There was no material basis for ordering that expert disclosure take place in a claim against a constabulary for misfeasance in public office and malicious prosecution. The case involved issues of pure fact that would be resolved by factual evidence.
|
The IPCC had the power and the duty to investigate cases of serious injuries in police custody; in carrying out its investigations the IPCC was under a duty to determine whether the conduct of the police had caused the injury and that was not possible without evaluating any evidence that indicated an alternative cause which included any possible cause which might have occurred before police contact.
|
A Judge was wrong to grant JR of the calculation of a prisoner's earliest release date under home detention curfew. Where consecutive sentences were imposed, and one or more of those sentences was less than 12 months, the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Commencement No.8 and Transitional and Saving Provisions) Order 2005 (Supplementary Provisions) Order 2005 sch.2 para.14 applied irrespective of whether other sentences imposed were of a longer duration.
|
Findings of fact and opinions set out in a Report of the Financial Servics Authority made under s. 170 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 by investigators were admissible in an application under sections 6 and 8 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. However findings of fact not made under the statutory scheme such as a FOS decision or a Final Notice are not admissible. Rather than putting the party to the expense of excising them a Court will ignore them.
|
The CCRC had not erred in refusing to refer to the CA a case that raised an allegation of entrapment as that defence was inconsistent with the defence advanced at trial.
|
Where the Defendant had entered unilateral notices against the Claimant's land and had then agreed to remove the notices, it was implicit in the agreement between the parties that the Defendant would not re-enter notices on the Defendant's various titles.
|
A Judge had erred in applying a due diligence test as the primary test when considering reopening a case pursuant to s.142 MCA 1980 rather than whether the interests of justice required the case to be reopened.
|
In the circumstances an 18-month period before a prisoner's case was again considered by the Parole Board would be a breach of Art.5(4) ECHR.
|
In its first fine imposed on a mortgage lender since it started regulating home loans in 2004, the FSA has fined GE Money Home Lending £1.12 million for overcharging sub-prime borrowers. It was found that GE had withheld part of the sum advanced beyond the retention period in the loan contract and on some occasions never advanced it to the customer. The sums overcharged amounted to £2.3 million since regulation and £7.04 million from before regulation.
|
Charges were laid against a father and son in respect of 17 counts of alleged insider dealing contrary to the section 52 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993 in respect of the propoesd takeovers of Neutec Pharma Plc and Birse Group Plc and favourable developments in respect of Gulf Keystone Petroleum Limited. The case is to be tried on indictment in the Crown Court.
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |