"We couldn't do as good a job as we do without it. ÀÏ˾»úÎçÒ¹¸£Àû gives us the security and confidence that we are best serving our clients because the information we are working on is the most accurate we can get"
Avensure
Access all documents on Summary judgment
A procedure by which a court may decide a claim or a particular issue without a trial, if it considers that one or other party has no real prospect of succeeding on or successfully defending the claim or issue and there is no other compelling reason why the claim or issue should proceed to a trial.
Summary judgment is governed by the provisions of CPR Rule 24. There is considerable overlap between the jurisdiction to give default judgment and the jurisdiction to strike out a statement of case, and the court may treat an application to strike out a statement of case as if it were an application for summary judgment.
Speed up all aspects of your legal work with tools that help you to work faster and smarter. Win cases, close deals and grow your business–all whilst saving time and reducing risk.
For our full legal glossary and more legal research sources, register for a free Lexis+ trial
Considerations when dealing with litigants in person—checklist Issue Comment Link to Lexis+® UK guidance/external links To what extent is a represented party required to assist a litigant in person? A legal representative’s paramount duty is to the court and to the administration of justice. Subject to that, the legal representative’s duty is to the client. Practice Note: Litigants in person—general considerations, resources and regulators' guidanceThe Law Society—Litigants in person: guidelines for lawyers, paras 7–9Legal Services Act 2007, s 1(3) A legal representative must not abuse their position by taking unfair advantage of a litigant in person but there is no obligation to help a litigant in person run their case or to take any action on a litigant in person’s behalf. Practice Note: Litigants in person—general considerations, resources and regulators' guidanceSRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs, para 1.2SRA Code of Conduct for Firms, para 1.2The Law Society—Litigants in person: guidelines for lawyers, para 18 When exercising its powers of case management, the court must consider whether...
Probate claim procedure—table This table provides an outline of the procedure where there is a probate claim. For further guidance, see: Practice and procedure—contentious trusts and estates—overview and Probate actions (probate claims)—overview. Action CPR Issue of claim form If Claimant is a child or protected party follow CPR Part 21 in relation to appointment of litigation friend. CPR 21.1–CPR 21.6 Claimant prepares claim form (Form N2), with a copy for filing and further copies for service on each Defendant. CPR 7.2, CPR 57.3 Claim form must contain a statement of the nature of the interest of Claimant and of each Defendant in the estate of the deceased to which the claim relates. CPR 57.7(1) Particulars of claim may be contained in claim form (or served separately (see below)). CPR 7.4(1)(a) If the proposed claim is for revocation of grant: Every person who is entitled or claims to be entitled to administer the estate of the deceased under an unrevoked grant of probate of the Will or letters...
Discover our 15 Checklists on Summary judgment
Commercial annual round-up: reviewing 2017 and previewing 2018 [Archived] ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This year’s annual round-up reviews some of the most significant developments of 2017 and previews what is on the horizon for 2018. This includes the cases of Wood v Capita Insurance Services Limited [2017] UKSC 24 and Ilkerler Otomotiv Sanayai Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v Perkins Engines Company Ltd [2017] EWCA Civ 183, among others. Also included are updates on ÀÏ˾»úÎçÒ¹¸£Àû®’s content, including news of exciting developments from the past year and what is coming up in the next 12 months. Reviewing 2017 Contract law What happened in Wood v Capita Insurance Services Limited? The Supreme Court held in Wood v Capita Insurance Services Limited [2017] UKSC 24 that the appellant, which had purchased a company from the respondent, could not recover compensation it subsequently had to pay to the company’s customers who had been affected by mis-selling before it took over the company. The...
E&W Brussels I (recast)—multiple defendants (art 8) [Archived] ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note considers Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) and the jurisdiction of the court when dealing with multiple defendants. The courts of an EU Member State have special jurisdiction to hear a dispute when a co-defendant is not domiciled in the jurisdiction if certain criteria are meet. This Practice Note considers the various criteria and how the courts have applied them in practice. In particular, it considers the meaning of ‘irreconcilable judgments’ and ‘anchor defendants’. The three other situations under Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) are considered in Practice Note: E&W Brussels I (recast)—third parties, counterclaims and rights in rem (art 8) [Archived]. Other special jurisdiction situations, in which the claimant is able to choose to bring proceedings in a different jurisdiction to that of the defendant's domicile, are found in: • Article 7 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012,...
