Duress of circumstances meaning

Misuse of private information claim based on broadbrush allegations fails (Hussain & others v Rahman & others) Hussain and others v Rahman and others [2024] EWHC 116 (KB) What are the practical implications of this case? An appraisal of the evidence led the court to determine that the second claimant’s choice to halt the third claimant’s proceedings against the defendants arose from the pressures of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and his health anxieties in March 2020, decisively dismissing the claimants’ contention that intimidation by the defendants prompted the abandonment of the action. The court reaffirmed adherence to the approach articulated in Murray v Express Newspapers plc [2009] Ch 481 when assessing whether private information has been misused. On these facts, the court concluded that the first claimant—a young woman from a traditional Muslim household who had sought to shield her social activities from the relatively illiberal strictures of family expectation—had a reasonable expectation of privacy over photographs depicting her dressed in Western clothing and embracing a non-Muslim boyfriend....

The Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA 1998) The Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA 1998) introduced provisions into the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996) to protect workers who make protected disclosures, enabling 'whistleblowers' to bring a claim before an employment tribunal for detriment and/or dismissal arising from raising a concern in the public interest. Employees of the security and intelligence services and members of the UK armed forces are excluded from these provisions. Civil servants, police officers and government contractors may lodge a claim provided they have not been carved out by a ministerial certificate. Although disclosures to the media or the wider public can be protected, an individual who commits a criminal offence when making the disclosure will not benefit from protection. Accordingly, workers arrested for any offence linked to the disclosure must wait for proceedings to conclude before issuing a PIDA claim. Civil servants, police officers and government contractors who might otherwise seek protection must also take care not to breach the Official Secrets Act...

Causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving A motorist who drives without due care or with a lack of regard for other road users, and whose driving leads to a fatality, may commit the offence of causing death by careless driving under s 2B of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (RTA 1988). It is an either-way offence, capable of being heard in the Crown Court or the magistrates’ court. Elements of the offence of death by careless driving The prosecution must demonstrate that the defendant: caused another person’s death by driving a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or public place CPS guidance on charging decisions arising from driving incidents has been revised. The two most notable updates from the earlier guidance relate to drivers responding to emergencies and fatalities where the deceased is a close friend or...

This Practice Note explores when a settlement agreement can be undone, covering questions of validity arising from capacity, mistake, illegality, fraud, so-called ‘sharp practice’, and duress. Challenging the validity of a settlement agreement If the soundness of a settlement embodied in a Tomlin order, or another consent final order, is disputed, and proceedings were already on foot before the settlement was reached, a party may apply within the extant proceedings to set aside the court order giving effect to the compromise under CPR 3.1(2)(p). That provision sits within the court’s general case management powers and allows the court to make whatever order is required for the proper management of the case and to promote the overriding objective. Under general principles of contract law, there are scenarios in which a settlement agreement is ineffective and can be set aside. Examples include: where a party lacks capacity (for example, a child or a person without capacity under the Mental Capacity Act 2005)—see: Setting aside a...