Law report: Case Summaries

THE FOLLOWING notes of judgments were prepared by the reporters of the All England Law Reports.

Practice

Chabba v Turbogame Ltd; CA (Sedley LJ, Wall J) 6 July 2001

SOLICITORS HAD to be aware of the time limits for service in each category of litigation, and to serve proceedings promptly and within the limits. After 1 October 2001 failure to serve a claim form for a new tenancy under s 24(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 within two months would bring CPR 7.6(3) into play, probably with fatal results if service was late.

Catherine Ewins (AON Claims Solutions) for the claimant; Andrew Grantham (Herbert Smith) for the defendant.

Balfron Trustees Ltd v Peterson and ors (No 2); Ch D (Laddie J) 9 July 2001

WHERE AN accused in criminal proceedings was also subject to civil proceedings in respect of the same subject matter, a real, as opposed to fanciful, danger of miscarriage of justice had to be demonstrated on an application for a stay of the civil proceedings.

William Trower QC (Brooke North) for the claimant; Nicholas Drukker of Nicholas Drukker & Co for the first defendant; Michael Barnett of Denton Wilde Sapte & Co for the second defendant; Nigel Burroughs (Irwin Mitchell) for the third defendant; John McLinden (DLA) for the fourth defendant; Elizabeth Weaver (Ince & Co) for the seventh defendant; Sue Carr (Barlow Lyde & Gilbert) for the eighth defendant; Roger Stewart QC (Barlow Lyde & Gilbert) for the ninth defendant; the fifth and sixth defendants did not appear and were not represented.

Fieldman and anor v Markovitch and anor; Ch D (Sir Andrew Morritt V- C) 4 July 2001

IT WAS not open to one High Court judge to reopen an application for permission to appeal which had been granted by another High Court judge and to hear argument on grounds of appeal on which permission had not been granted.

Chales Salter (Wilson Barca) for the appellant; Alan Tunkel (Alan Edwards) for the respondents.

Education

Wakefield Metropolitan District Council v Evans and ors; Admin Ct (Collins J) 11 June 2001

ON THE true construction of ss 312 and 579 of the Education Act 1966, a child could only fall within the extended meaning of "child" in s 312(5) if a special-educational-needs tribunal took the view that he needed to remain at school to receive the education necessary in order to meet his special needs.

E appeared in person; Lachland Wilson (James Holt) for the local authority; James Maurici (Treasury Solicitor) for the second defendant.

Copyright 2001 Independent Newspapers UK Limited
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.