‘Johnny Depp has been denied the right to appeal by the High Court following its ruling which found that the claims that he assaulted his ex-wife Amber Heard were “substantially true”.’
The Independent, 27th November 2020
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘The case was concerned with a private prosecution for fraud offences, which had ultimately resulted in a £20 million confiscation order and £17 million compensation orders. The private prosecutor’s unsuccessful submissions against a third party in proceedings to enforce the confiscation order had led to the unusual spectacle of the Lord Chancellor intervening and persuading a High Court judge to reverse her decision on a jurisdictional question and set aside the order she had previously made. It prompted the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) to conduct a comprehensive review of the primary and secondary legislation and the authorities on private prosecutions, confiscation, costs and the sometimes blurred lines between criminal and civil proceedings.’
CrimeCast.Law, 24th November 2020
Source: crimecast.law
‘An important point regarding the nature of demurrage may, finally, have been conclusively determined by the High Court in this recent case, which came before Mr Justice Andrew Baker. It is however presently the subject of an appeal to the Court of Appeal (leave having been granted by the learned judge), so a definitive answer is awaited.’
33 Bedford Row, 12th November 2020
Source: www.33bedfordrow.co.uk
‘This credit hire appeal case was heard in the Court Of Appeal on 15 October 2020 with judgment being handed down on 4 November. It was heard by Lord Justice Coulson who gave the leading judgment, Lady Justice Davies and Lady Justice Rose agreeing.’
Park Square Barristers, 13th November 2020
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
‘In Diriye v Bojaj [2020] EWCA Civ 1400, the Court of Appeal handed down an important judgment clarifying the scope of the deemed service provisions in CPR 6.26 in the context of signed for deliveries. The Court held that a “Signed For 1st Class” delivery would still be deemed served “on the second day after it was posted” in accordance with CPR 6.26, regardless of the date on which it was actually signed for and received.’
Littleton Chambers, 11th November 2020
Source: littletonchambers.com
‘The Supreme Court has on 13 November 2020 handed down the judgment in this case concerning the appropriate standard of proof for conclusions at inquests.’
Park Square Barristers, 13th November 2020
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
‘When assessing the suitability of a (refused) offer of accommodation made under s.193 Housing Act 1996 duty, what is the relevant date, or dates? That was the issue for the Court of Appeal in this second appeal by Bromley from a s.204 appeal which had quashed Bromley’s decision that the accommodation offered was suitable.’
Nearly Legal, 23rd November 2020
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘The Royal Mail service ‘Signed For 1st Class’ is first-class post or equivalent for the purposes of the deemed service provisions of the CPR, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 23rd November 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The Supreme Court has unanimously allowed this long-awaited appeal arising in the course of long-running proceedings known as the Franked Investment Income (“FII”) Group Litigation. The FII Group Litigation brings together many claims concerning the way in which advance corporation tax and corporation tax used to be charged on dividends received by UK-resident companies from non-resident subsidiaries. The respondents to this appeal are claimants within the FII Group Litigation whose cases have been selected to proceed as test claims on certain common issues (“the Test Claimants”). These issues are being determined in phases, with the courts’ decisions affecting not just the other claims within the FII Group Litigation, but potentially also a number of other sets of proceedings brought by corporate taxpayers against the appellant, the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (“HMRC”).’
UKSC Blog, 20th November 2020
Source: ukscblog.com
‘Can an English family court order the unlawful detention of a Welsh child?’
Transparency Project, 22nd November 2020
Source: www.transparencyproject.org.uk
‘Shamima Begum ran away to Syria as a 15-year-old to join the self-proclaimed Islamic State. But when the terror group was defeated, she ended up in a refugee camp in Syria.’
BBC News, 22nd November 2020
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘A judge was wrong to rule that solicitors had reached a binding compromise on a piece of litigation, when their correspondence had expressly been “subject to contract”, the Court of Appeal has decided.’
Litigation Futures, 23rd November 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Until March 2019, the UK operated an immigration policy – set out in Chapter 60 of the General Instructions to Home Office caseworkers – that worked like this: if a migrant did not have leave to enter or remain in the UK (that is, if they were an “irregular migrant”), the Secretary of State for the Home Department could serve a “notice of removal window”. After a short notice period (usually just 72 hours), the “removal window” (usually 3 months) would open. During the removal window, the migrant could forcibly be removed at any time, without further warning.’
Oxford Human Rights Hub, 16th November 2020
Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk
‘The Home Office is reviewing its archives to see if any files exist on Paul Cleeland, who has been fighting to clear his name of murder for 47 years.’
BBC News, 20th November 2020
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘A defendant’s right to appeal following a magistrates or crown court conviction is widely recognised across the entire criminal justice system. What is much less well-known is what options are available should a defendant’s appeal be unsuccessful. There will always be cases where a defendant or counsel are sincerely of the view that there has been a miscarriage of justice in a particular matter, whether it be the conviction itself is unsafe, or the sentence passed is manifestly excessive. This view may be taken immediately after a failed appeal, or years down the line where new evidence has come to light, shining a different perspective over the case as a whole. But what can they do about it? The jury returned their verdict, the single judge and full Court of Appeal turned them down, what route do they have to have their case looked at again?’
KCH Garden Sq, November 2020
Source: kchgardensquare.co.uk
‘The appeal in Alexander Devine Children’s Cancer Trust v Housing Solutions Ltd [2020] UKSC 45 was the first time that either the Supreme Court or the House of Lords had considered the Upper Tribunal’s power to discharge or modify restrictive covenants affecting land under section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925. The case confirms important principles affecting the interplay between private law property rights, planning and land use. Lord Burrows, giving the only substantive judgment of the Supreme Court, agreed with the Court of Appeal that the Upper Tribunal’s decision was wrong, but disagreed in a number of important respects with the speech of Sales LJ (as he then was) in the Court of Appeal ([2018] EWCA Civ 2679). For a number of reasons, it is likely that we shall be reading and re-reading this Supreme Court decision for many years to come.’
39 Essex Chambers, 9th November 2020
Source: www.39essex.com
‘Richard Clayton QC of Kings Chambers and Exchequer Chambers, and Faisel Sadiq discuss the upcoming appeal in Ludgate House Ltd v Ricketts (VO), in which they are instructed to represent the appellant (London Borough of Southwark), and how it is likely to play a significant role in the future of property guardian schemes.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 4th November 2020
Source: hardwicke.co.uk
‘Making one of the four enhanced awards of beating a part 36 offer does not “in any way” undermine or lessen entitlement to the others, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 18th November 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘In R (on the application of Z and another) (AP) (Appellants) v Hackney London Borough Council and another (Respondents) UKSC 2019/0162, the Supreme Court held that it was lawful for a housing association to provide social housing only to Orthodox Jews, in its first ever ruling on positive action. In this blog, Charlotte Goodman, an equality law barrister at Cloisters, considers the importance of the judgment.’
Cloisters, 6th November 2020
Source: www.cloisters.com
© Inner Temple Library 2025