Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Sorted by: old Court: house of lords Year: 2005 Page 1 of about 21 results (0.017 seconds)

Oct 20 2005 (FN)

Campbell (Appellant) Vs. Mgn Limited (Respondents)

Court : House of Lords

Decided on : Oct-20-2005

..... in which an agreement on costs had been agreed between personal injury lawyers and liability insurers. the civil justice council offered mediation services, although the consultation paper correctly observed that mediations work only if both sides want to try to find a mediated solution (see para 49). 36. there are substantial differences between the costs in personal injury litigation which are the subject .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 15 2005 (FN)

Percy (Ap) (Appellant) Vs. Church of Scotland Board of National Missio ...

Court : House of Lords

Decided on : Dec-15-2005

..... there was a case to answer, and the presbytery began making preparations for holding a trial by libel, that is, trying a formal disciplinary charge against ms percy. at a mediation meeting arranged by the church ms percy was counselled to resign and demit status as a minister. in december 1997 she demitted status, that is, she resigned as an ordained ..... has happened, such an agreement would be possible, even with the help of a skilled and independent mediator. in hoping that it might be, i have in mind that mediation is a process to which each party comes on equal terms, in which the mediator is able to detect and redress any imbalance in their bargaining powers, and through which they are assisted .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 27 2005 (FN)

Gregg (Fc) (Appellant) Vs. Scott (Respondent)

Court : House of Lords

Decided on : Jan-27-2005

lord nicholls of birkenhead my lords, 1. this appeal raises a question which has divided courts and commentators throughout the common law world. the division derives essentially from different perceptions of what constitutes injustice in a common form type of medical negligence case. some believe a remedy is essential and that a principled ground for providing an appropriate remedy can be found. others are not persuaded. i am in the former camp. 2. this is the type of case under consideration. a patient is suffering from cancer. his prospects are uncertain. he has a 45% chance of recovery. unfortunately his doctor negligently misdiagnoses his condition as benign. so the necessary treatment is delayed for months. as a result the patient's prospects of recovery become nil or almost nil. has the patient a claim for damages against the doctor? no, the house was told. the patient could recover damages if his initial prospects of recovery had been more than 50%. but because they were less than 50% he can recover nothing. 3. this surely cannot be the state of the law today. it would be irrational and indefensible. the loss of a 45% prospect of recovery is just as much a real loss for a patient as the loss of a 55% prospect of recovery. in both cases the doctor was in breach of his duty to his patient. in both cases the patient was worse off. he lost something of importance and value. but, it is said, in one case the patient has a remedy, in the other he does not. 4. this would make .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 27 2005 (FN)

<td class=btext bgcolor=#FFFFFF><span class=boldtxt>Parties :</span> ...

Court : House of Lords

Decided on : Jan-27-2005

lord nicholls of birkenhead 1. i have had the advantage of reading in draft the speeches of my noble and learned friends lord rodger of earlsferry, baroness hale of richmond and lord brown of eaton-under-heywood. for the reasons they give, with which i agree, i would dismiss these appeals. lord hoffmann my lords, 2. i have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech of my noble and learned friend baroness hale of richmond. for the reasons she gives, with which i agree, i would dismiss these appeals. lord rodger of earlsferry my lords, 3. i have had the advantage of reading in draft the speeches to be delivered by my noble and learned friends, baroness hale of richmond and lord brown of eaton-under-heywood. i agree with them and would accordingly answer the certified questions as lady hale proposes and dismiss the appeals. 4. the provisions of section 21 of the youth justice and criminal evidence act 1999 ("the 1999 act") have the effect that, save in exceptional circumstances, the evidence of witnesses under 17 years of age in relation, inter alia, to sexual offences and crimes involving violence must be given by a live television link and, where available, by a suitable video recording. (for the sake of brevity, i shall refer to these particular measures as "special measures".) 5. as can be seen from section 16(5), the theory underlying these provisions is that the use of the special measures will maximise the quality of the children's evidence in terms of its .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 27 2005 (FN)

Regina Vs. Parole Board (Respondents) Ex Parte Smith (Fc) (Appellant) ...

