‘The test for whether the UK employment tribunal has jurisdiction to hear an unfair dismissal claim from somebody who lives and works abroad should not include a comparison of the relative merits of the different employment laws that could apply, the Court of Appeal has found.’
OUT-LAW.com, 24th September 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Alex Verdan QC of 4 Paper Buildings considers recent judgments in private law children cases, including the President’s judgment on legal aid funding in Q v Q.’
Family Law Week, 19th September 2014
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘The Legal Ombudsman (LeO) has introduced a policy for dealing with complaints about organisations which provide non-legal as well as legal services, such as some alternative business structures (ABSs) and, shortly, accountants who offer probate advice.’
Legal Futures, 19th September 2014
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘Article 3(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings meant that, where winding-up proceedings were opened in respect of a company in a member state other than that in which it had its registered office, secondary insolvency proceedings could also be opened in respect of that company in the other member state in which its registered office was situated and in which it possessed legal personality. The question as to which person or authority was empowered to seek the opening of secondary proceedings had to be determined on the basis of the national law of the member state within the territory of which the opening of such proceedings was sought pursuant to article 29(b) of the Regulation. The right to seek the opening of secondary proceedings could not, however, be restricted to creditors who had their domicile or registered office within the member state in whose territory the relevant establishment was situated, or to creditors whose claims arose from the operation of that establishment. Where the main insolvency proceedings were winding-up proceedings, the decision as to whether the court before which the action seeking the opening of secondary insolvency proceedings had been brought could take account of criteria as to appropriateness was governed by the national law of the member state within the territory of which the opening of secondary proceedings was sought. However, when establishing the conditions for the opening of secondary proceedings, member states had to comply with EU law and, in particular, its general principles, as well as the provisions of the Regulation.’
WLR Daily, 4th September 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘An action for the payment of a debt based on the provision of carriage services taken by the insolvency administrator of an insolvent undertaking in the course of insolvency proceedings opened in one member state and taken against a service recipient established in another member state came under the concept of “civil and commercial matters” within the meaning of article 1(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001. Moreover, article 71 of Regulation No 44/2001 meant that, in a situation where a dispute fell within the scope of both that regulation and the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road, as amended, a member state could, in accordance with article 71(1) of that Regulation, apply the rules concerning jurisdiction laid down in article 31(1) of that Convention.’
WLR Daily, 4th September 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Ever wondered what the difference is between the human rights convention and the Human Rights Act? This may help.’
The Guardian, 1st September 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Regina (Panesar) v Central Criminal Court and another; [2014] EWHC 2821 (Admin); [2014] WLR (D) 382
‘Notwithstanding that the material in question had been seized without good grounds and that the relevant warrants had been quashed, the Crown Court enjoyed jurisdiction to hear an application that material held subsequent to seizure in execution of search warrants should be retained by an investigating authority.’
WLR Daily, 14th August 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘M, who was 24-years-old, was in the late stages of her first pregnancy (X County Council v M). She suffered from persecuting delusions including a belief that mental health services were “murderers” and would murder her and her unborn child. The local authority applied to the court for permission not to disclose to M the care plan for the removal of her baby at birth. They also applied for a reporting restrictions order. The Family Division held that despite the fact that both orders sought were draconian, the orders would be granted in the circumstances of the case.’
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 14th August 2014
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
Young v Anglo American South Africa Ltd and others (No 2) [2014] EWCA Civ 1130; [2014] WLR (D) 370
‘Where a company had its statutory seat and principal place of business outside England, to determine whether a claim against it could be brought in England for the purposes of article 60(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, the claimant had to show a good arguable case that England was the jurisdiction where the company had its “central administration”, which was the place where, through its relevant organs according to its own constitutional provisions, it took the decisions essential for that its operations.’
WLR Daily, 31st July 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Deirdre Fottrell, Barrister of One Garden Court, considers the parameters of habitual residence and jurisdiction in the light of Re H (Jurisdiction) [2014] EWCA Civ 1101.’
Family Law Week, 6th August 2014
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
Regina v Rogers (Bradley) and others [2014] EWCA Crim 1680; [2014] WLR (D) 362
‘Both the provisions relating to money laundering contained in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and earlier authority provided jurisdiction in the English courts to cover an allegation of converting criminal property obtained by fraud in the United Kingdom by a person living and working in Spain who permitted the money to be received into his Spanish bank account and then withdrawn from it.’
WLR Daily, 1st August 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
In re H (Children) (Custody Rights: Jurisdiction) [2014] EWCA Civ 1101; [2014] WLR (D) 343
‘There was no longer a “rule” that where two parents had parental responsibility for a child neither could unilaterally change the child’s habitual residence. The correct approach was a factual inquiry tailored to the circumstances of an individual case. Where the issue related to removal of children to a country outside the EU, jurisdiction to determine an application for their return remained with the courts of England and Wales.’
WLR Daily, 29th July 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘John Tughan, barrister, of 4 Paper Buildings reviews recent important judgments in public law children cases.’
Family Law Week, 24th July 2014
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
Regina (M) v Crown Court at Kingston upon Thames [2014] WLR (D) 328
‘The power under section 35 of the Mental Health Act 1983, to remand to hospital for a report on an accused’s mental condition, could not be used in order to obtain evidence about whether the accused had the intention or the capacity to form the intention to commit an offence under section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.’
WLR Daily, 17th July 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The policy of the Foreign Secretary to refuse to provide funding for legal representation to United Kingdom nationals who were facing the death penalty abroad was lawful.’
WLR Daily, 16th july 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The UK Supreme Court has called on the British government to review the case of a grandmother facing execution in Indonesia on drug charges.’
BBC News, 16th July 2014
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Public Law Project v Secretary of State for Justice [2014] EWHC 2365. Angela Patrick of JUSTICE has provided an excellent summary of this important ruling, which declared a proposed statutory instrument to be ultra vires the LASPO Act under which it was to have been made. The judgment is an interesting one, not least for some judicial fireworks in response to the Lord Chancellor’s recourse to the Daily Telegraph after the hearing, but before judgment was delivered.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 15th July 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘House of Lords is scheduled to vote on the Government’s proposals for a residence test for access to legal aid, Angela Patrick, Director of Human Rights Policy at JUSTICE considers today’s judgment of the Divisional Court in PLP v Secretary of State for Justice.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 15th July 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Jessica Craigs, senior solicitor at Mills & Reeve LLP, reviews the latest developments and judgments relating to marriage, divorce and financial remedies.’
Family Law Week, 11th July 2014
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024