A Costly Lesson? A discussion of the decision in Belsner v Cam Legal Services Limited [2020] EWHC 2755 (QB) – Parklane Plowden Chambers

‘Lavender J has held that solicitors cannot rely upon CPR 46.9(2) to recover more from a client than could have been recovered between parties in the proceedings, unless they can show that the client provided informed consent. The decision potentially has far-reaching consequences for the use of conditional fee agreements (“CFAs”).’

Full Story

Parklane Plowden Chambers, 20th November 2020

Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk

Land-use Conflict – Supreme Court Rules on the Discharge of Restrictive Covenants: Alexander Devine Children’s Cancer Trust v Housing Solutions Ltd [2020] UKSC 45 – 39 Essex Chambers

‘The appeal in Alexander Devine Children’s Cancer Trust v Housing Solutions Ltd [2020] UKSC 45 was the first time that either the Supreme Court or the House of Lords had considered the Upper Tribunal’s power to discharge or modify restrictive covenants affecting land under section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925. The case confirms important principles affecting the interplay between private law property rights, planning and land use. Lord Burrows, giving the only substantive judgment of the Supreme Court, agreed with the Court of Appeal that the Upper Tribunal’s decision was wrong, but disagreed in a number of important respects with the speech of Sales LJ (as he then was) in the Court of Appeal ([2018] EWCA Civ 2679). For a number of reasons, it is likely that we shall be reading and re-reading this Supreme Court decision for many years to come.’

Full Story

39 Essex Chambers, 9th November 2020

Source: www.39essex.com

Will guardian schemes survive the Court of Appeal’s decision in Ludgate House? – Hardwicke Chambers

Posted November 18th, 2020 in appeals, chambers articles, guardianship, local government, news, rates by sally

‘Richard Clayton QC of Kings Chambers and Exchequer Chambers, and Faisel Sadiq discuss the upcoming appeal in Ludgate House Ltd v Ricketts (VO), in which they are instructed to represent the appellant (London Borough of Southwark), and how it is likely to play a significant role in the future of property guardian schemes.’

Full Story

Hardwicke Chambers, 4th November 2020

Source: hardwicke.co.uk

Is “Compensation” Back to the Fore in Financial Remedy Proceedings – Becket Chambers

‘The brief facts of the matter are that the parties cohabited and were married for a total of 11 years. They had two children, aged 8 and 10. When they met both the Husband (H) and the Wife (W) were working as solicitors with H an associate and W a trainee although W became an associate on qualifying in 2001. They started a relationship in 2002/3 and in that year, H became an equity partner. By 2019 he earned net of tax just short of £1m per annum. In 2006 W became a managing associate, and in 2007 cohabitation started. Later that year W left the firm to be an in-house lawyer at a bank (on the promise she could work part time if she had children). In 2010 she was made a director, although after her maternity leave she found she was not permitted to work part time in the legal department, and took a part time role in the business team. In 2016 she was made redundant, and she did not work after that.’

Full Story

Becket Chambers, 2nd November 2020

Source: becket-chambers.co.uk

A non-sexually motivated sexual assault?: GMC v Haris [2020] EWHC 2518 (Admin) – 2 Hare Court

‘Dr Haris faced allegations from two patients that he had conducted non-clinically indicated, intimate examinations without consent. He asserted forcefully that the alleged conduct simply never happened – and also called additional evidence to support his position that he was asexual.’

Full Story

2 Hare Court, 5th November 2020

Source: www.2harecourt.com

Positive action and proportionality: Supreme Court guidance in Agudas Israel Housing Association – Cloisters

‘In R (on the application of Z and another) (AP) (Appellants) v Hackney London Borough Council and another (Respondents) UKSC 2019/0162, the Supreme Court held that it was lawful for a housing association to provide social housing only to Orthodox Jews, in its first ever ruling on positive action. In this blog, Charlotte Goodman, an equality law barrister at Cloisters, considers the importance of the judgment.’

Full Story

Cloisters, 6th November 2020

Source: www.cloisters.com

Vigilante justice: is evidence obtained by ‘paedophile hunter’ groups admissible in criminal proceedings? – 2 Hare Court

‘On 15 July 2020 the Supreme Court handed down its findings in Sutherland (Appellant) v Her Majesty’s Advocate (Respondent) (Scotland) [2020] UKSC 32.’

Full Story

2 Hare Court, 2nd November 2020

Source: www.2harecourt.com

Does the failure to place a redundant employee on an existing “bank” workers list render a dismissal unfair? – 3PB

‘It was common ground between the parties that the claimant had been dismissed for a fair reason, namely redundancy. The point of contention arose from the fact that, at point of dismissal, the respondent had in place a list of workers upon whom it would call upon to
undertake adhoc work as and when needed.’

Full Story

3PB, 2nd October 2020

Source: www.3pb.co.uk

Consumer Credit: Covid (Continued) and Concealed Changes – Henderson Chambers

Posted November 11th, 2020 in chambers articles, consumer credit, coronavirus, news by sally

‘The Financial Conduct Authority has again extended its Guidance on consumer debt and there are two largely unpublicised technical changes in the pipeline to beware of.’

Full Story

Henderson Chambers, 15th October 2020

Source: www.hendersonchambers.co.uk

Section 21A Applications and Section 48 Orders (DP v A Local Authority) – 39 Essex Chambers

‘In this case, Mr Justice Hayden provides helpful practical guidance on the operation of section 48 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005), as well as confirming the scope of, and the court’s role in, proceedings brought pursuant to MCA 2005, s 21A. He further emphasises the importance of section 21A application being determined speedily, in accordance with Article 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (and accordingly suggests how practically weaknesses in capacity evidence could be addressed).’

