‘A man who murdered a young teacher on their first date before sexually assaulting and taking pictures of her corpse has been jailed for life.’
BBC News, 3rd June 2016
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Bank of England boss Mark Carney should listen to those who fear regulators need to do more to stop continued bad practice in the financial sector.’
The Guardian, 5th June 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘An investigation by The Independent revealed thousands of children have disappeared from the education system to be taught at illegal schools where they are at risk of abuse.’
The Independent, 4th June 2016
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘South Yorkshire Police is investigating 183 child sex abuse (CSE) cases, a new report has revealed.’
BBC News, 5th June 2016
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Popular zoo animals including raccoons and chipmunks could be banned from collections under EU rules amid concerns about them escaping and setting up home, it has been claimed.’
Daily Telegraph, 6th June 2016
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘Asylum claims from people who have converted to Christianity are being rejected because officials are testing them on Bible trivia.’
BBC News, 5th June 2016
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘A feminist pornographer has hailed a victory for freedom of expression after she won her appeal against an order that had forced her to take down a sadomasochism fetish website.’
The Guardian, 6th June 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The proposal to introduce mandatory reporting in the victims of crime bill has divided opinion – an objective discussion is needed.’
The Guardian, 6th June 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Hosking and another v Slaughter and May [2016] EWCA Civ 474
‘During a company’s administration the administrators employed a firm of solicitors and agreed their fees. The company was wound up and the liquidators were subsequently appointed. Shortly thereafter the administrators approved the solicitors’ final invoice which post-dated the liquidators’ appointment. The liquidators applied to the court for an order for a detailed assessment of the costs agreed between the administrators and the solicitors, pursuant to rule 7.34 of the Insolvency Rules 1986. The registrar concluded that the administrators could agree and pay the fees of the solicitors and there was neither power under rule 7.34 nor inherent jurisdiction for the court to order a detailed assessment of costs. The judge dismissed the liquidators’ appeal against the registrar’s order refusing a detailed assessment of costs but allowed the appeal in respect of the final invoice, concluding that rule 7.34 did not apply to former administrators so the final invoice had not been properly approved and would have to be approved by the liquidators. The liquidators appealed against the judge’s decision not to order a detailed assessment and the solicitors appealed against the order that the final invoice had not been properly approved.’
WLR Daily, 24th May 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina (Shindler and another) v Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and another [2016] EWCA Civ 469
‘The claimants were British nationals who, exercising their rights of free movement, had moved to European Union member states in the 1980s and remained living respectively in Italy and Belgium. They were not entitled to vote in the European Union referendum by section 2 of the European Union Referendum Act 2015 since they had last been registered to vote in a United Kingdom election more than 15 years ago. The 2015 Act adopted the franchise for United Kingdom parliamentary elections, including the 15-year rule. The claimants sought judicial review, claiming that the 15-year rule constituted a restriction on their rights of free movement which was not objectively justified, by way of a declaration that section 2 of the 2015 Act was incompatible with their directly effective European Union law rights. Article 50(1) of the EU Treaty provided that any member state could withdraw from the European Union in accordance with its own constitutional arrangements. The Divisional Court granted permission to proceed but refused the claim, holding that (i) section 2 of the 2015 Act fell within the scope of European Union law so that their rights of free movement were in principle engaged; (ii) section 2 was not a restriction on their rights of free movement; (iii) if section 2 were such a restriction, it was objectively justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate objective, namely of testing the strength of a British citizen’s links with the United Kingdom over a significant period of time; and (iv) the claimants were not disentitled to a remedy on account of delay.’
WLR Daily, 20th May 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘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
‘The shareholder claimed to have purchased a 66·6% share in the company, a United Kingdom holding company of a group operating in South East Asia. Following a substantial fall in the share price the shareholder requested that the directors call a general meeting of the company, which, by section 303 of the Companies Act 2006, they were required to do if they received requests from members representing at least 5% of the paid-up capital of the company. The directors refused to call the general meeting requested, contending that the shareholder’s shares were in fact not paid up. The shareholder served a notice pursuant to section 305 of the 2006 Act, by which a shareholder was entitled to call a meeting if the directors had wrongfully refused to do so. The company subsequently informed the shareholder that it had issued further shares to a Malaysian company reducing his shareholding to 1·17%. The shareholder commenced two actions, one by a petition for a declaration that the notice served by him under section 305 of the 2006 Act was valid and effective and a direction that the general meeting be held, and the other, by a Part 8 claim form for an order rectifying the company’s register of members to delete the additional share issue for want of authorisation.’
WLR Daily, 17th May 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Timothy Taylor Ltd v Mayfair House Corpn and another [2016] EWHC 1075 (Ch)
‘The tenant occupied the ground and basement floors of a building from which it operated a gallery. The lease contained terms reserving the landlord’s right to build and a covenant for quiet enjoyment. In order to carry out works on the adjoining upper floors of the building, the landlord erected scaffolding, which enveloped the building, restricting access to the tenant’s gallery and giving the impression that it was closed. The works also caused substantial noise in the tenant’s premises. No financial compensation was offered by the landlord to the tenant for the works undertaken.’
WLR Daily, 10th May 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina (S) v Director of Legal Aid Casework [2016] EWCA Civ 464
‘The claimant, a Nigerian national who lacked capacity to engage in litigation, applied for exceptional case funding pursuant to section 10 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 to assist him in making representations to the Home Office to recognise his position in the United Kingdom. The Director of Legal Aid Casework refused his application but the claimant was subsequently granted funding after he successfully claimed judicial review of the refusal on the ground that the guidance issued by the Lord Chancellor and applied by the Director was unlawful. Notwithstanding that grant, the claimant’s remaining challenge to the manner in which the exceptional case funding scheme was operated, which raised important issues of wider application, proceeded effectively as a test case. The claimant’s case was that the operation of the scheme created an unacceptable risk that individuals would be unable to make an effective application under the scheme and would therefore suffer a breach of their Convention rights or European Union rights. The judge allowed the claim, holding that (i) the manner in which the exceptional case funding scheme was operated meant that in practice the safety net intended to be provided by section 10 to enable individuals who would not otherwise qualify for legal aid funding to present their cases effectively without obvious unfairness was not being provided and (ii) the requirement in regulations 5 and 43 of the Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria) Regulations 2013 that cases had to demonstrate an even or better than even prospect of success was unreasonable and the method of rating prospects of success was itself unsatisfactory. Accordingly he granted declarations that the exceptional case funding scheme, the 2013 Regulations and the guidance were unlawful.’
WLR Daily, 20th May 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The UK’s competition watchdog could be given new powers to fine businesses that breach the formal commitments or undertakings they give to bring a competition investigation to a close under plans put forward by the government.’
OUT-LAW.com, 2nd June 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘The Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) selected candidates for the specific purpose of increasing diversity in 14 recommendations, according to the commission’s latest statistics bulletin published today.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 2nd June 2016
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘When Private Cheryl James was preparing to move from Leconfield to Deepcut Barracks for the next stage of her Army training, an instructor gave her and her friends ominous advice.’
Daily Telegraph, 3rd June 2016
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal has given judgment in the case of Director of Legal Aid Casework and another v IS [2016] EWCA Civ 464, the Director’s appeal against the judgment of Collins J in the High Court that the exceptional funding regime was inherently unlawful.’
Legal Aid Handbook, 3rd June 2016
Source: www.legalaidhandbook.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024