‘The London Borough of Islington has secured a £3,000-plus costs order in its favour after a judge found that landlords had “behaved unreasonably in bringing an appeal which they never intended to pursue properly and never did pursue properly”.’
Local Government Lawyer, 19th June 2017
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Prisons are now the largest providers of residential care for frail and elderly men in England and Wales and are increasingly turning into hospices, providing end-of-life care for older prisoners and even managing their deaths.’
The Guardian, 20th June 2017
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The High Court has again highlighted the “severe consequences” of deliberately breaching a freezing order, imposing a 12-month prison sentence on a woman who failed to comply with two deadlines and later lied to the court, an expert has said.’
OUT-LAW.com, 19th June 2017
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Theresa May and Keir Starmer disagree about whether human rights impede effective counterterrorism. Both bring experience at the coalface of this field, May as former Home Secretary, and Starmer as former DPP responsible for the prosecution of terrorist cases. Who is right? There is no point in pretending that human rights do not present legal constraints on counterterrorism powers. Nevertheless, the constraints that do exist are certainly not as restrictive as rights opponents would like us to believe. Moreover, it is crucial to distinguish between legal constraints, and the notion that these constraints constitute practical impediments on the effective prevention and punishment of terrorism. The debate is full of confusion between the two. This post will deal only with the first question of legal constraints, as the second is a matter of empirical proof. Before we can proceed with the normative project of changing human rights protections, a process that has far wider implications for human rights in general and our liberal democratic culture, any government has to provide persuasive evidence that human rights do in fact stand in the way of security. The present government, for as long as it lasts, would also need to dispose of the charge that a 13 % reduction in police numbers over the last six years is less significant in the fight against terror, than the human rights constraints that guide police action.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 15th June 2017
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘A number of recent judicial decisions – particularly a recent ruling by the UK’s top judges in the United Policyholders case – have gone some way towards clarifying what counts as a breach of ‘legitimate expectation’ by a public body.’
OUT-LAW.com, 16th June 2017
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Was it unlawful for the Secretary of State for Health, who had power to make provisions for the functioning of the National Health Service in England, to have failed to make a provision which would have enabled women who were citizens of the UK, but who were usually resident in Northern Ireland, to undergo a termination of pregnancy under the NHS in England free of charge?’
UK Human Rights Blog, 15 June 2017
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Seven expert witnesses who fabricated evidence about the cost of replacement hire cars for motorists in road crashes have been jailed.’
The Guardian, 16th June 2017
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Bakery group Greggs and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy have withdrawn their appeals over a High Court ruling that incorrect advice had been given under the ‘Primary Authority’ scheme.’
Local Government Lawyer, 16th June 2017
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Sex abuse victims have been “utterly marginalised” by an inquiry set up to help them, one of the victims claimed.’
BBC News, 17th June 2017
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Criminal investigation into the Grenfell Tower tragedy is looking into manslaughter charges, Sir Keir Starmer has said.’
Daily Telegraph, 18th June 2017
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘There will be no Queen’s Speech next year to give MPs more time to deal with Brexit laws, the government says.’
BBC News, 18th June 2017
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
F v L (Child Arrangements Order: Relocation)[2017] EWHC 1377 (Fam)
‘The mother, an Italian national, sought a child arrangements order (“CAO”) under section 8 of the Children Act 1989, as amended, in respect of the child, aged five, and permission to relocate with him to Italy, alleging serious domestic abuse by the father. The Italian father opposed the application for relocation and cross-applied for a shared care CAO. Despite the recommendation in the report prepared by the CAFCASS officer that the child’s main carer be his mother and that she should be given permission to relocate to Italy, the trial judge decided not to consider or make any finding in respect of the abuse allegations, refused the mother’s application to relocate and ordered the continuance of the shared care regime. The mother appealed on the grounds, inter alia, that the trial judge had made a fundamental procedural error in failing to resolve the issue of the future care of the child prior to considering the application for relocation and had failed to make findings on the abuse allegations.’
