“Martha Gray, Pupil at 1 Garden Court, considers whether and in what circumstances a judge who has announced her decision is entitled to change her mind, particularly in the context of fact-finding hearings in care proceedings, in the light of the Supreme Court’s recent judgment.”
Family Law Week, 22nd February 2013
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
“Contrary to the practice previously adopted, a judge’s power to reverse his or her decision at any time before the court order had been sealed was not reserved for exceptional circumstances. A carefully considered change of mind by the judge was permisssible in the interests of the overriding objective of dealing with a case justly.”
WLR Daily, 20th February 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
In the matter of L and B (Children) [2013] UKSC 8 | UKSC 2012/0263 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 20th February 2013
“After the euphoria engendered by the Court of Appeal judgments in Rubin v Eurofinance SA and New Cap Reinsurance v Grant, the longawaited judgment of the Supreme Court which was handed down on 23 October 2012, has left the insolvency profession scratching its collective head. Lexa Hilliard QC takes a closer look at the judgment and explains why its reasoning is not entirely convincing.”
Full story (PDF)
11 Stone Buildings, January 2013
Source: www.11sb.com
“Judgment summaries are a good start, but it would be useful to watch recordings of full hearings. Do you agree?”
The Guardian, 21st January 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Written rulings should be published when tribunals give judgments in order to properly inform public debate.”
The Guardian, 10th Janaury 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“There was no general bar in principle to the award of general damages for emotional distress where a freezing order was wrongly obtained but any such award would be sensitive to the facts of a particular case.”
WLR Daily, 11th December 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Legal Academics: Forgotten Players or Interlopers? (PDF)
The Hon. Mr Justice Beatson
Inner Temple Reader’s Lecture Series, November 2012
Source: www.innertemple.org.uk
“In R v Riat the Court of Appeal provided valuable guidance concerning the approach that the domestic courts should adopt when hearsay evidence is tendered in criminal proceedings.”
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 26th November 2012
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
No Judgment – No Justice (PDF)
Lord Neuberger
The First Annual BAILII Lecture, 20th November 2012
Source: www.supremecourt.gov.uk
“Only a few weeks after giving the Birkenhead lecture entitled ‘Dissenting judgments – self indulgence or self sacrifice?’ (See David Hart QC’s previous post), Lord Kerr delivered the leading judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rahmatullah. Given that the issue of a man’s liberty was at stake, it could be no real surprise for Lord Kerr or anyone else that there were two dissenting judgments in the cross-appeal provided by Lord Carnwath and Lady Hale. They made clear that in their view the UK should have done more to secure the release of detainee Yunis Rahmatullah and in doing so raised questions as to the proper limits of judicial intervention into the ‘forbidden area’ of foreign policy.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 3rd November 2012
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“A High Court ruling said paedophiles should be allowed to make representations before their details are revealed to members of the public.”
Daily Telegraph, 24th October 2012
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“The High Court has today handed down an important judgment on the legality of the Government’s Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme (CSOD): X(South Yorkshire) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 2954 (Admin). CSOD is a non statutory scheme which police forces nationally have been free to adopt since 2010. It enables members of the public to ask the police to provide details of a person who has some form of contact with children with a view to ascertaining whether that person had convictions for sexual offences against children or whether there is other relevant information about him or her which ought to be made available.”
Panopticon, 24th October 2012
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
“Why do judges disagree and publish their disagreements when cases get decided? After all, the Cabinet does not do so (openly at least), and our FTSE-100 companies do not generally do so, when their executives propose a merger or launch a new product. Surely, judicial dissent is a recipe for diminishing the authority of the majority answer, and an invitation to self-indulgence on the part of the minority to re-fight lost and irrelevant battles.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 14th October 2012
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“The Ministry of Justice has published its annual report to the Joint Committee on Human Rights on the Government response to human rights judgments 2011–12. By signing up to the European Convention on Human Rights, the UK has committed to ‘abide by’ judgments of the court. This commitment is monitored by the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers. The report presents a snapshot of the current state of play in relation to the European Court of Human Rights, makes for very interesting reading (trust me!). Here are some tidbits.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 12th September 2012
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“Guidance for caseworkers on deciding applications, responding to legal challenges and reconsideration requests.”
UK Border Agency, 7th September 2012
Source: www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk
“In respect of split hearings in family proceedings, the judge did not have a general licence to amend his judgment as to past fact at any time before he had pronounced his judgment as to the future. In the interim period between judgment on a preliminary issue trial and the hearing of the second trial, a judge was precluded from taking account of developments relating to the findings on the preliminary issue trial unless they were substantial, if not fundamental. Where a judge was invited to expand his findings or reasons in further support of the stated conclusions in his judgment, he could not reverse his previously stated conclusion.”
WLR Daily, 18th July 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“A newsflash, really, confirming that ClientEarth’s claim for a declaration and mandatory order against Defra in respect of air pollution was refused by the Court of Appeal, in line with the judgment below. And the lack of a link to the CA’s judgment because it is not available, I imagine, because the judgment was extempore, and it is being transcribed at the moment. Sadly, that does not necessarily mean it gets onto the public access site, Bailli, in due course: the first instance decision still languishes on subscription-only sites. So all I know is that ClientEarth’s appeal did not find favour with Laws and Pitchford LJJ, sitting with Sir John Chadwick, but this, as ClientEarth explains, may not be the end of the line.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 5th June 2012
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“Dinah Rose QC buys her client another two weeks – much to the supreme court’s embarrassment.”
The Guardian, 30th May 2012
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Plans to allow cameras into courtrooms would risk turning trials into media circuses and could jeopardise defendants’ safety, ministers were warned last night by a leading solicitor.”
The Independent, 29th March 2012
Source: www.independent.co.uk
