Regina v Norman (Robert) – WLR Daily

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

Abuse Of Process In Historical Cases: A Thing Of The Past? – Crimeline

Posted August 4th, 2016 in abuse of process, disclosure, evidence, news, reports by Mark L

‘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?.’

Full story

Crimeline, 3rd August 2016

Source: www.crimeline.info

Judge orders SDT to try again after botched strike-out – Law Society’s Gazette

‘The High Court has ordered the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal to rehear a prosecution against two solicitors suspected of dishonesty.’

Full story

Law Society’s Gazette, 29th July 2016

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

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

Same Accident, Same Defendant, Two Separate CNFs (One Claiming Vehicle Damage and Credit Hire; the Other PI) Proceed as Separate Claims at all Times, One Settles After Issue, the Other Does Not and is Issued – Abuse of Process or Not? – Zenith PI Blog

Posted March 22nd, 2016 in abuse of process, accidents, costs, news, personal injuries, striking out by sally

‘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.’

Full story

Zenith PI Blog, 21st March 2016

Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com

Deliberately understating claim value to avoid higher court fees is an ‘abuse of process’, court rules – OUT-LAW.com

Posted January 8th, 2016 in abuse of process, fees, law firms, limitations, negligence, news by tracey

‘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.’

Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 7th January 2016

Source: www.out-law.com

High Court finds abuse of process in how law firm sued fellow solicitors – Legal Futures

Posted January 8th, 2016 in abuse of process, fees, law firms, limitations, negligence, news by tracey

‘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.’

Full story

Legal Futures, 8th January 2016

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

A scandal unfolds: High Court enforcement again – Nearly Legal

‘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”.’

Full story

Nearly Legal, 6th January 2016

Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk

Lewis and others v Ward Hadaway (a firm) – WLR Daily

Posted January 6th, 2016 in abuse of process, fees, law firms, law reports, limitations, negligence, solicitors by sally

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 – WLR Daily

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

Air freight damages claim struck out as “irresponsible” and lacking in authority – Zenith Chambers

Posted November 12th, 2015 in abuse of process, airlines, class actions, damages, news, striking out by sally

‘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.’

Full story

Zenith Chambers, 2nd November 2015

Source: www.zenithchambers.co.uk

High Court throws out 65,000 ‘highly irresponsible’ price-fixing claims – Law Society’s Gazette

Posted October 29th, 2015 in abuse of process, airlines, appeals, class actions, news, price fixing, striking out by sally

‘The High Court has thrown out almost 65,000 claims brought on behalf of Chinese businesses after finding the firm acting had no authority to do so.’

Full story

Law Society’s Gazette, 27th October 2015

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Thresholds for strike-out – Law Society’s Gazette

Posted October 19th, 2015 in abuse of process, civil procedure rules, costs, fraud, law firms, news, striking out by sally

‘The Court of Appeal in Alpha Rocks Solicitors v Benjamin Oluwadare Alade [2015] EWCA Civ 685 dealt with the issue of when it was appropriate to strike out a claim on the grounds that the claimant has abused the process of the court.’

Full story

Law Society’s Gazette, 19th October 2015

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

High Court refers immigration solicitors to SRA after five “hopeless” judicial reviews – Legal Futures

Posted September 11th, 2015 in abuse of process, immigration, judicial review, law firms, news by tracey

‘The High Court has referred an immigration practice to the Solicitors Regulatory Authority after reviewing five “hopeless” judicial reviews, each of which had already been deemed to be an abuse of process.’

Full story

Legal Futures, 11th September 2015

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

Government should address core Libya rendition allegations, judge rules – The Guardian

‘The government should address the core allegations of 12 claimants who say they were kidnapped, tortured, subject to control orders or tricked into travelling to Libya where they were detained or mistreated, a high court judge has said.’

Full story

The Guardian, 1st July 2015

Source: www.guardian.co.uk

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

High Court considers purpose behind subject access request under the DPA – Panopticon

‘It is not uncommon for data controllers to be faced with subject access requests under s. 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998 the motivations for which appear to have nothing whatever to do with the purposes of the DPA. The DPA seeks to protect individuals’ privacy rights with respect to data which is processed about them. The subject access provisions help people check up on that data and its processing (see for example YS v Minister voor Immigratie (Cases C-141/12 & C-372/12)). In practice, however, a subject access request is a fishing expedition with an eye on prospective litigation.’

Full story

Panopticon, 10th March 2015

Source: www.panopticonblog.com

Regina v Akhtar (Itzaz) – WLR Daily

Regina v Akhtar (Itzaz) [2015] EWCA Crim 176; [2015] WLR (D) 91

‘Where a jury brought in a guilty verdict on one count but were unable to agree on another count, a retrial on that other count was not an abuse of process unless the two counts were true alternatives in that they were mutually exclusive alternatives.’

WLR Daily, 26th February 2015

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Chai v Peng Undermining the purpose of “forum conveniens?” – Family Law Week

Posted December 15th, 2014 in abuse of process, appeals, divorce, estoppel, jurisdiction, news, stay of proceedings by tracey

‘Tim Scott QC, Peter Duckworth and James Pullen, all of 29 Bedford Row who represented Dr Kay Peng Khoo in Chai v Peng, analyse the proceedings to date.’

Full story

Family Law Week, 11th December 2014

Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk

Second bite of the cherry? Bringing a second action against different employers for development of mesothelioma: abuse of process, cause of action estoppel and discretion under s33 Limitation Act 1980 considered – Zenith PI Blog

‘Would an action against employers who were unidentifiable at the time of an initial claim against 8 other employers in 2003 succeed where it was argued that such proceedings were an abuse of process of the court, that there was cause of action estoppel and where the claim was statute barred and required an application under s 33 Limitation Act 1980?’

Full story

Zenith PI Blog, 21st October 2014

Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com