Articles

3PB Family Barrister Nicola Frost provides an insightful summary of Re: MM (A patient) [2017] EWCA Civ 34, an appeal from the Court of Protection in which the appellant had been ordered to facilitate MM's return to this jurisdiction, the court having found (on a number of occasions) it to be in MM's best welfare interests to be cared for in the south west of England.

The parties compromised the appeal and the court was asked to approve a consent order, allowing the appeal, on the basis that (i) the order made had become otiose and (ii) it would be futile to subject the appellant to further coercive orders in the face of her continuing obduracy. Case remitted to the court of first instance for the proceedings to be concluded.

3PB Planning Barristers William Webster and Graeme Sampson summarise and analyse the government's Housing White Paper.

3PB Family Barrister Nicola Frost provides an insightful summary of AB (Surrogacy: Domicile) [2016] EWFC 63, an application for parental orders in relation to two children in which the court had to determine whether at least one of the applicants could be said to be 'domiciled' in the jurisdiction at the time of the application and at the time of making the order, as required by section 54(4)(b) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008.

3PB's Graham Gilbert examines the Attorney General's "imminent threat" criteria in the use of pre-emptive strikes. The Attorney General has said that the UK may use a preemptive attack against would-be terrorists in self-defence if an attack is "imminent". Graham Gilbert questions whether this is the best choice, given the difficulty the criminal courts have had with the concept.

Fact finding into serious injuries: Esther Lieu summarises A v W  and Others No 1 (Fact Finding) [2016] EWFC 64 for Family Law Week.

Colin McDevitt summarises a recent High Court decision which serves as a reminder to practitioners to not leave amendments to pleadings until the last minute.

3PB's Michelle Marnham considers the question of when a claim is brought for the purpose of limitation following on from the recent decision of Dixon v Radley House Partnership.

3PB Barristers' commercial & Business Law Group brings you the Autumn Edition of its Legal Update Handout.

Topics:
1.Interpreting exclusion clauses between commercial parties [Transocean Drilling UK Ltd v Providence Resources plc [2016] EWCA Civ 372]
2.The duty to mitigate debt claims: White & Carter v. McGregor reconsidered by the Court of Appeal [MSC Mediterranean Shipping Co SA v. Cottonex Anstalt [2016] EWCA Civ 789]
3.The 2016 changes to Insurance Law: A litigator's perspective
4.Can a false contractual warranty also give rise to a claim in misrepresentation? [Idemitsu Kosan Co Ltd v. Sumitomo Corp [2016] EWHC 1909]
5.Recent issues in contribution claims under the 1978 Act [W.H. Newson Holdings Ltd v. IMI plc [2016] EWCA Civ 773 and Cape Distribution Ltd v. Cape Intermediate Holdings plc [2016] EWHC 1119 (QB)]
6.Illegality in the Supreme Court [Patel v. Mirza [2016] UKSC 42]

Esther Lieu summarises Re AB (Surrogacy: Consent) [2016] EWHC 2643 (Fam) (Nov 16).

Esther Lieu analyses M v F [2016] EWHC 3194 (Fam) (Jan 2017) for Family Law Week.

Andrew Perfect and Sharan Sanghera analyse the recent Supreme Court decision on collateral lies in insurance contracts. The Court by a majority held that a collateral lie is not subject to the fraudulent claims rule. The telling of a lie, if truly collateral to the claim being made, does not permit an insurer to refuse to pay. Lords Sumption, Clarke, Hughes and Toulson concurred, Lord Mance dissented. Versloot Dredging BV and another v HDI Gerling Industrie Versicherung AG and others [2016] UKSC 45

R v Jogee (Appellant) Supreme Court 2016 UKSC 8 - a commentary by 3PB criminal law barrister Berenice Mulvanny following this Supreme Court decision