August 2014 - The Community Law Partnership

Case Law on Compliance with Directions (Post Mitchell Update)

Posted by clp-admin9th August, 201420th May, 2022 Archived News, News

Following the case of Mitchell v News Group, the Courts have taken a very strict view indeed to failure to comply with Court directions. This appears to be loosening somewhat.

Firstly we would refer the reader to the article on the Nearly Legal Housing Law Website – This is what we always meant and especially the piece concerning the amendments to the Civil Procedure Rules on 5^th June 2014 – see the article at:-

http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2014/05/this-is-what-we-always-meant/

The piece on Nearly Legal also refers to the Judgment of Jackson LJ (yes, that Jackson!) in Hallam Estates Limited v Baker [2014] EWCA Civ 661. In terms of the amendment to the Civil Procedure Rules, Rule 3.8 (4) will now read:-

(4) In the circumstances referred to in paragraph (3) and unless the Court orders otherwise, the time for doing the act in question may be extended by prior written agreement of the parties for up to a maximum of 28 days, provided always that any such extension does not put at risk any hearing date.

Denton -v- T H White Limited & Others

Posted by clp-admin9th August, 201423rd January, 2017 Other Legal Cases

Denton -v- T H White Limited & Others [2014] EWCA Civ 906 4 July 2014

Further to the case of Groarke -v- Fontaine, the Court of Appeal have addressed this matter again and sought to give a definitive ruling on the issue in the case of Denton v T H White Limited and Others [2014] EWCA Civ 906. This case involved three appeals (all heard together) against refusal to grant sanctions by parties who had failed to comply with Court directions.

Groarke -v- Fontaine

Posted by clp-admin9th August, 201423rd January, 2017 Other Legal Cases

Groarke -v- Fontaine [2014] EWHC 1676 (QB), 22 May 2014

This case concerned a road traffic accident and the question of potential contributory negligence by the Claimant, the Defendant made a very late application (at the outset of the trial!) to amend his Defence.

Aster Communities -v- Akerman Livingstone

Posted by clp-admin9th August, 201423rd January, 2017 Other Legal Cases

Aster Communities Ltd -v- Akerman-Livingstone [2014] EWCA Civ 1081, 30 July 2014

In this case, the Court of Appeal has come up with an extremely negative decision in quashing an Equality Act defence raised by a tenant.

McDonald -v- McDonald

Posted by clp-admin9th August, 201423rd January, 2017 Article 8

McDonald -v- McDonald [2014} EWCA Civ 1049 24 July 2014

Ms McDonald was an assured shorthold tenant of a private landlord. Eviction action was taken against her on the basis of the automatic ground for possession contained in Housing Act 1988 section 21. One of her grounds of defence was reliance on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights ( the right to respect for private and family life and home). The question, in terms of this ground, for the Court of Appeal, was whether she could rely on this ground of defence in an action involving a private landlord.

R (O’Brien & Anr) -v- Bristol City Council

Posted by clp-admin9th August, 201423rd January, 2017 Traveller unauthorised encampment eviction

R (O’Brien & Anr) -v- Bristol City Council (Secretary of State for Transport intervening) [2014] EWHC 2423 (Admin)

By Joe Markus of Garden Court North Chambers (who represented the O’Briens)

This case concerned the eviction of the O’Brien family from an unauthorised encampment off West Town Road under the Avonmouth Bridge, which carries the M5 motorway. The claim was issued in the High Court as a judicial review of the Council’s decision to seek possession due to the absence of legal aid for trespassers to defend possession proceedings brought against them.

Kick In The Shins

Posted by clp-admin9th August, 201420th May, 2022 Archived News, News

R (Public Law Project) -v- The Secretary of State for Justice [2014] EWHC 2365 (Admin) 15 July 2014

The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (LASPOA) 2012 Part 1 Schedule 1 lists those areas of law that remain in scope for legal aid. The Lord Chancellor proposed by the LASPOA 2012 (Amendment of Schedule 1) Order 2104 (‘the Order’) to introduce a residence test. All those who failed the test would be removed from the scope of Part 1 Schedule 1.

Public Law Project (PLP) challenged the lawfulness of the Order. Moses J gave the leading judgment of a three judge court.

R (Public Law Project) -v- The Secretary of State for Justice

Posted by clp-admin9th August, 201423rd January, 2017 Other Legal Cases

R (Public Law Project) -v- The Secretary of State for Justice [2014] EWHC 2365 (Admin) 15 July 2014

Connors & Others -v- SSCLG & Others

Posted by clp-admin9th August, 201423rd January, 2017 Traveller planning

Connors, Connors, Doran, Sines and Lee v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and others [2014] EWHC 2358 (Admin) 11 July 2014

This case involved 5 High Court planning appeals and applications under either Section 288 or Section 289 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 that were all heard together. All of these cases had been recovered by the SSCLG under his powers to do so and in line with the Written Ministerial Statements of 1^st July 2013 and 17^th January 2014.

Smith -v- SSCLG & South Bucks District Council

Posted by clp-admin9th August, 201423rd January, 2017 Traveller planning

Billy Smith -v- Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and South Buckinghamshire District Council [2014] EWHC 935 (Admin) 1 April 2014

The Appellant in this case sought permission for a Gypsy site in the Green Belt. This was refused by the local authority and also by the Planning Inspector. He appealed against the Inspector’s decision.