‘Many more children could be expelled from school under new guidance which comes into force this week, according to lawyers who represent pupils at appeal panels.’
The Guardian, 6th January 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The European Commission’s controversial infringement decision relating to ‘pay for delay’ pharmaceutical patent settlements is subject to a further challenge.’
Zenith Chambers, 23rd December 2014
Source: www.zenithchambers.co.uk
CC & C Ltd v Revenue and Customs Comrs [2014] EWCA Civ 1653; [2014] WLR (D) 557
‘In exceptional cases, the court could entertain a claim for judicial review of a decision, under section 100G(5) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979, to revoke the registration of a registered excise dealer and shipper and could make an order for interim re-registration pending determination of that claim where it was arguable that the decision was not simply unreasonable but was unlawful on some other ground, such as being an abuse of power or improper or taken in bad faith.’
WLR Daily, 19th December 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Greater Glasgow and Clyde Health Board v Doogan and another [2014] UKSC 68; [2014] WLR (D) 550
‘The right of conscientious objection under section 4(1) of the Abortion Act 1967 extended to the whole course of medical treatment which brought about the ending of a pregnancy including the medical and nursing care connected with the process, but only in relation to the actual looking after and treatment of the patient rather than the host of ancillary, administrative and managerial tasks associated with it.’
WLR Daily, 17th December 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The College of Policing guidance relating to post-incident management of investigations into deaths that followed the use of force by police officers met the procedural requirements of article 2 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and so was lawful.’
WLR Daily, 19th December 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Provisions in the Exceptional Funding Guidance (Non-Inquests), issued by the Lord Chancellor under section 4 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, although correctly identifying many of the particular factors which were to be taken into account by the Director of Legal Aid Casework and legal aid caseworkers in deciding whether to make an exceptional case determination for legal aid in a particular case, mis-stated the discretion conferred by section 10(3)(b) of the 2012 Act, and failed to comply with both article 6(1) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, by impermissibly sending a clear signal to the director and the caseworkers that the refusal of legal aid would amount to a breach only in rare and exceptional cases.’
WLR Daily, 15th December 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘In Jarden Consumer Solutions (Europe) Ltd v SEB SA and Another [2014] EWHC 445 (Pat) (28 Feb 2014) Jarden Consumer Solutions (Europe) Ltd (“Jarden”) sued SEB SA (“SEB”) for the revocation of its European patent number 2.085,003 (“the patent”) for deep fryer with automatic fat coating. SEB counterclaimed for infringement of the patent by importing and selling the Breville Halo Health fryer. The action came on for trial before Mr Justice Arnold who found that 3 of the claims of the patent were invalid but 3 others were valid and had been infringed. Jarden appealed against the judge’s construction of the patent and his finding of infringement. The appeal was heard by Lord Justices Vos and Burnett and Sir Timothy Lloyd in Jarden Consumer Solutions (Europe) Ltd v SEB SA and Another [2014] EWCA Civ 1629 (17 Dec 2014).’
NIPC Law, 1st January 2015
Source: www.nipclaw.blogspot.co.uk
‘The fact that an individual or a company is a litigant in person is not a reason for the “disapplication” of court orders, rules and directions, appeal judges have ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 5th January 2015
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘This was a judicial review of LB Enfield’s plans for borough wide additional HMO licensing and selective licensing of all PRS properties. It did not go well for Enfield, who appear to have not quite grasped the consultation requirements.’
NearlyLegal, 3rd January 2014
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
Supreme Court, 17th December 2014
‘The approach to applications for extensions of time for filing a notice of appeal should be the same as for applications for relief from sanctions and should attract the same rigorous approach.’
WLR Daily, 16th December 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal has ruled that the Lord Chancellor’s Guidance on exceptional funding in civil legal aid is incompatible with the right of access to justice under Article 6 of the ECHR and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The Court has further decided that this Guidance was not compatible with Article 8 of the ECHR in immigration cases; in other words, that legal aid should not be refused when applicants for entry to the UK seek to argue that refusal of entry would interfere with their right to respect for private and family life.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 17th December 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The ideal judge is a supremely intelligent woman. She is especially empathetic. She has limitless expertise in every field and infinite patience. We can trust her to do right. She is perfect justice. Lets place her on a pedestal.’
Full story (PDF)
No. 5 Chambers, 16th December 2014
Source: www.no5.com
In re A (A Child) (Financial Provision) [2014] EWCA Civ 1577; [2014] WLR (D) 529
‘The “millionaire’s defence” survived to some degree when the court was determining the appropriate financial provision for the illegitimate child of a father of very great wealth. Accordingly it was not appropriate to contend for a “fair proportion” of the wealth when seeking to determine a sum representing the reasonable needs of the child for the purposes of Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989.’
WLR Daily, 10th December 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Davies v O’Kelly [2014] EWCA Civ 1606; [2014] WLR (D) 535
‘In general, equity would not come to the aid of a party who had to rely on his unlawful purpose, but if his right to an equitable interest in property could be identified without the need to rely on his unlawful purpose it might be enforced. In particular, notwithstanding an unlawful purpose between a couple in purchasing property, where the couple later separated it was possible, in the case of a constructive trust just as in the case of a resulting trust, to find, where one of the parties was advancing a claim to his beneficial interest in the relevant property, that he had no need to rely on the unlawful purpose and could therefore advance his claim.’
WLR Daily, 11th December 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Three landmark appeals being heard this week should clarify who is ‘vulnerable’ and entitled to priority rehousing by local authorities.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 16th December 2014
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘Does use by an employee of a personal Twitter account in a way that is “intimidating, racist and anti disability” and “offensive to other groups of people including dentists, caravan drivers, golfers, the A&E department, Newcastle supporters, the police and disabled people” justify a decision to fire?’
Technology Law Update, 18th December 2014
Source: www.technology-law-blog.co.uk
‘CPR r.3.9 rears its growling head again…but a more robust approach, nevertheless, should not be taken as encouragement to refuse reasonable extensions of time or to seek tactical advantage in every minor default.’
Zenith PI Blog, 17th December 2014
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024