Blog

Brereton College Ltd wants to bring an action for the recovery of a debt against Jacqui. Jacqui has failed to pay her tuition fees for a Diploma in Hairdressing which she undertook at the College last year. The value of the debt is £2,450. The College are also seeking to recover a laptop that was lent to Jacqui during her studies and intend to include a claim for the delivery of the laptop when they issue proceedings. A letter before claim was sent to Jacqui two months ago but she has failed to respond to it. What is the correct advice to give Brereton College about where to issue the claim form? [A]       The claim must be issued in the County Court closest to Jacqui’s home address. [B]       The claim must be issued in the County Court closest to Brereton College’s registered business address. [C]       The claim can be issued at any County Court hearing centre unless an enactment, rule or practice direction requires it to be issued elsewhere. [D]       The claim can only be issued in the County Court Business and Property Court.

You represent Lucy who is charged with burglary. At the first hearing, Lucy pleads not guilty and elects summary trial. A trial date is fixed for two months’ time. The prosecution have given notice that they intend to adduce evidence of Lucy’s three previous convictions for theft pursuant to s.101(1)(d) CJA 2003. You object to the convictions being adduced. What is the most appropriate way for this issue to be resolved?

Connall is on trial in the Crown Court for robbery. It is alleged that as Deena was leaving a football match, Connall threatened her and snatched her handbag. Deena was too shaken to be able to give a description of her attacker but Spencer observed the incident and at an identification procedure subsequently identified Connall as the person responsible. In interview, Connall denied knowing Spencer. Spencer gives evidence at trial that he observed the robbery in good lighting from an unobstructed position approximately 10 metres away. He states that he had often spoken to Connall at the football ground in the three months leading up to the incident. Should a Turnbull direction be given to the jury in respect of the identification evidence?

JPR (a firm) brought proceedings against Philip claiming damages in the sum of £80,000. JPR made a Claimant’s Part 36 offer three months before trial stating it would accept an offer in the sum of £50,000. Philip did not accept JPR’s Part 36 offer. At trial, JPR obtained judgment for the full amount of its claim, namely £80,000. What order should the Court make in relation to JPR’s damages, costs and the interest payable from the date the relevant period expired? [A]       JPR should be awarded interest on the sum of £80,000 at a rate not exceeding 5 % above base rate from the date the relevant period expired, costs on the indemnity basis from that date and interest on those costs at a rate not exceeding 5% above base rate, and an additional amount of £800. [B]       Unless the Court considers it unjust to do so, JPR should be awarded interest on the sum of £80,000 at a rate not exceeding 10% above base rate from the date the relevant period expired, costs on the indemnity basis from that date and interest on those costs at a rate not exceeding 10% above base rate, and an additional amount of £8,000. [C]       Unless the Court considers it disproportionate to do so, JPR should be awarded interest on the sum of £80,000 at a rate not exceeding 15% above base rate from the date the relevant period expired, costs on the indemnity basis from that date and interest on those costs at a rate not exceeding 15% above base rate, and an additional amount of £4,000. [D]          Unless the Court considers it contrary to the overriding objective, JPR should be awarded interest on the sum of £80,000 at a rate not exceeding 8% above base rate from the date the relevant period expired, costs on the indemnity basis from that date and interest on those costs at a rate not exceeding 8% above base rate, and an additional amount of £75,000.

Jason has brought a claim in negligence against his former employer Vanguard Appliances Limited (“Vanguard”). Jason worked in Vanguard’s warehouse stacking appliances onto trucks. During his employment, Jason was deliberately injured by another warehouseman, Vince, who drove a forklift truck into him causing serious injuries to his leg and torso. Following a police investigation, Vince was prosecuted for assault in the Crown Court, was convicted and was given a 2-year custodial sentence. Jason has been unable to work since the accident and has consequently brought this claim against Vanguard only as Vince died shortly after receiving his custodial sentence. Which of the following correctly states the position in respect of the admissibility of Vince’s conviction and the use which the court will make of it? [A]        The conviction is admissible evidence against Vanguard, but Jason will have to prove on the balance of probabilities that Vince assaulted him. [B]        The conviction is not admissible in the trial because Vince is not a party to the civil proceedings. [C]       The conviction is admissible evidence, and Vanguard must accept that Vince committed the offence of which he was convicted. [D]       The conviction is admissible evidence, and the court must presume that Vince committed the assault unless Vanguard can show to the contrary.

Sanjay brought a claim against Julia claiming damages for breach of contract in relation to the supply of various goods and services. Six months ago, Julia made a Part 36 offer in the sum of £20,000 in respect of the claim, which Sanjay did not accept. The trial took place today, and Sanjay obtained a judgment in the total sum of £16,000 inclusive of interest. Sanjay asks you for advice as to the costs position following judgment. What is the correct advice to give him? [A]       Sanjay is entitled to the costs of the proceedings as he has been successful in his claim and the general rule is that the unsuccessful party will pays the costs of the successful party. [B]       Sanjay is entitled to his costs of the proceedings up to the date that the Part 36 offer was made, but should pay Julia’s costs from that date, unless there is good reason not to do so. [C]       Sanjay is unlikely to be awarded costs as he will be seen to have conducted himself unreasonably in failing to accept the Part 36 offer which he did not beat at trial. [D]       Sanjay is entitled to his costs up until the expiry of the relevant period and Julia is entitled to her costs from the date on which the relevant period expired, unless the Court considers it unjust to make that order.

You are prosecuting Ella, who is on trial at the Crown Court for possessing a controlled drug of Class A (cocaine) with intent to supply. To support the prosecution case that Ella is a drug dealer you wish to rely on several text messages sent to Ella by a male called “Dan”. Each message requests that Ella provide Dan with his “usual amount of cocaine”. The defence object to these messages being admitted in evidence at Ella’s trial on the basis that they are hearsay. What is the best response to the defence objection?

Following trial in the magistrates’ court, Sean has been convicted of common assault. Before retiring to consider sentence, the magistrates are told by Sean that he is in receipt of benefits, that he has mounting debts and has very limited means. The magistrates want to make an award of compensation to the victim of the assault. Are the magistrates required to impose on Sean a surcharge, in full, alongside the compensation order?

You are the authorised court officer (formerly known as court legal adviser) in the case of Orin who is on trial in the magistrates’ court charged with affray (an either-way public order offence). It is alleged that Orin was involved in a violent disturbance outside a pub. Orin accepts that he was present but denies that he was involved in the violence. The prosecution case relies solely on the evidence of Simon, who, in examination-in-chief, gave evidence that he saw Orin throw bottles in the street, that Orin punched and kicked numerous people and that his behaviour was “out of control”. Under cross-examination, Simon accepted that he had been drinking on the evening of the incident but denied being drunk. He also accepted that he could not remember how many bottles Orin threw or how many punches and kicks Orin delivered to others. He could not recall how many people were involved in the incident. Simon accepted that he had a previous conviction for shoplifting three years ago for stealing food when he was homeless. Following the close of the prosecution case, the defence make a submission of no case to answer. This is opposed by the prosecution. What is the correct advice for you to give the magistrates following the defence submission of no case to answer?

You represent Lydia who, following a trial in the magistrates’ court, has been convicted of ABH. Sentence has been adjourned for two weeks for the preparation of a pre-sentence report. At the end of the hearing, Lydia tells you that she wants to appeal against her conviction to the Crown Court. What is the time limit for Lydia to serve her notice of appeal?