‘Shamima Begum should be allowed to return to the UK to fight the decision to remove her British citizenship, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’
BBC News, 16th July 2020
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘”Paedophile hunters” do not violate the right to privacy, the Supreme Court has ruled while dismissing a convict’s appeal.
Mark Sutherland was convicted after communicating with a member of an activist group, who he believed to be a 13-year-old boy. He appealed his conviction, arguing that his right to a private life and correspondence, enshrined in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Delivering the Supreme Court’s ruling on Wednesday, Lord Sales said the appeal had been “unanimously dismissed”.’
The Independent, 15th July 2020
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘You are the witness to or the victim of a crime. The police officer says that they need you to hand over your mobile phone. The officer says it will be examined and all of the contents may be downloaded. The officer cannot say when you will get your phone back. There is a long backlog of phones waiting to be downloaded, it could be a couple of months. It’s your phone, you really rely upon it. Like most people, your average screen time has rocketed during lockdown. There is so much detailed and very personal information on that phone. You ask the officer, ‘Do you really need to take my phone?’ You are very reluctant to hand it over. The officer says, if you do not hand it over the case probably will not go any further. Discussions like this take place every day across the United Kingdom.’
Broadway House Chambers, 29th June 2020
Source: broadwayhouse.co.uk
‘This article reviews two Court of Appeal cases which have considered the effect that COVID-19 can have in sentencing in cases where the custody threshold has been passed. In summary, the cases make clear that the adverse effects the pandemic has had on prison life is a relevant factor a sentencing court can take into consideration in deciding: 1) whether to impose a suspend a sentence; and 2) the length of any immediate custodial sentence.’
Park Square Barristers, 3rd July 2020
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
‘In this case the “court” in question is the Parole Board. The inverted commas are because one of the issues is whether the Board is, in fact, a court for these purposes. Mr Gourlay is a life sentence prisoner. On 10 March 2014 the Parole Board refused to recommend that he be transferred to open conditions (almost always an essential precondition to later release). The Secretary of State usually, but does not always, accept such recommendations. Mr Gourlay challenged the Board’s refusal to make a recommendation. In accordance with a published “litigation strategy” that it has had since 2013 the Board did not engage with that challenge. That strategy takes advantage of a practice encapsulated in a case concerning coroners, R (Davies) v Birmingham Deputy Coroner [2004] 1 WLR 2739, which is that courts and tribunals will not usually be ordered to pay costs provided they have maintained a neutral stance. Mr Gourlay succeeded in his challenge, but both the High Court, and the Court of Appeal, held that Davies applied to the Board, and so Mr Gourlay did not recover his costs. This meant, amongst other things, that his lawyers were only entitled to be paid at around a quarter to a third of the rate they would have received if party-party costs had been awarded in Mr Gourlay’s favour.’
UKSC Blog, 10th July 2020
Source: ukscblog.com
‘This was Mr Sangha’s appeal of a refusal of his application to set aside a possession order against his property by a lender who had a charge on the property against a bridging loan which was not repaid. The back story is somewhat complicated, involving commercial properties, loans and leases, but not relevant to the grounds of the decision, so anyone interested can read the judgment.’
Nearly Legal, 12th July 2020
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘Oxton Farm had unsuccessfully sought judicial review of the decision of Harrogate Borough Council (the Council) to grant outline planning permission for 21 new homes and a village shop in Bickerton, North Yorkshire in September 2018 and appealed the judgment of the High Court to the Court of Appeal.’
No. 5 Chambers, 8th July 2020
Source: www.no5.com
‘Charles and Emma Villiers married in 1994. They moved to Scotland the following year and lived there throughout their married life. The couple separated in 2012, when the wife and the parties’ daughter left the former matrimonial home and moved to England, where the wife continues to reside. Mrs Villiers issued a divorce petition in July 2013 on the basis of her habitual residence for 12 months preceding the presentation of the petition.’
Parklane Plowden Chambers, 1st July 2020
Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal has delivered judgment in the case of Robinson v Department for Work and Pensions [2020] EWCA Civ 859, a decision which confirms that it is insufficient for a Claimant to argue, on a claim under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010, that “but for” their disability they would not have been put in a situation that led to unfavourable treatment. Rather, the focus needs to be on the reasons for the treatment itself. In so finding, the Court has approved of the obiter comments of Underhill LJ in Dunn v Secretary of State for Justice [2019] IRLR 298.’
Old Square Chambers, 7th July 2020
Source: www.oldsquare.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal has upheld a law firm’s case that a £125,000 professional negligence claim against a firm for its handling of a divorce was issued too late. In Holt v Holley & Steer Solicitors (a firm), judges held that any alleged cause of action happened in the lead-up to divorce proceedings being finalised, and this was the starting point for the six-year limitation period.’
Law Society's Gazette, 8th July 2020
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal in Dhillon v Barclays Bank Plc and the Chief Land Registrar [2020] EWCA Civ 619 has recently given judgment in an important case involving the rectification of the Land Register. It has given new guidance on the test of ‘exceptional circumstances’ in Schedule 4 of the Land Registration Act 2002. It has also repeated a warning to practitioners that pleadings should clearly identify the issues to be resolved.’
39 Essex Chambers, 1st July 2020
Source: www.39essex.com
‘The Claimant, Mr Gould, was a vicar of an evangelical Christian church, St Johns, Downshire Hill, in Hampstead, London (the Respondent). In August 2016, he was dismissed from his role. The reason given by the Respondent was an irretrievable breakdown in relations between the Claimant and the Trustees, the Leadership Team, certain members of staff and other members of the congregation. The Claimant alleged that the reason for his dismissal was the breakdown of his marriage in May 2015. He brought a claim to the ET, alleging direct marriage discrimination, and that his dismissal was for a discriminatory reason and procedurally unfair.’
3PB, 1st July 2020
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
‘The recent judgment of the Court of Appeal in Re LC (A Child) (Placement Order) [2020] EWCA Civ 787 should serve as a reminder to practitioners in the field of Children Law that each case has to be considered on its peculiar facts and by reference, where applicable, to the welfare checklist in section 1 of the Children Act 1989 or the enhanced welfare checklist contained in section 1 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002.’
No. 5 Chambers, 30th June 2020
Source: www.no5.com
‘For sums to be included in the calculation of a week’s pay by reference to S.221(2) Employment Rights Act (ERA) 1996, completion of normal working hours must be both a necessary and a sufficient condition for the entitlement to the relevant payment.’
Parklane Plowden Chambers, 6th July 2020
Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk
‘A property which was converted into flats before the Building Regulations 1991 came into force, which otherwise falls within the meaning of an HMO set out in Section 254(1)(e) of the Housing Act 2004, will be an HMO unless those regulations are now complied with. When appealing the issue of an HMO license in the FTT, the burden of proof is on the applicant to establish that the property is now compliant with the Buildings Regulations 1991.’
Tanfield Chambers, 30th June 2020
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘In the conjoined cases, the tenant (TFS Stores Limited) was the same, but the landlord was different. The tenant will be better known to many as The Fragrance Shop, and the cases at first instance focused on whether the leases in the actions were excluded from the 1954 Act protections. According to HHJ Davis-White QC, they were, and possession orders were made in respect of 5 of the 6 premises caught up in proceedings.’
Guildhall Chambers, 6th July 2020
Source: www.guildhallchambers.co.uk
‘This appeal concerned the jurisdiction of an English court to make a maintenance order in favour of the wife (“W”) pursuant to s.27 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (“MCA”) in circumstances where the parties lived for most of their marriage in Scotland and the divorce proceedings issued by the husband (“H”) were conducted in Scotland.’
Blackstone Chambers, 1st July 2020
Source: www.blackstonechambers.com
‘The recent case of R v Smith [2020] EWCA Crim 777 highlighted just how important the Criminal Procedure Rules are, and how, despite the pressures that practitioners face, they must be complied with to deal with any disputes surrounding evidence or procedure that may arise.’
Broadway House Chambers, 29th June 2020
Source: broadwayhouse.co.uk
‘Welsh law means that a landlord who is unlicensed cannot lawfully serve an eviction notice on tenants, the Court of Appeal has found.’
Local Government Lawyer, 9th July 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025