Day: 28 March 2025

‘The Applicant, BDW, was the developer of 5 separate buildings which were constructed between 1999 and 2005 (“the Development”). As part of this process, BDW contracted with the First Respondent, Ardmore Construction Limited (“ACL”), to carry out the design and build of the Development. ACL was a subsidiary of the Second Respondent, Ardmore Construction Group Limited, who was itself a subsidiary of the Third Respondent, Admore Group Limited. All of the companies were owned by the parent-company, the Fourth Respondent, Ardmore Group Holdings Limited (collectively “R2-R4”).’

Full Story

Tanfield Chambers, 26th March 2025

Source: tanfieldchambers.co.uk

‘IN Lewis-Ranwell v G4S Health Services (UK) Ltd. and others [2024] EWCA Civ 138, the claimant (C) had been diagnosed with schizophrenia. A few years later, he was detained by the police on suspicion of burglary and was visibly mentally unwell. He was released after being seen by mental health professionals employed by the defendants (DD). Later that day, C was arrested on suspicion of assault and released the next day, again after being seen by DD’s mental health professionals. Soon after his second release, C killed three men during a psychotic episode. C was acquitted of murder by reason of insanity, on the basis that he did not realise his conduct was contrary to the criminal law or the “standards of reasonable ordinary people” (see Keal [2022] EWCA Crim 341, at [41]). Following this acquittal, C was detained in hospital. C sought damages from DD in negligence, including for loss of liberty, and an indemnity for claims against him by the victims’ estates. C argued that, had DD not been careless in their provision of care, he would not have been released from custody and in a position to kill. At first instance, DD failed to strike out the claim on the ground of illegality. The Court of Appeal, by a majority (Underhill L.J. and Dame Victoria Sharp P.), agreed that the illegality defence did not apply. In this note, we argue that the majority was correct.’

Full Story

Cambridge Law Journal, 7th January 2025

Source: www.cambridge.org

‘The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by a resident over what could be raised in a review request to London Borough of Haringey after she had rejected a property offer as unsuitable.’

Full Story

Local Government Lawyer, 27th March 2025

Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk

‘Can a person who expects to be granted a licence, and whose expectation is disappointed, bring a claim in proprietary estoppel?’

Full Story

Tanfield Chambers, 3rd March 2025

Source: tanfieldchambers.co.uk