‘Recent uncertainty as to how a costs budget impacts on the final bill in relation to both incurred and estimated costs has, to some extent, been resolved by the judgment in Harrison v University Hospitals Coventry & Warwickshire NHS Trust [2017] EWCA Civ 792.’
Zenith PI, 6th July 2017
Source: zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘In a decision handed down yesterday, the Court of Appeal in Harrison v University Hospitals Coventry & Warwickshire NHS Trust [2017] EWCA Civ 791 determined important issues in costs budgeting. They are of relevance to all practitioners.’
Hailsham Chambers, 22nd June 2017
‘In September 2015, the Upper Tribunal decided the case of Amirteymour and others (EEA appeals; human rights) [2015] UKUT 466 (IAC). The decision states that if an appeal is brought in the First-Tier Tribunal against an EEA decision then the only relevant issues that can be raised during the appeal are those directly connected to that EEA decision. Human rights issues, the Upper Tribunal ruled, were not justiciable. This case was covered at the time by Free Movement, where several issues were raised in respect of the reasoning of the tribunal, and the policy of attempting to artificially distinguish between European law rights and other rights guaranteed under domestic human rights legislation. The Court of Appeal has now upheld that ruling.’
Free Movement, 19th May 2017
Source: www.freemovement.org.uk
‘It is not “wrong in law” for judges to amend transcripts of judgments to better explain the reasons behind their decisions, the High Court has held.’
Litigation Futures, 19th May 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘In Essop & Ors v Home Office (UK Border Agency) [2017] UKSC 27, there were two conjoined cases: Essop and Naeem v Secretary of State for Justice. The Supreme Court gave a unanimous judgment on both.’
Law & Religion UK, 7th April 2017
Source: www.lawandreligionuk.com
‘Some readers might be surprised if told that one of the most significant cases on discrimination law generally, and race discrimination in particular, is likely to be decided by the Supreme Court before long. The UKSC heard the appeal against the Court of Appeal’s ruling in Home Office v Essop (2015) in December 2016. It is still to deliver its judgment. Readers can look up doctrinal niceties in a note on this case [132 Law Quarterly Review (2016) 35]. In this post, I wish to discuss its broader policy implications.’
OUP Blog, 3rd April 2017
Source: www.blog.oup.com
‘The fall-out is continuing from the recent High Court decision that budgets bind the parties at detailed assessment unless there is good reason not to, although it seems clear that parties are waiting for a definitive ruling from the Court of Appeal.’
Litigation Futures, 16th March 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Some readers might be surprised if told that one of the most significant cases on discrimination law generally, and race discrimination in particular, is likely to be decided by the Supreme Court before long. The UKSC heard the appeal against the Court of Appeal’s ruling in Home Office v Essop (2015) in December 2016. It is still to deliver its judgment.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 13th March 2017
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘So, as the saying goes, you wait months for a subject access judgment, and then three come along at once.’
Panopticon, 6th march 2017
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
‘There is, I am glad to say, an insistence these days in the Court of Appeal that the giving of proper reasons is a necessary part of what can be expected of a planning authority when it grants permission: see my post here for a case last year.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 21st February 2017
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The Court of Appeal has quashed a council’s grant of planning permission for a new football stadium over the failure of its planning committee to give reasons for its decision.’
Local Government Lawyer, 17th February 2017
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Michael Allum, Solicitor with The International Family Law Group LLP, considers the implications of maintenance agreements in financial remedies cases.’
Family Law Week, 3rd February 2017
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘We saw the Upper Tribunal take a new approach to determining whether the costs of improvement works, passed on through the service charge, were reasonably incurred. The UT held that particular consideration should have been given to the views of the leaseholders, whether they could be done more cheaply and the financial circumstances of the leaseholders.’
Nearly Legal, 5th February 2017
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘Pursuant to its power under section 226(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the local planning authority made a compulsory purchase order in respect of land which included a well known market. The claimant and the market traders’ association objected and a public inquiry was held. The planning inspector recommended that the order not be confirmed. The Secretary of State issued a decision confirming the order, ostensibly giving reasons for departing from the inspector’s recommendation. The judge dismissed the claimant’s challenge to the validity of the order under section 23 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981. The claimant and the association appealed on the grounds that the reasons given by the Secretary of State for departing from the inspector’s recommendation were inadequate and/or inadequately expressed.’
WLR Daily, 18th March 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The Local Government Ombudsman has criticised a council after members of its planning committee approved an application against an officer’s recommendation but failed to give reasons for doing so.’
Local Government Lawyer, 18th February 2016
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Two recent Court of Appeal cases, heard together, have considered the legality of the immigration detention of those who are, or possibly are, minors. Such cases involve local authority age assessments, which are to be carried out according to the guidance set out in Merton [2003] EWHC 1689 (Admin).’
UK Human Rights Blog, 6th January 2016
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
Regina (Sienkiewicz) v South Somerset District Council [2015] EWHC 3704 (Admin); [2015] WLR (D) 553
‘The defendant local planning authority did not have a duty to give reasons for distinguishing other relevant planning decisions which were said to be inconsistent with its present decision to grant planning permission for a development.’
WLR Daily, 17th December 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A High Court judge has quashed a council’s decision to reduce the community care provision for a 23-year-old man with learning and communication difficulties.’
Local Government Lawyer, 2nd July 2015
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
Reynolds v CLFIS (UK) Ltd and others [2015] EWCA Civ 439; [2015] WLR (D) 197
‘In a “tainted information case”, where the claimant claimed that she had been dismissed on grounds of age and the court’s focus had been on the potential prejudice of only one manager of the employer, not all of those who might have provided information bearing on any discrimination, the correct approach was to treat the conduct of the person supplying the information as separate from that of the person who acted on it, and the alternative “composite” approach was not appropriate to such a case.’
WLR Daily, 30th April 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal has strongly criticised a district judge who failed to produce “any adequate reasons” for reaching his conclusions in an adverse possession case.’
Litigation Futures, 31st March 2015
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024