‘On 17th May this year I discussed the Court of Appeal decision in the tragic case of R (on the application of T) v HM SENIOR CORONER FOR THE COUNTY OF WEST YORKSHIRE (2017) EWCA Civ 318 in which the Court of Appeal were asked to deal with an application for judicial review of two decisions of the West Yorkshire Coroner; first to hold an Inquest into the death of a baby who may or may not have been born alive and second not to grant an anonymity order to the baby’s mother. ‘
Park Square Barristers, 5th December 2017
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal decision in Re M (A Child) (2017) has confirmed that for the purpose of conducting an assessment under the Adoption and Children Act 2002 s.42(7), a local authority are not confined to the period after the adoption application has been made; it can include periods before the application. The decision emphasises that section 42(7) should not be construed in narrow terms but it should be given a wider, purposeful interpretation.’
Park Square Barristers, 6th December 2017
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
‘The First Tier Tribunal is entitled to rely on an applicant to send its application, but not the FTT’s subsequent decision, to the respondents to that application. Time will not start running for a party to apply for a permission to appeal until the FTT has itself provided a copy of its decision to that party.’
Tanfield Chambers, 1st December 2017
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘Judgment in the trial on liability in a group litigation claim brought by 5,518 employees of the supermarket chain WM Morrison Supermarkets PLC has been handed down today [1 December].’
5RB, 1st December 2017
Source: www.5rb.com
‘In Dover District Council v CPRE Kent [2017] UKSC 79 the Supreme Court reviewed various statutory rules relating to the provision of reasons for planning decisions, observing that these rules are to be found in subordinate legislation and that it is hard to detect a coherent approach to their development. The three main categories of planning decision are: (i) decisions of Secretaries of State and inspectors, (ii) decisions by local planning authorities in connection with planning permission, and (iii) decisions, at any level, on applications for EIA development.’
Local Government Law, 6th December 2017
Source: local-government-law.11kbw.com
‘Dispute Resolution analysis: When is it appropriate to waive privilege during the course of civil proceedings, and what are the risks if you do? These questions regularly create difficulties for litigators, and a variant of them arose during the trial of Holyoake v Candy. Roger Stewart QC, of 4 New Square, Richard Fowler, of Maitland Chambers, and John Beresford, of Hardwicke Chambers, who appeared for the claimants, examine the issues and say being able to advise with reasonable assurance as to the scope of any collateral waiver will be key to the decision on whether privilege ought to be intentionally waived.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 5th December 2017
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘This summer’s Supreme Court decision in Essop reinstated the established postition in indirect discrimination cases – that there is no requirement for a claimant to establish the reason for disadvantage arising from the provision, criterion or practice in question.’
Cloisters, 6th December 2017
Source: www.cloisters.com
Supreme Court
O’Connor v Bar Standards Board [2017] UKSC 78 (6 December 2017)
Dover District Council v CPRE Kent [2017] UKSC 79 (6 December 2017)
High Court (Administrative Court)
T v Secretary of State for Justice [2017] EWHC 3181 (Admin) (07 December 2017)
Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) v Smith [2017] EWHC 3193 (Admin) (07 December 2017)
Rostron v Guildford Borough Council [2017] EWHC 3141 (Admin) (05 December 2017)
High Court (Chancery Division)
The National Crime Agency v Dong & Anor [2017] EWHC 3116 (Ch) (07 December 2017)
Wallace v Revenue And Customs [2017] EWHC 3115 (Ch) (06 December 2017)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Golden Belt 1 Sukuk Company BSC(c) v BNP Paribas [2017] EWHC 3182 (Comm) (07 December 2017)
High Court (Family Division)
AB v CD (Jurisdiction Global Maintenance Orders) [2017] EWHC 3164 (Fam) (06 December 2017)
High Court (Patents Court)
Eli Lilly & Co & Ors v Genentech Inc [2017] EWHC 3104 (Pat) (06 December 2017)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Faieta v ICAP Management Services Ltd [2017] EWHC 2995 (QB) (06 December 2017)
Dhir v Saddler [2017] EWHC 3155 (QB) (06 December 2017)
Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Ltd v Yavuz & Ors [2017] EWHC 3088 (QB) (06 December 2017)
Bing Holdings Inc & Anor v Hue-Williams [2017] EWHC 3149 (QB) (05 December 2017)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
DPM Property Services Ltd v Emerson Crane Hire Ltd [2017] EWHC 3092 (TCC) (06 December 2017)
Source: www.bailii.org
‘Caspar Glyn QC considers the decision of C‑214/16 King v The Sash Windows Workshop Limited which was handed down today.’
Cloisters, 29th November 2017
Source: www.cloisters.com
‘In this latest Environmental Law News Update Christopher Badger and Charles Morgan consider the Environment Agency’s consultation on a new Enforcement and Sanctions Policy, an inquiry into Green Finance by the Environmental Audit Committee and new farming rules for water.’
Six Pump Court, 4th December 2017
Source: www.6pumpcourt.co.uk
‘Staff turnover in the construction industry can be particularly high and finding the right person to give evidence on all issues in a case can sometimes be difficult. Parties are often suspicious when they know there is someone who should be able to give evidence for their opponent, but whom their opponent does not plan to call. There is an obvious risk in a party calling that witness when there has been a seemingly positive pre-existing relationship with the opposing party. Consequently, it is more common for a party to invite the court to draw an adverse inference where a witness should have been called to give evidence, but is absent from the proceedings.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 22nd November 2017
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘The government will launch an independent national inquiry into the actions of the rogue surgeon Ian Paterson, who was sentenced to 20 years in jail in August after carrying out needless surgery on patients who were left traumatised and scarred.’
The Guardian, 7th December 2017
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The President of the Family Division, Sir James Munby, has allowed a social worker to use restricted documents in proceedings to be brought over a judge’s critical remarks about her.’
Local Government Lawyer, 6th December 2017
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘A University of Oxford student who avoided prison after stabbing her boyfriend has appealed against the suspended sentence handed to her.’
The Guardian, 7th December 2017
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘A British man has been found guilty of travelling to join so-called Islamic State in Syria.’
BBC News, 7th December 2017
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘In a rare piece of European good news for the government this week, the 47-member Council of Europe has endorsed the UK’s action plan to resolve a simmering dispute over the ban on allowing prisoners to vote in elections.’
Law Society's Gazette, 7th December 2017
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘Two recent Court of Appeal decisions raise some interesting constitutional questions about the status of Tribunals in the UK legal system. This post (in two parts) seeks to explore some of the implications and suggests that a key constitutional principle, the separation of powers, has once again been neglected. The two cases are Roszkowski v Secretary State for the Home Department (‘Roszkowski’) and R (Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal (‘Privacy International’). Privacy International has received considerably more coverage than Roszkowski and is rumoured to be on the way to the Supreme Court. It has already been addressed on this blog by Thomas Fairclough and elsewhere by Mark Elliott. Roszkowski explores the implications of an important and controversial Supreme Court case, R (Evans) v Attorney General (‘Evans’) and contains some critical comment on the reasoning of Lord Neuberger in that case.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 8th December 2017
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘The High Court has raised the prospect of solicitors who sign statements of truth on behalf of fraudulent clients being held in contempt of court.’
Litigation Futures, 7th December 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024