Case Summaries Up To February 2006
Select Your Region: Scotland  England and Wales  UK  Northern Ireland  Europe  All
Selected Region: England and Wales
By Law Brief Publishing on 01/03/2006 00:00
The first part of the rule in Wheeldon v Burrows (1879) LR 12 Ch D 31 has no application on a conveyance made on enfranchisement under s.8(1) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. The application of the second rule in Wheeldon was limited by the need to construe the conveyance executed so as to give effect to the common intention of the parties and by s.10(2)(ii).
By Law Brief Publishing on 01/03/2006 00:00
D ran a defence that involved his wife. His wife was not called to give evidence in support, and the prosecution relied upon that fact when making a closing speech to the jury. Held: Such comment was wrong and should not have been made. It infringed s.80A PACE 1984. However, in the instant case the conviction was safe as the judge had given a strong direction to the jury not to speculate as to why the wife was not called. Had that warning not been given, the conviction might have been unsafe.
By Law Brief Publishing on 01/03/2006 00:00
In order to prove previous convictions the prosecution relied upon memoranda of conviction. The court held that proof was not a matter of law, but of fact. The circumstances that would establish a prima facie case of identity depended on the unique facts of each case.
By Law Brief Publishing on 28/02/2006 00:00
Apportionment of liability – Slipping accident. In a claim for damages for personal injury, where it had been part of the appellant's job to check that trays of disinfectant used as footbaths were full, and the appellant had been aware the tray might slip if not full, the judge had been correct to make a finding of contributory negligence and to apportion the blame at 40 per cent where the tray had slipped when the appellant stood in it.
By Law Brief Publishing on 28/02/2006 00:00
If, on an application to quash an acquittal, a new trial were ordered, publicity of the very fact that the CA concluded that there was “compelling” evidence for making such an order might of itself realistically be regarded as prejudicial to the subsequent trial so that, although a press release by the Director of Public Prosecutions in advance of the first such application might have been appropriate, it was doubtful whether any form of press release would be appropriate in future.
By Law Brief Publishing on 24/02/2006 00:00
Clinical Negligence. An operation to correct a congential heart defect was carried out and the patient discharged. The child patient was re-admitted one week later and a pericardial effusion was drained. The patient was discharged and reviewed a week later by a senior registrar. He found her recovering well and arranged for a review one month later. 10 days later the patient suffered a very large pericardial effusion which led eventually to cardiac arrest and re-admission. There was consequenti ...
By Law Brief Publishing on 24/02/2006 00:00
Bolam – No negligent breach of duty. A senior registrar in paediatric cardiology had not been negligent in deciding to reduce the dose of diuretics medication and arrange a review in a month in respect of a child who had a congenital heart defect and had suffered a large pericardial effusion since, at the time of the decisions, an echocardiogram had shown only residual pericardial effusion. The recurrence of the latter ten days later and the consequent cardiac failure and brain damage was not t ...
By Law Brief Publishing on 24/02/2006 12:00 AM
Failure to commence detailed assessment proceedings in time. Where a party had failed to commence detailed assessment proceedings in time the court had the power to disallow both interest and costs, and it could not be said that where the court disallowed interest it would only be in exceptional circumstances that it could also disallow costs.
By Law Brief Publishing on 24/02/2006 00:00
Where there was a breach of an ASBO and the underlying criminal conduct was an offence for which the maximum prison sentence was 6 months it was not wrong in principle for a court to pass a sentence longer that 6 months for the breach.
By Law Brief Publishing on 23/02/2006 00:00
The taxpayer ran a dry cleaning business and was subject to a penalty for dishonest evasion under s.60 VAT Act 1994. It was contended that the codes of practice under Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 applied and there had been an unfair hearing at Tribunal because of the ineffectiveness of the taxpayers accountant representing them. The Court held that PACE did not apply and that there was nothing to have alerted the Tribunal to unfairness.
1
 
This content is made available by CaseCheck Limited under a Creative Commons Licence  |  Terms Of Use