header-logo header-logo

CRIMINAL LITIGATION

04 October 2007
Issue: 7291 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

R (on the application of Leask) v South Western Magistrates Court [2007] EWHC 1233 (Admin), [2007] All ER (D) 142 (May)

The court had to consider an extension of the time limit for submission of a bill of costs under the Costs in Criminal Cases (General) Regulations 1986, reg 12(2).

It was held that two separate aspects have to be considered: (i) whether the failure to comply with a time limit was without good reason or whether a good reason existed; and (ii) whether or not exceptional circumstances existed which would justify the extension of the time limit.

The fact that there was no good reason, or that the reason for failure was not a good one, does not preclude there being exceptional circumstances; each aspect has to be considered separately.

Issue: 7291 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll