THIS ACTION IS GOING TO YORKSHIRE: CHOICE OF LONDON LAWYERS DOES NOT DRIVE CHOICE OF VENUE
In SK Enterprises (UK) Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Re Determination as to Venue) [2025] EWHC 237 (Admin) Mrs Justice Hill held that an action in the Administrative Court should be…
FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY AND “WITHOUT PREJUDICE” CORRESPONDENCE: JUDGE HOLDS THAT CLAIMANT’S OFFER OF SETTLEMENT WAS ADMISSIBLE
In Morris v Williams [2025] EWHC 218 (KB) District Judge Dodsworth considered the question of whether a letter from the claimant’s former solicitor, which contained proposals by the claimant to settle allegations of fundamental dishonesty, could be adduced as evidence. …
DENTON DID NOT APPLY TO THE DEFENDANT’S APPLICATION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME: HOWEVER – CONSIDERING THE OVERRIDING OBJECTIVE – THE APPLICATION WAS REFUSED
In Bailey & Ors v GlaxoSmithKline UK Ltd [2025] EWHC 186 (KB) Mr Justice Bourne considered whether the defendant should have an extension of time. The judge considered whether the “Denton” principles apply to the defendant’s application and if not…
You must be logged in to post a comment.