|
Patel v Devjee, CA (Civ Div) 18/8/2006
The fact that the exact process for bringing committal for contempt proceedings in respect of a breach of a non-molestation order had not been followed did not render the proceedings unfair, as no real injustice was caused to the individual in respect of whom the committal was sought.
University of Oxford & Ors v Broughton & Ors, CA (Civ Div) 15/8/2006
The acceptance by a judge of an undertaking offered by an animal rights activist was inappropriate and an injunction should have been granted instead. In addition the judge had erred in law in striking out proceedings against another animal rights activist.
Regan v Paul Properties DPF No 1 Ltd & Ors, High Ct (Ch D) 3/8/2006
In the circumstances the court declined to enforce a cross-undertaking in damages given when interim injunctive relief was sought in an action concerning interference with the claimant's right to light.
Stoke on Trent City Council v Walley, CA (Civ Div) 31/7/2006
In the circumstances it had not been demonstrated that a local authority's withdrawal of its pre-action admission of liability was either an abuse of the process of the court or was otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the case within CPR r.3.4(2)(b).
McHugh v Gray, High Ct, 27/7/2006
The judge had been entitled not to exercise his discretion to disapply the limitation period in a case where the claimant was suing a psychiatrist, as a result of an allegedly negligent diagnosis, seven years out of time.
R v Medical Defence Union Ltd, High Ct (QBD Admin) 26/7/2006
The Medical Defence Union was not amenable to judicial review. It could neither be said to be a "public body" nor did it exercise a "public function" in a respect that affected the claimant.
R v Supreme Court Costs Office, DC 27/7/2006; Times, August 16, 2006
Practitioners should ensure that where separate and to some extent conflicting costs claims were to be presented, they should be presented together in a manner that made clear the relationship between them.
|
