law reports – Page 71 – Current Awareness

‘The claimant foreign nationals, NA, KJ, WM and MY, who had resided for significant periods of time in the United Kingdom, were convicted of offences to which they were sentenced to periods of imprisonment of 12 months or more. As a result, they fell within the definition of foreign criminals in section 32 of the UK Border Act 2007, in respect of whom the Secretary of State was liable to make a deportation order, subject to the exceptions in section 33, which included where deportation would breach the offender’s rights under the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The claimants in each case made representations against their deportation in reliance on their rights to a private and family life under article 8 of the Convention. Paragraph 398 of the Immigration Rules, as they applied between July 2012 and 27 July 2014 (“the 2012 Rules”), provided that when assessing a claim that deportation would be contrary to an offender’s rights under article 8 of the Convention, the Secretary of State was required to consider whether the circumstances in paragraph 399 and 399A of the 2012 Rules existed, and that if they did not, it was only in exceptional circumstances that the public interest in deportation would be outweighed by other factors. The circumstances: (1) in paragraph 399 were that the claimant had a genuine and subsisting parental relationship with a child dependent on the claimant or a partner and it was not reasonable to expect the child to leave the United Kingdom or there were insurmountable obstacles to family life with the partner continuing outside the United Kingdom; and (2) in paragraph 399A were the long residence of the claimant in the United Kingdom and lack of family, social or cultural ties with the country to which he was to be removed. Pararaphs 399 and 399A applied to offenders sentenced to imprisonment for at least 12 months but less than four years (“medium offenders”) but not to those sentenced to periods of four years or more (“serious offenders”). ‘

WLR Daily, 16th June 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

In re X (A Child) (Reporting Restrictions: Guidance) – WLR Daily

Posted July 13th, 2016 in children, families, family courts, internet, judgments, judiciary, law reports, media, reporting restrictions by sally

In re X (A Child) (Reporting Restrictions: Guidance) [2016] EWHC 1668 (Fam)

‘Those applying for reporting restriction orders in family proceedings need to comply meticulously with the obligation to adequately notify the media in accordance with the FPR Practice Direction 12I—Applications for Reporting Restriction Orders and associate Cafcass practice note (paras 10, 25–28).’

WLR Daily, 4th July 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Surrey and others v Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust – WLR Daily

Posted July 13th, 2016 in appeals, costs, damages, fees, hospitals, law reports, legal aid, litigation friends, negligence, solicitors by sally

Surrey and others v Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust [2016] EWHC 1598 (QB)

‘Three separate cases involving clinical negligence litigation against the defendant hospital had been proceeding for several years prior to 1 April 2013. Under new legislation coming into force on 1 April 2013, a claimant entering into a conditional fee agreement (“CFA”) from that date would be unable to recover success fees and after the event (“ATE”) insurance premiums from the defendant if successful in the litigation. In each case the claim had initially been advanced with the benefit of legal aid, but in the month prior to 1 April 2013 the claimant’s solicitors, with the agreement of the claimant’s litigation friend, arranged for the legal aid certificate to be discharged and for the claim henceforth to be funded by a CFA to preserve the ability to recover the success fee and ATE premiums. In none of the cases was the litigation friend informed that the consequence would be the loss of the recognised 10% uplift on general damages. In each case the defendant challenged the successful claimant’s bill of costs, in so far as it sought to recover the success fee and the ATE premium, contending that the litigation friend’s decision was based on materially unreasonable advice (by reason of the omission to mention the 10% uplift) and that, since the burden was on the receiving party to establish that a cost was reasonably incurred and it was unknown what decision would have been made had proper advice been given, the doubt as to whether the additional costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred should be resolved in favour of the paying party. The costs judge in each case upheld the defendant’s challenge to those items, holding that the changed funding arrangements were not reasonable. Each claimant appealed, contending that the reasonableness of the decision to change funding had to be objectively assessed, so that the quality of any antecedent advice given to the claimants’ litigation friends was irrelevant.’

WLR Daily, 1st July 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Cadbury UK Ltd v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (Societe Des Produits Nestle SA intervening) – WLR Daily

Posted July 13th, 2016 in appeals, costs, inventions, law reports, patents, public interest, third parties, trade marks by sally

Cadbury UK Ltd v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (Societe Des Produits Nestle SA intervening) [2016] EWHC 1609 (Ch)

‘Where a party intervenes in an appeal from a decision of a hearing officer acting on behalf of the Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, ordinary a costs order will not be made in the intervener’s favour. The court will only consider departing from its ordinary position if it is satisfied that (1) the intervener’s position was successful, (2) its submission added value to the hearing, and (3) it had not duplicated the respondent’s submissions (paras 10, 12).’

WLR Daily, 7th July 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

City West Housing Trust v Massey; Manchester and District Housing Association v Roberts – WLR Daily

Posted July 13th, 2016 in appeals, evidence, housing, landlord & tenant, law reports, repossession by sally

City West Housing Trust v Massey; Manchester and District Housing Association v Roberts [2016] EWCA Civ 704

‘When exercising the discretion to suspend a possession order where a tenant’s evidence was considered to be untrue in whole or part, the judge has to be persuaded by cogent evidence that there is a sound basis for the hope that the previous conduct will cease or not recur. Cogent evidence regarding future compliance does not need to stem solely from the tenant himself, without regard to how others might behave, rather the likelihood or possibility of action by others, or even the perception that others might take action, may in an appropriate case be evidence which supports an overall assessment that there is real hope of compliance in the future (post, paras 47–49).’

