‘A former New Age traveller whose ex-husband became a millionaire more than a decade after they separated has won a cash fight in the Supreme Court. Kathleen Wyatt wants a payout from Dale Vince – although she did not lodge a claim until nearly 20 years after their divorce.’
Daily Telegraph, 11th March 2015
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘It is not uncommon for data controllers to be faced with subject access requests under s. 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998 the motivations for which appear to have nothing whatever to do with the purposes of the DPA. The DPA seeks to protect individuals’ privacy rights with respect to data which is processed about them. The subject access provisions help people check up on that data and its processing (see for example YS v Minister voor Immigratie (Cases C-141/12 & C-372/12)). In practice, however, a subject access request is a fishing expedition with an eye on prospective litigation.’
Panopticon, 10th March 2015
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
‘In a very welcome determination that comes a mere two years after the abolition of full rights of appeal for visitors but in the middle of the scything of full rights of appeal for everyone else, President McCloskey has turned his attention to the question of the relevance of compliance with the Immigration Rules to a human rights appeal. The answer is that where a person meets the terms of the Immigration Rules, their appeal will normally fall to be allowed on human rights grounds, assuming that human rights are engaged in some way in the first place.’
Free Movement, 10th March 2015
Source: www.freemovement.org.uk
‘A wind power tycoon will learn whether his ex-wife’s claim for a financial settlement lodged almost 20 years after they divorced has been successful.’
BBC News, 11th March 2015
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘In the particular circumstances of the case limited disclosures made by a Revenue and Customs official in an “off the record” briefing with journalists concerning tax avoidance schemes had been made “for the purposes” of a function of the Revenue and Customs, within section 18(2)(a)(i). Therefore there had been no breach of article 18(1) of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005, which required the commissioners to maintain confidentiality of information about a taxpayer’s affairs.’
WLR Daily, 4th March 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘More than 1,000 former senior police officers are seeking compensation after being forced to retire under the controversial regulation A19.’
BBC News, 10th March 2015
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘R (Catt) and R (T) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2015] UKSC 9. A majority of the Supreme Court has held that the retention by police of information on the Domestic Extremism Database about a 91 year-old activist’s presence at political protests was (1) in accordance with the law and (2) a proportionate interference with his right to a private life under Article 8(1) of the ECHR.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 6th March 2015
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘A brand-owner generally wants to use the same brand across several countries, but there are industries where national branding is common. Pharmaceuticals is one. In a free trade bloc like the EU this leads to a tension between the free movement of goods and protection of IP rights. The interplay of the EU rules in this area has come under the spotlight in SEP v Doncaster.’
Technology Law Update, 6th March 2015
Source: www.technology-law-blog.co.uk
‘Ben Wooldridge, pupil at 1 Hare Court, reviews the court’s treatment of nuptial agreements since Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC 42, highlighting emerging trends and the growing significance of the parties’ intentions in determining enforceability.’
Family Law Week, 5th MArch 2015
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘A group of employees who successfully appealed a tribunal ruling over the interpretation of their contracts cannot recover court fees because their union paid them, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has decided.’
Litigation Futures, 4th March 2015
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘John Tughan QC of 4 Paper Buildings reviews recent judgments of particular importance to all practitioners in public children law.’
Family Law Week, 3rd March 2015
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
Blakesley v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2015] EWCA Civ 141; [2015] WLR (D) 96
‘The Government was not obliged to make lump sum payments to successful applicants for asylum representing the difference between the support they received while their application was being processed and mainstream benefits.’
WLR Daily, 26th February 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A tortious claim for inducement of breach of a contractual term providing for exclusive jurisdiction of the English Court brought against a defendant domiciled in Germany where the harmful event did not occur in England could not be brought in the English court since article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 did not apply.’
WLR Daily, 26th February 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank and another v Pugachev [2015] EWCA Civ 139; [2015] WLR (D) 94
‘Under the terms of a freezing order the court had jurisdiction to order a member of a class of beneficiaries under a discretionary trust to make disclosure of the details of the trust and the trust assets.’
WLR Daily, 27th February 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v Akhtar (Itzaz) [2015] EWCA Crim 176; [2015] WLR (D) 91
‘Where a jury brought in a guilty verdict on one count but were unable to agree on another count, a retrial on that other count was not an abuse of process unless the two counts were true alternatives in that they were mutually exclusive alternatives.’
WLR Daily, 26th February 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v Boardman [2015] EWCA Crim 175; [2015] WLR (D) 92
‘A judge was fully entitled to refuse to allow the prosecution to adduce evidence of telephone data records where they had failed to progress the case properly or in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Rules or other direction even though such refusal effectively brought the prosecution to an end. The Court of Appeal would support trial judges in the exercise of their discretion in discharging their case management responsibilities.’
WLR Daily, 26th February 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘It was implicit in the terms of sections 73 and 73A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended, that in an appropriate case a planning authority considering an application under section 73 for planning permission to proceed with a development without complying with conditions attached to an existing permission might grant, under section 73A, retrospective planning permission for a development already carried out, subject to conditions imposed under section 70. There might be some unusual circumstance that would require the inspector to forewarn the applicant that he was minded to act under section 73A.’
WLR Daily, 25th February 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Supreme Court, 25th February 2015
© Inner Temple Library 2025