‘The Ministry of Defence has been censured over the death of a soldier who was shot in the neck during a training exercise.
Fusilier Dean Griffiths, 21, of First Battalion the Royal Welsh, died at Lydd Range, Kent in September 2011.’
BBC News, 29th September 2016
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘In this article I deal with the basics of the legal framework for the Prevent Duty. The simplest way of thinking about the Prevent Duty is visualisation. Imagining that you are the character at which Dirty Harry is pointing his gun in that film while uttering the words: “You’ve got to ask yourself one question: “do I feel lucky?”… Well do you punk?” The government has attempted to shift the publicity and legal risks from itself to the universities by use of the Prevent Duty. On the face of it universities have a dilemma: how to have due regard to the need to prevent people being drawn into terrorism, whilst taking all reasonably practicable steps to ensure free speech and academic freedom.’
Cloisters, 26th July 2016
Source: www.cloisters.com
Chetwynd and another v Tunmore and another: [2016] EWHC 156 (QB)
‘The claimants alleged that the excavation of lakes by the defendants on the defendants’ land, and the abstraction of underground water as a result, had adversely affected the claimants’ fishery, in particular the water levels in the ponds therein. They issued a claim against the defendants, inter alia, under section 48A of the Water Resources Act 1991, seeking damages for the loss of fish from the ponds, the loss of income from the fishery, the costs of remediating the ponds, expenses incurred and for loss of amenity. The defendants denied liability on the basis that, under section 48A, they could only be liable for loss or damage caused by the abstraction which could reasonably have been foreseen by them and that, in any event, the claimants had failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the defendants’ abstraction of water by the excavation of the lakes was the effective cause of the claimants’ alleged loss or damage.’
WLR Daily, 4th February 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina (Al-Saadoon and others) v Secretary of State for Defence (No 2) [2016] EWHC 773 (Admin)
‘The claimants brought public law claims in the courts of the United Kingdom arising out of the British military involvement in Iraq between 2003 and 2009. The claims involved allegations of ill-treatment and in some cases unlawful killing, of Iraqi civilians by British soldiers. By their claims for judicial review the claimants sought court orders requiring the Secretary of State to investigate alleged human rights violations. Issues arose relating to the UK’s obligations under articles 2 and 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, including (i) the nature and scope of the state’s substantive obligation under article 2 of the Convention in relation to the use of lethal force while seeking to quell riots and uphold law and order during the occupation of Iraq, (ii) when the investigative duty under article 2 arose in such circumstances and (iii) the effect of delay on the investigative duties under articles 2 and 3 where the allegations of breach of the substantive rights were made many years after the incidents in question.’
WLR Daily, 7th April 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Today’s banks are in receipt of the largest fines ever imposed by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), or its predecessor the Financial Services Authority (FSA), and although they are taking responsibility for a number of failings (eg PPI, Derivatives, LIBOR and FOREX), restrictions on recovering loss, in particular where consequential loss is concerned, have come under significant scrutiny. This article examines the measure of loss in tort and contract, and particularly explores investors’ difficulties when making claims for loss of profit caused by mis selling.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 31st March 2016
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘The government’s review of local safeguarding children boards (LSCBs), due to report in March, is reshaping the architecture of child protection. LSCBs are tasked with oversight of agencies that protect children, including local authorities, police, schools and health. This is a fundamental review, which implies far-reaching change, and is of huge public interest. The spotlight on this review is made more intense by the cross-departmental children’s taskforce: one key outcome from it must be a better coordinated approach across government departments.’
The Guardian, 22nd February 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘This was a quite extraordinary judicial review (or rather four joined judicial review claims with another 16 cases put in evidence in support) in which what was in the end at stake was not any remedy for the individual claimants – it was agreed that their individual issues had been remedied and the claims were academic on that basis – but whether there were systemic failings in Birmingham’s handling of homeless applications such that Birmingham:
generally, discourage and divert applications so that individuals are denied their statutory rights to have their situation properly inquired into and be given interim accommodation whilst those inquiries are being made.’
