News/Cases -Bankside Law

New Coroner's Rules and Regulations effective from 25th July 2013

Details: Published: Friday, 26 July 2013 16:08; Written by John Williams

Yesterday saw the coming into force of the The Coroners (Inquests) Rules 2013 and the Coroners (Investigations) Regulations 2013. The explanatory note to the Inquest Rules provides that they are made under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. Part 1 of the 2009 Act introduces a new regime for death investigations and inquests, which replaces the Coroners Act 1988 and the Coroners Rules 1984. Under the 2009 Act a coroner must conduct an investigation into violent or unnatural deaths, deaths where the cause is unknown and deaths which occur in custody or otherwise in state detention. In certain cases this investigation will include the coroner holding an inquest.

They apply to any inquest which has not been completed before 25th July 2013. Any direction, time limit, adjournment or other decision made by a coroner in relation to an inquest made before 25th July 2013 still stands. The main changes relate to disclosure. Under regulation 13 where an interested person asks for disclosure of a document held by the coroner the coroner must now provide the document or a copy of the document. Under Regulation 15 there are restrictions on disclosure. A coroner may refuse to provide a document or a copy of a document where

Hedge Fund Regulation gathers pace

Details: Published: Monday, 22 July 2013 13:13; Written by John Williams

Today (22nd July 2013) the UK law implementing the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (AIFMD) came in to force. The AIFMD was published by the European Union on 1st July 2011 and required member states to transpose it into domestic law by 22nd July 2013. An AIF is a ‘collective investment undertaking’ that is not subject to the UCITS ('Undertakings for Collective Investments in Transferable Securities) regime and includes hedge funds, private equity funds, retail investment funds, investment companies and real estate funds. The AIFMD is the response of the EU to provide for regulation of Alternative Investment Fund Managers after the Lehman Brothers collapse and means that some hedge fund managers will be regulated for the first time. A Survey conducted by Deloittes suggested that 72% of managers viewed AIFMD as a business threat and most believed that it would lead to a more protective and less competitive EU market. However it was also recognised that this could be counterbalanced by greater investor confidence, passporting protection throughout the EU and the creation of a level playing field.

Malicious Prosecution extended to civil proceedings, what of disciplinary proceedings?

Details: Published: Wednesday, 17 July 2013 14:25; Written by John Williams

The Privy Council judgment in the recently reported case of Crawford Adjusters v Sagicor Insurance (Cayman) Ltd [2013] UKPC 17, extends the scope of actions for malicious prosecution to civil cases. Hitherto, save in a very small category of civil cases, malicious prosecution had largely only been available for unsuccessful criminal prosecutions. A majority of three to two in the Privy Council has now decided that the tort extends to civil cases. The case involved an appeal from the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal which held that malicious prosecution was not available to a claimant in a civil case. The Claimant [P] was a surveyor who was caught up in a dispute with a loss adjustor [D] who was described in paragraph 11 of the judgment to be experienced and able with an aggressive personality. In paragraph 14 of the judgment it is recorded “In July 2005 D stated that he intended to drive P out of business and to destroy him professionally. The Judge found that he meant what he said.” A civil action for fraud was commenced by the loss adjustors against P which was withdrawn shortly before trial. D was involved in alerting a journalist who reported the allegations against P thus causing massive damage to his reputation and to the willingness of third parties to employ him.

Inquest: Deputy Coroner wrong not to adjourn for further expert evidence

Details: Published: Wednesday, 26 June 2013 13:30; Written by Inquest

In the recently reported case of

R (on the application of JOHN DUFFY) (Claimant) v HM DEPUTY CORONER FOR WORCESTERSHIRE (Defendant) & WORCESTERSHIRE ACUTE HOSPITALS TRUST (Interested Party) (2013) [2013] EWHC 1654 (Admin) the Admin Court, on an application for judicial review of a verdict of death by natural causes, quashed the verdict and ordered a fresh inquest. T was aged 14 months and died in hospital. He was brought to hospital with bronchial problems. Doctors failed to see that the X-ray showed an enlarged heart. He was given dextrose and just over 3 litres of fluids. He suffered a cardio-respiratory arrest and died. A Report produced following an investigation disclosed fluid intake as possibly having contributed to the cardio-respiratory arrest. The Coroner heard from only two witnesses at the Inquest; the pathologist and a former consultant paediatric cardiologist [S]. S’s evidence was crucial to the verdict; fine

Anonymity and Judicial Review in Disciplinary Proceedings

Details: Published: Friday, 21 June 2013 17:05; Written by Alex Lane

The Court of Appeal has refused an application for anonymity in respect of an Judicial Review (JR) application and considered use of JR generally in disciplinary proceedings .

CW was the group Finance Director for Bradford & Bingley Plc. In the Decision Notice of the Regulatory Decisions Committee (RDC), he was fined £100,000 for failure to exercise due skill, care and diligence in his function as an Approved Person performing a Significant Influence Function.

CW sought to challenge the ten FSA’s Decision Notice by way of Judicial Review on the basis that the Decision Notice contained insufficient reasons to enable him to decide whether or not to refer the matter to the Upper Tribunal. At that time, the statutory regime applicable to FSA investigations prevented the disclosure of an investigation until it had reached a conclusion resulting in some form of sanction. On this basis, CW sought anonymity in relation to the Judicial Review.

CW was successful in the first instance, with the Decision Notice being quashed at a private hearing and the judgment was published in a redacted and anonymised form.

The FSA appealed and the Court declined to hear the appeal in private but did agree to an interim order prohibiting the identity of CW being disclosed until further notice. The Court of Appeal upheld the FSA’s appeal. CW sought an order that the judgement again be published in a redacted and anonymised form on the basis that he would appeal to the Supreme Court, and if successful his case should remain within the confidential remit of the FSA’s investigation process.

The Court went on to consider the scope of anonymity in JR procedures and the use of JR itself as a route of redress in disciplinary proceedings.

New Coroner's Rules and Regulations effective from 25th July 2013

Hedge Fund Regulation gathers pace

Malicious Prosecution extended to civil proceedings, what of disciplinary proceedings?

Inquest: Deputy Coroner wrong not to adjourn for further expert evidence

Anonymity and Judicial Review in Disciplinary Proceedings

More Articles ...

Latest News

General Chiropractic Council Investigating Committee Decisions +

General Chiropractic Council Investigating Committee Decisions +

The Benefits of Early Solicitor Involvement +

General Chiropractic Council Investigating Committee Decisions +

General Chiropractic Council Investigating Committee Decisions +

General Chiropractic Council Investigating Committee Decisions +

General Chiropractic Council Investigating Committee Decisions +

General Chiropractic Council Investigating Committee Decisions +

General Chiropractic Council Investigating Committee Decisions +

General Chiropractic Council Investigating Committee Decisions +

General Chiropractic Council Investigating Committee Decisions +

General Chiropractic Council Investigating Committee Decisions +