Bermuda International Securities Ltd v KPMG  EWCA Civ 269
Herbert Black & Others v Sumitomo Corporation & Others  EWCA Civ 1819
Arsenal Football Club Plc & others v Elite Sports Distribution Ltd  EWHC 3057(Ch)
Edwards v Pirelli Cables  CLY 396
SES Contracting Ltd v UK Coal PLC  EWCA Civ 791
BNP Paribas v TH Global Ltd & Others  EWHC 37 (CH)
BP Gas Marketing Ltd v Centrica Storage Ltd  EWHC 732 (TCC)
Probjot Singh Rathore v Rolls Roys Goodrich Engine Control Systems Ltd (2009)
Sattar v Kirklees Council (and 5 other Applications) (2010) (CC)
Philip Rogers v Enterprise Mouchel (2010)
Alstom Transport v Eurostar International Ltd  EWHC B32(Ch)
Mr Leslie Victor Robinson v Rolls Royce PLC (2011)
Alice Clegg v Cavendish Upholstery Ltd (2011)
Henry Alan Smith v Secretary of State for Energy & Climate Change  EWCA Civ 1585
Roche Diagnostics Limited v The Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust  EWHC 933 (TCC)
Personal Management Solutions Ltd v Gee 7 Group Wealth Ltd  EWHC 3859 (Ch)
Anglia Research Sevices Ltd & Others v Finders Genealogists Ltd & Another  EWHC 1277 (QB)
Asbestos – Research Paper 99/81 05/10/99 – Donna Gore & Alex Sleator, Science and Environment Section, House of Commons Library
On the first anniversary of The Great Return March and Land Day it’s appropriate to pay tribute to the tens of thousands of non-violent protesters who have been campaigning for what they believe is justice. I respect people who protest by marching, waving flags or even dancing when literally being under attack by tear gas or artillery fire:
So many legal and ethical issues arise out of the Palestine- Israel conflict including:
• Who should control the area where that the west refer to as Israel?
• Is Israel a legitimate state?
• To what extent should a country’s borders be able to change over time? Just because a particular plot of land initially belonged to country A does it mean that that plot should always belong to country A?
• Can an apartheid state ever be legitimate?
• Can a country who routinely murders and injures civilians, medics and journalists ever be legitimate?
• How should prisoners (including child prisoners) be treated?
• Are sanctions that cause so much hardship to civilians ever legitimate?
• What’s the role of arms manufacturers in the conflict?
• What should the UN do when it’s resolutions are ignored?
• What should other countries do to deal with the impact of “Friends of Israel”?
• Why do so many confuse criticism of Israel with being anti-semetic?
• Why is there so little coverage of the way that Palestinians are treated by mainstream media?
• What should be done to combat terrorism?
• To what extent is violent protest justifiable?
• Is BDS legitimate?
These and other issues maybe addressed in a blog on this site at a future date. In the meantime, listen to some Lowkey who was performing at The Ritz, Manchester at the Stampede Festival in July 2018:
Interesting sites include:
Friends of Israel:
Pinsent Masons’ summary:
Peaktone v Joddrell  EWCA Civ 1035
Mrs Shirley Anne Redman (suing as widow and administratrix of the Estate of Peter Redman, deceased) v Zurich Insurance PLC and Another  EWHC 1919 (QB)
Deborah Magill (Executor of Colin Stuart Magill, deceased) v Panel Systems (DB Limited)  EWHC 1517 (QB)
Holtby v Brigham & Cowan (Hull) LTD  EWCA 58 (6th April 2000)
Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd t/a GH Dovener& Son (1st February 2001)
Fairchild (Suing as Administratrix and Widow of Arthur Eric Fairchild, Deceased) v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd & Others  EWCA Civ 1881 (11th December 2001)
Fairchild (suing on her own behalf) etc v Glanhaven Funeral Services LTD and others etc (20th June 2002)
Sienkiewicz (Administratrix of the Estate of Enid Costello, deceased) v Greif (UK) Ltd  EWCA 1159
Sienkiewicz (Administratrix of the Estate of Enid Costello, deceased) v Greif (UK) Ltd  UKSC 10
Collins v Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills and Another  EWCA Civ 717
Professor Carl Heneghan (Son and Administrator of the Estate of James Leo Heneghan. deceased) v Manchester Dry Docks Ltd & Others  EWHC 4190 (QB) (11th December 2014)
Diane Sanderson (Executor of the Estate of Glyn Antony Sanderson, deceased) v City of Bradford MBC  EWHC 527 (QB)
Albert Victor Carder v The University of Exeter  EWCA 790
David Kearns v Delta Steeplejacks LTD (2017)
Bussey v Anglia Heating  EWCA Civ 243
British Coal HAVS Claims Handling Arrangement 1999
Noise-induced hearing loss and hearing conservation in mining – David McBride
First Group PLC (Respondent) v Paulley (Appellant)  UKSC 4
Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Ltd v Zafar  EWCA Civ 392
See Gordon Exall’s Civil Litigation Brief blog:
- We say at once, however, that the deliberate or reckless making of a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth will usually be so inherently serious that nothing other than an order for committal to prison will be sufficient. That is so whether the contemnor is a claimant seeking to support a spurious or exaggerated claim, a lay witness seeking to provide evidence in support of such a claim, or an expert witness putting forward an opinion without an honest belief in its truth…
- The essential feature of this form of contempt of court is the making of a false statement without an honest belief in its truth. In principle, where a false statement is made without an honest belief in its truth, a contemnor who acts recklessly is less culpable than one who acts intentionally. The extent of that difference in culpability will, however, depend on all the circumstances of the case. Without seeking to lay down an inflexible rule, we take the view that an expert witness who recklessly makes a false statement in a report or witness statement verified by a statement of truth will usually be almost as culpable as an expert witness who does so intentionally. This is so, because the expert witness knows that the court and the parties are dependent on his or her being truthful, and has made a declaration which asserts that he or she is aware of his or her duties to the court and has complied with them…. To abuse the trust placed in an expert witness by putting forward a statement which is in fact false, not caring whether it be true or not, is usually almost as serious a contempt of court as telling a deliberate lie.
