Heron Bros Ltd v Central Bedfordshire Council – WLR Daily

Heron Bros Ltd v Central Bedfordshire Council [2015] EWHC 604 (TCC); [2015] WLR (D) 137

‘The term “service in accordance with rules of court” in regulation 47F(5) of the Public Contracts Regulations 2006, as amended, meant that valid service was achieved when the relevant step for service of a claim form, set out in CPR r 7.5(1), was completed within the seven-day time limit prescribed by regulation 47F(1).’

WLR Daily, 20th March 2015

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off

NIHL: Disease or Injury and Does it Really Matter? – Zenith PI Blog

‘A recent case heard by Mr Justice Phillips in the High Court has considered the increasingly popular argument that Noise Induced Hearing Loss is an injury rather than a disease.’

Full story

Zenith PI Blog, 24th March 2015

Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com

Comments Off

Relief from sanctions for not turning up? – Nearly Legal

Posted March 25th, 2015 in appeals, civil procedure rules, landlord & tenant, news, nuisance, sanctions by sally

‘In Home Group v Matrejek [2015] EWHC 441 (QB), the High Court has applied Rule 3.9 of the Civil Procedure Rules and the guidance on applications for relief from sanctions in Denton v TH White Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 906 (our note here) to a possession claim based on nuisance and anti-social behaviour.’

Full story

Nearly Legal, 24th March 2015

Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk

Comments Off

Deutsche Bank AG London Branch v Petromena ASA (in bankruptcy) – WLR Daily

Deutsche Bank AG London Branch v Petromena ASA (in bankruptcy) [2015] EWCA Civ 226; [2015] WLR (D) 133

‘Where a party, which entered an acknowledgment of service to proceedings and made an unsuccessful challenge against the jurisdiction of the English court to hear the proceedings, had entered a further acknowledgment of service in its application for permission to appeal against the court’s decision to refuse its challenge, that party would have submitted to the jurisdiction of the English court, within article 24 of the Lugano Convention on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (2007), because of the provisions of CPR r 11(8), unless it had first applied to the court for an extension of time to file the further acknowledgment of service sufficient to enable the application for permission to appeal, or the appeal if permission was granted, to be determined.’

WLR Daily, 18th March 2015

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off

Statements of Case – Advice mainly to beginners, but we can all learn – Zenith PI

‘Advice mainly to beginners, but we can all learn.’

Full story

Zenith PI, 18th March 2015

Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com

Comments Off

Can Employment Tribunals Conduct Their Own Internet Research? – No. 5 Chambers

Posted March 19th, 2015 in appeals, civil procedure rules, employment tribunals, internet, news by sally

‘A vexed question: Where is the boundary between assistance and being in the arena? And how does the internet impact on that. The latest attempt to give guidance is the curious case of East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Sanders UKEAT/0217/14/RN before Langstaff P and 2 lay members.’

Full story

No. 5 Chambers, 12th January 2015

Source: www.no5.com

Comments Off

Meaning of “totally without merit” – Free Movement

Posted March 19th, 2015 in civil procedure rules, judicial review, news, tribunals by sally

‘Normally, where an application for judicial review is made the first stage is for a judge to consider the grounds for judicial review and the acknowledgement of service and summary grounds of defence, then decide without holding a hearing whether permission should be granted. Lawyers commonly refer to this decision as being “on the papers” because there is no oral hearing.’

Full story

Free Movement, 19th March 2015

Source: www.freemovement.org.uk

Comments Off

The Costs of Complexity (Revisited): A Practical View From the Bar – Littleton Chambers

Posted March 17th, 2015 in appeals, civil procedure rules, courts, fees, human rights, news, Supreme Court by sally

‘In his monthly column, originally published by PLC, James Bickford Smith considers again the Supreme Court’s judgment in Coventry v Lawrence (No 2) [2014] UKSC 46, the adjourned hearing of which has been listed for 9-11 February 2015. James assesses some of the key issues which have been debated since his initial analysis of the decision in October 2014, including the potential uncertainty for current funding arrangements that are not dependent on the Access to Justice Act 1999.’

Full story

Littleton Chambers, 5th February 2015

Source: www.littletonchambers.com

Comments Off

The new Part 36 – Hardwicke Chambers

Posted March 17th, 2015 in budgets, civil procedure rules, costs, news by sally

‘From 6 April 2015, the structure of Part 36 will change and a number of new rules are to be introduced. This is the most fundamental change in the Part 36 rules for many years.’

