The NPPF and “out-of-date” – Local Government Lawyer

Posted September 11th, 2020 in appeals, housing, interpretation, local government, news, planning by tracey

‘The Court of Appeal has handed down a judgment on the meaning of “out-of-date” in paragraph 11(d) in the National Planning Policy Framework. Matthew Fraser sets out the key points.’

Full Story

Local Government Lawyer, 11th September 2020

Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk

Rees v Windsor- Clive Rees v Windsor-Clive (as Trustees of the St Fagan’s No 1 and No 2 Trusts) [2020] EWCA Civ 816 – Tanfield Chambers

‘The question whether a right of entry clause permitted a landlord to undertake activities in order to comply with planning conditions was a matter of fact and degree.’

Full Story

Tanfield Chambers, 17th July 2020

Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk

No duty to exercise option reasonably or in good faith in engine maintenance agreement (Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd v Lufthansa Technik AG) – 3PB

Posted July 30th, 2020 in airlines, contracts, interpretation, news by sally

‘The High Court found that there was no duty of good faith or duty to act reasonably in respect of an option to withdraw engines from a maintenance agreement. The judgment provides a helpful discussion of the case law concerning the principles of contractual interpretation and implied terms (including on the basis of the Braganza v BP Shipping Ltd and Socimer International Bank v Standard Bank London line of cases and relational contracts). The judgment also serves as a reminder to practitioners that evidence of statements made in precontractual negotiations, including mutual understanding (subject to limited exceptions) are generally inadmissible to assist with the interpretation of a concluded contract. Written by Rebecca Farrell, counsel, at 3 Paper Buildings.’

Full Story

3PB, July 2020

Source: www.3pb.co.uk

Dealing with Competing Jurisdiction Clauses: What is your Centre of Gravity? – 3PB

Posted July 30th, 2020 in contracts, interpretation, jurisdiction, news by sally

‘Complex commercial arrangements can generate difficulties for the parties where their obligations are set out in a multitude of related contracts or a single contract containing inconsistent dispute resolution clauses. It is not uncommon for parties to complex commercial contracts to find themselves arguing over the interpretation of inconsistent jurisdiction clauses which are either found in a single contract, or different but related contracts forming part of the same arrangements. Disagreements over the interpretation of jurisdiction clauses can arise in large-scale energy and infrastructure projects, and other types of arrangements where transactions usually take place under a master agreement. This note will explore the most common scenarios in which courts are often asked to interpret inconsistent dispute resolution clauses, with particular focus on the ‘centre of gravity’ approach adopted by courts.’

Full Story

3PB, 27th July 2020

Source: www.3pb.co.uk

The Client Earth/Drax Case – No. 5 Chambers

‘This case is a High Court challenge by statutory judicial review to the Secretary of State’s decision to grant a development consent order for the construction and operation of two gas-fired generating units at an existing coal-fired power station site in Yorkshire. The decision was contrary to the recommendation of her examining Panel. The challenge was unsuccessful largely because the Panel itself had made an error which the Secretary of State declined to follow. The Panel had misinterpreted national policy on the assessment of “need” for the development and the Secretary of State had been entitled to conclude that that need outweighed the substantial adverse environmental impacts of the proposed development.’

Full Story

No. 5 Chambers, 30th June 2020

Source: www.no5.com

Rectification of the Land Register – 39 Essex Chambers

‘The Court of Appeal in Dhillon v Barclays Bank Plc and the Chief Land Registrar [2020] EWCA Civ 619 has recently given judgment in an important case involving the rectification of the Land Register. It has given new guidance on the test of ‘exceptional circumstances’ in Schedule 4 of the Land Registration Act 2002. It has also repeated a warning to practitioners that pleadings should clearly identify the issues to be resolved.’

Full Story

39 Essex Chambers, 1st July 2020

Source: www.39essex.com

Boundaries to registered leasehold property: the High Court reminds conveyancers why it is important to read the small print in HCP (Hendon) Ltd) v Chief Land Registrar – Landmark Chambers

Posted June 16th, 2020 in interpretation, judicial review, land registration, leases, news by sally

‘This case tested the extent to which information contained on the face of the property register to registered leasehold estates can be relied on. It is the first time the High Court has specifically ruled on the question of whether the title plan and the floor level note on the property register are conclusive and can be relied on in isolation from the underlying lease, for the purpose of ascertaining the vertical general boundaries. The judgment confirms that the Land Registration Act 2002 does not modify the long-established principle that the general boundaries are determined by construing the lease itself. To that end, the lease is effectively incorporated into the register of title by reference and by HM Land Registry keeping a copy, so the description of the registered estate on the face of the property register does not stand in isolation and must be read in conjunction with the registered lease.’

Full Story

Landmark Chambers, 1st June 2020

Source: www.landmarkchambers.co.uk

Business Immigration: Coronavirus and the Concession for Entrepreneurs – Garden Court Chambers

Posted June 10th, 2020 in chambers articles, coronavirus, employment, immigration, interpretation, news by sally

‘The Entrepreneur route has always provided more than its fair share of interpretative challenges to business people and their lawyers alike. And it looks like the Covid-19 concession announced for those still in the route (it was replaced for new applicants by the Innovator option in Spring 2019) is no different.’

Full Story

Garden Court Chambers, 5th June 2020

Source: www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk

Implications for expulsions following the Supreme Court ruling of AM (Zimbabwe) – Garden Court Chambers

‘Cases where applicants seek to resist removal from the UK because of adverse health consequences have given rise to both great passions and difficult points of principle. The decision of the Supreme Court in AM (Zimbabwe) [2020] UKSC 17 gave the opportunity for the UK’s approach to catch up with that taken by the ECtHR in recent years. In this post we look at the implications of the judgment both generally and in relation to two specific scenarios, namely destitution and “fitness to fly”.’

Full Story

Garden Court Chambers, 19th May 2020

Source: www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk

Residential Service Charge – Time for Reform? – Becket Chambers

‘On Halloween in 2003, the Service Charge (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003 (the “Regulations”) came into force, amending section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“LTA 1985”). This amendment set a financial limit to works carried out on a residential building, beyond which a landlord would have to consult with tenants. That threshold is £250 per tenant. The nature of the consultation is prescribed by section 20 LTA 1985.’

Full Story

Becket Chambers, 27th May 2020

Source: becket-chambers.co.uk

The death of “forensic prestidigitation” in construing commercial contracts? Towergate Financial (Group) Ltd and others v Clark and others – Hardwicke Chambers

Posted May 26th, 2020 in appeals, chambers articles, contracts, indemnities, interpretation, news by sally

‘Judgment in Towergate Financial (Group) Ltd and others v Clark and others was handed down on 24 April 2020 in this interesting case that turned upon the correct construction of a notice clause in a share purchase agreement (SPA).’

Full Story

Hardwicke Chambers, 13th May 2020

Source: hardwicke.co.uk

Supreme Court hands down key ruling on listed buildings – Local Government Lawyer

‘Planning inspectors should reconsider whether two lead urns that were placed on top of limestone piers at a historic house were “buildings” or not, the Supreme Court has ruled.’

Full Story

Local Government Lawyer, 21st May 2020

Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk

A haircut for broad trade mark specifications – Technology Law Update

Posted May 13th, 2020 in chambers articles, interpretation, news, trade marks by sally

‘The protection offered by a registered trade mark is defined by the particular goods and services for which it is registered. But how broad can a trade mark specification be? Too narrow and you risk having no control over the use of your brand in closely linked goods or services, and with little wriggle room for protection as you expand your offering. Too broad and you run the risk of having the trade mark registration challenged.’

Full Story

Technology Law Update, 12th May 2020

Source: www.technology-law-blog.co.uk

Interpretation of category 1 factors for offences of causing GBH or wounding with intent – R v Xue [2020] EWCA Crim 587 – Park Square Barristers

Posted May 12th, 2020 in grievous bodily harm, interpretation, news, sentencing, wounding by sally

‘This comment notes the recent Court of Appeal decision which focused upon the interpretation of two category 1 factors indicating greater harm under the Sentencing Guideline for causing GBH or wounding with intent under section 18 OAPA 1861 (‘section 18’):

– Injury (which includes disease transmission and/or psychological harm) which is serious in the context of the offence (must normally be present);
– Sustained or repeated assault on the same victim.’

Full Story

Park Square Barristers, 5th May 2020

Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk

The desire to live: AM (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] UKSC 17 – No. 5 Chambers

‘In AM (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] UKSC 17, Lord Wilson calls the European Court on Rights out on its claim that in Paposhvili v Belgium [2017] Imm AR 867, it was doing no more than “clarifying” its judgment in N v United Kingdom (2008) 47 EHRR 39 as to the circumstances in which removal or deportation will breach Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Close readers of the judgment in Paposhvili will be well aware of the numerous points at which the court uses, it is hard to doubt, intentionally, the very same language as is used in N to come to different conclusions.’

Full Story

No. 5 Chambers, 29th April 2020

Source: www.no5.com

What is a ‘relationship akin to marriage’? – Richmond Chambers

‘Under the Immigration Rules, a person who is British or Settled in the UK can bring their unmarried partner to the UK. This is sometimes referred to as a ‘partner visa’ or ‘de facto visa’. This is an option that more couples are currently considering, partly due to the ongoing restrictions around the world on wedding ceremonies due to covid-19.’

Full Story

Richmond Chambers, 1st May 2020

Source: immigrationbarrister.co.uk

Barton & Booth: Clarifying the Dishonesty Test post Ivey by Paul Dormand – Broadway House Chambers

Posted May 6th, 2020 in appeals, chambers articles, deceit, fraud, interpretation, news, theft by sally

‘The decision in Barton & Booth [2020] EWCA Crim 575 brings an end to the uncertainty surrounding the test for dishonesty, and the application of the test proposed by the Supreme Court in Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) (trading as Cockfords Club) [2017] UKSC 67. This article will look at the departure from Ghosh, the application of the Ivey test notwithstanding its obiter status.’

Full Story

Broadway House Chambers, 1st May 2020

Source: broadwayhouse.co.uk

Barton and Booth – note on the Court of Appeal decision on Ivey and Ghosh – Exchange Chambers

Posted May 4th, 2020 in appeals, chambers articles, deceit, fraud, interpretation, news by sally

‘In Barton and Booth v R [2020] EWCA Crim 575, the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal considered the correct approach to be taken to dishonesty as it applies to the criminal law. In doing so, the Court confirmed that the test for dishonesty articulated in the Supreme Court decision of Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) (trading as Crockfords Club) [2017] UKSC 67 displaced the test for dishonesty that had been laid down in R v Ghosh [1982] QB 1053 and which had applied in the criminal courts for 35 years.’

Full Story

Exchange Chambers, 1st May 2020

Source: www.exchangechambers.co.uk

UK Supreme Court Relaxes the Test for Establishing a Breach of Article 3 in Medical Removal Cases – Oxford Human Rights Hub

‘On 29 April 2020, the UK Supreme Court handed down its judgment in the case of AM(Zimbabwe) v SSHD [2020] UKSC. This completes the domestic line of authority grappling with the ECtHR’s Grand Chamber’s judgment in Paposhvili v Belgium, which reformulated the applicable test where appellants allege that their proposed removal to a third country would be in breach of Article 3 ECHR as exposing them to inhuman or degrading treatment as a result of the unavailability of medical treatment there.’

Full Story

Oxford Human Rights Hub, 3rd May 2020

Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk

New Judgment: AM (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] UKSC 17 – UKSC Blog

‘This appeal related to the UK’s ability to deport a Zimbabwean citizen who, whilst being lawfully resident in the UK, had committed serious crimes. He sought to challenge the decision to deport him on the basis of ECHR, article 3. Being HIV positive, he argued that if deported he would be unable to access the medication he receives in the UK and which prevents his relapse into AIDS.’

Full Story

UKSC Blog, 29th April 2020

Source: ukscblog.com