You ain’t the boss of me (yet) – Nearly Legal
‘When a section 21 notice is served, does the party serving it (or on whose behalf it is served) have to be the tenant’s landlord at that time?’
Nearly Legal, 31st October 2018
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
Category: statutory interpretation
Joanna Bell: The Supreme Court’s Approach to the Finality Clause in Lee v Ashers: A Response to Anurag Deb & Conor McCormick & Looking Forward to Privacy International – UK Constitutional Law Association
‘Lee v Ashers Baking Company Ltd [2018] UKSC 49 (“gay cake”case) has probably not escaped the attention of any public lawyer. As Anurag Deb & Conor McCormick have usefully pointed out in a recent blog post, however, what may have been overlooked is that this case is not only important from a human rights or equality perspective, but from an administrative law perspective too. This is because the case contains a judgment, delivered by Lord Mance, which offers the unanimous court’s view on the meaning of a finality clause contained in the County Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1980.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 23rd October 2018
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
Electoral Commission ‘misinterpreted’ Vote Leave expenses, court rules – BBC News
‘The Electoral Commission misinterpreted EU referendum spending laws allowing Vote Leave to break them, the High Court has ruled.’
BBC News, 14th September 2018
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018: Ten Key Implications for UK Law and Lawyers – Blackstone Chambers
‘On 26 June 2018, after nearly a year of deliberation by Parliament, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (the “Act”) received royal assent. It is a statute of profound importance to the legal systems of the UK. It will become familiar in just the same way as did the European Communities Act 1972 (“ECA 1972”) before it (which the Act will repeal). This article seeks briefly to summarise the purpose and architecture of the Act; to identify some key themes of change; and to outline ten key implications for UK law and lawyers. It then concludes with a brief observation about transitional arrangements and thereafter.’
Blackstone Chambers, 19th July 2018
Source: www.blackstonechambers.com
Disability related error of judgment amounts to discrimination arising from disability – No. 5 Chambers
‘Following a line of decisions in the Employment Appeal Tribunal, the Court of Appeal in City of York v P J Grosset [2018] EWCA Civ 1105 so held.’
No. 5 Chambers, 11th July 2018
Source: www.no5.com
James Segan: The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018: Ten Key Implications for UK Law and Lawyers – UK Constitutional Law Association
‘On 26 June 2018, after nearly a year of deliberation by Parliament, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (the “Act”) received royal assent. It is a statute of profound importance to the legal systems of the UK. This post seeks briefly to summarise the purpose and architecture of the Act and to outline ten key implications for UK law and lawyers.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 26th July 2018
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
Facing up to it – Nearly Legal
‘Kamara v London Borough Of Southwark (2018) EWCA Civ 1616. In Makisi & Ors v Birmingham City Council (2011) EWCA Civ 355 (our report), the Court of Appeal decided that the right to make ‘oral submissions’ in response to a ‘minded to’ letter under 8(2) of the 1999 Review Procedures Regulations meant a right to request ‘face to face’ advocacy in making representations. In these three joined appeals, the sole issue was whether this meant that the ‘minded to’ to letter had to specify the right to a face to face meeting for representations.’
Nearly Legal, 15th July 2018
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
Council Resolutions – Local Government Law
‘R (Jewish Rights Watch) v Leicester City Council (2018) EWCA Civ 1551 concerns a non-binding Full Council Resolution on a controversial matter. The Council resolved “insofar as legal considerations allow, to boycott produce originating from illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank until such time as it complies with International law an withdraws from Palestinian Occupied territories.” Jewish Human Rights Watch argued that the resolution singled out Israel for criticism, and that the Council failed to consider the effect of so doing on the Jewish community in the UK, and in particular in and around Leicester, in breach of the PSED. The Court of Appeal, upholding the judgment of the Divisional Court, held that on a reading of the Resolution, and of the transcript of the debate which preceded its adoption, it was clear that the Councillors had due regard to the matters set out in Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 and had thus satisfied the PSED.’
Local Government Law, 4th July 2018
Source: local-government-law.11kbw.com
How far will the Supreme Court go as it tackles Owens v Owens? – Family Law
‘On 17 May, the Supreme Court heard the case of Owens v Owens. It is the first time that the ‘fault based’ divorce provisions in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) have been considered by the highest court.’
