ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. Human Rights – Inquests. The Court of Appeal had erred in concluding that, by virtue of the Human Rights Act 1998 s.3, the Coroners Act 1988 s.11(5)(b)(ii) has had, since the coming into force of the 1998 Act, to be interpreted to require an inquest complying with the United Kingdom's international obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 Art.2, no matter when the death occurred.
|
When allowing a prosecution appeal against the grant of bail, crown courts must take note of s.128A Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 in respect of remands in custody for more than 8 days.
|
The appellant had breached an undertaking to the court in respect of contact with his children and other issues involving a separation with his wife. The appellant was committed for contempt of court and appealed against his 3 month imprisonment. He was unrepresented. In the absence of unreasonable behaviour the defendant was entitled to legal representation and usually an adjournment should be granted for representation to be sought. When it became clear that the appellant had sough a review of ...
|
The remuneration of a trustee in bankruptcy was ordered to be fixed on the basis of time spent, but reductions were made for time claimed for communicating with lawyers and attending the execution of a possession order. A substantial reduction was made for the time claimed for preparing and reviewing the time costs themselves which, amounting to a quarter of the total remuneration, had been grossly disproportionate.
|
The appellant appealed against a finding that he had not acquired title to a site by adverse possession. Held that a solicitor’s letter seeking to ascertain the owners intention with respect to his property did not amount to an acknowledgment of title for the purposes of a claim for adverse possession as the solicitor had been writing not on behalf of the person in possession but in behalf of that persons company.
|
On the proper construction of r.267 Insolvency Rules 1986 non-domestic rates for retail premises occupied by a company whilst in administration ranked as expenses of the administration.
|
The applicant trustee applied under s.339 Insolvency Act 1986 in respect of a transfer of the beneficial interest in a house to the respondent. Held that although a joint tenancy that was severed fell within s.339 as a transaction at undervalue, just required that no order be made, as the purpose of the severance was to give effect to the parties’ intentions.
|
There was a close analogy between the court’s powers under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 s.367(3)(b) to wind up a company on the just and equitable ground and the court’s well established jurisdiction to make winding-up orders on the petition of the secretary of state under the Insolvency Act 1986 s.124A.
|
Limitation. The Claimant sought to amend his particulars of claim outside of the limitation period. Whilst the new allegations were linked to the same facts, on analysis the newly alleged breaches of duty, the basis upon which financial loss was alleged to have been suffered and the scope of the alleged retainer had all fundamentally changed leading to a wider inquiry into the factual issues of the case. The conditions of s. 35 (5) of the Limitation Act 1980 were not satisfied.
|
The respondent Official Receiver issued an application against the appellant seeking a bankruptcy restriction order pursuant to the Insolvency Act 1986 s. 281A imposing a restriction on him acting as a company director under the Company Director Disqualification Act 1986 s.11. Held that where an undischarged bankrupt had remained a director of a company of which he was a sole shareholder, and had failed to distinguish between the company’s money and his own, the making of a bankruptcy restrictio ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |