‘The future of litigation being brought on behalf of more than 40,000 claimants in the so-called Mau Mau case is in doubt after the Court of Appeal refused permission to hear an appeal against a decision to dismiss the first test case.’
Litigation Futures, 10th October 2018
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The High Court has dismissed the first test case brought as part of a second wave of Mau Mau group litigation, following the British government’s settlement of over 5,000 claims for £19.9m in 2013.’
Litigation Futures, 10th August 2018
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Kimathi & Ors v Foreign and Commonwealth Office [2018] EWHC 1305 (QB). Stewart J has recently dismissed the first test case in this group litigation, in which over 40,000 Kenyans bring claims for damages against the UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office, alleging abuse during the Kenyan Emergency of the 1950s and early 1960s, in Kimathi & Others v The Foreign and Commonwealth Office [2018] EWHC 2066 (QB). Jo Moore discusses this in her blog post of 6 August 2018.
Earlier this year however he considered, as a preliminary matter, whether fear, caused either by the tort of negligence or trespass, amounts to personal injury so that the Court has the discretionary power to exclude the 3-year limitation period which arises under section 11 of the 1980 Act. Stewart J concluded that “despite the comprehensive and innovative submissions of the Claimants” (para 37), which included arguments on human rights grounds, fear did not amount to a personal injury.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 7th August 2018
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘A professional negligence claim was brought within the limitation period despite an “unconnected” abuse of process over the court fee paid, the High Court has held.’
Litigation Futures, 11th July 2018
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The High Court has decided not to strike out a claim where an incorrect fee was paid days before the limitation period ended.’
Law Society's Gazette, 10th July 2018
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘Company directors were said to be responsible for assets despite their use of corporate vehicles, the Supreme Court has ruled (12-page / 157KB PDF). The ruling means that a six year limitation period stopping liquidators taking legal action against the directors does not apply. This case will impact future misfeasance actions. Director and officer indemnity insurers should take note of this decision as it confirms that the English courts are unwilling to accept the six-year limitation defence for actions against directors following the disposal of company assets in breach of fiduciary duty for economic gain.’
OUT-LAW.com, 23rd March 2018
Source: www.out-law.com
‘The Ministry of Justice announced changes to give more support to those taking abusive former partners to court in family proceedings.’
The Independent, 4th December 2017
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘The doctrine of adverse possession arises from the Limitation Act 1980. Section 15(1) provides that no action shall be brought by any person to recover any land after the expiration of 12 years from the date on which the right of action accrued. Sections 1-7 provide that at the expiration of the period of 12 years the title of the paper owner is extinguished. The claim of a person to a possessory title was therefore based on the negative effect of the extinguishment of the paper owner’s title, and the basic principle that what is required for a case in trespass is not ownership, but possession or a right to possession.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 9th November 2017
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘The doctrine of adverse possession arises from the Limitation Act 1980. Section 15(1) provides that no action shall be brought by any person to recover any land after the expiration of 12 years from the date on which the right of action accrued. Sections 1-7 provide that at the expiration of the period of 12 years the title of the paper owner is extinguished. The claim of a person to a possessory title was therefore based on the negative effect of the extinguishment of the paper owner’s title, and the basic principle that what is required for a case in trespass is not ownership, but possession or a right to possession.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 9th November 2017
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘The changes of last August and the impending Enterprise Act 2016 changes for May of next year will transform the way we have to look at insurance contracts generally and, if our insurer clients’ underwriting departments have not substantially rewritten their proposal forms and policy documents, we can anticipate a few years of ongoing law making.’
Hailsham Chambers, 3rd November 2017
Source: www.hailshamchambers.com
‘A number of hot topics in the professional negligence arena came before Mrs Justice Moulder in the recent case of Halsall and Others v Champion Consulting Limited and Others [2017] EWHC 1079 (QB), [2017] All ER (D) 44 (Jun). The result ultimately turned on the application of s 14A of the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980) and the claim, which otherwise would have succeeded, was dismissed as statute barred. But was the decision on limitation correct?’
New Law Journal, 27th October 2017
Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk
‘The High Court upheld a Master’s decision to allow a clinical negligence action to proceed pursuant to section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980.’
Zenith PI Blog, 13th November 2017
Source: zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘When does the claimant’s cause of action accrue in a professional negligence case? In particular, at what point has the claimant suffered a recoverable loss? This question is of course most relevant when a potential limitation defence arises under section 2 of the Limitation Act 1980, and is an issue that the courts have struggled with for some time. The recent case of Halsall v Champion Consulting Limited [2017] EWHC 1079 (QB) serves as a useful reminder of the difficulties that can arise in this area.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 17th October 2017
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘The decision of the Court of Appeal in Johnson v Ministry of Defence [2013] P.I.Q.R. P7, [2012] E.W.C.A. Civ 1505 provides a potential “knockout blow” for Defendants in noise-induced hearing loss limitation trials where attributability is disputed by the Claimant.’
Zenith Chambers, 13th October 2017
Source: www.zenithchambers.co.uk
‘The standard, if unimaginative, attack on a timeshare contract is an action in breach of contract and claiming or claiming and damages under section 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967. This is a perfectly logical and valid start, but as I have written before, and will write again, the classic action in misrepresentation is a very cumbersome and formalistic cause of action. It is a construction rooted in Victorian values, and the axiom caveat emptor (buyer beware) is part of its legal DNA. No doubt it worked very well where gentlemen in stove pipe hats were buying and selling new parts for their latest foundry; it also works well when you have purchased a company after a comprehensive due diligence process and there are written representation and accounts to pore over. It is much more difficult to deploy in the modern world where “consumers” (not a concept with which the Victorians would have been comfortable) are being subject to what may loosely but accurately be called “high pressure selling techniques” which employ a mixture of half-truths and psychological exploitation.’
Park Square Barristers, 18th October 2017
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
‘On Thursday 13 July 2017, following the trial of a preliminary issue of limitation, HH Judge Paul Matthews handed down judgment in Osborne v. (1) Follett Stock (a firm); (2) Follett Stock LLP.’
4 New Square, 19th July 2017
Source: www.4newsquare.com
‘With standstill agreements back in the legal news following judgment being handed down in the Muduroglu matter ([2017] EWHC 29 (Ch)), below I have set out five frequently encountered problems with standstill agreements in professional liability claims.’
4 New Square, 21st August 2017
Source: www.4newsquare.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024