‘The High Court has overturned three high-profile costs rulings in which Irwin Mitchell lost the right to recover success fees and insurance premiums from defendants after failing to advise on the 10% uplift in general damages before switching clients from legal aid.’
Litigation Futures, 4th July 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
Regina v Anwar (Umar) and others [2016] EWCA Crim 551
‘The victim was telephoned and offered a supply of cannabis, as a result of which he drove to the appointed place where he got into a silver car, joining the three occupants, to complete the purchase. The front passenger pointed a shotgun at his face while the driver brandished a knife. As the victim attempted to escape two men exited a white van nearby and attempted to take his car. The man with the shotgun fired two shots but the victim escaped. Six defendants stood trial on charges of attempted murder, conspiracy to commit robbery and possession of a firearm with intent to commit robbery. The Crown argued that this was a well-planned criminal enterprise as shown on the CCTV footage and by the frequent mobile phone calls between the defendants which showed that all the robbers had the necessary knowledge that a firearm was to be carried with the intention that it should be used during the course of the robbery with the required, if conditional, intention to kill. The trial judge ruled that, although there was a case for all defendants to answer in respect of the count of conspiracy to rob, there was no case in relation to attempted murder and possession of a firearm with intent because there was no evidence to establish a prima facie case as to (a) any particular defendant being in the silver car; (b) any particular defendant holding the shotgun either in the silver car or when the shots were fired; or (c) crucially, any particular defendant being aware, by the time of travelling to the scene, that the shotgun was loaded, or that he was intending that it should be used if necessary specifically to kill. The Crown appealed against the judge’s ruling, pursuant to the provisions of section 58 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.’
WLR Daily, 1st July 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘In each case the requested person, a Polish national was convicted of serious offences in Poland and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. In the first case the sentence was suspended but later activated because the requested person failed to adhere to the terms of the suspension. In the second case the requested person, with regard to two relevant sentences, had been (i) on release pending an unsuccessful appeal and (ii) on conditional early release which had been revoked because of breaches of the applicable conditions. In each case the requested person was required to surrender himself to the Polish authorities to serve the outstanding sentence but failed to do so. Various summonses and arrest warrants were issued in Poland which failed to achieve the apprehension of the requested persons and, upon discovering that the requested persons were in England, European arrest warrants were issued and served on the appropriate authorities.’
WLR Daily, 30th June 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘In 2006 the defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of conspiracy to obtain property by deception. He was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment. In confiscation proceedings his criminal benefit was assessed at over £800,000 but, as he had no available assets, a confiscation order was made in the nominal sum of £1. Subsequently, the defendant having bought a house, the prosecution applied under section 22 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 for reconsideration of the available amount. In July 2015 the amount of the confiscation order was varied from £1 to £108,010, the value of the defendant’s equity in the house, with five years’ imprisonment to be served in default of payment. The defendant made a late application for permission to appeal against conviction and sentence. The application was dismissed except that it was adjourned as to two of the proposed grounds of appeal, namely (i) that the default sentence was excessive because, at the time of the offence, the maximum period of imprisonment in default of payment of a confiscation order in relation to a sum between £100,00 and £250,000 was three years and the judge had therefore been wrong to have regard to the increased maximum period provided for in section 10 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 which, by regulation 3(g) of the Serious Crime Act 2015 (Commencement No 1) Regulations 2015 came into force on 1 June 2015; (ii) that the term imposed was manifestly excessive.’
WLR Daily, 30th June 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘In litigation in Romania concerning the care and custody of a 10 year-old child born to Romanian parents who had lived most of his life with his mother in England, the Bucharest Court of Appeal awarded custody of the child to his father. The father obtained an order in the High Court for recognition and registration of that decision under article 21(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility. The mother appealed to a High Court judge pursuant to article 33 of the Regulation. The judge, allowing the appeal, refused recognition of the Romanian court order under article 23(b) on the ground that the order had been made without the child having been given an opportunity to be heard. The father, having unsuccessfully appealed to the Court of Appeal, obtained leave for a further appeal to the Supreme Court. Upon the mother challenging the father’s right to a further appeal, the Supreme Court convened a preliminary hearing to determine whether it had jurisdiction to proceed with the appeal.’
WLR Daily, 29th June 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Alsaifi v Secretary of State for Education [2016] EWHC 1519 (Admin)
‘In August 2013 the appellant was engaged on an hourly paid fixed term contract as a lecturer by a further education establishment. In November 2013 he was suspended from work, pending the outcome of an internal investigation, following a complaint of alleged inappropriate behaviour by the appellant towards a part-time 17-year-old learner in his class. The appellant resigned before the conclusion of the internal disciplinary hearing. In May 2015 allegations of unacceptable professional conduct in relation to the complaint were formally referred to the National College for Teaching and Leadership (“NCTL”) on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education. At that time there was no evidence that the appellant was teaching or engaged to teach anywhere. In February 2016 a professional conduct panel of the NCTL found the appellant guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and recommended that the Secretary of State impose an indefinite prohibition order. The NCTL later became aware that the appellant had worked as a school teacher from January to March 2016, ceasing a few days before he received the prohibition order. ‘
WLR Daily, 29th June 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A convicted Somalian rapist who overturned a deportation order went on to rape two more women in Birmingham, with his lawyer arguing “he had a lack of understanding of what is acceptable in the UK”.’
Daily Telegraph, 3rd July 2016
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal has filled a gap in employment law governing student work placements. It found that legislation left university and college students no remedy if they suffered discrimination during their vocational training placements.’
Local Government Lawyer, 1st July 2016
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The question of when a conditional fee agreement (CFA) can be assigned from one law firm to another is set for the Court of Appeal, Litigation Futures can report.’
Litigation Futures, 30th June 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘A woman who wants to use her dead daughter’s frozen eggs to give birth to her own grandchild has won a Court of Appeal battle.’
Daily Telegraph, 30th June 2016
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘A council has been told it can apply to challenge a High Court decision which ruled in favour of a father who took his daughter on holiday in term time.’
BBC News, 30th June 2016
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Thousands of divorce settlements could be left open to appeal because the Government’s new stamp duty surcharge is leaving estranged partners unable to buy their own home following a split.’
Daily Telegraph, 30th June 2016
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal has ruled that the sentence imposed on a defendant for breaching the terms of an anti-social behaviour injunction, was manifestly excessive.’
Local Government Lawyer, 29th June 2016
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal has granted permission for a judicial review of a Legal Aid Agency decision on capital contributions, urging “meaningful negotiations” between the parties to prevent further costs being incurred for the relatively small sums at stake.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 28th June 2016
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘An artificial-intelligence lawyer chatbot has successfully contested 160,000 parking tickets across London and New York for free, showing that chatbots can actually be useful.’
The Guardian, 28th June 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Chagos islanders, forcibly removed from their homes in 1971, have lost a legal challenge at the supreme court that could have speeded up their return.’
The Guardian, 29th June 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The case of Ruhumuliza (Article 1F and “undesirable”) [2016] UKUT 284 (IAC) concerns an Anglican bishop judged by the Secretary of State on the balance of probabilities to have been involved in crimes against humanity, specifically genocide, in Rwanda in 1994. He was therefore excluded from the protection of the Refugee Convention by the Secretary of State. He disputed the allegations but had not challenged the Home Office decision in court.’
Free Movement, 28th June 2016
Source: www.freemovement.org.uk
‘Proportionality has hit the Competition Appeal Tribunal as it capped a defendant’s recoverable costs at £350,000, compared to its budgeted costs of £637,000.’
Litigation Futures, 24th June 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
© Inner Temple Library 2025