John Mander Pension Scheme Trustees Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs – Supreme Court

John Mander Pension Scheme Trustees Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs [2015] UKSC 56

Supreme Court, 29th July 2015

Source: www.youtube.com/user/UKSupremeCourt

Comments Off on John Mander Pension Scheme Trustees Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs – Supreme Court

Arcadia Group Brands Ltd and others v Visa Inc and others – WLR Daily

Posted August 12th, 2015 in appeals, competition, law reports, limitations by sally

Arcadia Group Brands Ltd and others v Visa Inc and others [2015] EWCA Civ 883; [2015] WLR (D) 359

‘Competition cases were not to be treated differently to other claims for the purposes of the application of the “statement of claim” test in the context of section 32(1)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, which provided for the postponement of the limitation period in the case of concealment of any fact relevant to the plaintiff’s right of action.’

WLR Daily, 5th August 2015

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off on Arcadia Group Brands Ltd and others v Visa Inc and others – WLR Daily

Chinnock v Veale Wasbrough – are we any closer to clarity on s14A? – Hardwicke Chambers

Posted July 28th, 2015 in appeals, law firms, limitations, negligence, news, solicitors, time limits by sally

‘On the silver anniversary of the Limitation Act 1980 (“the Act”) and as we approach the emerald anniversary of the coming into force of section 14A of that Act, the recent case of Chinnock v Veale Wasbrough [2015] EWCA Civ 2014 shows that the interpretation of this complicated section remains far from straightforward.’
Full story

Hardwicke Chambers, 15th June 2015

Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk

Comments Off on Chinnock v Veale Wasbrough – are we any closer to clarity on s14A? – Hardwicke Chambers

Supreme Court on EU and ECHR proportionality – back to basics – UK Human Rights Blog

‘The Supreme Court has reminded us, in a tour de force by Lord Reed, that there is no such thing as one-stop proportionality. It varies between ECHR and EU law, and the tests of EU proportionality then vary according to the nature of the EU issue in play.’

Full story

UK Human Rights Blog, 27th June 2015

Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com

Comments Off on Supreme Court on EU and ECHR proportionality – back to basics – UK Human Rights Blog

Aspect Contracts (Asbestos) Ltd v Higgins Construction plc – WLR Daily

Aspect Contracts (Asbestos) Ltd v Higgins Construction plc: [2015] UKSC 38; [2015] WLR (D) 261

‘An unsuccessful party in a construction contract adjudication was entitled to be repaid any money paid pursuant to the adjudication if the underlying dispute was finally determined in his favour, and the cause of action for the recovery of such money accrued on the date on which the money was paid. However, the cause of action of a party who wished to bring proceedings for more than the amount which he had been awarded under an adjudication accrued on the date of the relevant breach of contract or duty.’

WLR Daily, 17th June 2015

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off on Aspect Contracts (Asbestos) Ltd v Higgins Construction plc – WLR Daily

IMI plc and another v Delta Ltd (formerly Delta plc) and another – WLR Daily

Posted June 22nd, 2015 in civil justice, contribution, damages, law reports, limitations, time limits by tracey

IMI plc and another v Delta Ltd (formerly Delta plc) and another: [2015] EWHC 1676 (Ch); [2015] WLR (D) 262

‘On the true construction of the final proviso in section 1(4) of the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 Part 20 the defendants in contribution proceedings were precluded from relying on a limitation defence pleaded against the claimants in the main proceedings.’

WLR Daily, 17th June 2015

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off on IMI plc and another v Delta Ltd (formerly Delta plc) and another – WLR Daily

Supreme Court: losing party to adjudication has six years to challenge that decision in the courts – OUT-LAW.com

Posted June 19th, 2015 in contracts, dispute resolution, limitations, news by tracey

‘A party seeking repayment of sums paid following an adjudication award against it has six years from the date of payment to do so, the UK’s highest court has confirmed.’

Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 17th June 2015

Source: www.out-law.com

Comments Off on Supreme Court: losing party to adjudication has six years to challenge that decision in the courts – OUT-LAW.com

Jackson: Lawyers must say “bluntly” if claim has no prospect of success – Litigation Futures

Posted May 11th, 2015 in law firms, limitations, negligence, news, personal injuries by sally

‘Lord Justice Jackson has dismissed a negligence claim against Veale Wasbrough, now national firm Veale Wasbrough Vizards, and the barrister it instructed to advise on a personal injury case.’
Full story

Litigation Futures, 11th May 2015

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Comments Off on Jackson: Lawyers must say “bluntly” if claim has no prospect of success – Litigation Futures

Game over – New Law Journal

Posted April 30th, 2015 in contracts, exclusion clauses, limitations, news by sally

‘Termination & its consequences. Chris Nillesen reports.’
Full story

New Law Journal, 24th April 2015

Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk

Comments Off on Game over – New Law Journal

PART 36 of the CPR – Offers are changing – Park Square Barristers

‘Part 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules encourages parties to settle their disputes. It does this by imposing sanctions if one party turns down an offer to settle but then doesn’t get a better result at trial. The rules are complex, so Andrew Mitchell takes a closer look at the latest changes to Part 36.’

