Litigation round-up June 2021

14 JUNE 2021

| 1 min read

Miranda Whiteley rounds up the latest cases for June 2021

Service of claim forms

The court is unable to waive late or defective service of a claim form as a procedural error under CPR 3.10. It can do so under CPR 6.15 and 6.16 where there is “good reason” but this jurisdiction was not invoked by the claimant, presumably because case law makes clear that it does not apply to mistakes such as forgetting to serve the claim form along with the particulars of claim (Boxwood Leisure Ltd v Gleeson Construction Services Ltd).
Summary judgment and defence

There is no requirement under CPR 15 for a defendant to file a defence where it makes a strike out or summary judgment application. Where a summary judgment application is made on the basis of a question of law, there is no requirement for the evidence in support of the application to contain a statement as to the absence of a real prospect of success (King v Stiefel).
Interim injunctions

There were grounds to suspect serious breaches of the procedural requirements in a significant number of applications by local authorities for interim injunctions against "Persons Unknown" targeting Traveller sites. The court reviewed the law relating to injunctions against persons unknown and set out a number of safeguards to ensure that they are only granted in appropriate cases (Barking and Dagenham LBC v Persons Unknown).
Fortification of undertaking

If the court considers that fortification of an undertaking in damages is justified in connection with an injunction, there is no reason why it cannot relate to past as well as future losses. Fortification is not different in principle from an order for security for costs which can be ordered for incurred costs as well as future costs. There may be a change in circumstances justifying an order for fortification even though an order was not justified when the injunction was granted, such as a decline in the financial position of the applicant for the injunction (Alta Trading UK Ltd v Bosworth).
Calculating limitation periods

The Supreme Court has unanimously held that in "midnight deadline cases", the day following expiry of the deadline should be included when calculating the limitation period. Mills & Reeve acted for the successful respondent (Matthew v Sedman – see our briefing for more detail).

Our content explained

Every piece of content we create is correct on the date it’s published but please don’t rely on it as legal advice. If you’d like to speak to us about your own legal requirements, please contact one of our expert lawyers.

Contact

Miranda Whiteley

Professional Support Lawyer
Miranda Whiteley

Professional Support Lawyer
- 07918724051
- Contact Miranda
  
  Contact Miranda Whiteley
  
  * = required
  
  First name *
  
  Please enter your first name
  
  Last name *
  
  Please enter your last name
  
  Organisation
  
  Email address *
  
  Please enter your email address Please enter a valid email address
  
  Phone number
  
  Your message *
  
  Please add your message
  
  Send enquiry
  
  Mills & Reeve will use the information you provide in this form in accordance with our privacy policy. We may from time to time send you general updates by email or post that we think you will find of interest. This includes notification of upcoming event and updates or alerts containing relevant legal news. You can update your preferences at any time and will be able to easily unsubscribe from anything that you do not wish to receive.
  
  check
  
  Thank you
  
  Thank you for your enquiry. We will be in touch shortly.
  
  Close
  
  Reset form
  
  Close overlay

Litigation round-up June 2021

Our content explained

Further reading

Miranda Whiteley

Contact Miranda Whiteley

Visitors

Existing clients

Staff