The Simmons v Castle debate continues – Cloisters
‘Sarah Fraser Butlin considers the most recent EAT judgment on the issue in Olayemi v Athena Medical Centre.’
Cloisters, 25th July 2016
Source: www.cloisters.com
LGO urges action by council on planning complaint against predecessor body – Local Government Lawyer
‘The Local Government Ombudsman has issued a further report against Durham County Council in relation to a planning complaint involving a predecessor authority.’
Local Government Lawyer, 26th July 2016
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
Inside the UK’s biggest prison – BBC News
‘By the end of this year, HMP Oakwood in Staffordshire will be the largest prison in the UK, with more than 2,000 inmates. Run by private firm G4S, Oakwood’s reputation was dented in 2014 when a wing in the prison was taken over by inmates. Sima Kotecha has been inside.’
BBC News, 27th July 2016
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
Five things you may have missed about the Chilcot inquiry – The Guardian
‘Much of the furore surrounding the Iraq war report focused on the failings of Tony Blair. But there were other, crucial findings that shouldn’t be ignored.’
The Guardian, 26th July 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Seaside arcade ordered to pay £300 to girl, 8, after refusing to give her prize – Daily Telegraph
‘A seaside amusement arcade has been ordered to pay back more than £300 to an eight-year-old girl because they refused to give her a prize.’
Daily Telegraph, 26th July 2016
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
Tricky quantum case that grapples with PI claims involving multiple tortfeasers and disputes between experts – Cloisters
‘William Latimer-Sayer QC considers the case of XP V Compensa Towarzystwo SA v Przeyslaw Bejger [2016] EWHC 1728 (QB) in which Whipple J had to grapple with a number of tricky quantum issues.’
Cloisters, 25th July 2016
Source: www.cloisters.com
Prison’s gross failures contributed to death of inmate, inquest finds – The Guardian
‘A catastrophic series of failures contributed to the death of a prisoner, who died after setting fire to his cell, an inquest jury ruled.’
The Guardian, 26th July 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Divorced helicopter pilot who refuses to leave the marital home could be jailed – Daily Telegraph
‘A helicopter pilot who barricaded himself in the home he lost in his £6m divorce will be jailed if he does not get out of the property by next week.’
Daily Telegraph, 27th July 2016
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
High court challenge could derail Labour leadership race – The Guardian
‘Labour could be forced to reopen its nomination process for the leadership contest if a high court judge rules on Thursday that Jeremy Corbyn must have the support of his MPs to appear on the ballot.’
The Guardian, 26th July 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
A part of inclusion? Disabled people and the right to a fair hearing – Cloisters
‘John Horan considers two recent cases that highlighted particular difficulties that disabled people face in obtaining a fair hearing before the courts. Both cases (Rackham v NHS Professionals Ltd and Galo v Bombardier Aerospace UK) provide a common-sense framework of considerations which a court or tribunal must bear in mind. The second, Galo, identifies the need for better training for judges and legal practitioners in Northern Ireland as to the requirements of disabled people.’
Cloisters, 19th July 2016
Source: www.cloisters.com
Relief from Sanctions Two Years after Denton: A Practical Views from the Bar – Littleton Chambers
‘James Bickford Smith discusses judicial approaches to procedural default two years after the Court of Appeal’s decision in Denton v White Ltd and another, Decadent Vapours Ltd v Bevan and others and Utilise TDS Ltd v Davies and others [2014] EWCA Civ 906, and considers the challenges still facing practitioners and judges in dealing with applications for relief from sanctions.’
