‘Solicitors who served witness statements two months late cannot call any witnesses at trial after the Court of Appeal upheld the first instance judge’s decision to refuse relief from sanctions.’
Litigation futures, 14th November 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Home Secretary Amber Rudd has authorised an order extraditing Lauri Love to the US, where he is accused of hacking into government computers.’
The Independent, 14th November 2016
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘The NHS will be forced to formally consider whether to fund pills to prevent HIV despite claiming that doing so could mean cancer victims and children with cystic fibrosis are refused treatment.’
Daily Telegraph, 10th November 2016
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘… they do, however, faithfully and diligently discharge their office and can be, of course, in an employment relationship.’
Cloisters, 31st October 2016
Source: www.cloisters.com
‘Last week, the Court of Appeal handed down judgment in the case of Cardiff County Council v Lee (Flowers) [2016] EWCA Civ 1034, confirming that all landlords, whether social or private, are required to seek the permission of the County Court under CPR r83.2 in order to obtain a warrant of possession for breach of a suspended possession order.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 26th November 2016
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court has handed down its judgment in the culmination of years of cases on the discriminatory impact of the ‘removal of the spare room subsidy’ – the bedroom tax. The outcome was mixed, even including a split judgment on one case, but in at least one respect, the bedroom tax regulations were held to unlawfully and unjustifiably discriminate against households with disabled members.’
Nearly Legal, 9th November 2016
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘Two families who claimed that the bedroom tax, which restricts housing subsidies, was unfair have won their appeals against the UK government at the supreme court.’
The Guardian, 9th November 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The case throws up an interesting issue as to both the application and scope of the ‘but for’ test in professional negligence claims by lenders against valuers where there has been re-financing of the original lending transaction. The fact that the Court of Appeal was split in its decision, and the fact that an application for permission to appeal is currently outstanding to the Supreme Court, demonstrate the complexities of the legal position.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 4th November 2016
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) has held that an indemnity given in a lease can be viewed as a promise by the tenant to protect the landlord from the landlord’s liability to a third party. For the tenant to be liable, the tenant’s breach must be the reason for the landlord’s liability to the third party. In this case, the indemnity was not drafted widely enough to render the tenant responsible for the administrative and legal costs incurred by the landlord once the ground rent had been tendered (even though it was tendered late).’
Tanfield Chambers, 10th October 2016
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 introduced a substantial amendment to s.47B Employment Rights Act 1996. The newly inserted subsections (1A) – (1E) allowed a worker to bring an action for whistleblowing detriment against a co-worker or agent of the employer directly.’
Littleton Chambers, 7th November 2016
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘In Nemcova v Fairfield Rents Ltd [2016] UKUT 303 (LC), in what has become known as ‘the Airbnb ruling’, the Upper Tribunal gave guidance on the circumstances in which short-term lets might amount to a breach of covenant prohibiting the use of a property for anything other than ‘a private residence’. In this article, Jamal Demachkie (who acted for the successful landlord at first instance and on appeal) provides his analysis of this important decision.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 12th October 2016
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘A failure to comply with the Service Charge (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003 (“the Regulations”) could be relevant to the reasonableness of the amount of service charge to be paid under section 19(2) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. However, it is simply one factor to be considered. In the instant case, the non-compliance comprised including within the estimate the estimated cost of works not within the proposed works; the amount demanded would be reduced by excluding that ‘extra’ work.’
Tanfield Chambers, 10th October 2016
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘Anthony Korn highlights some lessons from the much publicised and controversial tribunal ruling in Aslam and Farrar v Uber BV, Uber London Ltd and Uber Britannia Ltd (case Nos 2202551/2015).’
No. 5 Chambers, 31st October 2016
Source: www.no5.com
‘Solicitors costs of and incidental to the preparation of a counter notice were recoverable under s. 60 LRHUDA 1993. There ought to be some reduction in costs where a landlord was dealing with multiple claims involving the same building.’
Tanfield Chambers, 1st November 2016
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘Holly Clegg considers: If a Judge finds the Claimant’s evidence to be incredible, should the Defendant necessarily seek a finding of fundamental dishonesty? Not unless such a finding is clearly sustainable on the evidence, according to the case of Meadows v La Tasca Restaurants Limited.’
Park Square Barristers, 7th November 2016
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
‘In a decision which post-dated Sloane Stanley v Mundy, the Upper Tribunal, arrived at relativity by making a deduction from the Gerald Eve graph on the basis that the graph “might overstate relativities” and accepted, on the material before it, that there was a “slight differential between properties in PCL and properties just outside it”.’
Tanfield Chambers, 1st November 2016
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘With Ilott due to be heard in the Supreme Court on 12th December 2016[1], Nicola Phillipson considers the impact the case has had upon claims under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (“the Act”) and wonders whether the importance of the various decisions has in fact been overblown?’
