- Cited — Vale SA v BHP Group (UK) Ltd & Anor 2023-11-24
“…[2019] UKSC 5…”
- Cited — Gabriele Volpi & Anor. v Matteo Volpi 2022-04-05
“…TA Bank v Ablyazov [2018] EWCA Civ 1176, [2019] BCC 96; Staechelin v ACLBDD Holdings Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 817, [2019] 3 All ER 429 and Perry v Raleys Solicitors [2019] UKSC 5, [2020] AC 352.…”
- Cited — Assetco Plc v Grant Thornton UK LLP 2020-08-28
“… of probabilities and an assessment of the chances of a hypothetical fact. This distinction was clearly drawn by the Supreme Court in Perry v Raleys Solicitors [2019] UKSC 5, [2020] AC 352 where Lord Briggs, with whom the other members of the Court agreed, held that in a loss of a chance case the judge was right to hold “a trial wi…”
- Cited — Bank St Petersburg PJSC & Anor v Arkhangelsky & Anor 2020-03-18
“…See also JSC BTA Bank v. Ablyazov [2018] EWCA Civ 1176 at [30]-[46] per Leggatt LJ, and Perry v. Raleys Solicitors [2019] UKSC 5 at [52] per Lord Briggs.…”
- Cited — Bank St Petersburg PJSC & Anor v Arkhangelsky & Anor 2020-03-18
“…The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision at [2019] UKSC 50, but expressed its reservations about this passage. Lady Hale at [21] said that it was not necessary to resolve the question in order to resolve that appeal b…”
- Cited — Latayan v The Secretary of State for the Home Department 2020-02-20
“…to support the challenged finding of fact, or that the finding was one that no reasonable judge could have reached: Perry v Raleys Solicitors [2019] 2 WLR 636, [2019] UKSC 5 at [52], summarising much previous authority. That cannot be said in this case. The Appellant simply did not produce documentary or oral evidence of sufficient…”
- Cited — Cowan v Foreman & Ors 2019-07-30
“…HL 23 per Lord Mance at [46], Assicurazioni Generali SpA v Arab Insurance Group [2002] EWCA Civ 1642 per Clarke LJ at [14] – [17] and Parry v Raleys Solicitors [2019] UKSC 5 at [49] – [52].…”
- Cited — Staechelin & Ors v ACLBDD Holdings Ltd & Ors 2019-05-14
“…More recently, in Perry v Raleys Solicitors [2019] UKSC 5, [2019] 2 WLR 636 the Supreme Court summarised the constraints on interfering with findings of fact at [52]:…”