Littleton Chambers, 20th July 2016
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
Predictive coding – the current landscape – Hardwicke Chambers
‘Disclosure of documents is a significant driver of costs. Where the relevant documents are electronic, the problem is usually exacerbated. This is simply because the vast majority of documents are now created electronically and the proliferation and storage capacity of day-to-day IT equipment is such that the amount of information available may be enormous.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 21st July 2016
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
Declarations as to the validity of an arbitration agreement; has anything changed after HC Trading v Tradeland? – Hardwicke Chambers
‘Section 1(c) of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) makes clear that in matters governed by Part I of the AA 1996, “the court should not intervene” except to the extent provided in the AA 1996 itself.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 18th July 2016
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
Unreasonable Conduct in the First-tier Tribunal – Hardwicke Chambers
‘On 22 June 2016, the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) gave judgment in three conjoined appeals concerning the proper interpretation of Rule 13 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013; four members of Hardwicke appeared in the case. The appeals shared a number of facts: each arose out of a dispute over service charges payable under the lease of a flat; each concerned a dispute between a lessee and a tenant owned management company; and in each the award of costs was greater than the amount of service charge in issue in the proceedings.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 14th July 2016
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
Substituting a new mess for an old one? The Illegality Defence after Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 42 – Henderson Chambers
‘On 20 July 2016 the Supreme Court handed down judgment in Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 42. The effect of the majority’s decision is to over-rule Tinsley v Milligan [1994] 1 AC 340, which for more than two decades stood as authority for the “reliance test” applicable to the illegality defence. Under that test, where a claimant is obliged to rely on his own illegal act in support of his claim – be it in contract, tort or unjust enrichment – a defence of illegality could, subject to certain exceptions, successfully be established.’
Henderson Chambers, 25th July 2016
Source: www.hendersonchambers.co.uk
An (e)stopped clock is right twice a day: Is your engineer’s conduct a ticking time bomb? – Hardwicke Chambers
‘As the deluge of smash and grab adjudications continues to percolate through the construction industry, shrewd contractors are advancing more and more creative legal submissions as a way of reviving interim payment applications that have somewhere gone awry. Twice in the past year, the TCC has been addressed on the issue of whether a contractor can rely on an estoppel to resuscitate an interim application; and in one of those cases, that estoppel was created solely out of the actions of the contract administrator. Although the TCC has yet to fully articulate all of those situations in which the actions of the engineer or contract administrator are capable of giving rise to an estoppel, construction professionals would be wise to exercise a degree of caution and be wary of inadvertently bestowing such rights upon the contractor, much to the detriment of the employer.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 21st July 2016
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
Bringing the Bar to the Pub: “Pop-up Justice” for the 21st Century? – Littleton Chambers
‘On 30 June 2016, The Times reported on a speech given by Sir James Munby, President of the Family Division of the High Court, to a conference organised by Solicitors for the Elderly. It touched on the possibility of holding court hearings in public places other than court buildings. On the same day, The Daily Mail reported that “[m]akeshift courts could be held in buildings such as pubs or town halls.” Now, many a practitioner (not least myself) has calculated the swiftest route from a judicial tongue-lashing to some alcoholic relief from sanction, but can they really be proposing pub hearings (legal history buffs might like to note that a Court of Piepowders, described by Sir William Blackstone as “the lowest, and at the same time the most expeditious, court of justice known to the law of England”, sat at the Stag and Hounds in Bristol until 1870)? Probably not.’
Littleton Chambers, 18th July 2016
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
Buyer beware – Hardwicke Chambers
‘William Griffiths QC is a successful silk but was the unsuccessful defendant in the widely reported case of Hardy v Griffiths [2014]. Mr and Mrs Griffiths had exchanged contracts with the claimant, Mr Hardy, to buy Laughton Manor for £3.6m and paid £150,000 on account of the 10% deposit, the contract incorporating the Standard Conditions of Sale (SCS).’
Hardwicke Chambers, 25th July 2016
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
The Treatment of Migrant Workers: A Patchwork of Protection – Littleton Chambers
‘June was a bumper month in the developing field of claims concerning vulnerable migrant workers who are badly treated by their employers. English law offers a patchwork quilt of contractual and statutory protections. One of the challenges for advisers and representatives is identifying the most appropriate causes of action for the treatment received.’
Littleton Chambers, 14th July 2016
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
