‘Money which an agent personally owed to its principal at the point the former became insolvent is not held on “constructive trust” for the principal, instead forming part of the assets of the insolvent business to be divided up between all creditors in a proportionate way, the UK’s highest court has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 29th July 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘LGBT people are at an increased risk of falling victim to hate crime, the incidences of which continue to rise. That being the case, it is wholly reasonable to question the 18 per cent cut in real terms to police budgets – safety is not at the heart of policymaking.’
The Independent, 23rd July 2016
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘What can the recently re-launched Adjudication Scheme for Professional Negligence Claims offer parties and practitioners in this area? Those, and don’t worry you’re not alone, oblivious to its original launch as a pilot scheme in February 2015 may be part of the reason for its re-launch 15 months later. The original scheme apparently saw only two adjudications (hardly a sample sufficient to judge the efficacy of the scheme). The re-launched scheme covers a wider range of professionals, the removal of any limit on the amount of the claim and an attempt to cap the fees of the appointed adjudicator within certain bands depending on the value of the claim.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 29th June 2016
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘In this alerter Hannah Curtain & George Mallet consider the Supreme Court’s decision in McDonald (by her litigation friend) v McDonald and Ors [2016] UKSC 28.’
Henderson Chambers, June 2016
Source: www.hendersonchambers.co.uk
‘Proportionality has hit the Competition Appeal Tribunal as it capped a defendant’s recoverable costs at £350,000, compared to its budgeted costs of £637,000.’
Litigation Futures, 24th June 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘In the recent case of Eil v Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (15/06/16) the court was considering the costs position on a claim arising out of a sexual assault. Due to the medical evidence the Claimant limited the claim to £50,000. A budget was submitted by the Defendant for £26,000. The Claimant’s budget was £104,373, of which half had already been incurred.’
Zenith PI Blog, 27th June 2016
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘The Law Society’s budgeted costs of £637,000 to defend the competition law action brought over its Conveyancing Quality Scheme (CQS) are disproportionate and should be capped at nearly half of that, the president of the Competition Appeal Tribunal has ruled.’
Legal Futures, 24th June 2016
source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court has finally decided on the issue that has been hanging over private sector possession claims since Pinnock and Powell – whether article 8 proportionality of eviction defence might also apply to the private sector as well as to public body landlords. The Court of Appeal decision (our note here) was frankly unsatisfactory, so finality from the Supreme Court was desirable.’
Nearly Legal, 19th June 2016
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘The new rules limiting the recovery of the costs of civil court action to a “proportionate” amount may prevent successful parties from recovering costs that would otherwise have been reasonable, a senior costs judge has confirmed.’
OUT-LAW.com, 7th June 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘The Senior Costs Judge has demonstrated the harsh impact of the post-Jackson proportionality rule – along with providing some guidance on how to apply it – after halving the costs of a privacy action that he had deemed reasonable after a line-by-line assessment.’
Litigation Futures, 6th June 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Mrs Justice Whipple dismissed one claim for judicial review, and refused permission to bring a further claim, in respect of decisions made by Southampton University regarding a proposed conference on the legality of the existence of Israel under international law. She held that the University had lawfully withdrawn its permission to hold the conference in April 2015, and refused permission to challenge the University’s subsequent decision to require the conference organisers to meet the conference’s security costs as a condition of allowing the conference to take place at a later date. The conference organisers had claimed that both decisions represented an unlawful interference with their Article 10 right to free expression and Article 11 right to free assembly.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 24th May 2016
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Police have vowed to continue their investigation into allegations of child sex abuse by the late Sir Edward Heath after several people responded to an appeal for information.’
The Independent, 12th May 2016
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘A personal injury claimant cannot escape a fundamental dishonesty hearing by serving a notice of discontinuance, a circuit judge has held.’
Litigation Futures, 27th April 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Proprietary estoppel claims can give rise to a particular issue: should the measure of the claimant’s relief be compensation for detriment or, more generously, enforcement of the relevant promise or assurance?’
New Square Chambers, 11th April 2016
Source: www.newsquarechambers.co.uk
Regina v Roberts (Mark) and others [2016] EWCA Crim 71
‘In each of the 13 applications before the court, the applicants applied for an extension of time in which to apply for leave to appeal against sentences of imprisonment or detention for public protection (“IPP”)), imposed between 2005 and 2008 under the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Before the sentence of IPP was amended by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, the court was required to make the assumption that an offender was dangerous if he had been convicted on an earlier occasion of a specified offence, unless it was unreasonable to do so. Where he was found to be dangerous, and over 18, the court was required to pass a sentence of IPP or life imprisonment; the 2003 Act removed all discretion from the court once it was found that the offender was dangerous. All the applicants had either been detained in custody long after the expiry of the minimum term or had been recalled for breach of licence. The applicants submitted (1) that whatever might have been the position at the time the sentences of IPP were passed, the Court of Appeal had power under section 11 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 to pass sentences that, in the light of what had happened over the intervening years, now would be the proper sentence; (2) the Court of Appeal should reconsider the assessments made by sentencing judges in the light of R v Lang [2005] EWCA Crim 2864; [2006] 1 WLR 2509, and (3) a time could and had been reached when the length of the imprisonment was so excessive and disproportionate compared to the index criminal offence that it could amount to inhuman treatment under article 3 or arbitrary detention under article 5 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. That was because the detention no longer had any meaningful link to the index offence. A much delayed review of a sentencing decision could therefore be a mechanism the court could employ to avoid a breach of those Convention Rights. As the period now served by each of the applicants was so much longer than any conceivable determinate sentence would have required, the continued detention amounted to preventative detention and was therefore arbitrary. ‘
WLR Daily, 18th March 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Following three trials of former members of Jehovah’s Witnesses’s congregations on charges of historic sex abuse the Charity Commission decided to initiate a statutory inquiry relating to a leading Jehovah’s Witness charity’s safeguarding policy regarding vulnerable beneficiaries in particular children, under section 46 of the Charities Act 2011, and to order the charity to produce a wide range of documents, under section 52 of the Act, even though none of those accused was connected with the charity. .The applicants, the charity and its trustees, sought judicial review of those decisions, on the grounds that (i) the commission had acted disproportionately by commencing an inquiry the scope of which was vague and undefined and by interfering with the applicants’ Convention rights, and had thereby breached its duty to act fairly so that the decision was irrational; and (ii) the scope of the production order was disproportionate in that information was sought of a personal and sensitive nature, within the meaning of the Data Protection Act 1998, and was furthermore in breach of the Convention rights of individuals affected. The judge in refusing permission to proceed with the judicial review clain held that the applicants had an effective statutory remedy by appealing to the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) (Charity) against a decision to initiate an inquiry, and that any complaint relating to the breadth of a production order could be dealt with before that tribunal.’
WLR Daily, 15th March 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024