‘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.’
Local Government Lawyer, 21st May 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘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.’
Technology Law Update, 12th May 2020
Source: www.technology-law-blog.co.uk
‘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.’
Park Square Barristers, 5th May 2020
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
‘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.’
No. 5 Chambers, 29th April 2020
Source: www.no5.com
‘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.’
Richmond Chambers, 1st May 2020
Source: immigrationbarrister.co.uk
‘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.’
Broadway House Chambers, 1st May 2020
Source: broadwayhouse.co.uk
‘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.’
Exchange Chambers, 1st May 2020
Source: www.exchangechambers.co.uk
‘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.’
Oxford Human Rights Hub, 3rd May 2020
Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk
‘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.’
UKSC Blog, 29th April 2020
Source: ukscblog.com
‘This is an interesting case concerning whether the steps taken by the Appellant were sufficient for him to establish that he had remedied his material breach of contract.’
Park Square Barristers, 27th April 2020
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
‘In the recent case of T&P Real Estate Limited v The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Sutton [2020] EWHC 879 (Ch) Deputy Master Bowles described the background to the claim, and the application before him, as “…for a non-planner, not wholly straightforward”. In fairness, even for a planner, the subject matter of the claim is not uncomplicated involving as it did consideration of the interpretation, and effect of, an Article 4 Direction made in relation to the exercise of permitted development rights.’
No. 5 Chambers, 24th April 2020
Source: www.no5.com
‘Britain agreed to let Anne Sacoolas, the driver charged with killing 19-year-old motorcyclist Harry Dunn, return to the US on the basis of an “apparently illogical” interpretation of the law on diplomatic immunity, according to the most senior civil servant at the Foreign Office.’
The Guardian, 22nd April 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The case concerned the interpretation of an indemnity clause in an amended Shellvoy6 form Charterparty and whether the Claimant time charterers should be granted injunctive relief, in the form of security to be provided by the Defendant voyage charterers, so as to enable release of the MT “Miracle Hope” (the “Vessel”), which was under arrest in Singapore.’
33 Bedford Row, 7th April 2020
Source: www.33bedfordrow.co.uk
‘Is a field trip provided by a university to undergraduates as part of a degree course a package tour? The court considered the question in McCulloch v University of Leicester (HHJ Hedley, 27 February 2020).’
39 Essex Chambers, 8th April 2020
Source: www.39essex.com
‘Recent high-profile extradition cases have breathed new life into the old question of whether extradition relations between the US and the UK are imbalanced. On 12 February 2020, the Leader of the Opposition stated in Parliament “this lopsided treaty means the US can request extradition in circumstances that Britain cannot”. The Prime Minister replied: “to be frank, I think the right honourable Gentleman has a point in his characterisation of our extradition arrangements with the United States”. It is a question that has arisen time and again since the UK ratified the US/UK Extradition Treaty 2003 (‘the 2003 Treaty’). So, where does the truth of the matter lie?’
6KBW College Hill, 9th April 2020
Source: blog.6kbw.com
‘In the recent deportation case of Buci (Part 5A: “partner”: Albania) [2020] UKUT 87 (IAC)(‘Buci’) the Upper Tribunal (Lane J (President) + Mandalia (Upper Tribunal Judge)) has: (i) defined the meaning of “partner” for the purposes of the exception contained at sections 117C(5)/117D(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002; and (ii) clarified that, even if the relationship relied upon is not with a ‘partner’, it will still be necessary to consider the effect of deportation on the other person.’
33 Bedford Row, 7th April 2020
Source: www.33bedfordrow.co.uk
‘Driving to the countryside and walking – where more time is spent doing the latter than the former – is among a list of reasonable excuses for Britons leaving their home during the coronavirus lockdown, according to advice issued to police.’
The Guardian, 16th April 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Cornwall Council has won an appeal over whether its grant of planning permission for new holiday lodges was lawful in a case where relevant policies of the development plan pointed “in different directions”.’
Local Government Lawyer, 15th April 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The Upper Tribunal determined, by reference to the interpretation of the specific terms of various “Right to Buy” leases, whether the leaseholders were liable to contribute to the landlord’s costs of repairing structural defects.’
Tanfield Chambers, 2nd April 2020
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) acted irrationally and put a council in an impossible position when it ordered it to issue a caravan site licence, the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) has decided.’
Local Government Lawyer, 2nd April 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2023