header-logo header-logo

Civil litigation

01 May 2008
Issue: 7319 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Dunn v Parole Board [2008] EWCA Civ 374, [2008] All ER (D) 222 (Apr)

The claimant contended that the judge should have decided that, because the Parole Board had not made an application under CPR Pt 11 to strike out the claim within 14 days of filing of acknowledgement of service, it had lost its right to rely on the limitation provisions in s 7 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

HELD CPR 11 had no relevance to the Parole Board’s application to strike out the claim. Limitation provisions provide a defence to the claim; they do not go to jurisdiction.
 

Issue: 7319 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Myers & Co—Jen Goodwin

Myers & Co—Jen Goodwin

Head of corporate promoted to director

Boies Schiller Flexner—Lindsay Reimschussel

Boies Schiller Flexner—Lindsay Reimschussel

Firm strengthens international arbitration team with key London hire

Corker Binning—Priya Dave

Corker Binning—Priya Dave

FCA contentious financial regulation lawyer joins the team as of counsel

NEWS
Social media giants should face tortious liability for the psychological harms their platforms inflict, argues Harry Lambert of Outer Temple Chambers in this week’s NLJ
The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024—once heralded as a breakthrough—has instead plunged leaseholders into confusion, warns Shabnam Ali-Khan of Russell-Cooke in this week’s NLJ
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has now confirmed that offering a disabled employee a trial period in an alternative role can itself be a 'reasonable adjustment' under the Equality Act 2010: in this week's NLJ, Charles Pigott of Mills & Reeve analyses the evolving case law
Caroline Shea KC and Richard Miller of Falcon Chambers examine the growing judicial focus on 'cynical breach' in restrictive covenant cases, in this week's issue of NLJ
Ian Gascoigne of LexisNexis dissects the uneasy balance between open justice and confidentiality in England’s civil courts, in this week's NLJ. From public hearings to super-injunctions, he identifies five tiers of privacy—from fully open proceedings to entirely secret ones—showing how a patchwork of exceptions has evolved without clear design
back-to-top-scroll