‘A convicted client has failed in a bid to make his former solicitors stump up the bill for his £450,000 fine imposed in the Crown court. In Day v Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP Her Honour Judge Deborah Taylor, sitting in the High Court, struck out the negligence claim by landowner Philip Day.’
Law Society's Gazette, 7th May 2019
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The High Court has struck out a claim by City firm Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner (BLCP) for abuse of process on the grounds of ‘warehousing’.’
Litigation Futures, 27th March 2019
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘When a company is dissolved, all its property and rights (including leasehold property) are deemed to be bona vacantia and accordingly belong to the Crown. Pursuant to s.1013 of the Companies Act 2006, where property so vests in the Crown, the Crown’s title to it may be disclaimed by a notice signed by the Crown representative. By s.1017 of the Act, the court may make an order vesting disclaimed property in a person with an interest in it.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 11th December 2018
Source: hardwicke.co.uk
‘An employment tribunal has ruled that claims of racial discrimination and harassment brought against national firm Shoosmiths amount to an abuse of process.’
Legal Futures, 11th December 2018
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘This was an appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal in Warner-Lambert Company LLC v Generics (UK) Ltd (t/a Mylan) and Others [2016] EWCA Civ 1006 which I discussed in The Pregabalin Appeal: Generics v Warner-Lambert 17 Oct 2016. In that appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of Mr Justice Arnold in Generics (UK) Ltd (t/a Mylan) v Warner-Lambert Company LLC [2016] RPC 3, [2015] EWHC 2548 (Pat), [2015] CN 1499 which I blogged in The Pregabalin Trial: Generics (UK) Ltd v Warner-Lambert Company LLC 18 Sept 2015 and his refusal to allow the patent to be amended in Generics (UK) Ltd (t/a Mylan) v Warner-Lambert Company LLC [2016] RPC 16, [2015] EWHC 3370 (Pat).’
NIPC Law, 6th December 2018
Source: nipclaw.blogspot.com
‘A claimant was entitled to issue his claim solely in pursuit of costs where the defendant “acted unfairly” by trying to settle pre-action but refusing to pay any costs, the High Court has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 1st November 2018
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘A county court appeal arising out of a set of proceedings starting with a disrepair claim by a private sector tenant, which raises issues of service and when second proceedings are an abuse of process. Our thanks to Hardwicke Chambers for making the judgment available.’
Nearly Legal, 7th October 2018
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘A High Court judge has sought once and for all to close three-year proceedings brought by a litigant in person, saying it is not fair to use court time to indulge the matter any further.’
Law Society's Gazette, 9th August 2018
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘A professional negligence claim was brought within the limitation period despite an “unconnected” abuse of process over the court fee paid, the High Court has held.’
Litigation Futures, 11th July 2018
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The High Court has decided not to strike out a claim where an incorrect fee was paid days before the limitation period ended.’
Law Society's Gazette, 10th July 2018
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘An application by the Crown Prosecution Service to prosecute David Duckenfield, the South Yorkshire police officer who was in command at the FA Cup semi-final at Hillsborough in 1989 when 96 people were killed, has begun at Preston crown court.’
The Guardian, 11th June 2018
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Immigration lawyers are using delaying tactics to keep illegal immigrants in Britain, High Court judges have said. Law firms are “buying time” by filing endless “hopeless” appeals and applications “with a view to generating new Home Office decisions” and keeping the process going for longer, two senior judges said.’
Daily Telegraph, 26th April 2018
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘The decision of the Court of Appeal in the cases of Aktas v Adepta and Dixie v British Polythene Industries Limited [2010] EWCA Civ 1170 sets a demanding test for Defendants seeking to strike out “second” Claim Forms where service of a “first” Claim Form has failed.’
Zenith Chambers, 5th March 2018
Source: www.zenithchambers.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal has rejected a claim that a fine and a £4m-plus proceeds of crime order made over a planning case in Ealing should be overturned because the defendant was impersonated in the magistrates’ court.’
Local Government Lawyer, 7th February 2018
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘A local authority which initially defended a sexual abuse claim on the basis that it would be an abuse of process to make a second attempt at compensation, has agreed to make a five-figure payout to settle the claim, it has been reported.’
Local Government Lawyer, 24th November 2017
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) has held that, in determining whether a person is eligible to apply for a new tenancy on retirement of a tenant under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986, the livelihood condition need only be satisfied in the 7 year period running up to the date when the retirement notice was given, and not in the 7 year period preceding the determination of the application by the Tribunal.’
Tanfield Chambers, 4th July 2017
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal has refused to consider a circuit judge ruling which held that failure by a solicitor to correctly value a personal injury claim and pay the right court fee did not amount to an abuse of process.’
Litigation Futures, 20th June 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘A High Court judge was entitled to penalise a firm of Russian stockbrokers for conduct that “fell below acceptable standards of conducting litigation” by ordering it to pay 75% of the other side’s costs, even though it had successfully resisted a bid to strike out its claim, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 20th April 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Every time we think the courts might have given defendants in adjudication enforcement proceedings slightly more latitude in raising their dissatisfaction with an adjudicator’s decision, the court brings us back down to earth with a bump and reminds us that, in fact, no matter how hard done by our clients feel, they will have to “pay now and argue later”, save in the rarest of cases.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 27th March 2017
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2019