‘The government has announced an independent review of building regulations after tests showed that at least 82 residential high-rises use a combination of insulation and cladding that does not meet fire safety standards.’
The Guardian, 28th July 2017
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Legislation that provides for new corporate criminal offences of failure to prevent tax evasion will have effect from 30 September this year, it has been confirmed.’
OUT-LAW.com, 13th July 2017
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Theo Huckle QC compares & contrasts the public safety policy agendas of administrations in Westminster & Wales.’
New Law Journal, 7th July 2017
Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk
‘Qualified one-way costs shifting (QOCS) does apply for the benefit of a paralysed lorry driver who had his claim struck out against the Motor Insurance Bureau (MIB), the Court of Appeal has ruled, overturning the High Court.’
Litigation Futures, 10th July 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘In the case of Hrabkova v Secretary of State for Work and Pension [2017] EWCA Civ 794, the Court of Appeal confirmed once again that self-employed individuals do not have the same rights as workers under EU law. The specific question in this case was whether a person with a child at school who had been self employed and ceased work might be entitled to claim Employment Support Allowance.’
Free Movement, 2nd July 2017
Source: www.freemovement.org.uk
‘The long-awaited overhaul of the Insolvency Rules 1986 (IR 1986) is now complete, and the Insolvency Rules 2016 (IR 2016) came into force on 6 April 2017. The journey to this point has not been without its difficulties and it would be fair to say that many had anticipated them being in force some time earlier. Perhaps unusually for provisions so overtly procedural in their nature, IR 2016 have also proved to be somewhat controversial.
Hardwicke Chambers, 14th June 2017
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘A piece of legislation that UK law makers must pass so that the country can ratify a new Unified Patent Court (UPC) system in Europe has been laid before parliament.’
OUT-LAW.com, 26th June 2017
Source: www.out-law.com
‘This was the judicial review of the ‘reduced’ benefit cap – £20,000 pa outside London, £23,000 in London, brought by claimants who were all single mothers with children, including children under two years old. The claim was on the basis that the regulations were discriminatory, either against women as the majority of single parents, or against the children, on the basis that single parents of children under two years old were not able to ‘escape’ the cap by obtaining 16 hours or more a week of employment.’
Nearly Legal, 25th June 2017
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘Law firm compliance officers and money laundering reporting officers have been scrambling to get to grips with the biggest shake-up in anti-money laundering (AML) rules in a decade, with the final regulations – which were only published on Thursday – coming into force today.’
Legal Futures, 26th June 2017
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘Many people like to have a say over the investment policies of their pension funds. They may not want investment in fossil fuels, companies with questionable working practices, arms manufacturers, Israel or indeed any company which supports Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip – to choose but a few of people’s current choices. And pension funds, left to their own devices, may wish to adopt one or more of these choices to reflect their pensioners’ views.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 25th June 2017
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The debate on whether there is a difference between honesty and integrity continues apace in Rhys Williams v Solicitors Regulatory Authority [2017] EWHC 1478 (Admin). I expressed my opinion here that there was a material difference between the two and that the decision of Mostyn J in Malins v Solicitors Regulatory Authority [2017] EWHC 835 (Admin), that the two were synonymous, was not correct – at least for the purposes of the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2012. The Divisional Court (the President of the QBD presiding) has now similarly deprecated it.’
UK Police Law Blog, 21st June 2017
Source: ukpolicelawblog.com
‘Since the Supreme Court turned the law of dispensation from the consultation requirements upside down in Daejan Investments Ltd v Benson [2013] UKSC 14; [2013] 2 EGLR 45, the Upper Tribunal has been troubled with very few cases involving the requirements to consult leaseholders on major works. However, the decision in Lessees of Foundling Court and O’Donnell Court v Camden London Borough Council and others [2016] UKUT 366 (LC); [2016] EGLR 59 has rewritten preconceptions as to who needs to be consulted and caused landlords some new headaches.’
Tanfield Chambers, 12th June 2017
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘Substantial damages of £10,500 have been awarded to a claimant who was unlawfully detained for a period of 70 days. The Home Office had failed to serve the Claimant with notice of a decision on his application to vary his leave to remain in the UK before detaining him, rendering his detention unlawful. The case is R (on the application of) Godwin Chaparadza v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWHC 1209 (Admin).’
Free Movement, 7th June 2017
Source: www.freemovement.org.uk
‘The Court of Appeal has dismissed the challenge brought by campaign group Britcits to the restrictive Immigration Rules on the admission to the UK of parents, grandparents and other adult dependent relatives. The case is BRITCITS v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 368.’
Free Movement, 30th May 2017
Source: www.freemovement.org.uk
‘The case of GE v. SSWP (ESA) [2017] UKUT 145 (ACC) sets out how the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 (since replaced with the 2016 version), are in some areas, more generous than EU law itself by concluding that an initial right of residence or status as a job-seeker could count towards permanent residence for an EEA national.’
Free Movement, 22nd May 2017
Source: www.freemovement.org.uk
‘The General Data Protection Regulation (GPDR) (EU) 2016/679 of 27 April 2016 which comes into force in May 2018, will introduce major changes to the law on the processing of personal data in the European Union. Over the next ten months, several European Union and United States law firms we work very closely with will join us in providing you with more information on the GDPR. Different themes will be tackled month by month to help you prepare for the GDPR deadline.’
