Apex Global Management Ltd v Fi Call Ltd and others [2013] EWCA Civ 642; [2013] WLR (D) 228
“The phrase ‘members of his family forming part of his household’ in section 20(1)(b) of the State Immunity Act 1978 should not be given a wider meaning in relation to heads of state than it had in relation to diplomats. Thus a head of state’s ‘household’ was restricted to spouses, civil partners, dependent children and relatives.”
WLR Daily, 11th June 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Two senior Saudi princes have failed to extract themselves from English justice after the court of appeal upheld a ruling that they are not entitled to sovereign immunity in a case involving their London-based business interests.”
The Guardian, 16th May 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“The Attorney General Dominic Grieve got the law wrong when he overruled judges who ordered the government to publish letters Prince Charles wrote to ministers, a court heard today.”
The Independent, 8th May 2013
Source: www.independent.co.uk
“Distant relatives of Richard III have started legal proceedings to challenge the plan to bury the king’s remains in Leicester.”
BBC News, 1st May 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“A bill which ends succession to the Crown based on gender has become law.”
BBC News, 25th April 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
Apex Global Management Ltd v FI Call Ltd and others [2013] EWHC 587 (Ch); [2013] WLR (D) 111
On the proper construction of section 20(1)(b) of the State Immunity Act 1978, whilst an adult member of a sovereign’s or head of state’s family exercising royal or presidential, constitutional and representational functions could be regarded in some circumstances as a member of the sovereign’s or head of state’s household, even though he or she lived apart from the sovereign or head of state, such a situation would be rare, and would be likely to be restricted to the case of a regent, heir to the throne or a person broadly exercising the sovereign’s or head of state’s functions in a full time capacity on his behalf.
WLR Daily, 19th March 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“A protester has been bound over to keep the peace for 12 months after he lunged at a car carrying the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall before the Archbishop of Canterbury’s enthronement.”
The Independent, 22nd March 2013
Source: www.independent.co.uk
“In the latest round of the legal and political boxing match that the Evans case has become, the Upper Tribunal (‘UT’), chaired by Walker J, has decided that the government should release its ‘schedules and lists’ of ‘advocacy correspondence’ between Prince Charles and various government departments.”
Panopticon, 21st February 2013
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
“Relations between the UK and Saudi Arabia will suffer if what are said to be highly damaging allegations about business deals surface during a London trial, lawyers for two Saudi princes have warned the high court.”
The Guardian, 13th February 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Should the aristocracy follow the Royal Family and change the laws of succession?”
The Independent, 16th December 2012
Source: www.independent.co.uk
“A new law which will end discrimination against women in the line of succession
to the British throne has been published.”
BBC News, 13th December 2012
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“All Commonwealth realms have agreed to press ahead with a bill ending discrimination against women in the succession to the British throne.”
BBC News, 4th December 2012
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“Litigation relating to information rights can sometimes seem very dry and obscure, entailing lengthy analysis of the merits of public authorities disclosing or withholding information which is highly specialised or obtuse, and of little real interest to the general population. But this case – the case of the ‘Black Spider Letters’ – really is a fascinating one, involving an examination not just of the legislative provisions relating to the disclosure of information, but also a consideration of the existence and extent of constitutional conventions pertaining to the role of the monarchy in government. At the same time, it has the potential to generate such controversy as to make for perfect tabloid fodder. It has been the subject of international news coverage. And it’s not over yet.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 23rd October
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“The Attorney General today issued a certificate under the Freedom of Information Act, both as it applies for the purposes of the Act and as it applies to the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, vetoing the disclosure of correspondence between HRH the Prince of Wales and ministers in seven government departments.”
Attorney General’s Office, 16th October 2012
Source: www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk
“Prince Harry will not pursue a complaint with the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) over the publication of photographs of him naked in Las Vegas, St James’s Palace has said.”
BBC News, 28th September 2012
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“The Upper Tribunal’s judgment in Evans v IC and Others (Seven Government Departments) [2012] UKUT 313 (AAC) (Mr Justice Walker, Professor John Angel and Suzanne Cosgrave), handed down yesterday, has received extensive media coverage – unsurprisingly so, given the subject matter (Prince Charles’ correspondence with government departments) and the requester (Rob Evans of the Guardian). The judgment is stupendously long (65 pages, plus 3 open annexes). Here are the salient points.”
Panopticon, 19th September 2012
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
“The government has for the first time been ordered to disclose copies of confidential letters that Prince Charles wrote to ministers.”
The Guardian, 18th September 2012
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
