‘The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in Durnont Enterprises Ltd v Fazita Investment Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 299 against the refusal of permission to continue a derivative action against the sixth, seventh and eighth defendants to the claim.’
Gatehouse Chambers, 12th April 2024
Source: gatehouselaw.co.uk
‘An estimated 736 people were prosecuted by the Post Office between 2000 and 2014, Horizon software having been first introduced in 1999, and responsibility for prosecutions, in all but exceptional cases, being handed over to the Crown Prosecution Service in 2014. Many of those prosecuted were imprisoned, 4 committed suicide and all faced the stigma and stress of criminal prosecution. The Court of Appeal in Hamilton v Post Office Limited [2021] EWCA Crim 577 quashed 39 convictions (of the 42 appellants) on the basis that there had been an abuse of process on two grounds: that a fair trial was impossible and that it was an affront to public conscience for the appellants to have faced prosecution. This judgment followed the Post Office Group Litigation in the High Court before Fraser J known as Bates and Others v The Post Office Limited [2019] EWHC 3408.’
Guildhall Chambers, 11th March 2024
Source: www.guildhallchambers.co.uk
‘A food company has won a sweet-tasting victory against the UK tax authorities after a court decided that it did not have to pay VAT on its marshmallows because they were not confectionery.’
The Guardian, 23rd April 2024
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v JA (2024) UKUT 52 (AAC) (UTJ Church). This important Upper Tribunal decision holds that universal credit claimants leaving supported or temporary accommodation have been unlawfully losing ‘transitional protection’ due to the discriminatory effect of the Universal Credit (Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2014. It also holds that affected claimants can obtain a remedy through tribunal appeals.’
Nearly Legal, 23rd April 2024
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘The decision late last year by Ritchie J in Aga v GDC caused uproar in the regulatory and professional discipline worlds.’
2 Hare Court, 5th April 2024
Source: www.2harecourt.com
‘On 6 March 2024, the Supreme Court handed down two important decisions that related to issues under section 20 Extradition Act 2003:
– Bertino v Public Prosecutor’s Office Italy [2024] UKSC 9
– Merticariu v Judecatoria Arad, Romania [2024] UKSC 10
Notably, these two cases had the same constitution of the Court, with Stephens and Burnett LJJ giving a joint judgment in both cases, with which the rest of the Court agreed.’
5SAH, 22nd April 2024
Source: www.5sah.co.uk
‘In a judgment with potentially wide implications for damages claims for breaches of fundamental human rights, the Court of Appeal in ASY & Others v Home Office [2024] EWCA Civ 373 has held that there is a right to damages for imminent breaches of article 3 of the ECHR (the absolute prohibition on torture and inhuman or degrading treatment).’
3PB, 18th April 2024
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
‘Inclusion on the barred list(s) may be appealed to the Upper Tribunal if there has been a mistake of law or fact. But just what constitutes a mistake of fact has proved a thorny problem. In particular, to what extent may the Upper Tribunal simply disagree with the DBS’ factual finding and substitute its own judgment?’
2 Hare Court, 5th April 2024
Source: www.2harecourt.com
‘A man jailed for life for the murder of four British soldiers nearly 50 years ago has had his convictions quashed by Northern Ireland’s Court of Appeal.’
BBC News, 22nd April 2024
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘An order giving permission to appeal may be made subject to condition. In the recent case of Palladian Partners LP and others v The Republic of Argentina and another [2024] EWCA Civ 139, the Court of Appeal made an order granting Argentina permission to appeal the first instance judgment conditional on Argentina paying €310m to be held in escrow pending determination of the appeal. Argentina sought reconsideration of the imposition of that condition.’
