“I posted back in February about the High Court’s decision in R (Kebede) v Newcastle City Council [2013] EWHC 355 (Admin) that local authorities have a duty (and not a discretion) to make a grant in relation to educational expenses and that this could include a grant for tuition fees.”
Education Law Blog, 4th August 2013
Source: www.education11kbw.com
Supreme Court, 31st July 2013
Supreme Court, 31st July 2013
Supreme Court, 31st July 2013
R v Hughes (Appellant) [2013] UKSC 56 UKSC 2011/0240 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 31st July 2013
Vernon Knight Associates v Cornwall County Council [2013] EWCA Civ 950; [2013] WLR (D) 329
“A landowner owed a measured duty in both negligence and nuisance to take reasonable steps to prevent natural occurrences on his land from causing damage to neighbouring properties. In determining the content of that duty, the court had to consider what was fair, just and reasonable as between the neighbouring parties, having regard to all the circumstances including the extent of the foreseeable risk, the available preventive measures, the costs of such measures and the parties’ resources.”
WLR Daily, 30th July 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“A decision by the Financial Services Authority to take no further action against the addressee of a warning notice or decision notice did not become irrevocable or take effect as a discontinuance of proceedings unless it had been communicated to that individual by a notice in accordance with section 389 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.”
WLR Daily, 29th July 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Serious Organised Crime Agency v Azam [2013] EWCA Civ 970; [2013] WLR (D) 327
“Where a person who was the subject of a property freezing order made under Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 applied for the order to be varied so as to permit him to apply some of his assets which were the subject of the order in paying for his legal expenses, he was under no specific burden of proof requiring him to prove that there were no other available assets which could be used for the relevant purpose, such that if he did not discharge the burden his application must fail.”
WLR Daily, 31st July 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“We’ve all been there. Perhaps more frequently, litigants in person have been there (although hopefully not the same LiP over and over again). A warrant for possession is due to be executed the next day. It may even be the same day. The occupier has applied to a District Judge to suspend the warrant. The District Judge has, rightly or wrongly, dismissed that application. The occupier, understandably (even more so if the DJ fell into the ‘wrongly’ category), wants to appeal that decision.”
NearlyLegal, 1st August 2013
Source: www.nearlylegal.org.uk
McGraddie v McGraddie and another [2013] UKSC 58; [2013] WLR (D) 323
“An appellate court should not interfere with the trial judge’s conclusions on primary facts unless it was satisfied that he was plainly wrong.”
WLR Daily, 31st July 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina (Kebede and another) v Newcastle City Council [2013] EWCA Civ 960; [2013] WLR (D) 322
“A local authority had a duty to a former relevant child going on to higher education to make a grant to meet expenses connected with his education, including the major expense of tuition fees.”
WLR Daily, 31st July 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Torfaen County Borough Council v Douglas Willis Ltd [2013] UKSC 59; [2013] WLR (D) 321
“For the purposes of a prosecution under regulation 44(1)(d) of the Food Labelling Regulations 1996 (SI 1996/1499) it was sufficient for the prosecutor to prove that a defendant had food in its possession for the purposes of sale which was the subject of a label showing a “use by” date which had passed.”
WLR Daily, 31st July 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Sud v Ealing London Borough Council [2013] EWCA Civ 949; [2013] WLR (D) 320
“Although an award of costs against a paying party in the employment tribunal was an exceptional event, the tribunal should focus principally on the criteria established in rule 40 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004. Where the tribunal concluded that the party’s conduct of the proceedings had been unreasonable it was necessary for the court to identify the particular unreasonable conduct, along with its effect. That was not a process that entailed a detailed or minute assessment, but instead the court should adopt a broad brush approach, against the background of the totality of the relevant circumstances.”
WLR Daily, 30th July 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v Chapman [2013] EWCA Crim 1370; [2013] WLR (D) 318
“Once an appeal had been constituted by filing a notice of appeal in time or by obtaining an extension of time from the court, the order of the court below was subject to review and not final and the court could not justify refusing to allow the defendant to take advantage of a change in the law which occurred between the filing of the notice of appeal and the hearing itself.”
WLR Daily, 29th July 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Lloyd v Lewisham London Borough Council and another [2013] EWCA Civ 923; [2013] WLR (D) 317
“Paragraph 14(1)(e) of Schedule 5 to the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006 and paragraph 15(1)(e) of Schedule 4 to the Council Tax Benefit Regulations 2006, both of which set out the items of income to be disregarded when calculating a claimant’s income and capital for the purposes of determining entitlement to the relevant benefit, only excluded sums paid under agreements which were made after the injury occurred, not an income loss award paid exclusively for loss of income pursuant to a pre-injury agreement.”
WLR Daily, 29th July 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Where a patent specification made a technical effect “plausible” it was open to a party to mount a challenge to the existence of that effect by the use of later evidence. There was no principled objection to the admission of evidence as to the true nature of the advance made by the invention in connection with an objection of lack of inventive step.”
WLR Daily, 29th July 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Paragraph 5 of Schedule 4A of the Patents Act 1977, rule 116 of the Patents Rules 2007 and rule 6 of the Patents (Fees) Rules 2007 imposed a regime for the payment of annual fees in accordance with article 12 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 and Council Regulation (EC) No 469/2009. The reference to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 in section 128B of the 1977 Act could be construed as a reference to the Council Regulation (EC) No 469/2009.”
WLR Daily, 24th July 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The court of appeal has rejected a request by a paralysed man that doctors should be allowed to help him die.”
The Guardian, 31st July 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“The Court of Appeal has today unanimously dismissed appeals by Jane Nicklinson and Paul Lamb challenging the legal ban on voluntary euthanasia.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 31st July 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“The High Court has unanimously dismissed an application for a declaration that the so-called ‘bedroom tax’ discriminates unlawfully against disabled claimants.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 31st July 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024