BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted May 25th, 2016 in law reports by sally

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

Source: www.bailii.org

Comments Off on BAILII: Recent Decisions

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted May 25th, 2016 in law reports by sally

High Court (Administrative Court)

High Court (Chancery Division)

High Court (Commercial Court)

High Court (Family Division)

High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)

High Court (Technology and Construction Court)

Source: www.bailii.org

Comments Off on BAILII: Recent Decisions

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted May 20th, 2016 in law reports by tracey

Supreme Court

PJS v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2016] UKSC 26 (19 May 2016)

Ministry of Defence v Iraqi Civilians [2016] UKSC 25 (12 May 2016)NYK Bulkship (Atlantic)

NYK v Cargill International SA [2016] UKSC 20 (11 May 2016)

Airtours Holidays Transport Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Rev 1) [2016] UKSC 21 (11 May 2016)

PST Energy 7 Shipping LLC & Anor v OW Bunker Malta Ltd & Anor [2016] UKSC 23 (11 May 2016)

JR55, Re Application for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland) [2016] UKSC 22 (11 May 2016)

Eclipse Film Partners No 35 LLP v Revenue and Customs [2016] UKSC 24 (11 May 2016)

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

Davies & Anor v Davies [2016] EWCA Civ 463 (19 May 2016)

E (A Child) [2016] EWCA Civ 473 (19 May 2016)

Playboy Club London Limited & Ors v Banca Nazionale Del Lavoro Spa [2016] EWCA Civ 457 (18 May 2016)

Turner v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2016] EWCA Civ 466 (18 May 2016)

High Court (Administrative Court)

British American Tobacco (UK) Ltd & Ors, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary Of State For Health [2016] EWHC 1169 (Admin) (19 May 2016)

Secretary of State for the Home Department v GG [2016] EWHC 1193 (Admin) (19 May 2016)

South Oxfordshire District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2016] EWHC 1173 (Admin) (19 May 2016)

Zebaida v Secretary of State for Education [2016] EWHC 1181 (Admin) (19 May 2016)

Barnett v Solicitors Regulation Authority (Rev 1) [2016] EWHC 1160 (Admin) (18 May 2016)

High Court (Chancery Division)

Courtwood Holdings SA v Woodley Properties Ltd & Ors [2016] EWHC 1168 (Ch) (18 May 2016)

High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)

Cape Distribution Ltd v Cape Intermediate Holdings Plc [2016] EWHC 1119 (QB) (17 May 2016)

Barron & Ors v Collins [2016] EWHC 1166 (QB) (16 May 2016)

Cavanagh & Ors v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2016] EWHC 1136 (QB) (13 May 2016)

AXD v The Home Office [2016] EWHC 1133 (QB) (13 May 2016)

Manzi v King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2016] EWHC 1101 (QB) (12 May 2016)

B & Ors v The Home Office [2016] EWHC 1080 (QB) (12 May 2016)

Hayden v Maidstone & Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust [2016] EWHC 1121 (QB) (12 May 2016)

Perma-Soil UK Ltd v Williams & Anor [2016] EWHC 1087 (QB) (10 May 2016)

Okpara v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2016] EWHC 1058 (QB) (10 May 2016)Oyston v Reed [2016] EWHC 1067 (QB) (09 May 2016)

Nursing and Midwifery Council v Harrold [2016] EWHC 1078 (QB) (09 May 2016)

Wood v Days Health UK Ltd & Ors [2016] EWHC 1079 (QB) (09 May 2016)

Stucken v East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust [2016] EWHC 1057 (QB) (06 May 2016)

Mayne v Atlas Stone Company Ltd & Ors [2016] EWHC 1030 (QB) (06 May 2016)

Foran v Secret Surgery Ltd & Ors [2016] EWHC 1029 (QB) (06 May 2016)

DMK v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2016] EWHC 1646 (QB) (05 May 2016)

Source: www.bailii.org

Comments Off on BAILII: Recent Decisions

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted May 18th, 2016 in law reports by tracey

