Results: 3498

• Deborah Anne Forster v Reynolds Porter Chamberlain LLP

  15 May 2023 [2023] EWHC 1150 (Ch), Ch D

  1. In this claim, Ms Forster claims damages against the Defendant (a well-known law firm, which I will refer to as “RPC”) for loss caused by alleged breaches of duty when RPC acted for Ms Forster in litigation and following an agreed settlement. Ms Forster was defending a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation brought by a Ms Kate Bleasdale and a Mr John Cariss (together, “the Opponents”, or “Bleasdale and Cariss”), and pursuing relief against them and a limited company controlled by them in a petition under s.994 of the Companies Act 2006. 2. The trial against the Opponents started on

• Francis Chitolie and another v Saint Lucia National Housing Corporation (Saint Lucia)

  05 Dec 2023 [2023] UKPC 43, PC

  1. Introduction and factual background 1. Under the rules of prescription laid down in the Saint Lucia Civil Code, title to land may be acquired by uninterrupted possession for 30 years. The central issue in this appeal is the effect of the Saint Lucia Torrens system of land registration on rights to land that were in the course of being acquired by prescription at the time the Torrens system was introduced. 2. It is important to make clear that, while all Torrens systems share the goal of achieving, so far as possible, certainty (by indefeasibility) of title by registration, they
  Expand

• Chris Spiropoulos v Information Commissioner

  13 Nov 2023 [2023] UKFTT 957 (GRC), FTT

  1. There was an application to the Tribunal by the Information Commissioner (the “Commissioner”) to strike out these proceedings as having no reasonable prospect of success. 2. The proceedings were struck out by the Registrar in a decision dated 17 March 2022. The Appellant made an application for that decision to be considered afresh by a Judge on 5 April 2022, pursuant to rule 4(3) of the Tribunal Procedure Rules. The application was stayed pending an outstanding appeal concerning a similar request, under appeal number EA/2020/0347. The decision in that case was promulgated on 27 March 2023. 3. Judge Neville
  Expand

• JJH Enterprises Limited (trading as ValueLicensing) v Microsoft Corporation and Others

  09 May 2023 [2023] CAT 36, CAT

  Expand

• R v Ramzan Hanif

  27 Jan 2023 [2023] EWHC 272 (SCCO), Costs

  1. Mr Jonathan Turner, Counsel (‘the Appellant’) appeals the decision of the Determining Officer at the Legal Aid Agency (‘the Respondent’) in respect of a claim for special preparation under the Litigator’s Graduated Fee Scheme (‘LGFS’). Background 2. The Appellant represented Ramzan Hanif (‘the Defendant’) who was charged at Preston Crown Court on an indictment alleging wounding with intent, where the complainant had suffered multiple stab wounds. The prosecution alleged that the Defendant committed the offence as he believed that the complainant had stolen drugs from him. The trial was listed but in November 2021 the Crown offered no evidence

• McCue (as guardian for Andrew McCue) v Glasgow City Council (Scotland)

  11 Jan 2023 [2023] UKSC 1, SC

  1. This appeal is concerned with the effect of the Equality Act 2010 (“the Equality Act”) in relation to the provision of community care services to disabled persons pursuant to the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (“the 1968 Act”) and the charges made for such provision. 2. The appellant is Mrs Terri McCue, acting as guardian for her son, Andrew (“Mr McCue”). Mr McCue is now 27 years old. He has Down’s Syndrome and lives with his parents. He is disabled within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act. His disability results in him being provided with community

• HM Revenue & Customs Commissioners v John Patrick Walsh

  13 Sep 2023 [2023] EWHC 2213 (Ch), Ch D

  1. On 15 and 16 May 2023 I heard: (i) the claimants’ (HMRC) Part 8 Claim issued on 2 June 2016 (the Claim) made pursuant to rule 73.10C of the CPR for an order for sale of a number of properties the subject of final charging orders following a judgment in default for £2,511,147.13 (the Default Judgment) having been entered against the defendant (Mr Walsh) on 10 March 2014; and (ii) Mr Walsh’s application (the Application) dated 11 November 2016 under Part 13 of the CPR to set aside or vary the Default Judgment. 2. The underlying tax debt consists

• PS v CS

  25 Sep 2023 [2023] EWFC 323 (B), Fam Ct

  1. This is an application pursuant to Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1988. 2. The Applicant mother is PS (M), and the Respondent father is CS (F). I shall refer to the parties as M and F for shorthand purposes. 3. M was represented by Mr Samuels, and F was represented by Ms Lyons of counsel. I am grateful to them both for the assistance they provided the court. 4. I heard the evidence in this matter on 01, 02 and 15 August 2023. There was a gap as Ms Lyons was unwell on the scheduled third day. Written

• ClientEarth v Shell Plc & Ors.

  12 May 2023 [2023] EWHC 1137 (Ch), Ch D

  1. ClientEarth is a private company limited by guarantee, a non-profit environmental law organisation and a UK registered charity. It also holds a small number of shares (currently 27) in Shell Plc, formerly Royal Dutch Shell Plc, (“Shell”) and is therefore a member of Shell. It seeks to bring a claim against Shell’s directors (the “Directors”) in respect of a cause of action it accepts is vested in Shell seeking relief on behalf of Shell. These proceedings therefore qualify as a derivative claim within the meaning of s.260(1) of the Companies Act 2006 (“CA 2006”). 2. ClientEarth is only entitled

• Renraw Investments Limited and others v Real Time Systems Limited (Trinidad & Tobago)

  13 Nov 2023 [2023] UKPC 39, PC

  1. Introduction 1. This appeal arises in the context of proceedings brought by Real Time Systems Ltd (“the claimant”) against Renraw Investments Ltd, CCAM and Co Ltd and Mr Jack Austin Warner (“the defendants”) in which proceedings the claimant seeks to recover a debt of TT$1,505,493 from the defendants. The defendants admitted they had received the money from the claimant. The issue at trial was whether, as the claimant alleged, the money was paid by way of a loan to the defendants repayable on 28 February 2008, or whether as the defendants alleged, the money was a gift by the
  Expand