- As we have indicated, an order for committal to prison will usually be inevitable where an expert witness commits this form of contempt of court…. As to the appropriate length of sentence, it is important to emphasise that every case will turn on its particular facts. The conduct involved in a contempt of this kind may vary across a wide range. The court must, therefore, have in mind that the two year maximum term has to cater for that range of conduct, and must seek to impose a sentence in the instant case which sits appropriately within that range. Where more than one contemnor is before the court, as in the present case, it will of course be necessary to make a judgment as to the comparative seriousness of their respective misconduct…. the Lord Chief Justice in Bashir had in mind as a starting point sentences “well in excess of 12 months” even for those who played the role of “foot soldiers” in the dishonest claims in that case.
- The court must, finally, consider whether the term of committal can properly be suspended. In this regard, both principle and the caselaw to which we were referred lead to the conclusion that in the case of an expert witness, the appropriate term will usually have to be served immediately, and that one or more powerful factors justifying suspension will have to be shown if the term is to be suspended…
- We should add that we accept, as was submitted on behalf of the Appellant, that the fact that the relevant false statement was made recklessly rather than intentionally will not in itself usually be a powerful factor in favour of suspending the necessary term of committal.
- With all respect to the judge, however, we are satisfied that the order for committal in this case was wrong in two respects. First, the term of committal should have been significantly longer than 6 months, even taking into account the mitigation available to the Respondent: we do not think the Respondent could have appealed successfully against a term of 12 months, and we cannot think that a term of less than 9 months was appropriate. Secondly, the term should have been ordered to be served immediately, there being no powerful factor in favour of suspending it. We are satisfied that a suspended term of 6 months fell outside the range of sentences which the judge, applying his mind to all the relevant factors, could reasonably consider appropriate.
- The judge’s decision as to sentence therefore falls to be reversed. We can remake that decision. We have however come to the conclusion that we should not impose a more severe sentence. We have decided not to do so, principally because we have sought in this judgment to give some guidance which was not previously available to those sentencing for contempt of court, and we accept that it would be unfair to the Respondent to impose upon him the adverse consequences of that guidance. Accordingly, our remaking of the decision would not result in any increase in the sentence, albeit that our reasons for reaching that outcome differ from those of the judge. In those circumstances we allow the appeal, but think it sufficient to declare that the sentence below was unduly lenient.
Issuing proceedings to recover costs: Ayton v RSM Bentley Bennison & Others  EWHC 2851 (QB)
An excellent blog in the Civil Litigation Brief by G Exall – the lesson is that if contributory negligence is pleaded against the Claimant, see if any of the allegations can be used against the Defendant:
Statutory Declarations Act 1835
Oaths Act 1978
Can a Solicitor colleague administer an oath for two lay executors?
In the “Practice Advice Service question if the week…” section of a recent the Law Society Gazette the following question was asked:
“I am a solicitor and have just started work in a busy high street practice. I regularly swear oaths and take declarations. My new firm wants me to account to them for all the oath fees received. In my previous firms, I have always been allowed to keep oath fees. Are the partners of the firm entitled to the oath fees?”
The following response was given:
“There are no rules or specific guidance on this. It is a matter for the partners of the firm to decide and for you to negotiate, if you can. There is limited information about VAT payable on such fees.
If the oath fees are retained by you personally, they are not subject to VAT unless you are registered or liable to register for VAT as a result of the aggregate of your personal taxable supplies. If you are required to account to your firm for oath fees received, then these fees should be dealt with as part of the firm’s taxable turnover.
or further information on oaths, please see the Law Society publication, Execution of Documents (3rd edition) which is available from the Law Society’s online bookshop at https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/bookshop
For further information please contact the PAS helpline on 020 7320 5675 or email email@example.com”