royal family – Page 7 – Current Awareness

Richard III on the move again – pitched into the current judicial review debate – UK Human Rights Blog

Posted October 24th, 2013 in burials and cremation, costs, judicial review, news, protective costs orders, royal family by tracey

“The Plantagenet Alliance Ltd (R o.t.a) v. Secretary of State for Justice and others, Haddon-Cave J, 18 October 2013 (PCO), and on permission, 15 August 2013. I posted here on the original judgment giving the Plantagenet Alliance permission to seek judicial review of the Secretary of State’s decision to re-bury Richard III in Leicester. At the time, the judge had made a full Protective Costs Order in favour of the Alliance, so that it would not have to pay costs if it lost. The judge had also ordered what he envisaged to be a short hearing to determine in what sum the Alliance’s costs should be capped. if it won.”

UK Human Rights Blog, 23rd October 2013

Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com

High Court dismisses challenge to PCO in Richard III burial case – Litigation Futures

Posted October 21st, 2013 in Administrative Court, appeals, burials and cremation, costs, judicial review, news, protective costs orders, public interest, royal family by sally

“The High Court has comprehensively rejected the government’s bid to overturn the grant of a protective costs order (PCO) in favour of campaigners for the reburial of King Richard III in York.”

Litigation Futures, 18th October 2013

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Richard III and Judicial Review – Sovereign Chambers

Posted September 3rd, 2013 in burials and cremation, judicial review, news, royal family by sally

“There is a row about the bones of the late King Richard III. Or to be precise, where those bones should be reinterred. As is widely known, they were discovered, remarkably intact, buried beneath what is was now a car park for the Social Services Department for Leicester Council. It had previously been part of the graveyard of a Gray Friars Church, I believe, and Richard’s naked body was flung in to a grave after he had died defending his crown at the Battle of Bosworth on 22nd August 1485. All the evidence, including the skeleton itself with its curvature of the spine (scoliosis, not a hunchback, by the way – a Tudor slur, possibly one of many), the manner and cause of death (see below) and now DNA tests via the line of Richard’s relatives which still survive, prove beyond reasonable doubt that the body is that of the King.”

Sovereign Chambers, 28th August 2013

Source: www.sovereignchambers.co.uk

Tom Hickman: The High Court Rides to the Aid of Richard III – UK Constitutional Law Group

Posted August 29th, 2013 in burials and cremation, consultations, families, news, royal family by sally

“Whilst cases often raise issues of constitutional importance, seldom has the subject matter of a legal claim related to matters of such constitutional moment as that concerning the discovery of the mortal remains of Richard III.”

UK Constitutional Law Group, 29th August 2013

Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org

They paved Plantagenet ‘n put up a parking lot – UK Human Rights Blog

Posted August 23rd, 2013 in burials and cremation, consultations, judicial review, news, royal family by sally

“The judge gave the Allliance permission to seek judicial review of the Secretary of State’s decision about re-burial. But I question the result – does the Alliance really have a legal right to be consulted about where Richard III is to be re-buried?”

UK Human Rights Blog, 22nd August 2013

Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com

Richard III: King’s reburial row goes to judicial review – BBC News

Posted August 16th, 2013 in burials and cremation, judicial review, news, royal family by tracey

“Distant relatives of Richard III have been granted permission for a judicial review of the decision to rebury the king’s remains in Leicester.”

BBC News, 16th August 2013

Source: www.bbc.co.uk

Regina (Evans) v Her Majesty’s Attorney General – WLR Daily

Posted August 1st, 2013 in attorney general, disclosure, documents, freedom of information, law reports, royal family, veto by sally

Regina (Evans) v Her Majesty’s Attorney General [2013] EWHC 1960 (Admin); [2013] WLR (D) 313

“Section 53(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 required the existence of reasonable grounds before a certificate could be given by an accountable person and if reasonable grounds did not exist the certificate was invalid and of no effect. Further, a certificate under section 53(2) could validly be issued with regard to environmental information.”

WLR Daily, 9th July 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Saudi prince loses £6.5m Gaddafi claim – The Independent

Posted August 1st, 2013 in aircraft, news, royal family, sale of goods by sally

“A billionaire Saudi prince has lost a High Court fight with a Jordanian businesswoman.”

The Independent, 31st July 2013

Source: www.independent.co.uk

Newspaper given permission to appeal block on publication of Prince Charles’ letters to ministers – OUT-LAW.com

Posted July 29th, 2013 in appeals, disclosure, freedom of information, lobbying, media, news, royal family, veto by sally

“The Guardian has been given permission to appeal a High Court decision blocking the publication of letters from Prince Charles to Government ministers, it has said.”

