‘In a paper on behalf of the Climate Change and Energy Working Party, UK Environmental Law Association (UKELA), Stephen Hockman QC and Benjamin Haseldine chart the possible implications of the United Kingdom exiting the European Union on climate change and energy law.’
Six Pump Court, 7th March 2016
Source: www.6pumpcourt.co.uk
‘Is an employer ever required to dis-apply an absence management policy or delay dismissal, as a reasonable adjustment for disability? Recent decisions have suggested that the answer is no, but in Griffiths v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2016] IRLR 216, the Court of Appeal has redefined the correct comparator in a disability claim in a way which may make this easier for an employee to argue.’
Tanfield Chambers, 9th March 2016
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
Planning, Environment & Property Newsletter (PDF)
39 Essex Chambers, February 2016+
Source: www.39essex.com
Gentry v Miller and another [2016] EWCA Civ 141
‘When dealing with an application under CPR r 13.3 to set aside a judgment in default of acknowledgement of service entered under CPR Pt 12 or an application under CPR r 39.3(5) to set aside a judgment given where a party did not attend the trial, the court should first establish whether the express requirements of rule 13.3 or rule 39.3(5) were satisfied and, if so, apply the three-stage test laid down for the exercise of the discretion under rule 3.9 to grant relief from sanctions. The first stage of the test, as to whether there was a serious or significant breach, applies to the applicant’s default in failing to acknowledge service or to attend trial, not to any subsequent delay in applying to set the judgment aside (paras 23–25).’
WLR Daily, 9th March 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Alan Ramsay Sales & Marketing Ltd v Typhoo Tea Ltd [2016] EWHC 486 (Comm)
‘The claimant was a commercial agent who acted for the defendant. The agency agreement between the parties provided for 12 months’ notice of termination. The claimant’s case was that, by e-mails dated 18 and 26 March 2013, the defendant gave notice of termination with effect from 11 February 2013, to terminate on 11 May 2013 and was thereby in repudiatory breach of contract, which repudiation the claimant accepted as bringing the agency agreement to an end. The claimant brought a claim for, inter alia, damages for termination with insufficient notice and sought to admit the defendant’s e-mails as evidence of the defendant’s repudiation. The defendant contended that the two e-mails, both marked “Without Prejudice”, were part of a series of without prejudice negotiations to settle a dispute as to termination of the agency and that, as such, they could not be relied on by the claimant as repudiatory and were inadmissible in evidence.’
WLR Daily, 8th March 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘In 2004 two banks entered into arrangements designed to take advantage of the provisions of Chapter 2 of Part 7 of the lncome Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003, as substituted, which created a special regime for employment-related securities whereby “restricted securities” (including, by section 423(2), shares which were subject to a condition providing for their forfeiture in certain circumstances so as to render their market value less than it otherwise would be but for that condition) were, by section 425(2) and 429, exempt from income tax. Each bank invoked a scheme whereby (i) it set up a company merely for the purposes of the scheme, which undertook no activities beyond its participation in the scheme, was to be liquidated upon the termination of the scheme, and the memorandum and articles of which contained conditions designed to comply with Chapter 2, and (ii) the shares of the company were to be allocated to specified employees in lieu of a cash bonus. In the first case there was a condition for an immediate and automatic sale of the shares if, on any date during a specified three week period, the closing value of the FTSE 100 Index exceeded a defined “trigger level”, the probability of which was unlikely but in any event was hedged against so that in the event of a forced sale the employees would not be materially worse off. In the second case there was a provision which, in effect, provided that an employee would forfeit his shares if he voluntarily resigned or was dismissed for misconduct during the first eight weeks after the company was set up. In both cases, once the exemptions from income tax conferred by sections 425(2) and 429 had accrued, the shares were redeemable by the employees for cash. The revenue took the view that the banks were to be treated as having paid the relevant employees cash sums equal to their share allocation and issued PAYE determinations and NIC decisions against each bank, as the body liable to deduct such sums. Each bank appealed. The First-tier Tribunal, in separate decisions, held that Parliament could not have intended that the exemption should apply to arrangements contrived purely in order to obtain the exemption but having no other business or commercial purpose. On appeals heard together the Upper Tribunal held that the scheme in the first case met the requirements of the legislation and so allowed that bank’s appeal, but held that the scheme in the second case did not fully comply with the terms of Chapter 2 in that, on the facts, the company had been set up in a way which did not comply with section 429. On appeal by the revenue in the first case and by the bank in the second case, the Court of Appeal upheld the Upper Tribunal’s decision in the first case on like ground and, having reversed the factual finding in the second case, allowed that bank’s appeal on the ground that its scheme also met the requirements of Chapter 2.’