WLR Daily, 9th June 2017
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The first defendant in the first of two claims entered into a licence with the claimant in respect of a portfolio of patents, including a US patent, concerning tocilizumab, an immunosuppressive drug. The claimant sought, inter alia, a declaration that it was not obliged to continue to pay royalties under the licence in respect of its tocilizumab products. The defendants alleged that, although framed as a claim for a declaration relating to a contract, a part of the proceedings, in substance, concerned not only the scope but also the validity of the US patent. Accordingly, consideration of the claim would infringe the territorial limits of the courts jurisdictional powers and constitute an affront to comity (“the Moçambique rule”) and/or the foreign act of state doctrine, which militated against the English court determining issues relating to sovereign acts of a foreign state.’
WLR Daily, 26th May 2017
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
In re Gard (A Child) (Child on Life Support: Withdrawal of Treatment)[2017] EWCA Civ 410
‘C, a child aged nine months, suffered from a rare inherited mitochondrial disease which led to dysfunction of several of his organ systems. His condition had progressed since his birth resulting in irreversible brain damage and an inability to move his arms or legs or to breathe unaided. His life expectancy was measured in months. His parents sought to obtain an alternative treatment, known as nucleoside therapy, that was available in the United States of America. The NHS trust which ran the hospital where C was treated applied pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the court for declarations that it was lawful and in C’s best interests for his artificial ventilation to be withdrawn, for his treating clinicians to provide him with palliative care only, and for him not to undergo nucleoside therapy. The judge granted the application and made the declarations sought, finding that the body of experienced medical opinion available to him, save for the doctor offering the nucleoside therapy, was unanimous to the effect that the prospect of nucleoside therapy having any benefit was effectively zero and would be futile. C’s parents sought permission to appeal on the grounds that (i) where parents put forward a viable treatment option for their child, that option could only be overriden by the court if it was established that the pursuit of that option was likely to cause the child to suffer “significant harm”, and the usual “best interests” test did not apply; and (ii) the judge had no jurisdiction to grant an order on the application of one clinical team preventing a second clinical team from carrying out a treatment that the latter had offered in the reasonable exercise of its professional judgment.’
WLR Daily, 24th May 2017
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (UK) v Attorney General and others [2017] EWHC 1379 (Ch)
‘The claimant was a substantial English registered charity and a company limited by guarantee without a share capital. It was founded by the second and third defendants, who were two of its trustees and, along with L, its only members. As a result of the breakdown in the relationship between the second and third defendants it was agreed that the third defendant would resign as a member and trustee of the claimant and that she would found another registered charity, also a company limited by guarantee without a share capital. If the payment of the grant was a “payment for loss of office to a director” of the claimant for the purposes section 215 of the Companies Act 2006, it would, by section 217, prima facie require to be sanctioned by a resolution of the claimant’s members before it could be paid.’
WLR Daily, 9th June 2017
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Judiciary of England and Wales, 15th June 2017
Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk
‘Judges would assess the developmental harm caused to a child when sentencing those convicted of child cruelty under proposals published by the Sentencing Council today.’
Law Society's Gazette, 13th June 2017
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘A six-figure fine issued to a local authority in England for a breach of UK data protection laws should serve as a reminder to all organisations of their need to manage the security risks inherent in using ‘open source’ software, an expert has said.’
OUT-LAW.com, 15th June 2017
Source: www.out-law.com
‘I was contemplating my lectures for the coming academic year and I started to feel annoyed – I think the two were connected. Lecturing has started to seem a rather odd and inefficient way of communicating information about constitutional law to students. Though lectures can be fun to deliver, they are also a pain. For the lecturer, they consume a significant amount of time and energy, raising a sense of déjà vu, as last year’s insights and jokes are dusted off for a new audience. But things are worse for those who have to listen to the thing: dragged into a lecture that can last for an hour or more, a moment’s lack of concentration can mean important points are missed – and few in the audience will only suffer a moment’s inattention. It is becoming obvious that the opportunities presented by the Internet will change this over the coming few years; I would bet that the old-style lecture will only last little while longer (though there are strong forces of creaking institutional inertia protecting it). Putting to one side next year’s teaching, I began to speculate on the ways in which the Internet might change the ways in which we, as legal scholars, communicate our subject to students and to people more generally in the medium term. In this post, I will reflect on how I see legal academia developing over the next five or so years – I think we are on the cusp of a very exciting and largely positive shift in the way in which we operate.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 14th June 2017
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
© Inner Temple Library 2025