And There Lurks the Minotaur: The Interrelationship Between the Inherent Jurisdiction and Section 25, CA 1989: Part I – Family Law Week

Posted June 24th, 2016 in children, family courts, jurisdiction, news by tracey

‘Alex Laing, barrister of Coram Chambers, considers the interrelationship of the inherent jurisdiction and secure accommodation.’

Full story

Family Law week, 22nd June 2016

Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk

Comments Off on And There Lurks the Minotaur: The Interrelationship Between the Inherent Jurisdiction and Section 25, CA 1989: Part I – Family Law Week

Finance & Divorce Update June 2016 – Family Law Week

‘Edward Heaton, Principal Associate and Jane Booth, Associate, both of Mills & Reeve LLP, analyse the news and case law relating to financial remedies and divorce during May 2016.’

Full story

Family Law Week, 3rd June 2016

Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk

Comments Off on Finance & Divorce Update June 2016 – Family Law Week

Defining the Boundary Between European and National Law – Six Pump Court

Posted June 15th, 2016 in constitutional law, EC law, jurisdiction, news, ultra vires by sally

‘Increasing emphasis has recently been placed by Leave campaigners on the argument that Britain must leave the EU in order to get back control of its own affairs, and to avoid the uncertain future risks of EU interference. This argument gains a traction from the fear, which we consider unjustified, that there is no real boundary to the potential impact of EU laws and action. Therefore, there would be value in measures, if such were possible, which would define more clearly the boundary of EU law. In fact, two proposals which addressed that very boundary were announced by the Prime Minister in the Chatham House speech in November 2015, in which he set out his renegotiation programme. But no detail has subsequently been heard about such proposals, and they have largely been forgotten. If the subsequent silence is attributable to legal advice that the ideas are impossible, we disagree with such advice.’

Full story

Six Pump Court, 13th June 2016

Source: www.6pumpcourt.co.uk

Comments Off on Defining the Boundary Between European and National Law – Six Pump Court

Economic complexity: CAT vs High Court – Competition Bulletin from Blackstone Chambers

‘One of the advantages of the Competition Appeal Tribunal is said to be the fact that its three-member panel typically includes an economist. But is that really such a big advantage over the High Court?’

Full story

Competition Bulletin from Blackstone Chambers, 9th June 2016

Source: www.competitionbulletin.com

Comments Off on Economic complexity: CAT vs High Court – Competition Bulletin from Blackstone Chambers

R+V Versicherung AG v Robertson & Co SA – WLR Daily

R+V Versicherung AG v Robertson & Co SA [2016] EWHC 1243 (QB)

‘The claimant reinsurer, a German company, engaged the defendant, a Swiss company, to provide loss-adjusting services in joint instruction with another reinsurer, AIG, a New Zealand-based company, which was already instructing the defendant. When a dispute arose between the claimant and the defendant concerning the performance of its loss-adjusting services, the claimant brought proceedings in England on the basis that it had contracted with the defendant on terms contained in a master agreement made between the defendant and another AIG company which provided for application of English law and the exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts. The claimant served the proceedings on the defendant, relying on article 23 of the Lugano Convention on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 2007. The defendant, denying that the terms of the master agreement had been incorporated into its contract with the claimant, applied to set aside service of the proceedings for want of jurisdiction.’

WLR Daily, 27th May 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off on R+V Versicherung AG v Robertson & Co SA – WLR Daily

Court refuses to declare arbitration agreement ineffective before proceedings begin – OUT-LAW.com

Posted June 9th, 2016 in arbitration, jurisdiction, news, tribunals by sally

‘It would be “wrong in principle” for the High Court to rule on the existence of a valid arbitration agreement between two companies ahead of any actual proceedings, as this would deny the arbitral tribunal the power to rule on its own jurisdiction, a judge has found.’

Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 8th June 2016

Source: www.out-law.com

Comments Off on Court refuses to declare arbitration agreement ineffective before proceedings begin – OUT-LAW.com

Sino Channel Asia Ltd v Dana Shipping and Trading Pte Singapore and another – WLR Daily

Posted June 8th, 2016 in arbitration, contracts, jurisdiction, law reports, service, third parties by sally

Sino Channel Asia Ltd v Dana Shipping and Trading Pte Singapore and another [2016] EWHC 1118 (Comm)

‘The charterer engaged a third party company to arrange contracts which would be concluded in the charterer’s name but performed by the third party. Through the third party, the charterer entered into a contract of affreightment with the owner. The principal contact point between the owner and the charterer was a junior employee at the third party company. When a dispute arose the owner appointed an arbitrator and e-mailed their notice of arbitration to the third party’s employee, calling on the charterer to appoint their arbitrator. The charterer having not responded, the owner’s arbitrator, in accordance with the terms of the contract, proceeded as the sole arbitrator and made an award in favour of the owner. The charterer applied, pursuant to section 72(1)(b)(c) of the Arbitration Act 1996, for a declaration that the award had been made without jurisdiction, on the ground that the third party’s employee had not had authority to accept service of notice of commencement of arbitration proceedings on the charterer’s behalf and that service on him had not been in accordance with section 76 of the 1996 Act. The owner contended that the employee had had actual implied authority and/or ostensible authority to receive notice of arbitration on the charterer’s behalf.’

WLR Daily, 20th May 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off on Sino Channel Asia Ltd v Dana Shipping and Trading Pte Singapore and another – WLR Daily

HC Trading Malta Ltd v Tradeland Commodities SL – WLR Daily

Posted June 8th, 2016 in arbitration, contracts, jurisdiction, law reports by sally

HC Trading Malta Ltd v Tradeland Commodities SL [2016] EWHC 1279 (Comm)

‘The parties were in communication in relation to a proposed transaction whereby the defendant would purchase 250,000mt of clinker from the claimant. However, no actual shipments occurred and some months after the last significant communication between the parties, the claimant asserted that there was a binding contract, containing a London arbitration clause, that the defendant was required to perform. The defendant denied that any such contract had been concluded. The claimant made clear its settled intention to make a contractual claim against the defendant in a London arbitration pursuant to the arbitration clause, so that such an arbitration could be viewed as imminent. The defendant, denying the existence of the contract, had no claim of its own against the claimant, and indicated that it would contest jurisdiction once the arbitration proceedings were commenced. The claimant, prior to commencing arbitration proceedings, issued a claim in the High Court by which it sought a declaration that there was a binding arbitration agreement subject to English law and which covered its proposed claims. The defendant applied, inter alia, to have that claim set aside.’

WLR Daily, 2nd June 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off on HC Trading Malta Ltd v Tradeland Commodities SL – WLR Daily

In re A (A Child) (Baby Relinquished for Adoption: Case Management)

In re A (A Child) (Baby Relinquished for Adoption: Case Management) [2016] EWFC 25

‘A, a baby born in England to Latvian parents, was relinquished at birth for adoption and quickly placed with foster parents who were approved to adopt. On the understanding that there was no one within the extended natural family, either in England or in Latvia, in a position to care for A, and with the consent of the birth parents given in accordance with sections 19 and 20 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, the local authority proceeded to convert A’s short-term arrangements to an adoptive placement and notified the Latvian central authority of A’s situation. The foster parents, with whom A had lived for much of his life, applied to adopt him. The Latvian central authority, having made its own enquiries of relatives in Latvia, identified the maternal grandmother as a potential long-term carer for A, had completed a favourable preliminary suitability assessment and commissioned a full suitability assessment. The central authority opposed the adoption of A in England and submitted its concerns that the approach of the English courts towards adoption cases placed insufficient weight on the rights of a child to grow up in his inherited culture and was therefore potentially contrary to articles 36 and 37 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963 and a breach of articles 8 and 20 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989. The birth mother, who had deliberately not informed her wider family in Latvia of the proposed adoption, continued to support adoption by the foster parents, maintaining her opinion that an education and upbringing in England would be in A’s best interests and that her mother would find it difficult physically and financially to care for A. At a case management hearing, the children’s guardian appointed for A recommended an adjournment to enable completion of the grandmother’s assessment. In circumstances where the prospective adopters, the birth parents and the local authority all supported the adoption, where factors from the welfare checklist in section 1(4) of the 2002 Act pointed towards adoption, and where a delay in making a decision was likely to prejudice A’s welfare, the issue before the judge was whether he should make an adoption order without having considered the substantial assessment of the suitability of the maternal grandmother in Latvia as A’s long-term carer.’