WLR Daily, 9th March 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Secretary of State for the Home Department v Khan [2016] EWCA Civ 137
‘The applicant, a Pakistani national, entered the United Kingdom with leave to remain. On 20 February 2012, before the expiry of his leave, he applied under section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 for further leave to remain as a Tier 4 student, intending to study at a particular college which at that time was a registered licensed sponsor. However, by the time the United Kingdom Border Agency came to consider his application, the licence of his sponsoring college had been revoked. The agency suspended consideration of the application to enable the applicant to find a new sponsor and then submit an application to vary the grounds of his original application for further leave to remain, which the applicant did on 9 October 2012. Paragraph 34E of the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules provided that if a person wished to “vary the purpose” of an application for leave to remain, the variation had to comply with the requirements for making an application as if the variation were a new application, or the variation would be invalid. The agency refused the applicant’s application to vary the grounds of his original application since, on 9 October 2012, he did not satisfy the requirements of paragraph 1A(a) of Appendix C to the Immigration Rules, which provided that an applicant had to have a certain level of maintenance funds “at the date of the application”. The applicant’s appeal against that decision was allowed by the First-tier Tribunal. The Upper Tribunal dismissed the Secretary of State’s appeal, holding that paragraph 34E did not apply in the applicant’s case since the applicant had not sought to vary the “purpose” of his application, which throughout had remained the same, namely to remain as a Tier 4 student; and that, therefore, the applicant had not been obliged to meet the maintenance fund requirements on 9 October 2012.’
WLR Daily, 18th March 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Director of Public Prosecutions v Henderson [2016] EWHC 464 (Admin)
‘The defendant was charged with three offences of racially aggravated harassment, contrary to section 31(1)(b) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and, in the alternative, three offences of harassment, contrary to section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986. Both sets of offences were alleged to have been committed against the same victims and arose out of the same set of facts. Following the trial, the defendant was convicted of the three racially aggravated offences but, having heard submissions from the defendant’s representative, the district judge declined to announce a verdict on the section 4A offences (“the underlying offences”) and adjourned the case. The matter came before a different district judge who concluded that the facts of the underlying offences had been proved before the district judge at trial with the result that guilty verdicts should be returned in relation to the three underlying offences, with no separate penalty being imposed. In so doing, the district judge rejected the defendant’s submission that the correct course of action, the aggravated offences having been proved, was to adjourn the underlying offences sine die pursuant to the power in section 10 of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980. The defendant challenged his conviction on the underlying offences by way of an appeal by case stated.’
WLR Daily, 9th March 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Cocking and another v Eacott and another [2016] EWCA Civ 140
‘The second defendant owned but did not occupy a property. She granted the first defendant, her daughter, a bare licence to live there. The second defendant paid all the bills and maintained the property and her daughter did not pay any rent. The claimant owners of the next door property complained about the excessive barking of the daughter’s dog. The claimants wrote a letter before action to which the second defendant responded that a landlord was not liable for nuisance committed by a tenant, that she was not personally involved in the alleged incidents and that she was estranged from her daughter. The claimants issued proceedings against the second defendant and her daughter for nuisance. The second defendant served a notice to quit on her daughter and obtained a possession order which she did not enforce. The second defendant did not accept the claimants’ offer of a settlement if she permanently evicted her daughter from the property. The judge held that the second defendant was liable in nuisance to the claimants even though she did not occupy the property from which the nuisance emanated, concluding that liability attached once the owner knew or was deemed to know of the nuisance and had failed after a reasonable time to abate it and therefore if the owner chose to do nothing then she became liable for it with the actual creator of the nuisance.’
WLR Daily, 9th March 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Littlestone and others v Macleish [2016] EWCA Civ 127
‘An admitted payment on account of a claim following a Part 36 offer to settle a claim of a higher amount was, in the absence of contrary agreement, made as much on account of the Part 36 offer as on account of the full sum claimed. It would be an absurdity for a defendant to be bound to pay an aggregated total of a Part 36 offer and an admissions payment that was larger than the total sum claimed (paras 23–24).’
WLR Daily, 10th March 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Men’s domination of the senior echelons of the British judiciary means the law is biased against women. We urgently need gender quotas for women in senior legal roles.’
The Guardian, 15th March 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘A gay clergyman who lost an employment tribunal against the Church of England has been given the right to appeal.’
The Guardian, 15th March 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Company boss, Peter Morris, has nothing but his ‘anger’ to show for 25 years of marriage after a series of rulings’
Daily Telegraph, 14th March 2016
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘The London Borough of Redbridge is to share information and intelligence with other councils and HM Revenue and Customs, after three people were found guilty of a £1.4m housing benefit fraud.’
Local Government Lawyer, 15th March 2016
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Government blunders have left police powerless to use a new law to catch paedophiles, top child safety experts have warned.’
The Guardian, 15th March 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Ministers have ordered an immediate inquiry into allegations that former senior civil servants from the Ministry of Justice have used their Whitehall knowledge and contacts to help private companies secure government contracts worth millions.’
The Guardian, 14th March 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘UK Anti-Doping has been given the task of coordinating the global fight against performance-enhancing drugs in the build-up to this summer’s Rio Olympic Games.’
The Guardian, 14th February 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘A businesswoman who left behind her career in order to become a “stay at home mum” while her husband continued with his high-flying career has been awarded virtually all of the family fortune by a divorce judge.’
The Guardian, 14th March 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024