Cape v Dring: High Court clarifies the proper approach to applications by non-parties for access to documents referred to at trial under the inherent jurisdiction and open justice principle – Henderson Chambers

‘The Cape v Dring litigation concerns an attempt by a non-party to obtain copies of the trial bundle used during a six-week asbestos trial involving Cape which settled before judgment in early 2017. At first instance the Master granted the non-party permission to have copies of all documents, including the trial bundle of 5000 pages of disclosure, referred to at the trial. The Supreme Court confirmed in July 2019 that the non-party was entitled to written submissions, witness statements and expert reports under the inherent jurisdiction of the court, but remitted the question of what, if any, documents in the trial bundle the non-party should obtain to the original trial judge. On 16 July 2020 Picken J considered that question and held that Mr Dring was not entitled to receive any other documents.’

Full Story

Henderson Chambers, 17th July 2020

Source: 3yf6pp3bqg8c3rycgf1gbn9w-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com

Enforcing an adjudicator’s decision where no order for payment – Practical Law Construction Blog

‘Much has been written on the Supreme Court case of Bresco v Lonsdale and it has most recently been relied on by a party in the adjudication enforcement case of WRW Construction Ltd v Datblygau Davies Developments Ltd. However, as will be discussed in this blog, it was of limited assistance.’

Full Story

Practical Law Construction Blog, 28th July 2020

Source: constructionblog.practicallaw.com

FGM protection order in child’s best interests – Court of Appeal – UK Human Rights Blog

Posted July 14th, 2020 in children, family courts, female genital mutilation, jurisdiction, news by tracey

‘A (A Child) (Rev 1) [2020] EWCA 731 (15 June 2020). This was an appeal by the secretary of state against a decision of the President of the Family Division concerning the exercise of the family court’s jurisdiction to make a female genital mutilation protection order (FGMPO) under the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 Sch.2 Pt 1 para.1.’

Full Story

UK Human Rights Blog, 13th July 2020

Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com

Case Preview: R (Gourlay) v Parole Board – UKSC Blog

Posted July 13th, 2020 in appeals, costs, jurisdiction, news, parole, Supreme Court by sally

‘In this case the “court” in question is the Parole Board. The inverted commas are because one of the issues is whether the Board is, in fact, a court for these purposes. Mr Gourlay is a life sentence prisoner. On 10 March 2014 the Parole Board refused to recommend that he be transferred to open conditions (almost always an essential precondition to later release). The Secretary of State usually, but does not always, accept such recommendations. Mr Gourlay challenged the Board’s refusal to make a recommendation. In accordance with a published “litigation strategy” that it has had since 2013 the Board did not engage with that challenge. That strategy takes advantage of a practice encapsulated in a case concerning coroners, R (Davies) v Birmingham Deputy Coroner [2004] 1 WLR 2739, which is that courts and tribunals will not usually be ordered to pay costs provided they have maintained a neutral stance. Mr Gourlay succeeded in his challenge, but both the High Court, and the Court of Appeal, held that Davies applied to the Board, and so Mr Gourlay did not recover his costs. This meant, amongst other things, that his lawyers were only entitled to be paid at around a quarter to a third of the rate they would have received if party-party costs had been awarded in Mr Gourlay’s favour.’

Full Story

UKSC Blog, 10th July 2020

Source: ukscblog.com

Supreme Court hands down judgment in Villiers v Villiers – Parklane Plowden Chambers

‘Charles and Emma Villiers married in 1994. They moved to Scotland the following year and lived there throughout their married life. The couple separated in 2012, when the wife and the parties’ daughter left the former matrimonial home and moved to England, where the wife continues to reside. Mrs Villiers issued a divorce petition in July 2013 on the basis of her habitual residence for 12 months preceding the presentation of the petition.’

Full Story

Parklane Plowden Chambers, 1st July 2020

Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk

Courts have no jurisdiction over “unwise” decisions where subject has capacity – Local Government Lawyer

‘The Mental Capacity Act 2005 does not permit the courts to intervene to prevent someone from making decisions that are unwise or damaging to them if they have the necessary capacity, the High Court has ruled.’