Nearly Legal, 14th February 2016
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
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
‘In recent years it has become increasingly common for parties to a development agreement to agree to act towards one another with “good faith”. The meaning and extent of the obligations on the contracting parties imposed by such clauses is often difficult to ascertain. The purpose of this paper is to consider a number of cases in which good faith clauses, implied and express, are discussed and identify the general principles that apply to development agreements.’
Tanfield Chambers, 30th November 2015
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘The Secretary of State had erred in leaving non-religious views out of the new GCSE subject content for religious studies, which amounted to a breach of the duty to take care that information or knowledge included in the curriculum was conveyed in a pluralistic manner.’
WLR Daily, 25th November 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘In R (Fox) v Secretary of State for Education [2015] EWHC 3404 (Admin), Warby J held that guidance issued by the Secretary of State for Education was unlawful because it contained a statement (referred to in the judgment as “the Assertion”) that delivery of Religious Studies GCSE content consistent with subject content prescribed by the Secretary of State would in all cases fulfil the state’s legal obligations with regard to religious education. In fact, the judge held, relying exclusively on such GCSEs could be enough to meet those obligations but would not necessarily be so and some additional educational provision may be required.’
Education Law Blog, 27th November 2015
Source: www.education11kbw.com
‘I’ve heard about a few costs decisions by trial judges recently which might be considered, to put it politely, interesting, or brave, in the Yes Minister sense. So it was with some interest that I read the Court of Appeal decision in Begum v Birmingham City Council [2015] EWCA Civ 386.’
Nearly Legal, 8th October 2015
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘The Claimant in R (on the application of Brooks) v LB Islington [2015] EWHC 2657 (Admin) was the mother of 3 children, who applied to the local authority as homeless following her eviction from a housing association property for rent arrears on 24/3/2015. Sadly, Ms B’s adult, terminally ill, son died two days after the offer of interim accommodation that was the subject of this judicial review.’
Nearly Legal, 27th September 2015
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘When do local authorities have to conduct Housing Act 2004 hazard assessments as part of their homelessness duties?’
Nearly Legal, 9th September 2015
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘Sir James Munby, President of the Court of Protection, provided clear guidance as to the nature of the Court of Protection’s jurisdiction, and the approach that should be adopted when a care provider is unwilling to provide, or to fund, the care sought.’
No. 5 Chambers, 2nd September 2015
Source: www.no5.com
Wandsworth London Borough Council v Tompkins and another [2015] EWCA Civ 846; [2015] WLR (D) 357
‘Where a local housing authority provided accommodation under a tenancy pursuant to its duty under Part VII (Homelessness) of the Housing Act 1996, the requirement in paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to the Housing Act 1985 which had to be satisfied in order for the tenancy to qualify as a secure tenancy (that the housing authority had to give notification that the tenancy “is to be regarded” as a secure tenancy), meant that the notification had to state that the tenancy was regarded as a secure tenancy at the date of grant and not at some unspecified date in the future.’
WLR Daily, 31st August 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court has rejected a Court of Appeal ruling on who has financial responsibility for the care of an adult with physical and learning disabilities, instead ruling that the local authority initially responsible for meeting his needs as a child should be responsible for his care after the age of 18.’
Local Government Lawyer, 9th July 2015
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Local authorities, prisons, NHS trusts, schools, universities and further education institutions will this week be placed under a new statutory duty to prevent extremist radicalisation taking place within their walls.’
The Guardian, 29th June 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Johnston v Westminster City Council: [2015] EWCA Civ 554; [2015] WLR (D) 238
‘For the purposes of section 175 of the Housing Act 1996, the fact that an applicant for homeless assistance in one local housing authority might be offered accommodation by another authority which might satisfy section 175(3) of the Act did not entitle the decision-maker to find that the applicant was not homeless.’
WLR Daily, 3rd June 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Local authority housing lawyers will potentially have to review thousands of applications for accommodation after the Supreme Court widened the scope of vulnerable applicants who are considered homeless.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 18th May 2015
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024