‘Alex Verdan QC of 4 Paper Buildings reviews recent important judgments in private law children cases.’
Family Law Week, 15th June 2016
‘The European Court of Human Rights has held that the detention of an individual following his breach of a civil contact order, where he had no legal representation, did not violate his rights under Article 5, ECHR (Right to Liberty and Security of Person). However, the decision not to provide compensation to the individual following a failure to provide him with a lawyer during domestic proceedings resulted in a violation of Article 6 (Right to a Fair Trial).’
UK Human Rights Blog, 30th March 2016
‘Whilst there was no specific test for granting permission to make an application for committal for breach of a solicitor’s undertaking, where there was no reasonable prospect of the applicant proving that the relevant solicitor had breached an undertaking, and there was no other good reason to allow the application to proceed, permission should not be granted.’
WLR Daily, 3rd June 2014
“The presumption of actual influence by a parent entity holding a controlling shareholding in its subsidiary arose even where that entity was constituted in the legal form of an economically inactive foundation for the purposes of imputing liability to the parent for a subsidiary’s infringing behaviour under article 101FEU of the FEU Treaty.”
WLR Daily, 11th July 2013
“There was no general rule that the Financial Services Authority acting pursuant to a public duty should be required to give to the court a cross-undertaking in damages in favour of third parties affected by the obtaining of a freezing injunction under section 380(3) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and/or section 37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981.”
WLR Daily, 27th February 2013
“When obtaining an injunction the Financial Services Authority should not normally be required to give an undertaking in damages to third parties, beyond an undertaking to cover the costs incurred in complying with the injunction.”
WLR Daily, 18th october 2011
Court of Appeal
“Where winding-up proceedings were brought against a company because its trading practices were ‘inherently objectionable’ under section 124A of the Insolvency Act 1986, as inserted by section 60(3) of the Companies Act 1989, it was open to the judge to dismiss the proceedings on the basis of assurances from the company that the objectionable features of its business model would be reformed.”
The Times, 18th March 2009
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
Court of Appeal
“An offer of an undertaking by one party lapsed automatically when the court found in favour of the other side and the offer was not resurrected after a successful appeal.”
The Times, 27th February 2009
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 from the date of publication.
“An offer of an undertaking by one party lapsed automatically once the court found in favour of the other side and the offer was not resurrected when the losing side successfully appealed to the Court of Appeal.”
WLR Daily, 11th February 2009
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.