<< View barrister profile
Warfield Park Homes Ltd v Warfield Park Residents' Association
LTL 27/3/2007;  EWCA Civ 283
The problems of water leakages could be considered to be a shared problem between the owners and the occupiers of a mobile home park and it was reasonable to expect them to share the cost of such leakages.
Kew v Bettamix Ltd & Ors  EWCA Civ 1535
Times, December 4, 2006
Case considered the issues of “constructive knowledge” under the Limitation Act 1980; the grounds for depriving a party of part of his costs; and “unreasonable conduct” under CPR 44.3
Shine v London Borough of Tower Hamlets
LTL 9/6/2006;  EWCA Civ 852
The Highways Act 1980 s.66 did not impose any liability on a highway authority for personal injuries caused by defective barriers, including bollards, on a public highway. Liability for personal injuries caused by such defective barriers arose in negligence.
Hodson Developments Ltd v GTA Civils Ltd Whitehouse Practice
 EWHC 1913
Construction/professional negligence claim
Foreman v O'Driscoll & Partners
 Lloyd's Rep. P.N. 720
Solicitors' negligence / limitation and deliberate concealment
Sunley v Gowland White (Surveyors & Estate Agents Ltd)
LTL 10/2/2003;  PNLR 15 CA
The judge should have allowed a soil survey report to have been admitted as evidence in support of a claim of professional negligence where it was never pleaded that the evidence was inadmissible and each party intended to make submissions and advance argument on the contents of the report.
Savory v Morrison (t/a Park Home Estates)
LTL 23/7/2001;  1 P. & C.R. 11 CA
The terms of a licence agreement entitled a dog owner to bring his dog into a mobile home park only in special circumstances where that dog was depended upon in order to maintain its owner's quality of life and was not merely attached to a family as a pet.
Thames Water Utilities Ltd v Snowcrest Ltd
LTL 4/11/99 (unreported elsewhere)
Where a party had been nonsuited and had then issued fresh proceedings, it owed a duty to the court to proceed swiftly with the prosecution of the fresh action. In the circumstances of this case the plaintiff's failure to comply with the automatic directions timetable seen in light of the earlier indulgence of nonsuit constituted an abuse of process.