‘Japanese Knotweed (Fallopia Japonica) was originally introduced to the UK in the 1850s as an ornamental plant and animal feed, but it has spread rapidly and estimates now suggest at least one infestation in every 10km2. Knotweed can grow 3 – 4m in a 10 week growing season, and as little as 0.7 grams of rhizome can produce a new plant within only 10 days. The rhizomes can spread to a depth of 3 metres, and 7 metres horizontally. This strong growth and invasive root system can damage concrete foundations, buildings, roads, paving and retaining walls. For good reason, therefore, Knotweed is described by the Environment Agency as “indisputably the UK’s most aggressive, destructive and invasive plant”.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 10th November 2014
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘The ex-wife of a businessman who claims her former husband cheated her out of millions in their divorce settlement has won the right to take her case to the Supreme Court.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 5th September 2014
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘ Tchenguiz v. Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2014] EWCA Civ 472, 15 April 2014. This judgment is a neat illustration of how important it is to keep the concepts of public law and private law unlawfulness separate – they do not necessarily have the same legal consequences.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 15th April 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘A senior police officer has been sacked and could face a jail sentence after she was caught scamming high street stores out of hundreds of pounds. Tanya Brookes was a chief inspector at Surrey Police when she committed “an extensive range of petty frauds” against household names including The White Company and Boots.’
Daily Telegraph, 10th March 2014
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
Cramaso LLP v Ogilvie-Grant (Earl of Seafield) and others [2014] UKSC 9; [2014] WLR (D) 64
‘A contracting party could be liable in negligence for a representation made in pre-contractual negotiations which induced the conclusion of the contract by someone other than the original representee.’
WLR Daily, 12th February 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Supreme Court, 12th February 2014
‘Pleading fraud is not to be done lightly, and there can be significant adverse consequences of doing so inappropriately. Equally, however, failing to plead fraud where appropriate can deprive a party to litigation of the opportunity to succeed on a point which might be decisive in that party’s favour, and successfully alleging fraud can have very beneficial consequences in terms of liability, remedy and enforcement. This article is intended to provide a brief overview of factors that should be weighed when deciding whether to plead fraud in any given (civil) claim.’
Barristers’ Hub, 31st January 2014
Source: www.barristershub.co.uk
‘It was third time unlucky for a solicitor whose striking-off had twice been overturned by the High Court, as Mr Justice Mostyn yesterday rejected his challenge to the latest decision to remove him from the roll.’
Legal Futures, 21st November 2013
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
“We have seen Santander having trouble in mortgage possession proceedings in Northern Ireland recently. Here is another example which could perhaps, indeed maybe should, have been avoided, if the lender had actually taken proceedings sufficiently seriously.”
NearlyLegal, 11th October 2013
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
“A driving theory test advert that claimed a charge of £31 but levied nearly £50 has been banned. It follows a move to block adverts from websites that charge for the traveller EHIC card, which is free from the NHS.”
Daily Telegraph, 18th September 2013
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“Mr. Justice Birss summarized the issues in Fenty and Others v Arcadia Group Brands Ltd (t/a Topshop) and Another [2013] EWHC 2310 (Ch), [2013] WLR(D) 310 admirably in paragraph [1] of his judgment in that case: ‘Topshop is a well known fashion retailer. Rihanna is a famous pop star. In March 2012 Topshop started selling a t-shirt with an image of Rihanna on it. The image was a photograph taken by an independent photographer. Topshop had a licence from the photographer but no licence from Rihanna. Rihanna contends that the sale of this t-shirt without her permission infringes her rights. Topshop does not agree. This action is the result.’ ”
NIPC Law, 10th September 2013
Source: www.nipclaw.blogspot.co.uk
“Pop singer Rihanna has won a legal battle with clothing retailer Topshop over a T-shirt bearing her image.”
BBC News, 31st July 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“Last year I discussed Mr Justice Flaux’s decision in Graiseley Properties Limited and others v Barclays Bank plc [2012] EWHC 3093 (Comm) (see Littleton Comment on 4 December 2012). In that case Flaux J. had allowed amendments to plead fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of implied terms in relation to LIBOR which smoothed the path to claims which were, in essence, that the Bank had sold LIBOR-related products when it knew that its employees were attempting to ‘rig’ LIBOR rates for their own purposes (i.e. making their trades profitable) and that such conduct would disadvantage clients who relied on the Bank not attempting to manipulate LIBOR rates. Although I pointed out that allowing the amendments, which lacked the particularity to be expected, was unusual, I also observed that ‘This is a welcome and realistic approach to the difficulties faced by customers in claims against banks.'”
Littleton Chambers, 15th April 2013
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
“Gordon Brown’s complaint to the Press Complaints Commission over a Sunday Times story about the more than £2m in fees and expenses received since he stepped down as prime minister has been rejected.”
The Guardian, 4th March 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
VTB Capital plc v Nutritek and others [2013] UKSC 5; [2013] WLR (D) 41
“Where a claimant alleged that it had been induced by the fraudulent misrepresentations of a third party to enter a contract with a company, and sought to make a contractual claim against the third party as being jointly and severally liable with the company, it was not appropriate for the court to pierce the corporate veil, even if it could do so on appropriate facts, since to do so would render the third party liable as if he had been a co-contracting party with the company when he had not, and when none of the contracting parties, including the claimant, had intended that he should be.”
WLR Daily, 6th February 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Supreme Court, 6th February 2013
“The Government’s decision to repeal a law designed for regulating property sales and rely on general consumer protection legislation instead will expose housebuilders to new risks and increase their costs at a time when they can scarcely afford it.”
OUT-LAW.com, 15th October 2012
Source: www.out-law.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024