Blog

Andrei, the owner of a football club, brought proceedings against Abbas, a freelance investigative journalist, for libel in relation to an article Abbas published on his website. In the article Abbas made serious allegations against Andrei including that Andrei had been involved in a number of criminal acts whilst managing the football club; had assaulted Jada, the club’s senior physiotherapist, and had bribed two individuals to prevent them giving evidence at a trial in favour of a coach who had brought a claim against Andrei for bullying and harassment. Abbas failed to acknowledge service of the proceedings because he was abroad investigating another story. When he returned home, he found that a judgment had been entered against him two months previously. Abbas immediately applied to set aside the judgment based on the fact that the statements made in the article were true and that he can produce evidence, including taped interviews with Jada and several other individuals, which support this. What is the correct advice to give Abbas regarding the likely outcome of his application, and why? [A]        It is likely to be granted; Abbas has acted promptly, he has a real prospect of successfully defending the claim, and there is some other good reason why he should be allowed to defend the claim given the seriousness of the libel allegation which should have a public hearing. [B]        It is likely to be dismissed; there has been a marked failure to make the application promptly and the court regards this of paramount importance even in cases where a defence is likely to succeed at trial. [C]       It is likely to be dismissed; Abbas has not acted promptly and as the application to set aside judgment is treated as an application for relief from a sanction, he is unlikely to show he is entitled to have relief in all the circumstances. [D]       It is likely to be granted; although the court is unlikely to find that there is some other good reason why he should be allowed to defend the claim, Abbas has acted promptly and his defence has a real prospect of success.

Ashok brings a claim against Zebedee Hotels Ltd for personal injury sustained while staying in Zebedee’s hotel in Brighton. Ashok lives in the United States. He has instructed solicitors in London to deal with his claim which is valued at approximately £11,000. Liability and quantum are both in dispute. Significant cross-examination of Ashok is likely to be required as there are some issues of credibility. Ashok has been advised that he has about a 66% chance of succeeding at trial. Ashok is reluctant to travel to the UK just to attend the trial. He is worried about the expenses he will incur. The cost of the flight is likely to be £2,500 return. He will also need to take time off work and stay in a hotel. The parties have been sent Directions Questionnaires to complete. What is the best advice to give Ashok in relation as to how he should give evidence? [A]        Ashok should seek a direction permitting him to give evidence by live video link from the United States. [B]        Ashok should seek a direction for his evidence to be given by deposition. [C]       Ashok should attend Court and give evidence. [D]       Ashok should seek a direction for his evidence to be given by way of a pre-recorded cross-examination so that he does not have to incur the expense of attending Court personally.

Rubric Design (“Rubric”) host a fashion show (‘the show’) every year for which they sell tickets. All rights relating to the issue and sale of the tickets and the profits arising from their sale belong to Rubric. Each ticket issued contains a clause that provides that any holder of a ticket who sells it on for a profit is liable to pay that profit to Rubric. Rubric issue 2,000 tickets for sale for this year’s show. One of the operators whom Rubric used to sell the tickets is a company called Stealth Events (“Stealth”). The show was a huge success but, after it concluded, Rubric discover that an individual who bought 500 tickets from Stealth went on to sell the tickets for ten times the original value. Rubric ask Stealth to disclose the identity of this individual. Stealth refuses to do so.                      What type of application should Rubric make against Stealth to obtain this information? An application for [A]        an order for disclosure against a non-party. [B]        an order for pre-action disclosure. [C]       an order for specific disclosure. [D]       a Norwich Pharmacal order.

Michael (aged 24) and Duane (aged 14) are jointly charged with burglary of a local shop. It is alleged that they entered the shop at night and stole cigarettes and alcohol to a value of £1000. Duane has no previous convictions. At the first hearing in the magistrates’ court, Duane indicates a plea of not guilty and Michael pleads guilty. Which is the most appropriate decision for the magistrates to make about the venue for Duane’s trial?

Giselle wants to bring a claim against Lorcan in respect of injuries caused in a road traffic accident. Her lawyers consider it to be a straightforward negligence claim and estimate that damages for lost earnings will be £24,000 and damages for personal injuries will be in the region of £32,000. A further £15,000 in damages will be claimed for other losses, such as the damage to Giselle’s vehicle. Lorcan has indicated in pre-action correspondence that he will defend the claim and counterclaim for his own losses arising out of the accident valued at £51,000, including £15,000 of personal injury damages. Can Giselle’s claim form be issued in the High Court? [A]        Yes; she can issue her claim form in the High Court because her total claim is worth more than £50,000 and includes damages for personal injuries. [B]        No; she cannot issue her claim form in the High Court because the total value of her claim is less than £100,000. [C]       No; she cannot issue her claim form in the High Court because she is claiming less than £50,000 worth of damages for personal injuries. [D]       Yes; she can issue her claim form in the High Court because the combined value of both her claim and the likely counterclaim is over £100,000.

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.