comment 0

Case law: Miscarriage of justice, local government and limitation

Some new law courtesy of the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting via their WLR Daily service.

Regina (Adams) v Secretary of State for Justice (JUSTICE and another intervening); In re MacDermott’s and McCartney’s Applications for Judicial Review (JUSTICE intervening) [2011] UKSC 18;  [2011] WLR (D)  155

CRIME — Miscarriage of Justice — Statutory compensation — Claimant seeking compensation on basis of new or newly discovered facts showing miscarriage of justice — Whether facts giving rise to miscarriage of justice — Whether claimant entitled to compensation — Criminal Justice Act 1988, s 133(1) — Human Rights Act 1998, Sch I, Pt 1, art 6(2)

A miscarriage of justice, within the meaning of section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, occurred where a new fact so undermined the evidence against the defendant that no conviction could possibly be based upon it.

Regina (Nassery) v Brent London Borough Council [2011] EWCA Civ 539;  [2011] WLR (D)  156

LOCAL GOVERNMENT — Powers — Provision of accommodation — Claimant suffering from personality disorder and mental illness, with ongoing condition giving rise to sporadic bizarre behaviour — Local authority assessing how needs to be addressed — Whether claimant “in need of care and attention” — National Assistance Act 1948, s 21(1)(a) (as amended by Local Government Act 1972, s 195(6), Sch 23, para 2(1))

Where a local authority was assessing whether a person was “in need of care and attention” for the purposes of section 21(1)(a) of the National Assistance Act 1948 the primary focus was on present rather than future needs, but provided there was a present need for some sort of care an authority was also empowered to intervene before it became much worse.

Lane v Cullens Solicitors and others [2011] EWCA Civ 547;  [2011] WLR (D)  157

LIMITATION OF ACTION — Negligence — Accrual of cause of action — Personal representative distributing sums out of estate notwithstanding notification of third party claim — Solicitors alleged to have failed to advise — Whether third party claim vested or contingent — Limitation Act 1980, s 2

Where a personal representative had distributed sums out of the relevant estate notwithstanding a notified third party claim against the estate, and sought to sue solicitors in professional negligence, the applicable limitation period could be found to run from the time at which the legal position had altered, viz upon payment out, regardless of the question whether the third party claim was correctly to be characterised as a vested or a contingent claim.



Advertisements
Filed under: Law reporting

About the Author

Posted by

I am a law reporter employed by the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for England & Wales. I write law reports for the Official Law Reports, the Weekly Law Reports and the Public and Third Sector Reports. I also write on a freelance basis for the Road Traffic Reports and the Times Reports.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s