top of page

3/23/2023

START DATE

END DATE

5/15/2023

Durham and Durham v The King

COURT:

LAW:

JUDGE(S):

CLAIMANT'S LAWYER:

DEFENDANT'S LAWYER:

Court of Appeal (Civil Division) on appeal from Supreme Court of Bermuda

Civil Law

The President Sir Christopher Clarke Justice of Appeal Sir Anthony Smellie Justice of Appeal Dame Elizabeth Gloster

Jaymo Durham (Litigant in Person and McKenzie Friend for the Second Appellant)

Alan Richards (Office of the Director for Prosecutions)

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Appellants as receivers under MHA misused funds leading to criminal charges of theft. DPP initiated proceedings without required leave sparking legal debate on the necessity of such leave

SUMMARY:

Whether the DPP needed leave under MHA to initiate prosecution

OUTCOMES:

Appeal dismissed DPP did not require leave

RULED IN FAVOUR OF:

Defendant

PLAINTIFF/CLAIMANT

DEFENDANT:

DURATION (DAYS):

ISSUES:

RELEVANCE:

RULING:

RULING TYPE:

CASES CITED:

Join our pro membership and get all the details at your finger tips

Want to see full case details, including key arguments and claims? [Join Pro Membership] to unlock exclusive insights.

Discover the legal strategies and defenses used in this case. [Join Pro Membership] for full access.

How long did this legal battle last, and what key events happened? [Join Pro Membership] to find out.

Uncover the critical legal principles debated in this case. [Join Pro Membership] for in-depth analysis.

See why this case matters in Banking, Mortgages, and Financial Services. [Join Pro Membership] to explore its impact.

Find out the final judgment and its legal implications. [Join Pro Membership] to access the ruling.

Understand how this judicial ruling sets a precedent in law. [Join Pro Membership] for expert breakdowns.

See how past legal precedents influenced this case. [Join Pro Membership] to unlock the list.

Download Case Summary: 

pdf.png
AI Chatbox Anchor

Explore:

EPHESIANS 6:16

PT Satria Tirtatama Energindo v. East Asia Company Limited and Bali Energy Limited

2016

RE: C (VARIATION OF ACCESS ORDER)

2015

In the Matter of IPOC Capital Partners Limited and others

2007

Hindsight law can make mistakes. Consider checking original case studies

Durham and Durham v The King

Appellants as receivers under MHA misused funds leading to criminal charges of theft. DPP initiated proceedings without required leave sparking legal debate on the necessity of such leave

bottom of page