header-logo header-logo

Practice

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

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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll