‘Michael Jones, barrister, of 15 Winckley Square Chambers considers the lessons to be learned from Re DE (A Child) when care plans provide for placements at home with the family.’
Family Law Week, 7th July 2014
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘The Mitchell ruling has been “misunderstood and is being misapplied by some courts”, the Master of the Rolls said today in issuing more detailed guidance on how it should be used – while also recognising that some of the language used in Mitchell may have contributed to the problems.’
Litigation Futures, 4th July 2014
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
The Upper Tribunal has again found itself considering the issue of Rent Repayment Orders and has provided some further enlightenment on its position after the case of Parker v Waller.
NearlyLegal, 6th July 2014
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘At the end of May, the High Court ruled that the reduction in Housing Benefit under Regulation B13 of Housing Benefit (Amendment) Regulations – commonly dubbed “the bedroom tax” – did not unlawfully discriminate against a family with a disabled child requiring an additional bedroom for overnight careers because the shortfall was covered by discretionary housing payments.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 4th July 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The Supreme Court considered two appeals together, concerning three appellants who had suffered from permanent and catastrophic physical disabilities and wished to die at the time of their choosing. However, they were not physically capable of ending their own life unaided. The court considered, among other things, whether the Suicide Act 1961, s 2 infringed the appellants’ rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, art 8 (ECHR).’
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 7th July 2014
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
Henderson v Foxworth Investments Ltd and another: [2014] UKSC 41 ; [2014] WLR (D) 290
‘In the absence of some other identifiable error, an appellate court would interfere with a trial judge’s factual findings only if it were satisfied that his decision was “plainly wrong” in the sense that it could not reasonably be explained or justified.’
WLR Daily, 2nd July 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The fight by two charities against cuts to prison law legal aid will continue after the Court of Appeal granted permission to appeal the High Court’s rejection of the challenge.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 2nd July 2014
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
Supreme Court, 2nd July 2014
Henderson (Respondent) v Foxworth Investments Limited and another (Appellants) [2014] UKSC 41 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 2nd July 2014
Supreme Court, 2nd July 2014
‘In a recent bout in the High Court, the specificity of sporting disputes once again came to the fore. In Bruce Baker v British Boxing Board of Control [2014] EWHC 2074 (QB), 25 June 2014, Sir David Eady was faced with the old chestnut of a request for a court to interfere with a national sporting body’s decision to sanction one of its participants. One interim application later, and the BBBC was still standing.’
Competition Bulletin from Blackstone Chambers, 1st July 2014
Source: www.competitionbulletin.com
‘Court of Appeal said ‘aggressive and truculent’ man’s initial detention was unlawful and amounted to false imprisonment.’
Daily Telegraph, 1st July 2014
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘A legal battle between Rupert Murdoch’s News UK and England’s prosecuting authorities over the “astronomical” costs of the record-breaking phone hacking trial will involve “millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money”.’
The Independent, 1st July 2014
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘France is a country which observes its Convention obligations therefore it is not in breach of Article 3 or any other of the Convention’s provisions to return an asylum seeker thence under the Dublin Regulation, since that system provides that once a Member State has “taken charge” of an application for asylum (as France has in this case) it has exclusive responsibility for processing and determining the claim for asylum. The prohibition on religious clothing in public schools in France did not disclose a threat to the second appellant’s Convention rights.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 1st July 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Adam Gray, whose father died in the London Underground bombings, took legal action against his mother, Louise, who lavished the money on home renovations, seven chihuahuas and meals at the Ritz.’
Daily Telegraph, 30th June 2014
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘This second appeal to the Court of Appeal from a s.204 Housing Act 1996 appeal raises three important questions. Unfortunately, the answers to them are rather brief and rather negative. The issues are i) whether a s.202 review of a s.184 decision can come to a finding which is substantially worse for the applicant that the original s.184 decision; ii) whether a review officer should conduct a hazard assessment (Housing Act 2004) when considering whether it is reasonable for an applicant to occupy their accommodation; and iii) how far should a review officer look to the future when considering whether the applicant is homeless.’
NearlyLegal, 30th June 2014
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘A local authority’s review officer was entitled to substitute a less favourable decision than the original decision in relation to a homeless applicant because circumstances had changed, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’
Local Government Lawyer, 27th June 2014
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘A High Court judge has refused Greenwich Council’s application for judicial review of a planning inspector’s decision to allow the removal of the affordable housing requirement attached to a planning permission, according to a report in Planning Magazine.’
OUT-LAW.com, 27th June 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Although there was no doubt that there were circumstances in which the High Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, could properly make an order requiring someone to lodge their passport with the court or with some suitable custodian it was not permissible to make such an order to compel a third party without parental responsibility, or any other form of power or control over the child, to take steps to secure the return of an abducted child. Furthermore, where the subject of the order was not yet 17 it was simply wrong as a matter of principle to attach a penal notice to the order since a child could not be imprisoned or detained for contempt.’
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024