Brief history of Newwalk Chambers

Find by month

Find by label


Chambers Blog

Entries matching label high-court:

A stricter approach under the new CPR rules

07 Jun 2013, 16:17 by Priya Bakshi

Labels: barrister, barristers, high-court, judge, judgment, lawyer, particulars-of-claim

The impact of the Jackson reforms on the CPR rules is
showing, with a tougher approach displayed by the courts on missed deadlines. 

The case of Venulum Property Investments Ltd v Space Architecture & Others[2013] EWHC 1242 (TCC) was heard before the High Court. The Claimant applied for permission to extend time for service of the Particulars of Claim as the solicitors incorrectly calculated the deadline for service.

The courts' discretionary power to extend time in such circumstances is
governed by CPR 3.9. Mr Justice Edwards-Stuart recognised that this rule had been significantly amended from 1 April 2013. The old rule allowed the court to have a more general consideration with a list of nine factors to consider.  Under the new rule:

"The court will consider all the circumstances of the case, so as to
enable it to deal justly with the application, including the need-

(a) for litigation to be conducted efficiently and at proportionate
cost; and (b) to enforce compliance with rules, practice directions and orders."

Accordingly, the court refused to allow an extension for serving the
Particulars of Claim. In reaching this outcome the court considered the five year delay in bringing the claim, the claim
against the defendant not being strong and the fact that the claim for bad
faith was pleaded in vague terms. 

Mr Justice Edwards-Stuart concluded in his judgment, "when the circumstances are considered as a whole, particularly in the light of the stricter approach that must now be taken by the courts towards those who fail to comply with rules following the new changes to the CPR, this is a case where the court should refuse permission to extend time. The Claimant has taken quite long enough to bring these proceedings and enough is now enough."


Mis-selling Payment Protection Insurance

26 Apr 2011, 11:52 by Katie Spriggs

Labels: banks, barrister, fos, fsa, high-court, judicial-review, lawyer, mis-sold, payment-protection-insurance, ppi

British Bankers' Association (BBA) v Financial Services Authority (FSA) and Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS)

Payment protection insurance (PPI) is insurance sold by banks alongside credit cards, loans and finance agreements and aims to insure that payments are made should the borrower be unable to make the payments through illness or unemployment.

However many policyholders claim that the insurance is useless and they are unable to claim owing to restrictions of which they were unaware at the time of purchase, such as being over 65 years old or being self employed. Other customers claim that they have been pressurised into buying the insurance or have paid the premiums without being aware that they had purchased it.

This potential mis-selling was recognised by both the FSA and FOS and steps were subsequently taken to introduce a set of rules governing claims of mis-sold PPI. The banks, through BBA, challenged these principles with a judicial review on the basis that the principles forced the banks to apply new standards to sales made before the rules were established.

In a judgment handed down by the High Court on 20 April 2011, BBA's objections were dismissed and the court ruled in favour of the FSA and FOS. The banks have an obligation to sell fairly which they breached. The FSA principles intend to redress those breaches and prevent future breaches from occurring.

The FSA rules intend to ensure that customers are treated justly both when buying PPI and when making complaint about mis-selling. The rules, (and the subsequent decision of the High Court), mean that anyone who was previously mis-sold PPI should be compensated, and further indicate that banks should contact all past PPI customers and give them the option to complain if their policy was mis-sold.

The banks have frozen the processing of claims during the judicial review process however, at present the High Court's decision is clear and the FSA have not introduced a waiver meaning that the banks should be processing all claims in relation to mis-sold PPI.



School admissions decision overturned in High Court

04 Nov 2008, 12:08 by John Snell

Labels: admission, advice, appeal, barrister, education, high-court, lawyer, school-appeal, schools-adjudicator

 A school admissions policy has been reinstated this week after a High Court ruling. Drayton Manor High School had earlier been ordered by the Schools Adjudicator to change its admission policy because ‘it indirectly discriminated against children form disadvantaged backgrounds'. However, the High Court has now ruled the Adjudicator's decision unlawful.

Ian Jones, a barrister specializing in school appeals and education law at New Walk Chambers, comments: "The Schools Adjudicator has a team of barristers to trawl through and find fault with school admission policies. Most schools, especially voluntary-aided/ church  schools, do not have any legal advice when they draw up their admissions policy. Parents are placed in an even more difficult position." Mr. Jones adds:  "Any school needing to review its admissions policy should seek professional advice at any early stage."


Displaying entries 1-3 of 3.

The New Walk Chambers Blog page is only intended to provide an accessible forum for a general overview and discussion of the topics posted on it. It is not meant to be a substitute for taking legal advice in any particular situation and should not be so used. Neither New Walk Chambers nor the author(s) accept any responsibility for anything done or not done on the basis of the contents of the Blog page.

Website developed by Focus New Media