‘The profession should soon have an answer to the question of when a conditional fee agreement (CFA) can be assigned from one law firm to another as the Court of Appeal is hearing a test case today.’
Litigation Futures, 5th July 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The principles which apply to the construction and interpretation of “ordinary” contracts, are most famously set out in Investors Compensation Scheme and more recently explored in some other cases. Although Wood v Capita appears to indicate a continued trend in the authorities towards a stricter textual analysis, it remains the case that the context in which a contract was agreed, the “factual matrix”, is an important part of the Court’s armoury in establishing meaning.’
Falcon Chambers, June 2017
Source: www.falcon-chambers.com
‘In May this year I blogged about the case of Thakkar v Patel [2017] EWCA Civ 117 as an example of a case in which the Court of Appeal was encouraging parties to mediate their dispute or face serious cost consequences [Mediation? “Get on with it” says the Court of Appeal]. In that case the Court found that mediation was “obviously appropriate” and did not occur because of lack of co-operation by the defendant. I commented then that “no two cases are the same”. Now along comes the case of Gore v Naheed [2017] EWCA Civ 369.’
Garden Court Chambers, 26th June 2017
Source: gardencourtmediation.co.uk
‘Holly Clegg considers the recent case of Lee Crawley v Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council. Councils must have an adequate system in place for repairing defects in the highway over the weekend.’
Park Square Barristers, 14th June 2017
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
‘The long-awaited overhaul of the Insolvency Rules 1986 (IR 1986) is now complete, and the Insolvency Rules 2016 (IR 2016) came into force on 6 April 2017. The journey to this point has not been without its difficulties and it would be fair to say that many had anticipated them being in force some time earlier. Perhaps unusually for provisions so overtly procedural in their nature, IR 2016 have also proved to be somewhat controversial.
Hardwicke Chambers, 14th June 2017
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘In a decision handed down yesterday, the Court of Appeal in Harrison v University Hospitals Coventry & Warwickshire NHS Trust [2017] EWCA Civ 791 determined important issues in costs budgeting. They are of relevance to all practitioners.’
Hailsham Chambers, 22nd June 2017
‘The substantive claim was a straight forward, low value personal injury claim arising out of a road traffic accident. Liability was admitted. Trial directions were given, requiring witness statements to be served by 3rd November 2016. At the eleventh hour, the Claimant’s solicitors sought an extension of two weeks from the Defendant, which was agreed (an “indulgence” in the view of the judge on appeal).’
Park Square Barristers, 27th June 2017
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
‘Earlier this year in the US, a legal case revolved around the use of an Oxford comma. Not to be outdone, last month the Court of Appeal in England & Wales had to determine the meaning of the word ‘or’; in doing so, they embarked upon a semantic analysis of one of the most common words in the English language, flavoured by the Supreme Court’s most recent case on construction of contracts.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 15th June 2017
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘In Reece Gladwin v Adrian Bogescu [2017] EWHC 1287 (QB) the Court was concerned with an appeal by the Defendant in a road traffic accident claim against a decision to grant the Claimant relief from sanctions, following late service of the Claimant’s witness evidence.’
Park Square Barristers, 23rd June 2017
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court has allowed appeals in R (Kiarie) and R (Byndloss) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] UKSC 42 by persons whom the Home Secretary wished to deport even before they had had a chance to appeal to a tribunal on human rights grounds against the deportation decision. It has concluded that the very system of appealing from abroad in such cases simply does not provide an effective right of appeal.’
No. 5 Chambers, 14th June 2017
Source: www.no5.com
‘Case law junkies will no doubt recall that this was Barwood’s appeal against the decision of Green J in the High Court, who ruled that there is no presumption in favour of sustainable development (“PIFSD”) in cases were NPPF paragraph 14 is not engaged. The dispute over whether the NPPF (when looked at as a whole) contains a general presumption in favour of sustainable development, or whether such a presumption arises if and only if the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date (NPPF14), has been rumbling on ever since the decision of Coulson J in Wychavon DC v SSCLG [2016] EWHC 592 (Admin).’
No. 5 Chambers, 4th July 2017
Source: www.no5.com
‘On 29 June 2017 the Court of Appeal gave judgment on an interesting question of statutory construction concerning the valuation provisions in section 9 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (“LRA67”) and the Interpretation Act 1978 (“the Interpretation Act”).’
Tanfield Chambers, 29th June 2017
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal has held in Cameron v Hussain and Liverpool Victoria [2017] EWCA Civ 366 that a Claimant can obtain a judgment against a Defendant identified only by description of him as the driver of a vehicle on a particular date. Whilst in almost every other area of law such judgment would be worthless as unenforceable, the Road Traffic Act 1988 provisions impose a contingent liability against the insurer of the vehicle to satisfy such a judgment. At first blush this seems to dismantle the careful limitations placed on the European Communities (Rights Against Insurers) Regulations 2002 to effectively enable a Claimant to pursue the insurer of a vehicle despite the fact that the driver of the same is unknown. This article, drafted by Park Square Barristers’ insurance indemnity specialists, Richard Paige and Judy Dawson, looks at the Court of Appeal judgment and the implications for the insurance industry.’
Park Square Barristers, 19th June 2017
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
‘Langstaff J upheld on appeal a first instance decision dismissing a claimant’s claim for injury when he fell from a horse.’
Park Square Barristers, 23rd June 2017
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.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
‘A law firm referred to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) by the Court of Appeal earlier this year has been shut down by the regulator.’
Legal Futures, 4th July 2017
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal has granted permission to the father to appeal against the decision of the High Court earlier this year. Briefly, Peter Jackson J denied a father, who now lives as a transgender person, direct contact with his five children who live with their mother in the heart of a Charedi community of ultra-orthodox Jews.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 27th June 2017
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The introduction of an English language test for private hire drivers has been delayed after Uber won the right to appeal against the plans.’
BBC News, 28th June 2017
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘A law firm LLP which acted for itself in legal proceedings is not a litigant in person for the purposes of the CPR, the Court of Appeal has held.’
Litigation Futures, 26th June 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
Regina (Williams) v Powys County Council [2017] EWCA Civ 427
‘The defendant local planning authority granted planning permission for the erection of a wind turbine on the farm of the interested party. The wind turbine was erected on the side of a hill the other side of which, about 1·5 km from the wind turbine, was a Grade II* listed building. Several scheduled monuments were also in the surrounding area, two of which were within two km of the site. The claimant, a local resident, applied for judicial review of the council’s decision to grant planning permission. The judge dismissed the claim, determining that (i) the planning authority was not required to consult the Welsh ministers under article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Wales) Order 2012 as the requirement to consult on development “likely to affect the site of a scheduled monument” in paragraph k of Schedule 4 to the Order applied only to development likely to have some direct physical effect on the monument, not also to development likely to have visual effects on the setting of the monument, and (ii) the planning authority had not erred in failing to perform the duty in section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, which required it to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the setting of a listed building when deciding whether to grant planning permission for development which affected a listed building or its setting.’
WLR Daily, 9th June 2017
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025