Court : House of Lords

Decided on : Jan-27-2005

lord bingham of cornhill my lords, 1. these appeals concern the procedure to be followed by the parole board when a determinate sentence prisoner, released on licence, seeks to resist subsequent revocation of his licence. the appellants contend that such a prisoner should be offered an oral hearing at which the prisoner can appear and, either on his own behalf or through a legal representative, present his case, unless the prisoner chooses to forgo such a hearing. they base their argument on the common law and on articles 5 and 6 of the european convention, relying on both the criminal and civil limbs of article 6. the respondent parole board accepts that in resolving challenges to revocation of their licences by determinate sentence prisoners it is under a public law duty to act in a procedurally fair manner. it accepts that in some cases, as where there is a disputed issue of fact material to the outcome, procedural fairness may require it to hold an oral hearing at which the issue may be contested. it accepts, through leading counsel, that it may in the past have been too slow to grant oral hearings. but it strongly resists the submission that there should be any rule or presumption in favour of an oral hearing in such cases, contending that neither the common law nor the european convention requires such a rule or such a presumption. justin west: the facts 2. the appellant west was sentenced to 3 years' imprisonment for affray on 27 october 2000. he was thus a short-term .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 03 2005 (FN)

Moy Vs. Pettmann Smith (a Firm) (Original Respondents and Cross-appell ...

Court : House of Lords

Decided on : Feb-03-2005

lord nicholls of birkenhead my lords, 1. i have had the advantage of reading in draft the speeches of my noble and learned friends lord hope of craighead, baroness hale of richmond and lord carswell. for the reasons they give, with which i agree, i would allow this appeal. lord hope of craighead my lords, 2. i have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech of my noble and learned friend lord carswell. i agree with it and for the reasons that he has given i too would allow the appeal. i should like to add these comments. competency of the appeal 3. section 1(5) of the civil liability (contribution) act 1978 refers to a judgment in any part of the united kingdom. the phrase "in any part of the united kingdom" did not appear in clause 3(7) of the draft civil liability contribution bill which was annexed to the law commission's report, law of contract, report on contribution (9 march 1977, no. 79). the law commission concentrated on the position in england and wales. it recommended that, for the purposes of contribution proceedings in this jurisdiction, neither party should be allowed to challenge a finding of non-liability made in favour of the other in an action brought against the other by the plaintiff, provided that the finding was made after a trial on the merits: para 81(g). it did not discuss the possibility that the finding which was not to be challenged was one that had been obtained from a court in another part of the united kingdom. but reference is made in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 24 2005 (FN)

Regina Vs. Secretary of State for Education and Employment and Others ...

Court : House of Lords

Decided on : Feb-24-2005

lord bingham of cornhill my lords, 1. i have had the benefit of reading the opinions of my noble and learned friends lord nicholls of birkenhead and lady hale of richmond. i agree with them both, and for the reasons they give i would dismiss this appeal. lord nicholls of birkenhead my lords, 2. corporal punishment of children is a controversial subject. it arouses strong feelings, both for and against. in this country there is now a total ban on the use of corporal punishment in all schools. the claimants in these proceedings contend this ban is incompatible with their convention rights under the human rights act 1998. 3. the present state of the law has developed in stages over the last 20 years. in the 1970s two mothers, mrs campbell from strathclyde and mrs cosans from fife, objected to their children being subjected to corporal punishment in state schools. their complaint to the european court of human rights was upheld. the state had failed to respect their 'philosophical convictions' on this subject, contrary to article 2 of the first protocol to the european convention on human rights: campbell and cosans v united kingdom (1982) 4 ehrr 293. that was in 1982. parliament then changed the law, by the education (no 2) act 1986, section 47. since 1987 school teachers in maintained schools (state schools) have had no right to administer corporal punishment to school pupils. this ban applied also to children attending non-maintained schools (independent schools) who received .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 17 2005 (FN)

Regina Vs. Hasan (Respondent) (on Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Cri ...

