This case concerned a “pay when paid” clause. Such clauses are forbidden by section 113(1) of the Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 unless it can be shown that the third party employer is insolvent. Hare were engaged by Shepherd to fabricate and erect steelwork at a development in Wakefield. There was an express term of the contract, clause 32, which was in similar terms to the 1996 Act and defined the employer’s insolvency by reference to four alternate situations (1) an adm ...
|
The court was wrong to refuse to admit a previous conviction for driving whilst disqualified (in order to prove that the defendant was disqualified) on the grounds that a previous application to adduce bad character had been refused.
|
Changes to the CJA 1991 early release provisions (enacted by the CJIA 2008) did not breach the prisoner's article 6 rights (he was still subject to release by the parole baord, while others would be automatically released).
|
Conduct described in a European arrest warrant constituted an extradition offence. It was implicit that the deliberate failure by K to return a car to its owner following a failure to make payments and was summonsed to return the car by an apparently appropriate body, was a criminal offence. The fact that the individual concerned, suffered from a heart condition, was insufficient in the circumstances to make his extradition oppressive. The heart condition required that he be fitted with an impla ...
|
Statement Recording the Fact that Legal Advice Has Been Given is Not Necessarily Privileged:-Morgan J. held that statements that referred to the fact that a party had sought legal advice, but made no reference whatsoever to the content of the legal advice received, did not in themselves give rise to an implied waiver of legal privilege in that advice. Although the privileged material may have been of relevance to a Court’s fact-finding exercise, relevance was not in itself sufficient to give ris ...
|
The word "trial" in the Extradition Act 2003 did not refer to a single event and it was appropriate to construe "trial" as meaning a continuing process that only came to an end when a final decision was made in criminal proceedings that formed the basis of an extradition request. That included the appeal. Misinformation given by a legal adviser to an individual subject to an extradition request would not make that individual's decision to absent himself from a trial not deliberate for the purpos ...
|
A refusal by the High Court to certify a question for the House of Lords following an unsuccessful extradition appeal to the High Court did not of itself make the High Court's decision final or abridge the period of 14 days allowed for making an appeal against the High Court's decision as it was open to an individual to seek to certify a different question within the 14-day period allowed for by s.32(5) EA 2003. Moreover, to make the running of the required period of 10 days under s.36(3) depend ...
|
A judge had correctly ordered the extradition to the United States of a British man alleged to have committed advanced fee fraud at a high level. Although the judge had stated that the relevant guidance in relation to forum did not apply, he had still observed the spirit of the guidance; although the Metropolitan Police played a large role in collecting the evidence, it was highly mobile. X was the principal witness and it was not clear if there would be other witnesses. Although X would have re ...
|
(T) appealed against a conviction for grievous bodily harm with intent. A witness (X) had stated that T had confessed the incident to her immediately after it had happened. At the conclusion of her statement she had said that she was leaving the area the following day and would not have made the statement otherwise, out of fear. She also stated that she would not attend court to give evidence. At a preliminary hearing it was made clear that X would be needed for the trial, and a witness summons ...
|
The CA allowed in part the appeal of a Father against a fact finding judgment within care proceedings where findings had been made that he was the perpetrator of non-accidental injuries to both children and that the Mother could not be excluded as a perpetrator. The Father argued that the Mother should be found to be sole perpetrator of the injuries. Both parents sought a re-trial. The LA and GAL argued that neither parent could be excluded as a perpetrator. The CA substituted its own judgment a ...
|
| 1 |