You are here

Bloomsburry Family law

Law Brief

 (1) AMB Generali Holding AG (2) Manches (A Firm) (3) Specher Grier Halberstam (4) Portner & Jaskel (Appellants) v Seb Trygg Liv Holding Aktiebolag (Respondent)(Respondent) [2005] EWCA Civ 1237

The warranty that a solicitor gave was that he had a client who had instructed him to assert or deny the claims made in the proceedings against the opposing party. He did not warrant that the client had the name by which he appeared in the proceedings. As a matter of principle it would not be right to impose strict liability on a solicitor for incorrectly naming his client.

Lawrie Grace v (1) Marcello Biagioli (2) Stephen Van Loggerenberg (3) Cathleen Johannessen (4) Titanium Electrode Products Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 1222

The most appropriate order to deal with intra company disputes in small private companies would normally be a buy-out order since, where unfairly prejudicial conduct under the Companies Act 1985, s 459 had been proved, a clean break was likely to be necessary to satisfy the objectives of the court's power to intervene under s 461 of the 1985 Act.

Attorney-General’s Reference (No 80 of 2005) sub nom R v Adam Wedlock-Ward (2005)

A suspended sentence of two years' custody following a late guilty plea to wounding with intent was unduly lenient given the aggravating features that there had been no provocation, the defendant had lain in wait for his victim and had four previous convictions including one for unlawful wounding. Whatever the personal views of a judge, it was not for him to disregard the judgments of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) or the advice of the Sentencing Guidelines Council in deciding the appropriate reduction in sentence for a late guilty plea.

The Office of the King’s Prosecutor, Brussels v Armas [2005] UKHL 67

A request by Belgium for the extradition of the appellant could not be brought under the Extradition Act 2003, s 65(2) because part of the conduct of the appellant specified in the arrest warrant took place in the United Kingdom, but the request could be brought under s 65(3) of the Act as it did not matter for the purposes of that subsection that the conduct took place not only in Belgium but also in the UK.

R (Joan Margaret Walmsley) v (1) John Lane (2) Parking & Traffic Appeals Service (2005)

On an appeal to an adjudicator regarding failure to pay the congestion charge under the Road User Charging (Enforcement and Adjudication) (London) Regulations 2001, reg 16(2), the adjudicator could only consider grounds under reg 13(3). He had no general power to give directions he thought appropriate where no reg 13(3) ground was established.

First Secretary of State v Robert Simmons [2005] EWCA Civ 1295

The secretary of state was entitled to conclude on the evidence that "very special circumstances" that would have justified inappropriate development in a green belt land had not been established. Accordingly, he had been entitled to uphold an enforcement notice issued by the local authority requiring the respondent to discontinue use of the green belt land as a private gypsy caravan site.