WLR Daily, 6th May 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off on In re A (A Child) (Baby Relinquished for Adoption: Case Management)

Family law at a distance – Speech by Lord Sumption

Family law at a distance (PDF)

Speech by Lord Sumption

At a Glance Conference 2016, Royal College of Surgeons, 8th June 2016

Source: www.supremecourt.uk

Comments Off on Family law at a distance – Speech by Lord Sumption

Sumption: Legal specialisations are “essentially bogus” – Legal Futures

‘Legal specialisations are “essentially bogus”, Supreme Court judge Lord Sumption declared today as he urged practitioners to break out of their core areas and learn from other parts of the profession.’

Full story

Legal Futures, 8th June 2016

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

Comments Off on Sumption: Legal specialisations are “essentially bogus” – Legal Futures

Handley and another v Luke Jackson Solicitors (a firm); Lopes v Croydon London Borough Council; Christie Owen & Davies Ltd v Awan and another – WLR Daily

Handley and another v Luke Jackson Solicitors (a firm); Lopes v Croydon London Borough Council; Christie Owen & Davies Ltd v Awan and another [2016] EWCA Civ 465

‘Where the County Court has made a decision on appeal from a district judge or deputy district judge the position as to an appeal from the County Court’s decision is as follows. (i) If the County Court has heard the appeal and ruled on the issues determined by the district judge (including the validity or otherwise of the claims, the relief to be granted and the costs of the hearing before the district judge) then, by virtue of article 5 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 (Destination of Appeals) Order 2000, any appeal will lie only to the Court of Appeal. Permission must be sought from the Court of Appeal, pursuant to CPR r 52.13, and the second appeal test, set out in section 55(1) of the Access to Justice Act 1999, will apply. (ii) In respect of the costs of the appeal to the County Court, any appeal will lie to the Court of Appeal, pursuant to article 5 of the 2000 Order, but the second appeal test will not apply. (iii) It would be open to the County Court judge to grant permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal in respect of the costs of the appeal to the County Court and the normal test for permission will apply. It would also be open to the Court of Appeal to grant permission applying the same test. (iv) If there has not been what can properly be regarded as a hearing of the appeal, any appeal (which is almost certainly to be one on costs) is to the High Court judge and the normal test will apply (paras 34, 41–42, 44–47, 51, 52, 54, 55).’

WLR Daily, 24th May 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off on Handley and another v Luke Jackson Solicitors (a firm); Lopes v Croydon London Borough Council; Christie Owen & Davies Ltd v Awan and another – WLR Daily

Examining the effectiveness of celebrity injunctions – Halsbury’s Law Exchange

‘Is the Supreme Court’s decision in PJS v NGN [2016] UKSC 26, [2016] All ER (D) 135 (May), as Lord Toulson suggests, out of touch with reality? Sara Mansoori, barrister at Matrix Chambers, considers the wider consequences of the case and suggests that even when information is in the public domain, the law of privacy can prevent repetition of that information where such repetition can cause unwarranted distress.’

Full story

Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 25th May 2016

Source: www.halsburyslawexhange.co.uk

Comments Off on Examining the effectiveness of celebrity injunctions – Halsbury’s Law Exchange

Mau Mau lawsuit due to begin at high court – The Guardian

‘Compensation claims for torture, rape, wrongful detention and forced labour brought by 40,000 Kenyans who allege they were mistreated by British officials during the Mau Mau insurgency are due to be heard in the high court in London on Monday.’

