‘UK businesses will lose any database rights they enjoy across the EU at the point of Brexit as it stands, the European Commission has said.’
OUT-LAW, 3rd April 2018
Source: www.out-law.com
‘On 20 October 2017 Registrar Derrett handed down judgment in the case of Thomas v Haederle (unreported), in which she gave reasons for dismissing a bankruptcy petition presented by the debtor (T) in the County Court at Norwich on 4 December 2014, pursuant to s 272 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA86), as it then was.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 2nd November 2017
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘At the present time, a large range of civil proceedings, especially in the commercial area, are governed by an EU measure, the Brussels I Regulation (Recast) of 2012. This applies whenever the defendant is domiciled in another EU country, whenever there is a choice-of-court agreement designating a court in the EU, and whenever an EU Member State has exclusive jurisdiction over a particular matter, for example title to land or registered intellectual-property rights. The Regulation also applies to the recognition and enforcement of judgments between different EU States.’
OUP Blog, 24th July 2017
Source: blog.oup.com
‘Sue Brookes, Senior Associate with Mills & Reeve LLP analyses the news and case law relating to financial remedies and divorce during March 2017.’
Family Law Week, 20th April 2017
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
QS v RS [2016] EWHC 2470 (Fam)
‘The parents who were British citizens adopted a child in Nepal in 2008. Neither parent was habitually resident or domiciled in Nepal at the time of the adoption, both being domiciled in the United Kingdom. The family moved to Dubai and the child was granted British citizenship. Soon afterwards the marriage broke down leading to a troubled period of dispute between the parents. The father remained living in Dubai and the mother in due course resided in the United Kingdom. The child, aged 12, resided with the father in Dubai. The mother applied, inter alia, for the recognition of the child’s foreign adoption order at common law and for a declaration under section 57 of the Family Law Act 1986 that she was the adopted child of the parents for the purposes of section 67 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. The issue arose whether, in the light of the common law rule that an English court was not entitled to recognise a foreign adoption order unless the adopting parents were domiciled (or habitually resident) in the relevant country at the time of the adoption, there were any circumstances in which that rule did not apply or might not be applied such that a foreign adoption would be recognised in England notwithstanding that at the time of the adoption the adopters were not domiciled in that country.’
WLR Daily, 10th October 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘R (on the application of Public Law Project) v Lord Chancellor [2016] UKSC 39.
Supreme Court bins the Government’s residence test for legal aid as ultra vires: just as the latest non-lawyer assumes the role of Lord Chancellor, the reforms made by the first non-lawyer to assume that role continue to fade away.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 14th July 2016
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Kevin Gordon, Pupil Barrister, Coram Chambers explores the courts’ developing approach to the application and granting of occupation orders under section33 (6) and (7) of the Family Law Act 1996 as an updated summary guide to practitioners.’
Family Law Week, 7th July 2016
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court will next week give its reasons as to why it concluded that the Ministry of Justice’s introduction of a residence test for civil legal aid via secondary legislation was unlawful.’
Local Government Lawyer, 7th July 2016
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Jacqueline Renton, barrister of 4 Paper Buildings, reviews the latest key decisions in international children law.’
Family Law Week, 7th June 2016
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
Regina (Shindler and another) v Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and another [2016] EWCA Civ 469
‘The claimants were British nationals who, exercising their rights of free movement, had moved to European Union member states in the 1980s and remained living respectively in Italy and Belgium. They were not entitled to vote in the European Union referendum by section 2 of the European Union Referendum Act 2015 since they had last been registered to vote in a United Kingdom election more than 15 years ago. The 2015 Act adopted the franchise for United Kingdom parliamentary elections, including the 15-year rule. The claimants sought judicial review, claiming that the 15-year rule constituted a restriction on their rights of free movement which was not objectively justified, by way of a declaration that section 2 of the 2015 Act was incompatible with their directly effective European Union law rights. Article 50(1) of the EU Treaty provided that any member state could withdraw from the European Union in accordance with its own constitutional arrangements. The Divisional Court granted permission to proceed but refused the claim, holding that (i) section 2 of the 2015 Act fell within the scope of European Union law so that their rights of free movement were in principle engaged; (ii) section 2 was not a restriction on their rights of free movement; (iii) if section 2 were such a restriction, it was objectively justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate objective, namely of testing the strength of a British citizen’s links with the United Kingdom over a significant period of time; and (iv) the claimants were not disentitled to a remedy on account of delay.’
WLR Daily, 20th May 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Two Britons living abroad have lost their Court of Appeal battle over the right to vote in June’s EU referendum.’
BBC News, 20th May 2016
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Schindler and MacLennan v. Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2016] EWHC 957, Divisional Court 28 April 2016. An interesting, albeit unsuccessful, challenge to the rule which prohibits expatriates who were last registered to vote in the UK more than 15 years ago from voting in the forthcoming referendum on EU membership.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 28th April 2016
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘British expats living in Europe are today heading to the High Court in the hope of forcing the Government to let millions of them vote in the EU referendum.’
Daily Telegraph,
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘The government’s residence test that deprives those who have lived in the UK for less than 12 months of legal aid faces a major challenge at the supreme court.’
The Guardian, 17th April 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Habitual residence lies at the heart of the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“the 1980 Hague Convention”), and is the cornerstone of jurisdiction in international child law. Yet despite the centrality of the concept, its definition and application have always left much room for argument; and although it is often described as “a question of fact”, it has generated large volumes of authority at the highest level.’
Family Law Week, 14 February 2016
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal has unanimously ruled that the government’s proposed residence test for civil legal aid is lawful, overturning a judgment by the High Court last year which found the measure to be discriminatory and unlawful. The test, if implemented, will restrict public funding for legal representation in civil cases to individuals who can prove that they are lawfully resident in the UK and have been so for a 12 month period at some time in the past.’
Legal Voice, 1st December 2015
Source: www.legalvoice.org.uk
‘The decision of the Lord Chancellor to propose by statutory instrument an amendment to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 to impose a residence test for those otherwise eligible for civil legal aid under Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Act was not unlawful or discriminatory.’
WLR Daily, 25th November 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Government plans to introduce a residence test for civil legal aid eligibility are lawful, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 27th November 2015
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The practice of discriminating against EU migrants in the UK by subjecting them to a residence test for benefit payments is legal, according to a preliminary European court ruling.’
The Guardian, 6th October 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024