‘”This Bill will leave UK citizens and businesses with less protection against the power of the state. Rights are not being brought home, they are being abolished.”
Andrew Langdon QC, Chair of the Bar.’
The Bar Council, 7th September 2017
Source: www.barcouncil.org.uk
‘The leaked Home Office document on Britain’s post-Brexit immigration policy spells out for the first time how ending the jurisdiction of the European court of justice will weaken family reunion rights for EU nationals in Britain.’
The Guardian, 6th September 2017
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Where the claimant in an arbitration ceases to exist, it is usually the respondent who contends that the arbitration has been or should be brought to an end. There may then be an issue whether the claimant’s claim in arbitration can survive by, for example, a principle of universal succession (Eurosteel Ltd v Stinnes AG [2000] CLC 470).’
Law Society's Gazette, 4th September 2017
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘Amid much media speculation, the Government has published its position paper on post-Brexit relations between the UK and the Court of Justice of the European Union.’
Law & Religion UK, 23rd August 2017
Source: www.lawandreligionuk.com
‘John Tughan QC of 4 Paper Buildings reviews a range of recent important public law cases.’
Family Law Week, 9th August 2017
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘Michael Jones, barrister, Deans Court Chambers, Manchester, considers the lessons to be learned from the case of X which attracted considerable attention in the mainstream media.’
Family Law Week, 15th August 2017
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘Parents in the UK would find it “much more difficult” to recover abducted children if Britain fails to persuade the EU to continue legal cooperation after Brexit, according to government officials detailing their latest plans.’
The Guardian, 22nd August 2017
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Justice minister Dominic Raab has conceded the UK would keep “half an eye” on rulings by the European Union’s highest court after Brexit as the government appeared to soften its stance on how heavily the bloc would influence UK law.’
The Guardian, 23rd August 2017
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Britain will be subject to the rulings of European courts after Brexit, the government has conceded, in an apparent climbdown from its promise of judicial independence.’
The Guardian, 21st August 2017
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The Lord Chief Justice and the Chancellor of the High Court have recently spoken about the need to counter misperceptions surrounding the certainty of litigating, arbitrating or otherwise resolving disputes in the UK. This booklet emphasises the unique strengths of English law and the high quality of dispute resolution services in the United Kingdom.’
Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, 4th August 2017
Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk
‘At the present time, a large range of civil proceedings, especially in the commercial area, are governed by an EU measure, the Brussels I Regulation (Recast) of 2012. This applies whenever the defendant is domiciled in another EU country, whenever there is a choice-of-court agreement designating a court in the EU, and whenever an EU Member State has exclusive jurisdiction over a particular matter, for example title to land or registered intellectual-property rights. The Regulation also applies to the recognition and enforcement of judgments between different EU States.’
OUP Blog, 24th July 2017
Source: blog.oup.com
‘Permitting judicial review of the issue of a diverted profits tax (DPT) charging notice would “undermine parliament’s intent”, the High Court has decided in a case concerning oil and gas distributing company, Glencore Energy.’
OUT-LAW.com, 11th July 2017
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Speech delivered by the Lord Chancellor at a HM Judges’ dinner at Mansion House, 6th July 2017’
Source: www.crimeline.info
‘Speech by the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales at the Dinner for Her Majesty’s Judges, 5 July 2017.’
Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, 6th July 2017
‘The long-awaited overhaul of the Insolvency Rules 1986 (IR 1986) is now complete, and the Insolvency Rules 2016 (IR 2016) came into force on 6 April 2017. The journey to this point has not been without its difficulties and it would be fair to say that many had anticipated them being in force some time earlier. Perhaps unusually for provisions so overtly procedural in their nature, IR 2016 have also proved to be somewhat controversial.
Hardwicke Chambers, 14th June 2017
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘Both sides to the negotiations have already taken positions on the mechanisms for dispute settlement under the arrangements for the UK’s withdrawal from, and its future relationship with, the EU. As with other aspects of the negotiations, we have to hope that more flexibility will be shown on this issue, once the hard bargaining begins, than has seemed evident in the preparatory stage.’
Henderson Chambers, 24th June 2017
Source: www.hendersonchambers.co.uk
‘The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) has held that, in determining whether a person is eligible to apply for a new tenancy on retirement of a tenant under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986, the livelihood condition need only be satisfied in the 7 year period running up to the date when the retirement notice was given, and not in the 7 year period preceding the determination of the application by the Tribunal.’
Tanfield Chambers, 4th July 2017
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
In re Nortel Networks UK Ltd and related companies (No 2) [2017] EWHC 1429 (Ch)
‘The applicants, the administrators of companies in the same group, were aware of a number of potential claims, which might if established, qualify as administration expenses (“expense claims”), and thereby rank for payment in priority to the claims of unsecured creditors. Neither the Insolvency Act 1986, nor the Insolvency Rules 1986, nor the Insolvency Rules 2016 provided any express mechanism under which an administrator could require expense claims to be asserted by a specific date, or enable him to refuse to deal with claims asserted after that date in the context of a distribution to unsecured creditors. In the absence of any applicable statutory scheme, the administrators applied to the High Court for directions under paragraph 63 of Schedule B1 to the 1986 Act to implement a scheme informing potential claimants that any expense claims which had not yet been made had to be notified to the administrators on a prescribed form on or before a specified date.’
WLR Daily, 16th June 2017
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024