‘After-the-event (ATE) insurer Temple Legal Protection was not estopped from avoiding payment on a policy after a fraudulent misrepresentation, the High Court has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 18th February 2015
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Mahmudul Choudhury faces losing job after admiting racially-aggravated offence aimed at Jews after sharing photo of former Nazi leader on Facebook.’
Daily Telegraph, 18th February 2015
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘Tom Wilson, pupil at 1 Garden Court Family Law Chambers, examines the possibility of a partial re-introduction of the Calderbank offer.’
Family Law Week, 12th February 2015
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘How should local authorities respond to the compensation claims landscape, asks Carol Dalton.’
New Law Journal, 13th February 2015
Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk
‘If permission to appeal against a decision of a First-tier Tribunal in a welfare benefits case is refused by the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber), then the claimant will not be able to appeal that decision. This is because it is an excluded decision under s. 13(8)(c) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, and the Upper Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review its refusal of permission by virtue of s.10(1) and s.13(8)(d)(i) of the 2007 Act. This means the only remedy available is by way of judicial review (Samuda v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2014] EWCA Civ 1). The deadline for applying for judicial review against a refusal of permission by an Upper Tribunal is 16 days. CPR rule 54.7A(3).’
Free Movement, 16th February 2015
Source: www.freemovement.org.uk
‘The Presidents of the Immigration and Asylum Chambers sat together in the First-tier Tribunal case of Cancino (costs – First-tier Tribunal – new powers) [2015] UKFTT 00059 (IAC) in order to give guidance on when legal costs might become payable in immigration cases. The power to make awards of legal costs to a party in immigration appeals was only introduced in October 2014 and there has been no real guidance until now.’
Free Movement, 13th February 2015
Source: www.freemovement.org.uk
‘It may come as a surprise to many solicitors that there is a presumption that the costs of making and complying with an application for pre-action disclosure are to be paid by the party making the application.’
Zenith PI Blog, 11th February 2015
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘Sounds like a rather abstruse case, but the Supreme Court has had some important things to say about how the courts should approach an argument that Article 1 of Protocol 1 to ECHR (the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions) is breached by a legislative decision. The clash is always between public benefit and private impairment, and this is a good example.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 11th February 2015
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Anita Mehta, barrister of Crown Office Row, Brighton, argues that Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989 applications should not be regarded as the domain of footballers’ girlfriends or the uber-wealthy but as a powerful tool for meeting children’s needs in a wide variety of cases.’
Full story
Family Law Week, 6th February 2015
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
Supreme Court, 9th February 2015
‘The High Court has backed an application by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) to destroy millions of documents seized from firms it has intervened in and had to store since, at significant cost to the profession.’
Legal Futures, 10th February 2015
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘Parties that want to transfer cases to London will need to provide a much fuller explanation as to why, the Civil Procedure Rules Committee (CPRC) has decided.’
Litigation Futures, 10th February 2015
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘A family judge was reprimanded by Court of Appeal judges twice in two days and told he should be “embarrassed” by the way he handled a case, it has emerged.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 6th February 2015
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘Firms in Wales whose staff are treated for asbestos-related illnesses are to learn if they must reimburse the NHS.’
BBC News, 9th February 2015
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Judges should only allow a contingency in a costs budget “if it is foreseen as more likely than not to be required”, a High Court judge has ruled in striking out £50,000 worth of contingencies that one party had included for ‘strategy review and consultation’ and ‘possible further work’.’
Litigation Futures, 5th February 2015
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘A music teacher has avoided being sent to prison after he pleaded guilty to possessing indecent images of children and extreme pornography involving animals.’
The Independent, 4th February 2015
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘Public authority decisions are, of course, open to judicial review. However, such decisions are fundamentally the domain of the relevant decision-maker and not the court. The court’s sole function (in appropriate cases) is to review the substantive and procedural lawfulness of the decision in question but not its intrinsic merits.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 2nd February 2015
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The High Court has rejected a non-compliant claimant’s plea to set aside a trial date but stopped short of effectively ending the claim altogether.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 30th January 2015
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The high cost of welfare cases in the Court of Protection is “a matter of serious concern” and – alongside the lengthy duration of such proceedings – requires urgent investigation, researchers at Cardiff University have said.’
Local Government Lawyer, 3rd February 2015
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Topshop has been ordered to pay pop star Rihanna’s legal costs following their multi-million pound battle over a T-shirt. The high-street store lost the dispute when both the High Court and Court of Appeal declared Topshop had used her image unlawfully on a “tank” sleeveless T-shirt sold to thousands of fans.’
Daily Telegraph, 3rd February 2015
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024