- Cited — Vodafone Group Plc & Ors v IPCom GmbH & Co KG 2023-02-10
“…’ submission, the jurisdiction for which he contends cannot be derived nor does it receive any support from the power given in CPR 3.1(7). In Tibbles v SIG plc [2012] EWCA Civ 518; [2012] 1 WLR 2591, this Court made clear that, whilst an exhaustive definition of the circumstances in which the discretion could be exercised was not possibl…”
- Cited — Helios Oryx Limited v Trustco Group Holdings Limited 2022-02-25
“…ferred by CPR 3.1(7) is normally exercisable only where the circumstances have materially changed, or in certain other limited kinds of case: Tibbles v SIG plc [2012] EWCA Civ 518, [2012] 1 WLR 2591. Otherwise, an attempt to rake over an interlocutory matter will be regarded as an abuse of process: see Thevarajah v Riordan [2015] UKSC 78…”
- Cited — Ceredigion Recycling & Furniture Team v Pope 2022-01-14
“…s’ submission, the jurisdiction for which he contends cannot be derived nor does it receive any support from the power given in CPR 3.1(7). In Tibbles v SIG plc[2012] EWCA Civ 518; [2012] 1 WLR 2591, this Court made clear that, whilst an exhaustive definition of the circumstances in which the discretion could be exercised was not possibl…”
- Cited — Athena Capital Fund SICAV-FIS S.A v Crownmark Ltd 2021-03-23
“…ring of the application, which took place before Jacobs J on 6 August 2020, Crownmark’s counsel drew attention to the principles identified in Tibbles v SIG Plc[2012] EWCA Civ 518 as governing the exercise of discretion under CPR 3.1(7) and contended that the relevant one was that there had been a material change of circumstances, namely…”
- Cited — Allsop v Banner Jones Ltd (t/a Banner Jones Solicitors) 2021-01-08
“… since the original order was made or (b) where the facts on which the original decision was made were (innocently or otherwise) misstated: Tibbles v. SIG plc, [2012] EWCA Civ 518, [2012] 1 WLR 2591. The Financial Remedies Judgment, of course, was a final decision.…”
- Cited — Libyan Investment Authority & Ors v King & Ors 2020-12-14
“…The applicable principles are to be found in the judgment on Rix LJ in Tibbles v SIG plc [2012] EWCA Civ 518 at [39]. Although warning against any attempt at an exhaustive definition of the circumstances in which a principled exercise of the discretion might arise, he…”
- Applied — Libyan Investment Authority & Ors v King & Ors 2020-12-14
“…a power to vary or revoke an order”. The leading authority on the principles to be applied when considering whether to exercise this power is Tibbles v SIG plc [2012] EWCA Civ 518, [2012] 1 WLR 2591. One of the circumstances which was recognised as being a proper one for the exercise of the power was summarised by Rix LJ at [39(vi)] as f…”
- Considered — E (Children: Reopening Findings of Fact) 2019-08-14
“…to make an order includes a power to vary or revoke the order”, or the range of authorities before and since Tibbles v SIG (Trading as Asphaltic Roof Supplies) [2012] EWCA Civ 518 in which those rules have been considered, though I note that in N v J (Power to Set Aside Return Order) [2017] EWHC 2752 (Fam),…”
- Considered — Timokhina v Timokhin (Rev 1) 2019-07-18
“…The rule in Tibbles v SIG Plc (trading as Asphaltic Roofing Supplies) [2012] EWCA Civ 518, [2012] 1 WLR 2591(Tibbles) in which the Court of the Appeal considered the jurisdiction of the court to vary or revoke its own order under CPR 3.1 (7).…”
- Cited — HM Revenue and Customs v Smart Price Midlands Ltd & Anor 2019-05-16
“…he tribunal’s apparently unfettered discretion under rule 5(2) of the FTT Rules to amend any direction made. She also referred to the case of Tibbles v SIG plc [2012] EWCA Civ 518 (‘Tibbles’) discussing how that discretion should be exercised. She said at [17] that it was clear from Tibbles that it does not matter whether the issue is se…”
- Followed — Terry v BCS Corporate Acceptances Ltd & Ors 2018-11-02
“…Many of the relevant authorities are reviewed in the judgment of Rix LJ in Tibbles v SIG Plc [2012] EWCA Civ 518, [2012] 1 WLR 2591 at [28]-[38]. The conclusions he drew from his consideration of the cases included the following:…”
- Considered — Catalyst Management Services v Libya Africa Investment Portfolio 2018-07-12
“…This is a discretionary power, the proper application of which was considered in detail by this court in what remains the leading case, Tibbles v SIG plc [2012] EWCA Civ 518; [2012] 1 WLR 2591. After a detailed review of the authorities, Rix LJ (with whom Etherton and Lewison LJJ agreed) set out at [39] the conclusions to be drawn.…”
- Applied — Khrapunov v JSC BTA Bank 2018-04-24
“…ourt by reference to its power under CPR Part 3.1(7) to vary or revoke any order, applying the principles set out in the leading authority of Tibbles v SIG Plc [2012] EWCA Civ 518; [2012] 1 WLR 2591. However, since we have heard full argument on the point and since under CPR Part 52.10 (now CPR Part 52.20) we have all the powers of the l…”
- Cited — Khrapunov v JSC BTA Bank 2018-04-24
“… court will not ordinarily allow those matters to be raised at the time of a later application to set the previous order aside or to vary it: Tibbles v SIG Plc [2012] EWCA Civ 518. As Rix LJ stated in that case at [39(i)], although the rule in CPR Part 3.1(7) “is apparently broad and unfettered, … considerations of finality, the undesira…”
- Cited — Loson v Stack & Anor 2018-04-17
“… change of circumstances. There is no unqualified jurisdiction under this rule to vary what would otherwise be final orders of the Court: see Tibbles v SIG plc [2012] EWCA Civ 518.…”