‘The law in England and Wales will continue to be regarded as “gold standard” internationally despite the fact that the development of case law risks being stifled by the number of confidential arbitrations taking place in London, an expert has said.’
OUT-LAW.com, 4th April 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
General Medical Council v Michalak [2016] EWCA Civ 172
‘The claimant doctor made a complaint of discrimination against the respondent General Medical Council, alleging that, as a qualifications body, it had subjected her to a detriment in the course of its Fitness to Practise Panel procedure, contrary to section 53(2)(c) of the Equality Act 2010. At a preliminary hearing to determine whether the employment tribunal had jurisdiction under section 120 of the Act, an employment judge held that the claim was not excluded by section 120(7), as the act complained of was not subject “by virtue of an enactment” to “an appeal or proceedings in the nature of an appeal”, since there was no right of appeal under the Medical Act 1983 from a decision of the panel, nor did judicial review provide a means to challenge its decision. The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the General Medical Council’s appeal, holding that judicial review proceedings were proceedings “in the nature of an appeal” that arose “by virtue of an enactment”, namely section 31 of the Senior Courts Act 1981, that were available to the claimant, thereby precluding the jurisdiction of the employment tribunal.’
WLR Daily, 23rd March 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
‘Madonna has been granted permission to end the British legal action over the custody of her 15-year-old son, Rocco.’
BBC News, 21st March 2016
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
In re JL and AO (Babies Relinquished for Adoption): [2016] EWHC 440 (Fam)
‘In two cases babies, JL and AO, were born in England to mothers from Eastern Europe but relinquished at birth for adoption. In the case of JL the child, whose Estonian mother worked in England and whose putative father lived in Estonia, was accommodated by the local authority with the mother’s consent pursuant to an agreement under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 and was placed with foster carers. The mother gave her written consent to his adoption and the putative father, maternal family and the Estonian authorities all supported his adoption in this country. The local authority sought a placement order under section 21 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. In the case of AO, the Hungarian parents working in England wished the child to be adopted in this country. AO had been removed at birth and placed with foster carers and had been made a ward of court. The local authority, children’s guardian and Hungarian authorities sought the child’s return to Hungary so that she could be placed for adoption there. Common issues arose as to what jurisdiction the court had to make orders facilitating such placements, (ii) the factors which had to be taken into account when making decisions about relinquished babies, the possible outcomes and the procedures to be followed and (iii) where a child born to nationals of a foreign country had been placed voluntarily in the care of a local authority, with a view to adoption or otherwise, whether the authority was under an obligation under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963 to inform the consular officials of that country about the placement. In the case of JL, the further issues arose whether the court had jurisdiction to make a placement order and what order, if any, should be made. In the case of AO, the further issues arose whether it was open to the court either to transfer jurisdiction to Hungary under Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 (“Brussels IIA”) or to make an order permitting the local authority to send AO to Hungary; and what order, if any, the court should make.’
WLR Daily, 3rd March 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘John Tughan QC of 4 Paper Buildings analyses recent significant judgments in public children law.’
Family Law Week, 22nd February 2016
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
In the matter of B (A child) [2016] UKSC 4 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 3rd February 2016
‘According to the Law Society Gazette, the outcome of more than 2,000 may have been voided by the Form E software fault. Justice Minister Shailesh Vara MP has indicated, in a statement to Parliament, that the assets of more than 3,600 couples were miscalculated.’
Family Law Week, 15 February 2016
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘Habitual residence lies at the heart of the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“the 1980 Hague Convention”), and is the cornerstone of jurisdiction in international child law. Yet despite the centrality of the concept, its definition and application have always left much room for argument; and although it is often described as “a question of fact”, it has generated large volumes of authority at the highest level.’
Family Law Week, 14 February 2016
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘Charles Hale QC and Henry Clayton, both of 4 Paper Buildings, outline the debate which the Court of Appeal declined to resolve in the recent case of Ramadani v Ramadani [2015] EWCA Civ 1138.’
Family Law Week, 24th January 2016
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘Dawn Tighe considers the recent case of Re N Court of Appeal EWCA Civ 112 2015, determined by the Court of Appeal on 2nd November 2015 with regard to Article 15 applications.’
Park Square Barristers, 6th January 2016
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
‘Edward Heaton, Principal Associate and Jane Booth, Associate, both of Mills & Reeve LLP analyse the news and case law relating to financial remedies and divorce during December 2015.’
Family Law Week, 8th January 2016
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
Cook v Virgin Media Ltd; McNeil v Tesco plc [2015] EWCA Civ 1287; [2015] WLR (D) 538
‘The English court had power to apply the doctrine of forum non conveniens in a purely domestic context, exercising the court’s wide general case management powers in CPR rr 3.1(2)(m) and 3.3, and therefore could strike out or stay proceedings brought in England where Scotland was the natural and more appropriate forum.’
WLR Daily, 14th December 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Government of the United States of America v Giese [2015] EWHC 3658 (Admin); [2015] WLR (D) 550
‘An issue raised on appeal “that was not raised at the extradition hearing” referred to a new issue that was raised in argument on appeal as a ground for allowing the appeal and which was not the subject of concluded argument below for the purposes of meeting the condition for allowing an appeal set out in section 106(5)(a) of the Extradition Act 2003.’
WLR Daily, 21st December 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed an appeal against a decision of Scotland’s High Court of Justiciary (available here) in which it refused to overturn a criminal conviction on the basis that the non-disclosure of evidence breached the appellant’s right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).’
UK Human Rights Blog, 18th December 2015
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘A UK court ruling that it did not have the jurisdiction to hear and determine an appeal against a decision taken by domain name dispute resolution panel will be welcomed by brand owners, an expert has said.’
OUT-LAW.com, 11th December 2015
Source: www.out-law.com
‘The question of whether a seven-year-old girl, caught up in an international dispute between her estranged lesbian mothers, should be subject to British justice is to be decided by the supreme court.’
The Guardian, 8th December 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The potential for developing more US-style specialist tribunals – including courts dedicated to tackling the surge in domestic abuse cases – is being examined by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ).’
The Guardian, 7th December 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘By stepping in to resolve a dispute over the tribunal’s jurisdiction rather than leave the question to the tribunal, the English courts have in fact reinforced their commitment to support this form of dispute resolution.’
OUT-LAW.com, 1st December 2015
Source: www.out-law.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024