‘In this interview with Pietra Asprou for Lexis Nexis, David Travers QC considers the impact of hindsight bias in health and safety cases, and what can be done to avoid it.’
Six Pump Court, 21st July 2020
Source: www.6pumpcourt.co.uk
‘In the coming days, labour lawyers from around the world will be tuning in to watch the arguments in Uber v Aslam. In terms of the wider ramifications of the reasoning in Heller, what are the prospects for the ‘contractual’ and the “constitutional” approaches in Aslam? As already noted, the wider doctrine of unconscionability in Heller is unlikely to find favour in the English courts. More importantly, disputes about the employment contract in English courts are rarely about the contract rights themselves. The (private) contract is a gateway into a suite of (public) statutory employment protections. It would make little sense for a worker to seek to set aside the contract by using unconscionability as a vitiating factor, when the statutory protections depend upon the contract being valid and enforceable. This limits the practical relevance of Heller’s expanded unconscionability doctrine, given the statutory context to most employment litigation in the UK.’
Oxford Human Rights Hub, 20th July 2020
Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk
‘Across the world, Gig employers are now facing a legal reckoning in the highest courts. On 21st July, the issue of whether Uber drivers are “workers” will be considered by a seven-member panel of the UK Supreme Court. This follows on from Mr Heller’s momentous victory in a recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) in Uber Technologies Inc. v. Heller which involved a legal challenge to a mandatory arbitration clause in a contract between Uber and an UberEATS driver. The arbitration clause required disputes to be referred to arbitration in Amsterdam, which would be subject to the law of the Netherlands. The clause also required the payment of US $14,500 as an upfront administrative cost. The appellant earned $20,800–$31,200 per year before taxes and expenses were deducted. Nor did the fee include other costs likely to be incurred in an arbitration, such as travel to Amsterdam, accommodation, and legal representation. Students of transnational labour law of a certain generation cut their teeth on great debates about “offshoring” and the disintegrative risks to labour standards posed by capital mobility. The Heller case is an important reminder that we are now in an era of juridical mobility: employing entities seek to escape national labour law systems without the cost and inconvenience of spatial mobility.’
Oxford Human Rights Hub, 19th July 2020
Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk
‘This case involved the ancient tort of public nuisance. Such a claim is addressed to behaviour which inflicts damage, injury or inconvenience on all members of a class who come within the sphere or neighbourhood of its operation.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 20th July 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘This was an application by the defendant airline to stay an action for copyright infringement on grounds of forum non conveniens and case management. The action has been brought by the Performing Right Society which alleges that the inflight entertainment systems of the defendant’s aircraft infringe the copyright laws of the countries in which those aircraft are present at any one time. The application came on before Mr Justice Birss on 18 June 2020. He handed down his judgment in Performing Right Society Ltd v Qatar Airways Group QCS [2020] EWHC 1872 on 17 July 2020.’
NIPC Law, 20th July 2020
Source: nipclaw.blogspot.com
‘Remi, Sharon and Leonardo are all struggling to secure their lives in the UK after learning they’re not legally British.’
BBC News, 21st July 2020
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘The UK government broke the law in rolling out its test-and-trace programme without a full assessment of the privacy implications, the Department of Health and Social Care has admitted after a legal challenge.’
The Guardian, 20th July 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Housing campaigners are urging the government to introduce emergency legislation to protect tens of thousands of private renters at risk of being made homeless.’
Each Other, 20th July 2020
Source: eachother.org.uk
The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (Commencement No. 12) Regulations 2020
The Enterprise Act 2002 (Turnover Test) (Amendment) Order 2020
The Direct Payments Ceilings Regulations 2020
The Criminal Procedure Rules 2020
The Family Procedure (Amendment No. 2) Rules 2020
The Public Service Vehicles (Open Data) (England) Regulations 2020
Source: www.legislation.gov.uk
‘It is a common trope of media lawyers that defamation claims have been on the wane since the Defamation Act 2013, and that data protection law might be the way to fill the gap. (We at Panopticon scorn such arriviste tendencies.) And in Warby J, there is a willing champion of alignment of legal principles between defamation and data protection. He particularly emphasised the read-across in the context of complaints of inaccurate data processing in NT1 v Google LLC [2018] EWHC 799 (QB) (see here) and he has done so again in his very interesting judgment in Aven v Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd [2020] EWHC 1812 (QB).’
Panopticon, 20th July 2020
Source: panopticonblog.com
‘Criminal lawyers took their fight for government support direct to the legal aid minister yesterday, haranguing him mercilessly during an online meeting and complaining that barristers were operating on “petrol fumes” due to the absence of jury trials.’
Legal Futures, 21st July 2020
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Payne & Ors v Revenue And Customs [2020] EWCA Civ 889 (20 July 2020)
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Newby v R. [2020] EWCA Crim 937 (20 July 2020)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Wawrzyniak v District Court In Legnica, Poland [2020] EWHC 1955 (Admin) (20 July 2020)
Robinson, Review of the tariff in the case of [2020] EWHC 1935 (Admin) (20 July 2020)
Prince, Review of the tariff in the case of [2020] EWHC 1936 (Admin) (20 July 2020)
Sarkar v The General Medical Council (GMC) [2020] EWHC 1896 (Admin) (20 July 2020)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Phones 4u Ltd v EE Ltd & Ors [2020] EWHC 1943 (Ch) (20 July 2020)
Paragon Offshore Plc, Re [2020] EWHC 1925 (Ch) (20 July 2020)
Paragon Offshore Plc, Re (Costs) [2020] EWHC 1945 (Ch) (20 July 2020)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Elite Property Holdings Ltd & Ors v BDO LLP [2020] EWHC 1937 (Comm) (20 July 2020)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Surrey Heath Borough Council v Robb & Ors [2020] EWHC 1952 (QB) (20 July 2020)
Source: www.bailii.org
‘A five-year battle over the status and rights of Uber drivers reaches the supreme court in a case that lawyers believe has the potential to transform the gig economy in Britain.’
The Guardian, 21st July 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The number of rape cases being charged by prosecutors remains among its lowest for a decade, according to figures due to be released this week that will dismay campaigners.’
The Guardian, 19th July 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The former head of business development at a leading defendant law firm has been jailed for four years after a police raid discovered 6,000 indecent images of children on his computer and other devices.’
Legal Futures, 21st July 2020
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘A woman who says her son was effectively given “a life sentence” for stealing a mobile phone is calling on the UK government to change the rules.’
BBC News, 20th July 2020
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘The locations of 10 emergency “Nightingale courts” created by the Ministry of Justice for socially distanced trials to tackle the massive backlog in cases in England and Wales have been announced.’
The Guardian, 19th July 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024