‘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.’
Henderson Chambers, 3rd June 2015
Source: www.hendersonchambers.co.uk
‘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.’
Legal Futures, 13th April 2015
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘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.’
Nearly Legal, 29th March 2015
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘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.’
The Guardian, 1st February 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Dr John Fox, barrister of Lamb Building, reviews some recent cases which may suggest a re-consideration of the burden of proof in cases of alleged non-accidental injury.’
Family Law Week, 27th November 2014
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘Two more men have been banned from contact with young girls in an “innovative” High Court case to prevent child sexual exploitation.’
BBC News, 20th November 2014
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
Interflora Inc and another v Marks and Spencer plc (No 5): [2014] EWCA Civ 1403; [2014] WLR (D) 473
‘On a claim for infringement of a trade mark under article 5(1)(a) of Council Directive 89/104/EEC through keyword advertising the onus of proof lay on the trade mark proprietor to establish that the advertisement complained of did not enable normally informed and reasonably attentive Internet users, or enabled them only with difficulty, to ascertain whether the goods or services referred to by the advertisement originated from the trade mark proprietor or an undertaking economically connected to it or, on the contrary, originated from a third party.’
WLR Daily, 5th November 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘This case is an interesting example of a claim for breach of confidence (both in contract and in equity) where, although liability was established, only nominal damages (£1) were awarded to the Claimant.’
RPC Privacy Law, 7th October 2014
Source: www.rpc.co.uk
‘There is an important difference in the burden of proof between tripping accidents on highway and slipping accidents in shops.’
Zenith PI Blog,
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘This talk looks at the legal and practical tools available to employment lawyers to prove or disprove direct discrimination and harassment, exploring in particular three areas:
How judges apply the burden of proof s136(2)(3) EA 2010.
What is the role of Comparators in light of the Supreme Court decision of Hewage v Grampian Health Board [2012] ICR 1054, SC.
What role does knowledge of the protected characteristic now play in light of IPC Media Ltd v Millar [2013] IRLR 707.’
Cloisters, 29th August 2014
Source: www.cloisters.com
Ballinger and another v Mercer Ltd and another; [2014] EWCA Civ 996; [2014] WLR (D) 335
‘Where a claimant applied to introduce a new claim by amendment under CPR r 17.4, and the defendant could show a prima facie defence of limitation, the burden was on the claimant to show that the defence was not reasonably arguable. Amendments seeking to add or substitute a new cause of action would only be permitted if they arose out of the same or substantially the same facts as were already in issue on the existing claims.’
WLR Daily, 17th July 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘National decision-makers had an independent and autonomous responsibility under the Convention and Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (1951) (Cmd 9171) and (1967) (Cmnd 3906) to determine the applications of those who had applied for asylum. An earlier decision of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (“UNHCR”) to grant refugee status was not binding on the national decision-maker, nor did it create any presumption or shift the burden of proof.’
WLR Daily, 29th January 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘This talk looks at the legal and practical tools available to employment lawyers to prove or disprove direct discrimination and harassment, exploring in particular three areas:
a. How judges apply the burden of proof s136(2)(3) EA 2010
b. What is the role of Comparators in light of the Supreme Court decision of Hewage v Grampian Health Board [2012] ICR 1054, SC
c. What role does knowledge of the protected characteristic now play in light of IPC Media Ltd v Millar [2013] IRLR 707.’
Full story (PDF)
Cloisters, 14th January 2014
Source: www.cloisters.com
‘A brewing company was unable to prevent correspondence between itself and its bank and accountants from being disclosed during a dispute connected with the sale of its eastern European business, a High Court judge has ruled.
OUT-LAW.com, 23rd January 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Lord Rennard has been cleared of sexually harassing Liberal Democrat party workers despite an independent review finding “broadly credible” evidence he “violated” the personal space of women.’
Daily Telegraph, 15th Janaury 2014
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘Jurors should be tested before trials to reduce the effect of prejudices on their understanding of the burden of proof, according to the authors of a study suggesting bias has a “significant” impact on verdicts.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 10th January 2014
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
“Victims of miscarriages of justice will have to prove their innocence in future or endure damaged reputations, human rights groups and Labour’s parliamentary frontbench are warning.”
The Guardian, 14th October 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Serious Organised Crime Agency v Azam [2013] EWCA Civ 970; [2013] WLR (D) 327
“Where a person who was the subject of a property freezing order made under Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 applied for the order to be varied so as to permit him to apply some of his assets which were the subject of the order in paying for his legal expenses, he was under no specific burden of proof requiring him to prove that there were no other available assets which could be used for the relevant purpose, such that if he did not discharge the burden his application must fail.”
WLR Daily, 31st July 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“There are those who say that service charges are a dry subject. To them I say, welcome to Wallace-Jarvis v (1) Optima (Cambridge) Ltd (2) Khazai [2013] UKUT 328 (LC).”
NearlyLegal, 29th July 2013
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2023