Will the human rights court throw Britain a lifeline on prisoner votes? – The Guardian

Posted May 21st, 2012 in elections, human rights, jurisdiction, news, prisons by sally

“If Strasbourg upholds its previous judgments, Cameron shouldn’t expect the bill of rights commission to come to his rescue.”

Full story

The Guardian, 21st May 2012

Source: www.guardian.co.uk

Supreme Court judge on war, intelligence and the retreat of judicial deference – UK Human Rights Blog

“The recent standoff between two leading judicial lights, Jonathan Sumption and Stephen Sedley, may make for entertaining reading, but don’t be fooled.”

Full story

UK Human Rights Blog, 20th May 2012

Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com

Extradition: where and why? – Halsbury’s Law Exchange

Posted May 3rd, 2012 in evidence, extradition, jurisdiction, news by sally

“The past few months have seen a great many column inches dedicated to the issue of extradition. The dismissal of the extradition challenges by Abu Hamza and others has led to many commentators heaping praise on the ECtHR for making the correct choice in granting the extradition of these men to the US. The attempt by the Home Secretary to deport Abu Qatada to Jordan continues to stimulate debate and raise erudite procedural issues.”

Full story

Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 2nd May 2012

Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk

F-Tex SIA v Lietuvos-Anglijos UAB „Jadecloud-Vilma“ – WLR Daily

F-Tex SIA v Lietuvos-Anglijos UAB „Jadecloud-Vilma“; (Case C-213/10);  [2012] WLR (D)  123

“Where a liquidator assigned a claim to have a transaction set aside derived from the national law applicable to the insolvency proceedings, the claim subsequently made by the assignee against a third party to have the transaction set aside came within the concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’ within the meaning of article 1(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L12, p1) and was no longer covered by the exception in article 2(b) for insolvency proceedings.”

WLR Daily, 19th April 2012

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Regina (Rudewicz) v Secretary of State for Justice (Save Fawley Court Committee and others, interested parties – WLR Daily

Regina (Rudewicz) v Secretary of State for Justice (Save Fawley Court Committee and others, interested parties) [2012] EWCA Civ 499;  [2012] WLR (D)  121

“It was for the Secretary of State of Justice, as the licensing authority for the exhumation of human remains (other than the power of a consistory court to grant a faculty to exhume human remains interred in consecrated ground of the Anglican Church), to determine on what grounds and in what circumstances to grant a licence to remove human remains. Apart from an obligation to act rationally and otherwise in accordance with the general law, there should be no fetter on his jurisdiction, nor any justification to import a presumption of permanence.”

WLR Daily, 24th April 2012

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Wintersteiger AG v Products 4U Sondermaschinenbau GmbH – WLR Daily

Posted April 25th, 2012 in advertising, EC law, internet, jurisdiction, law reports, trade marks by sally

Wintersteiger AG v Products 4U Sondermaschinenbau GmbH (Case C-523/10); [2012] WLR (D) 117

“Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters meant that an action relating to infringement of a trade mark registered in a member state because of the use, by an advertiser, of a keyword identical to that trade mark on a search engine website operating under a country-specific top-level domain of another member state could be brought before either the courts of the member state in which the trade mark was registered or the courts of the member state of the place of establishment of the advertiser.”

WLR Daily, 19th April 2012

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

The Brighton Declaration and the “meddling court” – UK Human Rights Blog

Posted April 23rd, 2012 in admissibility, courts, human rights, judiciary, jurisdiction, news by sally

“The Brighton Declaration is the latest Declaration (see previously the Interlaken and Izmir Declarations) on the future (and reform) of the European Court of Human Rights made on behalf of the 47 member States to the Council of Europe, the parent organisation for the ECHR. Brighton was the venue, the United Kingdom having taken up the six month Chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe late last year.”

Full story

UK Human Rights Blog, 22nd April 2012

Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com

Ken Clarke: ECHR reforms ‘will cut UK’s frustration’ – BBC News

Posted April 23rd, 2012 in admissibility, appeals, courts, deportation, human rights, judiciary, jurisdiction, news by sally

“Ken Clarke has said changes to the European Court of Human Rights will reduce ‘frustration’ over cases such as the proposed deportation of Abu Qatada.”

Full story

BBC News, 22nd April 2012

Source: www.bbc.co.uk

Yes, criticise individual cases but Strasbourg court should develop law – The Guardian

Posted April 23rd, 2012 in admissibility, human rights, judiciary, jurisdiction, news by sally

“Report shows most criticism of judgments from European court of human rights is fact-specific.”

Full story

The Guardian, 20th April 2012

Source: www.guardian.co.uk

Vulnerable adults still protected by High Court’s “great safety net” – UK Human Rights Blog

Posted April 10th, 2012 in appeals, human rights, jurisdiction, mental health, news by sally

“Where adults have capacity under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005), does the ‘great safety net’ of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction still exist to guard them from the effect on their decision making of undue influence, coercion, duress etc? In its judgment handed down on 28 March 2012, the Court of Appeal confirmed that it does.”

