‘The High Court has struck out claims brought by more than 200,000 Brazilian claimants in the English courts against British and Australian holding companies in relation to the collapse of the Fundao Dam in Brazil in 2015. In Municipo de Mariana v BHP Group PLC ([2020] EWHC 2930 (TCC)) Turner J found the claims to be an abuse of process and also considered that, in the alternative, the proceedings should be stayed under the Recast Brussels Regulation and on the basis of forum non conveniens. While Turner J emphasised that the factual background of this case was central to his conclusions, his judgment contains a detailed analysis of the relevant caselaw and his consideration of the facts surrounding the claim will no doubt be of interest to parties involved in similar cross-jurisdictional and group actions. Charles Gibson QC led the Counsel team for the Defendants.’
Henderson Chambers, 19th November 2020
Source: www.hendersonchambers.co.uk
‘The High Court has struck out a claim brought on behalf of more than 200,000 claimants over a dam collapse in Brazil, saying it risked becoming “the largest white elephant in the history of group actions”.’
Litigation Futures, 9th November 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘A High Court judge has strongly attacked the claimants in what he described as a “forensic arms race” over a complex claim by 202,000 Brazilian people and businesses following the collapse of a dam in 2015.’
Litigation Futures, 7th October 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘This case acts as a reminder of the hierarchy to seeking a remedy in construction contracts. The right to legal proceedings in construction contracts is more fundamental than the payment provisions. The payment provisions are superior to the adjudication provisions. However, a party will still have to honour judgment debts in related proceedings.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 5th August 2020
Source: hardwicke.co.uk
‘In Tindall v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police [2020] EWHC 837 (QB) — available on Westlaw but not yet Bailii or the ICLR, the courts have again demonstrated a reluctance to strike-out a police negligence claim. This shows the difficulty of trying to show whether the police have positively created a danger / made it worse or merely refrained from protecting someone. A claim against the police for negligence will usually arise in the first instance but not, subject to exceptions, the second.’
UK Police Law Blog, 4th August 2020
Source: ukpolicelawblog.com
‘The Court of Appeal has overturned a decision to strike out a £2.2m personal injury claim, despite concluding it was issued inappropriately and there had been an abuse of process.’
Law Society's Gazette, 4th August 2020
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal has overturned a decision to strike out a £2.6m personal injury claim which remained in the RTA portal for almost four years before the claimant’s solicitors sought to transfer it to the multi-track.’
Litigation Futures, 4th August 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘A former employee of national law firm Shoosmiths – who was awarded £1,000 in damages for harassment back in 2017 – has had a string of further claims thrown out, with an employment tribunal branding them vexatious.’
Legal Futures, 18th June 2020
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘The High Court has ruled it was wrong to strike out secondary victim claims from daughters who witnessed their father die after he was allegedly victim of clinical negligence.’
Law Society's Gazette, 12th June 2020
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The law relating to secondary victims, who suffer psychiatric injury as a result of witnessing a shocking event, has long been an area of contention.’
St Philips Chambers, 8th June 2020
Source: st-philips.com
‘In November 2019 Master Cook had struck out the secondary victim claims brought by the Claimants as a result of witnessing the heart attack and subsequent death of their father some 14 ½ months after the alleged negligent omission of the Defendant Trust. This was on the basis that the claims were bound to fail on a strict application of binding authorities including Taylor -v- A. Novo [2014] QB 150 because the shocking event in question was not proximate in time to the breach of duty. In Taylor v A. Novo the Court of Appeal had dismissed a secondary victim claim where the claimant’s mother had been injured by a falling stack of boards due to the negligence of a colleague at work and had subsequently collapsed and died at home as result of deep vein thrombosis secondary to the accident. The claimant witnessed her mother collapsing at home but not the accident itself. Her claim failed on proximity because the death of the claimant’s mother was not the relevant shocking “event”, which was the accident itself, and so the control mechanisms were not satisfied.’
St John's Chambers, 4th June 2020
Source: www.stjohnschambers.co.uk
‘An application for the approval of reserved matters does not amount to a new application for planning permission.’
Tanfield Chambers, 28th May 2020
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘The Mail on Sunday has won the first round of a legal battle against the Duchess of Sussex over the publication of a letter she wrote to her father.’
BBC News, 1st May 2020
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘A claimant who issued proceedings after the defendant accepted a part 36 offer for £0 – which he said had been made by mistake – has had his claim struck out for abuse of process.’
Litigation Futures, 7th April 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The primary issue for the Court of Appeal in this case was what conduct constitutes abuse of process where one party to litigation unilaterally suspends proceedings for a substantial amount of time without the agreement of the other party nor the approval or an Order of the court.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 27th March 2020
Source: hardwicke.co.uk
‘The High Court has rejected a bid to strike out the claim by various public figures that the legal department of MGN Group knew about phone hacking at the Daily Mirror.’
Legal Futures, 11th March 2020
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘The Claimant (herein after referred to as “C”) was employed by the Respondent (herein after referred to as “R”) as a caseworker from 4 August 2016 until her dismissal on 8 December 2016, with the grounds for dismissing her being ones of conduct and performance during her probationary period.’
3PB, 7th February 2020
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024