Use quotation marks around your search terms to find an exact phrase.
‘The Court of Appeal has ruled that the sentence imposed on a defendant for breaching the terms of an anti-social behaviour injunction, was manifestly excessive.’
Local Government Lawyer, 29th June 2016
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘A personal injury claimant cannot escape a fundamental dishonesty hearing by serving a notice of discontinuance, a circuit judge has held.’
Litigation Futures, 27th April 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘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.’
Litigation Futures, 19th April 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘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.’
Zenith PI Blog, 11th April 2016
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘Councils should be able to apply for and be granted magistrates’ approval electronically for access to communications data, the Local Government Association and trading standards organisations have said.’
Local Government Lawyer, 11th January 2016
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘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
‘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.’
Zenith PI, 9th May 2015
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘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.’
39 Essex Chambers, April 2015
Source: www.39essex.com
‘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.’
Litigation Futures, 13th April 2015
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘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.’
Litigation Futures, 21st August 2014
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘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”.’
Litigation Futures, 14th May 2014
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘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).’
No. 5 Chambers, 4th December 2013
Source: www.no5.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.”
OUT-LAW.com, 28th October 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
“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
“The disciplinary procedures of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons did not give rise to any appearance of bias so as to breach a practitioner’s right to a fair trial under Article 6.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 18th January 2012
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“Trading Standards officers are now empowered to enter premises and seize goods and documents they believe to be involved in copyright infringement, now that changes to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act have come into force.”
OUT-LAW.com, 11th April 2007
Source: www.out-law.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024