REUTERS | Russell Cheyne

In brief for week ending 6 May 2015

Make sure that you have not missed a key development in your area of the law by reading our In brief review of the latest Practical Law Public Sector email.

Civil litigation:

  • The High Court has dismissed an appeal against an order allowing the defendant to withdraw pre-action admissions and setting aside a default judgment in a clinical negligence case (Moore v Worcestershire NHS Trust).
  • The Supreme Court has launched an “on demand” video service, enabling the public to view past hearings from the preceding year.


  • The TCC has refused to grant a defendant relief from sanctions in a claim for payment arising out of the building works that were necessary following a fire (Cockell (t/a Cockell Building Services) v Holton (No 2)).
  • An amendment sheet addressing the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 has been published for the PPC2000 and TPC2005 standard form contracts.

Employment and pensions:



Local government:

Property and planning:

  • The Planning Inspectorate has republished Advice note 4: Section 52: Obtaining information about interests in land (Planning Act 2008) and Advice note five: Section 53: Rights of Entry (Planning Act 2008).

Public procurement:

  • The High Court has given a ruling on applications under CPR 31.12 by a claimant (an unsuccessful bidder) for specific disclosure by a defendant contracting authority in a public procurement dispute (Geodesign Barriers Ltd v Environment Agency).

Social services:

  • The Court of Appeal has:
    • stated that all litigants (in person or legally represented) must follow the appeals procedure in Part 30 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010. In cases where the threshold criteria rely on the children’s allegations, there is no duty for the court to consider whether the children should give oral evidence, although it is good practice (Re D (Children)); and
    • clarified how multiple applications in adoption proceedings should be dealt with, and confirmed that adoption orders cannot be made with conditions (Re W (Children)).
  • The Court of Protection has confirmed that the basis for assessing whether costs claimed by a deputy who was a family member and provided care for an incapacitated person were reasonable (Re HC).
Practical Law In brief

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *