KB-2025-001929 - [2025] EWHC 2966 (KB)
Fecha: 13-Nov-2025
Part 11
Part 11
The claimants rely heavily on the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Hoddinott and others v Persimmon Homes (Wessex) Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 1203 (“Hoddinott”). The judgment of Dyson LJ (as he then was) has been, of course, regularly cited since then. The claimants did not refer to the more recent case of Pitalia v NHS [2023] EWCA Civ 657 (“Pitalia”) in which the Court of Appeal commented on certain aspects of Hoddinott. Nor was there any reference to the first instance reliance placed on Pitalia by Bacon J in Tintometer v Pitmans [2024] EWHC 370 (Ch) (“Tintometer”). The court brought both authorities to the attention of the parties and provided an opportunity to consider them before they embarked on Part 11 submissions.
- Heading
- THE HON. MR JUSTICE DEXTER DIAS
- Mr Justice Dexter Dias
- Introduction
- Applications
- Brief facts
- Claimants’ applications (overview)
- Claimants’ application 1: CPR Part 11
- Part 62
- Discussion: Part 62
- Conclusion: Part 62
- Part 11
- Hoddinott
- Pitalia
- Tintometer
- Discussion: Part 11
- Claimants’ application 2: CPR 3.4
- Claimants’ application 3: Injunction
- Basis 1: Part 11
- Basis 2: Public interest
- Conclusion: injunction
- Defendant’s application 1: stay of Orange
- Arbitration contracts
- State of evidence
- Discussion: state of evidence
- Conclusion: state of evidence
- Forum
- Conclusion: forum
- Orange stay
- Conclusion: Orange stay
- Defendant’s application 2: stay of IT Way
- Defendant’s application 3: strike out of IT Way
- Allegations against Shein
- Conclusions