- Cited — Rasal Khaimah Investment Authority v Farhad Azima & Ors 2023-05-15
“…w KC also relied upon the general public interest in the same issue not being litigated over again referred to by Lord Hoffmann in Arthur JS Hall & Co v Simons [2002] 1 AC 615 at 701, cited with approval by Simon LJ in Michael Wilson & Partners v Sinclair [2017] EWCA Civ 3; [2017] 1 WLR 2646 at [41]. He referred to the various cases …”
- Cited — Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin Secretary of State for the Home Department 2022-07-28
“…he two proceedings is not conclusive because the circumstances may be such as to bring the case within the spirit of the rules, compare Arthur JS Hall v Simons [2002] 1 AC 615 at 701. It has been said that it will be a rare case where the litigation of an issue which has not previously been decided between the same parties or their p…”
- Cited — Peter Farrar v Candey Limited 2022-03-11
“…ceptible of modification when modern conceptions of public policy changed, as illustrated by the decision of the House of Lords in Arthur J S Hall & Co v Simons[2002] 1 AC 615 abrogating advocates’ immunity from suit. Counsel emphasised that the distribution of recoveries under the Assignment was essentially the same as under the DBA…”
- Cited — Tinkler v Ferguson & Ors 2021-02-01
“…lic interest of the state in not having issues repeatedly litigated; see Lord Diplock in Hunter’s case [1982] AC 529, Lord Hoffmann in the Arthur J S Hall case [2002] 1 AC 615 and Lord Bingham in Johnson v Gore Wood & Co [2002] 2 AC 1. These interests reflect unfairness to a party on the one hand, and the risk of the administration o…”
- Cited — Tinkler v Ferguson & Ors 2021-02-01
“…as well as on breach of the Aldi guidelines. The Judge’s emphasis on inconsistency of findings was, he says, misplaced. He cites Arthur J S Hall & Co. v Simons [2002] 1 AC 615 per Lord Hobhouse at 743 and 751:…”
- Cited — Pricewaterhousecoopers LLP v BTI 2014 LLC 2021-01-11
“… interest of the state in not having issues repeatedly litigated; see Lord Diplock in Hunter v. Chief Constable [1982] AC 529, Lord Hoffmann in the Arthur Hall [2002] 1 AC 615 case and Lord Bingham in Johnson v. Gore Wood [2002] 2 AC 1. These interests reflect unfairness to a party on the one hand, and the risk of the administration …”
- Cited — Pricewaterhousecoopers LLP v BTI 2014 LLC 2021-01-11
“…arge of Mr Emmott's obligations, it was mounting an illegitimate collateral attack on the award. However, as Lord Hobhouse expressed it in the Arthur Hall case [2002] 1 AC 615, 743 C: “There is no general rule preventing a party inviting a court to arrive at a decision inconsistent with that arrived in another case.”…”
- Overruled — Allsop v Banner Jones Ltd (t/a Banner Jones Solicitors) 2021-01-08
“…Rondel v. Worsley, [1969] 1 AC 191 having been overruled by the House of Lords in Arthur JS Hall & Co v. Simons, [2002] 1 AC 615 (HL). One of the reasons for the rule in favour of immunity was said to be that it prevented or reduced the potential for collateral attacks on prior judgments…”
- Cited — Koza Ltd & Anor v Koza Altin Isletmeleri AS 2020-07-31
“…In the Arthur J S Hall & Co v Simons [2002] 1 AC 615 Lord Bingham said at [38]:…”
- Explained — Day v Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP (Rev 1) 2020-03-26
“…Hunter, Walpole, and Smith were all considered by the House of Lords in Hall v Simons [2002] 1 AC 615, the case in which the advocate’s and solicitor’s immunity from suit was explained and restricted. However, the rule in Hunter was repeatedly restated (see Lor…”
- Applied — Dunhill v W. Brook & Co. (A Firm) 2018-03-15
“… been afforded to her by a reasonably competent practitioner in the personal injury sector of the legal profession: see Hall (Arthur JS) & Co (a firm) v Simons [2002] 1 AC 615 applying Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 2 All ER 118. To that must be added that there is no question of liability for what may be conside…”