Click the case name for better results:

Holder and Others v APC Supperstone and Others: ChD 24 Nov 1999

Tenants obtained a charging order against their landlord, and, after his bankruptcy, incurred substantial costs defending their charge against other claimants. The trustee declined to allow payment of the costs. Held: The costs were properly payable under the Act. The charge operated also as an equitable charge, and such a charge would carry the costs … Continue reading Holder and Others v APC Supperstone and Others: ChD 24 Nov 1999

Yorkshire Bank Finance Ltd v Mulhall and Another: CA 24 Oct 2008

The bank had obtained a judgement against the defendant, and took a charging order. Nothing happened for more than twelve years, and the defendant now argued that the order and debt was discharged. Held: The enforcement of the charging order by normal means is not barred by section 20(1), and unlike the position under a … Continue reading Yorkshire Bank Finance Ltd v Mulhall and Another: CA 24 Oct 2008

Attorney General’s Reference (No 3 of 2003): CACD 7 Apr 2004

Police Officers had been acquitted of misconduct in public office. They had stood by in a police station custody suite as a prisoner lay on the floor and died. Held: The trial took place before R -v- G which had overruled Caldwell. The standard of recklessness to be show was that laid down in Cunningham. … Continue reading Attorney General’s Reference (No 3 of 2003): CACD 7 Apr 2004

A v Hoare; H v Suffolk County Council, Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs intervening; X and Y v London Borough of Wandsworth: CA 12 Apr 2006

Each claimant sought damages for a criminal assault for which the defendant was said to be responsible. Each claim was to be out of the six year limitation period. In the first claim, the proposed defendant had since won a substantial sum from the National Lottery. They complained that the Limitation Act gave the court … Continue reading A v Hoare; H v Suffolk County Council, Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs intervening; X and Y v London Borough of Wandsworth: CA 12 Apr 2006