The Claimant was the landlord of commercial premises which were occupied by the Defendant. Each of the leases contained a break clause and this right was subject to certain conditions being complied with. The Defendant served break notices and the parties then reached a settlement in respect of repairs and decoration. The Claimant subsequently claimed rent arrears and service charge arrears alleging the break notices were not effective. The court held that the Claimant could not resile from the ...
|
Exceptional case of recovering costs as part of damages awarded. It would only be in an exceptional case that costs, ordered to be paid by the claimant to the defendant in the course of a negligence claim by the former against the latter, could be recovered by the claimant from the defendant as part of the damages awarded to the claimant against the defendant in the same claim.
|
Representation order was refused. An issue arose as to whether it had been open to the deputy district judge to conclude that D was not at risk of a custodial sentence. Held: The application would be dismissed. Given the intention of various statutory schemes to keep young offenders out of custody, the chance that D would receive a sentence of detention was so remote that it was open to the deputy district judge to conclude that such risk could be discounted for all practical purposes. Although ...
|
D was an immature boy of 14, of previous good character. He was accused of putting his finger into the vagina of C, an eight-year-old girl, who was a friend of his sister’s and whom he knew well. C complained when D asked if he could do it a second time. She also claimed that he had ’snogged’ her. He came before the youth court charged with offences contrary to s.6 and 7 SOA 2003. The Crown suggested to the court that the offences with which he was charged were grave offences under s.91(1) of th ...
|
D was facing trial and learned that the complainant had been arrested for a serious offence. By the time the day of trial arrived the CPS had not served details of that matter, so D was not in a position to make a bad character application. An application to adjourn was made, not opposed by the Crown. The justices ordered the trial to proceed and S was convicted. Held: The magistrates’ court decision to refuse the adjournment and accordingly deprive D of his right to disclosure under the CPIA 19 ...
|
D applied for permission to cross-examine C in relation to her previous convictions, on the ground that the matters went to her credibility, pursuant to s.100 of the CJA 2003. The judge refused the application. D was convicted. On appeal, the court considered whether the previous convictions were relevant to C’s propensity to behave in the manner alleged by D. The appeal would be allowed. Whilst, in the case of D’s bad character, propensity to commit offences of the kind with which he was charge ...
|
Exceptional case of recovering costs as part of damages awarded. It would only be in an exceptional case that costs, ordered to be paid by the claimant to the defendant in the course of a negligence claim by the former against the latter, could be recovered by the claimant from the defendant as part of the damages awarded to the claimant against the defendant in the same claim.
|
A decision not to vary an injunction that prevented a family of Romany gypsies from stationing caravans on their land was not perverse as the judge had taken account of the principles in the relevant authorities and had assessed the merits of an appeal against refusal of planning permission that was pending at the time of the hearing.
|
Evidence (proceedings in Other Jurisdictions) Act 1975. An order under the Evidence (Proceedings in Other Jurisdictions) Act 1975 for oral examination of a non-party to proceedings in the United States of America was set aside where the letter of request seeking the order was couched in such wide terms that it amounted to an impermissible investigation and the letter of request could not properly be modified or made subject to conditions.
|
By making the maximum sentence for the importation of all Class C drugs 14 years, Parliament had not intended to distinguish between cannabis and diazepam. The increase in sentence related to the importation of all Class C drugs, and it reflected the extreme seriousness with which Parliament viewed offences of that type.
|
| 1 |