Full story

Park Square Barristers, 1st April 2015

Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk

Comments Off on PART 36 of the CPR – Offers are changing – Park Square Barristers

After settlement of a claim for asbestos-related disease against two employers, is it an abuse of process to bring a claim for mesothelioma against a third employer two and a half years later? – Zenith PI Blog

Posted March 31st, 2015 in abuse of process, asbestos, industrial injuries, limitations, news by sally

‘The High Court decision in Lloyd v Humphreys and Glasgow Ltd [2015] EWHC 525 (QB) handed down on 20.3.2015 considers if there was abuse of process in those circumstances. It is also a useful example of the Court’s willingness to exercise its discretion under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980.’

Full story

Zenith PI Blog, 30th March 2015

Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com

Comments Off on After settlement of a claim for asbestos-related disease against two employers, is it an abuse of process to bring a claim for mesothelioma against a third employer two and a half years later? – Zenith PI Blog

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

Surrogacy Law Update (February 2015) – Family Law Week

Posted February 27th, 2015 in consent, limitations, news, surrogacy by tracey

‘Andrew Powell, barrister of 4 Paper Buildings, reviews recent important judgments concerning surrogacy including the President’s landmark decision in Re X.’

Full story

Family Law Week, 26th February 2015

Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk

Comments Off on Surrogacy Law Update (February 2015) – Family Law Week

Jimmy Savile and the complex question of victim compensation – The Guardian

‘It is now known that 60 people from Stoke Mandeville hospital were abused by Jimmy Savile. But will they and his other victims receive compensation? And where will the money come from?’

Full story

Daily Telegraph, 26th February 2015

Source: www.telegraph.co.uk

Comments Off on Jimmy Savile and the complex question of victim compensation – The Guardian

Personal injury: duty of care – Law Society’s Gazette

‘In December the High Court gave judgment in NA v Nottinghamshire County Council [2014] EWHC 4005 (QB). The claimant (who was born in 1977) said that while in her mother’s care she had suffered physical and emotional abuse, and that the defendant local authority had failed in their common law duty of care by failing either to remove her or protect her from the abuse.’

Full story

Law Society’s Gazette, 23rd February 2015

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Comments Off on Personal injury: duty of care – Law Society’s Gazette

High Court: barrister has arguable discrimination claim against BSB – Legal Futures

‘A black barrister had an arguable case that she was indirectly discriminated against by the Bar Standards Board (BSB) through its disciplinary procedures, the High Court ruled yesterday.’

Full story

Legal Futures, 19th December 2014

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

Comments Off on High Court: barrister has arguable discrimination claim against BSB – Legal Futures

Costs, Confusion and Compromise – Keynote Address of Mr Justice Foskett

Posted December 4th, 2014 in arbitration, costs, fees, judges, limitations, news, speeches by sally

Costs, Confusion and Compromise (PDF)

Keynote Address of Mr Justice Foskett

Professional Negligence Lawyers’ Association Annual Conference, 4th December 2014

Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk

Comments Off on Costs, Confusion and Compromise – Keynote Address of Mr Justice Foskett

Relief From Sanctions – Part 2 – Applying in Time – Zenith PI Blog

Posted November 25th, 2014 in civil procedure rules, limitations, news, sanctions, time limits by sally

‘Mitchell [2014] 1 WLR 795 and Denton [2014] 1 WLR 3926 dealt with the situation of an application out of time, that is to say when the time had expired for performance of a step dictated by a rule or by practice direction or a court order had expired. But the further question arises, To what extent do the principles laid down there apply in the situation where one applies in time, that is to say before the expiry date? That is of great importance, because, if one is handling a case properly, it should become obvious, at least some days if not weeks in advance, that a particular time limit is not going to be able to be achieved. This may be for a variety of reasons, sometimes because of illness or – tell it not in Gath! – the delays of counsel. This matter was considered in depth fairly recently in Re Guidezone Ltd, Kaneria-v-Kaneria [2014] 1 WLR 3728, by Nugee J. In a full and careful judgment, the judge considered what was the position when an in-time application was made under CPR r.3.1(2)(a) for extension of time. He held that such an application was not an application for relief from sanctions, nor was it closely analogous to one. Therefore, Mitchell did not apply to it.’

Full story

Zenith PI Blog, 25th November 2014

Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com

Comments Off on Relief From Sanctions – Part 2 – Applying in Time – Zenith PI Blog

Frontier Estates -v- Berwin Leighton Paisner: in time application for extension of time refused – Zenith PI Blog

Posted November 21st, 2014 in civil procedure rules, limitations, news, time limits by tracey

‘Parties are advised to make applications in advance of the expiry of time limits in order to avoid a breach and have the courts look more favourably on their applications. It must be remembered however that an application made in time is not necessarily bound to succeed.’

Full story

Zenith PI Blog, 21st November 2014

Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com

Comments Off on Frontier Estates -v- Berwin Leighton Paisner: in time application for extension of time refused – Zenith PI Blog

Bewry v Reed Elsevier UK Ltd (trading as LexisNexis) and another – WLR Daily

Posted November 18th, 2014 in appeals, defamation, law reports, limitations, time limits by sally

Bewry v Reed Elsevier UK Ltd (trading as LexisNexis) and another [2014] EWCA Civ 1411; [2014] WLR (D) 474

‘Where a court was determining whether to exercise its discretion under section 32A of the Limitation Act 1980 to disapply the one-year limitation period applying by virtue of section 4A of the 1980 Act to a claim for libel, the claimant’s ignorance of the limitation period would rarely if ever be a factor which carried any or any significant weight given the policy reasons underlying the one-year limitation period for libel claims.’

WLR Daily, 30th October 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off on Bewry v Reed Elsevier UK Ltd (trading as LexisNexis) and another – WLR Daily