“One woman’s quest for justice against the so-called Lotto rapist ends in victory today, with a court ruling that paves the way for thousands of sex abuse victims to sue their attackers for compensation, The Times has learnt.”
The Times, 30th January 2008
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Statek Corpn v Alford and another [2008] EWHC 32 (Ch); [2008] WLR (D) 10
“S 21(1) of the Limitation Act 1980 applied to a claim by a beneficiary under a trust against an accessory to fraudulent breaches of trust committed by other people so that no limitation period applied to such claims.”
WLR Daily, 28th January 2008
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“The Labour Party has repeatedly failed to declare donations totalling more than £2.8 million to electoral regulators within the legal time limit, it emerged last night.”
Daily Telegraph, 26th January 2008
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
Fleming (t/a Bodycraft) v Revenue and Customs Commissioners
Conde Nast Publications Ltd v Same
House of Lords
“There was a breach of European Union law in the absence of a transitional period when the legislature introduced a retrospective time limit within which those liable to value-added tax could make a claim for overpaid input tax.”
The Times, 25th January 2008
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
“The absence of a transitional period when the legislature introduced a retrospective time limit within which value added taxpayers could make a claim for overpaid input tax amounted to a breach of European Community law. Therefore the time limit had to be disapplied in respect of those who had accrued rights when the retrospective time limit was introduced, and in all the circumstances it was for the legislature and not the court to introduce an adequate transitional period.”
WLR Daily, 23rd January 2008
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Stuart v Goldberg Linde and another [2008] EWCA Civ 2 [2008] WLR (D) 4
“In determining whether a claim was an abuse of the process of the court on the ground that it should have been included in a previous action, the prospects of the claim’s success or failure and delay in bringing it (falling short of a statutory time bar or laches) were not generally relevant.”
WLR Daily, 18th January 2008
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Vohora and Another
Chancery
“A claim by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to disqualify a director of a company under section 6 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 had to be brought, rather than commenced within two years.”
The Times, 10th December 2007
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only avaialble free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
O’Byrne v Aventis Pasteur MSD Ltd
Court of Appeal
“Where a claimant had made a mistake about the name but not the identity of the defendant, that name could be substituted after the expiry of the limitation period, where substitution was necessary required in order to determine the original action.”
The Times, 19th November 2007
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Vohora and another [2007] EWHC 2656 (Ch)
“A claim by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to disqualify a director of a company, on the ground that it was expedient in the public interest, had to be brought, rather that started, within two years. Therefore the two-year period was a limitation provision and, in accordance with CPR Pt 7, para 5, where the Secretary of State’s claim form was received in the court office on a date earlier than the date on which it was issued, the claim was “brought” for the purposes of the two-year period on that earlier date.”
WLR Daily, 16th November 2007
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“A rape victim who is fighting to sue her attacker for damages after he won millions on the lottery is ‘almost certain’ to win, her lawyers say.”
BBC News, 6th November 2007
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“Sex attacks in childhood highlight legal loophole.”
The Guardian, 5th November 2007
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“The Law Lords are to decide whether a victim of a rapist who won millions on the lottery can sue him.”
BBC News, 1st November 2007
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
Patent amendment is not making a different claim
Yeda Research and Development Co Ltd v Rhone-Poulenc Rorer International Holdings Inc and Another
House of Lords
“When a reference was made under section 37(1)(a) of the Patents Act 1977 for joint ownership of a patent and the Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks was seised of the matter, an amendment to claim sole ownership of the patent did not amount to the making of a new or different claim.”
The Times, 30th October 2007
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
“When a reference pursuant to s 37(1)(a) of the Patents Act 1977 for joint ownership of a patent had been made and the Comptroller of Patents Designs and Trademarks was seised of the matter, an amendment so as to claim sole ownership of the patent did not amount to the making of a new or different claim which was outside the limitation period.”
WLR Daily, 24th October 2007
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Somerville and others v Scottish Ministers (HM Advocate General for Scotland intervening)
“The time-limit in s 7(5) of the Human Rights Act 1998 did not apply to a claim for damages based on breach of a Convention right by a member of the Scottish Executive where the act or failure to act relied on was outside devolved competence and thus ultra vires in terms of the Scotland Act 1998.”
WLR Daily, 17th October 2007
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“A senior employment court has thrown out a claim for unfair dismissal because the e-mail carrying the paperwork arrived 88 seconds late.”
The Times, 8th August 2007
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
UK in breach of uninsured drivers’ duty
Byrne v. Motor Insurers’ Bureau and Another
Queen’s Bench Division
“Failure by the United Kingdom to comply with the Second European Directive on motor insurance rendered it liable in damages.”
The Times, 15th June 2007
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
All steps to be taken in time
Drury v. British Broadcasting Corporation and Another
Court of Appeal
“A claimant applying to extend time for service of the claim form should demonstrate to the court that he had taken all reasonable steps to effect service on the defendant before the time for service expired.”
The Times, 11th June 2007
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
Byrne v. Motor Insurers’ Bureau [2007] EWHC 1268 (QB)
“The procedure for making a claim to the Motor Insurers’ Bureau for compensation in respect of injury caused by an untraced driver under the Untraced Drivers Agreement 1972, which procedure was relied on by the United Kingdom as implementing art 1(4) of Council Directive 84/5/EEC, should be subject to a limitation period no less favourable than that which applied under s 28 of the Limitation Act 1980 to the commencement of proceedings by minors for personal injury in tort against a traced driver. Because the three-year time limit for the bringing of a claim under the Untraced Drivers Agreement 1972 was not compliant with art 1(4) of the Directive, which was capable of having direct effect, the United Kingdom was in sufficiently serious breach of its Community law obligations to give rise in principle to a liability for damages.”
WLR Daily, 7th June 2007
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Secretary of State for Defence v. Pensions Appeal Tribunal
“Notification requirements contained in s 9 of the Pensions Appeals Tribunals Act 1943 relating to rights of appeal from decisions of the Secretary of State for Defence on war pensions claims made pursuant to the Naval, Military and Air Forces etc (Disablement and Death) Service Pensions Order 1983, and to the time limits for such appeals, did not require the provision of a single document but could be fulfilled by the provision of a letter enclosing a leaflet to which reference was made,.nor was it necessary to state the date on which the time limit for the bringing of an appeal expired. Provided the information was reasonably clear, a notice specifying that notice of appeal must be given within a specified period of a specified date sufficed. A failure to comply strictly with the requirements of s 9 did not preclude the relevant time limits for appeals from starting to run.”
WLR Daily, 18th May 2007
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
© Inner Temple Library 2024