‘In this latest Environmental Law News Update, Charles Morgan, Gordon Wignall and Mark Davies consider the Wellbeing of Future Generations Bill, the Dutch Supreme Court’s ruling in the Urgenda litigation and the role of local authorities in climate change and nuisance law.’
Six Pump Court, 15th January 2020
‘The Court of Appeal has considered an interesting argument regarding an employee who, ostensibly, made protected disclosures and allegedly suffered detriments as a result – but may not have done so within the ‘employment field’; Tiplady v. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council  EWCA Civ 2180.’
Parklane Plowden Chambers, 14th January 2020
‘An employment tribunal has ruled that ethical veganism is a philosophical belief that is protected by law against discrimination. In Jordi Casamitjana v the League Against Cruel Sports (LACS) JC complains of unfair dismissal having raised concerns with colleagues that its pension fund invested in companies involved in animal testing. The charity did not contest that ethical veganism should be protected but will argue at trial that JC was dismissed for gross misconduct.’
St John's Buildings, 9th January 2020
‘The 2019 professional liability case law was dominated by four core themes, which arose repeatedly in numerous contexts in claims against lawyers and auditors in particular:
-Multiple interlocking attacks on different aspects of the “loss of a chance” doctrine, anchored in both “lost litigation” claims and defective business deals. As we explain, the case law has been marked by various parties trying to opt out of parts of the existing Allied Maples doctrine, or bend the requirements to their particular circumstances.
-The continued adoption of “assumption of responsibility” as the appropriate test for duty of care to non-clients, and the extent to which the principle is relevant to the scope of duty owed to a client.
-The debate over how the distinction between “information” and “advice” cases plays out in the context of the respective duties of auditors and directors for the running of companies (both in the context of scope of duty and contributory negligence).
-The way in which a claimant’s wrongdoing should “taint” a claim against a professional. This theme emerged in the loss of a chance context, in respect of “ex turpi causa”, and in relation to the ever-challenging issue of attribution.’
4 New Square, 7th January 2020
‘The court provided a closely reasoned judgment granting Network Rail’s application to lift the automatic suspension which arose on issue of a procurement challenge by Alstom pursuant to Regulation 110 of the Utilities Contracts Regulations 2016 (SI 2016/274). The court’s approach and the principles that it employed are likely to be equally applicable to an application to lift the automatic suspension under the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (SI 2015/102). As the court found that damages would be an adequate remedy for Alstom but not an adequate remedy for Network Rail, Network Rail’s application was granted. Written by Jonathan Lewis, barrister, at Henderson Chambers.’
Henderson Chambers, 9th January 2020
‘Reality TV-style broadcasting of criminals being sentenced comes with risks that need to be guarded against, warns the Bar Council today as the Government looks to make the justice system more open with plans to film Crown Court sentencing.’
The Bar Council, 16th January 2020
Are you passionate about access to justice?
Could you shape future strategy for public legal education?
Public legal education enables people to understand that the problems they encounter in their daily lives may have legal dimensions, and empowers them to resolve problems and secure access to justice. Public legal education is a particularly important tool for reaching people in disadvantaged communities.
Law for Life is the leading public legal education charity in the UK. We strive for social justice by legally empowering individuals and communities. We believe everyone should be equipped with the knowledge, confidence and skills needed to deal with the law-related issues they are likely to encounter in the course of their lives. We run the award-winning Advicenow website, which provides practical resources for individuals and intermediaries on how to deal with life’s legal problems. We provide education and training on housing, welfare and immigration law to community groups, activists, and volunteers and staff of small NGOs. We conduct research with academic institutions into the theory and practice of public legal education and we have grown an international reputation as public legal education experts. As a member of the board you will ultimately be responsible for the overall direction, vision and strategy of Law for Life. We are looking for an inspiring and committed trustee to work alongside the Chair, Board and CEO to ensure sound strategic development.
You will have the ability to innovate and to think strategically, while demonstrating sound judgement. You will help us to move on to the next stage of our important work as a partner in the Litigant in Person Support Strategy and more broadly in developing and delivering public legal education, both at home and
We are looking to appoint individuals who share our values and would like to become involved. In particular we would also like to hear from:
• People with digital, media and business experience, in particular ecommerce skills;
• People with experience of managing and delivering adult education services;
• People with experience of income generation and funding development;
• People with knowledge and understanding of disadvantaged communities.
This role is voluntary and unpaid but reasonable expenses will be reimbursed. Trustees are expected to attend approximately six meetings and one away day each year, and the overall time commitment is around one day a month.
If you would like any further information and an application form please email firstname.lastname@example.org.
Application also available to download at https://lawforlife.org.uk/blog/law-life-recruiting-new-trustee/ Applications deadline: midnight Wednesday 12th February 2020
‘At least 5,000 children seeking special educational needs support (Send) are to have their cases reviewed after a London council landed a stinging rebuke from the local government ombudsman. Concerns about “systemic failures” in Richmond’s Send department prompted the watchdog to take the highly unusual step of ordering the full-scale audit.’
BBC News, 17th January 2020