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

Gedi, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 409 (17 May 2016)

Personal Touch Financial Services Ltd v Simplysure Ltd & Anor [2016] EWCA Civ 461 (17 May 2016)

Wigley-Foster v Wilson & Anor [2016] EWCA Civ 454 (16 May 2016)

Sky Blue Sports & Leisure Ltd & Anor, R (on the application of) v Arena Coventry Ltd & Anor [2016] EWCA Civ 453 (13 May 2016)

Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

Kahar, R v [2016] EWCA Crim 568 (17 May 2016)

Fruen & Anor, R v [2016] EWCA Crim 561 (17 May 2016)

Bala & Ors, R v [2016] EWCA Crim 560 (10 May 2016)

High Court (Administrative Court)

TH v Chapter of Worcester Cathedral & Anor [2016] EWHC 1117 (Admin) (17 May 2016)

Burrows v General Pharmaceutical Council [2016] EWHC 1050 (Admin) (16 May 2016)

JG & Anor v Kent County Council & Ors [2016] EWHC 1102 (Admin) (13 May 2016)

High Court (Chancery Division)

Blomqvist v Zavarco Plc & Ors [2016] EWHC 1143 (Ch) (17 May 2016)

Tuscola (110) Ltd & Anorv The Y2K Company Ltd [2016] EWHC 1124 (Ch) (17 May 2016)

Hamilton v Hamilton & Anor [2016] EWHC 1132 (Ch) (13 May 2016)

High Court (Commercial Court)

Shagang Shipping Company Ltd v HNA Group Company Ltd [2016] EWHC 1103 (Comm) (16 May 2016)

High Court (Family Division)

Local Authority X v HI & Ors [2016] EWHC 1123 (Fam) (12 May 2016)

PH v AH [2016] EWHC 1131 (Fam) (09 May 2016)

LN (A Child) (Without Notice Application for Summary Return) [2016] EWHC 1033 (Fam) (29 April 2016)

Migliaccio v Migliaccio (Rev 2) [2016] EWHC 1055 (Fam) (26 April 2016)

High Court (Patents Court)

Positec Power Tools (Europe) Ltd & Ors v Husqvarna AB [2016] EWHC 1061 (Pat) (10 May 2016)

Source: www.bailii.org

Comments Off on BAILII: Recent Decisions

The tech start-up planning to shake up the legal world – BBC News

Posted May 17th, 2016 in computer programs, law reports, legal profession, news by sally

‘A career in law and extremely long hours tend to go hand in hand. When you’re starting out it’s often particularly gruelling.’

Full story

BBC News, 17th May 2016

Source: www.bbc.co.uk

Comments Off on The tech start-up planning to shake up the legal world – BBC News

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted May 12th, 2016 in law reports by sally

Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

High Court (Administrative Court)

High Court (Chancery Division)

High Court (Commercial Court)

Source: www.bailii.org

Comments Off on BAILII: Recent Decisions

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted May 6th, 2016 in law reports by tracey

Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

Bondzie, R v [2016] EWCA Crim 552 (05 May 2016)

High Court (Chancery Division)

Shlosberg v Avonwick Holdings Ltd & Ors [2016] EWHC 1001 (Ch) (05 May 2016)

High Court (Technology and Construction Court)

AMEC Foster Wheeler Group Ltd v Morgan Sindall Professional Services Ltd & Anor [2016] EWHC 902 (TCC) (04 May 2016)

Source: www.bailii.org

Comments Off on BAILII: Recent Decisions

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted May 5th, 2016 in law reports by tracey

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

Tesfay & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 415 (04 May 2016)

IFX Investment Company Ltd & Ors v Revenue And Customs [2016] EWCA Civ 436 (04 May 2016)

Khan, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 416 (04 May 2016)

Goldtrail Travel Ltd v Aydin & Ors [2016] EWCA Civ 439 (04 May 2016)

High Court (Administrative Court)

DHL International (UK) Ltd (‘DHL’), R (on the application of) v The Office of Communications (‘oFcom’) [2016] EWHC 938 (Admin) (04 May 2016)

