Cases by Area of Law


Darby v James

Barrister: Adam Boyle 
Date: June 2016
Area of Law: Property and Real Estate
Summary: In June 2016, in the case of Darby v James, Adam successfully defended the position of the defendant, James. The parties had, years earlier, compromised a land dispute which involved various issues, including problems centring around rights of way. The initial dispute was resolved by agreement through mediation, and the effects of the agreement were detailed and solidified through a Tomlin Order. The claimant later, through an application into court, sought to escape the agreement by arguing that the Tomlin Order and agreement could not be complied with, and, in effect, had to be set aside. However the court did not agree and decided the matter in favour of the defendant. This case highlights the level of finality that one can expect from both compromise agreements generally, and Tomlin Orders in particular, and also touched on the jurisdictional issues which can arise if a court seeks to do anything other than make an order effecting the terms of a compromise in Tomlin Order form.

Beeny v Ghersie & MG Associates Limited

Barrister: Charlie Newington-Bridges
Area of Law: Commercial Dispute Resolution
Summary:  Charlie instructed by Richard Gore at Gregg Latchams Limited, has successfully defended Mr David Beeny, a former accountant, against a misrepresentation claim worth c. £1m in the case of Beeny v Ghersie & MG Associates Limited.

View news article: Charlie Newington-Bridges successful in the High Court defending a £1m misrepresentation claim
Download judgment: Beeny v Ghersie & MG Associates Limited

Dawid Masel v Esure

(2016)

Barrister: Ben Handy
Areas of Law: Personal Injury
Summary: Ben was instructed by Horwich Farrelly solicitors in order to defend this claim on behalf of the defendant insurer, Esure.

The trial took place on the 21st April 2016, the claimant claimed that he had been injured for a total of four months following a minor car accident with Esure’s insured driver. Investigations by Esure and Horwich Farrelly uncovered a publicly-available video on YouTube in which the claimant took part in, and won, a ‘Total Full Contact’ kickboxing fight within a month of the accident. The Judge watched all six rounds of the contest, during which she commented that the claimant looked “a picture of health”.

The claim was dismissed, and the defendant successfully argued that the claim was fundamentally dishonest. The claimant lost his costs-protection and the Judge ordered him to pay the defendant’s costs, which were assessed on the indemnity basis.

Davies and Another v Davies

 [2016] EWCA Civ 463

Barrister: Adam Boyle 
Date: April 2016
Area of Law: Wills, Trusts and Tax
Summary: In April 2016 Adam acted in the widely publicised “Cowshed Cinderella” proprietary estoppel case Davies and Another v Davies [2016] EWCA Civ 463. Adam was junior to Leslie Blohm QC, also of St John’s, for the case’s second visit to the Court of Appeal (Adam’s article following the case’s first trip to the Court of Appeal is available here). The second appeal in Davies concerned the quantum awarded to Eirian Davies, who had worked long hours for minimal pay on the strength of various promises made to her by her parents. In the second appeal the award which Eirian received was reduced, with the court totting up her financial and non-financial detriment and then granting Eirian the total produced by adding the two together. While the case arguably represents the Court of Appeal exhibiting a robustness, and perhaps even a reductive quality, in the face of the complexities of the doctrine, the analysis of non-financial detriment, labelled “imponderable”, was not particularly structured or deep. The fact that this was so might mean that there is room for the higher courts to revisit the doctrine yet again in the future.

C (Children) [2016] EWCA Civ 374 (14 April 2016)

C (Children) [2016] EWCA Civ 374 (14 April 2016)

Barrister: Kathryn Skellorn
Area of Law: Children 

Download judgment: C (Children) [2016] EWCA Civ 374

A and B (Findings against a social worker)

A and B (Children) [2016] EWFC B115 (1 April 2016)
Connected appeal: A and B (Findings against a social worker) (Rev 1) [2016] EWFC 68 (11 July 2016) 

Barrister: Lucy Reed 
Area of Law: Children
Summary: Lucy acted for the mother in care proceedings, securing findings of dishonesty against a social worker following the discovery of discrepancies in social work records. The social worker sought permission to appeal against the findings, but permission was refused by Baker J following an inter partes hearing. The case concluded with no orders being made.

View judgment: A and B (Children) [2016] EWFC B115
View judgment: A and B (Findings against a social worker) (Rev 1) [2016] EWFC 68  

Amiee Shannon Steed

Barrister: John Dickinson
Area of Law:  Wills, Trusts and Tax
Summary: John successfully acted for the defendant in the case of Amiee Shannon Steed (a Child by her Litigation Friend, Marilyn Joy Winn) in a two-day will construction trial on 16th and 17th March 2016 before Mr Justice Newey in the Chancery Division of the Bristol District Registry.

Read news article: John Dickinson successfully acts in a two-day will construction trial in the case of Amiee Shannon Steed

Robinson v Stothard

Barrister: John Dickinson
Area of Law: Property and Real Estate
Summary: John successfully acted in resisting an application for permission to appeal before HHJ McCahill QC in a boundary dispute case in Robinson v Stothard. The court, after hearing full argument, refused permission to appeal from the first instance case management decision to leave to the trial judge the issue of whether to admit into evidence matters relating to a mediation. The underlying claim is for specific performance of an alleged agreement concluded at a mediation to resolve a boundary dispute.

Read news article: John Dickinson successfully acts in resisting an application for permission to appeal before HHJ McCahill QC in boundary dispute case

Forest of Dean District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & another

[2016] EWHC 421 (Admin)

Barrister: Philip Robson
Area of Law: Planning 
Summary: Philip successfully acted as junior to Peter Wadsley in the High Court on behalf of Forest of Dean District Council in an important planning decision in the case of Forest of Dean District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & another [2016] EWHC 421 (Admin). This case provides much needed judicial guidance to LPAs who often come up against the problem of the “significantly and demonstrably” balance in NPPF paragraph 14 as a result of not showing a 5-year housing land supply.

View news article: Planning barristers’ Peter Wadsley and Philip Robson successful in the High Court in Forest of Dean District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & another

Forest of Dean District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & another

[2016] EWHC 421 (Admin)

Barrister: Peter Wadsley
Area of Law: Planning 
Summary: Peter successfully acted in the High Court on behalf of Forest of Dean District Council in an important planning decision in the case of Forest of Dean District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & another [2016] EWHC 421 (Admin). This case provides much needed judicial guidance to LPAs who often come up against the problem of the “significantly and demonstrably” balance in NPPF paragraph 14 as a result of not showing a 5-year housing land supply.

View news article: Planning barristers’ Peter Wadsley and Philip Robson successful in the High Court in Forest of Dean District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & another


PreviousNext