‘A company was not liable for business rates on a building it does not wholly occupy, the High Court has found.’
Local Government Lawyer, 27th March 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Foreign fighters. Law enforcement cooperation with the US. The death penalty. A seven judge bench in the Supreme Court. Despite showing all the signs of a landmark public law decision, Elgizouli v Secretary of the State for the Home Department [2020] UKSC 10 was a bit of a fizzer on that front. In the end, the real meat was in the DPA 2018’s regulation of law enforcement processing and international data transfers.’
Panopticon, 30th March 2020
Source: panopticonblog.com
‘The Upper Tribunal has allowed in part an appeal over civil penalties of £236,000 imposed on each of two defendants for housing offences, reducing the total amount to be paid to £174,000.’
Local Government Lawyer, 25th March 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The Upper Tribunal has ruled on where the burden of proof lies when it is said that the manager of a house in multiple occupation had a reasonable excuse for conduct which, but for that defence, would amount to a relevant housing offence under section 249A, Housing Act 2004.’
Local Government Lawyer, 25th March 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The appellant’s son is alleged to have been one of a group of terrorists operating in Syria, involved in the murder of US and British citizens. The US made a mutual legal assistance request to the UK in relation to an investigation into the activities of that group. The Home Secretary requested an assurance that the information would not be used directly or indirectly in a prosecution that could lead to the imposition of the death penalty. The US refused to provide a full death penalty assurance and the Home Secretary agreed to provide information to the US without requiring any assurance. The appellant challenged the Home Secretary’s decision by way of judicial review. The questions for the Supreme Court were firstly whether it is unlawful for the Secretary of State to exercise his power to provide MLA so as to supply evidence to a foreign state that will facilitate the imposition of the death penalty in that state on the individual and secondly whether it is lawful under the Data Protection Act 2018, Part 3 for law enforcement authorities in the UK to transfer personal data to law enforcement authorities abroad for use in capital criminal proceedings.’
UKSC Blog, 25th March 2020
Source: ukscblog.com
‘On 12 March 2020 a unanimous Court of Appeal led by Sir Ernest Ryder (Senior President of the Tribunals), together with Lord Justice Bean and Lady Justice King, allowed the Appellant’s appeal against the First tier Tribunal (“FtT”) and Upper Tribunal (“UT”)’s decisions upholding the refusal of his application for leave to remain.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 24th March 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Lord Justice Hickinbottom has given guidance on making applications to the Court of Appeal for interim relief, in a housing case he declined to conclude because it had become academic.’
Local Government Lawyer, 25th March 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘In Forstater v CGD (2019), a think tank did not renew its contract for consultancy services with the claimant, Maya Forstater, allegedly because of Forstater expressing so-called ‘gender critical’ beliefs. Forstater claimed that she had suffered direct discrimination for having a protected belief under section 10 of the Equality Act 2010. In a preliminary decision, the employment tribunal considered whether the claimant’s belief was indeed protected. Tayler J identified the core of the claimant’s belief to be that sex is biologically immutable and, in no circumstances, is a trans woman ‘a woman’ or a trans man ‘a man’, even when the person in question has a Gender Recognition Certificate under the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (paragraph [77]). Due to the belief’s ‘no circumstances’ aspect, the judge labelled it ‘absolutist’ ([84]).’
Oxford Human Rights Hub, 22nd March 2020
Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk
‘Whether and how a religious marriage is recognised in law has profound consequences for couples and their children. This is the question at the heart of the Court of Appeal decision in Attorney General v Akhter and Khan [2020]. Here, the judges were faced with determining the status of a religious ceremony, conducted in a restaurant over 20 years ago – and in doing so, what family law rights the ‘wife’ has against her ‘husband’. In Akhter v Khan [2018] EWFC 54 the High Court argued for a novel solution to this question, through the law on null marriages. Widely praised for its pragmatism, the judge was able to avoid recognising their religious marriage as such, whilst still providing remedial protection to the ‘wife’ under Section 11 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. The Court of Appeal has now reversed this decision and re-asserted the orthodox rules on recognising religious marriages.’
