“From 1 April 2013 a number of changes to the Civil Procedure Rules (CPRs) governing court action in England and Wales took effect. This is a summary of those changes.”
OUT-LAW.com, May 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
“New laws to curb anti-social behaviour could be used by councils to interfere with law abiding citizens, a think tank has warned.”
Daily Telegraph, 19th May 2013
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“Public bodies should consider whether freedom of information (FOI) requests are ‘likely to cause a disproportionate or unjustified level of disruption, irritation or distress’ when determining whether those requests are vexatious or not, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has said.”
OUT-LAW.com, 16th May 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
“The Costs Management Pilot Scheme (the ‘Pilot’) was launched in all Technology and Construction Courts (‘TCC’) and Mercantile Courts on 1 October 2011. The Pilot applies to any case which has its first case management conference on or after 1 October 2011.”
Judiciary of England & Wales, 10th May 2013
Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk
“‘The budgeting of multi-track litigation is the most important of costs reforms that lawyers should prepare for’ advises Professor Dominic Regan, the leading expert in civil litigation (‘Not the end of the story?’). So, how should we—judges and professional civil litigators— ‘prepare’ now that the Jackson reforms are a reality? The short answer is CPD Training: Chapter 40 and Recommendations 89 and 90 of the Jackson Report (Review of Civil Litigation Costs: Final Report, December 2009).”
New Law Journal, 2nd May 2013
Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk
“It is understandable that so much attention has been directed at the recent costs and funding changes. However, the reach of Jackson is far greater. Any step or process has an inevitable cost attached to it and now is the time to look at how the disclosure process will change under the new regime.”
New Law Journal, 2nd May 2013
Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk
“Why compromise? Increasingly in civil litigation there are no winners — not even the lawyers, following the review and implementation of Sir Rupert Jackson’s report into costs. The question is rapidly being re-phrased as ‘Why litigate?’”
OUP Blog, 27th April 2013
Source: www.blog.oup.com
“Householders now have even greater protection from burglars as changes to the law on self defence have come into effect.”
Ministry of Justice, 25th April 2013
Source: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-justice
“In Animal Defenders International, the European Court of Human Rights upheld the British ban on political advertising in the broadcast media (s.321 Communications Act 2003), consistently with the judgments of the UK House of Lords and High Court, but in an apparent departure from its previous caselaw in the VgT (Verein gegen Tierfabrik v. Switzerland, no. 24699/94 ECHR 2001‑VI) case. The key issue in the case was whether a blanket ban (or ‘general measure’) was a proportionate restriction of the freedom of expression, or whether some class of exception (a ‘case-by-case’ approach) for groups such as the NGO in this case ought to be recognized.”
UK Constitutional Law Group, 25th April 2013
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org/blog
“It was axiomatic that the Employment Appeal Tribunal could only interfere with the decision of an employment tribunal if it identified an error of law. In relation to unfair dismissal the appeal tribunal had to address the issue of whether the employment tribunal had found that the employer had satisfied the reasonable responses test and any criticisms of the employment tribunal were to be directed at that issue.”
WLR Daily, 15th March 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The European Court of Human Rights has given its decision in Animal Defenders International , holding that the ban on political advertising on the broadcast media does not violate Article 10. I had been convinced that the Strasbourg Court, following earlier decisions in Switzerland and Norway, would come to the opposite conclusion – but I am relieved that they did not. The ban on political ads has been a crucial measure that has helped to keep the cost of politics down in the UK. That said, it was a close shave. The ban was upheld by a majority of 9, with 8 dissenting. The decision was published earlier this morning, so what follows are my initial thoughts.”
UK Constitutional Law Group, 22nd April 2013
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
“Imagine you are a middle-aged man with a young family looking to change career to work as a primary school teacher. When you were 12 you took a chocolate bar from a shop. You learnt a salutary lesson and never repeated this isolated error of judgment. Is it right that your prospective employer should be told this? Well, whilst the Government thought your prospective employer should be forewarned, the Court of Appeal disagreed. The Court of Appeal, in R(T) & Others v Greater Manchester was critical of the ‘blanket nature’ of the current regime deeming it disproportionate in pursuance of the legitimate aim of safeguarding children and young adults. As a result of this important case, the Government has been forced to modify the disclosure regime to avoid offending Art 8; the right to private and family life.”
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 18th April 2013
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
“Last year the Divisional Court upheld the Home Secretary’s decision to prevent a dissident Iranian politician coming to the United Kingdom to address the Palace of Westminster: see that decision here and my post discussing the ‘Politics of Fear’.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 22nd March 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
Regina v Hampshire County Council [2013] WLR (D) 117
“There was no reason to stay confiscation proceedings where a trademark offence had been committed, because trademark offences were lifestyle, repeat offences, which did real damage to those entitled to the profits of a trademark and deprived the manufacturers of the legitimate fruits of the research and development of their product and it was proceeds which mattered rather than blame.”
WLR Daily, 20th March 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“This was an application for judicial review, and a claim under the Human Rights Act 1998, in respect of the defendant’s decision to disclose allegations of neglect and ill-treatment of care home residents in an Enhanced Criminal Records Certificate dated 12th October 2012.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 12th March 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
Kenny v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Case C-427/11); [2013] WLR (D) 87
“In the light of article 141 EC and Council Directive 75/117/EEC (relating to the application of the principle of equal pay for men and women meant, in relation to indirect pay discrimination), it was for the employer to establish objective justification for the difference in pay between workers who considered that they had been indirectly discriminated against and the comparators. The employer’s justification for the difference in pay had to relate to the comparators. The interests of good industrial relations might be taken into consideration by the national court as one factor among others in its assessment of whether differences between the pay of two groups of workers were due to objective factors unrelated to any discrimination on grounds of sex and are compatible with the principle of proportionality.”
WLR Daily, 28th February 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina (Purnell) v South Western Magistrates’ Court [2013] EWHC 64 (Admin); [2013] WLR (D) 61
Courts had to inquire closely before making an order for the payment of a fine at any enforcement hearing as to whether there were any outstanding fines and make clear the serious consequences to the offender or defaulter in not providing accurate information.
WLR Daily, 23rd February 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“There will be another statutory instrument (SI) next month to tidy up the one published last week with changes to the Civil Procedure Rules, after a warning that the new rule on proportionality could affect millions of pounds worth of work already done by solicitors.”
Litigation Futures, 18th February 2013
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
“The Court of Appeal has today [29 January] handed down an important judgment in R (T & others) v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester & others [2013] EWCA Civ 25. The case concerned the blanket requirement in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, section 113B of the Police Act 1997 and articles 3 and 4 of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 that criminal convictions and cautions must be disclosed in an enhanced criminal record check (‘ECRC’) in the context of particular types of employment (such as with children or vulnerable adults), even if those convictions or cautions would otherwise be deemed spent by the 1974 Act.”
Panopticon, 29th January 2013
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
“The Court of Appeal ruling in Henry yesterday has been met with disappointment and criticism from lawyers for failing to send out a clear message about the importance of costs management, and for risking an onslaught of satellite litigation.”
Litigation Futures, 29th January 2013
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
