i-law.com - Newsletter (Litigation Letter)

The Criminal Justice White Paper is an unlikely source of Family law reform, but the Government has taken the opportunity both to make improvements to processes in family work and also to link magistrates’ courts work more closely with that..

Online Published Date: 01 October 2002

Appeared in issue: Volume 21 No. 8 - 01 October 2002

Rejecting expert evidence

In Re M (Child: Residence) (CA TLR 24 July)

Online Published Date: 01 October 2002

Appeared in issue: Volume 21 No. 8 - 01 October 2002

Terrorism does not justify child abduction

In Re S (Child) (Abduction: Custody Rights) (CA TLR 15 July)

Online Published Date: 01 October 2002

Appeared in issue: Volume 21 No. 8 - 01 October 2002

Disclosure by children and family reporter to local authority

In Re M (a Child) (Disclosure: Children and Family Reporter) (CA TLR 23 August)

Online Published Date: 01 October 2002

Appeared in issue: Volume 21 No. 8 - 01 October 2002

Human rights challenges to care plans

C and another v Bury MBC (FD TLR 25 July)

Online Published Date: 01 October 2002

Appeared in issue: Volume 21 No. 8 - 01 October 2002

Mistaken disclosure of documents

Al Fayed and others v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and others (CA TLR 17 June)

Online Published Date: 01 October 2002

Appeared in issue: Volume 21 No. 8 - 01 October 2002

Interviewing single joint expert

Peet v Mid-Kent Healthcare NHS Trust ([2002] 3 All ER 688)

Online Published Date: 01 October 2002

Appeared in issue: Volume 21 No. 8 - 01 October 2002

Protection of whistleblowers

ALM Medical Services Ltd v Bladon (CA TLR 29 August)

Online Published Date: 01 October 2002

Appeared in issue: Volume 21 No. 8 - 01 October 2002

Qualified privilege as a preliminary issue

MacIntyre v Phillips and others (CA TLR 30 August)

Online Published Date: 01 October 2002

Appeared in issue: Volume 21 No. 8 - 01 October 2002

Remoteness of damage

McManus and others v Beckham ([2002] EWCA Civ 939 4 July)

Online Published Date: 01 October 2002

Appeared in issue: Volume 21 No. 8 - 01 October 2002

Mesothelioma appeals succeed

Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd and others and associated cases ([2002] 3 All ER 305 [2002] UKHL 22)

Online Published Date: 01 October 2002

Appeared in issue: Volume 21 No. 8 - 01 October 2002

Bishop not vicariously liable for vicarial campanology

Calvert v Gardiner and others (QBD TLR 22 July)

Online Published Date: 01 October 2002

Appeared in issue: Volume 21 No. 8 - 01 October 2002

Summary assessment

Q v Q (Family Proceedings: Costs Order) (F D TLR 16 July)

Online Published Date: 01 October 2002

Appeared in issue: Volume 21 No. 8 - 01 October 2002

Champertous agreement

R (on the Application of Factortame and others) v Secretary of State for Transport, Environment and the Regions (No 8) ([2002] EWCA Civ 932; TLR 9 July)

Online Published Date: 01 October 2002

Appeared in issue: Volume 21 No. 8 - 01 October 2002

Wasted costs where no adjudication

B v Pendlebury and another QBD NLJ 12 July p1072)

Online Published Date: 01 October 2002

Appeared in issue: Volume 21 No. 8 - 01 October 2002

Wasted costs orders against counsel

Medcalf v Mardell ([2002] 3 All ER 721 H of L)

Online Published Date: 01 October 2002

Appeared in issue: Volume 21 No. 8 - 01 October 2002

Part 36 costs offer

Mitchells v James (CA The Independent 18 July)

Online Published Date: 01 October 2002

Appeared in issue: Volume 21 No. 8 - 01 October 2002

Indemnity costs to defendant

Excelsior Commercial and Industrial Holdings Ltd v Salisbury Hamer Aspden & Johnson (a firm) (CA The Independent 18 June)

Online Published Date: 01 October 2002

Appeared in issue: Volume 21 No. 8 - 01 October 2002

Security outside CPR Part 25

Olatawura v Aviloye (CA TLR 24 July)

Online Published Date: 01 October 2002

Appeared in issue: Volume 21 No. 8 - 01 October 2002

No letter before action

Phoenix Finance Ltd v Federation International de L’automobile and others (Ch D TLR 27 June)

Online Published Date: 01 October 2002

Appeared in issue: Volume 21 No. 8 - 01 October 2002

CFAs fail for formal defects

1. Failure to state amount payable or that advice given Woods v Chaleff and others SCCO 30 April Conditional Fee Agreements Regulation 3(d) provides that a CFA must state the amount payable or the method to be used to calculate it. Regulation 4(1)..

Online Published Date: 01 October 2002

Appeared in issue: Volume 21 No. 8 - 01 October 2002

Percentage, not issue-based, costs order

Budgen v Andrew Gardner Partnership [2002] EWCA Civ 1125 31 July

Online Published Date: 01 October 2002

Appeared in issue: Volume 21 No. 8 - 01 October 2002

Statistics

The Lord Chancellor’s Department has reported that between May 1999 and April 2001 the average number of contract and tort claims covered by the CPR issued in the county court fell by 20%. The average number of possession of land and recovery..

Online Published Date: 01 October 2002

Appeared in issue: Volume 21 No. 8 - 01 October 2002

Part 36

The Civil Procedure Rules relating to Payments in Satisfaction (CPR Part 36) and payments made into court under order (CPR Part 37) are to be amended with effect from 1 April 2003 so that the same methods apply to actions in both the High Court and..

Online Published Date: 01 October 2002

Appeared in issue: Volume 21 No. 8 - 01 October 2002

Track reallocation

Maguire v Molin (CA TLR 12 August)

Online Published Date: 01 October 2002

Appeared in issue: Volume 21 No. 8 - 01 October 2002

Termination of agreement

Downing v Al Tameer Establishment ([2002] EWCA Civ 721)

Online Published Date: 01 October 2002

Appeared in issue: Volume 21 No. 8 - 01 October 2002

Rehearing or review?

Ansari and others v Puffin Investment Co Ltd and others (QBD TLR 17 July)

Online Published Date: 01 October 2002

Appeared in issue: Volume 21 No. 8 - 01 October 2002

Guidance on committal route

Barnet LBC v Hurst (CA TLR 12 August)

Online Published Date: 01 October 2002

Appeared in issue: Volume 21 No. 8 - 01 October 2002

Costs shocks

The anticlimax of the House of Lords washing its hands of CFAs in dismissing the appeal in Callery v Gray was merely the lull before the storm. In Halloran v Delaney the Court of Appeal reduced the Callery 20% benchmark by 75% to 5%, while in the..

Online Published Date: 01 October 2002

Appeared in issue: Volume 21 No. 8 - 01 October 2002