‘The Court of Appeal is to rule on Thursday on the power of the Master of the Rolls (MR) to make an emergency practice direction in response to Covid-19.’
Litigation Futures, 29th April 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The Court of Appeal have their way with the judicial review of the ‘Right to Rent’ scheme. This was the Secretary of State’s appeal of the remarkable first instance judgment which had found the scheme to be incompatible with Art 14 with Art 8. (For transparency, I acted for the Residential Landlords Association on their intervention in both the High Court and Court of Appeal.)’
Nearly Legal, 27th April 2020
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal has reserved judgment in an appeal over a High Court ruling last year that voter ID schemes in 10 local authorities were lawful.’
Local Government Lawyer, 24th April 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘How can the Home Office be prevented from withholding important information in immigration appeals?’
Doughty Street Chambers, 23rd April 2020
Source: insights.doughtystreet.co.uk
‘Pilot schemes requiring voters to produce photo ID at polling stations disenfranchise those who do not have or cannot find their documents and alienate people from the democratic process, the court of appeal has been told.’
The Guardian, 23rd April 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Notably, the Court of Appeal agreed with the High Court’s view that the scheme does result in landlords discriminating against tenants without British passports on the basis of their actual or perceived nationality. However, the Court held that this discrimination was justified.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 22nd April 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Justices in Staffordshire were right to conclude that on the proper construction of section 43 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, a council had no power to issue a Community Protection Notice (“CPN”) in the name of a mother concerning the conduct of her child, the Divisional Court has ruled.’
Local Government Lawyer, 22nd April 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal (Davis, Henderson and Hickinbottom LJJ) has today [21 April] handed down judgment in this case. It has allowed the Secretary of State’s appeal against the High Court’s conclusion that the “right to rent” scheme, set out in sections 20-37 of the Immigration Act 2014, is incompatible with Article 14 ECHR (read with Article 8).’
Blackstone Chambers, 21st April 2020
Source: www.blackstonechambers.com
‘The original dispute pertained to a claim (issued by the Respondent in these proceedings) which started under, and then exited, the Low Value Personal Injury Claims in Road Traffic Accidents Protocol. On the first visit to the Court of Appeal, the issue was whether the Appellant’s (the Defendant in the original dispute) cost liability in respect of the ex-portal claim was limited to fixed costs. The Court of Appeal held that the fixed costs regime for which Section IIIA of CPR Part 45 provides was applicable and the parties had not contracted out of fixed costs. Absent any application by the Respondent pursuant to CPR 45.29J for a higher amount by reason of “exceptional circumstances”, the Respondent was thus entitled to £16,705.15 in respect of her costs of the claim. Resultingly, both parties had cost liabilities: the Appellant in regards to the ex-portal claim, and the Respondent in respect of the appeal.’
Parklane Plowden, 17th April 2020
Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk
‘In the Court of Appeal decision of Clark v HMRC, the court held that in considering whether the tax charge imposed on unauthorised member payments under sections 208 to 210 of the Finance Act 2004 (FA 2004) applied, the question of whether a ‘payment’ had been made was to be answered by looking at the practical, business reality of the transaction. Applying that approach, on the facts of the case, a transfer of legal title without beneficial title did constitute a ‘payment’. The Court of Appeal also provided important guidance as to the operation of the discovery provisions within section 29 of the Taxes Management Act 1970 (TMA 1970), including the question of how the scope of a discovery assessment is to be delimited. Written by Jonathan Davey QC of Wilberforce Chambers and Sam Chandler of 5 Stone Buildings, who acted for HMRC.’
Wilberforce Chambers, 15th April 2020
Source: www.wilberforce.co.uk
‘The government has won an appeal over its controversial right to rent scheme, which was last year ruled by the high court to be racially discriminatory.’
The Guardian, 21st April 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The Court of Appeal addressed in this case the interesting question of when it might be possible to exclude the right of a disclosed principal from enforcing and/or relying on the terms of a contract which does not expressly exclude such a principal from its remedies. The court considered the rare circumstances in which that might be a possibility, noting that they are rare indeed, as there is a strong presumption against finding that a disclosed but unnamed principal has given up their contractual remedies. Written by Adam Heppinstall, barrister, Henderson Chambers.’
Henderson Chambers, 17th April 2020
Source: www.hendersonchambers.co.uk
‘In this post I argue, with reference to Privacy International, that the nature of legislation as a speech act entails that the tension between parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law is not as profound as is often thought.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 20th April 2020
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘A second appeal on a homelessness review, where a finding of intentional homelessness had been upheld, raising an important point on whether events or factors post-dating the decision or action that led to eviction need to be considered on review.’
Nearly Legal, 19th April 2020
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘An Upper Tribunal judge has set aside a decision by a First-tier Tribunal (FTT) that upheld – after a freedom of information request – the withholding of an agent’s advice to a local authority on the tactics it should apply in negotiations with Tesco over a proposed development.’
Local Government Lawyer, 20th April 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Alaina Wadsworth, Chris Horsefield and Ben Brown, who all work within the Insurance & Reinsurance Group at CMS, comment on the decision handed down by the UK Supreme Court earlier this month, in the matter of Barclays Bank Plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13.’
UKSC Blog, 20th April 2020
Source: ukscblog.com
‘Many small to medium sized businesses will, thankfully, rarely be involved in litigation. As a result, they will have little experience of what is to follow once they commence a dispute resolution process regardless of the nature of that process. In many cases, disputes will be addressed via litigation[1]. In many instances the perceived wrong done by the other side will drive the dispute forward. It is only perhaps when some of the initial expectation of a quick positive trial outcome fades, whilst the pre-trial process winds on, that parties will wonder ‘should this have gone on for so long’ and/or ‘was there a quicker way to do this?’ Nevertheless, once litigation is commenced it takes on an energy of its own and many parties are able to see the case through to an initial judgment. Matters may thereafter get more complex as (further) fatigue potentially sets in.’
33 Bedford Row, 10th April 2020
Source: www.33bedfordrow.co.uk
‘Ironically, in terms of its timing, on the day the country went into lockdown, the Upper Tribunal took a decision which will have a significant impact for those seeking to challenge restrictions on their liberty under the Mental Health Act 1983. This case originated in Cornwall and the solicitors were Conroys Solicitors of Truro. Sally Daulton of Devon Chambers represented the patient before the First-tier Tribunal and obtained leave to appeal. Before the Upper Tribunal, the patient was represented by Robert Pezzani and Stephen Simblet QC of Garden Court Chambers’ Civil Liberties Team.’
Devon Chambers, April 2020
Source: www.devonchambers.co.uk
‘The Appellant (‘Mrs Butler’) entered into a CFA with the Respondent solicitors, (‘Bankside’) in respect of a claim for damages against one company, Metris, for termination of a commercial agency.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 15th April 2020
Source: hardwicke.co.uk
‘The Second Respondent (‘Mr Chernukhin’) was a prominent Russian businessman and former State official. In 2001, Mr Chernukhin entered into a joint venture with the Second Appellant (‘Mr Deripaska’), also a prominent Russian businessman, to acquire a controlling interest in a Russian textile company (‘TGM’). It was agreed between Mr Deripaska and Mr Chernukhin that each would contribute equally to the purchase, and that Mr Chernukhin’s then personal partner, one Ms Danilina, would be involved in running the business.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 6th April 2020
Source: hardwicke.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025