The British Medical Association, R (o the application of) v The General Medical Council & Anor [2016] EWHC 1015 (Admin) (04 May 2016)

McAtee, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Justice [2016] EWHC 1019 (Admin) (04 May 2016)

High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)

AB v ROYAL Devon & Exeter NHS Foundation Trust [2016] EWHC 1024 (QB) (04 May 2016)

Hosseini v Central Manchester University & Anor [2016] EWHC 974 (QB) (04 May 2016)

Source: www.bailii.org

Comments Off on BAILII: Recent Decisions

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted May 3rd, 2016 in law reports by tracey

Supreme Court

O, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] UKSC 19 (27 April 2016)

The Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime v Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co (Europe) Ltd & Ors [2016] UKSC 18 (20 April 2016)

Nouazli, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] UKSC 16 (20 April 2016)

Asset Land Investment Plc & Anor v The Financial Conduct Authority [2016] UKSC 17 (20 April 2016)

Lynn Shellfish Ltd & Ors v Loose & Anor (rev 1) [2016] UKSC 14 (13 April 2016)

N (Children), Re [2016] UKSC 15 (13 April 2016)

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

Oxted Residential Ltd v Tandridge District Council [2016] EWCA Civ 414 (29 April 2016)

Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

AD, R v [2016] EWCA Crim 454 (29 April 2016)

High Court (Administrative Court)

Lensbury Ltd & Anor, R (on the application of) v Richmond-Upon-Thames London Borough Council & Ors [2016] EWHC 980 (Admin) (29 April 2016)

Cunliffe, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice [2016] EWHC 984 (Admin) (29 April 2016)

High Court (Chancery Division)

Chachani Misti y Pichu Pichu SRL v Hostplanet Ltd & Anor [2016] EWHC 983 (Ch) (29 April 2016)

High Court (Patents Court)

Unwired Planet International Ltd v Huawei Technologies Co Ltd & Ors [2016] EWHC 958 (Pat) (29 April 2016)

High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)

Mendes v Hochtief (UK) Construction Ltd [2016] EWHC 976 (QB) (29 April 2016)

High Court (Technology and Construction Court)

Carillion Construction Ltd v Woods Bagot Europe Ltd & Ors [2016] EWHC 905 (TCC) (28 April 2016)

Source: www.bailii.org

Comments Off on BAILII: Recent Decisions

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted April 29th, 2016 in law reports by tracey

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

Greenway & Ors v Johnson Matthey Plc [2016] EWCA Civ 408 (28 April 2016)

Elliston v Glencore Services (UK) Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 407 (28 April 2016)

Edgeworth Capital (Luxembourg) SARL & Anor v Ramblas Investments BV [2016] EWCA Civ 412 (28 April 2016)

Standard Chartered Bank (Hong Kong) Ltd & Anor v Independent Power Tanzania Ltd & Ors [2016] EWCA Civ 411 (28 April 2016)

Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions

Hussain, R v [2016] EWCA Crim 548 (28 April 2016)

Hussain, R v [2016] EWCA Crim 547 (28 April 2016)

Needham & Ors, R v [2016] EWCA Crim 455 (28 April 2016)

Fanning & Ors, R v [2016] EWCA Crim 550 (28 April 2016)

High Court (Administrative Court)

Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty of Animals (RSPCA) v McCormick & Ors [2016] EWHC 928 (Admin) (29 April 2016)

Bashir & Ors, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWHC 954 (Admin) (28 April 2016)

St Modwen Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2016] EWHC 968 (Admin) (28 April 2016)

Shindler & Anor v Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster & Anor [2016] EWHC 957 (Admin) (28 April 2016)

Mulholland v Conduct and Competence Committee of the Nursing and Midwifery Council [2016] EWHC 952 (Admin) (28 April 2016)

O, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Lambeth [2016] EWHC 937 (Admin) (28 April 2016)

Court (Chancery Division)

Various Claimants v News Group Newspapers [2016] EWHC 961 (Ch) (28 April 2016)

