Use quotation marks around your search terms to find an exact phrase.

422 results found:

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted January 4th, 2021 in law reports by tracey

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

JB v University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust & Anor (Rev 1) [2020] EWCA Civ 1772 (23 December 2020)

Day, R (On the Application Of) v Shropshire Council [2020] EWCA Civ 1751 (23 December 2020)

Driver, R (On the Application Of) v Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council [2020] EWCA Civ 1759 (21 December 2020)

Gluck v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities And Local Government & Anor [2020] EWCA Civ 1756 (21 December 2020)

NRAM Ltd v Evans & Anor (Order) [2020] EWCA Civ 1760 (21 December 2020)

Kuwait Oil Company v Al-Tarkait [2020] EWCA Civ 1752 (21 December 2020)

MN v The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Rev 3) [2020] EWCA Civ 1746 (21 December 2020)

Z (Interim Care Order) (Rev 1) [2020] EWCA Civ 1755 (18 December 2020)

Etihad Airways PJSC v Flother [2020] EWCA Civ 1707 (18 December 2020)

Al-Najar & Ors v The Cumberland Hotel (London) Ltd [2020] EWCA Civ 1716 (18 December 2020)

Shahzad v Mazher & Anor [2020] EWCA Civ 1740 (18 December 2020)

Cartref Care Home Ltd & Ors, R (on the application of) v HM Revenue and Customs [2020] EWCA Civ 1744 (18 December 2020)

Fratila & Anor v Secretary of State for Works and Pensions & Anor [2020] EWCA Civ 1741 (18 December 2020)

M (Children) v Wiltshire Council & Ors [2020] EWCA Civ 1717 (18 December 2020)

RS, R (On the Application Of) v London Borough of Brent [2020] EWCA Civ 1711 (18 December 2020)

Stephenson Harwood LLP v Medien Patentverwaltung AG [2020] EWCA Civ 1743 (17 December 2020)

Coach Hire Surrey Ltd & Anor v Traffic Commissioner for the London and South East Traffic Area [2020] EWCA Civ 1706 (17 December 2020)

Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

Rowlett, R v [2020] EWCA Crim 1748 (18 December 2020)

Bailey & Ors, R. v (Rev 1) [2020] EWCA Crim 1719 (18 December 2020)

Nawaz, R. v [2020] EWCA Crim 1715 (18 December 2020)

High Court (Administrative Court)

Grice, R (On the Application Of) v [2020] EWHC 3581 (Admin) (24 December 2020)

Purvis, R (On the Application Of) v The Director of Public Prosecutions [2020] EWHC 3573 (Admin) (23 December 2020)

Goddard v Municipal Court In Pula-Pola (Croatia) [2020] EWHC 3563 (Admin) (21 December 2020)

Patman & Anor v Specialist Criminal Court In Pezinok, Slovakia [2020] EWHC 3512 (Admin) (21 December 2020)

Martin v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2020] EWHC 3525 (Admin) (21 December 2020)

Anglian Water Services Ltd v Environment Agency [2020] EWHC 3544 (Admin) (21 December 2020)

AS, R (On the Application Of) v Liverpool City Council [2020] EWHC 3531 (Admin) (21 December 2020)

Finch, R. (on the application of) v Surrey County Council [2020] EWHC 3566 (Admin) (21 December 2020)

ZV, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] EWHC 3562 (Admin) (21 December 2020)

Orire-Banjo, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] EWHC 3516 (Admin) (21 December 2020)

Nur & Anor, R (On the Application Of) v Birmingham City Council [2020] EWHC 3526 (Admin) (19 December 2020)

Hewitt, R (on the application of) v Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council & Anor [2020] EWHC 3405 (Admin) (18 December 2020)

LJ (Kosovo), R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] EWHC 3487 (Admin) (18 December 2020)

SH, R (On the Application Of) v Norfolk County Council & Anor [2020] EWHC 3436 (Admin) (18 December 2020)

Swale Borough Council v Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government & Anor [2020] EWHC 3482 (Admin) (17 December 2020)

Mitchell, R (On the Application Of) v Commissioners for Her Majestys Revenue And Custom [2020] EWHC 3489 (Admin) (17 December 2020)

High Court (Commercial Court)

Deutsche Bank AG v Sebastian Holdings Inc & Anor [2020] EWHC 3536 (Comm) (21 December 2020)

ING Bank N.V. & Anor v Banco Santander S.A. [2020] EWHC 3561 (Comm) (21 December 2020)

The Serious Fraud Office & Anor v Litigation Capital Ltd [2020] EWHC 3548 (Comm) (21 December 2020)

