<October 2014>
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
May 2004
May 2002
February 2002
January 2002
October 2001
February 2000
Most recent case entries
Select Your Region: Scotland  England and Wales  UK  Northern Ireland  Europe  All
Selected Region: All
By Euan A. Dow on 30/09/2014 11:05 AM
Criminal note of appeal against conviction:- On 24 July 2013, at Glasgow High Court, the appellants were convicted after a lengthy trial of various charges including inter alia the murder of three members of the Sharkey family in Helensburgh who died after their home was wilfully set on fire on 2 July 2011. On 25 July 2013 the appellants were sentenced to life imprisonment with punishment parts fixed at 33 and 29 years respectively. The appellants appealed against their convictions. No appeals w ...
By Law Brief Publishing on 29/09/2014 6:08 PM
Is the conduct of the defence capable of constituting an aggravating factor for sentence? The Appellant was convicted of two offences, namely (1) being concerned in the supply of controlled drugs of Class A; and (2) possession of a controlled drug of Class A with intent. He was sentenced to six and a half years' imprisonment on each Count to be served concurrently. The Appellant appealed against sentence with the leave of the single Judge on the basis that the sentencing Judge was over-influe ...
By Law Brief Publishing on 29/09/2014 6:06 PM
The Claimants had been passengers in the Defendant's taxi. It was alleged that they had sought to get out of the taxi and leave the scene without paying. Three of the Claimants' friends had run from the scene and the Defendant started moving his taxi to prevent the Claimants from escaping. The Claimants had jumped from the moving taxi and sustained serious injuries. It was held that any fault by the taxi driver was overwhelmed by the intentions and actions of the Claimants. Even if the Defend ...
By Law Brief Publishing on 25/09/2014 3:12 PM
Reviewing the criteria for committing a youth for trial to the Crown Court. This was a claim for judicial review brought by the Claimant who was twelve years of age. The Claimant sought judicial review of the decision of District Judge made in the Youth Court to commit him for trial to the Crown Court pursuant to what is now the Crime and Disorder Act 1988, s.51A(3)(b). The Claimant was eleven years of age at the time of the offence with which he was charged, namely a single offence of causin ...
By Law Brief Publishing on 25/09/2014 3:11 PM
Misusing an order for costs in an attempt to discipline the Director of Public Prosecutions. Peter Barry Goodison, the driver of a bus, was prosecuted for an offence of causing death by careless driving. Mr Goodison was tried at the Crown Court at Sheffield and was acquitted. After the acquittal the trial Judge determined that the failure to prosecute another driver involved in the collision and the decision only to prosecute Mr Goodison were improper acts or omissions. The trial Judge theref ...
By Law Brief Publishing on 24/09/2014 5:00 PM
This costs judgment by Ramsey J considers the circumstances in which (i) it would be appropriate to make a Bullock or Sanderson Order for the unsuccessful Defendant (SHP) to pay the NHBC's costs and (ii) whether the Claimant could recover its costs of pursuing the NHBC from SHP. The facts of the case were somewhat unusual. The Claimants were a group of residents of an estate in Hartlepool who issued a claim against SHL and NHBC for issues with the foundations in their homes. The proceedings agai ...
By Law Brief Publishing on 24/09/2014 4:56 PM
The claimants had lost in their professional negligence action against the defendant. One issue for consideration by the judge was whether the defendant's costs should be assessed on the standard basis or the indemnity basis. The defendant's previously approved costs budget was in the sum of £91,700, but its schedule at the conclusion of the litigation was for £166,649. A costs order on the indemnity basis would give the defendant the opportunity to recover costs in excess of its appro ...
By Law Brief Publishing on 24/09/2014 4:55 PM
Warby J considered an application for relief from sanctions where the claimant's solicitor had mistakenly served a notice of funding late. The defendant had been notified of the funding arrangement by letter prior to issue but the claimant's solicitor had failed to file and serve a notice of funding with the claim form. The earlier letter contained all the information required by the rules and the solicitor mistakenly thought that it amounted to compliance. The error had come to the attention of ...
By Law Brief Publishing on 24/09/2014 4:52 PM
The Court of Appeal allowed the claimant's application under CPR 31.20 for permission to rely upon privileged documents that had been inadvertently disclosed in the course of the litigation by the defendant. The Court observed that a party is at liberty to waive privilege in documents by producing them for inspection. Just because a document is obviously privileged, it did not follow that its production for inspection was obviously a mistake. Mistake is likely to be held to be obvious where t ...
By Law Brief Publishing on 24/09/2014 4:51 PM
This case had been widely reported following the Court of Appeal's judgment (at [2013] EWCA Civ 1264) confirming that the Defendant police authority was debarred from calling witness evidence as a consequence of failing to comply with Court orders. The matter came before HHJ Llewellyn (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) for the trial. The Judge acknowledged that in some cases an adverse inference may be drawn from the absence of silence of a witness. However, this case was unique in that i ...
This content is made available by CaseCheck Limited under a Creative Commons Licence  |  Terms Of Use