‘In Griffiths v (1) Chief Constable of Suffolk (2) Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust [2018] EWHC 2538 (QB), the High Court dismissed claims that the Chief Constable and the NHS Trust were negligent in breaching their duties of care or had breached human rights.’
UK Police Law Blog, 24th January 2019
Source: ukpolicelawblog.com
‘Another third-party bid to see documents used in a high-profile piece of litigation, this time involving the tobacco industry, has been successful.’
Litigation Futures, 17th January 2019
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The same issues often crop up across an array of regulatory work. Legal professional privilege is the most obvious example, with a number of high profile cases arising out of SFO investigations. A second example concerns the rights of third parties to prevent the publication of adverse comment about them in regulatory reports and decisions (‘Maxwellisation’). In this article, Jamie Smith QC and Helen Evans explain how these two issues have arisen in the context of disciplinary investigations and proceedings undertaken by the Financial Reporting Council (FRC), which plays an important role in the regulation of accountants.’
4 New Square, 11th December 2018
Source: www.4newsquare.com
‘Lessons can be learned in the financial services sector from the rush to update contracts to account for the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) taking effect earlier this year.’
OUT-LAW.com, 2nd November 2018
Source: www.out-law.com
‘The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) has “inherent jurisdiction” to give non-parties access to documents, its tax chamber has ruled in allowing KPMG to see documents from another case involving HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC).’
Litigation Futures, 12th September 2018
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The Court of Appeal has strongly criticised a Queen’s Bench Master who allowed six boxes of court documents to be removed from the High Court by a non-party without notifying the defendant.’
Litigation Futures, 9th August 2018
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Motor insurers in the UK are to share the costs involved in meeting third party claims raised by victims of terrorist attacks involving vehicles.’
OUT-LAW.com, 26th July 2018
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Third party litigation funding is a growing industry in England and Wales, although the market remains largely unregulated.’
OUT-LAW.com, 19th July 2018
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Facebook has been ordered by a UK high court judge to reveal who told it to delete the profile of a jazz musician and his band, six months after he died.’
BBC News, 19th June 2018
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘The High Court was entitled to make a third-party costs order against the insurer involved in a group litigation, which required the insurer to cover the costs of all cases covered by the group litigation order (GLO) and not just those within the scope of its policy.’
OUT-LAW.com, 7th June 2018
Source: www.out-law.com
The only limit on the court’s discretion to make third-party costs orders against insurers is that it must be exercised justly, the Court of Appeal has ruled.
Litigation Futures, 31st May 2018
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Dogs and property throw up some of the more unusual and difficult issues on which a police lawyer is asked to advise. In the decision of Henderson v Comr of Police of the Metropolis [2018] EWHC 666 (Admin) and the subsequent costs decision at [2018] EWHC 1092 (Admin), the court visited two issues – the standing of a person to intervene in a case concerning the destruction of a potentially prohibited breed and kennelling costs during the course of an appeal by way of case stated / judicial review to the High Court.’
UK Police Law Blog, 22nd May 2018
Source: ukpolicelawblog.com
‘The Upper Tribunal has its own rules. It is not governed by the CPR. Inevitably, this leaves some gaps on occasion. One of those which occasionally puzzles people interested in the system is that there is no equivalent to CPR rule 5.4C, which allows non-parties the right to ask to see the court file. So can a non-party get access to an Upper Tribunal file, whether or not the material has been referred to in an open hearing?Yes, said the Tax and Chancery Chamber of the Upper Tribunal in Aria Technology Ltd v HMRC & Situation Publishing [2018] UKUT 111 (TCC). Although there was no specific power given in the Rules to disclose documents to non-parties upon request, there was nothing to prohibit it either. The provisions of rule 14(8) – which allows a party to seek a direction preventing disclosure – implicitly recognises a power to disclose. Indeed, Judge Sinfield went further. Applying the open justice principle as set out in no uncertain terms in R (Guardian News and Media Ltd) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court [2012] EWCA Civ 420, the Upper Tribunal had an inherent power and indeed a common law duty to consider any request for access to or disclosure of the court file, including material not referred to in open court.’
Panopticon, 25th April 2018
Source: panopticonblog.com
‘If a defendant is successful in defending a claim brought with the assistance of litigation funders who had an interest in the litigation, that defendant can apply under section 51 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 for a non-party costs order against the litigation funders.’
4 New Square, 19th March 2018
Source: www.4newsquare.com
‘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 Court of Appeal confirms the restrictive approach to third party rights under FCA Notices adopted by the Supreme Court in Macris v FCA [2017] UKSC 19.’
4 New Square, 6th February 2018
Source: www.4newsquare.com
‘The High Court has made a third-party costs order against UKIP, after the party took a “political” decision to block the settlement of a libel claim against one of its MEPs.’
Litigation Futures, 20th February 2018
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Peel Port Shareholder Finance Company Ltd v Dornoch Ltd [2017] EWHC 876 (TCC) serves as a reminder of the court’s approach to the rules on pre-action disclosure and the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010 (the 2010 act).’
Law Society's Gazette, 8th January 2018
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘Family analysis: In Richardson-Ruhan v Ruhan the court was concerned with assertions that assets belonging to the husband were held for him by a nominee, related commercial proceedings and arguments as to sham. Michael Chapman, partner, and Holly Tootill, senior associate, both from JMW, who acted for the wife in this case, answer some questions on this complicated and extensive decision.’
Family Law, 18th December 2017
Source: www.familylaw.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
© Inner Temple Library 2019