Njord Partners SMA-Seal LP & Ors v Astir Maritime Ltd & Ors [2020] EWHC 3474 (Comm) (18 December 2020)

Vale SA & Ors v Steinmetz & Ors [2020] EWHC 3501 (Comm) (18 December 2020)

Arag Plc v Jones & Anor [2020] EWHC 3484 (Comm) (18 December 2020)

High Court (Family Division)

Crowther v Crowther & Ors [2020] EWHC 3555 (Fam) (22 December 2020)

AEY v AL [2020] EWHC 3539 (Fam) (21 December 2020)

Norman & Anor, R (on the application of) v The Crown Court At Chelmsford & Anor [2020] EWHC 3456 (Admin) (18 December 2020)

CD v Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council (adoption set aside) (Rev 1) [2020] EWHC 3411 (Fam) (18 December 2020)

A County Council v KK & Ors [2020] EWHC 3510 (Fam) (18 December 2020)

Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust v MK (Medical Treatment) [2020] EWHC 3476 (Fam) (16 December 2020)

High Court (Patents Court)

Permavent Ltd & Anor v Makin [2020] EWHC 3495 (Pat) (17 December 2020)

High Court (Technology and Construction Court)

JSM Construction Ltd v Western Power Distribution (West Midlands) Plc [2020] EWHC 3583 (TCC) (31 December 2020)

Aqua Leisure International Ltd v Benchmark Leisurel Ltd [2020] EWHC 3511 (TCC) (18 December 2020)

National Crime Agency v Solicitor for the Affairs of Her Majesty’s Treasury [2020] EWHC 3491 (TCC) (18 December 2020)

R.G. Carter Projects Ltd v CUA Property Ltd [2020] EWHC 3417 (TCC) (17 December 2020)

Source: www.bailii.org

Gambling Act review expected to spur reform – OUT-LAW.com

Posted December 21st, 2020 in consumer protection, gambling, internet, news, regulations by sally

‘The UK government must be careful not to drive British consumers to unregulated gambling markets by imposing overly strict constraints on regulated providers of online gambling services, experts in gambling licensing and regulation have said.’

Full Story

OUT-LAW.com, 18th December 2020

Source: www.pinsentmasons.com

Comparethemarket fined £17.9m by competition watchdog – The Guardian

Posted November 19th, 2020 in compensation, contracts, fines, insurance, internet, news by sally

‘The competition watchdog has imposed a £17.9m fine on price comparison site Comparethemarket.com after it found that clauses in its contracts with home insurers broke competition law.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 19th November 2020

Source: www.theguardian.com

Data protection – ICO’s new guidance on data subject access requests – OUT-LAW.com

Posted November 6th, 2020 in codes of practice, data protection, employment, news by tracey

‘Leanne Francis comments on the ICO’s new guidance on handling data subject access requests from employees.’

Full Story

OUT-LAW.com, 5th November 2020

Source: www.pinsentmasons.com

Tighter regulation of cryptoassets coming in the UK – OUT-LAW.com

‘The regulation of cryptoassets is likely to get tighter in the UK, starting from next year, according to a new report by a body tasked with exploring whether new rules are needed to address their growing popularity.’

Full Story

OUT-LAW.com, 31st October 2018

Source: www.out-law.com

Court orders exemplary damages in fundamental dishonesty case – Litigation Futures

Posted January 11th, 2017 in accidents, costs, damages, fraud, fundamental dishonesty, insurance, judges, news, road traffic by sally

‘A district judge in Manchester has made an award of exemplary damages after finding road traffic accident claimants guilty of bringing fundamentally dishonest claims.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 10th January 2017

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

No escape from dishonesty hearing for claimant who discontinued – Litigation Futures

Posted April 27th, 2016 in costs, fraud, fundamental dishonesty, news, personal injuries, proportionality by sally

‘A personal injury claimant cannot escape a fundamental dishonesty hearing by serving a notice of discontinuance, a circuit judge has held.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 27th April 2016

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Court heaps landmark contempt sentence on whiplash cheat – Litigation Futures

‘A semi-professional footballer who brought a fake whiplash claim has suffered twice over after a four-month suspended sentence for contempt was heaped on an £11,000 costs order for bringing a fundamentally dishonest claim.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 19th April 2016

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

An Approach to Fundamental Dishonesty in the Claimant’s Absence – Zenith PI Blog

Posted April 12th, 2016 in appeals, civil procedure rules, costs, fundamental dishonesty, news by sally

‘A notable and well-known exception to Qualified One-Way Costs Shifting (QOCS) is that a Claimant whose claim is found to be “fundamentally dishonest” loses the protection of the QOCS rules.’

