“A man who was jailed following rioting in Nottingham last year is planning to challenge his conviction in the European Court of Human Rights.”
BBC News, 6th August 2012
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“The Government broke the law when it stripped an unemployed man of his benefits for six months after he refused to participate in an unpaid back-to-work scheme, the High Court has ruled.”
The Independent, 7th August 2012
Source: www.independent.co.uk
“Government back-to-work schemes criticised as ‘forced labour’ were ruled lawful by the high court on Monday.”
The Guardian, 6th August
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Deutsche Bahn AG and others v Morgan Crucible and others: [2012] EWCA Civ 1055; [2012] WLR (D) 244
“Where an addressee of a decision of the European Commission that there had been an infringement of competition law appealed to the General Court of the European Union against that decision, the two-year limitation period for the bringing of ‘follow-on’ proceedings in the Competition Appeal Tribunal would not begin to run against any other addressees of the decision until the appeal had been determined.”
WLR Daily, 31st July 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Jamaica is celebrating the 50th anniversary of independence from Britain next week. The government in Kingston is talking about becoming a republic and is also looking at ending a legal legacy of the British Empire.”
BBC News, 3rd August 2012
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“Dorothea Gartland, barrister, 4 Paper Buildings and Penny Logan, principal lawyer, Cafcass, consider the lessons to be learned from T (Children).”
Family Law Week, 1st August 2012
Source: www.familylawweek.com
Arif v Zar and another [2012] EWCA Civ 986; [2012] WLR (D) 239
“In relation to a bankruptcy order, the court sitting in bankruptcy had to give consideration to the possibility that a person might attempt to use the protection of the order as a shield against the claims of their spouse for ancillary relief. Where there was credible evidence of that the court ought not to be afraid to use its powers to order full disclosure and to require the attendance and cross-examination of witnesses where necessary in order properly and fairly to determine an annulment application. The question of whether it was right to transfer an annulment application to be heard alongside an ancillary relief application in the Family Division depended upon the facts and was a matter of discretion for the registrar or judge asked to transfer it.”
WLR Daily, 18th July 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Where a foreign national was removed from the United Kingdom in consequence of the unlawful issue of a certificate under section 96(2) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 following refusal by the Secretary of State of his application for revocation of a deportation order, there was no presumption that the court should order his return to pursue an in-country appeal.”
WLR Daily, 26th July 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Chambers v Director of Public Prosecutions [2012] EWHC 2157 (Admin); [2012] WLR (D) 234
“A message which did not create fear or apprehension in those to whom it was communicated, or who may reasonably have been expected to see it, was not of a ‘menacing character’ within the meaning section 127(1)(a) of the Communications Act 2003. That provision created an offence of basic intent and, accordingly, the mental element of the offence was satisfied if the accused were proved to have intended that the message should have been of menacing character or alternatively, to have been aware of or to have recognised the risk at the time of sending the message that it might have created fear or apprehension in any reasonable member of the public who had read or seen it. Moreover, a ‘tweet’ sent via the social networking site Twitter, was ‘a message’ sent by an electronic communications service for the purposes of section 127(1) of the 2003 Act regardless of whether the tweet was read as a ‘message’ or as content on the website.”
WLR Daily, 27th July 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to grant an claimant, whose claim for judicial review of a removal order had been rejected by Upper Tribunal, a stay of his removal until his application for permission to appeal had been considered by the Court of Appeal.”
WLR Daily, 27th July 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The Welsh National Opera unfairly dismissed its former principal oboist, the Court of Appeal has ruled.”
BBC News, 31st July 2012
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
Standard Chartered Bank v Ceylon Petroleum Corporation [2012] WLR (D) 232
“In the absence of any indication to the contrary, a commercial entity set up by statute to engage in international and domestic trade had the capacity to enter into the whole range of transactions which a commercial organisation acting in that field of business would ordinarily undertake, including hedging or speculative transactions.”
WLR Daily, 27th July 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Selwood v Durham County Council and others [2012] EWCA Civ 979; [2012] WLR (D) 231
“When determining whether a defendant owed a common law duty of care to a claimant in respect of the actions of a third party on the basis of foreseeability, proximity and fairness, justice and reasonableness, in accordance with the test laid down in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605, there was no need to show that the defendant had assumed any responsibility for the claimant’s safety. In determining whether it was fair, just and reasonable to impose that duty of care on a defendant who was a public authority, additional factors of public policy had to be considered and some classes of claimant would stand in such a special relationship with the defendant public authority that it would be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care in respect of the actions of a third party. In respect of that limited class of claimants, the weight to be attached to some of the policy considerations which rendered a duty to a wider class undesirable was much less than if the duty was one owed to the world at large. In order to establish the existence of a duty of care on the basis of an assumption of responsibility, there was no requirement for something positive to that effect to have been said or something done which clearly indicated such assumption, and the assumption of responsibility could be inferred from circumstances.”
WLR Daily, 18th July 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The Secretary of State’s duty to endeavour to trace the family members of an unaccompanied minor seeking asylum was not discharged by merely informing the child of the facilities of the Red Cross. A failure to discharge the duty might be relevant to judicial consideration of an asylum or humanitarian protection claim. Such failure might also be relevant to a consideration of the duty under section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009.”
WLR Daily, 25th July 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v M (A) [2012] WLR (D) 228
“Where there had been a breach of the balloting requirements in the selection of members of a jury, unless the defendant made clear his objection to the breach, at or as soon as practicable after, the time it occurred the irregularity could not be corrected on appeal.”
WLR Daily, 24th July 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The prices that BT charged rivals to access parts of its network to provide services to their subscribers were not justified, the Court of Appeal has ruled.”
OUT-LAW.com, 30th July 2012
Source: www.out-law.com
“Sally Gore, barrister, of 14 Gray’s Inn Square, examines developments concerning applications for assessment under section 38(6) of the Children Act 1989 culminating in the Court of Appeal’s clarification in S (A Child) [2011].”
Family Law Week, 27th July 2012
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
“The judgment in the #twitterJoketrial is an important one for Paul Chambers who has been acquitted and can now get on with his life without the stain of criminal conviction hanging over his head.”
Charon QC, 28th July 2012
Source: www.charonqc.wordpress.com
“Charon QC” is the blogging pseudonym of Mike Semple Piggot, editor of insitelaw newswire.
“The famous ‘Twitter joke’ conviction of Paul Chambers has been overturned on appeal, bringing welcome clarity to what is and what is not an offence of this type. On discovering a week before he was due to take a flight that the airport was closed due to adverse weather conditions, he tweeted that ‘I am blowing the airport sky high!!’ unless the situation was resolved by the time of his flight. He was convicted of sending a message of a ‘menacing character’, but has had the conviction quashed on appeal, on the basis that, as it was a joke, it was not of a menacing character.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 27th July 2012
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“The director of public prosecutions (DPP) stopped his staff dropping the case against Paul Chambers, author of the ‘Twitter joke’ about blowing up Robin Hood airport in South Yorkshire, it has been claimed.”
The Guardian, 29th July 2012
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025