The Hon. Mr Justice Nicol agreed privacy order in Johnny Depp/The Sun Newspaper libel trial allowing Amber Heard and another witness to give some evidence during the libel trial in private (with reporting restrictions)

The Hon. Mr Justice Nicol agreed privacy order in Johnny Depp/The Sun Newspaper libel trial allowing Amber Heard and another witness to give some evidence during the libel trial in private (with reporting restrictions)

The Hon. Mr Justice Nicol agreed privacy order in Johnny Depp/The Sun Newspaper libel trial allowing Amber Heard and another witness to give some evidence during the libel trial in private (with reporting restrictions)

                                               

By John Brace (Editor)
and
Leonora Brace (Co-Editor)

Royal Courts of Justice, London, UK (resized). Picture credit sjiong, made available under the CC BY-SA 2.0 licence
Royal Courts of Justice, London, UK (resized). Picture credit sjiong, made available under the CC BY-SA 2.0 licence.

Please note that comments are turned off due to the ongoing nature of this case.

There are two other report of hearings in the same case also published on this blog.

The Hon. Mr Justice Nicol asked to agree to 4 further witnesses (Miss Vanessa Paradis, Miss Winona Ryder, Mr David Killackey and Miss Kate James) in Johnny Depp/The Sun Newspaper libel case (16th May 2020)

Adam Wolanski QC asked Nicol J at a High Court of Justice hearing (Thursday 25th June 2020) to strike out the Johnny Depp libel claim against The Sun newspaper (and Sun journalist Dan Wootton) alleging a breach of an earlier disclosure order of Nicol J (29th June 2020)

This is a report on a public hearing held on the 8rd April 2020 which started at 10.30 am in the High Court of Justice (Queen’s Bench Division) before the Hon. Mr Justice Nicol.

Due to the coronavirus pandemic the hearing was held (see Civil Procedure Rule Practice Direction 51Y) not in person but virtually as a video hearing. It was an application notice hearing in the libel case QB-2018-006323 (Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd & Dan Wootton).
Continue reading “The Hon. Mr Justice Nicol agreed privacy order in Johnny Depp/The Sun Newspaper libel trial allowing Amber Heard and another witness to give some evidence during the libel trial in private (with reporting restrictions)”

Mr Justice Butcher agrees to Kingdom of Sweden’s High Court application for enforcement in Sweden of worldwide freezing order on assets in sophisticated international pension fraud

Mr Justice Butcher agrees to Kingdom of Sweden’s High Court application for enforcement in Sweden of worldwide freezing order on assets in sophisticated international pension fraud

Mr Justice Butcher agrees to Kingdom of Sweden’s High Court application for enforcement in Sweden of worldwide freezing order on assets in sophisticated international pension fraud

                                 

Miss Blom-Cooper (solicitor) Photo © Mishcon de Reya; Used with permission. All rights reserved.
Miss Blom-Cooper (solicitor) Photo © Mishcon de Reya; Used with permission. All rights reserved.

By John Brace (Editor)
and
Leonora Brace (Co-Editor)

This is a report on a public hearing held on the 3rd April 2020 which started at 10.30 am in the Commercial Court (Queen’s Bench Division) which is part of the Business and Property Courts of England and Wales (part of the High Court of Justice).
Continue reading “Mr Justice Butcher agrees to Kingdom of Sweden’s High Court application for enforcement in Sweden of worldwide freezing order on assets in sophisticated international pension fraud”

With 75% of PIP Tribunal appeals resulting in an overturned decision, isn’t it time the Government accepted recommendations from the Second Independent Review to improve trust and transparency?

With 75% of PIP Tribunal appeals resulting in an overturned decision, isn’t it time the Government accepted recommendations from the Second Independent Review to improve trust and transparency?

With 75% of PIP Tribunal appeals resulting in an overturned decision, isn’t it time the Government accepted recommendations from the Second Independent Review to improve trust and transparency?

                                    

Earlier this month (October 2019) I made a FOI request to the Department for Work and Pensions for the two independent reports into the operation of PIP assessments.
Continue reading “With 75% of PIP Tribunal appeals resulting in an overturned decision, isn’t it time the Government accepted recommendations from the Second Independent Review to improve trust and transparency?”

Why does the British justice system expect the impossible?

Why does the British justice system expect the impossible?

Why does the British justice system expect the impossible?

                              

Liverpool Civil & Family Court, Vernon Street, Liverpool, L2 2BX
Liverpool Civil & Family Court, Vernon Street, Liverpool, L2 2BX

This is a tale of Janet and John (which for the purposes of doubt and copyright law are not characters in books to teach children how to read).

Janet and John are instead in the Kafkaesque world of the British justice system. This is a world where the normal rules of time and space don’t apply!

Janet, John and another quite sensibly decided to settle their respective differences by consent order at a public hearing 9 months ago, but then came a 9 month legal argument about costs.

She asked the Tribunal to issue costs directions at a hearing. The Judge ruled that he and his fellow Tribunal Members would decide on her costs application.

Janet wanted John to pay her employer £1,212. She explained in her costs application that she had sent John letters stating the information he had requested was on a website (when it fact she admitted at the hearing it wasn’t on a website) and therefore John should pay her for £1,212 which included time spent sending him those letters.

The Judge ruled that he and his fellow two members would decide on her costs application once Janet made it.

John replied to the costs application, disputing what Janet stated. On a 2:1 decision it was decided that he hadn’t acted unreasonably between the 4th August 2016 and the 22nd August 2016 (which covered the first two of her letters). So, £224.66 of her costs application was rejected on that basis.

That left £967.57, which was reduced by a further £467.57 to £500.

John paid Janet’s employer the £500, but then pointed out that as part of her costs application had been about a time when the Tribunal had ruled him reasonable, that part of his costs in responding to the costs application should be paid by Janet. He saw this only as fair and asked for a much lower amount of £212.20.

The Judge decided not to decide on this costs application and threatened John with a wasted costs order if he didn’t shut up.

So John requested permission to appeal (both against the £500 costs order and against the non-decision over the £212.20 costs application).

Over 9 months later after his costs application for £212.20, he received the permission to appeal decision (which was denied).

In it, the Judge demanded (in a communication sent to John on the 25th July 2017) that he (John) must send an email by 4 pm on the 15th March 2017.

Like Janet he expected John to do the impossible and threatened him with further financial problems if he did not!

So that is my brief summary of the state of the British justice system, it expects the impossible from parties and when it doesn’t manage to achieve the impossible, the parties are supposed to pay the price and again for it through taxes!

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.

Advertise on johnbrace.com and reach over 36,000 visitors a month from only £60 a month

Advertise on johnbrace.com and reach over 36,000 visitors a month from only £60 a month

                                         

Last month (April 2016) saw 36,531 visitors to this blog viewing a total of 270,122 pages.

A text link to a website of your choice (with 1 or 2 sentences of advertising copy around it) in the right sidebar above the “Search this blog” box is available for only £70 a month.

In this prominent place above the fold, your link be seen on all pages and by all visitors to this blog.

If you’d like to try out advertising on this blog for a month at £70 for the first month, then please order it on this page.

If you’d like to order more than a month of advertising, discounts are available. For a year of advertising, you receive a discount of two months free (12 months for the price of 10).

Ordering multiple adverts also triggers a discount. For advertising for longer than a month, for multiple adverts or for other types of advertising, please don’t use the order page for this and instead email john@johnbrace.com with your requirements for a bespoke quote.

Please note that all orders for advertising must comply with the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and a list of what is not allowed in advertising can be found here.

All advertising on this blog will be labelled as such so that visitors to this blog do not mistake it for editorial content.

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.