Zenith Chambers, 31st October 2016
Source: www.zenithchambers.co.uk
‘The defendant was charged with murder. He admitted that he had strangled his partner, but denied murder on the ground that he had suffered a loss of control and that he had a personality disorder such as to give rise to a defence of diminished responsibility. He was convicted of murder. He applied for permission to appeal against conviction on the grounds that the trial judge had: (i) been wrong to decide that the burden of proof in relation to diminished responsibilty lay on the defendant under section 2 of the Homicide Act 1957, as amended, notwithstanding article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; (ii) misdirected the jury in relation to the words “general capacity for tolerance or self-restraint” in section 54(3) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009; and (3) failed to give the jury guidance on the meaning of the word “substantially” in section 2(1)(b) of the 1957 Act.’
WLR Daily, 3rd November 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v Sardar (Anis Abid) [2016] EWCA Crim 1616
‘The defendant was charged with murder, conspiracy to murder and, as an alternative count, conspiracy to cause an explosion. It was the Crown’s case that the defendant had been directly involved in the construction and/or deployment of improvised explosive devices (IEDs), one of which had caused the death of an American soldier near Baghdad in September 2007. The defendant’s case was that he had been acting in lawful and proportionate defence of Sunni communities who were under threat from Shia militia; his fingerprints had been found on two of the bombs, although not the one which had resulted in the fatal explosion. The defendant was convicted of murder and conspiracy to murder; no verdict was sought on the alternative count of conspiracy to cause an explosion. He appealed against conviction on the ground, inter alia, of fresh evidence from two anonymous witnesses (C and D) who were now available to give evidence as to the frequency and quality of attacks by the Shia militia on the Sunni communities and the need for the Sunnis to act in self-defence. C and D were prepared to disclose their identities to the court and, within a strict “confidentiality ring”, to counsel for the Crown, the Crown Prosecution Service lawyer and two senior investigating officers with undertakings that there should be no further disclosure to anyone. However, the Crown was not prepared to give such undertakings. The defendant applied for an order under section 87(3) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (which required the defendant to inform the court and the prosecutor of the identity of the witness) for anonymity measures to be put in place. It was submitted that although the “prosecutor” had to be informed, that did not necessarily envisage disclosure beyond the person of the prosecutor.’
WLR Daily, 18th October 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The parents of four children, two girls now aged 16 and 14 and two boys aged 12 and 6 years old, were married in Afghanistan in 1999 and came to the United Kingdom in 2000. They were all now British citizens. From 2011 the family experienced growing disagreement between the parents, and in 2012 the father married a second woman in secret which his wife did not know about until 2014. Following a number of incidents that year in which the police had sometimes been involved the father changed the locks to the marital home, the upshot being that the mother went to alternative accommodation with the three eldest children and the youngest boy stayed with the father and his second wife. By September 2014 the relationship between the parents had broken down. Proceedings in the case had been conducted before a High Court judge over some 14 hearings. At the first main fact-finding hearing in early 2015 in respect of child placement arrangements the judge made adverse findings against the mother including that she had caused the three older children emotional harm by her negative comments and outbursts against the father, that none of the mother’s allegations against the father justified ceasing contact between them and their father, and that the judge’s concern was to restore their relationship despite the mother’s resistance to contact between them and the father. The appointment of an expert psychiatrist from a well-known child health clinic was agreed between the parties to make an assessment of the family and also to offer therapy. The expert was able to achieve meetings between the three older children and the father, but unsupervised contact between the youngest child and the mother was not achieved until early 2016. At the latter contact session with the mother the child’s fringe was found to have been cut in a rough and ready manner. Each party blamed the other for the incident. It also emerged that the father had concealed a device on the child which recorded the conversation between the mother and the child. That showed that the mother had asked whether there was a new baby in the father’s house. At the welfare hearing in March 2016 the judge had four full reports from the expert who was also present and had made some recommendations, there was no CAFCASS officer’s report, the judge made further adverse findings against the mother including that she had cut the child’s hair, that she had assaulted the father and was unlikely to change her attitude towards him or that she would promote a positive relationship between the father and the three older children, that none of her allegations against the father had been proved, that at an earlier stage he had found that the three children had had an enjoyable holiday with the father in Barcelona but that they now refused to live with him because of the emotional harm caused by the mother’s attitude, and he concluded that the father was committed to the children, that the second wife was a force for good, that he was minded to order that all the children should live with the father but in the event only the older boy was ordered to reside with the father and the boy’s younger brother, noting that such an arrangement was contrary to the ordinary course for siblings to be in the same household. The mother appealed, contending that the welfare analysis was insufficient, that the older children’s wishes and feelings had not been properly considered and that a guardian should be appointed for their separate representation’
WLR Daily, 20th October 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025