Law Society's Gazette, 19th April 2024
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal has dismissed the appeal of Mrs Akhtar who had been resident in the UK for 39 years (since 1985). Elisabeth Laing, Phillips and Males LJJ held that the Upper Tribunal had not failed to consider all the relevant circumstances when reaching its decision under section 117C(6) of Part 5A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and they dismissed Mrs Akhtar’s appeal. Judges Mandalia and Hanson had not erroneously concluded that a foreign criminal had failed to meet the statutory exceptions in section 117C(6) when deciding her rights under article 8 of the ECHR did not outweigh the public interest in her deportation. Mrs Akhtar and her husband (“H”) were both convicted criminal offences on 21 April 2016 and they were duly sentenced, respectively, to a total of 4 years and three months’ imprisonment and to 14 years’ imprisonment (reduced to 11 on appeal) for their roles in a substantial and long-running mortgage fraud. Mrs Akhtar was convicted of the offences of cheating the public revenue between 1 January 2004 and 26 September 2012, entering into an arrangement to facilitate the acquisition, retention, use or control of criminal property and two counts of conspiracy to obtain a money transfer by deception. She was sentenced, respectively, to 30 months’ imprisonment, 30 months’ imprisonment, concurrent and also 21 months’ imprisonment, consecutive, and 21 months’ imprisonment, concurrent. Mrs Akhtar, who entered the UK as a fiancée in 1985, complained that the UT did not take her long residence into account in considering section 117C(6).’
EIN Blog, 22nd April 2024
Source: www.ein.org.uk
‘Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Appeal has rejected 40 years of “received wisdom” among company law practitioners and has held that a limitation period of either twelve or six years (depending upon the relief sought) applies in respect of petitions under section 994 of the Companies Act 2006.’
Gatehouse Chambers, 7th March 2024
Source: gatehouselaw.co.uk
‘Wolverhampton City Council and others v London Gypsies and Travellers and other [2023] UKSC 47 is an appeal concerning a number of conjoined cases in which injunctions had been sought by Local Authorities to prevent unauthorised encampments by Gypsies and Travellers. Such injunctions had generally been sought against ‘persons unknown’ as the members of a group of Gypsies or Travellers who might in future camp in a certain location were not known in advance. In some cases, the Defendants to the injunction sought had been described by reference to the conduct the injunction had sought to prohibit, for example ‘persons unknown forming unauthorised encampments within the Borough of Nuneaton and Bedworth’.’
Becket Chambers, 2nd April 2024
Source: becket-chambers.co.uk
‘The chair of the Criminal Cases Review Commission has offered an “unreserved apology” to Andrew Malkinson for its handling of his case after he spent 17 years in prison for a rape he did not commit.’
The Guardian, 18th April 2024
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The Ministry of Justice is being threatened with judicial review over the draft legislation that aims to reverse the impact of the Supreme Court’s PACCAR ruling.’
Legal Futures, 19th April 2024
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘David Pollard of Wilberforce Chambers has written an article about the relevance of the recent Supreme Court decision in R (Palmer) – in which it was held that an administrator was not in the class of persons liable to prosecution under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 for alleged failure to give notice to the SoS of proposed collective redundancies – to crimes and fines under pensions legislation.’
Pensions Barrister, 18th April 2024
Source: www.pensionsbarrister.com
‘In this post, Sarah Coates-Madden, Senior Associate at CMS, and Fiona Dalling, Associate at CMS, preview the decision awaited from the Supreme Court in Davies v Bridgend County Borough Council.’
UKSC Blog, 17th April 2024
Source: ukscblog.com
‘Government officials have been accused of using “threatening and cruel” tactics towards unpaid carers by saying they could face even greater financial penalties if they appeal against “vindictive” benefit fines.’
The Guardian, 17th April 2024
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘In December 2023, the Court of Appeal decided THJ Systems v Sheridan [2023] EWCA Civ 1354 and in doing so, illustrated my point nicely. That case involved a software which generated visual ‘risk and pie charts’. A representative example appears below. Both Mr Mitchell (the software developer) and Mr Sheridan (the software user) claimed to own the resulting visual images under section 9(3). This argument appeared in both the re-re-re- amended particulars of the claim (para 38.2) and the re-re-amended defence (para 49). The approved list of issues for trial (question 25) also explicitly directed the courts to determine who the author of the works was under section 9(3). With that in mind, one might expect the judgments of the High Court and Court of Appeal to interpret and apply s9(3).’
City Law Forum, 17th April 2024
Source: blogs.city.ac.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024