‘The government acted unlawfully when it refused to compensate two low-income households left up to £180 a month out of pocket when their legacy benefits were wrongly stopped and they had no choice but to move on to universal credit, the appeal court has ruled.’
The Guardian, 12th May 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Denying exiled Chagos islanders the right to return to their homes on the Indian Ocean archipelago is a continuing breach of their human rights and not just a historical injustice, the court of appeal has been told.’
The Guardian, 12th May 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Morrisons, the Appellant by the time this case reached the Supreme Court, are, of course, a well-known national chain of supermarkets. The Respondents in this case were approximately 9,000 employees or former employees of Morrisons.’
3PB, May 2020
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
‘Without, hopefully, being too flippant, the above are, essentially, the questions that the Court of Appeal will be considering tomorrow in relation to Practice Direction 51Z, in Arkin v Marshall.’
4-5 Gray's Inn Square, 29th April 2020
Source: www.4-5.co.uk
‘In AM (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] UKSC 17, Lord Wilson calls the European Court on Rights out on its claim that in Paposhvili v Belgium [2017] Imm AR 867, it was doing no more than “clarifying” its judgment in N v United Kingdom (2008) 47 EHRR 39 as to the circumstances in which removal or deportation will breach Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Close readers of the judgment in Paposhvili will be well aware of the numerous points at which the court uses, it is hard to doubt, intentionally, the very same language as is used in N to come to different conclusions.’
No. 5 Chambers, 29th April 2020
Source: www.no5.com
‘In this post, Alaina Wadsworth and Sophie Newman, who both work within the insurance and reinsurance group at CMS, comment on the decision handed down by the UK Supreme Court last month in the matter of Aspen Underwriting Ltd and others v Credit Europe Bank NV [2020] UKSC 11.’
UKSC Blog, 5th May 2020
Source: ukscblog.com
‘The decision in Barton & Booth [2020] EWCA Crim 575 brings an end to the uncertainty surrounding the test for dishonesty, and the application of the test proposed by the Supreme Court in Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) (trading as Cockfords Club) [2017] UKSC 67. This article will look at the departure from Ghosh, the application of the Ivey test notwithstanding its obiter status.’
Broadway House Chambers, 1st May 2020
Source: broadwayhouse.co.uk
‘This case has been keenly awaited by family law practitioners, being the first appeal in a public law children case to reach the Court of Appeal on the issue of remote hearings during the COVID 19 pandemic. The appeal was heard on 22 April 2020. On the following day the same bench heard the second such appeal, Re B (Children) (Remote Hearing: Interim Care Order) [2020] EWCA (Civ) 584. There will undoubtedly be further appeals in children cases heard in the High Court or the Court of Appeal on the issue of remote hearings in the coming weeks.’
Parklane Plowden Chambers, 30th April 2020
Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk
‘In Barton and Booth v R [2020] EWCA Crim 575, the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal considered the correct approach to be taken to dishonesty as it applies to the criminal law. In doing so, the Court confirmed that the test for dishonesty articulated in the Supreme Court decision of Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) (trading as Crockfords Club) [2017] UKSC 67 displaced the test for dishonesty that had been laid down in R v Ghosh [1982] QB 1053 and which had applied in the criminal courts for 35 years.’
Exchange Chambers, 1st May 2020
Source: www.exchangechambers.co.uk
‘This is the first appeal in a case relating to the welfare of children to reach the Court of Appeal on the issue of remote hearings during the Covid-19 crisis.’
Broadway House Chambers, 1st May 2020
Source: broadwayhouse.co.uk
‘On 29 April 2020, the UK Supreme Court handed down its judgment in the case of AM(Zimbabwe) v SSHD [2020] UKSC. This completes the domestic line of authority grappling with the ECtHR’s Grand Chamber’s judgment in Paposhvili v Belgium, which reformulated the applicable test where appellants allege that their proposed removal to a third country would be in breach of Article 3 ECHR as exposing them to inhuman or degrading treatment as a result of the unavailability of medical treatment there.’
Oxford Human Rights Hub, 3rd May 2020
Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk
‘A panel that hears appeals against decisions on school places in Richmond-upon-Thames must reconsider a decision in relation to a family resident in rented property, the High Court has ruled.’
Local Government Lawyer, 30th April 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court has overturned ministerial guidance to the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) that was intended to put a stop to certain types of ethical disinvestment.’
Local Govdernment Lawyer, 29th April 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘This appeal related to the UK’s ability to deport a Zimbabwean citizen who, whilst being lawfully resident in the UK, had committed serious crimes. He sought to challenge the decision to deport him on the basis of ECHR, article 3. Being HIV positive, he argued that if deported he would be unable to access the medication he receives in the UK and which prevents his relapse into AIDS.’
UKSC Blog, 29th April 2020
Source: ukscblog.com
‘Three senior judges have rejected a posthumous appeal against the conviction of Gordon Park, the so-called “Lady in the Lake” killer.’
BBC News, 1st May 2020
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘This appeal concerns the breadth of the ethical investments that the authorities which administer the local government pension scheme are permitted to make. The appellants brought a claim for judicial review alleging that two passages in the guidance issued by the Secretary of State pursuant to the Local Government Pension Scheme (Management and Investment of Funds) Regulations in 2016 was unlawful. The first passage concerned states that “the Government has made clear that using pension policies to pursue boycotts, divestment and sanctions against foreign nations and UK defence industries are inappropriate, other than where formal legal sanctions, embargoes and restrictions have been put in place by the Government”. The second passage states that authorities “[s]hould not pursue policies that are contrary to UK foreign policy or UK defence policy”.’
UKSC Blog, 30th April 2020
Source: ukscblog.com
‘The Court of Appeal has handed down rulings in the first two appeals relating to the welfare of children to have reached the court on the issue of remote hearings during the COVID-19 pandemic.’
Local Government Lawyer, 30th April 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Unlike some of the rights protected by the European Convention on Human Rights, the prohibition on torture or inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 3 is absolute. There is no question of striking a balance between Article 3 and other considerations: the state simply may not act in a way which would breach this prohibition.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 29th April 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘A transgender man who gave birth has lost his appeal court battle to be registered as a father in a case that wrestled with the legal definition of motherhood and transgender rights.’
The Guardian, 29th April 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
© Inner Temple Library 2025