‘The fate of two Trinidadian prisoners, both of whom have been condemned to death despite having extremely low IQs, will be decided by British judges this week.’
The Guardian, 15th May 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘On 25 January 2016 the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council handed down judgment in the case of Williams v The Bermuda Hospitals Board [2016] UKPC 4, the most recent reported decision regarding material contribution in clinical negligence cases. While not binding in domestic courts the case is highly persuasive authority.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 8th March 2016
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘Reforming higher education in England is both long overdue, and vitally needed to protect the sector’s hard-won reputation.’
OUT-LAW.com, 15th January 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘The majority of claims against professionals are framed in contract, the tort of negligence, or a combination of both. As readers of this article will be aware, the Limitation Act 1980 provides the same limitation period for both causes of action: “six years from the date on which the case of action arose.” But readers will also know that those periods frequently begin (and more importantly end) on different dates. This is because a breach of contract is actionable per se, i.e. without the need to prove damage, where as a claim in negligence requires proof of damage, which will often occur some time after the breach of duty, which is said to have caused it. For this reason many claims which are out of time for a claim in contract, are nevertheless in time for a claim in the tort of negligence.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 2nd December 2015
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘Norman Murray Pringle, an accountant living in High Wycombe, is attempting to prove his aristocratic entitlement as the next baronet of Stichill.’
Daily Telegraph, 25th November 2015
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘Human rights law has had a long and tortuous history in the UK, defined by some of the most fascinating cases in legal memory.’
OUP Blog, 10th November 2015
Source: www.blog.oup.com
‘Journalists seeking to rely on the new ‘public interest’ defence to a claim of defamation will still have to be able to prove that they have taken steps to verify the accuracy of what they have published, an expert has said.’
OUT-LAW.com, 15th October 2015
Source: www.out-law.com
‘DNA evidence could be used for the first time to resolve a feud over a hereditary title after the Queen personally intervened in the case.’
Daily Telegraph, 11th October 2015
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘Courts should not dismiss an application for judicial review solely on the grounds that one party has not complied with its duty to disclose all necessary facts and issues if doing so would not be in the interests of justice, one of the UK’s highest courts has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 19th June 2015
Source: www.out-law.com
‘A proclamation signed by the Governor General authorising alteration of the constituency boundaries in the territories of St Christopher and Nevis was made, under section 119 of the Constitution, when it was published in the Official Gazette; and it came into force, pursuant to section 50(6) of the Constitution, on the next dissolution of Parliament after it was made. Therefore, where the Governor General had dissolved Parliament with effect from 16 January 2015 and fixed the election date for 16 February 2015, and, by proclamation published in the Official Gazette on 20 January, authorised alteration of the constituency boundaries, the proclamation, having been made after the dissolution of Parliament, if valid only came into force on the dissolution of the Parliament elected in February 2015 and did not govern the 2015 election.’
WLR Daily, 11th May 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The Privy Council decision in Nilon Limited v Royal Westminster Investments₁ has put the brakes on the expanding jurisdiction of the BVI Courts over claims involving BVI companies, and reiterated the need for a common sense approach to forum conveniens. Peter Head considers the decision.’
Full story (PDF)
11 Stone Buildings, February 2014
Source: www.11sb.com
The Supreme Court in the United Kingdom Constitution (PDF)
Lecture by Lady Hale
The Bryce Lecture, 5th February 2015
Source: www.supremecourt.uk
‘Seven British judges will consider whether two convicted murderers from Trinidad should have their death penalty sentences lifted by the privy council.’
The Guardian, 4th February 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The test for the grant of an interlocutory injunction to prevent payment under an irrevocable letter of credit on the grounds of fraud was whether it was seriously arguable that, on the material available, the only realistic inference was that (i) the beneficiary could not honestly have believed in the validity of its demands under the letter of credit, and (ii) the bank had been aware of such fraud.’
WLR Daily, 9th September 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Yiacoub v The Queen; [2014] UKPC 22; [2014] WLR (D) 314
‘Justice was not seen to be done when a judge who had sat on the original trial was responsible for overseeing the constitution of the panel of judges which formed the court which heard the appeal.’
WLR Daily, 10th July 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The common law offence of scandalising the court, a species of contempt of court which although abolished by statute in England and Wales continued to exist in many parts of the common law world, was “reasonably justifiable in a democratic society” within the meaning of section 12 of the Constitution of Mauritius.’
WLR Daily, 16th April 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Ramdeen v State of Trinidad and Tobago: [2014] UKPC 7; [2014] WLR (D) 149
‘Once the Privy Council was seised of a death sentence case, whether by way of an appeal against conviction and/or an appeal against sentence, it had jurisdiction to deal with commutation of sentence, at least where the ground for commutation arose out of court procedures or decisions.’
WLR Daily, 27th March 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Ramdeen (Appellant) v The State (Respondent) [2014] UKPC 7 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 27th March 2014
Daniel v State of Trinidad and Tobago [2014] UKPC 3; [2014] WLR (D) 73
‘A defendant charged with murder could, in certain circumstances, rely on the defence of provocation, even though he himself had generated the provocative conduct.’
WLR Daily, 13th February 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Moss v The Queen: [2013] UKPC 32; [2013] WLR (D) 434
“A criminal court normally had a duty to give a convicted defendant the opportunity to make representations before sentence upon him was passed, however little there might appear to be available to be said on his behalf, and an omission to do so was a serious breach of procedural fairness. The Privy Council so held in allowing an appeal by the defendant, Dominique Moss, against a sentence of 25 years’ imprisonment imposed by the Court of Appeal of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas (Hall CJ, Ganpatsingh and Osadebay JJA) on 28 October 2004 when it had allowed his appeal against his conviction for murder on 6 April 2004 (Isaacs J and a jury) and substituted a conviction for manslaughter.”
WLR Daily, 13th November 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2023