“The case of Mr John Scarborough v Canterbury Christ Church University (Scarborough) which was recently decided carries potentially significant implications in terms of bringing a case that may fall under separate heads of action.This article discusses this decision and its practical effect on future litigation.”
Hardwicke Chambers, 7th November 2013
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
“On the 13th May 2003 whilst acting in the course of his employment with Fairclough Homes Limited (‘Fairclough’), Shaun Summers (‘Mr Summers’) fell from a truck and sustained both a fractured bone in his right hand and a fractured left heel bone. On the 28th October 2003 Fairclough admitted liability for the accident through its insurers (‘the admission’). Mr Summers went on to issue a claim for personal injury and associated losses on the 10th May 2006 but, having examined his medical records (which appeared to cast doubt on Mr Summers’ account of the accident), Fairclough applied for permission to withdraw their admission and served an Amended Defence in relation to liability. On the 28th August 2007, following a trial before HHJ Tetlow (‘the Judge’), Mr Summers obtained judgment against Fairclough with damages to be assessed.”
Sovereign Chambers, 25th September 2013
Source: www.sovereignchambers.co.uk
Binns and another v Firstplus Financial Group plc [2013] EWHC 2436 (QB); [2013] WLR (D) 361
“Where a claimant had obtained an award pursuant to alternative dispute resolution (‘ADR’) and subsequently brought a civil claim where the only potential advantage in bringing that litigation was the possibility of an additional award in respect of legal costs, the claim was to be struck out under CPR r 3.4(2).”
WLR Daily, 24th July 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Using the Terrorism Act to detain the partner of a Guardian reporter who covered US and UK security services was ‘legally sound’, Scotland Yard says.”
BBC News, 20th August 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“The Government’s termination of existing judicial review proceedings via certification under the Justice and Security Act was ‘troubling’ but lawful. Parliament’s intention was clear, even though there were no new rules in force yet.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 12th August 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“One of the country’s most senior judges has asked a legal regulator to consider striking off a law firm over its last-minute bids to block the deportation of failed asylum seekers.”
Daily Telegraph, 8th August 2013
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“The incoming Lord Chief Justice has asked the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) to consider a law firm’s continuing fitness to practise having found its senior partner in contempt of court.”
Legal Futures, 9th August 2013
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
Regina v Austin (Herbert): [2013] EWCA Crim 1028; [2013] WLR (D) 257
“It was the Crown’s responsibility to carry out the duties of disclosure. Judicial involvement could only properly be triggered by an application under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 by the prosecutor or by the defence. There was no provision for a trial judge to superintend the decisions of disclosure made by the prosecution on his own motion by inspecting unused material himself.”
WLR Daily, 27th June 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Salahuddin Amin v Director General of MI5, Chief of MI6, the FCO, the Home Office and the Attorney General- [2013] EWHC 1579 (QB). Do not be misled by the impressive cast list of defendants in this case it means simply that the claimant was attempting to attack the integrity of his criminal conviction via the civil courts.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 27th June 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“The high court has thrown out a damages case brought by a man convicted on terrorism charges who claimed MI5 was complicit in his alleged torture by Pakistan’s intelligence service.”
The Guardian, 26th June 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Where the question arose as to whether a defendant who had committed an offence was a victim of trafficking the prosecution was, and remained, responsible for deciding whether to prosecute or not. The court’s role was to protect the rights of a victim of trafficking by overseeing the decision of the prosecutor and refusing to countenance any prosecution which failed to acknowledge and address the victim’s subservient situation.”
WLR Daily, 21st June 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The tort of malicious prosecution extended to civil as well as criminal proceedings.”
WLR Daily, 13th June 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“There is a new independent Assessor (Stephen Shaw) for non-legal complaints made about the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) but not for the legal ones – how very odd! It was recently reported that victims of crime will be able to ‘win the right’ to appeal against decisions by the CPS not to charge suspects and there is a consultation which is open until the 5th of September 2013. It has a mnemonic ‘VRR’ which stands for a ‘Victim’s Right to Review’.”
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 12th June 2013
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
Wyatt v Vince: [2013] EWCA Civ 495; [2013] WLR (D) 166
“The court should not allow either party to a former marriage to be harassed by claims for financial relief which were issued many years after the divorce and had no real prospect of success. Such claims should be struck out under FPR r 4.4(1)(b) as an abuse of process.”
WLR Daily, 8th May 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The family of an SAS sniper say they are ‘bitterly disappointed’ after a judge ruled he would face a retrial over illegally possessing a pistol and ammunition – despite a last-minute claim that prosecutors acted improperly by consulting on the case.”
The Guardian, 1st May 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Regina v Hampshire County Council [2013] WLR (D) 117
“There was no reason to stay confiscation proceedings where a trademark offence had been committed, because trademark offences were lifestyle, repeat offences, which did real damage to those entitled to the profits of a trademark and deprived the manufacturers of the legitimate fruits of the research and development of their product and it was proceeds which mattered rather than blame.”
WLR Daily, 20th March 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Christou and another v Haringey London Borough Council: [2013] EWCA Civ 178; [2013] WLR (D) 97
“The doctrine of res judicata did not apply to disciplinary procedures operated by an employer, nor did the related doctrine of abuse of process apply as such, but an employment tribunal considering a claim for unfair dismissal following a second disciplinary process would have to decide whether it had been fair to institute that second process.”
WLR Daily, 12th March 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“It always seems much easier in theory than in practice to have a claim struck out as an abuse of process under the well known principle against re-litigation known by its leading authority of Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100.”
Hardwicke Chambers, 20th February 2013
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
Foulser v Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs [2013] UKUT 038 (TCC); [2013] WLR (D) 51
“The First-tier Tribunal had jurisdiction to deal with an allegation that a fair hearing of a tax appeal before it had been made impossible, but any contention that a party had acted unlawfully in public law had to be put forward by way of an application for judicial review in the High Court or the Upper Tribunal. In a case where the FTT considered that a debarring order was justified and no lesser order would meet the justice of the case but yet, the facts of the case did not come within Rules 7 and 8 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009, the FTT could produce the desired just result by using its power under Rule 5 to ‘regulate its procedure’, particularly to deal with the case fairly and justly.”
WLR Daily, 25th January 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The decision is of significance, because it is the first strike out of a fraudulent/exaggerated claim following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Summers v Fairclough Homes Limited [2012] 1 WLR 2004. Summers is authority for the proposition that under CPR 3.4(2) the court has power to strike out a statement of case on the ground that it is an abuse of process at any stage in the proceedings, including – but in very exceptional circumstances – at the end of a trial.”
Hardwicke Chambers, 31st February 2013
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025