- Cited — Notting Hill Finance Ltd v Sheikh 2019-07-25
“…al evidence was led or tested by crossexamination. The limited nature of the first hearing of a possession claim was described by Warren J in Forcelux v Binnie [2009] EWCA Civ 854 at [32]-[36],…”
- Cited — Kuznetsov v Amazon Services Europe SARL 2019-06-11
“…der CPR r. 3.1(7), 3.1(2)(m) and the court’s inherent jurisdiction to set aside final orders. These issues are still not fully resolved, see: Forcelux v Binnie [2009] EWCA Civ 854 at [50] to [54]; Hackney LBC v Findlay [2011] EWCA Civ 8 at [18] to [25]; Terry v BCS Acceptances and others [2018] EWCA Civ 2422 at [75] and Salekipour v Parm…”
- Considered — Salix Homes v Mantato 2019-03-20
“… the application of CPR 39.3(5) because he considered that the situation in the present case was governed by the approach of the court in Forcelux Ltd v Binnie [2009] EWCA Civ 854, [2010] HLR 20, rather than Hackney LBC v Findlay [2011] EWCA Civ 8, [2011] HLR 15.…”
- Cited — Golding v Martin 2019-03-15
“…h a claim was undefended, the process by which the court came to make its order was, in our judgment, properly described as a “trial”. In Forcelux Ltd v Binnie [2009] EWCA Civ 854, [2010] HLR 20 Warren J (with whom Ward and Jacob LJJ agreed) said that the meaning of the word “trial” in section 138 was not necessarily the same as its mean…”