header-logo header-logo

18 January 2008
Issue: 7304 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Civil litigation

Mote v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2007] EWCA Civ 1324, [2007] All ER (D) 212 (Dec)

The continuation of civil proceedings pending the hearing of criminal proceedings arising out of the same facts, does not of itself give rise to a breach of the Human Rights Act 1998.

A relevant consideration is whether or not the continuation of the civil proceedings will give rise to a real risk of prejudice to the defendant in the criminal proceedings.

If there is a risk of prejudice, then that will weigh heavily in favour of an adjournment pending the conclusion of the criminal proceedings, but it will not necessarily be decisive (Lord Justice Richards at para 31).

 

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

HFW—Simon Petch

HFW—Simon Petch

Global shipping practice expands with experienced ship finance partner hire

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Infrastructure specialist joins as partner in Glasgow office

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll