‘This two-part series of articles written by Yasin Patel (barrister and director of SLAM) looks at the question of “racism in football”. The first article outlined the arguments as to why discrimination and racism is “alive and kicking” in the game and the many forms in which it is prevalent throughout the whole structure of the game.’
Church Court Chambers, November 2020
Source: churchcourtchambers.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court has on 13 November 2020 handed down the judgment in this case concerning the appropriate standard of proof for conclusions at inquests.’
Park Square Barristers, 13th November 2020
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
‘The appeal in Alexander Devine Children’s Cancer Trust v Housing Solutions Ltd [2020] UKSC 45 was the first time that either the Supreme Court or the House of Lords had considered the Upper Tribunal’s power to discharge or modify restrictive covenants affecting land under section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925. The case confirms important principles affecting the interplay between private law property rights, planning and land use. Lord Burrows, giving the only substantive judgment of the Supreme Court, agreed with the Court of Appeal that the Upper Tribunal’s decision was wrong, but disagreed in a number of important respects with the speech of Sales LJ (as he then was) in the Court of Appeal ([2018] EWCA Civ 2679). For a number of reasons, it is likely that we shall be reading and re-reading this Supreme Court decision for many years to come.’
39 Essex Chambers, 9th November 2020
Source: www.39essex.com
‘Richard Clayton QC of Kings Chambers and Exchequer Chambers, and Faisel Sadiq discuss the upcoming appeal in Ludgate House Ltd v Ricketts (VO), in which they are instructed to represent the appellant (London Borough of Southwark), and how it is likely to play a significant role in the future of property guardian schemes.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 4th November 2020
Source: hardwicke.co.uk
‘The brief facts of the matter are that the parties cohabited and were married for a total of 11 years. They had two children, aged 8 and 10. When they met both the Husband (H) and the Wife (W) were working as solicitors with H an associate and W a trainee although W became an associate on qualifying in 2001. They started a relationship in 2002/3 and in that year, H became an equity partner. By 2019 he earned net of tax just short of £1m per annum. In 2006 W became a managing associate, and in 2007 cohabitation started. Later that year W left the firm to be an in-house lawyer at a bank (on the promise she could work part time if she had children). In 2010 she was made a director, although after her maternity leave she found she was not permitted to work part time in the legal department, and took a part time role in the business team. In 2016 she was made redundant, and she did not work after that.’
Becket Chambers, 2nd November 2020
Source: becket-chambers.co.uk
‘In R (on the application of Z and another) (AP) (Appellants) v Hackney London Borough Council and another (Respondents) UKSC 2019/0162, the Supreme Court held that it was lawful for a housing association to provide social housing only to Orthodox Jews, in its first ever ruling on positive action. In this blog, Charlotte Goodman, an equality law barrister at Cloisters, considers the importance of the judgment.’
Cloisters, 6th November 2020
Source: www.cloisters.com
‘On 15 July 2020 the Supreme Court handed down its findings in Sutherland (Appellant) v Her Majesty’s Advocate (Respondent) (Scotland) [2020] UKSC 32.’
2 Hare Court, 2nd November 2020
Source: www.2harecourt.com
‘It was common ground between the parties that the claimant had been dismissed for a fair reason, namely redundancy. The point of contention arose from the fact that, at point of dismissal, the respondent had in place a list of workers upon whom it would call upon to
undertake adhoc work as and when needed.’
3PB, 2nd October 2020
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
‘The Financial Conduct Authority has again extended its Guidance on consumer debt and there are two largely unpublicised technical changes in the pipeline to beware of.’
Henderson Chambers, 15th October 2020
Source: www.hendersonchambers.co.uk
‘In this case, Mr Justice Hayden provides helpful practical guidance on the operation of section 48 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005), as well as confirming the scope of, and the court’s role in, proceedings brought pursuant to MCA 2005, s 21A. He further emphasises the importance of section 21A application being determined speedily, in accordance with Article 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (and accordingly suggests how practically weaknesses in capacity evidence could be addressed).’
39 Essex Chambers, 15th October 2020
Source: www.39essex.com
‘Last month, Sir Ross Cranston handed down judgment in The Federal Republic of Nigeria v Process & Industrial Developments [2020] EWHC 2379 (Comm), marking the latest stage in what has proved a notoriously long-running dispute since arbitration between the parties was first commenced in 2012.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 14th October 2020
Source: hardwicke.co.uk
‘The common law defence of illegality was considered by the Supreme Court in Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 42. The Court rejected the reliance principle as applied in Tinsley v Milligan [1994] 1 AC 340, according to which relief was refused to parties who had to rely on their own illegality to establish their case. In its place, the majority adopted a more flexible approach which openly addressed the underlying policy considerations involved and invited Courts to reach a balanced judgment in each case, permitting account to be taken of the proportionality of the outcome.’
Littleton Chambers, 4th November 2020
Source: littletonchambers.com
‘Employees that suffer from a disability so defined are protected against various forms of discrimination because of that status. Employers facing claims of such discrimination must assess whether a Tribunal will find that the employee was in fact, during the relevant period, disabled and, if so, whether it knew or reasonably ought to have known of that fact. It is common for employers to concede the fact of disability.’
Parklane Plowden Chambers, 4th November 2020
Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal has recently delivered an interesting and potentially very significant judgment in the case of Officer W80. The case concerned the use of force by a police officer and whether misconduct proceedings could subsequently be instituted against him on the basis of his honestly held but mistaken belief.’
2 Hare Court, 5th November 2020
Source: www.2harecourt.com
‘The Court of Appeal ruled that, as with other orders, the judge’s solemn pronouncement in court was the order and a failure to draw up a formal written document within the prescribed two-year period from the date of sentence did not invalidate it. In any event, the judge had provided written reasons, findings and figures which satisfied the statutory requirements of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA 2002). The Court of Appeal ruled that in the absence of prejudice or unfairness resulting from an administrative or procedural breach, it could not be argued that a failure to draw up the order rendered it invalid. The second ground of appeal (that the judge had wrongly concluded that there were hidden assets) was unarguable and leave to appeal was refused.’
5SAH, 20th October 2020
Source: www.5sah.co.uk
‘I will look at in this article at some of the sentencing principles and guidance when sentencing young people and in particular for serious offences and when they are suffering from mental illness.’
33 Bedford Row, 27th October 2020
Source: www.33bedfordrow.co.uk
‘Where the law governing a contract containing an arbitration agreement differs from the law of the nominated “seat” of the arbitration, which law – absent any express choice – governs the arbitration agreement itself? That was the question that the Supreme Court had to grapple with in Enka Insaat Ve Sanayi AS v. OOO Insurance Company Chubb [2020] UKSC 38, in which judgment was handed down on 9 October 2020. George Spalton and Ian McDonald of 4 New Square consider the decision.’
4 New Square, 14th October 2020
Source: www.4newsquare.com
‘The tenants (Claimants) had a twenty-year lease of 89 Narborough Road, Leicester (Property) which commenced on 12 March 2008. The Property consisted of a lock-up shop on the ground floor with residential accommodation above. The Claimants mistakenly paid only £1,500 of the £2,000 quarterly instalment of rent that fell due in June 2018, leaving arrears of £500.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 14th October 2020
Source: hardwicke.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025