Subject to exceptions, the small claims limit has gone up to £10,000, so you cannot recover legal costs. Rule 26.6 provides for the scope of the small claims track. A claim for a remedy for harassment or unlawful eviction relating, in either case, to residential premises shall not be allocated to the small claims track whatever the financial value of the claim. Otherwise, the small claims track will be the normal track for – Any claim which has a financial value of not more than £10,000 subject to the special provisions about claims for personal injuries and housing…
Case Management and Evidence Changes This is part of case management changes made to this on 1 April in parts 3, 16-19, of the Civil Procedure Rules, including: 1. It should be more robust, and wherever possible multi-track cases should be case-managed by the same judge throughout 2. Replacement of the allocation questionnaire (AQ) by new directions questionnaires (DQs). There is a new simple DQ for Small Claims Track (to find out whether the parties are willing to try the free small claims mediation scheme and collect email and telephone contact details), and a longer one for Fast Track and…
New reforms impose two barriers designed to stymie vexatious or unmeritorious claims at birth. The prospect of reform has triggered a rush to take advantage of existing rules. One specialist has reported that claims rocketed by 44 per cent in the third quarter of last year, as litigants rushed to avoid the new fees. An aggrieved employee must pay between £160 and £250 to submit a claim and an additional fee of either £250 or £1250 to proceed to a hearing. Lawyers say that litigants who stump up claims fees will be more motivated to see the action through —…
Court of Appeal Regina (Patel) v General Medical Council Before Lord Dyson, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Lloyd and Lord Justice Lloyd Jones Judgment March 27, 2013 A British resident who had undertaken a long course of study by distance learning at an overseas university relying on e-mail assurances from the defendant, a professional medical body with responsibility for registering doctors, that he would be entitled to register his medical qualification once awarded after completing all the clinical requirements, had a legitimate expectation of registration. The defendant body was not entitled to defeat that expectation by refusing him registration…
Court of Appeal Regina (Patel) v General Medical Council Before Lord Dyson, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Lloyd and Lord Justice Lloyd Jones Judgment March 27, 2013 A British resident who had undertaken a long course of study by distance learning at an overseas university relying on e-mail assurances from the defendant, a professional medical body with responsibility for registering doctors, that he would be entitled to register his medical qualification once awarded after completing all the clinical requirements, had a legitimate expectation of registration. The defendant body was not entitled to defeat that expectation by refusing him registration…
by Rodney Hylton-Potts A commercial peer-to-peer lender pools money from various sources (individual savers, pension funds, councils, even government) and lends it to businesses looking for a loan. Interest rates (currently 7-10%) are often lower than those offered by traditional lenders, including banks. This is because peer-to-peer lending schemes are not ‘bricks and mortar’ businesses, but use the internet to bring lenders and borrowers together. Fees are transparent – typically between 2-4% of the amount borrowed. Peer-to-peer lenders do not offer ‘add-on’ products such as swaps, insurance or hedging. Time from application to funds being released is typically 12…
This first appeared in the solicitors Journal on 14th of June 2013 and is reproduced with their permission. In Prest v Petrodel the Supreme Court kept company law principles intact and used property and trust law to reach a fair conclusion – but not all agree with Lord Sumption. Hazel Wright takes a closer look at the decision, while our commentators share their own take on the longer-term implications of the decision (see box below) “Courts exercising family jurisdiction do not occupy a desert island in which general legal concepts are suspended or mean something different”, Lord Sumption said…
By Rodney Hylton-Potts The Supreme Court’s decision to order an oil tycoon to hand over assets held by his companies to his former wife has been hailed as a victory for fairness and justice by lawyers. But lawyers are divided on the implications of judgment in Prest v Petrodel Resources Limited. The court used trust rather than company law to resolve the matter, declaring that the seven disputed properties were, in the particular circumstances of the case, held on trust for the husband and could therefore be passed to his wife. Some lawyers feel that the court had ‘parted the…
Rodney Hylton-Potts writes On 24 May 2913 the High Court decided that the Speaker’s wife, Mrs. Bercow’s tweet carried a defamatory meaning. McAlpine v Bercow is the first case to really tackle the peculiar nature of this social media genre and could mark a key moment in social media use. Seven deadly words The Judge had just seven words to deal with, two of which read as a descriptive ‘emoticon’: ‘Why is Lord McAlpine trending? *Innocent face*’. In interpreting the meaning of the tweet the court looked at the fairly unique nature of the audience to which it was published.…
Charles Saatchi was cautioned by police, for an offence of Common Assault. He accepted a caution, so he stated, because it was “better than the alternative, of this hanging over all of us for months“. 1. By accepting a caution, Mr Saatchi accepted that he was guilty A caution cannot be administered unless there is an admission of guilt. Additionally, when a caution is ‘administered’ by the police, the suspect must sign a form which makes it clear that they have accepted their guilt. 2. By accepting a caution, the offending admitted by Mr Saatchi must have been (relatively) serious…
