‘The appeal concerned the dismissal of Ms Jhuti from her employment by Royal Mail Group Ltd. The key question of law that it raised was whether in a claim for unfair dismissal under Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the reason for the dismissal can be other than that given to the employee by the employer’s appointed decision-maker.’
UKSC Blog, 27th November 2019
‘Alison Chabloz was convicted in 2018 at Westminster Magistrates’ Court of three offences contrary to s.127(1) of the Communications Act 2003.
On appeal, in R v Alison Chabloz  Southwark Crown Court 13 February, the issue was whether or not the three songs were “grossly offensive” . She lost.
She then sought to appeal by way of case stated; however, following a hearing in May concerned with how the matter should proceed, the judge refused to state a case and indicated that the proper course was for her to seek permission for judicial review of the written ruling. No such application was ever formally made, although written grounds for judicial review were produced in September 2019. In Chabloz v Crown Prosecution Service  EWHC 3094 (Admin), Coulson LJ sets out the rather confusing procedural history of the case at -.
Law & Religion UK, 20th November 2019
‘The question of the powers of the First Tier and Upper Tribunals (and indeed initial decision makers) to disapply secondary legislation where there is a breach of the appellant’s human rights has reached the Supreme Court. The decision has some far reaching implications for bedroom tax appeals and beyond.’
Nearly Legal, 15th November 2019
The draft Civil Partnership (Opposite-sex Couples) Regulations 2019 (“the Regulations”) was the first item of the secondary legislation within the Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration etc) Act 2019 (“the Act”) to achieve the necessary approval of both Houses under the affirmative resolution procedure. It was also the last item of debated business before parliament was dissolved on 6 November. Through section 2(2) of the Act the regulations were subject to a “sunset clause” which required them to be in force by the end of December, and as such, only limited time was available for its scrutiny and approval; this left a number of items of unfinished business, and these are summarized below.
Law & Religion UK, 18th November 2019
‘The appellant was arrested in the United Kingdom in 2017 and charged with one count of conspiracy to commit torture and seven counts of torture, contrary to the Criminal Justice Act 1988, section 134. The charges relate to events in the early stages of the first Liberian civil war in 1990 when an armed group, the National Patriotic Front of Liberia took control of parts of Liberia. Its leader, Charles Taylor, subsequently became President of Liberia in 1997. The point of law raised in the appeal related to the correct interpretation of the term “person acting in an official capacity” in the CJA, section 134(1). The Court of Appeal held that CJA, section 134 is not confined to individuals acting on behalf of a State.’
UKSC Blog, 13th November 2019
‘In an important decision, the Court of Appeal in Bath Hill Court v Coletta has held that, in an unauthorised deduction of wages claim for non payment of the national minimum wage in the ET, there is no backstop on the recovery of deductions, enabling Mr Coletta to claim 15 years’ worth of losses.’
Old Square Chambers, 17th October 2019
‘Last year, I wrote a post on this blog discussing a High Court judgment which held that qualified one-way costs shifting (‘QOCS’) protection does not apply automatically in proceedings where a claimant is advancing both a claim for damages for personal injury and a claim other than a claim for damages for personal injury (a “mixed claim”). The claimant’s appeal in in Brown v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis  EWCA Civ 1724 has now been unanimously dismissed by the Court of Appeal.’
UK Police Law Blog, 22nd October 2019
‘Boris Johnson seems caught in an impossible bind. The European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act – the Benn Act for short – obliges him to seek an extension of Article 50 on 19 October. He can extend, honour the law, but break his promises. He can refuse to extend, honour his promises, but break the law. Or he can resign. The Benn Act appears to trap the Prime Minister between these unpalatable options. Nevertheless, he may be able to escape. For the Act may ask the impossible.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 1st October 2019
‘A person who undergoes the physical and biological process of carrying a pregnancy and giving birth, irrespective of gender? This was the ruling of the Rt. Hon. Sir Andrew McFarlane P, President of the Family Division, on 25th September in TT, R(on the application of) v The Registrar General for England and Wales  EWHC 2384 (Fam) . He decided that the Claimant, (known as “TT”), who was legally recognised as male at the time of giving birth to his child, (“YY”), is correctly registered as “mother” on YY’s birth certificate.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 30th September 2019
‘Welcome to the second issue of the Quarterly Medical Law Review, brought to you by barristers at 1 Crown Office Row. This quarterly publication aims to provide summaries and comment on recent cases in medical law, including clinical negligence, regulatory, and inquests.’
1COR, 7th August 2019
‘On 31st July 2019 Lady Justice Thirlwall DBE and Mr Justice Goss handed down the judgment of the High Court on what amounts to “using a hand-held mobile telephone or other hand-held interactive communication device” whilst driving in DPP v Barreto  EWHC 2044 (Admin).’
Park Square Barristers, 12th August 2019
‘On 29 July 2019, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Akçil and others v Koza Ltd and another  UKSC 40 (see Supreme Court judgment) unanimously overturning the decision of the Court of Appeal ( EWCA Civ 1609) regarding the interpretation of the the exclusive company law jurisdictional provisions in Article 24(2) of the Brussels I (Recast) Regulation (1215/2012).’
39 Essex Chambers, 2nd August 2019
‘Adesotu v Lewisham London Borough Council (2019) EWCA Civ 1405. We first saw this case as a county court appeal where the central issue was whether Equality Act 2010 issues could be raised and decided within a section 204 Housing Act 1996 homelessness appeal. HHJ Luba QC held that they could not, and the matter went to the Court of Appeal.’
Nearly Legal, 11th August 2019