Full story

Hardwicke Chambers, 20th January 2015

Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk

Comments Off

Disclosure – pulling your head out of the sand – Cloisters

Posted March 17th, 2015 in civil procedure rules, disclosure, documents, employment tribunals, news by sally

‘In this article Cloisters’ barrister Paul Epstein QC comments on what disclosure actually means and what the obligations are in the Employment Tribunal. He discusses the different types of disclosure, the new CPR test and what parties need to do.’

Full story

Cloisters, 10th February 2015

Source: www.cloisters.com

Comments Off

Judge criticises insurer bid to cut costs by reclassifying noise-induced hearing loss – Litigation Futures

‘A High Court judge has criticised the insurance industry over a failed attempt to have noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) reclassified as an injury rather than a disease, in a bid to reduce the level of pre-Jackson success fees defendants would have to pay.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 16th March 2015

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Comments Off

Noise-induced hearing loss a disease, High Court rules – Law Society’s Gazette

The High Court has ruled that noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) should be treated as a disease rather than an injury for the purpose of claims – and therefore be subject to higher success fees.

Full story

Law Society’s Gazette, 17th March 2015

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Comments Off

Court of Appeal gives local authority Aarhus costs protection over HS2 challenge – Local Government Lawyer

‘A local authority is entitled to the costs protection conferred on claimants in Aarhus Convention claims, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’

Full story

Local Government Lawyer, 13th March 2015

Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk

Comments Off

Coulson J slashes “entirely unreliable” costs budget from £9.5m to £4.3m – Litigation Futures

Posted March 9th, 2015 in budgets, civil procedure rules, costs, damages, news, proportionality, solicitors by tracey

‘The High Court has slashed a claimant company’s costs budget from £9.5m to £4.3m, describing it as “entirely unreliable” and “deliberately manipulated”.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 9th March 2015

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Comments Off

EAT denies claimants court fees recovery because union paid them – Litigation Futures

‘A group of employees who successfully appealed a tribunal ruling over the interpretation of their contracts cannot recover court fees because their union paid them, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has decided.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 4th March 2015

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Comments Off

Family court hammers firm in compliance crackdown – Law Society’s Gazette

Posted March 5th, 2015 in civil procedure rules, costs, family courts, news by tracey

‘The family court has renewed a stern message to litigants that it will not tolerate non-compliance with court orders. The Honourable Mr Justice Keehan said practitioners must be made aware that poor practices pre-dating new Civil Procedure Rules should no longer be a feature of family litigation.’

Full story

Law Society’s Gazette, 4th March 2015

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Comments Off

Appeal judges reject bid for costs in case that started out in small claims court – Litigation Futures

Posted March 2nd, 2015 in appeals, civil procedure rules, costs, insurance, news, small claims by sally

‘A claimant who took a credit hire case from the small claims court all the way to the Court of Appeal must pay her own costs because the defendant insurer’s behaviour was not “unreasonable”, appeal judges have ruled.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 2nd March 2015

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Comments Off

Alternative dispute resolution – Law Society’s Gazette

‘The recent case of Laporte v The Commissioner for the Police of the Metropolis [2015] EWHC 371 (QB), which came before Turner J (pictured), reinforced the pro-ADR stance of courts and the obligation on parties to seriously consider and engage with ADR processes. Although the case also dealt with indemnity costs, this article specifically focuses upon ADR.’

Full story

Law Society’s Gazette, 2nd March 2015

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Comments Off

Court of Appeal rules on police duty to suspects in detention – UK Human Rights Blog

‘In a recent judgment, the Court of Appeal held that where a criminal suspect is remanded in custody, Article 5 of the Convention requires the police to notify the court as soon as possible if there is no longer a reasonable basis for suspecting them. It also held that the police and CPS must aid the court in observing its duty to show ‘special diligence’ in managing a suspect’s detention, by investigating the case conscientiously and by promptly bringing relevant material to the court’s attention.’

Full story

UK Human Rights Blog, 27th February 2015

Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com

Comments Off

Challenging a refusal of permission to appeal by the Upper Tribunal – Free Movement

‘If permission to appeal against a decision of a First-tier Tribunal in a welfare benefits case is refused by the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber), then the claimant will not be able to appeal that decision. This is because it is an excluded decision under s. 13(8)(c) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, and the Upper Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review its refusal of permission by virtue of s.10(1) and s.13(8)(d)(i) of the 2007 Act. This means the only remedy available is by way of judicial review (Samuda v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2014] EWCA Civ 1). The deadline for applying for judicial review against a refusal of permission by an Upper Tribunal is 16 days. CPR rule 54.7A(3).’

Full story

Free Movement, 16th February 2015

Source: www.freemovement.org.uk

Comments Off