WLR Daily, 7th July 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Daniel and another v Tee and others – WLR Daily

Posted July 13th, 2016 in breach of trust, compensation, law reports, solicitors, trusts by sally

Daniel and another v Tee and others [2016] EWHC 1538 (Ch)

‘The defendants were professional solicitor trustees of a trust of which the claimants were the beneficiaries. The claimants sought compensation for breach of trust in connection with the investment of the trust funds in the period 2000 to 2002.’

WLR Daily, 1st July 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

DB UK Bank Ltd (trading as DB Mortgages) v Jacobs Solicitors – WLR Daily

Posted July 13th, 2016 in banking, civil procedure rules, law reports, negligence, part 36 offers, solicitors, without prejudice communications by sally

DB UK Bank Ltd (trading as DB Mortgages) v Jacobs Solicitors [2016 [EWHC] 1614 (Ch)

‘The claimant bank brought a claim for professional negligence against the defendant firm of solicitors. The claimant’s solicitors sent a letter to the defendant’s solicitors stating that they were accepting the defendant’s offer to settle contained in a “ without prejudice save as to costs” letter (“WPSAC letter”) and enclosing a draft Tomlin order. A series of without prejudice letters and conversations followed. The defendant’s solicitors wrote reiterating the terms of their offer of settlement. Subsequently, the claimant’s solicitors sent a without prejudice letter containing a CPR Pt 36 offer. The parties differed as to the effect of the claimant’s Part 36 offer on the defendant’s WPSAC letter. The defendant contended that the claimant’s Part 36 offer was a counteroffer and, in law, had the effect of rejecting its WPSAC letter so that thereafter, it was not open for acceptance.’

WLR Daily, 4th July 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted July 8th, 2016 in law reports by sally

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

Times Newspapers Ltd v Abdulaziz [2016] EWCA Crim 887 (08 July 2016)

High Court (Administrative Court)

High Court (Chancery Division)

High Court (Commercial Court)

Vitol E & P Ltd v Africa Oil and Gas Corporation [2016] EWHC 1677 (Comm) (07 July 2016)

High Court (Family Division)

High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)

High Court (Technology and Construction Court)

Southern Gas Networks Plc v Thames Water Utilities Ltd [2016] EWHC 1669 (TCC) (04 July 2016)

Source: www.bailii.org

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted July 6th, 2016 in law reports by Mark L

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

ELS Group Ltd, R (on the application of) v HM Revenue and Customs [2016] EWCA Civ 663 (05 July 2016)

Tiuta International Ltd v De Villiers Surveyors Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 661 (01 July 2016)

Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

Rogers, R v [2016] EWCA Crim 801 (01 July 2016)

High Court (Administrative Court)

Binaura, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWHC 1578 (Admin) (05 July 2016)

Regional Court In Poznan (Poland) v Czubala [2016] EWHC 1653 (Admin) (05 July 2016)

Davies v Health And Care Professions Council [2016] EWHC 1593 (Admin) (05 July 2016)

OM, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Office [2016] EWHC 1588 (Admin) (01 July 2016)

Kearsey v Nursing And Midwifery Council [2016] EWHC 1603 (Admin) (01 July 2016)

High Court (Chancery Division)

Aqua Global Solutions Ltd v Fiserv (Europe) Ltd [2016] EWHC 1627 (Ch) (05 July 2016)

Daniel & Ors v Tee & Ors [2016] EWHC 1538 (Ch) (01 July 2016)

Purrunsing v A’Court & Co (a firm) & Anor [2016] EWHC 1528 (Ch) (01 July 2016)

High Court (Commercial Court)

Connect Shipping Inc & Anor v Sveriges Anfgartygs Assurans Forening (The Swedish Club) & Ors [2016] EWHC 1580 (Comm) (01 July 2016)

High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)

Montpelier Business Reorganisation Ltd v AJP One LLP & Ors [2016] EWHC 977 (QB) (05 July 2016)

Marsden v Barclays Bank Plc [2016] EWHC 1601 (QB) (05 July 2016)

F And S vTH [2016] EWHC 1605 (QB) (01 July 2016)

Community Pharmacies (UK) Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v The National Health Service Litigation Authority [2016] EWHC 1595 (QB) (01 July 2016)

The Software Incubator Ltd v Computer Associates UK Ltd [2016] EWHC 1587 (QB) (01 July 2016)

Surrey v Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust [2016] EWHC 1598 (QB) (01 July 2016)

High Court (Technology and Construction Court)

Goldsworthy & Ors (t/a Goldsworthy Builders) v Harrison & Anor [2016] EWHC 1589 (TCC) (01 July 2016)

Perenco UK Ltd & Anor v Bond [2016] EWHC 1498 (TCC) (29 June 2016)

Source: www.bailii.org

A Local Authority v D and others [2016] EWHC 1438 (Fam) – WLR Daily

Posted July 4th, 2016 in children, family courts, human rights, jurisdiction, law reports, local government, supervision orders, time limits, travellers by michael

A Local Authority v D and others [2016] EWHC 1438 (Fam)

‘The applicant local authority applied, pursuant to paragraph 6(3) of Schedule 3 to the Children Act 1989, for a six-month extension of a supervision order made in its favour under section 31 of the 1989 Act in respect of three children from the travelling community. The application was dated the day that the original order expired but was not issued until the following day.’

WLR Daily, 1st July 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk