“Three UK broadcasters have won the right to prevent an online streaming service provider from retransmitting the TV programmes they show to users of mobile devices via any ‘mobile telephony network’.”
OUT-LAW.com, 15th October 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
“On the proper interpretation of article 28(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, (as amended), ‘legislation’ to which a pensioner had been subject for the longest period of time, for the purpose of that provision, referred to legislation concerning pensions.”
WLR Daily, 10th October 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Victims of miscarriages of justice will have to prove their innocence in future or endure damaged reputations, human rights groups and Labour’s parliamentary frontbench are warning.”
The Guardian, 14th October 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“An action for annulment of a ‘regulatory act’ within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of article 263FEU of the FEU Treaty was available to an individual with a direct concern in an act of general application which was not a legislative act.”
WLR Daily, 3rd October 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Where the period of time allowed for commencing proceedings against a measure adopted by an European Union institution ran from the publication of that measure, the provisions of rule 102(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court whereby that period was to be calculated from the end of the 14th day after publication in the Official Journal of the European Union, applied to any published measure irrespective of the means of publication.”
WLR Daily, 26th September 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The colour purple (or rather pantone 2685C) is only slightly less gripping. It is the subject of a tussle between two of the world’s largest confectionery companies the latest stage of which has just ended in the Court of Appeal ( Société Des Produits Nestlé S.A. v Cadbury UK Ltd. [2013] EWCA Civ 1174 (4 Oct 2013)).”
NIPC Law, 4th October 2013
Source: www.nipclaw.blogspot.co.uk
“As is well known, in Hirst v UK (No 2) the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights concluded that Section 3(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1983, which removed the franchise from prisoners, was a disproportionate restriction of the right to vote found in article 3 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights. After two consultation papers, further judgments from the European Court of Human Rights, a declaration of incompatibility from the Scottish courts, a series of criticisms from the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe and the Joint Committee of Human Rights, a change of Government and a House of Commons debate, the Voting Eligibility (Prisoners) Draft Bill was proposed and is currently being scrutinised by a Joint Select Committee. To add to the mix, we are awaiting judgment on the latest discussion of the issue by the UK Supreme Court, in R (Chester) v Secretary of State for Justice and McGeogh v Lord President of the Council, heard on 10 June, not to mention the adjourned case of Firth v United Kingdom.”
UK Constitutional Law Group, 27th September 2013
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
“A direction given by the Secretary of State pursuant to paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 8 to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 saving specified policies had the effect of also preserving supporting text including the reasoned justification for each policy and descriptive or explanatory material.”
WLR Daily, 22nd August 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Green-belt campaigners have successfully challenged a scheme to turn the former home of press baron Lord Beaverbrook into a hotel and golf course, with a judgment that ‘engages the fundamentals of planning law’.”
Law Society’s Gazette, 22nd August 2013
Surce: www.lawgazette.co.uk
“On 9 July I looked at a Court of Appeal decision which showed that it remained arguable that a change in the arrangements between a creditor and the principal debtor might so alter the subject matter of what was guaranteed as to discharge the guarantor. This week comes a timely reminder that the first and fundamental step is to construe the contract to see what obligations are covered by the guarantee.”
Littleton Chambers, 19th July 2013
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
Regina (Minter) v Chief Constable of Hampshire Constabulary [2013] EWCA Civ 697; [2013] WLR (D) 289
“A convicted sex offender on whom an extended sentence was passed pursuant to section 85(2) of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 became subject to the notification requirements of Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 for an indefinite period under section 82(1) of the 2003 Act, if the aggregate of the custodial term and the extension period was 30 months or more, even if the custodial term was less than 30 months.”
WLR Daily, 1st May 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“While MPs were dreaming of the imminent long summer break and a possible pay hike, in mid-June the Government produced the draft amendments to the Civil Procedure Rules (‘CPR’) necessary to bring Part 2 of the Justice and Security Act 2013 (‘JSA’) into force. Many – including JUSTICE – consider the Act’s introduction of closed material procedures (‘CMP’) into civil proceedings unfair, unnecessary and unjustified.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 12th July 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“Seven of the UK’s leading human rights groups and privacy campaigners have demanded an urgent review of the laws being used to authorise the mass collection and analysis of data by Britain’s spy centre, GCHQ.”
The Guardian, 14th July 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“The judgment develops the growing body of case law surrounding planning consultants and both the substantive and costs judgments will be of interest to construction and costs practitioners alike. The case also raises interesting issues concerning exclusion clauses (including UCTA), limitation of liability, estoppel, waiver, extensions of time and the correct measure of loss.”
Full story (PDF)
4 New Square, 1st July 2013
Source: www.4newsquare.com
“The concept of ‘bad faith’ within article 4(4)(g) of Parliament and Council Directive 2008/95/EC of 22 October 2008 (to approximate the laws of the member states relating to trade marks) was an autonomous concept of European Union law which had to be given a uniform interpretation within the Union. The fact that the applicant for a trade mark registration knew or should have known that a third party was using a mark abroad at the time of filing his application, which was liable to be confused with his mark, was not sufficient, in itself, to permit the conclusion that the applicant was acting in bad faith. Member states were not permitted to introduce a system of specific protection of foreign marks which differed from the system established by article 4(4)(g) and which was based on the fact that the person making the application for registration of a mark knew or should have known of a foreign mark.”
WLR Daily, 27th June 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“William Hague has hailed GCHQ’s ‘democratic accountability’, but legislation drafted before a huge expansion of internet traffic appears to offer flexibility.”
The Guardian, 21st June 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Derek Hodd Ltd v Climate Change Capital Ltd [2013] EWHC 1665 (Ch); [2013] WLR (D) 238
“Where there had been a misnomer of a party to an agreement the court was able to take into account the same evidence of the background as would be admissible for the purpose of interpreting the contract, including any relevant course of dealing between the parties.”
WLR Daily, 14th June 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Does the law need to be rectified? Chartbrook revisited (PDF)
The Chancery Bar Association, Annual Lecture 2013
Source: www.chba.org.uk
Ahmadi v Secretary of State for the Home Department: [2013] EWCA Civ 512; [2013] WLR (D) 170
“Where a notice of immigration decision contained combined notice of both a refusal of an application for variation of leave to remain and a decision that the applicant should be removed by way of directions under section 47 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006, the removal decision was invalid.”
WLR Daily, 9th May 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“As all education lawyers know, the parent of a child who fails to attend school regularly commits a criminal offence punishable by a fine of up to £1000 (section 444(1) of the Education Act 1996). If the parent knows her child is failing to attend school and fails to cause her to do so, the ‘aggravated’ form of the offence (section 444(1A)) is committed which is punishable by a fine of up to £2500 and/or up to 3 months’ imprisonment. One of the statutory defences to both charges is that the child was prevented from attending ‘by reason of sickness or any unavoidable cause’ (section 444(2A)). It is a defence to the aggravated charge to prove reasonable justification for the failure to cause the child to attend (section 444(1B)).”
Education Law Blog, 10th May 2013
Source: www.education11kbw.com
© Inner Temple Library 2025