Canadian Lawyer Magazine’s Post

Another success with our barrister Millicent Dooher reducing penalties by almost £90,000. Similar results with out of Court agreements for Murray Oliver and Sofia Poole. We are now dealing with the backlog of Clandestine Entrant Penalty Appeals. We had over 50 cases that had been on hold awaiting the Court of Appeal decision earlier this year. Despite the huge penalties being imposed in the first instance, we are thankfully seeing many reductions with out of Court agreements, or reductions by the Court after a hearing, in both instances with legal costs being paid by Border Force. It seems absurd that they continue to waste public funds when it would be more cost effective to impose proportionate penalties in the first instance. Perhaps in the background many companies are just paying these huge penalties and it makes it worth it for the handful of cases which cost Border Force thousands to unsuccessfully defend. Smith Bowyer Clarke Road Transport Lawyers Millicent Dooher Simon Clarke Sofia Poole Murray Oliver Harry Bowyer Jaskiran Pal Fern Chatwin

Houston Cops Let Drunk Driver Go; ARREST Person Who Stopped The Drunk, Then Lie About It - “Qualified Immunity” DENIED A rare win for common sense in such cases, reported in The Volokh Conspiracy:    “Austin Thompson Hughes is a Good Samaritan. After 2:30 a.m., Hughes called 911 to report a pickup truck swerving violently across a four-lane highway in Houston. While Hughes was on the phone with emergency dispatchers, the drunk driver crashed. Still on the phone with 911, Hughes pulled behind the drunk driver and effectuated a citizen's arrest in accordance with Texas law. But when police officers arrived at the scene, they let the drunk driver go and then arrested Good Samaritan Hughes. (Seriously.) Piling insanity on irrationality, the officers then charged Hughes with a felony for impersonating a peace officer. Hughes spent thousands of dollars defending against the frivolous criminal charges before the City of Houston dropped them. Then Hughes brought this § 1983 suit against the two officers who victimized him. THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED QUALIFIED IMMUNITY. WE AFFIRM.  ...    In the context of split-second excessive force cases, the Supreme Court has ‘repeatedly told courts not to define clearly established law at too high a level of generality.’ That is so because in the typical excessive-force case, officers must make life-or-death split-second decisions, often at night or in the chaos of a deadly chase or both. This case does not involve excessive force, or split-second decisions, or the chaos of a chase. Rather, it involves a simple, clearly established rule that all officers should know at all times under Franks and Winfrey: Do not lie….    All told, GARCIA'S AFFIDAVIT MADE AT LEAST EIGHT MATERIAL MISSTATEMENTS OR OMISSIONS. Any reasonable officer would have known, based on the evidence available, that the affidavit contained these errors. Hughes therefore sufficiently pleaded Garcia violated his clearly established Fourth Amendment rights by producing and submitting the affidavit….” An excellent decision.

Calculated Move or Contempt? The Family Court recently handed down a sentencing in a case where a husband persistently failed to comply with a court order mandating him to pay maintenance pending suit to the Petitioner (W). Despite the court order, he only made a partial payment after ten months of non-compliance. The court found his actions deliberate and contumacious, lacking remorse and respect for the court's authority. The severity of the breach was underscored by several aggravating factors: - Extensive Delay: Non-compliance extended for over 10 months. - Large Outstanding Amount: Total outstanding sum reached $7,992,804, including interest. - Contumacious Intent: Actions were a deliberate choice, not due to financial hardship. - Lack of Remorse: Insistence on inability to pay post-contempt finding. As a consequence, the court sentenced the husband to a 3-week imprisonment, suspended for 12 months, contingent on compliance with the Order. Additionally, he was ordered to pay W's costs on an indemnity basis. Notably, both parties' names were not anonymized in the earlier judgment due to open court proceedings. This case serves as a stark reminder of the consequences of failing to comply with court orders. The court's firm stance underlines the gravity of such actions. #arrearsofmaintenance #severeconsequences

In a surprise ruling the Commercial Court recently reversed an industry understood practice on damages recoverable under clause 14 of the Saleform 2012. The Commercial Court held that a buyer was not entitled to claim damages for loss of profit despite a seller’s proven negligence.   In our latest Insight, Paul Herring provides a detailed summary of this ruling. 👉 https://lnkd.in/eNNehbjG   As always, if Members have any questions in relation to the above issues they are invited to contact the Club for further information. #ShipsandShipping #MaritimeIndustry #LegalCostsInsurance #MaritimeLaw

In the attached article we discuss a case that had to consider whether a court has the power to set aside a settlement agreement.

Our commentary of todays Supreme Court decision can be found below

Great article Tracey ! Lease extensions can be a minefield so it is nice to know you can instruct a solicitor to set everything out for you. They can take you through the process, the costs, the timescales, it really helps for a smoother transaction! 😎 Taylor Walton LLP #newarticle #leaseextensions

In our blog “can you challenge an unfair will?” Leah Merrifield explained that a will that seems unfair is not necessarily invalid. The case of Gowing v Ward is another recent case in which a will that might seem to some to be unfair was nonetheless upheld by the court. In our latest blog, Leah looks at the case in detail and explains what facts may be considered. ➡️ https://ow.ly/e68I50ReR0g #roythornessolicitors #privateclient #blog #will

Whether the power of the Magistrate to sentence a defaulter for non payment of maintenance granted under the D.V. proceedings is restricted to impose imprisonment for period of 12 months by virtue of the proviso to sub section (3) of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. "There has been considerable debate on the proviso to sub section (3) as to whether the proviso limits the power of the Magistrate to sentence the defaulter to a term exceeding 12 months. Plain reading of the proviso makes it evident that the proviso creates an embargo on power of Magistrate to issue warrant for recovery of amount which has become due beyond period of one year. Although on first blush it appears that the proviso deals with the limitation for filling of application and bars issuance of warrant in respect of any amount unless an application is made within period of one year from the date from which the amount has become due, the proviso when read with the main section makes it evident that by limiting the application for issuance of warrant to a period of 12 months, the power of the Magistrate stands restricted to impose maximum punishment of imprisonment for period 12 months. If an application cannot be filed seeking warrant for recovery of amount remaining unpaid for period of more than one year, there is no question of imprisonment being imposed for a term exceeding one year. The period of 12 months is the outer limit. In one application for enforcement of order under Section 125 maximum due amount which can be claimed is of 12 months and reading the proviso it is clear that for default of the whole or any part of each month’s unpaid maintenance the total imprisonment may extend upto period of 12 months."

Before we get started, we should define a few terms and dispel a few myths. Let us begin. What is Bail? When an offence is committed, the person implicated is expected to stand trial. However, sometimes the court allows such a person to pay a certain amount of money as they wait for their trial. […] #BailReform #CriminalJustice #LegalSystem #SocialJustice #Debate #Policy #JusticeSystem #Fairness #Reform #MexitNews