Legislative Reforms: The Association of British Insurers (ABI) joined with the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) and Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) to introduce proposals for reforming personal injury compensation. These proposals include: (a) early notification of claim; (b) removal of work duplication; (c) setting of challenging timescales for insurers, giving them 15 days to decide if they are liable for a motor claim and 30 days for an employers' liability or public liability claim; and ...
|
In order to do broad justice to the parties it was necessary where a property was held on trust for two parties in equal shares and one had been occupying the property rent free, for the occupying party to account to the other party for occupation rent until the property was sold.
|
GMC: Fitness to Practise: An assistant anaesthetist with 29 years experience was challenged by his professional colleagues for his lack of understanding of basic anaesthetic techniques and insight into an incident on 24 September 2004, concerning an operation on the fractured leg of a nine-year-old girl, which resulted in her losing 40% of her blood. The anaesthetist was moved to another hospital for an assessment with other professional colleagues unconnected with, and unaware of, the incident ...
|
Ds were long-term prisoners convicted after 29/9/98 and before 4/4/05, released on licence after 4/4/05, but recalled for subsequent licence breach and held until the three-quarter point of their sentences. Held: They remained on licence for the remainder of their sentences.
|
A person who has pleaded guilty to an offence but has not yet been sentenced for that offence is a convicted prisoner.
|
A Crown court judge has the power to fix an appropriate time for payment of a sum payable under a confiscation order.
|
Whistleblowing: The FSA has yielded to market pressure and abandoned informal proposals that could have forced investment banks to blow the whistle if they became aware of regulatory failings by companies for which they had sold equity.
|
D was on a train returning from a football match. He was convicted of an offence under s.5 POA 1986 and made subject of a football banning order. It was argued on appeal that it was wrong to make the football banning order, the incident having occurred over 1 hour after D had left the match. Held: The test is whether the offence was related to the football match. Applying a common sense interpretation it clearly was, and the use of the provisions should not be artificially restricted.
|
As a starting point, a football banning order should only be imposed where there are strong grounds for concluding that D has a propensity for taking part in football hooliganism. The court was entitled to take into account and to give great weight to deterrence. The court should be slow to entertain an application for judicial review as an alternative to an appeal by way of case stated just because the time limit for an appeal has been missed, even if the fault lies with the D’s solicitors. The ...
|
The justices were wrong to stay the case as an abuse of process. The absence of video evidence in this case was an impediment to the defence in their task of undermining the prosecution case and furthering D’s own case. Nevertheless D still had adequate means to challenge the prosecution case (cross-examination).
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |