‘The industrial action that led to the convictions of union activists and a 47-year campaign to clear their names took place as Edward Heath’s Conservative government sought to weaken the economic power of trade unions.’
The Guardian, 23rd March 2021
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘In Barry Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses v BXB [2021] EWCA Civ 356, Mrs B and her husband had attended the Kingdom Hall in Barry and in 1986 Mrs B was baptised as a Jehovah’s Witness. They became friendly with another couple, Mark and Mary Sewell. Mark Sewell was a ministerial servant and subsequently became an elder. On 30 April 1990, Sewell raped Mrs B in a room in his house – and that fact was undisputed. In 2014, Sewell was convicted of raping Mrs B and of indecently assaulting a girl aged under 14, CXC, and another individual and sentenced to 14 years’ imprisonment. Mrs B sued the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania and the Trustees of the Barry Congregation and, at first instance, Chamberlain J held them vicariously liable for her rape. (He also determined that it was equitable to extend the time to allow the claims to proceed, pursuant to s.33 Limitation Act 1980). He awarded Mrs B £62,000 for psychiatric injuries attributable to the rape. On appeal, the defendants disputed.’
Law & Religion UK, 24th March 2021
Source: lawandreligionuk.com
‘Court of appeal judges have overturned the criminal convictions of a group of trade unionists, including the actor Ricky Tomlinson, after a campaign lasting more than four decades.’
The Guardian, 23rd March 2021
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Ngnoguem v Milton Keynes Council (2020] EWCA Civ 396, We’ve seen this prefigured in Stanley v Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council (2020) EWCA Civ 1458 (our note), but the relevant parts of that judgment on late reviews were strictly obiter, as the court had found that there was an agreement to extend time. Now the Court of Appeal has confirmed the position.’
Nearly Legal, 21st March 2021
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘Awad v Hooley (2021) UKUT 55 (LC). This was an appeal to the Upper Tribunal of the FTT decision on a rent repayment order application that we first saw here.’
Nearly Legal, 21st March 2021
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘Care workers who “sleep-in” are not entitled to the national minimum wage when they are in bed, the Supreme Court has ruled.’
Law Society's Gazette, 19th March 2021
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘An Administrative Court judge should have decided a point of statutory construction about the timetable for producing amended education health and care (EHC) plans instead of declining to do so since it was academic, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’
Local Government Lawyer, 18th March 2021
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The supreme court is to hear a challenge to the government’s decision to hold voter ID trials in 2019 in a case that could have implications for the wider rollout of the scheme.’
The Guardian, 18th March 2021
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The Supreme Court has come under significant criticism for its handling of the Shamima Begum case, decided on 26 February. Much has already been said in relation to the deference that the court showed to the executive, with some arguing that it was improper or even a complete abdication of the judicial role itself. This post seeks to clarify what precisely the court did and did not do in relation to the exercise of its constitutional duty to review the legality of executive action. It will suggest that the Court did not engage in any strong deference as to the nature of Begum’s rights nor to the balance to be struck between those rights and the common good. Such questions remained wholly within the purview of the Court. While the Court did pay due respect to the executive’s authority to determine and pursue the common good, this was subject to an assessment of lawfulness. Any deference, if it can even be called deference, was to the rule of law, given both the statutory scheme in question and the common law distinction between review and appeal. The determination of the scope of individual rights entails an exercise of judicial interpretation which seeks to strike an appropriate balance between the applicable legal considerations. It is not deference for the court to include constitutional principles such as the separation of powers within those considerations.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 17th March 2021
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘On 16 March 2021 the Supreme Court will hear the Secretary of State’s appeal in BF (Eritrea) v Secretary of State for the Home Department.’
UKSC Blog, 15th March 2021
Source: ukscblog.com
‘Few would have thought back on 1 March 2020 that we would, some 12 months later, be facing the first birthday of the strictest restrictions on personal freedoms in living memory. As we approach the anniversary of the first lockdown on 23 March 2020, it seems appropriate that we reconsider one of key questions of family lawyers back in Spring 2020, that of whether the pandemic was likely to satisfy the principles set down in the 1987 case of Barder v Barder [1987] 2 FLR 480. Unprecedented times, there is no doubt, but unprecedented enough to constitute a Barder event?’
Family Law, 12th March 2021
Source: www.familylaw.co.uk
‘In Halcrow & Ors v Crown Prosecution Service [2021] EWHC 483 (Admin), Maryam Halcrow, Angel Grace and Lisa Mead were Pagans of various traditions. All three had been convicted by Swindon Magistrates’ Court of entering the stone circle at Stonehenge on 4 February 2018 and 6 May 2018 without reasonable excuse, contrary to regulation 3(h) of the Stonehenge Regulations 1997 and s.19 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979, and had been sentenced to a conditional discharge. Their appeal to the Crown Court was dismissed [1 & 2].’
Law & Religion UK, 11th March 2021
Source: lawandreligionuk.com
‘In McTear & Mitie v Amey & Others the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the controversial decision of the CJEU in Govaerts applies in domestic law – including to Service Provision Changes (‘SPCs’) under TUPE. This means that the contract of employment of a given employee who transfers pursuant to a SPC may as a matter of law be split between multiple transferees.’
Cloisters, 2nd March 2021
Source: www.cloisters.com
‘The Court of Appeal Criminal Division and the Divisional Court have confirmed the circumstances in which the Crown, a Defendant, or a third party can challenge the making, variation, or failure to make a reporting restriction for a young person in the criminal justice system.’
St Ives Chambers, February 2021
Source: www.stiveschambers.co.uk
‘No doubt much will be written on the Supreme Court’s Shamima Begum ruling handed down on 26 February. The ruling has a number of notable features. In particular, a high level of deference was afforded to the executive which seems to contrast with the Supreme Court’s approach in high profile constitutional cases of recent years (such as, for example, in the Miller cases). A key feature of this deference is that it is offered in a national security context, where judicial deference has often played a role. This deference is partly justified by the Court on the grounds that Ministers are democratically accountable for national security decisions. However, as this post argues, the extent to which democratic accountability is a legitimate ground for judicial deference to national security decisions is questionable in light of current UK practice. This post raises three difficulties with relying on democratic accountability as a ground for deference in the UK national security context.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 9th March 2021
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘Are Uber drivers ‘limb (b) workers’ and so entitled to fundamental statutory rights such as the minimum wage and working time protections? In a decision of fundamental significance, six Justices of the United Kingdom Supreme Court (UKSC) upheld the original Employment Tribunal (ET) decision that the drivers were ‘limb (b) workers. In reaching this conclusion, the UKSC endorsed the ‘purposive’ approach that had been set down in the earlier case of Autoclenz v Belcher by Lord Clarke.’
Oxford Human Rights Hub, 7th March 2021
Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk
‘On 26 February 2021, the Supreme Court refused permission for Shamima Begum to return to the UK. The Supreme Court judgment in the high-profile case of the British woman who left the UK as a 15-year-old girl to travel to Syria to join the so-called Islamic State, however, resulted in the Court effectively washing its hands of the case staying it until a full hearing can occur in future—a remote possibility. In the judgment, Lord Reed held the Court of Appeal was in error by substituting its own view of the balance to be struck between national security and the applicant’s rights. In so doing, the Court of Appeal did not give the Secretary of State’s assessment due respect. In this brief post, I wish to focus on a principal aspect of the Supreme Court’s judgment: the concept of deference.’
Oxford Human Rights Hub, 8th March 2021
Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025