Louise Asprey

S v O   
Louise represented a housing authority, in its application for possession from a tenant whose behaviour was creating an unbearable nuisance for his neighbours. Louise persuaded the court to make an outright possession order at the first hearing of the matter, on the basis that an order could be made on the evidence before the court and a suspended possession order would be no deterrent in the particular circumstances of this case.

S v K  
Louise represented a housing authority, which sought an injunction against one of its tenants whose disruptive behaviour was troubling his neighbours. Louise drew attention to the fact that the anti-social behaviour was escalating in frequency and severity and, despite the court’s initial reluctance to take any steps beyond listing the matter for further directions, an interim injunction was made.

A v R   
Louise represented the defendant when the claimant, a registered provider of social housing, sought to evict her from her home on the basis of antisocial behaviour and instigated committal proceedings. This was a serious case with potentially devastating effects since the defendant was a vulnerable individual with severe epilepsy and a difficult relationship with alcohol. The matter was allocated to the multi-track and lasted for three days. A possession order was made, but fortunately, despite the findings in relation to the defendant’s antisocial behaviour, no committal order was made.

S v E
Louise acted for the defendants, who were alleged to have created an actionable nuisance by undertaking works which interfered in the enjoyment of the claimants’ acquired rights to drain water off their property. Louise advised in writing and in conference. She successfully defended the claimants’ application for permission to adduce oral expert evidence and to adjourn the trial. The matter ultimately settled on terms which were very favourable to the defendants.

D v M
Louise was instructed, on a public access basis, as junior counsel in a property dispute arising out of an argument as to whether there had been verbal promise to sell a meadow, so that there was entitlement pursuant to an estoppel and/or constructive trust or whether matters were ‘subject to contract’, no final agreement having been reached. There was an additional dispute over the position of one of the boundaries of the plot of land and the defendant alleged trespass and breaches of various covenants by the claimant. The matter was heard in the Chancery Division of the High Court, sitting in Bristol. The evidence alone lasted for 14 days.

P v M  
Acting for the Defendant organisation, Louise successfully defended a claim for damages following a subject access request which, it was alleged, had not been complied with. The impact of any adverse findings upon systemic procedures within the defendant organisation was considerable. It was held that the claimant had not suffered distress or damage and so no compensation was due; but further, reasonable care had been taken by the data controller and so, even if an award had been merited, if would not have been required to pay up.

J v D   
Louise represented the claimant who was an extremely senior employee in a large organisation and who suffered a serious injury in the course of undertaking a relatively straightforward manual task. Louise advised from the outset and drafted the particulars of claim, taking the matter to trial. The case was allocated to the multi-track and liability was dealt with as a preliminary issue. The court held that the task fell within the claimant’s role, despite the submissions of the defendant and it considered that the claimant had not been adequately trained or prepared to undertake such a task.

C & S v A        
Louise represented one of two claimants in a personal injury claim for damages arising out of a road traffic accident. The claimants were riding horses at the time of the accident and the defendant driver maintained that her actions had not ‘spooked’ the horses or caused the accident. Liability on the part of the defendant driver was established and damages were recovered accordingly.

C v G  
Louise represented the claimant who had suffered injury as a result of repetitive tasks which included lifting metal sheets onto a table. Louise drafted the pleadings, which required a great deal of detail and advised on the matter throughout. Causation was a particularly contentious issue given the nature of the injury and the claimant’s pre-existing hyper-mobility issues. A favourable settlement was achieved.

B v CICA         
The claimant suffered a brain injury during the course of an attack by a group of men as he walked home. Louise represented the claimant and achieved a significant award of damages in excess of that anticipated at the outset of the hearing.

A v H  
Louise represented the defendant in this claim for credit hire charges. She successfully persuaded the court that the period of hire was excessive and that the daily hire rate should be limited to the basic hire rates, halving the award made.

V v E   
Louise represented the defendant in this case where the entire claim for credit hire charges was dismissed on the basis that the claimant had a courtesy car available to him.

Q v K  
Louise successfully persuaded the court that the claimant, which was a large transport company, had not established a need to hire a vehicle given the possibility of using another one within the fleet.

P v S   
Louise acted on a public access basis and advised the claimant, who had been threatened with debt recovery action by two different utility companies for a debt which she had settled despite having failed to receive the service that she was promised. Louise advised on the terms of the contact, focusing in particular on the standards of service the claimant would expect, and a prospective claim for harassment. Louise assisted with the drafting of a letter before action which was sent to both utility companies.

D v K  
Louise represented a consumer who maintained that the tractor which he had purchased from the defendant was not of satisfactory quality. The court accepted that the tractor was not of satisfactory quality and, in the absence of valid rejection, an award of damages was made.

B v A   
Louise represented the defendant who had fitted a wood burning stove for the claimant. It was asserted by the claimant that the work had not been undertaken with reasonable care and skill. Whilst the court agreed that the defendant had breached the implied terms of the contract, the award of damages was less than half of the sum originally sought.

J v K   
Louise drafted the particulars of claim for the claimants in this matter who had purchased a motorhome, only to find that they had been misled about the weight of the vehicle so that they were unable to drive it legally.

S v E   
Acting for a claimant motor repairer, Louise drafted particulars of claim seeking payment for work which had been undertaken on the defendant’s vehicle. It was asserted by the defendant that the parties had agreed a cap on the work undertaken and he had not been notified that this had been exceeded.