- Cited — National Iranian Oil Company v Crescent Petroleum Company International Ltd & Anor 2023-07-13
“…being resolved in that way without conducting a mini-trial on the documents without discovery and without oral evidence. As Lord Woolf said in Swain v Hillman [[2001] 1 All ER 91], at p 95, that is not the object of the rule. It is designed to deal with cases that are not fit for trial at all.…”
- Cited — CNM Estates (Tolworth Tower) Limited v Simon Peter Carvill-Biggs & Anor 2023-05-05
“…ences between the parties so far as factual issues are concerned, the court is in no position to conduct a mini-trial: see per Lord Woolf MR in Swain v Hillman [2001] 1 All ER 91 at 95 in relation to CPR 24. However, that does not mean that the court has to accept without analysis everything said by a party in his statements before the …”
- Cited — Saleh Ibrahim Mabrouk v John Murray 2022-07-12
“…conviction” (Tinkler v Elliott [2012] EWHC 600 (QB)); whether the defence has a “realistic” as opposed to a “fanciful” prospect of success: see Swain v Hillman [2001] 1 All ER 91.…”
- Considered — Begum v Maran (UK) Ltd 2021-03-10
“…The court must consider whether the claimant has a “realistic” as opposed to a “fanciful” prospect of success: Swain v Hillman [2001] 1 All ER 91. A realistic claim is one that carries some degree of conviction: ED & F Man Liquid Products v Patel [2003] EWCA Civ 472. But that should not be carried too fa…”
- Cited — CFL Finance Ltd v Laser Trust & Anor 2021-02-23
“…tob v Shavleyan [2019] EWCA Civ 1105 that forbearance of a defence that is later held to have had no real prospect of success under the test in Swain v Hillman [2001] 1 All ER 91 is capable of amounting to good consideration. On the other hand, the giving up by a defendant of a defence which he himself recognises to lack even a fair cha…”
- Considered — Price & Ors v Flitcraft Ltd & Ors 2020-07-09
“…The court must consider whether the claimant has a ‘realistic’ as opposed to a ‘fanciful’ prospect of success: Swain v Hillman [2001] 1 All ER 91 ;…”
- Explained — JSC Commercial Bank Privatbank v Kolomoisky & Ors 2019-10-15
“…The courts have often warned against conducting mini-trials at an interlocutory stage. In Swain v Hillman [2001] 1 All ER 91, Lord Woolf MR explained (at 95) that “the…”
- Cited — Simantob v Shavleyan 2019-06-28
“…gued that, as a matter of public policy, the forbearance of a defence that is later held to have no real prospect of success under the test in Swain v. Hillman [2001] 1 All ER 91, cannot amount to good consideration ‘in the eye of the law’. He referred the court to the judgment of the Queen’s Bench in Cook v. Wright (1861) 1 B & S 559 (…”
- Followed — JLT Specialty Ltd v Craven 2018-11-08
“…is not meant to dispense with the need for a trial where there are issues which should be investigated at the trial” (as Lord Woolf MR noted in Swain v Hillman [2001] 1 All ER 91, at 95), Mr Stone was unable to identify any evidence of any significance that is not already available. That being so, the following passage from the judgment…”
- Cited — General Mediterranean Holding SA SPF v Qucomhaps Holdings Ltd & Ors 2018-10-31
“…aph 158) and that “proper disposal of an issue under Pt 24 does not involve the judge conducting a mini-trial” (as Lord Woolf MR pointed out in Swain v Hillman [2001] 1 All ER 91, at 95), but also (as Potter LJ said in ED&F Man Liquid Products Ltd v Patel [2003] EWCA Civ 472, at paragraph 10) that:…”
- Followed — Iiyama (UK) Limited & Ors. v Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. & Ors. 2018-02-16
“…ut in passages from Easyair Ltd v OpalTelecom Ltd [2009] EWHC 339 (Ch) per Lewison J (as he then was) and from the judgment of Lord Woolf MR in Swain v Hillman [2001] 1 All ER 91 at 94 which were quoted by Mann J at [8] and [9] of his judgment, as follows:…”
- Cited — Iiyama (UK) Limited & Ors. v Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. & Ors. 2018-02-16
“…[2001] 1 All ER 91…”
- Followed — Iiyama (UK) Limited & Ors. v Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. & Ors. 2018-02-16
“… To that summary Mr Beard QC for the sixth and seventh defendants added the following from Lord Woolf in Swain v Hillman [2001] 1 All ER 91 at 94:…”