‘While the Magistrates Courts continue to hand out paltry fines to landlords on conviction for illegal eviction, despite the removal of the upper £5000 limit, it is good to see that the civil courts are capable of taking a more reasonable approach to quantum.’
Nearly Legal, 13th August 2016
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘Twin doses of dishonesty in the Supreme Court, last month. Both raised dilemmas for the SC trying to steer a principled way (in different circumstances) towards determining the cost of lying.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 6th August 2016
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The High Court has ordered the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal to rehear a prosecution against two solicitors suspected of dishonesty.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 29th July 2016
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘Norris J has recently had to deal with an interesting case where he faced an application that he should recuse himself from a case. It also highlighted the negative impact a litigant in person can have on a case and administration of the Courts.’
Zenith PI, 29th June 2016
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘In the recent cases of Cook v Virgin Media Ltd and McNeil v Tesco Plc [2016] 1WLR 1672, the Court of Appeal had to consider two cases raising a virtually identical issue. Each case related to a Scottish claimant claiming for personal injuries sustained in Scotland against Defendants who had registered offices in England and Wales. Mr Cook claimed that he suffered personal injury in a tripping accident in East Kilbride as a result of the negligence of Virgin Media. Virgin Media admitted liability. The claim was brought through the Northampton Money Claims Centre. In their defence Virgin Media said that the claim would be more appropriately dealt with in Scotland. In the second case Mr McNeil had suffered injuries in a Tesco store in Glasgow. He too claimed putting a claim through the Northampton Money Claims Centre. Tesco denied liability and said that the claim should have been brought in Scotland. Both these cases were shunted to Carlisle County Court. (It is perhaps a pity that the old Berwick-upon-Tweed County Court has long closed its doors, since it might have been an ideal venue.)’
Zenith PI Blog, 17th May 2016
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘The reach of the Defective Premises Act and what ‘defective’ means within the context of the Act, was the subject of detailed consideration in the QBD recently, in Dodd v Raebarn Estates [2016].’
Hardwicke Chambers, 8th March 2016
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
Shergill and others v Khaira and others (No 2) [2016] EWHC 628 (Ch)
‘The judge dismissed the defendants’ application to strike out the claimants’ claim, a decision which was later reversed by the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court allowed the claimants’ appeal from that decision and ordered that the defendants pay the claimants’ costs in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal. The costs judge subsequently refused the defendants’ application to stay the immediate detailed assessment of those costs. The defendants appealed from that decision on the ground that, by CPR r 47.1, the costs of proceedings could not be subject to detailed assessment until the proceedings were concluded, unless the appellate court had expressly ordered the costs to be assessed immediately, which it had not.’
WLR Daily, 23rd March 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The parties were married in September 2001 and had one daughter born in October 2002. The husband, a Saudi national, was a businessman of substantial means who married again in 2012 when the parties’ marriage broke down. On their divorce the wife applied for financial relief under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984. The husband applied to strike out the wife’s application , claiming immunity from suit as the permanent representative of St Lucia to the International Maritime Organisation (“IMO”), a post to which he had been appointed on 1 April 2014. The United Kingdom was required, as a matter of international law, to grant privileges and immunities to personal representatives of member states to the IMO in accordance with the Specialised Agencies Convention and the Headquarters Agreement. A permanent representative was entitled to the same immunity from suit and legal process as the head of a diplomatic mission, except that, by article 15 of the International Maritime Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2002), a permanent representative who was permanently resident in the United Kingdom was only entitled to immunities and privileges in respect of his official acts. The Foreign Secretary certified that the Foreign Office had been informed by the IMO of the husband’s appointment as permanent representative of St Lucia, of his arrival date and had not been notified that his diplomatic functions had terminated. Although on the face of it that certificate was conclusive evidence of the husband’s appointment by virtue of section 8 of the International Organisations Act 1968, the judge balanced the husband’s claim to immunity against the wife’s rights to access to the courts under article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. He concluded that the husband had not undertaken any duties or performed any functions as permanent representative, that the appointment was an artificial construct to defeat the wife’s claims on the breakdown of the marriage and that, since the husband was permanently resident in the United Kingdom, he was entitled to immunity only in respect of official acts performed in the exercise of his functions. In consequence the judge refused to strike out the wife’s claim.’
