“The Court of Appeal has rejected a local resident’s claim that Southwark Council should have ensured that better and larger community facilities were provided as part of a local development and that this was a ‘substantive legitimate expectation’.”
OUT-LAW.com, 25th April 2012
Source: www.out-law.com
“In the legal profession’s workaholic culture, achieving work/life balance has always been a struggle – and still is. The term ‘work/life balance’ has such negative connotations in private practice that some firms have banned it from their vocabulary. At Ashurst, for example, they refer to ‘work/life fit’. Speaking at the International Women in Law Summit last month, Ashurst senior partner Charlie Geffen said how one ‘fits home life into work’ was ‘a more honest’ description of what was realistic in law firms, particularly in transactional work.”
Law Society’s Gazette, 26th April 2012
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
“For all the scaremongering about a compensation culture, ignorance of rights causes more harm than the bringing of unmeritorious legal claims.”
The Guardian, 25th April 2012
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Last night Halsbury’s Law Exchange, in partnership with the international law firm Eversheds, hosted its first panel discussion. The subject was ‘Law Reporting in the New Media Age’.”
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 25th April 2012
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
“A 10-year-old schoolgirl is suing her mother for £100,000 over a drink-drive car crash which left her badly injured.”
Daily Telegraph, 25th April 2012
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“Employers can continue to set the age at which their staff retire, but only if they can prove there is strong justification for doing so, following a ruling by the supreme court.”
The Guardian, 25th April 2012
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“When is reorganisation of healthcare services unlawful? When can consultation, rather than a final decision, successfully be challenged? These were the questions dealt with by the Court of Appeal in relation to the reconfiguration of paediatric heart surgery services. The Bristol Royal Infirmary scandal had left these services in need of change; the Court of Appeal found that there was nothing unlawful in the consultation process resulting in the Royal Brompton failing to be chosen as one of the two specialist centres in London.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 25th April 2012
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“A man at the heart of last year’s Croydon riots had his sentence of four years detention nearly doubled today.”
The Independent, 25th April 2012
Source: www.independent.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Godfrey, R (on the application of) v Southwark [2012] EWCA Civ 500 (24 April 2012)
Westlb AG v Nomura Bank International Plc & Anor [2012] EWCA Civ 495 (24 April 2012)
Lalli v Spirita Housing Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 497 (24 April 2012)
Frozen Value Ltd v Heron Foods Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 473 (24 April 2012)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Guy v Mace & Jones & Ors [2012] EWHC 1022 (Ch) (24 April 2012)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
DD v Durham County Council & Anor [2012] EWHC 1053 (QB) (24 April 2012)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Browning v Lewes Crown Court & Anor [2012] EWHC 1003 (Admin) (24 April 2012)
Source: www.bailii.org
We have recently introduced a ‘Classifieds’ section to the Current Awareness blog in which we will feature advertisements for chambers’ vacancies. We will be trialling this and if the venture proves worthwhile we will make advertisements a permanent feature.
Chambers can submit advertisements to classifieds@innertemplelibrary.com, including the following information:
Users can keep track of vacancies by RSS feed or by Email.
Any new vacancies received will be added on Mondays.
Current vacancies include:
“A lawyer forced to retire at 65 lost a Supreme Court Appeal on age discrimination today.”
The Independent, 25th April 2012
Source: www.independent.co.uk
Regina v Burke (Michael) [2012] EWCA Crim 770; [2012] WLR (D) 119
“Where a defendant had been charged with an offence of voyeurism but had been found to be under a disability so that he was unfit to plead or to stand trial, the ingredients of ‘the act…charged against him as the offence’, for the purposes of section 4A(2) of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964, included a requirement to prove that his act had been for the purpose of sexual gratification.”
WLR Daily, 20th April 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
9 King’s Bench Walk has recently been awarded Barmark, the Bar Council’s quality mark, and we are seeking to expand and build on our success.
Chambers currently has three vacancies for third six pupils with experience predominantly in Crime. We aim to recruit junior tenants from among our own pupils, and so we offer third sixes with a view to tenancy.
Successful applicants will be kept busy: they can expect to be doing defence cases in the magistrates’ courts every day, and we operate a Saturday rota. Third six pupils will have the opportunity to develop a Crown Court practise, prosecuting and defending.
We also encourage pupils to develop their own practise in family or civil law if they wish.
All applications will be treated in the strictest confidence and should be addressed to Richard Wood, Secretary to the Tenancy and Pupillage Committee, enclosing a CV. We have a robust equal opportunities policy.
Chambers of A. M. Azhar
9 King’s Bench Walk
Temple
London EC4Y 7DX
Tel: 0207 353 9564
Fax: 0207 353 7943
DX: 118 Chancery Lane
Regina (Raeside) v Luton Crown Court [2012] WLR (D) 120
“The purpose of a custody time limit would be undermined if the court granted an extension under section 22(3) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 in anything other than exceptional circumstances, and in the absence of the express consent of the defendant to the extension of that limit, the court must direct that an immediate application is made by the Crown and rigorously scrutinise the evidence to see if it is satisfied that there is good and sufficient cause.”
WLR Daily, 23rd April 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v Bagnall; Regina v Sharma [2012] EWCA Crim 677; [2012] WLR (D) 118
“Where, in confiscation proceedings, the Crown accused an offender of an additional specific offence for which he had not been prosecuted and adduced evidence to make that accusation good, that did not amount to the bringing of a new charge. Since the defendant was not at risk of any further conviction and there was no finding of guilt, the findings reached by the judge, applying the statutory assumptions, merely went to the amount of the order the court was obliged to make. There was no unfairness in requiring a defendant to show that the source of his assets was legitimate.”
WLR Daily, 18th April 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Wintersteiger AG v Products 4U Sondermaschinenbau GmbH (Case C-523/10); [2012] WLR (D) 117
“Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters meant that an action relating to infringement of a trade mark registered in a member state because of the use, by an advertiser, of a keyword identical to that trade mark on a search engine website operating under a country-specific top-level domain of another member state could be brought before either the courts of the member state in which the trade mark was registered or the courts of the member state of the place of establishment of the advertiser.”
WLR Daily, 19th April 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Meister v Speech Design Carrier Systems GmbH (Case C-415/10); [2012] WLR (D) 116
“European Union law did not entitle a worker who plausibly claimed to meet the requirements listed in a job advertisement and whose application was rejected to have access to information indicating whether the employer engaged another applicant at the end of the recruitment process. Nevertheless, it could not be ruled out that a refusal to grant any access to information might be one of the factors to take into account in the context of establishing facts from which it might be presumed that there had been direct or indirect discrimination.”
WLR Daily, 19th April 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
LW (China) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 519 (24 April 2012)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Hallam Estates Ltd & Anor v Baker [2012] EWHC 1046 (QB) (24 April 2012)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Source: www.bailii.org
© Inner Temple Library 2026