Ramdeen (Appellant) v The State (Respondent) – Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
Ramdeen (Appellant) v The State (Respondent) [2014] UKPC 7 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 27th March 2014
Category: jurisdiction
Care Proceedings: The European Dimension – Family Law Week
‘Michael Jones, barrister of 15 Winckley Square Chambers, offers a guide to practitioners conducting care proceedings involving families with European origins.’
Family Law Week, 25th March 2014
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
An English Judge in Europe – The Rt Hon. Lady Justice Arden
An English Judge in Europe (PDF)
Speech by The Rt Hon. Lady Justice Arden
Judiciary of England and Wales, 11th March 2014
Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk
Hitting the Balls out of Court: Are Judges Stepping Over the Line? – Speech by Lord Justice Moses
‘Hitting the Balls out of Court: Are Judges Stepping Over the Line?
Speech by Lord Justice Moses: Creaney Memorial Lecture 2014, 26/02/2014’
Judiciary Of England & Wales, 18th March 2014
Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk
APIL granted permission to challenge HMRC policy on mesothelioma victims’ work records – Litigation Futures
‘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
Coming to a tribunal near you: Anti-competitive practices and land agreements? – Hardwicke Chambers
‘The First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) has just been asked to decide whether it has jurisdiction to make a determination as to whether a restrictive covenant is void and unenforceable pursuant to the “Chapter I Prohibition” under the Competition Act 1998 (“the Act”).’
Hardwicke Chambers, 5th March 2014
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
Jessemy v Rowstock Ltd: post-termination victimisation and the limits of judicial reasoning – Employment Law Blog
‘Harini Iyengar explains the Court of Appeal’s conclusion in Jessemy v Rowstock Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 185 that victimisation of former employees remains unlawful even though “on any natural reading of the relevant provisions of the [Equality Act 2010], taken on their own and without reference to any contextual material, post-termination victimisation is not proscribed”.’
Employment Law Blog, 7th March 2014
Source: www.employment11kbw.com
Rowstock Ltd and another v Jessemey – WLR Daily
Rowstock Ltd and another v Jessemey [2014] EWCA Civ 185; [2014] WLR (D) 101
‘The Court of Appeal so stated when allowing the appeal of the claimant, Mr P Jessemey, against a decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal on 5 March 2013 [2013] ICR 807 dismissing his appeal against a decision by the employment tribunal sitting at Reading to dismiss his claim against his former employer Rowstock Ltd and its director Mr Davis for victimisation pursuant to section 108 of the Equality Act 2010.’
WLR Daily, 26th February 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Nottingham City Council v LM and others – WLR Daily
Nottingham City Council v LM and others [2014] EWCA Civ 152; [2014] WLR (D) 92
‘Jurisdiction had to be considered in every children case with an international element and at the earliest opportunity, particularly when the proceedings were issued and at the case management hearing.’
WLR Daily, 21st February 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
British Telecommunications plc v Office of Communications and others – WLR Daily
‘The Office of Communications had jurisdiction under section 316 of the Communications Act 2003 to impose conditions in broadcasting licences where the practices of licenceholders made it appropriate to impose such conditions to ensure fair and effective competition.’
WLR Daily, 17th February 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Whole-life jail terms loom for Lee Rigby killers Adebolajo and Adebowale, who will be sentenced next week – The Independent
‘The two men convicted of murdering Lee Rigby will be sentenced next week, after a key ruling was handed down today regarding the use of whole-life jail terms.’
The Independent, 18th February 2014
Source: www.independent.co.uk
Hamnett v Essex County Council – WLR Daily
Hamnett v Essex County Council [2014] EWHC 246 (Admin); [2014] WLR (D) 72
‘The Administrative Court, hearing a claim for a statutory review brought under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, did not have jurisdiction to investigate an alleged breach of section 29 of the Equality Act 2010.’
WLR Daily, 13th February 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Court of Protection Update – Family Law Week
‘Sally Bradley and Michael Edwards, barristers of 4 Paper Buildings, consider the President’s guidance on transparency in the Court of Protection as well as the most important recent judgments.’
Family Law Week, 16th February 2014
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
The Extraterritorial Application of the European Convention on Human Rights – Speech by Lord Dyson, Master of the Rolls
‘A State’s sovereignty is understood by reference to a geographical territory and jurisdiction is understood by reference to a State’s authority over persons within that territory. The primarily territorial perspective of jurisdiction must also be understood against the background of the historical period in which many international treaties, including the Convention, were written. In the post-WWII era, jurisdiction was a tool to allocate competency among fiercely independent and volatile nation States. In the minds of the drafters of such conventions, if one State assumed extraterritorial jurisdiction then it would, necessarily, encroach upon another State’s jurisdiction.’
Judiciary of England and Wales, 30th January 2014
Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk
Regina v Lewis (Leroy) – WLR Daily
Regina v Lewis (Leroy): [2013] EWCA Crim 2596; [2014] WLR (D) 38
‘Once an indictment had been properly preferred and signed it remained the indictment in the case, so that the Crown Court had jurisdiction to try a case where no evidence had been offered on the single indictable offence and only summary offences were left to be tried.’
WLR Daily, 5th December 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Vidal-Hall and others v Google Inc – WLR Daily
Vidal-Hall and others v Google Inc [2014] EWHC 13 (QB); [2014] WLR (D) 21
‘A claim for misuse of private information was a tort within the meaning of para 3.1(9) of Practice Direction 6B—Service out of the jurisdiction.’
WLR Daily, 16th January 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Taj Mahal Hotel injury claim allowed to proceed in English courts – UK Human Rights Blog
‘This sad case arose out of the 2006 terrorist attack on the Taj Mahal Palace, Mumbai, India. The claimants, who had spent 15 days backpacking around Goa, decided to treat themselves to one night of luxury at the hotel before they were due to fly home from Mumbai. Shortly after the attack began the claimants hid in their room, locked the door and turned off the lights. Some hours later they tried to escape through the window. Their room was on the third floor of the tower part of the hotel. They tied together sheets, curtains and towels to make a rope. They hung it outside their room and the first claimant went first. The “rope” came apart and he fell to the ground suffering serious spinal injuries which have left him paraplegic. The second claimant was rescued subsequently. She did not suffer physical injuries but claims for continuing psychiatric consequences.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 24th January 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
New Year, new tort of misuse of private information – UK Human Rights Blog
‘A group of UK Google users called ‘Safari Users Against Google’s Secret Tracking’ have claimed that the tracking and collation of information about of their internet usage by Google amounts to misuse of personal information, and a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998. The Judge confirmed that misuse of personal information was a distinct tort. He also held that the English courts had jurisdiction to try the claims.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 23rd January 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
In re E (A Child) – WLR Daily
In re E (A Child) [2014] EWHC 6 (Fam); [2014] WLR (D) 10
‘In any care or other public law case with a European dimension good practice would now require the court to set out explicitly the basis upon which it had either accepted or rejected jurisdiction and to identify the precise basis upon which it had proceeded. Furthermore, in cases involving foreign nationals there had to be transparency and openness as between the English family courts and the consular and other authorities of the relevant foreign state.’
WLR Daily, 14th January 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
