“A housing authority was not required to issue court proceedings before evicting the occupier of accommodation made available on a licence by a housing authority pursuant to its interim duty under sections 188(1) or 190(2)(a) of the Housing Act 1996.”
WLR Daily, 11th July 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The requirement, laid down under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971, that rules affecting immigrants be laid before Parliament before they became lawful applied to rules which a migrant had to fulfil as a condition of his obtaining leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom and did not apply to rules which an educational establishment had to fulfil before it was entitled to sponsor students from outside the European Economic Area.”
WLR Daily, 17th July 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v Bestel; Regina v Raza; Regina v Bashir [2013] EWCA Crim 1305 ; [2013] WLR (D) 296
“A change in the law since the date of conviction or plea of guilty was not regarded as good reason for granting an extension of time in which to appeal unless substantial injustice would follow from application of the principle of finality. In cases in which the benefit from criminal conduct had been assessed on a basis which was, if considered in the light of a change in the law, disproportionate, substantial injustice would not be established if an application to the Crown Court for rescission of the confiscation order would ameliorate the stringency of the application of the finality principle.”
WLR Daily, 19th July 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The Administrative Court is the latest body to become involved in the on-going saga related to disclosure of the Prince of Wales’ correspondence with government departments. In the recent case of R. (Evans) v. Attorney General [2013] EWHC 1960 (Admin), the Guardian journalist Rob Evans challenged the legality of the government’s decision to veto disclosure of the relevant correspondence between Prince Charles and a range of government ministers. Disclosure of most of this material had been ordered under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) by the Upper Tribunal, allowing an appeal from Evans against the earlier decision of the Information Commissioner that the correspondence sought could be withheld.”
UK Constitutional Law Group, 22nd July 2013
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
“A man who sprayed water in the face of his neighbour as she trimmed a Leylandii hedge has had a conviction of battery overturned on appeal after a judge ruled it was an accident.”
Daily Telegraph, 22nd July 2013
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
Regina (Minter) v Chief Constable of Hampshire Constabulary [2013] EWCA Civ 697; [2013] WLR (D) 289
“A convicted sex offender on whom an extended sentence was passed pursuant to section 85(2) of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 became subject to the notification requirements of Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 for an indefinite period under section 82(1) of the 2003 Act, if the aggregate of the custodial term and the extension period was 30 months or more, even if the custodial term was less than 30 months.”
WLR Daily, 1st May 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“‘Genuine use’ within the meaning of article 15(1) and article 51(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 could be fulfilled where a Community figurative mark was used only in conjunction with a Community word mark which was superimposed over it, and the combination of those two marks was, furthermore, itself registered as a Community trade mark, to the extent that the differences between the form in which that trade mark was used and that in which it was registered did not change the distinctive character of that trade mark as registered. Where a Community trade mark was not registered in colour, but the proprietor had used it extensively in a particular colour or combination of colours with the result that it had become associated in the mind of a significant portion of the public with that colour or combination of colours, the colour or colours which a third party used in order to represent a sign alleged to infringe that trade mark were relevant in the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion or unfair advantage pursuant to article 9(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009. The fact that the third party making use of a sign which allegedly infringed the registered trade mark was itself associated, in the mind of a significant portion of the public, with the colour or particular combination of colours which it used for the representation of that sign was relevant to the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion and unfair advantage for the purposes of article 9(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009.”
WLR Daily, 18th July 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The Appeal Panel of the Cricket Discipline Commissions of the ECB has published its decision upholding the lifetime ban on former Pakistan international spin bowler, Danish Kaneria, from any involvement in the playing, organisation or administration of cricket under the jurisdiction of the ECB. The Pakistan Cricket Board has acknowledged the decision, and so the impact of the suspension is that Kaneria will remain banned for life from involvement in professional cricket.”
Sports Law Bulletin from Blackstone Chambers, 19th July 2013
Source: www.sportslawbulletin.org
“Andrzej Bojarski of 36 Bedford Row examines the law and the latest guidance relating to self help disclosure.”
Family Law Week, 18th July 2013
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
“Employers must get their social media policies in order, say Chris Bryden & Michael Salter.”
New Law Journal, 19th July 2013
Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk
“A High Court judge has struck off three solicitors after ruling that a Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal had been too lenient in punishing the trio.”
Law Society’s Gazette, 19th July 2013
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
“This case concerns a hitherto little-explored aspect of the right to a private and family life: a parent’s opportunity to teach their offspring about their own religious faith.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 20th July 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“Robin Mathew’s article above discusses the decision of the Supreme Court in Pitt v Holt and Futter v Futter so far as it dealt with ‘inadequate consideration’ by trustees. But the court also dealt with the general law of mistake in dispositions of property. Here it disagreed with the Court of Appeal.”
Full story (PDF) (see p. 2)
New Square Chambers, June 2013
Source: www.newsquarechambers.co.uk
Benedetti v Sawiris and others [2013] UKSC 50; [2013] WLR (D) 286
“A restitutionary award made on the basis of unjust enrichment where the benefit was in the form of services was normally to be assessed by reference to the objective market value of the services, tested by the price which a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would have had to pay for the services, and taking into account conditions which increased or decreased the objective value of the benefit to any reasonable person in that position.”
WLR Daily, 17th July 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“A heresy usually derives from the earnest application of principle without the benefit of perspective. Addressing the rule in Hastings Bass, and its heretical application over many years by the High Court, the Supreme Court in Pitt v Holt and Futter v Futter [2013] uKSC 26 has greatly narrowed its use and effect.”
Full story (PDF)
New Square Chambers, June 2013
Source: www.newsquarechambers.co.uk
“There is a curious if not bizarre set of anomalies about planning and environmental challenges. Where they involve an attack on a decision by the Secretary of State (typically in respect of a decision by a planning inspector after inquiry), the route is via section 288 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990. There is a strict 6 week time limit, with no discretion to extend – but no need for permission to apply as in judicial review. But where there is a challenge to any other decision, the time limit (at the moment) is 3 months, with discretion to extend – but also a discretion to disallow if the application was not ‘prompt’ even within the 3 months (see my post on this last point) and the permission hurdle to clear.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 18th July 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“There may be circumstances in which the eight-day period solicitors have to challenge interventions into their practices should be extended, the Court of Appeal has suggested.”
Legal Futures, 19th July 2013
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
DL v EL (Abduction: Effect of Court Order): [2013] EWCA Civ 865; [2013] WLR (D) 285
“The lawful removal of a child from the United States to the United Kingdom pursuant to the order of a court in Texas did not become unlawful when that order was subsequently reversed by the Texan appellate court.”
WLR Daily, 16th July 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Benedetti (Appellant) v Sawiris and others (Respondents) [2013] UKSC 50 | UKSC 2011/0087 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 17th July 2013
© Inner Temple Library 2024