Credit Suisse Asset Management LLC v Titan Europe 2006-1 Plc & Ors [2016] EWHC 969 (Ch) (28 April 2016)

High Court (Family Division)

Z v Z & Ors [2016] EWHC 911 (Fam) (22 April 2016)

High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)

Gibbs v Leeds United Football Club Ltd [2016] EWHC 960 (QB) (28 April 2016)

Blacker (The Lord Harley) v The Law Society [2016] EWHC 947 (QB) (27 April 2016)

Vilca & 21 Ors v Xstrata Ltd & Anor [2016] EWHC 946 (QB) (27 April 2016)

Undre & Anor v The London Borough of Harrow [2016] EWHC 931 (QB) (26 April 2016)

Cox v The Secretary of State for Health [2016] EWHC 924 (QB) (26 April 2016)

VN & Anor v London Borough of Brent & Ors [2016] EWHC 936 (QB) (26 April 2016)

Kupeli & Ors V Kibris Turk Hava Yollari Sirketi (t/a Cyprus Turkish Airlines) & Ors [2016] EWHC 930 (QB) (25 April 2016)

Source: www.bailii.org

Comments Off on BAILII: Recent Decisions

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted April 28th, 2016 in law reports by tracey

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

HM Revenue and Customs v Bristol and West Plc [2016] EWCA Civ 397 (27 April 2016)

Richter Gedeon Vegyeszeti Gyar RT v Generics (UK) Ltd (t/a Mylan) [2016] EWCA Civ 410 (26 April 2016)

London Borough of Croydon v Y [2016] EWCA Civ 398 (26 April 2016)

Cruz v Lancashire Police & Anor [2016] EWCA Civ 402 (26 April 2016)

TBO Investments Ltd v Mohun-Smith & Anor [2016] EWCA Civ 403 (26 April 2016)

Lee Valley Regional Park Authority, R (on the application of) v Epping Forest District Council & Anor (Rev 1) [2016] EWCA Civ 404 (22 April 2016)

Quantrell v TWA Logistics Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 399 (22 April 2016)

SB (Jamaica) and ABD (A Minor), R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 400 (22 April 2016)

Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

Mittal v R [2016] EWCA Crim 451 (26 April 2016)

High Court (Administrative Court)

Ben-Dor & Ors, R (on the application of) v University of Southampton [2016] EWHC 953 (Admin) (27 April 2016)

Dillner, R (On the Application Of) v Sheffield City Council [2016] EWHC 945 (Admin) (27 April 2016)

Galdikas & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors (Rev 1) [2016] EWHC 942 (Admin) (26 April 2016)

Cyrus, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWHC 918 (Admin) (26 April 2016)

Cato v The Republic of Peru & Ors [2016] EWHC 914 (Admin) (26 April 2016)

Charman, R (on the application of) v HM Revenue & Customs [2016] EWHC 854 (Admin) (25 April 2016)

National Crime Agency v Davies & Ors (rev 1) [2016] EWHC 899 (Admin) (25 April 2016)

Haralambous v St Albans Crown Court & Anor [2016] EWHC 916 (Admin) (22 April 2016)

High Court (Chancery Division)

Levett-Dunn & Ors v NHS Property Services Ltd [2016] EWHC 943 (Ch) (26 April 2016)

The Creative Foundation v Dreamland Leisure Ltd & Ors [2016] EWHC 859 (Ch) (25 April 2016)

Hockin & Ors v The Royal Bank of Scotland & Anor [2016] EWHC 925 (Ch) (25 April 2016)

Bainbridge & Anor v Bainbridge [2016] EWHC 898 (Ch) (22 April 2016)

Van Der Merwe v Goldman & Anor [2016] EWHC 926 (Ch) (22 April 2016)

Source: www.bailii.org

Comments Off on BAILII: Recent Decisions

Regina (Al-Saadoon and others) v Secretary of State for Defence (No 2) – WLR Daily

Regina (Al-Saadoon and others) v Secretary of State for Defence (No 2) [2016] EWHC 773 (Admin)

