ECJ status post-Brexit – Counsel
‘Will the UK need to keep an eye on ECJ rulings after withdrawal? Rhodri Thompson QC examines the practical and political difficulties.’
Counsel, October 2017
Source: www.counselmagazine.co.uk
Category: interpretation
What’s in a Word? Home Office Lose Torture Definition Case – RightsInfo
‘Last week, the Home Office lost a case over its controversial definition of “torture,” which the High Court ruled was unlawful.’
RightsInfo, 16th October 2017
Source: rightsinfo.org
Construction of Terms in Cross-Licensing Agreements: Koninklijke Philips N.V. v Asustek Computer Incorporation and Others – NIPC Law
‘In FRAND 8 Oct 2017 I discussed the terms upon which patents for inventions that are essential to a standard are licensed. I noted that courts around the world had held that those terms should be fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory – in other words, FRAND. The Court of Appeal’s decision in Koninklijke Philips N.V. v Asustek Computer Incorporation and Others [2017] EWCA Civ 1526 (11 Oct 2017) concerned the construction of a clause licensing such patents. It is important to note, however, that none of the judges who heard the appeal mentioned the acronym, FRAND, and it appeared only twice in the judgment of the trial judge.’
NIPC Law, 13th October 2017
Source: nipclaw.blogspot.co.uk
‘Smart’ and autonomous vehicle cyber guidance: Data protection considerations – Technology Law Update
‘On 6 August 2017, in advance of proposed legislation, the UK government published 8 ‘Key Principles’ regarding the cyber security of connected and autonomous vehicles. This is the last of a series of 4 blogs regarding those principles.’
Technology Law Update, 30th August 2017
Source: www.technology-law-blog.co.uk
A radical reconsideration of the burden of proof: Efobi v Royal Mail Group Ltd (EAT) – Cloisters
‘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
Ex-legal chief attacks Theresa May’s ‘foolish’ claim on European court of justice – The Guardian
‘Theresa May’s Brexit strategy has been thrown into new doubt as a former head of the government’s legal services ridicules the prime minister’s claim that the UK can break free of all European laws while continuing to reap the economic benefits of the EU’s single market.’
The Guardian, 19th August 2017
Source: www.theguardian.com
Britain could be subject to European Court rulings until 2027, it emerges – Daily Telegraph
‘Britain could be subject to rulings by the European Court of Justice for years after the UK leaves the European Union, it has emerged.’
Daily Telegraph, 20th August 2017
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
Why are judges worried about the ECJ’s post-Brexit role? – The Guardian
‘The country’s most senior judge has called for government guidance amid fears over legal precedents and the status of long-running cases.’
The Guardian, 8th August 2017
Source: www.theguardian.com
Of course judges are worried about Brexit: their position is as clear as mud – The Guardian
‘The government must offer some clarity on the judiciary’s relationship to the ECJ – because the Brexit bill itself is ambiguous, and will lead to uncertainty all round.’
The Guardian, 8th August 2017
Source: www.theguardian.com
Major boost for claimants with Court of Appeal QOCS ruling – Litigation Futures
‘Qualified one-way costs shifting (QOCS) does apply for the benefit of a paralysed lorry driver who had his claim struck out against the Motor Insurance Bureau (MIB), the Court of Appeal has ruled, overturning the High Court.’
Litigation Futures, 10th July 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
Appeal court confirms scope of presumption in favour of sustainable development – OUT-LAW.com
‘The Court of Appeal has confirmed that the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out in paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), should only be treated as a material consideration by a planning inspector in the limited circumstances set out in that paragraph and not in any other circumstances.’
OUT-LAW.com, 7th July 2017
Source: www.out-law.com
How does the costs budget affect the final bill? – Court of Appeal provides guidance in Harrison – Zenith PI
‘Recent uncertainty as to how a costs budget impacts on the final bill in relation to both incurred and estimated costs has, to some extent, been resolved by the judgment in Harrison v University Hospitals Coventry & Warwickshire NHS Trust [2017] EWCA Civ 792.’
Zenith PI, 6th July 2017
Source: zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘Or’, ‘Or’ or ‘Or’: Construction of alternative notice provisions in a lease – Hardwicke Chambers
‘Earlier this year in the US, a legal case revolved around the use of an Oxford comma. Not to be outdone, last month the Court of Appeal in England & Wales had to determine the meaning of the word ‘or’; in doing so, they embarked upon a semantic analysis of one of the most common words in the English language, flavoured by the Supreme Court’s most recent case on construction of contracts.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 15th June 2017
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
Sustainable development: what does it mean and when is there a presumption in favour of it? – No. 5 Chambers
‘Case law junkies will no doubt recall that this was Barwood’s appeal against the decision of Green J in the High Court, who ruled that there is no presumption in favour of sustainable development (“PIFSD”) in cases were NPPF paragraph 14 is not engaged. The dispute over whether the NPPF (when looked at as a whole) contains a general presumption in favour of sustainable development, or whether such a presumption arises if and only if the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date (NPPF14), has been rumbling on ever since the decision of Coulson J in Wychavon DC v SSCLG [2016] EWHC 592 (Admin).’
No. 5 Chambers, 4th July 2017
Source: www.no5.com
Willpower & determination – New Law Journal
‘Paola Fudakowska & Henrietta Mason provide a wills & probate update.’
New Law Journal, 19th May 2017
Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk
A Question of Taste : The Supreme Court and the Interpretation of Contracts – Speech by Lord Sumption
A Question of Taste : T he Supreme Court and the Interpretation of Contracts (PDF)
Speech by Lord Sumption
Harris Society Annual Lecture, Keble College, Oxford, 8th May 2017
Source: www.supremecourt.uk
Sumption: Supreme Court pulling back from broad construction of contracts – Litigation Futures
‘Lord Sumption has called for a return to a more straightforward approach to how judges construct contracts that focuses on the words rather than trying to work out what the parties intended by looking at the surrounding circumstances.’
Litigation Futures, 16th May 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
Supreme Court: contractual interpretation depends on a combination of text and context – OUT-LAW.com
‘The correct interpretation of a contract in England and Wales will depend on a range of factors, including the words of the contract and the context in which they are used, according to the UK’s highest court.’
OUT-LAW.com, 3rd April 2017
Source: www.out-law.com
Convention’s prohibition on discrimination may apply to pre-Human Rights Act wills: Chancery Court – UK Human Rights Blog
‘Hand and Anor v George [2017] EWHC 533 (Ch) (17 March 2017). The Adoption of Children Act 1926 s.5(2) had the effect that adopted children were not treated as “children” for the purposes of testamentary dispositions of property. The continuing application of this provision was a breach of the rights guaranteed by Article 14 in combination with Article 8 of the Convention. Therefore, the contemporary version of that provision, Adoption Act 1976 Sch.2 para.6, had to be read down so as to uphold the right not to be discriminated against.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 30th March 2017
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
Strict Interpretation by Court of Appeal of Condition Precedent in Favour of Insured by Court of Appeal – Park Square Barristers
‘As with many insurance policies, the Respondent’s policy with the Appellant insurance company contained a condition precedent requiring the insured to notify its insurer “as soon as possible after the occurrence of any event likely to give rise to a claim”. The Appellant withdrew indemnity to the Respondent in respect of a claim, contending that such condition precedent had not been met.’
Park Square Barristers, 23rd January 2017
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