Oxford Human Rights Hub, 17th March 2020
Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk
‘The Upper Tribunal has rejected an appeal by a landlord over the imposition of a condition on his licence requiring him to attend training on how to manage tenancies.’
Local Government Lawyer, 25th March 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal today [17 March] handed down judgment in Andreewitch v Moutreuil [2020] EWCA Civ 382. The courts have long since recognised the “absolute right of a person accused of contempt to remain silent” (Comet v Hawkex [1971] 2 QB 67). The Andreewitch judgment establishes that a judge must warn alleged contemnors of that right before they give oral evidence.’
Doughty Street Chambers, 17th March 2020
Source: insights.doughtystreet.co.uk
‘The owner of a field that was compulsorily acquired to provide land for the construction of a link road has lost his appeal over the certificate of appropriate alternative development he was given.’
Local Government Lawyer, 23rd March 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Edwin Jesudason (‘C’), was a paediatric surgeon who was an honorary consultant working in the Department of Paediatric Surgery (‘DPS’) in the respondent NHS trust from 2006 until he resigned in 2012. Between 2009 and 2014 he made a series of allegations to the Trust, regulatory bodies and the media where he alleged fundamental failings in the operation of the DPS including serious allegations of professional incompetence, use of improper medical practices, attempts to cover up wrongdoing and in some cases he named and criticised specific individuals.’
3PB, 2nd March 2020
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
‘The London Borough of Tower Hamlets last week launched a legal challenge to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government’s decision to grant planning permission for the Westferry Printworks site.’
Local Government Lawyer, 23rd March 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The final member of a group of four men who were jailed nearly 50 years ago on the evidence of a corrupt police officer has had his conviction quashed.’
BBC News, 24th March 2020
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court has today [18 March] handed down an important judgment in the area of human trafficking and modern slavery.’
Blackstone Chambers, 18th March 2020
Source: www.blackstonechambers.com
‘Edwin Jesudason (‘C’), was a paediatric surgeon who was an honorary consultant working in the Department of Paediatric Surgery (‘DPS’) in the respondent NHS trust from 2006 until he resigned in 2012. Between 2009 and 2014 he made a series of allegations to the Trust, regulatory bodies and the media where he alleged fundamental failings in the operation of the DPS including serious allegations of professional incompetence, use of improper medical practices, attempts to cover up wrongdoing and in some cases he named and criticised specific individuals.’
3PB, 2nd March 2020
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
‘Last month European football’s governing body, UEFA, announced that English champions Manchester City had been fined 30 million Euros and banned from the Champions League – the most illustrious competition in European football. The Adjudicatory Chamber of UEFA’s Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) handed down a two-year ban on the basis that Man City had breached Financial Fair Play Regulations. The club have responded fiercely, complaining of a ‘prejudicial process’ and alleging that the case was ‘initiated by UEFA, prosecuted by UEFA and judged by UEFA.’ Against this background it is thought likely that City will rely on human rights arguments in their appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (a somewhat ironic development in the view of some commentators given previous criticisms of the human rights records of the club’s backers).’
UK Human Rights Blog, 23rd March 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The Court of Appeal considered the application of counterfactual arguments to unjust enrichment claims based upon the principle in Woolwich Equitable Building Society v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1993] AC 70. The decision affirms the primacy of the principle of lawful authority and limits the scope for public authorities to rely upon hypothetical decision making to curtail restitution. Written by James Saunders, barrister at New Square Chambers.’
New Square Chambers, 21st February 2020
Source: www.newsquarechambers.co.uk
‘On 12 February 2020 Lady Hale delivered the unanimous judgment of the Supreme Court in R (Jalloh) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] UKSC 4.’
No. 5 Chambers, 16th March 2020
Source: www.no5.com
© Inner Temple Library 2025