Court : House of Lords

Decided on : Mar-17-2005

lord bingham of cornhill my lords, 1. this appeal by the crown against the decision of the criminal division of the court of appeal (rix lj, crane j and judge maddison: [2003] ewca crim 191, [2003] 1 wlr 1489, sub nom r v z) raises two questions. the first concerns the meaning of "confession" for the purposes of section 76(1) of the police and criminal evidence act 1984. the second concerns the defence of duress. anonymity 2. at trial in the central criminal court, the name of the defendant aytach hasan ("the defendant") and the names of the main participants in the proceedings were given in open court. but two of those participants (frank sullivan and claire taeger) were then awaiting trial and the trial judge, his honour judge paget qc, properly made an order under section 4(2) of the contempt of court act 1981 prohibiting the publication of their names or any information concerning them or their forthcoming trial. this trial has now taken place and the order has been discharged. in the court of appeal the names of the defendant, then the appellant, and the main participants were anonymised and the case was reported as r v z. an order was made under section 11 of the 1981 act prohibiting any publication, save in a complete report of the judgment or in a legal journal, of the fact that the defendant had spoken to a police officer about sullivan and taeger and of that officer's report of the conversation. having invited submissions from the parties, i am of the clear opinion .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 17 2005 (FN)

Regina Vs. Ashworth Hospital Authority (Appellants) and Another Ex Par ...

Court : House of Lords

Decided on : Mar-17-2005

lord bingham of cornhill my lords, 1. i have had the advantage of reading in draft the opinion of my noble and learned friend baroness hale of richmond. i am in complete agreement with it, and for the reasons she gives would allow the appeal and make the order which she proposes. lord steyn my lords, 2. i have read the opinion of my noble and learned friend baroness hale of richmond. i agree with it. i would also make the order which she proposes. lord phillips of worth matravers my lords, 3. i have had the advantage of reading in draft the opinion of my noble and learned friend baroness hale of richmond. for the reasons which she gives i also would allow the appeal and make the order which she proposes. baroness hale of richmond my lords, 4. the issue in this case is whether a patient detained for treatment under the mental health act 1983 can be treated against his will for any mental disorder from which he is suffering or only for the particular form of mental disorder from which he is classified as suffering for the purpose of the order or application authorising his detention. the history 5. the patient was convicted of manslaughter in 1987. at the time of his offence he was acutely mentally ill with symptoms of a florid psychotic illness. the court made a hospital order with a restriction order of indefinite duration under sections 37 and 41 of the 1983 act. he was classified in the order as suffering from mental illness, namely schizophrenia. he was first admitted to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 21 2005 (FN)

Regina Vs. Mushtaq (Appellant) (on Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Cr ...

Court : House of Lords

Decided on : Apr-21-2005

lord steyn my lords, 1. i have read the opinion of my noble and learned friend lord rodger of earlsferry. i am in complete agreement with it. i would also make the order which lord rodger proposes. lord hutton my lords, 2. the facts of this case and the course of the appellant's trial have been fully set out in the opinion of my noble and learned friend lord rodger of earlsferry and i gratefully adopt his account. the procedure adopted at the trial whereby the judge conducted a voir dire to decide whether the confession was admissible before it was put in evidence before the jury and the police officers were subsequently cross-examined before the jury when allegations of oppressive conduct were put to them, was described and approved in 1972 in paragraph 67 of the eleventh report of the criminal law revision committee (cmnd 4991): "the fact that the judge has decided at the trial within the trial that the confession is admissible will not prevent the defence from cross-examining the witnesses for the prosecution, or themselves giving evidence, at the trial proper about the way in which the confession was obtained with the object of convincing the jury that they should pay no attention to it. even if the same evidence is given as that given at the trial within the trial, this will not prevent the jury from taking a different view from that which the judge took at the trial within the trial - even on the question, for example, whether there was any threat or inducement. this is .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //