0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

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

Contingent loss in negligence claims

Contingent loss is relevant to limitation; specifically, the date at which a claimant’s cause of action accrues for the purposes of a claim in the tort of negligence (as many claims against professional advisers are framed).


Legal updates

Legal and regulatory monthly update - September 2019

The latest update covering delegated authority, insurance product development, the senior insurance managers regime, data protection, operational control frameworks, Lloyds market, and horizon scanning.


Legal updates

Kuoni referred to the CJEU by Supreme Court for clarification - possible impact on breach of contract, vicarious liability and assumption of responsibility claims for sexual abuse and assault

We were hoping to be able to give you some interesting insights following the judgment of X v Kuoni Travel Ltd but that will have to wait for another day.


Legal updates

The disappearance of LIBOR

Companies should undertake a comprehensive review and audit to identify those products and legacy contracts that are LIBOR-linked and carry out an in-depth risk assessment of discontinuation. Where possible, companies should look at appointing an individual to oversee the programme.


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