OUT-LAW.com, 26th July 2013

Source: www.out-law.com

Prince Charles’s letters: judges allow appeal against block on publication – The Guardian

Posted July 25th, 2013 in appeals, confidentiality, disclosure, freedom of information, news, royal family, veto by tracey

“High court judges give the Guardian right to challenge cabinet move to keep secret so-called ‘black spider memos.’ ”

The Guardian, 25th July 2013

Source: www.guardian.co.uk

Mike Gordon: Prince Charles’ Correspondence Back in Court – Reflections on R. (Evans) v. Attorney General – UK Constitutional Law Group

Posted July 23rd, 2013 in appeals, attorney general, confidentiality, disclosure, documents, freedom of information, news, royal family, veto by tracey

“The Administrative Court is the latest body to become involved in the on-going saga related to disclosure of the Prince of Wales’ correspondence with government departments. In the recent case of R. (Evans) v. Attorney General [2013] EWHC 1960 (Admin), the Guardian journalist Rob Evans challenged the legality of the government’s decision to veto disclosure of the relevant correspondence between Prince Charles and a range of government ministers. Disclosure of most of this material had been ordered under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) by the Upper Tribunal, allowing an appeal from Evans against the earlier decision of the Information Commissioner that the correspondence sought could be withheld.”

UK Constitutional Law Group, 22nd July 2013

Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org

Robert Hazell: The Royal baby, the Rules of Succession, and the Realms – UK Constitutional Law Group

Posted July 16th, 2013 in constitutional law, constitutional reform, equality, news, royal family, succession by sally

“In anticipation of the birth of the Royal baby, Parliament passed the Succession to the Crown Act in April 2013. It provides that in future the eldest child will be next in line of succession, whether it is a girl or a boy. The law will not come into force in time for the Royal birth, but the new baby when born will be next in line. This Blog post explains the background, and the difficulties involved in changing the rules of succession.”

UK Constitutional Law Group, 15th July 2013

Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org

CoA rejects Saudi bid to have case held in camera – The Lawyer

Posted July 11th, 2013 in appeals, human rights, news, private hearings, royal family by sally

The Court of Appeal has refused to quash an order preventing two Saudi princes from having their case heard behind closed doors.

The Lawyer, 10th July 2013

Source: www.thelawyer.com

The Prince Charles veto: JR fails due to availability of JR – Panopticon

Posted July 11th, 2013 in appeals, attorney general, confidentiality, disclosure, documents, freedom of information, news, royal family, veto by sally

“As Chris Knight reported this morning, judgment has been handed down in R (Evans) v HM Attorney General [2013] EWHC 1960 (Admin). The Upper Tribunal had ordered disclosure of certain correspondence between Prince Charles and government ministers (termed ‘advocacy correspondence’). The government – the Attorney General specifically – exercised the power of veto under section 53 of FOIA. The requester, Guardian journalist Rob Evans, brought judicial review proceedings. The Administrative Court dismissed his claim.”

Panopticon, 10th July 2013

Source: www.panopticonblog.com

So we cannot see Prince Charles’ advocacy letters after all – UK Human Rights Blog

Posted July 10th, 2013 in attorney general, confidentiality, disclosure, documents, freedom of information, judicial review, lobbying, news, royal family by sally

“As we all know, the Prince of Wales has his own opinions. And he has shared those opinions with various government departments. Our claimant, a Guardian journalist, thought it would be interesting and important for the rest of us to see those opinions. So he made a request under the Freedom of Information Act and the Environmental Information Regulations to see these documents.”

UK Human Rights Blog, 9th July 2013

Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com

Decision to block Prince Charles’s letters upheld – BBC News

Posted July 9th, 2013 in attorney general, confidentiality, disclosure, documents, freedom of information, judicial review, news, royal family by sally

“The attorney general’s decision to block public disclosure of letters the Prince of Wales wrote to ministers has been upheld by the High Court.”

BBC News, 9th July 2013

Source: www.bbc.co.uk

Apex Global Management Ltd v Fi Call Ltd and others – WLR Daily

Posted June 13th, 2013 in appeals, conflict of laws, immunity, law reports, royal family by sally

Apex Global Management Ltd v Fi Call Ltd and others [2013] EWCA Civ 642; [2013] WLR (D) 228

“The phrase ‘members of his family forming part of his household’ in section 20(1)(b) of the State Immunity Act 1978 should not be given a wider meaning in relation to heads of state than it had in relation to diplomats. Thus a head of state’s ‘household’ was restricted to spouses, civil partners, dependent children and relatives.”

WLR Daily, 11th June 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Saudi princes fail to win sovereign immunity in UK court case – The Guardian

Posted May 16th, 2013 in appeals, immunity, news, reporting restrictions, royal family by sally

“Two senior Saudi princes have failed to extract themselves from English justice after the court of appeal upheld a ruling that they are not entitled to sovereign immunity in a case involving their London-based business interests.”

The Guardian, 16th May 2013

Source: www.guardian.co.uk

Attorney General ‘wrong to overrule judges who ordered Government to publish letters Prince Charles wrote to ministers’ – The Independent

Posted May 9th, 2013 in appeals, attorney general, disclosure, documents, freedom of information, news, royal family by tracey

“The Attorney General Dominic Grieve got the law wrong when he overruled judges who ordered the government to publish letters Prince Charles wrote to ministers, a court heard today.”

The Independent, 8th May 2013

Source: www.independent.co.uk

«
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
»

Categories

Archives