‘The Court of Appeal has rejected the claim that a man convicted of a sexual offence after a police officer posed online as a child was given inadequate legal advice.’
Legal Futures, 8th July 2021
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘The United Kingdom has been ordered by the European Court of Human Rights to pay damages and legal costs to a social worker who was unfairly accused of professional misconduct by a Family Court judge.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 7th July 2021
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Three innocent black men who were jailed nearly 50 years ago over a corrupt police officer’s claims they tried to rob him have had their convictions overturned by the court of appeal.’
The Guardian, 6th July 2021
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘As to the seven year rule saga, the Court of Appeal has held that in a situation where a child whose parents had no entitlement to leave to remain in the UK applied for leave to remain pursuant to paragraph 276ADE(1)(iv) of the Immigration Rules on the basis that they had seven years’ continuous residence and it would not be reasonable to expect them to leave, the starting point is that it would be reasonable to expect them to leave with their parents. Overstayers “NA” and “SB” were a married couple and were Bangladeshi nationals whose children “YS” and “YA” were born in the UK. The family appealed against a decision of the Upper Tribunal upholding the SSHD’s refusal of their application for leave to remain in the UK. In April 2018 the family applied for leave to remain. YS had made his claim under paragraph 276ADE(1)(iv) on the basis that he had lived continuously in the UK for at least seven years and it would not be reasonable to expect him to leave. His parents and brother had no entitlement to remain under the rules but contended that their removal would interfere with their rights pursuant to article 8 of the ECHR. The decision-maker refused all four applications. In May 2019, FTTJ Bart-Smith dismissed the appeals and UTJ Stephen Smith subsequently found an error of law in the FTT’s decision but re-made it by again dismissing the appeal in November 2019.’
EIN Blog, 6th July 2021
Source: www.ein.org.uk
‘The Court of Appeal has made no order for costs in a case where it allowed a mother’s appeal against an order made in the Court of Protection discharging her as a party to proceedings concerning her highly vulnerable 19-year-old daughter.’
Local Government Lawyer, 5th July 2021
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Four out of five rejected human trafficking claims challenged in the UK last year were overturned, according to newly obtained figures that have raised concerns that poor decision-making is putting lives at risk.’
The Guardian, 2nd July 2021
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Choudhry J’s judgment in Maya Forstater v CGD Europe is well-reasoned and clear, and repays reading in full for anyone interested in the difficult interplay between the rights of those with conflicting protected characteristics.’
Parklane Plowden Chambers, 29th June 2021
Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk
‘John Clargo discusses the recent Supreme Court decision in Rittson-Thomas & Ors v Oxfordshire County Council [2021] UKSC 13 and its implications for “statutory reverters” under section 2 of the School Sites Act 1841.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 1st July 2021
Source: hardwicke.co.uk
‘The solicitors to claimants who acquired a cause of action to sue the insolvent defendant’s lawyers for professional negligence cannot be prevented from accessing privileged material, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’
Legal Futures, 2nd July 2021
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘We are grateful to the contributors to this Newsletter. Sam Skinner’s case note on the recent decision in R -v- Brecani addresses the consequence of this important shift away from accepting as expert evidence the conclusive decisions made by civil servants within the Home Office on referrals for human trafficking and modern slavery. Kate Kelleher provides a timely reminder that the provisions of the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021 is in force from 29th June 2021 and provides a commentary on the most notable recent developments in the prosecutions of animal welfare offences. In April and May Catherine Rose and Tom Parker ran a 2-part webinar session on Open-Source Evidence with contributions from a panel of leading experts from the US and UK. Their article is just a taster of the material covered in greater depth in the sessions. A timely warning to apply the basic critical analysis we use in relation to evidence from many scientific fields to all such evidence before relying on it at face value. Mary Prior Q.C. has provided a comprehensive round up in the Crime Bulletin of all the recent decisions of importance in a broad spectrum of procedural and offence-based areas.’
The 36 Group, 28th June 2021
Source: 36group.co.uk
‘A woman who wrapped her newborn baby in plastic bags and left her to die on farmland has lost an appeal against her murder conviction.’
BBC News, 29th June 2021
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Minister v Hathaway & Anor (2021) EWCA Civ 936. A Court of Appeal judgment on the applicability of the Assured Shorthold Tenancy Notices and Prescribed Requirements (England) Regulations 2015 to tenancies that pre-date 1 October 2015.’
Nearly Legal, 27th June 2021
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘D’Costa v D’Andrea & Ors (HOUSING – RENT REPAYMENT ORDERS – the defence of reasonable excuse) (2021) UKUT 144 (LC).’
Nearly Legal, 27th June 2021
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘In Meadows v Khan [2021] UKSC 21, the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed Ms Meadows’ appeal, finding that there was no principled basis for excluding a clinical negligence claim from the ambit of the ‘scope of duty principle’ in the tort of negligence. The judgment can be read here. This short blog looks at the majority’s reasoning.’
Ropewalk Clinical Negligence Blog, 24th June 20201
Source: www.ropewalk.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court has ruled that protests can be a “lawful excuse” to block roads, as the government pushes for new laws to limit peaceful demonstrations. Britain’s most senior judges said it was right to acquit a group of protesters who blockaded the Defence and Security Equipment International (DSEI) arms fair in London in 2017.’
The Independent, 26th June 2021
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘Last month, the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment in Septo Trading Inc v Tintrade Ltd. While the case does not change the law, it provides a helpful outline as to the approach to be taken to interpreting alleged inconsistencies between bespoke terms and the terms of standard forms within a given contract. The case will be of general interest to practitioners, in particular those whose practice incorporates construction or shipping work, where standard forms are commonplace.’
Practical Law: Construction Blog, 24th June 2021
‘In Khan v. Meadows [2021] UKSC 21 the Supreme Court has revisited the principles to be applied in “wrongful birth” claims: claims for the cost of bringing up a disabled child who would not have been born but for a doctor’s negligent medical advice/treatment. However, the judgment has implications beyond the world of clinical negligence litigation. The Supreme Court has taken the opportunity to clarify the components or ingredients of the tort negligence more generally. In particular, the Court has affirmed the importance of the “scope of duty” principle: a principle which limits the recoverability of damages wherever it applies. In particular, it is not sufficient for a claimant to establish that – with competent advice – they would have made a different decision about their treatment or care. They must also demonstrate that the particular harm that they have suffered fell within the scope of the defendant’s duty of care.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 24th June 2021
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Aaqib Javed and Holly Littlewood review the latest cases of interest to Court of Protection practitioners.’
Local Government Update, 25th June 2021
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Richard Furlong considers the Court of Appeal decision in Barnet v Kamyab, and the prospect of Edis LJ conducting a fact-finding confiscation hearing. An interesting issue arises as to the first-instance defendant’s right of appeal from that exercise.’
Carmelite Chambers, 6th June 2021
Source: www.carmelitechambers.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025