Full Story

39 Essex Chambers, 15th October 2020

Source: www.39essex.com

Justice delayed might be justice denied… but for which side? A look at Nigeria v Process & Industrial Developments – Hardwicke Chambers

Posted November 11th, 2020 in arbitration, chambers articles, civil justice, delay, energy, fraud, news, time limits by sally

‘Last month, Sir Ross Cranston handed down judgment in The Federal Republic of Nigeria v Process & Industrial Developments [2020] EWHC 2379 (Comm), marking the latest stage in what has proved a notoriously long-running dispute since arbitration between the parties was first commenced in 2012.’

Full Story

Hardwicke Chambers, 14th October 2020

Source: hardwicke.co.uk

The Illegality Defence in the Supreme Court again – Littleton Chambers

‘The common law defence of illegality was considered by the Supreme Court in Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 42. The Court rejected the reliance principle as applied in Tinsley v Milligan [1994] 1 AC 340, according to which relief was refused to parties who had to rely on their own illegality to establish their case. In its place, the majority adopted a more flexible approach which openly addressed the underlying policy considerations involved and invited Courts to reach a balanced judgment in each case, permitting account to be taken of the proportionality of the outcome.’

Full Story

Littleton Chambers, 4th November 2020

Source: littletonchambers.com

Disability, Delusions and Definitions – Parklane Plowden

‘Employees that suffer from a disability so defined are protected against various forms of discrimination because of that status. Employers facing claims of such discrimination must assess whether a Tribunal will find that the employee was in fact, during the relevant period, disabled and, if so, whether it knew or reasonably ought to have known of that fact. It is common for employers to concede the fact of disability.’

Full Story

Parklane Plowden Chambers, 4th November 2020

Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk

Police officers and the use of force – are we really all missing the point?: R (Officer W80) v Director General of the Independent Officer for Police Conduct [2020] EWCA Civ 1301 – 2 Hare Court

‘The Court of Appeal has recently delivered an interesting and potentially very significant judgment in the case of Officer W80. The case concerned the use of force by a police officer and whether misconduct proceedings could subsequently be instituted against him on the basis of his honestly held but mistaken belief.’

Full Story

2 Hare Court, 5th November 2020

Source: www.2harecourt.com

A ruling delivered in open court or in writing is capable of amounting to a confiscation order (R v Westbrook) – 5SAH

‘The Court of Appeal ruled that, as with other orders, the judge’s solemn pronouncement in court was the order and a failure to draw up a formal written document within the prescribed two-year period from the date of sentence did not invalidate it. In any event, the judge had provided written reasons, findings and figures which satisfied the statutory requirements of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA 2002). The Court of Appeal ruled that in the absence of prejudice or unfairness resulting from an administrative or procedural breach, it could not be argued that a failure to draw up the order rendered it invalid. The second ground of appeal (that the judge had wrongly concluded that there were hidden assets) was unarguable and leave to appeal was refused.’

Full Story

5SAH, 20th October 2020

Source: www.5sah.co.uk

Andrew Hill – ‘Sentencing of Young People with particular reference to the Issue of Mental Health’- 33 Bedford Row

‘I will look at in this article at some of the sentencing principles and guidance when sentencing young people and in particular for serious offences and when they are suffering from mental illness.’

Full Story

33 Bedford Row, 27th October 2020

Source: www.33bedfordrow.co.uk

Enka v. Chubb in the Supreme Court: Which Law is it Anyway? – 4 New Square

‘Where the law governing a contract containing an arbitration agreement differs from the law of the nominated “seat” of the arbitration, which law – absent any express choice – governs the arbitration agreement itself? That was the question that the Supreme Court had to grapple with in Enka Insaat Ve Sanayi AS v. OOO Insurance Company Chubb [2020] UKSC 38, in which judgment was handed down on 9 October 2020. George Spalton and Ian McDonald of 4 New Square consider the decision.’

Full Story

4 New Square, 14th October 2020

Source: www.4newsquare.com

The importance of acting with “reasonable promptitude” when applying for relief from forfeiture: Keshwala and another v Bhalsod [2020] EWHC 2372 (QB) – Hardwicke Chambers

‘The tenants (Claimants) had a twenty-year lease of 89 Narborough Road, Leicester (Property) which commenced on 12 March 2008. The Property consisted of a lock-up shop on the ground floor with residential accommodation above. The Claimants mistakenly paid only £1,500 of the £2,000 quarterly instalment of rent that fell due in June 2018, leaving arrears of £500.’

Full Story

Hardwicke Chambers, 14th October 2020

Source: hardwicke.co.uk

Is there a different burden of proof in relation to misconduct cases in which there is a possibility that an employee who works with children may pose a danger? No, says the EAT in K v L UKEAT/0014/18/JW – 3PB

‘The Claimant had been employed by the respondents for 20 years as a teacher. On 30th December 2016 the Police entered his property having been granted a warrant to search for and seize computers in the possession of the Claimant. The warrant was based on intelligence that indecent images of a child or children had been downloaded to an IP address associated with the Claimant. The Claimant lived at the address with his son. One of the computers was found to have data that was of interest to the Police.’

Full Story

3PB, 2nd October 2020

Source: www.3pb.co.uk

Causation in insurance law – a new interpretation? – Hardwicke Chambers

Posted October 30th, 2020 in causation, chambers articles, insurance, interpretation, news by sally

‘The High Court in Financial Conduct Authority v Arch Insurance (UK) Ltd [2020] EWHC 2448 (Comm) have provided much needed guidance on business interruption insurance. Within the judgment was analysis on the law of causation for insurance policies. The decision may be perceived as, at best, widening the approach when undertaking the “but for” test, or at least providing much needed clarity to the test.’

Full Story

Hardwicke Chambers, 6th October 2020

Source: hardwicke.co.uk