OPENING LINES OF JUDGMENT IN 2024: GIVING THE OTHER SIDE A CHANCE TO OBJECT, NELSONIAN POLICY MAKING,HERDS OF CATTLE AND WHY THIS BLOG CAN NEVER GIVE THE LAST WORD ON SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM…
We are at the time of year when we can look back at some of the opening lines of judgments. This year it is clear that this is an international contest.
THE SUPREME COURT STARTS OF THE YEAR WITH SOME BASIC PRINCIPLES
Potanina v Potanin [2024] UKSC 3
- Rule one for any judge dealing with a case is that, before you make an order requested by one party, you must give the other party a chance to object. Sometimes a decision needs to be made before it is practicable to do this. Then you must do the next best thing, which is – if you make the order sought – to give the other party an opportunity to argue that the order should be set aside or varied. What is always unfair is to make a final order, only capable of correction on appeal, after hearing only from the party who wants you to make the order without allowing the other party to say why the order should not be made.
NOT A WIN WIN SITUATION: THE ILLEGAL PARKING OF A BULK CARRIER
Delos Shipholding SA & Ors v Allianz Global Corporate and Specialty SE & Ors [2024] EWHC 719 (Comm)
- This claim arises out of what might be described in layman’s terms as the illegal parking of the Capesize bulk carrier “WIN WIN” (the “Vessel”) just inside Indonesian territorial waters off Singapore in February 2019. The layman might be forgiven for thinking that for an infringement of this nature the Vessel would have been given a metaphorical slap on the stern and a parking fine, maybe with a discount for prompt payment, and sent on her way. Instead, however, she was detained by the Indonesian authorities for nearly a year while her Master was prosecuted under the Indonesian Shipping Law, eventually receiving a suspended sentence of 7 months’ imprisonment and a fine in the grand sum of around US$7,000.
THE TRUTH IS… THE WHOLE FAMILY HAS LOST
Passi & Ors v Hansrani [2024] EWHC 2062 (Ch)
“This case is a classic example of how confusing and embittered property ownership can become within a family when it is not clearly recorded in writing, exacerbated by the absence of wills from the parents. This is multiplied as the dispute relates to not one property but eleven. As a result, a brother on one side and his three sisters on the other have between them spent over £800,000 feuding about their properties, with all the animosity and anguish which comes with that. The case was crying out for settlement, but now it falls to me to decide. After I have done so, I will have to decide which side is the ‘winner’ for the purposes of costs. But the truth is that in this litigation, the whole family has lost”
A HERD OF CATTLE, A FAILING KIDNEY AND AN ACCUMULATED PENSION BENEFIT
Hillhouse v Pidelta (Pty) Ltd and Another (1237/2024P) [2024] ZAKZPHC 57
“This application involves a herd of cattle, a failing kidney and an accumulated pension benefit. The herd of cattle belongs to the first respondent. The failing kidney belongs to the applicant. The accumulated pension benefit also belongs to the applicant, but is held by a pension fund, which has decided, for the time being, not to pay those benefits out to the applicant. How those facts coincide requires a consideration of the broader factual matrix applicable to this matter.”
YOU CAN’T TURN A BLIND EYE
Hong Kong Golf Club -v- Director of Environmental Protection [2024] HKCFI 1279
“During the Battle of Copenhagen in 1801, when told of an unwelcome flag signal from his superior officer ordering him to disengage, Lord Nelson lifted his spyglass to his blind eye, said “I see no flag”, and explained “I have only one eye and am entitled to be blind sometimes”. The Director of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) has no such entitlement”
DO UNTO OTHERS HAS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU
McCullers v. Koch Foods of Ala., LLC in 2024 WL 4907226
“There is generally no good reason that an extension such as this should be opposed, let alone denied. The Golden Rule—do unto others as you would have them do unto you—is not just a good rule of thumb for everyday life. It is a critical component of legal professionalism. Sadly, in recent years compliance with the rule is becoming rarer and rarer in the litigation arena. It is time to reverse [*2] that trend, even if it is
only in this case.”
WHY THIS BLOG CAN NEVER HAVE THE LAST WORD ON SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM CASES…
Perisi v Secret Surgery and Elsaftawy judgment final as handed down.
“Followers of the popular legal blog “Civil Litigation Brief” by barrister Gordon Exall will be aware of how frequently cases relating to the service of the Claim Form have featured over the past 11 years. Each time Mr Exall predicts with confidence that the latest case is the final word on the subject as every possible point that could be taken has been covered. This case may show that confidence to be misplaced” (District Judge Lumb).