Technology Law Update, 8th May 2017
Source: www.technology-law-blog.co.uk
‘As we all know, the GDPR is all about the harmonisation of data protection across Europe – hence its form as a regulation (directly effective) rather than a directive (domestic implementing legislation needed). Yes, but: the GDPR leaves an awful lot to member states to implement. For example: exemptions to data subjects’ rights, mechanisms for reconciling data protection and freedom of expression, and the machinery of enforcement by supervisory authorities. Until we have domestic implementing legislation, we can’t fully understand how data protection will work after 25 May 2018.’
Panopticon, 9th May 2017
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
‘This was the DWP’s appeal to the Upper Tribunal of the First Tier Tribunal’s decision on the Carmichael’s bedroom tax appeal.’
Nearly Legal, 27th April 2017
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/
EnergySolutions EU Ltd (now ATK Energy EU Ltd) v Nuclear Decommissioning Authority [2017] UKSC 34
‘A company was unsuccessful in its bid in a tender process carried out by a public authority for a contract which fell within the ambit of Parliament and Council Directive 2004/18/EC (“the Public Procurement Directive”) and Council Directive 89/665/EEC , as amended, which provided for remedies for unsuccessful applicants (“the Remedies Directive”) and which had been given effect to in England and Wales by the Public Contracts Regulations 2006, as amended. The Regulations provided that, after notification of the contracting authority’s decision to award the contract, there would be a ten-day standstill period prior to the actual award of the contract during which time an unsuccessful bidder could issue proceedings to challenge the award. The issuing of proceedings would trigger automatic suspension of the contract award until the challenge was determined or otherwise disposed of, although the court had power to require a cross-undertaking from that party to cover the authority’s losses from not entering into the contract with its preferred bidder. Regulation 47D(2), as inserted, however, allowed for a period of 30 days for the issuing of any proceedings, with regulation 47J(2)(c), as inserted, making provision for an award of damages to the unsuccessful bidder if the court found a breach of duty after the contract had been entered into. The company, having been notified that it was an unsuccessful bidder, expressed its concerns with the procurement process but did not issue proceedings until after the expiry of the standstill period, albeit within the 30-day period. On a trial of preliminary issues, where the authority relied on Court of Justice authority which imposed minimum conditions for claims for breaches of an European Union law right, including that the breach had to be “sufficiently serious”, the judge stated that (i) there was nothing in the Remedies Directive which limited the company to recovery of damages on that basis, and (ii) ordinary principles of English law applied to any award of damages under the 2006 Regulations and so the Court of Justice’s rule would not limit the recovery of damages to “sufficiently serious” breaches of the 2006 Regulations. He declined to make any ruling on a third issue, whether the company’s failure to start proceedings within the standstill period and before the authority had entered into the contract meant that it was not entitled to damages, since it could have acted within the ten-day period to prevent the claimed loss from occurring by causing a suspension of the award of the contract to the successful bidder. On the authority’s appeal on the first two issues the Court of Appeal held that the minimum conditions for an award of damages for breach of an European Union law right had been established by the Court of Justice and so article 2(1)(c) of the Remedies Directive only called for an award of damages where the breach was sufficiently serious, but upheld the judge’s decision that there was no such constraint under the 2006 Regulations, and, on an appeal by the company on the third issue, accepted its submission that the judge ought to have decided as a matter of domestic law that it could not be deprived of damages simply because it had failed to avail itself of the opportunity under the 2006 Regulations to issue the proceedings in time to stop the contract being awarded. The authority appealed on the second and third issues, with the company arguing in relation to the first issue that damages could be awarded under article 2(1)(c) for any breach, whether serious or not. After the hearing the parties reached a settlement of the disputes between them in relation to liability and quantum but requested that the court hand down its judgment on the appeal in any event.’
WLR Daily, 11th April 2017
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Tees Esk & Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust v Harland UKEAT/173/16
‘The claimants, nursing assistants, were employed by the trust as part of a designated team of 27 people providing specialist care to C, who had severe learning difficulties, in his flat. When C’s condition improved and fewer carers were needed to look after him the team was reduced to 11 people, who also provided care to other disabled people living in flats in the same building. The contract to provide care to C was subsequently taken over by a healthcare company and the trust nominated those members of the team who had spent the greatest proportion of their working time looking after C to transfer to the company. The claimants were unwilling to transfer and left to take other posts or were made redundant. On their complaints of unfair dismissal an employment judge considered as preliminary issues whether there was a relevant transfer within the meaning of regulation 3(1) of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 and whether the claimants had been assigned to an organised grouping of employees prior to the transfer, such that there had been a service provision change in accordance with regulation 3(1)(b). The tribunal found that the trust had initially put together an organised grouping of employees which included the claimants with the principal purpose of the care of C but as C recovered and the number of hours needed for his care was reduced the principal purpose of the group became subsidiary to the dominant purpose of providing care to other disabled people in the building and, accordingly, at the time of the transfer from the trust to the company the requirements of regulation 3(3)(a)(i) were not satisfied and there was no service provision change. The tribunal concluded that as there was no relevant transfer the claimants had been at all times employed by the trust.’
WLR Daily, 3rd March 2017
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024