‘The claimants brought public law claims in the courts of the United Kingdom arising out of the British military involvement in Iraq between 2003 and 2009. The claims involved allegations of ill-treatment and in some cases unlawful killing, of Iraqi civilians by British soldiers. By their claims for judicial review the claimants sought court orders requiring the Secretary of State to investigate alleged human rights violations. Issues arose relating to the UK’s obligations under articles 2 and 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, including (i) the nature and scope of the state’s substantive obligation under article 2 of the Convention in relation to the use of lethal force while seeking to quell riots and uphold law and order during the occupation of Iraq, (ii) when the investigative duty under article 2 arose in such circumstances and (iii) the effect of delay on the investigative duties under articles 2 and 3 where the allegations of breach of the substantive rights were made many years after the incidents in question.’

WLR Daily, 7th April 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off on Regina (Al-Saadoon and others) v Secretary of State for Defence (No 2) – WLR Daily

Regina (Sino) v Secretary of State for the Home Department – WLR Daily

Regina (Sino) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWHC 803 (Admin)

‘Claiming that he had been unlawfully detained, the claimant sought, through the route of judicial review, immediate release from detention, determination of the defendant’s liability for his false imprisonment and resolution as to whether, if false imprisonment was established, damages should be compensatory or nominal. The defendant had detained the claimant under immigration powers for periods totalling seven years and two months. The judge held that the claimant had been unlawfully detained between 13 July and 10 December 2013 and was entitled to more than nominal damages for false imprisonment, to be assessed on a compensatory basis. The claimant failed in his public law claim in relation to accommodation, deportation and removal. An issue arose as to costs. The defendant contended, inter alia, that as the claimant had succeeded on only one issue out of four he was entitled to only 25% of his costs.’

WLR Daily, 12th April 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off on Regina (Sino) v Secretary of State for the Home Department – WLR Daily

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted April 22nd, 2016 in law reports by tracey

High Court (Administrative Court)

Rushport Advisory Llp, R (on the application of) v National Health Service Litigation Authority & Ors [2016] EWHC EWHC 907 (Admin) (20 April 2016)

High Court (Chancery Division)

Phonographic Performance Ltd v Nightclub (London) Ltd [2016] EWHC 892 (Ch) (21 April 2016)

The Charity Commission for England and Wales v Mountstar (PTC) Ltd [2016] EWHC 876 (Ch) (21 April 2016)

High Court (Commercial Court)

AXA Corporate Solutions Assurance SA v Weir Services Australia Pty Ltd [2016] EWHC 904 (Comm) (21 April 2016)

High Court (Family Division)

I (A Child), Re [2016] EWHC 910 (Fam) (18 April 2016)

High Court (Patents Court)

Koninklijke Philips NV v Asustek Computer Incorporation & Ors [2016] EWHC 867 (Pat) (21 April 2016)

High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)

University of Wales v London College of Business Ltd [2016] EWHC 888 (QB) (21 April 2016)

Source: www.bailii.org

Comments Off on BAILII: Recent Decisions

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted April 21st, 2016 in law reports by sally

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

High Court (Administrative Court)

High Court (Chancery Division)

Source: www.bailii.org

Comments Off on BAILII: Recent Decisions

BAILII: Recent Decision

Posted April 21st, 2016 in law reports by sally

High Court (Commercial Court)

High Court (Family Division)

High Court (Patents Court)

High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)

High Court (Technology and Construction Court) Decisions

Source: www.bailii.org

Comments Off on BAILII: Recent Decision

Sparks and others v Department for Transport – WLR Daily

Posted April 20th, 2016 in contract of employment, employment, law reports, sick leave by sally

