0370 270 6000

Harvey Shopfitters Limited v ADI Limited, Court of Appeal, 13 November 2003

1 December 2003
The issues

Appeals – Part 52 – Core Bundle.

The facts

The Court of Appeal dismissed an Appeal by the Claimant from the Recorder in respect of a preliminary issue relating to contractual dispute. In dismissing the Appeal, Lord Justice Brooke commented on failures to comply with the practice and procedure set out in CPR Part 52 and its Practice Direction.

The decision

1. Legal representatives should be familiar with the requirements with regard to the lodgement of bundles set out in paragraphs 5.6, 5.7 and 5.8 of the Practice Direction. In particular, where a bundle comprised more than 150 pages excluding transcripts, only those documents, which the Court might reasonably be expected to pre-read, should be included. In such circumstances, the rest of the complete bundle should be brought to Court.

2. Paragraph 15.11(a) (regarded as required reading) provided that in those circumstances the parties must file and serve a Core Bundle. Although the Practice Direction did not specify when this should be done, it should be filed at the very latest 7 days before the Hearing.

3. A bundle of not more than 10 principal authorities with the relevant passages clearly marked should be filed 28 days before the Hearing. Page numbers in respect of authorities should be specified in the Skeleton Arguments.

4. Paragraph 5.9 of the Practice Direction provided that Skeleton Arguments should be lodged with the Appellants and Respondent’s Notices. Previously, there had been a relaxed approach from the Court on the part of the Court to that provision. However, the Judges would be very reluctant to read a Skeleton Argument lodged less than 7 days before a Hearing.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Court of Appeal confirms exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies in Canadian pipeline dispute

On 10 June 2022 the Court of Appeal upheld an anti-suit injunction granted in favour of insurers by Mr Justice Jacobs in September 2021 restraining proceedings from being brought in Canada and enforcing the exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies.



Payment Fraud landscape shaped by technology in 2021

Payment systems across Europe are under increased pressure to mitigate fraud risks and defend against persistent attacks from enablers using ever more sophisticated and malicious viruses and malware.


Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.


Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up