‘Lucy McCann speaks to Cara Guthrie and Matthew Flinn of 1 Crown Office Row, about multi-defendant litigation in the field of clinical negligence.’
Law Pod UK, 24th April 2023
Source: audioboom.com
‘CNZ v Royal United Bath Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust is a must-read for those practising in clinical negligence and especially for those practising in birth injury cases. However, the case also provides useful guidance on material contribution and apportionment. Ritchie J sketches out important parameters on the law on material contribution and extracts the important distinction between divisible injury and divisible
outcome. The terminology can be nebulous unless a distinction is drawn between these concepts (injury and outcome) which Ritchie J provided with welcomed clarity. The law on material contribution has migrated from industrial disease to clinical negligence litigation and the judgment provides important guidance when a Claimant suffers an injury from a combination of tortious and non-tortious causes.’
3PB, March 2023
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
“In The Church of Scientology Religious Education College Inc v Ricketts (VO) [2023] UKUT 1 (LC), the issue in the appeal was whether two buildings used by the Church of Scientology in London were exempt from non-domestic rating under the exemption covering places of public religious worship and related church premises. The key to the relevant exemption was that the hereditament concerned had to be, or include “a place of public religious worship”. The Upper Tribunal noted that in R (Hodkin) v Registrar General [2013] UKSC 77, the Supreme Court had ruled that the Scientologists’ London chapel was a place of meeting for religious worship within the meaning of section 2 of the Places of Worship Registration Act 1855 and should be registered for the solemnisation of marriages under the Marriage Act 1949.”
Law & Religion UK, 10th January 2023
Source: lawandreligionuk.com
‘Any company with “lumpy” profits which would be disadvantaged by a time-based apportionment of oil-related profits for UK tax purposes is entitled to elect for a different profit apportionment method, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’
Out-Law.com, 2nd November 2020
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘The decision of Master Cook in ARN v Ageas Insurance Ltd (27/1/2020), when approving a Fatal Accident Act settlement involving four children, provides a novel and pragmatic solution to a difficult apportionment problem. A single mother was killed in a road traffic accident, leaving four young children. The children were the deceased’s only dependants and their claim was settled for a substantial lump sum.’
12 King's Bench Walk, 13th February 2020
Source: www.12kbw.co.uk
‘Where an apportionment for exposure to asbestos was carried out using a time based apportionment as opposed to a dose based apportionment.’
Zenith PI Blog, 15th February 2017
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘A consideration of the Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Scott v Gavigan [2016] EWCA Civ 544 before Elias LJ, Clarke LJ and Simon LJ.’
Zenith PI Blog, 22nd June 2016
Source: www.zenithpiwordpress.com
‘In 2011, Marks and Spencer plc (“M&S”) operated a “break clause” in commercial leases of office premises. Following determination, M&S sought to recover from the landlord advance quarterly rent that it had paid for the period after the successful break. M&S relied, in part, on an implied term claim that post-break rent should be returned to it. The landlord denied the claim and litigation ensued. Morgan J in the High Court gave judgment for M&S on the claim. The Court of Appeal unanimously reversed the judgment. The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed M&S’ appeal and re-stated the principles for the implication of contract terms: Marks and Spencer plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Co (Jersey) Ltd[2015] UKSC 72, [2015] 3 WLR 1843.’
New Square Chambers, 11th April 2016
Source: www.newsquarechambers.co.uk
‘A term would only be implied into a detailed commercial contract if its implication were necessary to give business efficacy to the contract or so obvious that went without saying.’
WLR Daily, 2nd December 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Employers may be entitled to deduct a day’s pay for strike action at the rate of 1/260th of the striking worker’s salary depending on contractual terms, the Court of Appeal has confirmed.’
Out-Law.com, 28th May 2015
Source: www.out-law.com
Hartley and others v King Edward VI College [2015] EWCA Civ 455; [2015] WLR (D) 216
‘Section 2 of the Apportionment Act 1870 applied to teachers’ contracts of employment, requiring that apportionment of pay be considered as accruing from day to day; but it was an error to construe the provision as though it also contained a principle of equal daily accrual.’
WLR Daily, 14th May 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v Ahmad and another: Regina v Fields and others: [2014] UKSC 36; [2014] WLR (D) 264
‘Where the court, in confiscation proceedings, found that the benefit of the relevant criminal conduct had been jointly obtained, each defendant was liable for the whole of the amount of the benefit and no apportionment was to be made between the co-defendants. However, to avoid double recovery by the state, where there was finding of joint obtaining, so that the confiscation order in respect of each defendant was made for the value of the whole benefit, the order would contain the condition that it would not to be enforced to the extent that a sum had been recovered by way of satisfaction of another confiscation order made in relation to the same joint benefit.’
WLR Daily, 18th June 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Windermere Marina Village v Wild [2014] UKUT 163 (LC) is an important decision about the vexed question of apportionment that arises in many residential service charge disputes.’
NearlyLegal, 2nd June 2014
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
R (JG) v Lord Chancellor (Law Society intervening) [2014] EWCA Civ 656; [2014] WLR (D) 235
‘Where a child who was a party to private law proceedings under the Children Act 1989 had the benefit of public funding in respect of his costs and the court considered that it was necessary to instruct a single joint expert to produce a report to assist the court in determining what was in the best welfare interests of the child, but the other parties had no funding and were unable to pay their share of the expert’s costs, the court could depart from the order that it would otherwise have made, to the greater cost of the publicly funded party, where the failure to adduce the expert’s report would result in a breach of one of the party’s rights under articles 6 or 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and the court was not prevented from doing so by section 22(4) of the Access to Justice Act 1999. Where, in the case of a single joint expert, there was no problem over resources, there was no normal rule of equal apportionment of the costs, and that issue of apportionment was to be determined in the exercise of the court’s discretion, taking into account the particular circumstances of the case.’
WLR Daily, 21st May 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Vodafone 2 v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2009] EWCA Civ 446; [2009] WLR (D) 170
“It was possible to provide a conforming interpretation of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 which avoided any unlawful restriction on a taxpayer company’s freedom of establishment, conferred by art 43EC of the EC Treaty, by the introduction of an additional exception to those contained in s 748(1)(a) to (e) and (3) in respect of the apportionment of profits of controlled foreign companies by the additional implication of the words ‘ if [the company] is, in that accounting period, actually established in another member state of the EEA and carries on genuine economic activities there’.”
WLR Daily, 21st May 2009
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“A project to examine the complicated rules governing the treatment of trust receipts and outgoings as capital or income and the extent to which trustees who have to distinguish between income and capital should be able to invest on a ‘total return’ basis, with reference particularly to trusts for interests in succession and to charitable trusts with permanent endowment.”
Law Commission, 7th May 2009
Source: www.lawcom.gov.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024