‘The Court of Appeal has handed down a key ruling on the scope of a public authority’s power to reject a request for information as ‘vexatious’ or ‘manifestly unreasonable’.’
Local Government Lawyer, 20th May 2015
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Former footballer Paul Gascoigne has won £188,250 in phone-hacking damages from Mirror Group Newspapers.’
BBC News, 21st May 2015
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal made rulings following determination of issues raised in the administration of three companies as to the potential liability of two members in the group for the liabilities of the principal trading company, an unlimited company, and in particular its subordinated liabilities, and the relationship between their liability, if any, as members and their claims as creditors.’
WLR Daily, 14th May 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘In extradition proceedings under Part I of the Extradition Act 2003 an appellate court, in answering the question whether a district judge had been wrong to decide that extradition was or was not proportionate with the requested person’s rights under article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, had to focus on whether the decision on proportionality itself was wrong.’
WLR Daily, 6th May 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Where a person’s detention by the Home Secretary, purportedly made pursuant to paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 1971 as amended, pending deportation was unlawful, or where a person not currently in detention could not lawfully be detained under that provision, bail could not be granted pursuant to paragraphs 22 and 29 of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act, as amended.’
WLR Daily, 6th May 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Insurers liable to pay compensation to mesothelioma victims have rights to pro rata contributions from other insurers and/or employers covering some of the time of exposure, the Supreme Court has ruled.’
Full story
Litigation Futures, 20th May 2015
Source: www.litigationfutures.co.uk
‘In cases where the hirer of a car on credit terms is not impecunious, we thought we knew where we stood after Dimond v Lovell [2001] 1AC 384. The Claimant was entitled to recover the ‘spot rate’ or, as the Court of Appeal in Pattni v First Leicester Buses Ltd [2012] RTR 17 insisted, ‘basic hire rate’ or BHR. In Burdis v Livsey [2003] QB 36, three possible ways of calculating the basic hire rate were considered and indeed that consideration was repeated by Aikens LJ in Pattni. Both the Court of Appeal in Burdis and the Court of Appeal in Pattni rejected the mode of calculation of applying a reasonable discount to the credit hire rate charged. That left two methods of calculation. The first, which was not favoured by the Court of Appeal in Burdis, was to break down the charge made by the credit hire company and remove the additional elements from the claim in respect of credit, claim handling and delivery &c. The Court of Appeal in Burdis thought that the cost of working all that out might well be disproportionate. The court in Pattni, however, considered that where the actual credit hire company which had hired the replacement car to the Claimant, disclosed the BHR for that type of car in that area at that time, that might well be the best mode of calculation.’
Zenith PI Blog, 20th May 2015
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘Local authorities have been advised to review urgently their intentional homelessness decision making after the Supreme Court – by a 4-1 majority – today upheld an appellant’s challenge.’
Local Government Lawyer, 21st May 2015
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘A paedophile doctor’s appeal against his sentence is “utterly contemptible”, the mother of one victim has said.’
BBC News, 19th May 2015
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘A man who kicked to death a father-of-three outside his Warrington home in 2007 has lost a bid to have his sentence reduced.’
BBC News, 19th May 2015
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘The court can depart from the usual rule in CPR r.38.6(1) that a Claimant who has discontinued their claim is liable for the costs which a Defendant has incurred and, alternatively, order that the Defendant pay a part of the Claimant’s costs.’
Zenith PI Blog, 18th May 2015
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘Conducting business through a company provides tremendous benefits. The price to be paid for these benefits is disclosure – companies are required to disclose substantial amounts of information, with much of this information being disclosed to Companies House. Every day, suppliers, creditors, potential investors, credit agencies and other persons utilise information provided by Companies House to make informed commercial decisions. It is therefore vital that when Companies House records this information into the register of companies, that it is recorded accurately, with the recent case of Sebry v Companies House [2015] EWHC 115 (QB) providing a stark example of the disastrous consequences that can occur if information is incorrectly recorded.’
OUP Blog, 19th May 2015
Source: http://blog.oup.com
‘The thing about the Supreme Court is that all those years of accrued, encrusted High Court and Court of Appeal case law just don’t matter. If the Supreme Court thinks otherwise, they are so much chaff. And so, to some extent, it proved to be in these joined appeals, where the issue was the meaning of vulnerability in s.189(1)(c) Housing Act 1996.’
Nearly Legal, 13th May 2015
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court has today issued a landmark ruling in three linked appeals over when homeless people are to be considered “vulnerable” under the Housing Act 1996 and therefore in priority need.’
Local Government Lawyer, 13th May 2015
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Retaining DNA profiles of convicted adults indefinitely is not an illegal breach of their privacy, the supreme court has ruled in a test case involving a Northern Ireland drink driver. he judgment by the UK’s highest court sets a significant precedent in making a clear distinction between information that police forces may keep on those who have been convicted, as opposed to those who were merely suspects.’
The Guardian, 13th May 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
In re MN (An Adult) (Court of Protection: Jurisdiction): [2015] EWCA Civ 411; [2015] WLR (D) 208
‘The function of the Court of Protection was to take, on behalf of adults who lacked capacity, the decisions which, if they had capacity, they would take themselves. The Court of Protection was thus confined to choosing between available options, including those which there was good reason to believe would be forthcoming in the foreseeable future and, in the final analysis, could not compel a public authority to agree to a care plan which the authority was unwilling to implement.’
WLR Daily, 7th May 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The High Court has allowed an appeal against the decision of outgoing communities secretary Eric Pickles to block a 120-home development in a West Sussex village after Pickles was found to have placed too much weight on the policies of an emerging neighbourhood plan and failed properly to justify his decision in line with government planning policy.’
OUT-LAW.com, 12th May 2015
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Denton and Delay: to what extent should delay impact upon an application to set aside judgment?’
Zenith PI, 13th May 2015
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘Where a party who had overstayed unlawfully and married or formed a relationship with a British citizen sought leave to remain, the “insurmountable obstacles” test as to return under the Immigration Rules was a stringent test and more demanding than a mere test of whether it would be reasonable to expect a couple to continue their family life outside the United Kingdom, although the test was also to be interpreted in a sensible and practical rather than a purely literal way.’
WLR Daily, 6th May 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The removal of full rights of appeal for family visit visas has led to a legal dilemma to those considering a challenge to a refusal: should they give up, re-apply, attempt a human rights appeal or should they launch an application for judicial review? The problem seems all the more acute with many reports of refusals to spouses or relatives who cannot meet the harsh family settlement rules or who would rather live abroad but still want to be able to visit their spouse’s friends and family in the UK.’
Free Movement, 12th May 2015
Source: www.freemovement.org.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025