This websites use cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. For more details about cookies and how to manage them, see our cookie policy.

Cases Narinder Jhittay

UK College of Business & Computing Ltd v Bath Spa University [2020] EWHC 2157 (Comm)

Judgment Date: 20 Jul 2020

Thomas Grant QC, Narinder Jhittay, Ryan Turner, and Charles King were instructed by Berkeley Rowe International Lawyers in a commercial dispute in the Circuit Commercial Court on behalf of the UK College of Business & Computing. At the outset, Thomas Grant QC and Ryan Turner successfully obtained an interim injunction to restrain the defendant, Bath Spa University, from acting on its purported termination of a long-term services contract with the claimant in the midst of the pandemic. Thomas Grant QC then led Narinder Jhittay, with further assistance from Charles King, for the expedited trial of the proceedings, which settled on confidential terms shortly prior to the commencement of the hearing.

View case

Phoenix Healthcare Distribution Ltd (2018) v (1) Sally Woodward (2) Mark Addison

Judgment Date: 26 Jul 2018

A master had been wrong to validate service of a claim form retrospectively under CPR r.6.15(2) where the defendant's solicitors had allowed the validity of the claim form to expire before alerting the claimant to the fact that service had been ineffective. A solicitor's professional duty did not require him to draw attention to mistakes made by the other party in circumstances where the mistake was not of his making and arose in a situation not calling for a response. The master had erred in principle in holding that the defendant's solicitors' conduct was in breach of a duty owed to the court under r.1.3 to give effect to the overriding objective and involved inappropriate "technical game playing".

View case

(1) Sally Woodward (2) Mark Addison v Phoenix Healthcare Distribution Ltd (2018)

Judgment Date: 16 Mar 2018

A party's entitlement to take advantage of its opponent's mistakes was qualified by its duty under CPR r.1.3 to help the court further the overriding objective. Where a party threatened with litigation failed to draw the proposed claimant's attention to a mistake which resulted in service being defective, that could go towards establishing a good reason for the court to exercise its discretion under CPR r.6.15 to validate the service retrospectively.

View case

Novus Aviation Ltd v Alubaf Arab International Bank BSC(C) (2016)

Judgment Date: 27 Jul 2016

Where a claimant had obtained a judgment sum more advantageous than its Part 36 offer solely because of a sharp change in the exchange rate between the sterling and dollar, it would not be just to order the defendant to pay interest at an enhanced rate and indemnity costs. Throughout the trial the exchange rate would have resulted in a less advantageous judgment sum. It was only by chance that the judgment was handed down shortly after the UK's decision to leave the EU caused the sudden change in rate.

View case

Richard Campbell v Robert Campbell (2016)

Judgment Date: 20 Jul 2016

Services provided by a lawyer qualified in another jurisdiction did not constitute "legal services" for the purposes of CPR r.46.5(3)(b). The cost of those services was therefore not recoverable by a litigant in person as payments reasonably made for legal services relating to the conduct of the proceedings.

View case

Dar Al Arkan Real Estate Development Co v Majid Al-Sayed Bader Hashim Al Refai (2012)

Judgment Date: 12 Dec 2012

The defendants to claims of breach of confidence and unlawful interference with business interests were successful in setting aside interim orders granted to the claimants on ex parte applications as they had established that the claimants had breached their duties to the court.

View case

Caldero Trading Ltd v Beppler & Jacobson Ltd & Ors (2012)

Judgment Date: 14 Jun 2012

Showing or supplying the witness statements and attached documents to a third party funder so that the funder could determine whether to continue to fund the proceedings and whether to give and whether to continue to give the cross-undertaking in damages was use "for the purpose of the proceedings" within CPR r.31.22.

View case