Skraba v Regional Court in Nowy Sacz, Poland: [2014] EWHC 2193 (Admin); [2014] WLR (D) 292
‘Section 60(3) of the Extradition Act 2003 gave the High Court power, having dismissed an appeal against an extradition order, to review and, where considered appropriate, to vary any costs order made against the requested person by the first instance court under section 60(1)(a) of the Act.’
WLR Daily, 3rd July 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The government’s plan to introduce a stricter test on judicial review outcomes “risks undermining the rule of law”, the House of Lords constitution committee has warned.’
Litigation Futures, 7th July 2014
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The Mitchell ruling has been “misunderstood and is being misapplied by some courts”, the Master of the Rolls said today in issuing more detailed guidance on how it should be used – while also recognising that some of the language used in Mitchell may have contributed to the problems.’
Litigation Futures, 4th July 2014
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The Court of Appeal’s ruling today [4 July] in three linked appeals relating to its its earlier judgment in Mitchell will make civil litigation less adversarial and more co-operative, the Law Society has predicted.’
Local Government Lawyer, 4th July 2014
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The eagerly awaited Court of Appeal judgement in Denton & others v TH White Ltd & others was handed down on Friday. Dyson LJ provides a careful methodology on the approach to applications for relief from sanctions under CPR 3.9, with the aim to set to rights the fall-out from the landmark decision of Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd’
NearlyLegal, 6th July 2014
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘Joel Norris took a photo of himself and four co-defendants during his trial and uploaded it on to Twitter saying, ‘Lads in the court box lol’.’
Daily Telegraph, 3rd July 2014
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘Last night saw the House of Lords’ first reaction to the Government’s proposed changes to judicial review as the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill had its second reading. Already dissected at some length in this blog, the proposals have been roundly criticised by both the senior judiciary and the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Consultations responses, including from JUSTICE, expressed concern that the measures appear, by design or coincidence, to undermine the rule of law, inhibit transparency and shield the Government from judicial scrutiny. Two key concerns arise from the Government proposals: restricting access for individuals without substantial means and limiting the courts’ discretion to do justice in the public interest. Yesterday’s debate was robust and eloquent, with former Law Lords joined by bishops and backbenchers alike to condemn the new measures.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 1st July 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Court of Appeal said ‘aggressive and truculent’ man’s initial detention was unlawful and amounted to false imprisonment.’
Daily Telegraph, 1st July 2014
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘A legal battle between Rupert Murdoch’s News UK and England’s prosecuting authorities over the “astronomical” costs of the record-breaking phone hacking trial will involve “millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money”.’
The Independent, 1st July 2014
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘It has been clear for a while that both politicians and many members of the judiciary have left behind their initial scepticism and now become fervent supporters of formal alternative dispute resolution (ADR) processes, mediation in particular.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 13th June 2014
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘The phone-hacking trial has been one of the most expensive cases in British criminal history, with News International bearing more than half of the expense.’
Daily Telegraph, 24th June 2014
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘A costs draftsman whose only involvement in a case consisted of preparing a costs budget and who did not give any form of legal advice or legally based representation was not a “senior legal representative” for the purposes of paragraph 6 of Practice Direction 3E on Costs Management.’
WLR Daily, 13th June 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A High Court judge has granted relief from sanctions despite finding that the non-compliance was non-trivial and deliberate, and that there was some delay in lodging the application for relief – using instead powers to impose conditions on the order.’
Litigation Futures, 24th June 2014
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘A barrister who has led the way in analysing the impact of the Mitchell case has predicted that this week’s hearing of three “trivial breach” cases at the Court of Appeal could pave the way for “Mitchell-lite”.’
Litigation Futures, 19th June 2014
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Magistrates have found the former N-Dubz singer Dappy guilty of slapping a man outside a nightclub.’
BBC News, 19th June 2014
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
Regina (N) v Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council [2014] EWHC 1918 (Admin); [2014] WLR (D) 255
‘The capital derived from a personal injury settlement which was managed by a deputy appointed by the Court of Protection had to be disregarded by a local authority when deciding whether the injured person could be required to contribute to the cost of social care services provided by a local authority.’
WLR Daily, 12th June 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Chris Grayling, the Justice Secretary, criticises a legal bid by distant relatives of King Richard III, whose remains were found buried under a council car park in Leicester.’
Daily Telegraph, 16th June 2014
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘Sir James Munby, President of the Family Division has considered in his most recent opinion piece, both his commentary on the bedding down of the recent procedural changes that came in to force on the 22 April 2014, and looking to the future, he has invited Mostyn J and Cobb J to chair a new Financial Remedies Working Group to look at further change.’
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 16th June 2014
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
‘It would be disproportionate and unjust to strike down a Precedent H budget that was signed by a firm’s in-house costs draftsman, rather than by a “senior legal representative”, the High Court has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 16th June 2014
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The anniversary of the implementation of the Jackson reforms looms. Has all the fear and dread it engendered at the time been justified? Views will vary, whether because of temperament or because of preference, but in our view, for what it’s worth, the answer is “yes”. In the sphere of relief from sanctions at least, and in the kind of costs budgeting that we most often face, many of the concerns warned of in advance have come to pass. The by now well-know case of Andrew Mitchell has illustrated the draconian approach being taken by the courts to relief from sanctions, with the support of what appears to be a hand-picked Court of Appeal. The methodology of county courts in dealing with costs budgeting and CCMCs varies widely, making it difficult to predict or advise on procedural issues in the run up to trials and hearings.’
Full story (PDF)
Falcon Chambers, 25th March 2014
Source: www.falcon-chambers.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024