WLR Daily, 22nd March 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Last week I went off to the County Court at Newcastle to defend a strike out application made by the Defendant alleging abuse of process. I suspect this won’t be the first time that this factual scenario has arisen where defendants have sought to strike out a claim and where they have been successful, but here the claim was allowed to proceed because it was found that there was no abuse.’
Zenith PI Blog, 21st March 2016
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘A High Court judge has ruled that the claims of two boys against a council for negligence in failing to protect them from harassment from neighbours on the estate where they lived were wrongly struck out.’
Local Government Lawyer, 18th March 2016
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The High Court has rejected jailed publicist Max Clifford’s attempt to limit his costs to only £5,000 in a privacy claim by making an “inadequate” Calderbank offer.’
Litigation Futures, 21st March 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Disputes over domain names tend to be dealt with outside of the normal court system, in panels run by dispute resolution service providers accredited by ICANN. So a decision of the UK court over as series of domain names including RBS group brands makes interesting reading.’
Technology Law Update, 22nd January 2016
Source: www.technology-law-blog.co.uk
Cook v Virgin Media Ltd; McNeil v Tesco plc [2015] EWCA Civ 1287; [2015] WLR (D) 538
‘The English court had power to apply the doctrine of forum non conveniens in a purely domestic context, exercising the court’s wide general case management powers in CPR rr 3.1(2)(m) and 3.3, and therefore could strike out or stay proceedings brought in England where Scotland was the natural and more appropriate forum.’
WLR Daily, 14th December 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal would not lightly interfere with a case management decision and would support robust and fair case management decisions by first instance judges to strike out, or to decline to strike out, claims under CPR r 3.4(2)(c). In a case in which the balance was a “fine” one, an appellate court should respect the balance struck by the first instance judge.’
WLR Daily, 8th December 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘On 23 November 2015 Sir Michael Tugendhat set aside an order for service out of the jurisdiction of proceedings for the misuse of private information and libel which had been made by Master Roberts on 31 March 2015 in respect of an article in Politika, a Serbian language newspaper circulating in Serbia and neighbouring countries in hard copy and available in this country only on the internet. Sir Michael held that the Claimant was in breach of his duty of full and frank disclosure and the case is a significant reminder of the duty of candour that rests upon a claimant when seeking permission to serve outside the jurisdiction under CPR 6.36 and of the perils of over-enthusiastic attempts to squeeze foreign claims into this jurisdiction. The case is also important on the question of how section 9(2) Defamation Act 2013 requiring evidence that England and Wales is “clearly the most appropriate place in which to bring an action in respect of the statement” is to be interpreted and the burden it places on a Claimant which the judge decided had not been discharged in this case.’
RPC Data and Privacy Law, 7th December 2015
Source: www.rpc.co.uk
‘Moosun, & Ors v HSBC Bank Plc (t/a First Direct) [2015] EWHC 3308 (Ch). This was a part – surely now the end part – of a long running saga of a mortgage possession and sale. The novel (if unsurprising) point of law concerned the “Ors” in this claim. You will have to read on – or skip to the end of the post, for that.’
Nearly Legal, 18th November 2015
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/
‘A litigant in person’s bid to sue HSBC and their solicitors Shoosmiths on behalf of two dogs has led the High Court to describe her as “one of those very rare litigants” against whom a two-year general civil restraint order had to be made.’
Litigation Futures, 16th November 2015
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The High Court has struck out claims against British Airways for damages allegedly arising from the air freight cartel on the basis of lack of authority. The claim was issued on behalf of 64,697 claimants, all members of the Chinese Chamber of International Commerce (CCOIC), an organisation that issues certificates of origin when goods are exported from China.’
Zenith Chambers, 2nd November 2015
Source: www.zenithchambers.co.uk
‘The High Court has thrown out almost 65,000 claims brought on behalf of Chinese businesses after finding the firm acting had no authority to do so.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 27th October 2015
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal in Alpha Rocks Solicitors v Benjamin Oluwadare Alade [2015] EWCA Civ 685 dealt with the issue of when it was appropriate to strike out a claim on the grounds that the claimant has abused the process of the court.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 19th October 2015
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024