Sparks and others v Department for Transport [2016] EWCA Civ 360

‘A provision in the employer’s staff handbook stated that where in any 12 month period the employee had taken a number of short term absences which together exceeded 21 working days, the employee’s line manager would discuss his attendance record with him, and only if those “trigger points” had been exceeded and the line manager had consequently acknowledged that there was a problem with the employee’s attendance would the line manager take the matter forward in accordance with the relevant attendance procedures. The handbook provided that all it provisions which applied to the particular employee and were apt for incorporation should be incorporated into the employee’s contract of employment. The provision in question was in a part of the handbook on ill health, which contained the following introductory words: “This chapter sets out your terms and conditions of employment relating to sick leave … [and] the management of poor attendance….” Seven employees, all of whom were employed by different agencies within the same government department and were subject to somewhat different but materially similar provisions, brought claims contending that those provisions were terms of the contracts of employment between them and their employer. The employer maintained that the provisions were not legally enforceable contractual terms but mere notes of guidance or good practice of no legal force. The provision in respect of cumulative short-term absences in the first employee’s documents was taken to determine the question between the employer and all the employees. The judge held that the provisions were terms of the employees’ contracts of employment, and made declarations to that effect. As a result the judge declared that a new policy of attendance management introduced by the employer in July 2012 had not been effective to vary the contractual terms of the employment contracts and was not contractually binding on the employees.’

WLR Daily, 14th April 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off on Sparks and others v Department for Transport – WLR Daily

Webb (by her litigation friend) v Liverpool Women’s NHS Foundation Trust – WLR Daily

Posted April 20th, 2016 in costs, indemnities, law reports, negligence, personal injuries by sally

Webb (by her litigation friend) v Liverpool Women’s NHS Foundation Trust [2016] EWCA Civ 365

‘The claimant succeeded in her claim against the defendant for medical negligence in the management of her birth, during which she suffered a Brachial Plexus Injury as a result of shoulder dystocia. The claimant had earlier made a CPR Pt 36 offer to settle liability on the basis that she received 65% of the damages that would accrue on a 100% basis, which had been rejected by the defendant. The judge upheld the first allegation under the claim, namely that the defendant had been negligent in not performing a caesarean section during the claimant’s delivery and held that as she had succeeded in establishing that her injury was caused by the defendant’s negligence, she was accordingly entitled to 100% of her claimed damages even though she had been unsuccessful in other specific allegations, including a freestanding second limb of the claim that the delivery itself was negligently managed. On the issue of costs, the claimant contended that because of the defendant’s refusal to accept the Part 36 offer of settlement which had been bettered by the claimant, the consequences of what was then CPR r 36.14(3) (now CPR r 36.17, as amended by The Civil Procedure (Amendment No 8) Rules (SI 2014/3299), reg 7, Sch 1) applied and as a result the court was unable to make an issues-based order, Part 36 comprising as it did an all or nothing self-contained regime; and that she should have all her costs on an indemnity basis from the expiry of the relevant period plus interest thereon at the enhanced “Part 36 rate” plus the enhancements specified in Part 36.14(3)(a) and (d). The defendant submitted that the normal cost consequences of CPR r 36.14(3) should be disapplied because, by reference to CPR r 36.14(4), in the circumstances, it would be unjust to apply them; that CPR Part 36 did not prevent the court from making an issues-based or proportionate costs order to reflect the fact that the claimant failed in respect of the second allegation, which was a discrete and independent allegation and that such an order was appropriate; and that therefore the claimant’s costs referable to the first allegation should be awarded with the CPR Part 36 enhancements but not those in respect of the unsuccessful second allegation. The judge held that (a) the engagement of the CPR Pt 36 cost consequences did not preclude the court from making an issues-based or proportionate costs order and the court had a discretion to make such an order, notwithstanding that the claimant was a successful claimant; and (b) that, in the circumstances of the case, it was just to make an issues-based proportionate costs order, under which the claimant would not recover her costs of the second allegation. He ordered that the claimant should recover her damages to be assessed with the 10% addition required by CPR r 36.14(3)(d), plus her costs, excluding those referable to the second allegation and that those costs, incurred after 22 October 2014, were to be assessed on an indemnity basis pursuant to CPR r 36.14(3)(d). The claimant appealed on the grounds that (a) on the true construction of Part 36, the discretion of the court under CPR r 36.14(3) was restricted to the enhancements to which a successful claimant was normally entitled in respect of damages, costs and interest, that the court did not have power under Part 36 to deprive a party of part of its costs on the basis that it had failed to establish part of its claim and that Part 36 excluded the normal discretion of the court to make an issues-based or proportionate costs order; (b) alternatively, that a successful claimant could only be deprived of her costs if it was shown that it would be unjust for her to recover all her costs; and (c) that the judge had erred in law in deciding that he could and should deprive the claimant of her costs attributable to the second allegation.’

