Search Results for: Civil Evidence Act 1995 1(2)

Click the case name for better results:

In re H and R (Minors) (Child Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof): HL 14 Dec 1995

Evidence allowed – Care Application after Abuse Children had made allegations of serious sexual abuse against their step-father. He was acquitted at trial, but the local authority went ahead with care proceedings. The parents appealed against a finding that a likely risk to the children had still been been found. Held: A care order could … Continue reading In re H and R (Minors) (Child Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof): HL 14 Dec 1995

Polanski v Conde Nast Publications Ltd: HL 10 Feb 2005

The claimant wished to pursue his claim for defamation against the defendant, but was reluctant to return to the UK to give evidence, fearing arrest and extradition to the US. He appealed refusal of permission to be interviewed on video tape. Held (Majority): The appeal succeeded, and the judge’s order allowing the evidence to be … Continue reading Polanski v Conde Nast Publications Ltd: HL 10 Feb 2005

Point Solutions Ltd v Focus Business Solutions Ltd and Another: ChD 16 Dec 2005

It was claimed that the defendant’s computer software infringed the copyright in software owned by the claimant. A declaration was sought beacause of allegations that assertions about infringement had been made to third parties. Held: The declaration was refused. There was no explicit provision in copyright law for a declaration of non-infringement as was available … Continue reading Point Solutions Ltd v Focus Business Solutions Ltd and Another: ChD 16 Dec 2005

Polanski v Conde Nast Publications Limited: CA 11 Nov 2003

The claimant sought damages for defamation. He feared arrest and extradition to the US if he came to England, and was granted an order allowing him to give evidence by video link. The defendant appealed that order. Held: There was no absolute rule which would allow the order made. The judge had considered that if … Continue reading Polanski v Conde Nast Publications Limited: CA 11 Nov 2003

Regina (Holding and Barnes plc) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions; Regina (Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others) v Same and Others: HL 9 May 2001

Power to call in is administrative in nature The powers of the Secretary of State to call in a planning application for his decision, and certain other planning powers, were essentially an administrative power, and not a judicial one, and therefore it was not a breach of the applicants’ rights to a fair hearing before … Continue reading Regina (Holding and Barnes plc) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions; Regina (Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others) v Same and Others: HL 9 May 2001

O’Brien v Chief Constable of the South Wales Police: CA 23 Jul 2003

The claimant sought damages for malicious prosecution, and sought to adduce similar fact evidence. The defendant appealed an order admitting the evidence. Held: Comparisons between admission of similar fact evidence in civil and criminal proceedings were made. In general, the greater the putative force of the evidence the less ready a court should be to … Continue reading O’Brien v Chief Constable of the South Wales Police: CA 23 Jul 2003

Animal Defenders International, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport: HL 12 Mar 2008

The applicant, a non-profit company who campaigned against animal cruelty, sought a declaration of incompatibility for section 321(2) of the 2003 Act, which prevented adverts with political purposes, as an unjustified restraint on the right of political expression. Held: Though the regulation was an interference in the claimant’s right of free expression, it was prescribed … Continue reading Animal Defenders International, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport: HL 12 Mar 2008

In re B (Children) (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof) (CAFCASS intervening): HL 11 Jun 2008

Balance of probabilities remains standard of proof There had been cross allegations of abuse within the family, and concerns by the authorities for the children. The judge had been unable to decide whether the child had been shown to be ‘likely to suffer significant harm’ as a consequence. Having found some evidence to suggest that … Continue reading In re B (Children) (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof) (CAFCASS intervening): HL 11 Jun 2008