Cases by Area of Law


H-B (Contact), Re [2015] EWCA Civ 389 (22 April 2015)

H-B (Contact), Re [2015] EWCA Civ 389 (22 April 2015) 

Barrister: Kathryn Skellorn
Area of Law: Children 

Download judgment: H-B (Contact), Re [2015] EWCA Civ 389

PAM & PAF (Mr and Mrs PA) v South Gloucestershire Council (LA) & Ors [2014]

EWFC B202 (28 October 2014)

Barrister: Lucy Reed 
Area of Law: Children

Read judgement

D (A Child) Re [2015] EWHC 922 (Fam)

[2015] EWHC 922 (Fam)

Barrister: Edward Bennett
Area of Law: Family
Summary: Led by Jonathan Cowen, 15 year old child and deprivations of liberty.

Airbus v Withey

[2014] EWHC 1126 (QB)

Barrister: James Pearce-Smith
Area of Law: Commercial Dispute Resolution

Summary: Acting for Airbus in 4 weeks trial at Bristol Mercantile Court in a claim for bribery, secret commission, conspiracy, etc against employee of Airbus and his associates in their individual capacities and also against their companies.

Grimes v Trustees of the Essex Farmers & Union Hunt

Date: 2015

Barrister: Christopher Jones

Area of Law: Agriculture & Rural Affairs

Summary: A trial in connection with a farm business tenancy, which the defendant claimed to have terminated and then re-let to a third party.  The claimant argued that the lease had not been validly terminated and claimed lost profits.


Date: 19 May 2017

Barristers: Leslie Blohm QC & Christopher Jones

Area of Law: Agriculture & Rural Affairs &  Property and Real Estate

View judgment here: Grimes v The Trustees of the Essex Farmers And Union Hunt [2017] EWCA Civ 361 

Mu Mu Enterprises v North Somerset District Council No.2 (2014)

Barrister: Roy Light
Area of Law: Licensing
Summary: Roy again challenged successfully the lawfulness of the authority’s licensing committee’s decision at a review hearing on the grounds that a member, indeed the chair, of the licensing subcommittee was not a member of the authority’s licensing committee.

Read more: Mu Mu Enterprises v North Somerset District Council No.2 (2014)

R (on the application of Carl Cummings and others) v The County Council of the City of Cardiff [2014] EWHC 2544 (Admin)

Barrister: Roy Light
Area of Law: Licensing
Summary: The Claimants challenged successfully the lawfulness of the taxi and private hire fees set by Cardiff City Council, resulting in the refund of some £1.2 million pounds to the taxi trade in respect of overpaid fees. Roy and Leslie Blohm QC acted for the Claimants.

Read more: R (on the application of Carl Cummings and others) v The County Council of the City of Cardiff [2014] EWHC 2544 (Admin)

In the Matter of Chelmsford City Racecourse (2014)

Barrister: Roy Light
Area of Law: Licensing
Summary: Roy secured a premises licence for the all-weather Essex track which opened after a six year break following a £25 million refurbishment. There are 50 racing fixtures planned for 2015 and the premises are authorised for all licensable activities.

 

HB (A Child)

[2015] EWFC 74

Barrister: Kambiz Moradifar
Area of Law:
 Children
Summary:
Kambiz represented the child and the child’s guardian in this complex matter where the local authority was seeking findings relating to the fatality of an infant.

 

Ecovision Systems Ltd v Vinci Construction UK Ltd

[2015] EWHC 587 (TCC)

Barrister: Andrew Kearney
Area of Law: Construction and Engineering
Summary: This case was heard in the Technology and Construction Court, and is one of the few cases in which enforcement of an adjudicator’s decision was refused.  Andrew acted for the successful party, Ecovision, both advising it in the adjudication (to the point where it withdrew and refused to take no further part) and in the Part 8 proceedings which followed.  The Adjudicator was appointed by the RICS.  Andrew successfully argued that properly construed the contract incorporated the TeCSA rules and required that the Adjudicator be appointed by the Chair of TeCSA.  In this case it was important to identify the correct procedure to be followed, since there were material differences between the three possible procedures – NEC3 clause W2 (as amended), the Scheme and the TeCSA rules.  The case is highly unusual in that it is uncommon for a responding party in adjudication to go beyond simply reserving its position on jurisdiction and instead to refuse to participate (and then itself commence proceedings for a declaration that the decision was a nullity). 

View judgment: Ecovision Systems Ltd v Vinci Construction UK Ltd

 


PreviousNext