Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
[1] This is the latest chapter in the litigation saga the main features whereof to date I have outlined in very brief compass in the Preface above. While there are four Plaintiffs, the dominant moving party continues to be Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Limited (" the Bank "). Of the three extant Defendants, the spotlight remains firmly on Lyndhurst. This further chapter unfolds in the following way.
I further determined that I would adjudicate on the outstanding issues upon receipt of the necessary further drafts and written submissions. The ruling concluded:
[5] I distil the essence of the Bank's contention at this stage of the proceedings as twofold:
As regards the first of these contentions, Order 42, Rule 2 of the Rules of the Court of Judicature provides:
[7] While the additional evidence now assembled before the court is (as ever) of impressive bulk, its key elements are relatively few. Furthermore, this additional evidence overlaps with certain new evidence placed before the court by Lyndhurst in support of its application for permission to appeal. This evidence included an affidavit worn by Ms Acorda, a member of the London firm of solicitors then instructing Cunningham & Dickey. This affidavit, in seriatim form, spoke to the seven grounds of appeal being pursued by Lyndhurst. It included the following pithy averment:
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.