WLR Daily, 14th April 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off on Webb (by her litigation friend) v Liverpool Women’s NHS Foundation Trust – WLR Daily

In re N (Children) (Adoption: Jurisdiction) (AIRE Centre and others intervening) – WLR Daily

Posted April 20th, 2016 in adoption, EC law, jurisdiction, law reports, transfer of proceedings by sally

In re N (Children) (Adoption: Jurisdiction) (AIRE Centre and others intervening) [2016] UKSC 15

‘Two children, who like their parents were Hungarian nationals, were born in England and habitually resident in the United Kingdom, having lived with the same English foster carers for most of their lives, initially with the consent of their parents. The local authority sought a care order under section 31 of the Children Act 1989 and, subsequently, an order for placement of the children with the foster carers with a view to their adoption pursuant to section 21 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. The mother, who had returned to Hungary and had a third child with the father, opposed the orders and applied under article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 for the proceedings to be transferred to Hungary. The Hungarian authorities supported her application, maintaining that only the Hungarian authorities could order the adoption of a Hungarian national minor. They proposed that upon return to Hungary the children would be placed with English speaking foster parents but maintain contact with their parents. The judge directed that both the care and placement order proceedings be transferred in accordance with article 15 on the ground that the Hungarian courts would be better placed to determine the welfare issues. The Court of Appeal decided, inter alia, that the placement order proceedings were outside the scope of article 15 by virtue of article 1(3)(b) of the Regulation and could not, therefore, be transferred to Hungary, but that, since the judge had not erred in ordering the transfer of the care proceedings, the placement order proceedings would be stayed even though they could not be transferred. ‘

WLR Daily, 13th April 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off on In re N (Children) (Adoption: Jurisdiction) (AIRE Centre and others intervening) – WLR Daily

Auzins v Prosecutor General’s Office of the Republic of Latvia – WLR Daily

Posted April 20th, 2016 in abuse of process, estoppel, law reports, res judicata by sally

Auzins v Prosecutor General’s Office of the Republic of Latvia [2016] EWHC 802 (Admin)

‘The appellant was arrested in Latvia in connection with four offences of theft. He admitted guilt in relation to some of the offences and was released subject to certain conditions. In breach of those conditions he left Latvia and subsequently came to live in England. He was arrested in Scotland pursuant to a European arrest warrant (“EAW”) issued by the Latvian judicial authority, and extradition proceedings followed in the Sheriff Court. He resisted extradition on health grounds. A letter from the Latvian authorities accepted that the medical treatment available within the Latvian prison system for the treatment of the appellant’s medical problems would be insufficient and incompatible with European guidelines. The court concluded that, while there were no bars to extradition under the section 11(1) of the Extradition Act 2003, the appellant’s physical condition was such that it would be oppressive to extradite him. Three years later, a replacement, second, EAW was issued, reflecting the fact that one of the offences for which extradition had originally been sought had become time barred. The appellant was arrested pursuant to the second EAW in England. Updated evidence from the Latvian authorities showed that the position as to the availability of treatment for the appellant’s conditions had improved in the intervening period. Following a contested hearing, the district judge ordered the appellant’s extradition. The appellant challenged that decision on grounds, inter alia, that the district judge should have discharged him because: (i) the issue of his surrender was res judicata or subject to an issue estoppel on account of his discharge in the earlier Scottish proceedings for substantially the same matters; alternatively, (ii) in seeking his surrender the Latvian authorities were abusing the process of the court.’

WLR Daily, 14th April 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off on Auzins v Prosecutor General’s Office of the Republic of Latvia – WLR Daily