Case Comment: R (Good Law Project & Others) v Secretary of State for Health AND Social Care [2021] EWHC 346 (Admin) – Late Publication of Coronavirus Contracts Unlawful – 39 Essex Chambers

‘Last Friday Chamberlain J handed down judgment in a challenge concerning the government’s compliance with procurement law and its own transparency guidance in the awarding of goods and services contracts during the COVID-19 pandemic. By reg. 50 of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care was obliged to send for publication a contract award notice (“CAN”) not later than 30 days after the award of a contract. By its transparency policy and principles it was obliged to publish details of any contract.’

Full Story

39 Essex Chambers, 23rd February 2021

Source: www.39essex.com

Judgment in Good Law Project JR on publication of Covid-19 procurement notices – Monckton Chambers

‘This is the first in a series of procurement law judicial review (JR) cases relating to Covid-19 brought by the Good Law Project (GLP) to have reached the judgment stage. The case concerned the (non)publication of contract award notices (CANs) within 30 days under regulation 50 Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (PCR) and of other contract notices and materials within 20 or 90 days under relevant transparency policies.’

Full Story

Monckton Chambers, 19th February 2021

Source: www.monckton.com

N.A. Moreham: Police investigations: privacy, confidence and public duties – UK Constitutional Law Association

Posted February 18th, 2021 in confidentiality, misuse of private information, news, police, public interest by sally

‘The Court of Appeal has recently affirmed the proposition that a person can be liable under the misuse of private information tort for revealing that someone is the subject of a police investigation before they have been charged. This raises important questions about the relationship between the citizen and the state when the former has the latter under investigation. But so far that relationship has not been central to the courts’ decision-making on this issue. Rather, the basis for liability has been a broad-brush conclusion that a person will generally have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the fact that they “have simply come under suspicion” of the police or other state authority. This blog post will suggest there is a better way to resolve these tricky cases.’

Full Story

UK Constitutional Law Association, 18th February 2021

Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org

Markle judgment warns against ‘Micawber’ tactics – Law Society’s Gazette

‘The High Court has sounded a new warning about “Micawber tactics” in a summary judgment in the high-profile action brought by the Duchess of Sussex (Meghan Markle) against the Mail newspaper. Lord Justice Warby, sitting as a judge in the Chancery Division, found that the duchess had a reasonable expectation of privacy when she wrote a personal letter to her father, even though she feared it might be leaked to the press.’

Full Story

Law Society's Gazette, 12th February 2021

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Legal bid launched to ban ex-Carillion directors from top boardroom roles – The Guardian

Posted January 14th, 2021 in company directors, disqualification, insolvency, news, public interest by tracey

‘The UK government has launched a legal bid to ban eight former Carillion directors from holding senior boardroom positions, almost three years on from the collapse of the outsourcing business.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 13th January 2021

Source: www.theguardian.com

MoJ plans to cut “hopeless” Upper Tribunal appeals – Litigation Futures

‘The current test for appeals from the Upper Tribunal to the Court of Appeal is “not strict enough to prevent misuse” of the system by those wanting to benefit from delays caused by “hopeless challenges”, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has said.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 7th December 2020

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Dolan’s latest lockdown defeat – UK Human Rights Blog

‘The appellants challenged Lockdown regulations made in response to the Covid-19 pandemic on 26 March 2020. Their argument was that the regulations imposed sweeping restrictions on civil liberties which were unprecedented and were unlawful on three grounds. First, the Government had no power under the legislation they used to make the regulations, namely the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, as amended by the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (“the 1984 Act”). Secondly, they were unlawful under ordinary public law principles (failing to take account of relevant considerations, fettering of discretion); and thirdly they violated a number of the Convention rights which are guaranteed in domestic law under the Human Rights Act 1998 (“HRA”). Although the regulations were amended on several occasions and have since been repealed, the appellants contended that it remained important that the legal issues which arose should be authoritatively determined in the public interest.’

Full Story

UK Human Rights Blog, 3rd December 2020

Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com

Land-use Conflict – Supreme Court Rules on the Discharge of Restrictive Covenants: Alexander Devine Children’s Cancer Trust v Housing Solutions Ltd [2020] UKSC 45 – 39 Essex Chambers

‘The appeal in Alexander Devine Children’s Cancer Trust v Housing Solutions Ltd [2020] UKSC 45 was the first time that either the Supreme Court or the House of Lords had considered the Upper Tribunal’s power to discharge or modify restrictive covenants affecting land under section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925. The case confirms important principles affecting the interplay between private law property rights, planning and land use. Lord Burrows, giving the only substantive judgment of the Supreme Court, agreed with the Court of Appeal that the Upper Tribunal’s decision was wrong, but disagreed in a number of important respects with the speech of Sales LJ (as he then was) in the Court of Appeal ([2018] EWCA Civ 2679). For a number of reasons, it is likely that we shall be reading and re-reading this Supreme Court decision for many years to come.’

