Council to challenge term-time holiday decision – BBC News
‘A court decision not to fine a father who took his daughter on an unauthorised term-time holiday is set to be challenged.’
BBC News, 9th June 2016
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
Category: appeals
Defendant who represented himself gets new case review hope – The Guardian
‘A dyslexic defendant who represented himself in a crown court trial – after being handed 790 hours of CCTV footage to review in prison to support his alibi – is challenging his conviction for attempted murder.’
The Guardian, 10th June 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Singh v Secretary of State for the Home Department – WLR Daily
Singh v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 492
‘When a party seeks to appeal to the Upper Tribunal on the grounds that there had been bias or misconduct on the part of the First-tier Tribunal, the following guidance should be followed. (1) Any application for permission to appeal, if based (in whole or part) on such a ground, should be closely scrutinised. Such an allegation, if to be sufficient to merit the grant of permission at all, should ordinarily be expected to be properly particularised and appropriately evidenced. (2) If an allegation of bias or misconduct is raised which is adjudged sufficient to merit the grant of permission to appeal then it should be normal practice for the Upper Tribunal thereafter to obtain the written comments of the judge concerned. (3) Such written comments of the judge, where obtained, should be provided to the parties for the purposes of the appeal hearing in the Upper Tribunal. In addition, any such written comments should be retained on the file pending any possible further appeal to the Court of Appeal. (4) There may be some cases where it may be necessary to obtain the tribunal judge’s own note or record of the entire hearing since proceedings in the First-tier Tribunal are not ordinarily recorded and no transcript of the hearing will be available. (5) It will normally be likely to be of assistance to the Upper Tribunal to know what the advocate for the respondent has to say as to what happened or what was said before the First-tier Tribunal. Providing such observations is more likely to help produce a fuller and accurate picture of what actually happened or was said in the First-tier Tribunal. Where the advocate does not have a precise note or recollection, the Upper Tribunal can be told. (6) Whether oral evidence is needed at the hearing of the appeal on the issue of what happened or what was said below should be carefully considered by the parties. (7) It is likely to be important in appeals of this nature for the file to be reviewed and any directions given by an Upper Tribunal judge in good time before the substantive appeal hearing (para 53).’
WLR Daily, 27th May 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v AXN; Regina v ZAR – WLR Daily
Regina v AXN; Regina v ZAR [2016] EWCA Crim 590
‘Where an offender convicted of a crime has rendered assistance to the police or other law enforcement authorities, the police may provide the court with information regarding the assistance rendered in a confidential letter signed by a senior police officer, known as a “text”, but the obligation of the police to provide a text when requested by the offender is a very limited one. Although the court will always expect the police to inform the court of the fact that the police have made a decision not to provide a text as matter of case management, it is sufficient if the police merely state that they will not provide any information to the court in relation to the offender’s assertions of assistance. The police are not required to give any explanation of their reasons for the decision, or the stage at which they decided not to provide any information. The police need do no more than say that the police will not provide any information to the court. Such a statement to the court can generally be provided by letter and not by text. There may unusually be circumstances where the police would have to reveal in the reply the assertions of the offender that he had provided assistance; in such a case it might therefore be necessary to provide the response in the form of a text. Whether it is provided by letter or text, it must be signed by a senior officer of police (normally a superintendent) or an equivalent senior official in other law enforcement agencies (paras 6, 18, 22).’
WLR Daily, 27th May 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Winterburn and another v Bennett and another – WLR Daily
Winterburn and another v Bennett and another [2016] EWCA Civ 482
‘The claimant owners of a fish and chip shop claimed as a result of use over a number of years to have acquired by prescription the right for themselves and others using their premises to park on land comprising part of a car park belonging to the defendants. The defendants’ premises, which were next to the car park, had been used as a club and users of those premises used the car park. The entrance to the car park was adjacent to the claimants’ shop. The claimants had operated the shop from about 1987 or 1988 until 2012. Throughout that time, their suppliers had up to nine times a week pulled off the road into the disputed part of the car park and parked there for long enough to make their deliveries, and their customers had parked on the disputed land while they bought their fish and chips. On the whole that use of part of the car park did not interfere with the s’ operations but over a seven-year period there were 12 to 15 occasions on which the defendants asserted ownership of the disputed land, and, expressly or impliedly, asserted that the claimants and their suppliers and customers had no right to park on it. At all times until 2007 there was a sign attached to the wall of the building on one side of the entranceway to the car park, erected on behalf of the defendants, stating “Private car park. For the use of Club patrons only. By order of the Committee”, and a similar sign in the window of the club premises. The claimants claimed that their right to park, acquired by prescription by “lost modern grant”, had been established by their 20 years’ uninterrupted user “as of right”, namely, without force, without secrecy and without permission. The First-tier Tribunal found that, although the two signs were clearly visible, they were insufficient to prevent the claimants from acquiring the claimed parking rights. The Upper Tribunal allowed the defendants’ appeal, reversing that finding.’
WLR Daily, 25th May 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Immigration advisers using McKenzie Friend status “to dodge regulation” – Legal Futures
‘People are avoiding regulation as immigration advisers by “purportedly acting as McKenzie Friends”, the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner (OISC) has warned.’
