We’re listening -
Employment Law
Healthcare Law
Litigation & Alternative Dispute Resolution
Professional Disciplinary & Regulatory
Commercial Law/Partnership Law & Disputes
© 2020 Taylor Wood Solicitors
We are authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority SRA ID : 471920.
The SRA Code of Conduct can be viewed here www.sra.org.uk/rules
Expertise
Our Practice
NJ v Thurrock Clinical Commissioning Group
Dr. Lie v Dr. Mohile [2013]
EWCA Civ. 1436
Section 72, Law of
Property Act
TUPE and Dr. T and Medical Imaging UK Ltd v Southend Hospital NHS Trust
(Interested Party)
NHS Performance
Regulations 2013
In the Matter of Dr AU v Primary
Care Trust
Dr. Lie v Dr. Mohile [2013] EWCA Civ. 1436
L and M are two doctors providing medical services under PMS Agreement with a PCT. Clause 2 (i) provides that the partnership shall subsist for the joint lives of the partners. M is the landlord of the surgery premises and it is a condition of the PMS Agreement that services shall be provided from the premises. M served a notice of dissolution, and a section 25 notice on L on the basis that L is a licensee and he objects to a new tenancy being granted under section 30 (g) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. Part 11. L applied for a new tenancy pursuant to section 26 of the Landlord and Tenant Act.The Judge at first instance held that a business tenancy exists, but the tenancy is held by the Partnership. The Judge then went to hold that the partnership had been effectively dissolved pursuant to section 26 of the Partnership Act 1890. L appealed.
Held: Appeal Allowed.
Destination of Appeal
Lie -
An issue arose as to whether an appeal from the order of HHJ Walden-
Route of Appeal
Lie -
Our in house Solicitor Advocate successfully argued that the correct route of Appeal in an action that commenced as a Part 8 Claim in the County Court notwithstanding that the complexity of the case and factual disputes meant that the case ought to have been allocated to the Part 7 Claim.
L and M are medical doctors in Partnership with a PMS Contract with NHS England.
L brought proceedings for repudiatory breach of the Partnership Contract and persistent or gross breach of the agreement.
The Court at first instance dismissed L claim for expulsion but dissolved the Partnership under section 35f. L appealed. Permission was given.
M brought an application that the correct route of appeal is the Court of Appeal as the matter should have proceeded as a Part 7 claim, and that the Circuit Judge should retrospectively assigned the claim to Part 7 claim.
L contended that the Judge had no such power and since the Judge had refused permission, it would not be opened to her to transfer the appeal to Court of Appeal. The correct provision is CPR 52.14.
Mr. Justice Richards agreed that it is not relevant that the matter ought to have proceeded as Part 7 claim. The simple fact, is that it was not allocated.
The correct provision is CPR 52.14.
Dr. Mohile's Solicitors accepted that the appeal raised no point of principle or there is some other compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear it.
Solicitor Advocate for Dr. Lie: Mr Ojo in house advocate
Litigation Partner: Dr. Ogunsanya
By Miss Ayo Agbesanwa Trainee Solicitor
Our Practice
News & Publications