‘Steven Woolf examines the Court of Appeal’s recent decision and guidance on Green Space borough-wide preventative injunctions.’
Local Government Lawyer, 7th February 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Shamima Begum, the woman who left Britain as a schoolgirl to join Islamic State in Syria, has lost her appeal against the Home Office’s move to revoke her citizenship and prevent her from returning to London.’
The Guardian, 7th February 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The wife of a jailed “fat cat banker” who splurged millions at Harrods has lost her appeal over the UK’s first so-called McMafia wealth order.’
The Independent, 6th February 2020
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘Windrush victims will have an additional two years to apply for compensation for their losses after the Home Office bowed to pressure to extend the deadline by two years.’
The Independent, 7th February 2020
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘Giving judgment in the case of Al-Ahmed v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council [2020] EWCA Civ 51 on 30 January 2020, the Court of Appeal gave important guidance on when a homeless applicant may be permitted to bring an appeal outside of the 21-day time limit, against a local authority’s decision on his or her homeless application. It rejected a High Court decision which had found that the requirements of bringing a homelessness appeal were not ‘especially sophisticated or taxing’ and therefore there was not a good reason why Mr Al Ahmed could not have issued the appeal as a litigant in person during the time limit.’
Garden Court Chambers, 30th January 2020
Source: www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk
‘Copying in your lawyer or having them at a meeting, does not necessarily mean that legal advice privilege will apply – in a law-changing judgment, the Court of Appeal has adopted the dominant purpose test in relation to Legal Advice Privilege.’
Henderson Chambers, 30th January 2020
Source: www.hendersonchambers.co.uk
‘Rebecca Hill provides her Corporate Crime analysis for Lexis Nexis PSL: The Court of Appeal considered the safety of the conviction of Abdurahman who had assisted one of the 21/7 London bombers after the event. It reaffirmed that its purpose is to objectively appraise the safety of a conviction looking to all the circumstances, notwithstanding in this case a finding by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) that Mr Abdurahman’s rights under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (right to a fair trial) had been breached.’
5 SAH, 3rd February 2020
Source: www.5sah.co.uk
‘This article explores the approach a court should take in relation to vulnerable witnesses, in particular those that have experienced domestic abuse. The recent case of H v F [2020] EWHC 86 (Fam) demonstrates that a case will be successful on appeal if the correct procedures are not complied with.’
Becket Chambers, 3rd February 2020
Source: becket-chambers.co.uk
‘The EAT has handed down its judgment in Basfar v Wong UKEAT/0223/19/BA, holding that the defence of diplomatic immunity applied in circumstances where the Claimant alleged she had been trafficked by her diplomat employer. However, it also granted the Claimant the first ever ‘leapfrog’ certificate direct from the EAT to the Supreme Court, and the matter looks set to continue.’
Littleton Chambers, 4th February 2020
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘The UK’s Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) could not claim legal advice privilege over email correspondence which was predominantly conducted for the purposes of seeking commercial views, rather than legal advice, the Court of Appeal has confirmed.’
OUT-LAW.com, 4th February 2020
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘The Supreme Court will next week hand down its ruling on whether a county council misapplied a key provision in the National Planning Policy Framework on the preservation of “the openness of the Green Belt”.’
Local Government Lawyer, 31st January 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘We saw the High Court in this case take an incredibly strict approach to homelessness section 204 appeal timescales (our report), deciding that seeking legal aid representation could not be a good reason for filing an appeal out of time because, well, the substance of any appeal should be obvious to an unrepresented homeless applicant. We expressed considerable doubts about the realism of this decision at the time. Now, as it turns out, the Court of Appeal has had similar doubts.’
Nearly Legal, 2nd February 2020
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘Wind turbines can evoke strong feelings. To some they are vital and eye-catching sources of renewable energy. To others they are simply bird- and insect-destroying eyesores. But in granting planning consent, can a local authority have regard to a proposed annual donation to a local community fund? Would this be a material planning consideration? No, said the Supreme Court on 20 November in R (Wright) v Resilient Energy Severndale Ltd and Forest of Dean District Council [2019] UKSC 53. Lord Sales gave the judgment with which Lady Hale, Lord Reed, Lord Lloyd-Jones and Lord Thomas agreed.’
Law Society's Gazette, 3rd January 2020
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal has overturned a High Court ruling that the fact a homeless applicant was unrepresented and seeking legal aid was not a “good reason” for delay in bringing an appeal under s.204 of the Housing Act 1996 against an adverse review decision under the homelessness provisions of that Act.’
Local Government Lawyer, 31st January 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘A terminally ill dad is calling for a government inquiry into the UK’s blanket ban on assisted dying after the Court of Appeal rejected his human rights challenge.’
Each Other, 30th January 2020
Source: eachother.org.uk
‘The government has lost two appeals against court judgments that found the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) had unlawfully discriminated against thousands of severely disabled people who were moved on to universal credit.’
The Independent., 29th January 2020
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘The First Tier Tribunal had been entitled to reach the conclusions it had as to the degree of separation between two heating systems on adjoining estates. On that basis, the interpretation they had reached of the service charge provisions in the relevant leases was correct, as costs incurred replacing pipes on one estate were not costs “incidental” to the provision of services on the other.’
Tanfield Chambers, 21st January 2020
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘Legal advice privilege (LAP) only applies where documents were created with the “dominant purpose” of seeking or providing legal advice, appeal judges have ruled.’
Legal Futures, 29th January 2020
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025