‘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
‘Court of Appeal rules adding DPA inaccuracy claim to libel claim permissible; also finds for Prince on defamatory meaning.’
5RB, 27th January 2017
Source: www.5rb.com
Regina v Norman (Robert) [2016] EWCA Crim 1564
‘The defendant was a prison officer who was paid more than £10,000 by a tabloid journalist in return for information about the prison which formed the subject matter of numerous published articles. He was charged with one count of misconduct in public office. The newspapers voluntarily disclosed evidence of the defendant’s identity and conduct. It was the prosecution case that the stories did not, save in a few cases, have any public interest and that the defendant knew that what he was doing was very wrong given the scale and scope of his activities, conducted behind his employer’s back, in return for substantial payments which were routed via his son’s bank account in order to conceal them. The defendant was convicted. He appealed against conviction the grounds that (i) the judge should have acceded to his submission to stay the proceedings as an abuse of process since the defendant’s identity and the evidence upon which the prosecution depended had been obtained by police misconduct in putting pressure upon the newspapers to give disclosure in order to avoid corporate prosecution; and (ii) the judge should have acceded to his submission of no case to answer, since the defendant’s misconduct did not meet the high threshold of seriousness required for it to be characterised as a criminal abuse of the public’s trust in him as an officer holder.’
WLR Daily, 20th October 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘In May this year the Public Accounts Committee published a report titled the ‘Efficiency in the Criminal Justice System.’ The conclusions are unsurprising for those with any experience of the system; it is at breaking point. In the current climate it seems the courts will do everything in their power to ensure cases proceed often in spite of significant delay. Due to their nature, historical cases can often be besieged with disclosure problems, and while delay can be due to legitimate and understandable reasons it is also true that historical cases can face unjustifiably delay. The question which must be asked is, when a case suffers from both delay and disclosure issues can a defendant have a fair trial at all?.’
Crimeline, 3rd August 2016
Source: www.crimeline.info
‘The High Court has ordered the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal to rehear a prosecution against two solicitors suspected of dishonesty.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 29th July 2016
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
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
‘Last week I went off to the County Court at Newcastle to defend a strike out application made by the Defendant alleging abuse of process. I suspect this won’t be the first time that this factual scenario has arisen where defendants have sought to strike out a claim and where they have been successful, but here the claim was allowed to proceed because it was found that there was no abuse.’
Zenith PI Blog, 21st March 2016
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘It was an “abuse of process” for individuals to deliberately understate the value of their claims against a law firm so that they could avoid paying higher court fees up front and issue their claims within the limitation period, the High Court has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 7th January 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘The High Court has found a Newcastle law firm’s conduct an abuse of process after it repeatedly failed to pay the proper court fees when it issued claims.’
Legal Futures, 8th January 2016
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘In our last post, we dealt with the issue of an application for a High Court writ being made in tenant possession cases by way of form N293A. To recap, this is the form which expressly states “This judgment or order has been sent to the High Court for enforcement by (Writ of Possession against trespassers) only”.’
Nearly Legal, 6th January 2016
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
Lewis and others v Ward Hadaway (a firm) [2015] EWHC 3503 (Ch); [2015] WLR (D) 551
‘In determining whether a party had properly brought a claim before the court so as to stop the clock for limitation purposes, the requirement that the form be accompanied by the “appropriate fee” was not satisfied in circumstances where the act of payment of the fee was in itself an abuse of process. In such circumstances, the claim had not properly been brought and time continued to run for limitation purposes.’
WLR Daily, 21st December 2015
Source: www..iclr.co.uk
Dickinson and another v UK Acorn Finance Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 1194; [2015] WLR (D) 479
‘The fact that a loan the subject of litigation was rendered unenforceable by statute did not mean that a judge was not entitled to determine whether it would be an abuse of process for a party to proceed with its submission that it would be an abuse of process for another party to be permitted to proceed with its claim which was founded on that loan.’
WLR Daily, 25th November 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The High Court has struck out claims against British Airways for damages allegedly arising from the air freight cartel on the basis of lack of authority. The claim was issued on behalf of 64,697 claimants, all members of the Chinese Chamber of International Commerce (CCOIC), an organisation that issues certificates of origin when goods are exported from China.’
Zenith Chambers, 2nd November 2015
Source: www.zenithchambers.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2018