Legal Futures, 8th June 2016
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
Home Office unlawfully imposes curfew on migrant – Free Movement
‘Gedi, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 409 (17 May 2016) is a case where the Home Office took it into their own hands to impose curfew restrictions over and above bail conditions those imposed by the First Tier Tribunal, as well as those they are entitled to impose as afforded to the Home Office by statute. The Court of Appeal were clear they had no such power to do so.’
Free Movement, 6th June 2016
Source: www.freemovement.org.uk
Feminist pornographer wins right to reinstate sadomasochism website – The Guardian
‘A feminist pornographer has hailed a victory for freedom of expression after she won her appeal against an order that had forced her to take down a sadomasochism fetish website.’
The Guardian, 6th June 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Handley and another v Luke Jackson Solicitors (a firm); Lopes v Croydon London Borough Council; Christie Owen & Davies Ltd v Awan and another – WLR Daily
‘Where the County Court has made a decision on appeal from a district judge or deputy district judge the position as to an appeal from the County Court’s decision is as follows. (i) If the County Court has heard the appeal and ruled on the issues determined by the district judge (including the validity or otherwise of the claims, the relief to be granted and the costs of the hearing before the district judge) then, by virtue of article 5 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 (Destination of Appeals) Order 2000, any appeal will lie only to the Court of Appeal. Permission must be sought from the Court of Appeal, pursuant to CPR r 52.13, and the second appeal test, set out in section 55(1) of the Access to Justice Act 1999, will apply. (ii) In respect of the costs of the appeal to the County Court, any appeal will lie to the Court of Appeal, pursuant to article 5 of the 2000 Order, but the second appeal test will not apply. (iii) It would be open to the County Court judge to grant permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal in respect of the costs of the appeal to the County Court and the normal test for permission will apply. It would also be open to the Court of Appeal to grant permission applying the same test. (iv) If there has not been what can properly be regarded as a hearing of the appeal, any appeal (which is almost certainly to be one on costs) is to the High Court judge and the normal test will apply (paras 34, 41–42, 44–47, 51, 52, 54, 55).’
WLR Daily, 24th May 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
McTear & Williams v Engelhard and Others [2016] EWCA Civ 487 – New Square Chambers
‘In yet another case in which a first instance judge applied the principles laid down in Mitchell v News
Group Newspapers Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1537 wrongly and unjustly, the Court of Appeal has today
allowed the defendants’ appeal, set aside the judgment, and ordered a re-trial, writes Jonathan Lopian.’
New Square Chambers, 24th May 2016
Source: www.newsquarechambers.co.uk
If you’re going to go down a steep slope, make sure you do it on your bottom! – Zenith PI Blog
‘In a decision handed down last week in English Heritage v Taylor [2016] EWCA Civ 448 the Court of Appeal upheld a first instance decision of a finding of breach of duty under section 2 of the Occupier’s Liability Act 1957 and a finding of 50% contributory negligence against the claimant. The issues centred around what was an obvious danger.’
Zenith PI Blog, 20th May 2016
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
Court of Appeal: SDLT not payable by company using Shari’a finance scheme – OUT-LAW.com
‘Project Blue Limited (PBL) was not liable for stamp duty land tax (SDLT) in respect of its acquisition of the former Chelsea Barracks by means of a Shari’a finance scheme, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 31st May 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
Examining the effectiveness of celebrity injunctions – Halsbury’s Law Exchange
‘Is the Supreme Court’s decision in PJS v NGN [2016] UKSC 26, [2016] All ER (D) 135 (May), as Lord Toulson suggests, out of touch with reality? Sara Mansoori, barrister at Matrix Chambers, considers the wider consequences of the case and suggests that even when information is in the public domain, the law of privacy can prevent repetition of that information where such repetition can cause unwarranted distress.’
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 25th May 2016
Source: www.halsburyslawexhange.co.uk
Senior EU lawyer backs workplace ban on Muslim headscarves – The Guardian
‘Companies should be free to ban Muslim women from wearing headscarves at work if they have a general policy barring all religious and political symbols, a senior EU lawyer has said.’
The Guardian, 31st May 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Birmingham pub bombings: Bombers will not be jailed – ex-IRA man – BBC News
‘The Birmingham coroner is to decide later whether to reopen inquests into the victims of the 1974 IRA pub bombings. But one former member of the terror group says the men behind the attacks will never be brought before a court.’
BBC News, 1st June 2016
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
High Court rejects appeal from solicitor who “neither thought nor cared about” the rules – Legal Futures
‘The High Court has rejected an appeal against striking off from a solicitor who “neither thought nor cared about” the rules governing his profession.’
Legal Futures, 31st May 2016
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
Man allowed to challenge former mother-in-law’s will – Law Society’s Gazette
‘The Court of Appeal has granted a divorced husband permission to challenge the validity of his former mother-in-law’s will which left him nothing from her estate.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 27th May 2016
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
Court rules on QOCS protection in appeals – Law Society’s Gazette
‘Costs protection will apply to first appeals in personal injury proceedings, the High Court has ruled in a judgment intended to clear up an area of confusion.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 30th May 2016
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
