header-logo header-logo

21 June 2024
Issue: 8076 / Categories: Case law , In Court , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Law digests: 21 June 2024

Criminal law

R (on the application of McGill) v ­Newcastle Magistrates Court [2024] EWHC 1207 (Admin), [2024] All ER (D) 18 (Jun)

The Administrative Court, in allowing the claimant’s judicial review claim, held that the decision of the Acting Legal Team Manager (Crime) of the defendant magistrates’ court, refusing to issue a summons against the claimant’s former business partner (Mr H) (the impugned decision), had been unlawful. The impugned decision had referred to the fact that the claimant had brought a private prosecution against Mr H and his wife which the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) had taken over and discontinued. However, the discontinued proceedings concerned the alleged forgery of banking documents, whereas the request for the summons in the present judicial review concerned an allegation of forgery of a shareholder agreement. The court held that the failure, in making the impugned decision, to appreciate that the CPS had not considered the shareholding agreement forgery allegation had been a public law material failure to have had regard to an obviously relevant consideration, and that,

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll