- Cited — Rasal Khaimah Investment Authority v Farhad Azima & Ors 2023-05-15
“…[2003] EWCA Civ 321; [2004] Ch 1 at [38] came into play:…”
- Cited — Re W-A (Children: Foreign Conviction) 2022-08-05
“…[2004] Ch 1 (CA)…”
- Cited — Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin Secretary of State for the Home Department 2022-07-28
“…ses justly. There have been a number of summaries of the law relating to abuse of process, see for example Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Bairstow [2004] Ch 1 at paragraph 38 and Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Sinclair [2017] EWCA Civ 3; [2017] 1 WLR 2646 at paragraphs 39 to 48. Those summaries have emphasised the p…”
- Followed — David Mayall v Merriman White & Ors 2022-04-12
“…culated by Sir Andrew Morritt V-C, giving the lead judgment of the Court of Appeal in Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Bairstow [2003] EWCA Civ 321; [2004] Ch 1 at [38], in a passage which has been approved and followed many times since, most recently in Allsop:…”
- Explained — David Mayall v Merriman White & Ors 2022-04-12
“…bald conclusory statement does not explain why the judge thought that the administration of justice would be endangered on these particular facts. In Bairstow ([2004] Ch 1) Sir Andrew Morritt V-C said:…”
- Considered — David Greene v David Davies 2022-03-29
“…e Court of Appeal considered the implications of Hunter and cases subsequent to it in Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Bairstow [2003] EWCA Civ 321, [2004] Ch 1 (“Bairstow”), where a director against whom an application had been brought under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 was held to be able to disput…”
- Cited — In the matter of Kings Solutions Group Limited 2021-12-17
“…missible collateral attack on an earlier court decision. The applicable principles in such cases were summarised by Morritt V-C in Secretary of State v Bairstow[2004] Ch 1 at paragraph 38:…”
- Cited — Tinkler v Ferguson & Ors 2021-02-01
“…f it would be manifestly unfair to a party in the later proceedings that the same issues should be relitigated, see Sir Andrew Morritt V-C in the Bairstow case [2004] Ch 1; or, as Lord Hobhouse put it in the Arthur J S Hall case, if there is an element of vexation in the use of litigation for an improper purpose.…”
- Cited — Tinkler v Ferguson & Ors 2021-02-01
“…Contrary to the conditions laid down by Sir Andrew Morritt V-C in Secretary of State for Trade v Bairstow [2004] Ch 1 at 17, the Judge neither found that continuation of the proceedings would be unfair to the Respondents, let alone manifestly unfair, nor did he identify any re…”
- Cited — Pricewaterhousecoopers LLP v BTI 2014 LLC 2021-01-11
“…f it would be manifestly unfair to a party in the later proceedings that the same issues should be relitigated, see Sir Andrew Morritt V-C in the Bairstow case [2004] Ch 1; or, as Lord Hobhouse put it in the Arthur Hall case, if there is an element of vexation in the use of litigation for an improper purpose.…”
- Cited — Pricewaterhousecoopers LLP v BTI 2014 LLC 2021-01-11
“…a collateral attack will be an abuse were clearly stated by Sir Andrew Morritt V-C in Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Bairstow [2003] EWCA Civ 321; [2004] Ch 1 at [38(d)]:…”
- Followed — Allsop v Banner Jones Ltd (t/a Banner Jones Solicitors) 2021-01-08
“…ivil rather than criminal proceedings are of particular value. One such statement is Secretary of Statefor Trade and Industry v. Bairstow, [2003] EWCA Civ 321, [2004] Ch 1, where Sir Andrew Morritt V-C (with whom both Potter and Hale LJJ agreed) reviewed the law and articulated the following principles (at [38]):…”
- Cited — AB Volvo (Publ) & Ors v Ryder Ltd & Ors 2020-11-11
“…from the judgment of Sir Andrew Morritt V-C (with whom Potter and Hale LJJ agreed) in Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Bairstow [2003] EWCA Civ 321, [2004] Ch 1 at [38]. The CAT cited the well-known statement of Lord Bingham of Cornhill in Johnson v Gore Wood & Co [2002] 2 AC 1 (with which Lords Goff, Cooke and Hutton …”
- Cited — Koza Ltd & Anor v Koza Altin Isletmeleri AS 2020-07-31
“…f it would be manifestly unfair to a party in the later proceedings that the same issues should be relitigated, see Sir Andrew Morritt V-C in the Bairstow case [2004] Ch 1; or, as Lord Hobhouse put it in the Arthur J S Hall case, if there is an element of vexation in the use of litigation for an improper purpose.…”