Full story

UK Human Rights Blog, 6th April 2012

Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com

Innovia Films Ltd v Frito-Lay North America Inc – WLR Daily

Posted April 5th, 2012 in jurisdiction, law reports, patents by sally

Innovia Films Ltd v Frito-Lay North America Inc [2012] EWHC 790 (Pat); [2012] WLR (D) 107

“Where a court had jurisdiction under section 82(4)(b) of the Patents Act 1977 to determine a question to which section 82 applied, the court’s jurisdiction was exclusive of all other possible jurisdictions.”

WLR Daily, 30th March 2012

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

British American Tobacco Switzerland SA and others v Exel Europe Ltd and others; British American Tobacco Denmark A/S and others v Exel Europe Ltd and another – WLR Daily

British American Tobacco Switzerland SA and others v Exel Europe Ltd and others; British American Tobacco Denmark A/S and others v Exel Europe Ltd and another [2012] EWHC 694 (Comm) QB; [2012] WLR (D) 98

“Article 31.1 of the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road, set out in the Schedule to the Carriage of Goods by Road Act 1965, restricted the courts where an action could be brought against a defendant, and the fact that the English court had jurisdiction under article 31.1 to entertain an action against one of a series of carriers of the same goods did not enable successive carriers of those goods, in respect of whom the court did not otherwise have jurisdiction under article 31.1, to be joined in the same proceedings.”

WLR Daily, 23rd March 2012

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Lamichhane v Secretary of State for the Home Department – WLR Daily

Posted March 12th, 2012 in appeals, immigration, jurisdiction, law reports, tribunals by sally

Lamichhane v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 260; [2012] WLR (D) 67

“The Secretary of State had discretionary power to serve a notice under section 120 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 although failure to serve did not render an immigration decision unlawful.”

WLR Daily, 7th March 2012

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Former cricketer Chris Cairns sues in libel tourism case – Daily Telegraph

“Ex-New Zealand cricketer Chris Cairns, who is suing a former Indian Premier League boss over a Twitter posting, will have his case heard by the High Court today in the latest example of libel tourism.”

Full story

Daily Telegraph, 5th March 2012

Source: www.telegraph.co.uk

Christopher Tappin extradition ‘highlights problems’ – The Independent

Posted February 29th, 2012 in extradition, jurisdiction, news, sentencing, treaties by sally

” The extradition of a British businessman has highlighted problems with the treaty between the UK and the United States which are not ‘readily curable’, the Attorney General said today.”

Full story

The Independent, 28th February 2012

Source: www.independent.co.uk

High Street Gloom, Adjudication Boom – Hardwicke Chambers

Posted February 15th, 2012 in abuse of process, dispute resolution, jurisdiction, news by sally

“Forum shopping is an ill against which the courts are always vigilant to guard. Adjudication is a process that, naturally, is vulnerable to forum shopping because the parties have control over the selection of the tribunal that is to decide the dispute, which is unlike anything that would occur in the ordinary run of litigation.”

Full story

Hardwicke Chambers, 10th February 2012

Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk

Preddy and another v Bull and another – WLR Daily

Preddy and another v Bull and another [2012] EWCA Civ 83; [2012] WLR (D) 30

“By operating a policy of restricting occupancy of double-bedded rooms in their hotel to married couples, the defendants had discriminated directly against the claimant, a homosexual couple. The defendants’ policy, dictated by their religious belief that it was sinful for heterosexual or homosexual couples to have sexual relations outside marriage, was not protected under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007 because the former could be married but the latter could not. The restriction was therefore absolute in relation to homosexuals but not in relation to heterosexuals, and constituted discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. No individual was entitled to manifest his religious belief when and where he chose so as to obtain exemption in all circumstances from some legislative provisions of general application. Furthermore, by virtue of article 9(2 ) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the right to manifest one’s own religious belief, as opposed to the right to hold it, was qualified by such ‘limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society … for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others’ such as the claimants’ rights which were protected under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007.”

WLR Daily, 10th February 2012

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Ravat v Halliburton Manufacturing and Services Ltd [2011] UKSC 1; [2012] WLR (D) 24

Ravat v Halliburton Manufacturing and Services Ltd [2011] UKSC 1; [2012] WLR (D) 24

“An employment tribunal could consider a claim for unfair dismissal by an employee who worked overseas if the connection between the employment relationship and Great Britain was sufficiently strong to show that that could be justified.”

WLR Daily, 8th February 2012

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Schmitt v Deichmann and others – WLR Daily

Posted January 25th, 2012 in administrators, foreign companies, fraud, insolvency, jurisdiction, law reports by sally

Schmitt v Deichmann and others [2012] EWHC 62 (Ch); [2012] WLR (D) 8

“The court had an inherent jurisdiction under the common law to permit the statutory power under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986, preventing transactions defrauding creditors, to be applied to a foreign administrator not falling within the express scope of the 1986 Act.”

WLR Daily, 23rd January 2012

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Star Reefers Pool Inc v JFC Group Co Ltd – WLR Daily

Posted January 24th, 2012 in appeals, injunctions, jurisdiction, law reports, vexatious litigants by sally

Star Reefers Pool Inc v JFC Group Co Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 14; [2012] WLR (D) 3

“A judge’s decision that a party’s foreign proceedings were vexatious or oppressive was an evaluative judgment in a matter on which there was a right or wrong answer, not an exercise of discretion. Accordingly it was open to the Court of Appeal to conduct a serious review of the issue.”

WLR Daily, 20th January 2012

Source: www.iclr.co.uk