Full story

Zenith PI Blog, 11th April 2016

Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com

Courts given stronger powers to strike out ‘fundamentally dishonest’ claims, says expert – OUT-LAW.com

‘Courts in England and Wales now have the power to strike out personal injury claims in their entirety if the person making the claim has been fundamentally dishonest, even if parts of the claim were genuine.’
Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 17th June 2015

Source: www.out-law.com

“Fundamental dishonesty” and striking out in personal injury cases: ten key procedural points – Zenith PI

Posted May 12th, 2015 in fundamental dishonesty, news, personal injuries, striking out by tracey

‘The rule as to “fundamental” dishonesty has attracted a lot of attraction (and a lot of heated debate). However there has been very little examination of the details of the Act and the consequent procedural consequences. There are 10 key points which every personal injury litigator must be aware of.’

Full story

Zenith PI, 9th May 2015

Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com

Procedure – 39 Essex Chambers

‘Section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 comes into force on 13 April 2015.

Section 57, which introduces the presumption of dismissal in personal injury claims where the claimant has been found to be fundamentally dishonest in relation to a primary or related claim, comes into force on 13 April 20151. The explanatory notes to the Bill for this Act confirm that this provision is designed to extend the power identified in Summers v Fairclough Homes Ltd2 beyond the very exceptional circumstances required there under for an abusive claim to be struck out at the end of trial. The reference to a ‘related claim’ makes it clear that the Shah v Ul-Haq3 style claimant, who dishonestly supports the fraudulent claim of another, will also stand to lose their own (honest) claim.’

Full story

39 Essex Chambers, April 2015

Source: www.39essex.com

Satellite litigation warning as new fundamental dishonesty rule comes into force – Litigation Futures

‘The new rule on fundamental dishonesty in personal injury actions, which comes into force today under section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, brings with it “a lot of potential for satellite litigation”, a leading defence lawyer has warned.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 13th April 2015

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Law firms need to rethink approach under ‘fundamentally dishonest’ rule, barristers warn – Litigation Futures

‘Claimant solicitors have been warned that they need to review their retainers and advise clients about the implications of the new ‘fundamentally dishonest’ rule being introduced shortly.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 23rd February 2015

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

New ‘fundamental dishonesty’ rule may act “as deterrent”, MoJ says – Litigation Futures

Posted August 21st, 2014 in compensation, fundamental dishonesty, news, personal injuries by tracey

‘The government believes its new ‘fundamental dishonesty” rule could lead not only to the number of personal injury claims being reduced but may “have some form of deterrent effect” against exaggeration, it has emerged.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 21st August 2014

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Exaggerated symptoms see claimant lose QOCS protection in first ‘fundamental dishonesty’ decision – Litigation Futures

Posted May 15th, 2014 in costs, fundamental dishonesty, news, personal injuries by tracey

‘A circuit judge has ruled that a personal injury claimant who exaggerated the extent of his ongoing symptons should be denied the protection of qualified one-way costs shifting (QOCS) on the grounds that the claim was “fundamentally dishonest”.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 14th May 2014

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

When private counselling is a reasonable adjustment under the Equality Act? – No. 5 Chambers

‘The case of Crofts Vets and others v Butcher 2013 UKEAT/0430/12/LA and UKEAT/0562/12/LA is perhaps an unusual but important illustration of how far the duty to make reasonable adjustments under disability discrimination legislation goes (now Section 20 of the Equality Act 2010).’

Full story

No. 5 Chambers, 4th December 2013

Source: www.no5.com

Failing to inform online consumers about cancellation rights should be criminal offence, say trading standards bodies – OUT-LAW.com

“Businesses that sell goods and services to consumers over the internet should face criminal penalties if they fail to display details on cancellation rights, the Trading Standards Institute (TSI) and Association of Chief Trading Standards Officers (ACTSO) has said.”

Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 28th October 2013

Source: www.out-law.com

Piercing the Corporate Veil: Ramifications of the SC Decision in Prest v Petrodel Resources Limited – 11 KBW

Presentation

11 KBW, 24th July 2013

Source: www.11kbw.com

The Supreme Court grasps the nettle in Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd – 11 Stone Buildings

“On 12th June 2013, the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the eagerly anticipated appeal in Prest v Petrodel Resources Limited [2013] UKSC 34. For the second time this year, the Supreme Court has had to grapple with the circumstances in which it is appropriate to pierce the corporate veil, the previous decision being that of VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp [2013] 2 WLR 398 (a case in which a number of 11 SB members were involved). Unlike in VTB Capital, however, this time the Supreme Court grasped the nettle and gave some practical guidance as to the reach and limitations of the doctrine.”

Full story (PDF)

11 Stone Buildings, June 2013

Source: www.11sb.com