The issue in this case is as to the scope of the words “unable to communicate” in s.30(2)(b) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The defendant was charged with intentionally touching the complainant by penetrating her mouth with his penis. The complainant was unable to refuse because of or for a reason related to a mental disorder and the defendant knew or could reasonably have been expected to know that she had a mental disorder and that because of it or for a reason related to i ...
|
Mr Khoury was the chairman, general manager and a director of the Consolidated Contractors International Company SAL (“CCIC”). He has at all times been habitually resident in Greece. In July 2007, Mr Masri obtained without notice an order for his examination as an officer of CCIC in respect of CCIC’s means under CPR 71. The order, granted without notice and on paper by Master Miller, provided for service on the London solicitors then acting for CCIC. It was common ground that t ...
|
The issue for decision in this appeal relates to the basis on which compensation for compulsory purchase should be assessed in a case where the land in question has an unrealised potential for development but where the success of an application for the requisite planning permission is, although probable, not a certainty. More particularly, the issue is whether, in such a case, compensation should be assessed on the basis that planning permission for the development would be granted, or whether t ...
|
Ms Purdy suffers from primary progressive multiple sclerosis for which there is no known cure. It was diagnosed in 1995 and it is progressing. She expects that there will come a time when her continuing existence will become unbearable. When that happens she will wish to end her life while she is still physically able to do so. But by that stage she will be unable to do this without assistance. So she will want to travel to a country where assisted suicide is lawful, probably Switzerland. Her hu ...
|
The petitioners are tenants under a long lease of a restaurant in Bothwell. The respondent, as pursuer, raised an action against the petitioners, as defenders, in Hamilton Sheriff Court where they sought payment from the defenders of £204,000. By letters of inhibition registered on 18 September 2007 following registration of a notice of inhibition on 31 August 2007 the respondent inhibited the petitioners on the dependence of the action. Here the petitioners sought recall of the inhibition ...
|
The petitioner, a Jamaican national, lived in the United Kingdom for five years when she was a child before returning to Jamaica in 1992 when she was aged 12. The petitioner returned to the United Kingdom on 18 October 2000 accompanied by her two children, aged one and three, and were granted leave to enter for six months as visitors. Now, eight years after the expiry of that temporary permission the petitioner and her children are still within the United Kingdom, the petitioner at an Immigratio ...
|
Practice and Procedure - Review A review was ordered of a strike out for non pursuit of the claim. Notice was not given to the Claimant and she did not know of the review hearing where the strike out was affirmed. A further application for review of the review judgment was dismissed. Held: this was a cogent ground under Rule 34 and the review judgment was set aside and a rehearing ordered.
|
Practice and Procedure - Bias, misconduct and procedural irregularity The Appellants are a large organisation offering employment advice and representation before Employment Tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal. The same Employment Judge heard the cases of Mr Rees and others and Miss Malik against Peninsula. Shortly before the resumed hearing of the case of Mr Rees and others, the five partner firm of solicitors in which the then part time Employment Judge was an employment law special ...
|
Practice and Procedure - Costs Following the setting aside of the Employment Tribunal Judgment on grounds of apparent bias, a wasted costs order was made in respect of the improper conduct of counsel which contributed to the irregularity in procedure.
|
Jurisdictional Points - Extension of time: reasonably practicable In relation to the Claimant’s application for an extension for an out of time application for unfair dismissal, the Employment Judge (“EJ”) made a finding that the dismissal was on 21 December 2007 but that, although there was uncertainty prior to 8 February, the Claimant was on and after 8 February under the belief that he was dismissed on 8 February. The EJ found that the Claimant had that belief notwithstand ...
|
| 1 |