Full Story

Local Government Lawyer, 9th July 2020

Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk

Villiers v Villiers – Blackstone Chambers

‘This appeal concerned the jurisdiction of an English court to make a maintenance order in favour of the wife (“W”) pursuant to s.27 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (“MCA”) in circumstances where the parties lived for most of their marriage in Scotland and the divorce proceedings issued by the husband (“H”) were conducted in Scotland.’

Full Story

Blackstone Chambers, 1st July 2020

Source: www.blackstonechambers.com

Security for Costs – International Pipeline Products Ltd v IK UK Ltd. and others – NIPC Law

Posted July 9th, 2020 in civil procedure rules, costs, jurisdiction, news by sally

‘This was an application by several defendants to a claim for breach of contract, conspiracy, breach of confidence and patent, copyright and unregistered design right infringement for security for costs. It was heard by Mr David Stone sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court on 1 May 2020. He gave an extemporary judgment on the day of the hearing and delivered detailed reasons on 24 June 2020.’

Full Story

NIPC Law, 8th July 2020

Source: nipclaw.blogspot.com

OHL v Qatar Foundation and tribunal’s powers to correct awards and scope of permissible challenges – Atkin Chambers

‘Challenges were brought by a contractor (JV) under sections 67 and 68(2)(b) of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) in respect of an addendum award (the Addendum) issued by an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) tribunal. The Addendum was issued following an application by the employer to correct a fourth partial award. JV’s challenges were dismissed and the judge gave helpful guidance as to the scope of AA 1996, ss 67 and 68 and the scope of a tribunal’s power to correct and/or interpret its award. Written by Simon Lofthouse QC and Zulfikar Khayum, barristers, at Atkin Chambers, and counsel for Qatar Foundation.’

Full Story

Atkin Chambers, 6th July 2020

Source: www.atkinchambers.com

Case Preview: Lehtimaki and Ors v Cooper – UKSC Blog

Posted July 6th, 2020 in appeals, charities, fiduciary duty, jurisdiction, news, Supreme Court by sally

‘In this post, James Warshaw, an associate in the Dispute Resolution team at CMS, previews the decision which is awaited in the matter of Lehtimaki and Ors v Cooper, which concerns whether the court has jurisdiction to direct members of a charitable company on how to exercise their powers absent a breach of fiduciary duty.’

Full Story

UKSC Blog, 3rd July 2020

Source: ukscblog.com

Protection of Children who are Seventeen – Family Law Week

Posted July 2nd, 2020 in care orders, children, jurisdiction, local government, news by tracey

‘Hazel Samuriwo, In-house Advocate at London Borough of Brent, details the measures available to protect young people over seventeen years of age.’

Full Story

Family Law Week, 1st July 2020

Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk

GMC Allowed to Investigate Dual-Qualified Doctor/Solicitor for Actions Taken in Legal Practice – Old Square Chambers

‘In the recent case of Dr Ogunsanya and Taylor Woods Solicitors v General Medical Council [2020] EWHC 1500 (QB), Eady J rejected the Claimants’ application for an injunction against the General Medical Council (‘GMC’) preventing the GMC from investigating the actions of the First Claimant (who is dual qualified as a doctor and as a solicitor) on the basis that the GMC had no jurisdiction because he was acting in his capacity as a solicitor, and not as a doctor, at the time. In rejecting the application, Eady J held that the allegations, amounting as they did to potential allegations of dishonesty, did fall within the GMC’s jurisdiction given their potential to prejudice the reputation of the profession. That there might be an overlap with another regulatory regime (that of the Solicitors Regulation Authority (‘SRA’)) did not oust that jurisdiction.’

