Cases by Area of Law

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


LA v F (2015)

Barrister: Graeme Harrison
Area of Law: Court of Protection
Summary: Graeme represented the operators of a care home in the Court of Protection in proceedings in which the local authority sought injunctions against various family members of a resident who repeatedly sought to remove her from the home despite the court having previously made orders that she should reside there.

R v OY

Barrister: Simon Morgan
Area of Law: Regulatory and Disciplinary
Summary: Defence of a director and two companies arising out of the death of an employee overcome by fumes on a biogas plant.
View press coverage here:

Richards v Richards (2015)

Barrister: Richard Stead
Area of Law: Agriculture and Rural Affairs
Summary: Richard is defending a claim by a widow following the death of her husband who was kicked by a bullock: sections 2(2), 5(1) and (2) of the Animals Act 1971.

LA v K (2015)

Barrister: Graeme Harrison
Area of Law: Children
Summary: Graeme represented mother in care proceedings involving serious head injuries to a baby and physical injuries to older children.

LA v K (2015)

Barrister: Graeme Harrison
Area of Law: Children
Summary: Graeme represented an Afghani mother who spoke no English in care proceedings brought as a result of the mother setting fire to the family home while the child was present. Working closely with his instructing solicitor, Graeme eventually secured the return of the child to the mother’s care under a supervision order.

N v J

Barrister: Adam Boyle
Area of Law:
Property and Real Estate
Summary: Over the course of 2014 and 2015 Adam advised in the case of N v J a complicated Landlord and Tenant matter which related to business tenancies granted pursuant to, and protected by, the 1954 Act. Adam acted for Mr N, a mesne landlord, who had inadvertently granted a protected tenancy to Mr J, in breach of the covenants within his own lease. After Mr N’s tenant stopped paying his rent, the decision was taken to terminate the accidental tenancy through the service of a section 25 notice. Mr N was ultimately, after the expiry of the notice and subsequent possession proceedings, granted both possession of the sublet land and his costs in the claim. The procedural minefield which the 1954 Act throws up had been successfully avoided.

AA v TT [2014] EWHC 3488 (Fam)

[2014] EWHC 3488 (Fam)

Barrister: Edward Bennett
Area of Law: Family
Summary: This is the only case under the 1980 European Convention where the English court has refused to recognise a foreign custody order on the grounds that to do so would be manifestly incompatible with a principle of English family law.

Bradley v Heslin

[2014] EWHC 3267; [2014] All ER (D) 185 (Oct)

Barrister: Christopher Jones
Area of Law: Property and Real Estate
Summary: Christopher was instructed by Portland Legal Services to act on behalf of the defendants, in a three day trial before Mr Justice Norris sitting in the Chancery Division in Liverpool. This is a significant case as it confirmed that a right to hang a gate over land forming a driveway was capable of being an easement that accommodated the dominant tenement.

Re R (A Child) [2014] EWHC 2802 (Fam)

[2014] EWHC 2802 (Fam)

Barrister: Edward Bennett
Area of Law: Family
Summary: This was the first UK-Japan case under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention