R v Brown (Appellant) (Northern Ireland) – Supreme Court
R v Brown (Appellant) (Northern Ireland) [2013] UKSC 43 | UKSC 2011/0233 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 26th June 2013
Category: appeals
Abela and others (Appellants) v. Baadarani (Respondent) – Supreme Court
Abela and others (Appellants) v. Baadarani (Respondent) [2013] UKSC 44 | UKSC 2012/0023 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 26th June 2013
Legal Aid Statistics in England and Wales – Ministry of Justice
Legal Aid Statistics in England and Wales (PDF)
Ministry of Justice, 25th June 2013
Source: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-justice
Berney v Saul: No road to Damascus moment – Hardwicke Chambers
“A claimant’s chose in action represented by his claims in litigation is something which has a value, provided it is not certain or nearly certain to fail. Clients pay lawyers to take care of that chose in action by putting the claim forward in the proper way and by managing its progress in accordance with the rules and orders of the Court.”
Hardwicke Chambers, 25th June 2013
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
Right of appeal for family visit visas abolished – Home Office
“Removal of right of appeal for family visit visas will save more than £100 million over next decade.”
Home Office, 25th June 2013
Source: www.gov.uk/home-office
Trustees of the Lehman Brothers Pension Scheme and another v LB Re Financing No Ltd and another – WLR Daily
“When the Pensions Regulator, acting by the determinations panel, made a determination about a financial support direction in relation to a pension scheme, the trustees of that scheme, by virtue of their office, were persons “directly affected” by that determination for the purposes of section 96(3) of the Pensions Act 2004, and accordingly had standing as of right to refer that determination to the Upper Tribunal under that provision. Further, where any person referred such a determination of the Regulator to the Upper Tribunal under section 96(3) of the Act, the two-year time limit in section 43(9), which, prior to amendment by the Pensions Act 2011, required the Regulator to issue a financial support direction within two years of the time which he selected for determining whether the preconditions in section 43(2) for the issue of a direction had been fulfilled, did not apply to any directions which the Upper Tribunal might give regarding a financial support direction under section 103(5) and (6), or to any order made on appeal from those directions.”
WLR Daily, 21st June 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Rule 25.1 and the President’s Guidance in H-L – A ‘necessary’ evil? – Family Law Week
“Christopher Rank, barrister, of Cornwall Street Chambers considers expert evidence, rule 25.1 of the FPR and The President’s recent guidance in Re H-L (A Child).”
Family Law Week, 23rd June 2013
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
Solicitor “not in breach of duties” by failing to facilitate binding mediation agreement – OUT-LAW.com
“A solicitor cannot be held responsible if parties to mediation do not immediately reach a final binding agreement, the Court of Appeal has confirmed.”
OUT-LAW.com, 24th June 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
There’s no place like home – NearlyLegal
“Reading BC v Holt is an important case on the approach to be taken by the courts when making possession orders under Ground 16 (and since 1/4/12, 15A) of the Housing Act 1985.”
NearlyLegal, 23rd June 2013
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
Court of appeal quashes the convictions of four victims of human trafficking and releases new guidelines to protect others – The Independent
“Victims of the ‘vile’ offence of human trafficking who become involved in crime should have their cases dealt with by the justice system with the ‘greatest sensitivity’, leading judges said today.”
The Independent, 21st June 2013
Source: www.independent.co.uk
Vietnamese trafficking victims win appeal against convictions – BBC News
“Three children from Vietnam who were trafficked to the UK and forced to work for criminal gangs have had their criminal convictions quashed.”
BBC News, 21st June 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
Emptage v Financial Services Compensation Scheme Ltd – WLR Daily
Emptage v Financial Services Compensation Scheme Ltd: [2013] EWCA Civ 729; [2013] WLR (D) 242
“Where a broker had negligently advised a client to take out an interest-only mortgage and make an investment in foreign property in the expectation that the investment would pay off the entirety of the mortgage, the Financial Services Compensation Scheme Ltd was required to take into account both elements of the advice when assessing the client’s compensation for the broker’s breach of duty as a mortgage adviser under the scheme’s rules.”
WLR Daily, 18th June 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Cravecrest Ltd v Trustees of the Will of the Second Duke of Westminster and another – WLR Daily
“Where there were intermediate leases which subsisted between the freehold and the leases of the participating tenants and which were to be acquired by the nominee purchaser on the collective enfranchisement, and a single owner of those leases or of those leases and the freehold could realise development value by developing the property for use other than as a building containing separate flats, the hope of realising such development value had to be taken into account in fixing the price to be paid for the intermediate leases.”
WLR Daily, 19th June 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Judicial Review almost never possible where there is a statutory right of appeal – UK Human Rights Blog
“(on the application of Christopher Wilford) v The Financial Services Authority [2013] EWCA Civ 677. This Court of Appeal judgment further reduces the scope for judicial review of a Decision Notice issued by the Financial Services Authority (‘the FSA’, now the Financial Conduct Authority). Indeed it comes close to excluding judicial review of these Notices. This is because there is a statutory mechanism for challenging Decision Notices. This case sheds light on the very limited role of judicial review where there is such a statutory right.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 21st June 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
Judges to explain benefit assessment decisions – BBC News
“Judges in England and Scotland are being asked to explain why they believe someone is unfit to work, in a move ministers hope will improve the decision-making process on benefits.”
BBC News, 21st June 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
Supreme Court considers conditions for removing child for adoption – UK Human Rights Blog
“This appeal concerned whether a child of two years of age should be permanently removed from her parents and placed for adoption; and, in that regard, whether the child was likely to suffer significant harm: within the meaning of s.31(2)(a) of the Children Act 1989; and a consideration of whether her permanent removal might interfere with the exercise of the right to respect for family life under Article 8 of the ECHR, and, if so, whether the order should be proportionate to its legitimate aim of protecting the child.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 20th June 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
UK government proposes “streamlining” regulatory and competition appeals – Competition Bulletin from Blackstone Chambers
“The UK government on Wednesday published a consultation on streamlining regulatory and competition appeals. The press spin was that the proposals are all about preventing ‘armies of lawyers’ from blocking consumer-friendly measures. In reality, although it is true that the proposals are designed in part to put a lid on litigation, the consultation contains a series of thoughtful suggestions – many of which are likely to attract widespread support.”
Competition Bulletin from Blackstone Chambers, 20th June 2013
Source: www.competitionbulletin.com
Cusack (Respondent) v London Borough of Harrow (Appellant) – Supreme Court
Cusack (Respondent) v London Borough of Harrow (Appellant) [2013] UKSC 40 | UKSC 2012/0006 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 19th June 2013
Smith and Others (Appellants) v The Ministry of Defence (Respondent); Ellis and another (FC) (Respondents) v Ministry of Defence (Appellant); Allbutt and others (FC) (Respondents) v The Ministry of Defence (Appellant) – Supreme Court
Supreme Court, 19th June 2013