Full story

The Guardian, 22nd May 2016

Source: www.guardian.co.uk

Comments Off on Mau Mau lawsuit due to begin at high court – The Guardian

What’s really in the bests interests of children from other European countries involved in care proceedings? – Family Law Week

‘Sarah Phillimore, barrister, of St John’s Chambers considers the ‘best interests’ test under Article 15 of Brussels IIR in the light of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Re N.’

Full story

Family Law Week, 6th May 2016

Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk

Comments Off on What’s really in the bests interests of children from other European countries involved in care proceedings? – Family Law Week

Human Rights: Whether in Europe or Out – Gresham College

Posted April 27th, 2016 in constitutional law, EC law, human rights, jurisdiction, news, referendums by sally

‘With the in/out Europe vote to come (or having gone) what will the result mean for Human Rights? How is or has the debate been framed?’

Video

Gresham College, 6th April 2016

Source: www.gresham.ac.uk

Comments Off on Human Rights: Whether in Europe or Out – Gresham College

Cabinet rift widens over European convention on human rights – The Guardian

Posted April 27th, 2016 in EC law, human rights, jurisdiction, news, referendums by sally

‘The cabinet split over Theresa May’s call to withdraw from the European convention on human rights has deepened, after Michael Gove’s Ministry of Justice confirmed it was not government policy.’

Full story

The Guardian, 26th April 2016

Source: www.guardian.co.uk

Comments Off on Cabinet rift widens over European convention on human rights – The Guardian

Direct access barrister ‘no substitute’ for solicitor – judge – Law Society’s Gazette

‘Direct access barristers are no substitute for experienced solicitors, a judge has told a court, ruling that a woman was not advised on the proper process for appealing her council tax liability. ‘

Full story

Law Society’s Gazette, 24th April 2016

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Comments Off on Direct access barrister ‘no substitute’ for solicitor – judge – Law Society’s Gazette

In re N (Children) (Adoption: Jurisdiction) (AIRE Centre and others intervening) – WLR Daily

Posted April 20th, 2016 in adoption, EC law, jurisdiction, law reports, transfer of proceedings by sally

In re N (Children) (Adoption: Jurisdiction) (AIRE Centre and others intervening) [2016] UKSC 15

‘Two children, who like their parents were Hungarian nationals, were born in England and habitually resident in the United Kingdom, having lived with the same English foster carers for most of their lives, initially with the consent of their parents. The local authority sought a care order under section 31 of the Children Act 1989 and, subsequently, an order for placement of the children with the foster carers with a view to their adoption pursuant to section 21 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. The mother, who had returned to Hungary and had a third child with the father, opposed the orders and applied under article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 for the proceedings to be transferred to Hungary. The Hungarian authorities supported her application, maintaining that only the Hungarian authorities could order the adoption of a Hungarian national minor. They proposed that upon return to Hungary the children would be placed with English speaking foster parents but maintain contact with their parents. The judge directed that both the care and placement order proceedings be transferred in accordance with article 15 on the ground that the Hungarian courts would be better placed to determine the welfare issues. The Court of Appeal decided, inter alia, that the placement order proceedings were outside the scope of article 15 by virtue of article 1(3)(b) of the Regulation and could not, therefore, be transferred to Hungary, but that, since the judge had not erred in ordering the transfer of the care proceedings, the placement order proceedings would be stayed even though they could not be transferred. ‘

WLR Daily, 13th April 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off on In re N (Children) (Adoption: Jurisdiction) (AIRE Centre and others intervening) – WLR Daily

Council wins battle over mother’s bid to name twins ‘Cyanide’ and ‘Preacher’ – Local Government Lawyer

‘A local authority has won a Court of Appeal battle with a mother over her desire to name her twin children ‘Cyanide’ and ‘Preacher’.’

Full story

Local Government Lawyer, 15th April 2016

Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk

Comments Off on Council wins battle over mother’s bid to name twins ‘Cyanide’ and ‘Preacher’ – Local Government Lawyer