‘In this talk we introduce you to some of the concepts that you need to be familiar with when dealing with human rights under the European Convention of Human Rights (“ECHR”) as incorporated into our domestic law by the Human Rights Act 1998 (“HRA”).’
Falcon Chambers, May 2016
Source: www.falcon-chambers.com
‘The ruling of the Supreme Court in JR55 raises a host of issues which deserve a much fuller analysis than can be developed in this post. The best reading of the case is that its impact is largely isolated to the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints scheme involved, an ombudsman scheme which closed on 1st April as a result of the Public Services Ombudsman Act (Northern Ireland) 2016.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 30th May 2016
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘Project Blue Limited (PBL) was not liable for stamp duty land tax (SDLT) in respect of its acquisition of the former Chelsea Barracks by means of a Shari’a finance scheme, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 31st May 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Companies should be free to ban Muslim women from wearing headscarves at work if they have a general policy barring all religious and political symbols, a senior EU lawyer has said.’
The Guardian, 31st May 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘A woman is taking the government to court for breaching her human rights in denying her bereavement damages after her partner died.’
BBC News, 22nd May 2016
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘I recently wrote on these pages criticising celebrity injunctions taken out to gag English newspapers, even when the stories were freely reported in other countries. The expensive celebrity game reminded me, I wrote, of the Spycatcher farce and the series of trials during which Margaret Thatcher tried to prevent British newspapers from publishing extracts from Peter Wright’s MI5 memoir, despite the book being freely obtainable outside England.’
Daily Telegraph, 22nd May 2016
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘Judges shouldn’t be frightened to set precedents. A list of those that have “gone too far” – including over a Guardian freedom of information request on the Prince of Wales’s letters – risks deterring justice.’
The Guardian, 12th May 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘HHJ Armstrong refused the Claimant’s application for permission to appeal the decision of District Judge Read that the Defendant was entitled to summary judgment when the Claimant could not establish need in relation to a vehicle he had hired.’
Zenith PI Blog, 27th April 2016
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘A claim against the Motor Insurance Bureau (MIB) by the victim of an accident in France does not have the protection of qualified one-way costs shifting (QOCS), the High Court has ruled.
Litigation Futures, 26th April 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘A commercial property tenant did not breach repair covenants set out in the lease when it replaced carpet tiles in the property with strip carpeting, the Court of Appeal has ruled, overturning the High Court’s decision.’
OUT-LAW.com, 21st April 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Cheshire East and Suffolk Coastal Councils are looking to take a key case over what are ‘relevant policies for the supply of housing’ to the Supreme Court.’
Local Government Lawyer, 18th April 2016
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘A High Court judge was wrong to override an exclusion clause in a complex contract for the hire of an offshore drilling rig, as the parties were commercial equals and the wording of the clause was sufficiently clear, the appeal court has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 15th April 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘In 2011, Marks and Spencer plc (“M&S”) operated a “break clause” in commercial leases of office premises. Following determination, M&S sought to recover from the landlord advance quarterly rent that it had paid for the period after the successful break. M&S relied, in part, on an implied term claim that post-break rent should be returned to it. The landlord denied the claim and litigation ensued. Morgan J in the High Court gave judgment for M&S on the claim. The Court of Appeal unanimously reversed the judgment. The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed M&S’ appeal and re-stated the principles for the implication of contract terms: Marks and Spencer plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Co (Jersey) Ltd[2015] UKSC 72, [2015] 3 WLR 1843.’
New Square Chambers, 11th April 2016
Source: www.newsquarechambers.co.uk
‘A High Court judge has upheld Hull City Council’s judicial review claim over advice given by Newcastle City Council to Greggs under the ‘Primary Authority’ scheme.’
Local Government Lawyer, 12th April 2016
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘A developer sought planning permission for a development on Green Belt land comprising nine residential houses and a barn and associated dwellings for a livery business. The proposal involved redevelopment of previously developed land at a livery, the business of which was partly retained. The local planning authority refused planning permission. On the developer’s appeal, an inspector appointed by the Secretary of State considered that the proposal comprising new buildings was appropriate development and concluded that, applying the requirements of the sixth exception in para 89 of the National Planning Policy Framework (“NPPF”), the new buildings would not impact adversely either on the openness of the Green Belt or the purposes for designation of the Green Belt. He accordingly allowed the developer’s appeal. The local planning authority applied under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to quash the inspector’s decision, contending, inter alia, that para 89, which listed six exceptions to the general policy that new buildings were inappropriate development in the Green Belt, should be interpreted to mean that development which was not only operational development for new buildings but also involved a material change in use for those buildings did not fall within the categories of appropriate development, and that therefore the inspector had erred in law in treating the proposal as appropriate development, since the construction of the new houses also involved a material change of use to residential or mixed residential and equestrian use.’
WLR Daily, 15th February 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v Roberts (Mark) and others [2016] EWCA Crim 71
‘In each of the 13 applications before the court, the applicants applied for an extension of time in which to apply for leave to appeal against sentences of imprisonment or detention for public protection (“IPP”)), imposed between 2005 and 2008 under the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Before the sentence of IPP was amended by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, the court was required to make the assumption that an offender was dangerous if he had been convicted on an earlier occasion of a specified offence, unless it was unreasonable to do so. Where he was found to be dangerous, and over 18, the court was required to pass a sentence of IPP or life imprisonment; the 2003 Act removed all discretion from the court once it was found that the offender was dangerous. All the applicants had either been detained in custody long after the expiry of the minimum term or had been recalled for breach of licence. The applicants submitted (1) that whatever might have been the position at the time the sentences of IPP were passed, the Court of Appeal had power under section 11 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 to pass sentences that, in the light of what had happened over the intervening years, now would be the proper sentence; (2) the Court of Appeal should reconsider the assessments made by sentencing judges in the light of R v Lang [2005] EWCA Crim 2864; [2006] 1 WLR 2509, and (3) a time could and had been reached when the length of the imprisonment was so excessive and disproportionate compared to the index criminal offence that it could amount to inhuman treatment under article 3 or arbitrary detention under article 5 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. That was because the detention no longer had any meaningful link to the index offence. A much delayed review of a sentencing decision could therefore be a mechanism the court could employ to avoid a breach of those Convention Rights. As the period now served by each of the applicants was so much longer than any conceivable determinate sentence would have required, the continued detention amounted to preventative detention and was therefore arbitrary. ‘
WLR Daily, 18th March 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Defendants have failed in two separate recent attempts to persuade courts to interpret the part 36 costs rules in a way that suited them.’
Litigation Futures, 16th March 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
Regina (Orbital Shopping Park Swindon Ltd) v Swindon Borough Council: [2016] EWHC 448 (Admin)
‘The claimant submitted two separate planning applications to the defendant: one for the installation of a mezzanine floor at its property; and the other for external works to the property, which created no additional floor space. The defendant granted planning permission for both applications, informing the claimant that the mezzanine installation was development liable to a community infrastructure levy (“CIL”). The defendant’s view was that the development proposals fell within the scope of the meaning of development for CIL purposes due to the direct link between the two applications for the mezzanine and external alterations. The defendant, as the relevant CIL collecting authority, subsequently issued a CIL liability notice under regulation 65 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 in relation to the installation of a mezzanine floor and external alterations at the claimant’s property, and a demand notice under regulation 69 of the 2010 Regulations in respect of the same development. By a judicial review claim the claimant challenged the lawfulness of the defendant’s act in issuing the two notices on the grounds that the mezzanine planning permission fell within the exemption created by regulation 6(1)(c) and that the external planning permission created no floor space and so was not liable to a CIL.’
WLR daily, 3rd March 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024