‘The legal burden of disproving a claim for negligence when cargo is lost or damaged at sea rests with the carrier of the goods, the UK’s highest court has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 10th December 2018
Source: www.out-law.com
‘The High Court has upheld the UK’s first unexplained wealth order (UWO), dismissing a legal challenge to the order obtained by the National Crime Agency (NCA) earlier this year.’
OUT-LAW.com, 16th October 2018
Source: www.out-law.com
‘A long-running dispute about the rights of a client to sue his former solicitors will come to the Supreme Court later this year. The court confirmed today that it will hear the appeal of defunct claimant firm Raleys Solicitors against the ruling of the Court of Appeal from May 2017.’
Law Society's Gazette, 13th September 2018
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘A recent decision on the evidential standard of proof required for a coroner or jury to return a conclusion of suicide could lead to an increased number of “suicide” conclusions being upheld, and a change in the rules surrounding the burden of proof applied at inquests in the future.’
OUT-LAW.com, 7th September 2018
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Burdens of proof, res ipsa loquitur and experts’ joint statements: Saunders v Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2018] EWHC 343 (QB).’
Zenith Chambers, 6th March 2018
Source: www.zenithchambers.co.uk
‘The legal bar for convicting healthcare professionals of manslaughter is currently “too low”, a medical defence organisation has said.’
Daily Telegraph, 13th March 2018
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘Two discrete procedural points arise out of Yip J’s decision in Saunders v Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2018] EWHC 343 (QB). They restate principles which are of considerable practical significance for those preparing and litigating civil claims.’
Zenith PI, 6th March 2018
Source: zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘The Court of Appeal has ruled that claimants still bear an initial burden of proof under the Equality Act 2010 (“EA 2010”), despite the change in wording in s. 136 as compared with the pre-EA legislation. In coming to this conclusion, the Court ruled that the interpretation placed on that section by the EAT in Efobi v Royal Mail Group Limited (UKEAT/0203/16, 10 August 2017) was wrong, and should not be followed.The Court also considered the distinction between matters of fact and explanation for the purposes of applying s. 136 EA 2010.’
Employment Blog, 27th November 2017
Source: employment11kbw.com
‘There are huge differences between UK and US media law – does this explain why more Americans are being accused of sexual harassment?’
BBC News, 22nd November 2017
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘In an important decision on the correct interpretation of the burden of proof provisions in the Equality Act 2010, Efobi v Royal Mail, Tom Coghlin and Navid Pourghazi successfully appealed against an employment tribunal’s decision to dismiss a claimant’s race discrimination complaints.’
Cloisters, 14th August 2017
Source: www.cloisters.com
S v Director of Public Prosecutions [2017] EWHC 1162 (Admin)
‘The defendant was charged with an offence of tampering with a motor vehicle contrary to section 25 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and tried before justices in the Youth Court. The justices dismissed a submission by the defendant that there was no case to answer and, having heard evidence from the defendant and considered the burden and standard of proof, the justices convicted him. A contemporaneuos note of the justices’ reasons read, inter alia: “We listened to the [defendant’s] evidence which did not persuade us that there was no intention to tamper with the [motor vehicle]. We are therefore sure you are guilty.”’
WLR Daily, 18th May 2017
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘It is time to consider lowering the burden of proof used by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) from the criminal to the civil standard, Sir Brian Leveson, the president of the Queen’s Bench Division has said.’
Legal Futures, 11th November 2016
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘The defendant was charged with murder. He admitted that he had strangled his partner, but denied murder on the ground that he had suffered a loss of control and that he had a personality disorder such as to give rise to a defence of diminished responsibility. He was convicted of murder. He applied for permission to appeal against conviction on the grounds that the trial judge had: (i) been wrong to decide that the burden of proof in relation to diminished responsibilty lay on the defendant under section 2 of the Homicide Act 1957, as amended, notwithstanding article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; (ii) misdirected the jury in relation to the words “general capacity for tolerance or self-restraint” in section 54(3) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009; and (3) failed to give the jury guidance on the meaning of the word “substantially” in section 2(1)(b) of the 1957 Act.’
WLR Daily, 3rd November 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Moyo v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2015] EWHC 3547 (Admin); [2015] WLR (D) 555
‘In fitness to practise hearings there was no formal burden or standard of proof at the sanction stage of the proceedings; rather it was for the panel to use its own professional judgment to decide what sanction would be proportionate in order to protect the public interest, which included: (1) protection of patients and others; (2) maintenance of public confidence in the professions and the regulatory body; and (3) declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct and behaviour.’
WLR Daily, 10th December 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal has reiterated that the burden of proof for proving whether a marriage is a sham for immigration law purposes rests with the Home Office. The case is Agho v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 1198 and it confirms the obiter remarks of former President Blake in the earlier tribunal case of Entry Clearance Officer, Nicosia v Papajorgji [2012] UKUT 00038 (IAC) (FM post: New case law on meaning of genuine and subsisting marriage).’
Free Movement, 9th December 2015
Source: www.freemovement.org.uk
‘A regular issue that is being raised at MOJ Stage 3 hearings, particularly since the introduction of the 13th edition of the JC Guidelines: can parties make new offers in their Part B forms and benefit from the cost consequences of Part 36.29 for beating/matching them? This article aims to set out the relevant rules and paragraphs to determine this issue.’
Park Square Barristers, 6th November 2015
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
‘Zaw Lin and Wai Phyo v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2015] EWHC 2484 (QB), a judgment of Green J handed down today, is an interesting – if somewhat fact-specific – contribution to the burgeoning body of case law on how subject access requests (SARs) made under the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) should be approached, both by data controllers and by courts.’
Panopticon, 25th August 2015
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
‘The Government needs to introduce a second civil law to tackle revenge porn – because the current criminal law does not go far enough to help victims – according to a specialist in the field.’
Daily Telegraph, 4th August 2015
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘Last week wrote an introductory article on a service charge case, The Gateway (Leeds) Management Ltd v Naghash and Shamsizadeh (citation above), a decision of Martin Rodger QC, Deputy President in the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), in which I acted for the Defendants/Respondents. The facts are set out in that piece, and I do not propose to rehearse them here.’
Park Square Barristers, 15th July 2015
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2023