Discover our 644 Practice Notes on Summary judgment
Adjudication—witness statement for stay of execution Filed on behalf of the Defendant Witness statement of [insert initial and surname of witness] Number of witness statement: [insert number of witness statement in relation to the witness] Exhibit details: [insert initials and number of each exhibit referred to] Date on which the statement was made: [insert date] [Date of translation: [insert date]] Claim No. [insert claim number]. [IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE [BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS [OF ENGLAND AND WALES OR IN [insert location] OR Technology and Construction Court (KBD) between: [insert name]        Claimant/Respondent and [insert name]        Defendant/Applicant _______________________________________ [NUMBER OF WITNESS STATEMENT EG FIRST] witness statement of [insert name of witness] _______________________________________ I, [Insert full name of witness] of [insert address] will say as follows: 1 I am a [state position—solicitor, partner etc] in the above-named firm and I have care and conduct of this matter [under the supervision of a partner] on behalf of the Defendant. 2 I am duly authorised to make this...
Order for strike out for failure to comply Claim No. [insert claim number]. [IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE [BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS [OF ENGLAND AND WALES OR IN [insert location] OR [Specify division] [Specify specialist court] [Insert location] DISTRICT REGISTRY THE COUNTY COURT AT [insert location] [BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS LIST before [The Honourable Mr Justice OR The Honourable Mrs Justice OR His Honour Judge OR Her Honour Judge OR Master OR District Judge] [insert name] dated: [insert date] Between [insert name]Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Claimant / [Applicant OR Respondent] and [insert name]Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Defendant / [Applicant OR Respondent] _______________________________________ [ Draft ] Order for strike out for failure to
Dive into our 18 Precedents related to Summary judgment
Is there a right to partial termination of a contract at common law in the event of repudiatory breach? This Q&A considers whether there is a right to partially terminate in the event of repudiatory breach in a business-to-business commercial contract in respect of which no specific industry or sector regulations apply. It does not cover frustration, mistake, rectification or severance of illegal or unfair terms. A party to any given contract will also have to consider whether a right to partial termination arises under any terms of the relevant contract on a true interpretation. For further information, see Practice Notes: Contract interpretation—the guiding principles and Rules of contract interpretation. See also Contract interpretation—overview and Practice Note: Ending a contract by agreement. For further information on express and implied terms, see Practice Note: Express and implied terms in contracts. You may also find it helpful to consider the commentary in Q&A: Is it possible to structure a contract with an indefinite duration and no termination clause,...
Does the court have a duty to dispose of cases as soon as possible? This Q&A is relevant to civil cases which are governed by the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) and associated Practice Directions. There are several CPR rules that are applicable to ensuring cases are dealt with in a timely manner as set out below. Overriding objective CPR 1.1 sets out the overriding objective of the CPR, which is to enable the court to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost. In doing so, the court must, among other things, ensure that a case is dealt with expeditiously and fairly. The court must further the overriding objective by actively managing cases and active case management includes ‘deciding promptly which issues need full investigation and trial and accordingly disposing summarily of the others’. While the court needs to be aware of the above, there needs to be a balance to ensure that cases are also dealt with justly. This is highlighted in the overriding objective as...
See the 67 Q&As about Summary judgment
This week's edition of Property Disputes weekly highlights includes: analysis on how to identify the correct operator for terminating an Electronic Communications Code agreement, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s publication of its updated guide on the Renters' Rights Bill, and a Court of Appeal decision clarifying section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 on service ‘by post’. It also includes a notable Privy Council decision confirming that a tenant may terminate a lease following a landlord's repudiatory breach, and an Upper Tribunal decision on the First-tier Tribunal’s power to conduct a review of its own decision.
This week's edition of Dispute Resolution weekly highlights includes analysis of a number of key DR developments and key judicial decisions including: the Civil Justice Committee’s response to the consultation on contempt of court and the Court of Appeal decision in Clifford Chance LLP v Societe Generale SA (jurisdiction agreement); dates for your diary; details of our most recently published content; and other information of general interest to dispute resolution practitioners.
Read the latest 2389 News articles on Summary judgment
**Trials are provided to all ÀÏ˾»úÎçÒ¹¸£Àû content, excluding Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance, subscription packages are tailored to your specific needs. To discuss trialling these ÀÏ˾»úÎçÒ¹¸£Àû services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK, Ireland and selected UK overseas territories and Caribbean countries. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial.
0330 161 1234