The court dismissed a Husband's application for the return of his passport which was held by the tipstaff pending the conclusion of ancillary relief proceedings. The court considered the authorities and found the Husband to be in contempt of court and further that the Wife had a good case for a substantive award, the Husband was plainly about to quit the jurisdiction and this would materially prejudice the Wife in her application.
|
The court conducted a final hearing in this long running litigation in the absence of the Husband, who did not attend. The court order a lump sum of £12.5m to the wife (£8.3m constituting maintenance). Funds held in court were released to the Wife (save for a portion held back on account of previous costs orders) however the full sums payable were not identifiable within the jurisdiction for the court to make specific orders. Ongoing enforcement proceedings are highly likely.
|
The court granted a declaration that a marriage ceremony undertaken in the UK had no legal effect as the parties had previously undergone a valid marriage ceremony in Connecticut, US. The court deplored the practice of participating in two ostensibly valid ceremonies for social reasons.
|
The CA refused a Husband's appeal against an order in Ancillary Relief proceedings. Permission had been granted to appeal on specific 'arithmetical' points. the CA however held that the Husband's conduct throughout 10 years of litigation and the trial itself had left the trial judge in the position of having to make certain assumptions.
|
The Appellant sought to appeal against his conviction for an offence of theft on the basis that the trial Judge had wrongly permitted the Prosecution to rely upon a confession he made. The confession had been made by the Appellant to his employer from whom he was said to have stolen during the course of his employment. The Appellant's employer had informed the Appellant that, were he to confess, the situation could be resolved without the Police being involved. Having been given that unequivocal ...
|
The Appellant accepted that a notice served pursuant to the Road Traffic Act 1988, s.172 was served at the registered address within the relevant period of time, but the Appellant regularly worked outside the jurisdiction and in his absence his post was dealt with by his wife, staff and/or private secretary. The Court accepted that the Appellant did not personally receive the relevant notice, nor was he informed of it and was therefore personally unaware of the requirement to provide the informa ...
|
The Appellant pleaded guilty to offences of theft and handling stolen goods and was sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment. The Appellant was also disqualified from driving for a period of three years pursuant to the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, s.147.The offences involved diesel fuel from a depot which was broken into. It was a highly sophisticated and planned operation by professional criminals - including the Appellant - which occurred over the course of two separate evening ...
|
Requiring notice from a party that intended to place reliance on hearsay evidence within an agreed court bundle was undesirable.The court held that in essentially straightforward litigation, where a party intended to place reliance on hearsay evidence, the best option might be to ensure that an opposing case was properly pleaded and then the obligation would lie on each party's lawyers to go through the agreed documents with the client or witness and take instructions on any relevant discrepant ...
|
Failure of the court to deal adequately with expert evidence when an expert comments on areas outside of his appointment.The Court held there would need to remit a claim for maintenance and repairs for a re-trial after a judge had failed to adequately deal with an expert report which professed to deal with maintenance and repair costs which were outside the scope of his appointment. A claim for just over £55,000 for maintenance and repair costs had been made as part of an claim for personal inju ...
|
A Claimant who had elected to withdraw from the Pre-action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury Claims in RTA's was only entitled to his costs under the protocol.A motor vehicle insurer had failed to acknowledge a PI claim notification from in accordance with the procedure under the Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value PI claims in RTA's. The Claimant had withdrawn his claim from the protocol due to a delay of 1 day in responding to the claim electronically via the RTA Portal. It was held that a ...
|
| 1 |