“The Court of Appeal has ruled that the statutory requirement that criminal convictions and cautions must be disclosed in an enhanced criminal record check (‘ECRC’) in the context of particular types of employment interfered with the appellants’ right to respect for private life under Article 8.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 30th January 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“TV cameras will be allowed into the court of appeal for the first time from October and senior judges will be offered training before appearing on camera, the lord chief justice has revealed.”
The Guardian, 30th January 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“The statutory regime requiring the blanket disclosure of all convictions and cautions relating to recordable offences against an individual was disproportionate to (i) the general aim of protecting employers and, in particular, children and vulnerable adults who were in their care, and (ii) the particular aim of enabling employers to make an assessment as to whether the individual was suitable for a particular kind of work.”
WLR Daily, 29th Janaury 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
O’Cathail v Transport for London [2013] EWCA Civ 21; [2013] WLR (D) 31
“An employment tribunal’s decision to refuse a claimant’s application to adjourn a hearing could not be set aside by the Employment Appeal Tribunal unless the tribunal had erred in law.”
WLR Daily, 29th January 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The Court of Appeal ruling in Henry yesterday has been met with disappointment and criticism from lawyers for failing to send out a clear message about the importance of costs management, and for risking an onslaught of satellite litigation.”
Litigation Futures, 29th January 2013
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
“A social worker involved in the Baby P case can recover £300,000 in costs from a successful libel claim against The Sun after the Court of Appeal ruled that she had good reason to depart from the court-approved costs budget, the Court of Appeal has ruled.”
Litigation Futures, 28th January 2013
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
Hamilton v Hamilton [2013] EWCA Civ 13; [2013] WLR (D) 26
“An order in ancillary relief proceedings for the payment of a series of lump sums over time was not necessarily an order for a lump sum by instalments, within section 23(3)(c) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, and therefore variable under section 31 of the 1973 Act.”
WLR Daily, 24th January 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Milton Keynes Borough Council v Nulty, decd and others [2013] EWCA Civ 15; [2013] WLR (D) 25
“There was no rule of law that if the only other possible causes of an event were very much less likely than one suggested means of causation, that became the probable cause; the court had to be satisfied on rational and objective grounds that the case for believing that the suggested means of causation occurred was stronger than the case for not so believing.”
WLR Daily, 24th January 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Introductory tenancies require a notice under s.128 Housing Act 1996 to be served before possession proceedings. That notice shall inform the tenant of his right to request a review of the landlord’s decision to seek an order for possession and of the time within which such a request must be made. [s.128(6)]”
NearlyLegal, 26th January 2013
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
“Even since McCann v. UK (2008) 47 EHRR 40, a lot of people (around these parts) have been waiting for a case on Article 8 and the rule in Hammersmith v Monk (Hammersmith and Fulham LBC v. Monk [1992] AC 478) to reach the higher Courts. Is the rule that notice by one joint tenant determines the tenancy for both/all compatible with Article 8 (or Protocol 1 Article 1)? Now one case has got to a higher stage. In a somewhat eccentric fashion, the Court of Appeal has given a distinctly forthright view, even if what the Court could actually do with the appeal was, more or less, nothing at all.”
NearlyLegal, 25th January, 2013
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/
“A rare Rent Act 1977 possession case, with possession sought as ‘reasonably required’ under Case 9 Of Schedule 15 of the 1977 Act via section 98(1).”
NearlyLegal, 24th January 2013
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
“The father of an autistic boy restrained by Metropolitan Police officers after he jumped into a swimming pool has attacked the force for challenging a ruling against them.”
BBC News, 22nd January 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“Central London Community Healthcare NHS Trust v IC (EA/2012/00111) concerned the first monetary penalty notice (MPN) to be appealed to the First-Tier Tribunal. The Trust’s appeal has been dismissed by the Tribunal (Professor Angel, Rosalind Tatam and Paul Taylor).”
Panopticon, 17th January 2013
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
Regina v Nelson (Gary) [2013] WLR (D) 10
“An allegation of assault by beating did not amount to or include, whether expressly or by implication, an allegation of common assault. It would not, therefore, be open to a jury to acquit a defendant of assault by beating but to convict him of common assault, unless the offence of common assault was charged as a separate count in the indictment.”
WLR Daily, 15th January 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Nadia Eweida has succeeded in her claim that the UK breached her right to manifest her religion under article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Readers may remember that she worked for British Airways, and refused to abide by its uniform policy, insisting on wearing a cross visible to customers. By a majority of five to two (the dissenters including the Court’s British former President, Sir Nicolas Bratza), the judges of the European Court of Human Rights found that the English court that dismissed her religious discrimination and human rights claim at national level, the Court of Appeal, gave too much weight to BA’s corporate aims and not enough to Ms Eweida’s desire to manifest her religion by wearing her cross. In consequence, the UK breached its ‘positive obligation’ to protect her right to manifest her religion.”
Head of Legal, 15th January 2013
Source: www.headoflegal.com
“The Strasbourg Court has today [15 January] come up with something of a mixed message in relation to religion at work. They have voted that there is a right to manifest individual faith by wearing religious adornments but not by objecting to practices that are protected by anti-discrimination legislation.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 15th January 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“After seven years of legal appeals and accusations that Christians are being persecuted for their beliefs, the European court of human rights has ruled that a British Airways check-in operator should not have been prevented from wearing a cross at work.”
The Guardian, 15th January 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“A British Airways check-in worker’s right to express her religion was unfairly restricted when she was prevented from wearing a cross at work, the European court of human rights (ECHR) has ruled.”
The Guardian, 15th January 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“The Court of Human Rights has a bad press in Britain – but for thousands of desperate people it is their last shot at justice.”
The Independent, 14th January 2013
Source: www.independent.co.uk
“A widow has been granted leave to continue her late husband’s challenge to the existing law on murder and assisted suicide.”
Law Society’s Gazette, 4th January 2013
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024