header-logo header-logo

15 November 2013
Issue: 7584 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Practice

Gulati and others v MGN Ltd [2013] EWHC 3392 (Ch), [2013] All ER (D) 66 (Nov)

There were a number of established principles in respect of applications for summary judgment. The usual way of trying disputes was to have a trial after the normal processes of disclosure and interrogatories had been gone through, though there were exceptions to that. One such exemption was that summary judgment might be given against a claimant if it was clear beyond question that the statement of facts was contradicted by all the documents or other material on which it was based. The simpler the case, the easier it would be to take that view. However, more complex cases were unlikely to be capable of being resolved in that way without conducting a mini-trial on the documents, without discovery and without oral evidence. That was not the object of CPR 24. It was designed to deal with cases that were not fit for trial at all. So there should not be mini-trial. Judgment might be given against the claim if it had no real

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde Co strengthens energy transition and construction offering with hire of Suriya Ashok

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit appoints rare dual-qualified lawyer to expand Anglo-French private wealth expertise

NEWS
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’

Safety fears do not automatically justify shutting an interested person out of a statutory will application

back-to-top-scroll