Full Story

Old Square Chambers, 23rd June 2020

Source: www.oldsquare.co.uk

Insolvent Companies and Adjudication: Bresco Services Limited v Michael J Lonsdale [2020] UKSC 25 – Hardwicke Chambers

‘Adjudication is a quick and comparatively cheap method of dispute resolution and for those reasons is attractive to insolvent companies seeking to recover debts. However, a respondent was likely to be able to restrain the insolvent company from referring the matter to adjudication on the basis that it would be futile to do so, since any positive decision was unlikely to be enforced as a result of the very fact of the company’s insolvency. Therefore, any award lacked practical utility. Following the decision of the Supreme Court in Bresco v Lonsdale, that is no longer the case.’

Full Story

Hardwicke Chambers, 17th June 2020

Source: hardwicke.co.uk

GMC can investigate solicitor doctor over legal advice – Legal Futures

‘A claim that a solicitor who is also a doctor provided dishonest advice to his clients can be subject to the General Medical Council’s (GMC) disciplinary process, the High Court has ruled.’

Full Story

Legal Futures, 15th June 2020

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

Court of Appeal deals blow to libel tourists – Law Society’s Gazette

‘England and Wales’ courts may be less open to international libel litigation following a Court of Appeal ruling which interprets legislation against ’libel tourism’. In Craig Wright v Roger Ver, the court upheld a decision by the High Court that England and Wales was not the appropriate place to hear a defamation action against claims published on social media by a US-born citizen of St Kitts & Nevis now resident in Japan.’

Full Story

Law Society's Gazette, 2nd June 2020

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Don’t put it in writing! Problems in store for Local Authority Environmental Crime – St Philips Barristers

‘Joint Deputy Head of St Philips Regulatory Team, Ben Mills gives his expert analysis of Walker v Chelmsford City Council [2020] EWHC 635 (Admin) and its consideration of s108 (4) Environment Act 1995.’

Full Story

St Philips Barristers, 7th May 2020

Source: st-philips.com

Roberts Case Summary – No. 5 Chambers

‘The name of this case may seem familiar; perhaps too familiar given the time it usually takes for matters to proceed through our court system. However, you’d be right. This is the third preliminary issue in the matter of Harry Roberts (a minor and a protected party by his mother and litigation friend Mrs Lauren Roberts) v Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association (1), Ministry of Defence (2) and Allegemeines Krankenhaus Viersen GMBH (3) [2020] EWHC 994 (QB) to be determined by the High Court and the second in less than twelve months.’

Full Story

No. 5 Chambers, 18th May 2020

Source: www.no5.com

Financial Provision for Adult Children in England and Wales and in Italy – Pump Court Chambers

‘This article considers a recently-handed down case making financial provision for children where one was over the age of 18 at the time of making the application and another child was over 18 at the time of judgment and compares the position with that in Italy, where provision for children can include adult children as a matter of course.’

Full Story

Pump Court Chambers, 11th May 2020

Source: www.pumpcourtchambers.com

A Welcome Restriction on the Jurisdiction to Issue Community Protection Notices? by Emma Downing – Broadway House Chambers

‘Within the Youth Court the principles of parental engagement, involvement and where necessary responsibility are all well-established.’

Full Story

Broadway House Chambers, 11th May 2020

Source: broadwayhouse.co.uk

The Service Justice System under question regarding the continuation of the jurisdiction to investigate and conduct trials in serious sexual assault and rape cases – Thomas More Chambers

‘The Centre for Military Justice, acting on behalf of three female service personnel has sent a pre – action protocol letter to the Ministry of Defence with regard to three cases which the service justice system (SJS) has conducted and their assertion appears to be that these victims were discriminated against. The Ministry of Defence (MOD) response is due this week. We have not seen the letter nor do we expect to see the response. The Centre for Military Justice stating publicly that by the end of the month they will issue proceedings in the High Court for Judicial Review (JR) citing action for discrimination under both the Human Rights Act and Equality Act. We await sight of the claim and then the defence.’

Full Story

Thomas More Chambers, 14th May 2020

Source: www.thomasmore.co.uk