‘A Planning Inspector recently delivered a long-awaited decision following an appeal under Section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The appeal was lodged following non-determination by Wiltshire Council over a site for major housing development in Old Sarum Airfield, in one of the original ‘rotten boroughs’ of Old Sarum.’
No. 5 Chambers, 8th August 2019
Source: www.no5.com
‘The most recent episode in litigation between two Russian Oligarch involving an application to set aside a World-wide Freezing Order (“WFO”) and permission for service out of jurisdiction (“Service Out Order”) for failures in the duty of full and frank disclosure (“the Full and Frank Duty”).’
Hardwicke Chambers, 9th August 2019
Source: hardwicke.co.uk
‘In an interesting and rare case, a Revocation Order (‘the Order’) made by Thanet District Council was successfully challenged. The Order had aimed to revoke planning permission for the erection of a detached 2 storey 3 bedroom dwelling. The objector was the owner and occupier of the Order Property.’
No. 5 Chambers, 7th August 2019
Source: www.no5.com
‘The exercise of the ancient common law right to conduct a private prosecution has become a growth area in the last decade. A number of members of Park Square Barristers now receive instructions to advise and appear in court in this burgeoning area.’
Parl Square Barristers, 30th July 2019
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
‘In a decision handed down on 30th July 2019, the Court of Appeal have overturned a controversial first instance decision. Mostyn J had refused permission to bring a claim under s4 Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. The substance of the claim under the Act related to whether a beneficial interest under a discretionary trust, rather than outright provision, failed to make reasonable provision for a spouse. The first instance decision created a stir because, among other findings, Mostyn J made obiter comments that it was not appropriate for parties to enter into ‘stand still agreements’ as an attempt to extend the 6-month time limit for bringing claims under the Act whilst negotiations were underway.’
No. 5 Chambers, 7th August 2019
Source: www.no5.com
‘Interim payment applications are often the battleground for pre-trial skirmishes, the warm-up before the main event. Recent cases have identified some successful arguments made by defendants in disputed IP applications and particularly the evidence needed by a defendant if they wish to successfully challenge an application.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 8th August 2019
Source: hardwicke.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal declines to give guidance on whether a treating clinician who was also an expert would, in some cases, be able to give expert evidence without meeting the requirements of Part 25. It did recommend input by the President’s working group on the issue.’
Park Square Barristers, 27th August 2019
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
‘Every professional negligence lawyer knows that establishing the necessary causative link between a professional’s breach of duty and the loss suffered by the client can be the most difficult aspect of any claim. That can prove even more problematic in construction professional negligence cases, in particular those involving costs “overrun”, both because of the broader range of alternative hypotheticals and the number of other professionals involved with the project.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 6th August 2019
Source: hardwicke.co.uk
‘It was recently confirmed in Fernandes de Oliveira v Portugal [2019] ECHR 106 (no.78103/14, 31 January 2019) that a state’s positive obligation under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) applies not only to compulsorily detained patients, but also to those in hospital. However, there was a disappointing caveat. The European Court on Human Rights (ECtHR) concluded that “a stricter standard of scrutiny” might be applied to patients detained “involuntarily” following judicial order (para.124). Indeed, no Article 2 violation was found. In a partly dissenting Minority Opinion (MO), Portugal’s Judge Pinto De Albuquerque and Judge Harutyunyan describe the decision scathingly as “the result of a creative exercise of judicial adjudication for an imagined country” (MO, para.16). This article analyses the case law the ECtHR failed to apply, contends that the decision is plainly wrong, and argues that no differentiation between voluntary and involuntary patients can be justified.’
No. 5 Chambers, 6th August 2019
Source: www.no5.com
‘Robert Jenrick, the new Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government will today complete his first week in office. His initial pronouncements about increasing housing delivery appear very encouraging. Added to which, his new boss Boris Johnson, seems keen to do things differently. And well he might, as the Conservative Party’s track record on housing delivery, first as the main party in a coalition, and then on its own, has been very poor.’
No. 5 Chambers, 6th August 2019
Source: www.no5.com
Planning analysis: In refusing permission to apply for statutory review, the Court of Appeal held that there was no limit to the number of parties to which claimants could be liable to in costs and that the court was correct not to limit further the Aarhus cap on the basis that the claim failed at the permission stage. Nevertheless, successful defendants and/or interested parties may only recover reasonable and proportionate costs. Written by Howard Leithead, barrister at No5 Chambers.
No. 5 Chambers, 5th August 2019
Source: www.no5.com
‘On 27 June 2019 in the English High Court in Kazakhstan Kagazy Plc & 5 Others v Baglan Abdullayevich Zhunus & Others [2019] EWHC 1693 (Comm) 2019 WL 02746548; the High Court re-examined the principles on which a Defendant can be cross-examined on their assets where there had been a disclosure order pursuant to a worldwide freezing order (‘WFO’).’
No. 5 Chambers, 1st August 2019
Source: www.no5.com
‘If you are considering commencing insolvency proceedings against another party, do ensure that they actually owe you a debt before you do so. This point is so obvious that it barely needs stating. However, Martin v McLaren Construction Ltd serves as an example of how things can go badly wrong if it is not double-checked.’
Hardwicke Chambers, August 2019
Source: hardwicke.co.uk
‘The first respondent (“Koza Ltd”) was a private company incorporated in England in March 2014. Koza Ltd was a wholly owned subsidiary of the sixth appellant (“Koza Altin”), a publicly listed company incorporated in Turkey and part of a group of Turkish companies known as the Koza Ipek Group (“the Group”). The Group was formerly controlled by the second respondent (“Mr Ipek”).’
Hardwicke Chambers, 22nd August 2019
Source: hardwicke.co.uk
‘Alison Berridge, Alexandra Littlewood and Ciar McAndrew, public law barristers at Monckton Chambers, highlight the points of interest from April-June decisions of the First-Tier and Upper Tribunals.’
Monckton Chambers, 20th August 2019
Source: www.monckton.com
‘The Court of Appeal handed down judgment yesterday [2 August] in FSHC Group Holdings Ltd v Glas Trust Corporation Limited [2019] EWCA Civ 1361.’
Littleton Chambers, 2nd August 2019
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘Corporate Crime analysis: Matthew Richardson, barrister at Henderson Chambers, examines the concept of ‘bulk hacking’ by intelligence services and some of the legal implications, in light of the latest judicial review challenge by Liberty.’
Henderson Chambers, 9th August 2019
Source: www.hendersonchambers.co.uk
‘In this case, the UKSC held that courts have an inherent jurisdiction independent of the CPR to order non-party access to court documents under the constitutional principle of open justice. This, however, is to be balanced against both any countervailing interests in refusing access, and the principle of practicality and proportionality.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 28th August 2019
Source: hardwicke.co.uk
‘A defendant who brought a fraudulent claim against Cardiff Council in a “phantom passenger” road traffic accident case has been sentenced to four months in prison, suspended for 18 months, it has been reported.’
Local Government Lawyer, 28th August 2019
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024