Saunders v Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2018] EWHC 343 (QB) – Zenith Chambers

Posted March 20th, 2018 in burden of proof, expert witnesses, health, negligence, news by sally

‘Burdens of proof, res ipsa loquitur and experts’ joint statements: Saunders v Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2018] EWHC 343 (QB).’

Full Story

Zenith Chambers, 6th March 2018

Source: www.zenithchambers.co.uk

Legal bar for convicting healthcare professionals of manslaughter is ‘too low’, medical organisation warns – Daily Telegraph

Posted March 13th, 2018 in burden of proof, doctors, health, homicide, negligence, news, nurses by sally

‘The legal bar for convicting healthcare professionals of manslaughter is currently “too low”, a medical defence organisation has said.’

Full Story

Daily Telegraph, 13th March 2018

Source: www.telegraph.co.uk

Burdens of proof, res ipsa loquitur and experts’ joint statements: Saunders v Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2018] EWHC 343 (QB) – Zenith PI

‘Two discrete procedural points arise out of Yip J’s decision in Saunders v Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2018] EWHC 343 (QB). They restate principles which are of considerable practical significance for those preparing and litigating civil claims.’

Full Story

Zenith PI, 6th March 2018

Source: zenithpi.wordpress.com

Court of Appeal rules that claimants do bear an initial burden of proof under the Equality Act 2010 – Employment Blog

Posted November 28th, 2017 in appeals, burden of proof, employment, employment tribunals, equality, news by sally

‘The Court of Appeal has ruled that claimants still bear an initial burden of proof under the Equality Act 2010 (“EA 2010”), despite the change in wording in s. 136 as compared with the pre-EA legislation. In coming to this conclusion, the Court ruled that the interpretation placed on that section by the EAT in Efobi v Royal Mail Group Limited (UKEAT/0203/16, 10 August 2017) was wrong, and should not be followed.The Court also considered the distinction between matters of fact and explanation for the purposes of applying s. 136 EA 2010.’

Full Story

Employment Blog, 27th November 2017

Source: employment11kbw.com

Why so many sexual harassment cases in US, not UK? – BBC News

‘There are huge differences between UK and US media law – does this explain why more Americans are being accused of sexual harassment?’

Full Story

BBC News, 22nd November 2017

Source: www.bbc.co.uk

A radical reconsideration of the burden of proof: Efobi v Royal Mail Group Ltd (EAT) – Cloisters

‘In an important decision on the correct interpretation of the burden of proof provisions in the Equality Act 2010, Efobi v Royal Mail, Tom Coghlin and Navid Pourghazi successfully appealed against an employment tribunal’s decision to dismiss a claimant’s race discrimination complaints.’

Full Story

Cloisters, 14th August 2017

Source: www.cloisters.com

S v Director of Public Prosecutions – WLR Daily

S v Director of Public Prosecutions [2017] EWHC 1162 (Admin)

‘The defendant was charged with an offence of tampering with a motor vehicle contrary to section 25 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and tried before justices in the Youth Court. The justices dismissed a submission by the defendant that there was no case to answer and, having heard evidence from the defendant and considered the burden and standard of proof, the justices convicted him. A contemporaneuos note of the justices’ reasons read, inter alia: “We listened to the [defendant’s] evidence which did not persuade us that there was no intention to tamper with the [motor vehicle]. We are therefore sure you are guilty.”’

WLR Daily, 18th May 2017

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

High Court: Time to consider lowering burden of proof in the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal – Legal Futures

‘It is time to consider lowering the burden of proof used by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) from the criminal to the civil standard, Sir Brian Leveson, the president of the Queen’s Bench Division has said.’

Full story

Legal Futures, 11th November 2016

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

Regina v Wilcocks – WLR Daily

Regina v Wilcocks

‘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

Moyo v Nursing and Midwifery Council – WLR Daily

Moyo v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2015] EWHC 3547 (Admin); [2015] WLR (D) 555

‘In fitness to practise hearings there was no formal burden or standard of proof at the sanction stage of the proceedings; rather it was for the panel to use its own professional judgment to decide what sanction would be proportionate in order to protect the public interest, which included: (1) protection of patients and others; (2) maintenance of public confidence in the professions and the regulatory body; and (3) declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct and behaviour.’

WLR Daily, 10th December 2015

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Court of Appeal rules burden for proving sham marriage rests with Home Office – Free Movement

‘The Court of Appeal has reiterated that the burden of proof for proving whether a marriage is a sham for immigration law purposes rests with the Home Office. The case is Agho v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 1198 and it confirms the obiter remarks of former President Blake in the earlier tribunal case of Entry Clearance Officer, Nicosia v Papajorgji [2012] UKUT 00038 (IAC) (FM post: New case law on meaning of genuine and subsisting marriage).’

Full story

Free Movement, 9th December 2015

Source: www.freemovement.org.uk

MOJ Portal Stage 3 and Part 36: What are protocol offers? – Park Square Barristers

‘A regular issue that is being raised at MOJ Stage 3 hearings, particularly since the introduction of the 13th edition of the JC Guidelines: can parties make new offers in their Part B forms and benefit from the cost consequences of Part 36.29 for beating/matching them? This article aims to set out the relevant rules and paragraphs to determine this issue.’

Full story

Park Square Barristers, 6th November 2015

Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk

Refusing a subject access request: proportionality, anxious scrutiny and judicial discretion – Panopticon

Posted August 26th, 2015 in burden of proof, data protection, disclosure, news, police, proportionality by sally

‘Zaw Lin and Wai Phyo v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2015] EWHC 2484 (QB), a judgment of Green J handed down today, is an interesting – if somewhat fact-specific – contribution to the burgeoning body of case law on how subject access requests (SARs) made under the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) should be approached, both by data controllers and by courts.’

Full story

Panopticon, 25th August 2015

Source: www.panopticonblog.com

Revenge porn: ‘We need a second law to stop porn sites escaping justice’ – Daily Telegraph

Posted August 4th, 2015 in burden of proof, civil justice, crime, harassment, internet, news, pornography, victims by sally

‘The Government needs to introduce a second civil law to tackle revenge porn – because the current criminal law does not go far enough to help victims – according to a specialist in the field.’

Full story

Daily Telegraph, 4th August 2015

Source: www.telegraph.co.uk

Service charges, the burden of proof and reasonableness of decisions – Park Square Barristers

‘Last week wrote an introductory article on a service charge case, The Gateway (Leeds) Management Ltd v Naghash and Shamsizadeh (citation above), a decision of Martin Rodger QC, Deputy President in the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), in which I acted for the Defendants/Respondents. The facts are set out in that piece, and I do not propose to rehearse them here.’

Full story

Park Square Barristers, 15th July 2015

Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk

Summary Disposal of Unfair Relationships Claims: Axton & Axton v GE Money Mortgages Limited and another [2015] EWHC 1343 – Henderson Chambers

Posted July 27th, 2015 in burden of proof, consumer credit, insurance, news by sally

‘The High Court (Swift J, 22 May 2015) has upheld an order dismissing a claim under section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA) on the summary basis, in the absence of conduct on the part of a lender causative of unfairness in a debtor/creditor relationship.’

Full story

Henderson Chambers, 3rd June 2015

Source: www.hendersonchambers.co.uk

Government accepts case to exempt lawyers from ‘groundless threats’ laws – Legal Futures

‘Lawyers who act on instructions in threatening potential intellectual property infringers with action are to be exempt from being sued when the threat turns out to be groundless, after the government recently gave the go-ahead for law reforms.’

Full story

Legal Futures, 13th April 2015

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

Disability discrimination goes to full trial – Nearly Legal

‘When the Court of Appeal held that a disability discrimination defence to possession under Equality Act 2010 had to face the same ‘seriously arguable’ summary test as an Article 8 defence, we were surprised, and very unimpressed. It seems the Supreme Court felt similarly (and unanimously), although sadly it did not help the tenant in this case.’

Full story

Nearly Legal, 29th March 2015

Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk

Law firms need to rethink approach under ‘fundamentally dishonest’ rule, barristers warn – Litigation Futures

Posted February 23rd, 2015 in barristers, burden of proof, law firms, news, personal injuries, solicitors by sally

‘Claimant solicitors have been warned that they need to review their retainers and advise clients about the implications of the new ‘fundamentally dishonest’ rule being introduced shortly.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 23rd February 2015

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Presumed guilty? Ministry of Justice is forced to withdraw advice leaflet – The Guardian

‘Red-faced Ministry of Justice (MoJ) officials have been forced to deny claims that they had dismantled a centuries-old cornerstone of British law in advice that the ministry gave to people facing criminal trials.’

Full story

The Guardian, 1st February 2015

Source: www.guardian.co.uk