‘ Tchenguiz v. Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2014] EWCA Civ 472, 15 April 2014. This judgment is a neat illustration of how important it is to keep the concepts of public law and private law unlawfulness separate – they do not necessarily have the same legal consequences.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 15th April 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Blake and others v LB Waltham Forest [2014] EWHC 1027 (Admin) is a judicial review challenge to the local authority’s decision to terminate a licence held by Christian Kitchen (the 3rd Claimant) to operate its soup kitchen out of the Mission Grove Car Park, Walthamstow, London, E17.’
NearlyLegal, 13th April 2014
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘The Home Secretary had acted unlawfully in failing to identify and take account of certain essential living needs for which provision had to be made in setting the level of cash support under section 96(1)(b) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.’
WLR Daily, 9th April 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Any order made by any court under section 39 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 prohibiting the identification of (among others) a defendant under the age of 18 years could not extend to reports of the proceedings after the subject of the order had reached the age of majority at 18.’
WLR Daily, 8th April 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A woman with Crohn’s disease has lost a legal challenge against a decision to refuse NHS funding to freeze her eggs.’
BBC News, 15th April 2014
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘This is a slightly surprising case involving a judicial review of refusal of permission to appeal.’
NearlyLegal, 11th April 2014
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘It is Prison Service policy that prisons provide a fair and equal service to all prisoners, including to those who are disabled. The purpose of this policy is to make sure that the Prison Service meets its obligations under the Equality Act 2010 (EqA). However, for many disabled prisoners, these obligations are not being met.’
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 4th April 2014
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
‘Hundreds of black and Asian doctors have had promising careers “halted” because of racial discrimination in the way GPs are examined, a leading doctor has claimed, before a landmark High Court hearing in which two pillars of the medical establishment will be accused of breaching equality laws.’
The Independent, 6th April 2014
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘A recent High Court decision risks “emasculating” the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO), an expert has said, after the judge allowed the authority to pay only one fifth of the compensation awarded against it.’
OUT-LAW.com, 1st April 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
‘The Supreme Court’s much anticipated judgments in Kennedy v The Charity Commission make for a long read. But they are very important. All the parties in Kennedy were represented by Counsel from 11KBW: Andrew Sharland for Mr Kennedy; Karen Steyn and Rachel Kamm for the Charity Commission and the Secretary of State; Ben Hooper for the ICO; and Christopher Knight for the Media Legal Defence Initiative and Campaign for Freedom of Information.’
Panopticon, 28th March 2014
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
‘Public law principles allow you to challenge a decision of a public authority if the consultation process preceding it was unfair. Unfairness comes in many shapes and sizes, but the commonest one alleged is that it was not carried out at the formative stage. The authority had already made up enough of its mind so the consultation process ceased to mean anything – it was just going through the motions.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 28th March 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘As MPs and Peers consider the Civil Legal Aid (Remuneration)(Amendment)(No 3) Regulations and the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill, Angela Patrick, Director of Human Rights Policy at JUSTICE considers the Lord Chancellor’s view that proposed judicial review changes do not restrict access to judicial review remedies or restrict the rule of law.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 26th March 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The high court will on Monday rule on a challenge by charities working with prisoners to the legality of legal aid cuts introduced by justice secretary Chris Grayling. The Howard League for Penal Reform and the Prisoners’ Advice Service (PAS) say vulnerable people in the prison system, including inmates with mental health problems and mothers with young babies, will suffer injustice.’
The Guardian, 17th March 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The High Court is this week hearing a judicial review that claimant lawyers hope will strike down the deeply unpopular policy of HM Revenue & Customs that means it will only release the employment history of a mesothelioma victim to their lawyer with a High Court order.’
Litigation futures, 12th March 2014
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The union challenge to the Tribunal fees regime was seen off by Chambers’ own Susan Chan, representing the Lord Chancellor as sole counsel, who herself enjoys a busy employment practice. For obvious reasons she is unable to comment on the matter herself. Though of course a public law case, there can scarcely have been a judicial review decision in recent memory of more interest to the employment practitioner.’
13 KBW Employment, 7th March 2014
‘Two charities will go to court tomorrow (6 March) to seek permission to challenge the government’s decision to cut legal aid for prisoners.’
CrimeLine, 5th March 2014
Source: www.crimeline.info
‘In determining whether an individual, whose conviction had been quashed on the basis of new evidence, qualified for compensation under section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 on the ground of miscarriage of justice, the Secretary of State for Justice was required to make a decision by applying the statutory test in accordance with Supreme Court guidance to the facts of the particular case. Those facts could include events which postdated the quashing of the conviction in the event that further facts of relevance to the application of the statutory test arose. The Secretary of State might come to his own view, having regard to the terms of the judgment by the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) quashing the conviction, and provided the decision did not conflict with that judgment. The decision was then amenable to judicial review on conventional grounds of challenge, not merely because the court would have reached a different view. Save in exceptional circumstances, it should not be necessary for the court to engage in a detailed review of the facts.’
WLR Daily, 27th February 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘An inspector was entitled to find that land subject to an application for registration as a village green had ceased to be used “as of right”, a High Court judge has found.’
OUT-LAW.com, 28th February 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Mr Gul had been imprisoned for a period, on 24 February 2011, for disseminating terrorist publications. When he was released on 6 July 2012, this was under licence, as is common following the release of dangerous prisoners. Mr Gul challenged some of the conditions of his licence by judicial review. The court rejected his challenge.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 2nd March 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Stephen Sedley on the purpose of judicial review.’
London Review of Books, 28th February 2014
Source: www.lrb.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024