The CPAG challenged the government policy of seeking repayment of overpaid social security benefits under common law powers. The overpayments were ones without fault on the part of the recipient (for which there was a statutory recovery scheme). The issue raised was whether common law powers for the recovery of mistaken payments were applicable in light of the existence of the powers for recovery under s71 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. It was held that there was no inco ...
|
The CA considered for the first time the question of whether a penal notice addressed to the local authority could be attached to an order for contact under s.34 CA 1989 and whether such an order is enforceable by committal. The CA found that a penal notice could be attached and the order enforced by committal although on the facts of the instant case they removed the penal notice as contact was working smoothly.
|
A patent in the field of manufacture of cans for the drinks industry, which claimed machinery for introducing a neck into the upper body of a can, was invalid for lack of inventive step (but not for lack of novelty) and was not infringed by the defendant’s necking machines because their drive means were not “housed within an internal chamber defined within the shaft support portion” but were housed in an external chamber attached to the outside of the support means.
|
Costs of Attending Inquest Capable of Recovery in Subsequent Civil Proceedings
It was held on appeal that the costs of attendance at an inquest were not incapable of being recoverable as costs incidental to subsequent civil proceedings. Where a solicitor did not attend an inquest, he might well be able to claim as incidental to civil proceedings the costs he incurred prior to the commencement of proceedings in relation to the collection of evidence from witnesses who had given evidence at the inquest; indeed, it could be envisaged that in many situations such a course woul ...
|
A husband's application for permission to appeal out of time against orders in relation to ancillary relief proceedings was refused.
|
The issue was whether the phrase in s28B of Disability Discrimination Act 1995 Act that a body “discriminates against a disabled person if…for a reason which relates to his disability, it treats him less favourably than it treats or would treat others to whom that reason does not or would not apply…” was to be interpreted in the same way as the House of Lords interpreted the same phrase in another section of the Act in London Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm [2008] U ...
|
The main contractor for the new Wembley Stadium (Brookfield, formerly Multiplex) attempted to rely on a clause requiring the Architect to give it access to its personnel so that it could carry out a fully and systematic review of the Architect’s services. The Architect refused; it argued that the operation of the clause ceased upon the completion of its services and argued that those services were already complete. Coulson J disagreed with the Architect. He found that the obligation continued af ...
|
After underwriters audited the cover-holder’s records, they brought a claim for breach of contract. The cover-holder compromised this on the basis that the binders would be commuted with underwriters meeting 100% of claims paid and 70% of all outstanding claims. The cover-holder then sought to recover its costs of dealing with the audit and the claim from its Lloyd’s Broker whom it alleged had mishandled business written under the binders. By way of Defence and Counterclaim th ...
|
Where D had previously been given a legitimate expectation that the MC would pass sentence it was unlawful for the MC to commit D to the CC for sentence.
|
A party will not be permitted to rely upon fresh evidence in extradition appeals unless there is very good reason. The respondents are of Roma origin and contended before the district judge that their extradition to Hungary, a Category 1 territory under the 2003 Act, was barred by extraneous considerations (section 13) and that the judge should order their discharge because their extradition would be incompatible with their Convention Rights within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 199 ...
|
| 1 |