header-logo header-logo

Practice and procedure

02 December 2010
Issue: 7444 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

SAS institute Inc v World Programming Ltd [2010] EWHC 3012 (Ch), [2010] All ER (D) 243 (Nov)

It was established law that CPR 3.1(7) conferred on the courts a general power to vary or revoke their own orders. The circumstances in which that power might be used was where an applicant had to show some material change of circumstance or that the judge who had made the earlier order had been misled in some way, whether innocently or otherwise as to the correct factual position before him. If all that was sought was a reconsideration of the order on the basis of the same material, then that could only be done in the context of an appeal. There was scant authority upon CPR 3.1(7) but such as existed was unanimous in holding that it could not constitute power in a judge to hear an appeal from himself in respect of a final order.

AB and others v Ministry of Defence [2010] EWCA Civ 1317, [2010] All ER (D) 252 (Nov)

The power under CPR

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

Red Lion Chambers—Maurice MacSweeney

Red Lion Chambers—Maurice MacSweeney

Set creates new client and business development role amid growth

Kingsley Napley—Tim Lowles

Kingsley Napley—Tim Lowles

Sports disputes practice launchedwith partner appointment

mfg Solicitors—Tom Evans

mfg Solicitors—Tom Evans

Tax and succession planning offering expands with returning partner

NEWS
The rank of King’s Counsel (KC) has been awarded to 96 barristers, and no solicitors, in the latest silk round
Neurotechnology is poised to transform contract law—and unsettle it. Writing in NLJ this week, Harry Lambert, barrister at Outer Temple Chambers and founder of the Centre for Neurotechnology & Law, and Dr Michelle Sharpe, barrister at the Victorian Bar, explore how brain–computer interfaces could both prove and undermine consent
Comparators remain the fault line of discrimination law. In this week's NLJ, Anjali Malik, partner at Bellevue Law, and Mukhtiar Singh, barrister at Doughty Street Chambers, review a bumper year of appellate guidance clarifying how tribunals should approach ‘actual’ and ‘evidential’ comparators. A new six-stage framework stresses a simple starting point: identify the treatment first
In cross-border divorces, domicile can decide everything. In NLJ this week, Jennifer Headon, legal director and head of international family, Isobel Inkley, solicitor, and Fiona Collins, trainee solicitor, all at Birketts LLP, unpack a Court of Appeal ruling that re-centres nuance in jurisdiction disputes. The court held that once a domicile of choice is established, the burden lies on the party asserting its loss
Early determination is no longer a novelty in arbitration. In NLJ this week, Gustavo Moser, arbitration specialist lawyer at Lexis+, charts the global embrace of summary disposal powers, now embedded in the Arbitration Act 1996 and mirrored worldwide. Tribunals may swiftly dismiss claims with ‘no real prospect of succeeding’, but only if fairness is preserved
back-to-top-scroll