‘A First-Tier Tribunal (Health, Education and Social Care Chamber) case was not conducted unfairly despite an appellant and a witness having difficulty in hearing the online proceedings, the Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber has decided.’
Local Government Lawyer, 23rd September 2021
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The judgment in Forstater v CDG Europe UKEAT/0105/20/JOJ has forced the courts yet again to grapple with the transgender debate. We have already seen the judiciary face up to the challenging issues of whether children with gender dysphoria can consent to receiving puberty blockers (see recent decision in Bell v Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust [2021] EWCA Civ 1363). In the present case, the issue was whether the Claimant’s belief that biological sex is real, important, immutable, and not to be conflated with gender identity was a “philosophical belief” within the meaning of section 10 of Equality Act 2010 (“EqA”).’
UK Human Rights Blog, 21st September 2021
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The London Borough of Sutton has lost a case in the Upper Tribunal over whether a tenancy arrangement was a sham to increase housing benefit.’
Local Government Lawyer, 16th September 2021
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Mahandru v Nielson (2021) EWHC 2297 (QB). An appeal of a County Court decision to refuse an interim injunction for re-entry in a claim for illegal eviction.’
Nearly Legal, 12th September 2021
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘R (Akinola & Anor) v Upper Tribunal & Anor [2021] EWCA Civ 1308 (26 August 2021). In these judicial review proceedings, the Court of Appeal decided that in circumstances where an extension of time had been granted for an out-of-time appeal against the refusal of an application to vary limited leave to remain, the original leave was revived under section 3C(2)(c) of the Immigration Act 1971 with future effect from the time when the appeal was instituted. The appeal was instituted and became a pending appeal within section 3C(2)(c) when the notice of appeal was filed, not the date when the extension of time was granted. The Court of Appeal found that the withdrawal of a decision did not have the consequence of causing leave to be extended retroactively under section 3C from the date of the decision. Three conjoined appeals, namely those of Ms Akinola, Mr Abbas and Mr Anwar, raised issues about the interpretation and effect of section 3C which provides for the extension of immigration leave in certain defined circumstances. Of key importance was the position under section 3C where an application has been made to vary existing leave, the application has been refused by a decision of the SSHD, and later (i) there is an out-of-time appeal for which an extension of time is granted, or (ii) the decision-maker withdraws and/or reconsiders the decision. The issues arose in the context of applications under paragraph 276B of the Immigration Rules for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) on the ground of long residence.’
EIN Blog, 13th September 2021
Source: www.ein.org.uk
‘Roderick Morton analyses an appeal against a decision of an inspector to dismiss the appellant’s appeal against an enforcement notice issued by a council in respect of the unauthorised conversion of a property into two flats.’
Local Government Lawyer, 10th September 2021
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘A private landlord will have her appeal of a £7,000 penalty for failure to license a house in multiple occupation (HMO) decided by a different judge after it was initially refused by the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) because her solicitor failed to pay the hearing fee on time, the Upper Tribunal has ruled.’
Local Government Lawyer, 7th September 2021
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘This was a second appeal to the Court of Appeal from the Upper Tribunal on two issues arising from long running litigation between the freeholder, West India Quay and the head lessee, East Tower Apartments (ETAL) on the arrangements for and charging for utilities for the residential parts of the building (a 33 storey tower, including a hotel). The initial proceedings brought by ETAL had gone through the FTT and the Upper Tribunal and had resulted in a significant reduction in charges. For our purposes, the relevant part of these decisions where that ‘Switch 2) – the utility provider – had levied “standing charges” (actually costs for reading meters and preparing bills) from 2008 onwards. The freeholder had included these charges in the utility charge to the lessee. The FTT had found that they were not recoverable, as there had never been “a contractually valid demand for them as service charges, and it was not open to the Landlord to “re-allocate” them as general service charge.”’
Nearly Legal, 5th September 2021
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘On 6 July 2021 the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) published its judgment in the case of Norman v UK (Application no. 41387/17). The case concerned Mr Robert Norman, an officer at Belmarsh prison, who in 2015 was convicted of misconduct in public office for passing a variety of information to a tabloid journalist in exchange for money. The ECtHR found that, in Mr Norman’s case, the offence itself did not constitute a breach of Article 7 ECHR (no punishment without law): Mr Norman’s conduct was sufficiently serious for it to have been foreseeable that it would constitute a criminal offence. The ECtHR also found that the newspaper’s disclosure of Mr Norman’s activities to the police, and his subsequent prosecution and conviction, did not breach his rights under Article 10 ECtHR (freedom of expression).’
UK Human Rights Blog, 6th September 2021
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The recent case of E v L has once again brought to the fore short marriages and their treatment within financial remedy cases.’
Family Law, 3rd September 2021
Source: www.familylaw.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal recently heard an appeal against an order dismissing an application by the birth mother of three children to revoke an adoption order made in respect of those children. Fran Massarella looks at the outcome.’
Local Government Lawyer, 3rd September 2021
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Pharmaceutical manufacturers that claim patent rights over multiple compounds on the basis of a general formula will welcome a new ruling by the Court of Appeal in London, experts in patent litigation have said.’
OUT-LAW.com, 2nd September 2021
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘Liberty, Privacy International and 29 other organisations have called for Parliament to ban the use of live facial recognition technology (LFRT) by the police and private companies.’
Local Government Lawyer, 31st August 2021
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal has granted the Department of Health and Social Care permission to appeal a key ruling on the issue of ‘ordinary residence’ for the purposes of s.117(3) of the Mental Health Act.’
Local Government Lawyer, 31st August 2021
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Global 100 Ltd v Kyselakova & Ors (2021) EW Misc 13 (CC). This is the judgment in an appeal to a Circuit Judge – HHJ Luba QC – from a possession order made by a District Judge at the first hearing of the possession claim. The issues involved the threshold for “circumstances where the defendant had disputed the claim on grounds that appeared to be substantial.” for the purposes of CPR 55.8, (which is of broad application to all residential possession claims) as well as putative defences to the claim.’
Nearly Legal, 25th August 2021
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘Two film partnerships were carrying on a trade with a view to profit, meaning that loss relief was available to individual investors, the Court of Appeal has decided, restoring a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (FTT).’
OUT-LAW.com, 26th August 2021
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘The EAT’s earlier decision in Timothy James Consulting Ltd v Wilton [2015] IRLR 368 had been decided per incuriam European Directives and domestic case law, in the light of which it was “manifestly wrong”. In so far as Wilton had decided that a constructive dismissal could not itself amount to an act of unlawful harassment within the meaning of section 26 of the Equality Act 2010 (“EqA”), it would not be followed.’
3PB, August 2021
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
‘The combined effect of sections 1 and 39 of the Act is that on application of an entitled applicant the court may discharge a care order or replace it with a supervision order, in which case there is no requirement for the s 31(2) threshold to be crossed (the threshold for making a care or supervision order – significant harm). As the decision concerns a question of upbringing, the child’s welfare is the court’s paramount consideration, and particular regard is to be given to the factors in the welfare checklist in s1(3). The court shall not make the order unless to do so would be better for the child than making no order. Provisions of the Act must, so far as is possible to do so, be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with rights protected by Arts 3 and 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950.’
Becket Chambers, 20th August 2021
Source: becket-chambers.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed this appeal concerning two questions of law:
(i) whether a change in the wording of equality legislation has altered the burden of proof in employment discrimination cases, and
(ii) when a tribunal may draw adverse inferences from the absence of a potential witness.’
3PB, 9th August 2021
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025