Full Story

39 Essex Chambers, 9th November 2020

Source: www.39essex.com

Restrictive Covenants: Ignore at your Peril – St Ives Chambers

Posted November 10th, 2020 in housing, news, public interest, restrictive covenants, Supreme Court by sally

‘In the first appeal in which the Supreme Court has been required to deal with s. 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925, it has delivered a strong warning to developers who may contemplate building on land in breach of a restrictive covenant: Ignore at your Peril.’

Full Story

St Ives Chambers, 8th November 2020

Source: www.stiveschambers.co.uk

New Judgment: Alexander Devine Children’s Cancer Trust v Housing Solutions Ltd [2020] UKSC 45 – UKSC Blog

Posted November 10th, 2020 in housing, news, public interest, restrictive covenants, Supreme Court by sally

‘The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed this appeal concerning the correct approach to the ‘public interest’ requirement on an application for the modification or discharge of restrictive covenants under section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (the “1925 Act”).’

Full Story

UKSC Blog, 6th November 2020

Source: ukscblog.com

DPP to discuss prosecutorial independence and the rule of law – Crown Prosecution Service

Posted September 17th, 2020 in coronavirus, Crown Prosecution Service, news, prosecutions, public interest, rule of law by michael

‘The Director of Public Prosecutions will discuss the importance of fair and independent prosecutions during a time of national emergency at an online event hosted by the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law tomorrow (Friday, 18 September).’

Full Story

Crown Prosecution Service, 17th September 2020

Source: www.cps.gov.uk

Prosecuting in the public interest: independence without isolation – Max Hill QC, Director of Public Prosecutions – Crown Prosecution Service

Posted September 17th, 2020 in coronavirus, Crown Prosecution Service, news, prosecutions, public interest, rule of law by michael

‘In an essay to accompany an event with the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law, Max Hill QC outlines what independence means for the Crown Prosecution Service in an extraordinary 2020 and beyond, and how it intersects with the Service’s other values and responsibilities. Drawing on the experiences of the past six months, he considers what it means to remain independent while also being collaborative, responsive and adaptable in a changing world – and the importance of each of these qualities in maintaining public confidence in the criminal justice system.’

Full Story

Crown Prosecution Service, 17th September 2020

Source: www.cps.gov.uk

Reforms to UK’s antiquated spying laws published by Law Commission – Law Commission

‘Reform is needed to bring the law into the 21st century and protect the United Kingdom from espionage (spying) and unauthorised disclosures (leaks), according to a report from the Law Commission that has been laid in Parliament today [01 September 2020].’

Press release

Law Commission, 1st September 2020

Source: www.lawcom.gov.uk

Whistleblowers’ lawyers “fear retaliation” over NDAs – Legal Futures

‘Lawyers acting for whistleblowers have told MPs and peers that they can feel intimidated to raise concerns over non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) because of the threat of retaliation.’

Full Story

Legal Futures, 23rd July 2020

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

Christopher Kapessa river death: No prosecution decision upheld – BBC News

‘A 14-year-old boy who pushed a boy, 13, into a river before he died will not be prosecuted, a review has concluded.’

Full Story

BBC News, 20th July 2020

Source: www.bbc.co.uk

Stevie Martin: Bullying, threatening and animus: what remains of the rule against apparent bias following the Supreme Court’s judgment in Serafin? – UK Constitutional Law Association

‘At the heart of the Supreme Court judgment in Serafin v Malkiewicz was the question of whether the Court of Appeal was correct in finding that the defamation proceedings before Justice Jay had been unfair (though the Court’s reasons with respect to the public interest defence under s 4 of the Defamation Act 2013 are also profoundly significant).’

Full Story

UK Constitutional Law Association, 22nd July 2020

Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org

New Judgment: Serafin v Malkiewicz & Ors [2020] UKSC 23 – UKSC Blog

‘Serafin had sued Malkiewicz & Ors for libel in respect of an article they had published about him in Nowy Czas, a newspaper addressing issues of interest to the Polish community in the UK. The Court of Appeal found that the conduct of the trial by Mr Justice Jay in the High Court had been unfair towards the claimant and allowed the claimant’s appeal. The defendants appealed against that finding to the Supreme Court. They also challenged the Court of Appeal’s analysis of the effect of the Defamation Act 2013, S4, which sets out “the public interest defence” to a defamation claim.’

Full Story

UKSC Blog, 3rd June 2020

Source: ukscblog.com

“Hostile” judge harassed litigant in person, Supreme Court rules – Litigation Futures

‘A High Court judge “harassed and intimidated” a litigant in person in ways which “surely would never have occurred if the claimant had been represented”, the Supreme Court has ruled.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 3rd June 2020

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Supreme court orders libel case retrial over judge’s ‘barrage of hostility’ – The Guardian

‘The supreme court has ordered the re-trial of a long-running libel case after finding that a high court judge, Mr Justice Jay, subjected the unrepresented claimant to a “barrage of hostility” and offensive language.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 3rd June 2020

Source: www.theguardian.com

Call for review of regulator costs in unsuccessful prosecutions – Legal Futures

‘The Law Commission should review whether regulators such as the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) should be insulated from costs orders in disciplinary actions they lose, a Court of Appeal judge has suggested.’

Full Story

Legal Futures, 26th May 2020

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk