $16,000. RULES OF COURT Rule 74 Executive Council by Order-in-Council No. EC2017-387 raised the Small Claims
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2008
CLAIM NO. 338 OF 2008 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2008 THE BELIZE BANK LIMITED Applicant/Claimant BETWEEN AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BELIZE (on behalf of the Government of Belize) THE MINISTER
More informationCHAPTER I Preliminary
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN Islamabad, March 27, 2001. LISTED COMPANIES (PROHIBITION OF INSIDERS TRADING) GUIDELINES CHAPTER I Preliminary 1. Short title and commencement.- (1) These
More informationReport and Recommendations of the Commercial Court Long Trials Working Party
Report and Recommendations of the Commercial Court Long Trials Working Party December 2007 Contents 4 Members of the Working Party 5 Foreword 6 Section A Executive Summary of Recommendations of the Working
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO 2715 OF 2016
Home Go to Word Print HCA 2715/2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO 2715 OF 2016 BETWEEN WONG MAN HON FREDERICK and CHINA TIMES SECURITIES
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D. 2007
CLAIM NO. 347 OF 2007 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D. 2007 IN THE MATTER OF section 42 of the Laws of Property Act, Chapter 190 of the Laws of Belize, Revised Edition 2000. BETWEEN 1. VICTOR WILLIAM
More informationJUDGMENT. Eclipse Film Partners No 35 LLP (Appellant) v Commissioners for Her Majesty s Revenue and Customs (Respondent)
Easter Term [2016] UKSC 24 On appeals from: [2014] EWCA Civ 184 JUDGMENT Eclipse Film Partners No 35 LLP (Appellant) v Commissioners for Her Majesty s Revenue and Customs (Respondent) before Lord Neuberger,
More informationFrom Article at GetOutOfDebt.org
Case 12-01861-DHS Doc 1 Filed 08/23/12 Entered 08/23/1215:20:33 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 19 LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT J. GOLDSTEIN, LLC 3175 Route 10 East, Suite 300C Denville, New Jersey 07834 Tel: 973-453-2838
More informationSMALL CLAIMS COURT RULES SUMMARY OF CONTENTS RULE 1 INTERPRETATION
SMALL CLAIMS COURT RULES SUMMARY OF CONTENTS Rule 1. Interpretation Rule 2. Non-Compliance with the Rules Rule 3. Time Rule 4. Parties Under Disability Rule 5. Partners and Sole Proprietorships Rule 6.
More information