Family Law, 21st June 2018
Source: www.familylaw.co.uk
Owens: unreasonable behaviour on trial – New Law Journal
‘On 17 May, the Supreme Court heard the case of Owens v Owens . It is the first time that the ‘fault based’ divorce provisions in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) have been considered by the highest court.’
New Law Journal, 15th June 2018
Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk
Judges uphold listing of field as asset of community value despite trespassing – Local Government Lawyer
‘An open space can be designated as an asset of community value even if its present use is one arising from trespass, the Court Of Appeal has said.’
Local Government Lawyer, 31st May 2018
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
Case Comment: R (Gibson) v Secretary of State for Justice [2018] UKSC 2 – Supreme Court Blog
‘On one view this is perhaps the most esoteric of the 28 appeals regarding the confiscation or civil recovery legislation which have been determined by the House of Lords, Privy Council or Supreme Court over the past 24 years.’
Supreme Court Blog, 20th April 2018
Source: ukscblog.com
Robert Craig: The Fall-out from Evans: Positioning Roszkowski and Privacy International in a Post-Evans Constitutional Landscape (Part 2) – UK Constitutional Law Association
‘This post is in two parts. The first post (available here) addressed the detail of McCombe LJ’s judgment in Roszkowski v Secretary State for the Home Department (‘Roszkowski’) and in particular the impact of the differing judgments in R (Evans) v Attorney General (‘Evans’). This second post puts forward an alternative argument not canvassed in Evans or Roszkowski. A version of the argument was first suggested in a case note on Evans written by the author in the Modern Law Review. This second post also addresses some implications for Privacy International.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 11th December 2017
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
Thomas Fairclough: Privacy International: Constitutional Substance over Semantics in Reading Ouster Clauses – UK Constitutional Law Association
‘I have previously written on this blog and elsewhere about statutory interpretation and the rule of law. In the previous blog post I stated that the idea “that the courts will not allow the executive to escape their jurisdiction is well established as part of the rule of law” and referenced, inter alia, Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147 (HL) to support this view.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 4th December 2017
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
Intentional Homelessness: Whether 2-Years Renting Amounted to Settled Accommodation – Garden Court Chambers
‘In November 2010 the appellant, Mr Doka, was evicted from his home at Laburnam Close in South East London on the basis of rent arrears. His former employer, Mr Theobald, subsequently allowed him to stay in his home in Dartford. The arrangement was initially meant to be a temporary one. But after a few weeks the arrangement was put on a more stable footing, with Mr Theobald agreeing to provide what he described as ‘full-time accommodation’, allowing Mr Doka to sleep in his son’s bedroom (while his son was away at University) for £500 a month. Mr Theobald told Mr Doka that he could live there for two-three years, while his son finished at University, though Mr Doka would be required to stay with friend’s on occasion if Mr Theobald’s son returned and needed the use of the room.’
Garden Court Chambers, 10th November 2017
Source: www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk
‘Significantly More Vulnerable’: The Court of Appeal Explains – Garden Court Chambers
‘At [53] of Hotak v Southwark LBC [2015] UKSC 30, [2016] AC 811, Lord Neuberger explained that whether or not a homeless applicant was ‘vulnerable’ within the meaning of s189(1)(c) Housing Act 1996 required consideration of whether he or she would be ‘significantly more vulnerable than ordinarily vulnerable’ as a result of being rendered homeless. In the conjoined appeals of Panayiotou and Smith, the Court of Appeal considered the meaning of the word ‘significantly’ in this context as well as a number of issues relating to the contracting out of homelessness decision making in instances where the public sector equality duty under s149 Equality Act 2010 is engaged.’
Garden Court Chambers, 10th November 2017
Source: www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk
Local Authority Decisions on Level of Fees They Will Pay For Residential Care Under National Assistance Act 1948 (Pre-Care Act 2014) – Garden Court Chambers
‘This case concerned care costs for residential care homes and Local authorities’ powers and duties. In summary the Court of Appeal held by a majority that there was nothing in the applicable guidance that precluded a local authority from taking account of certain revenue streams (namely private fees, top-up payments and support from the NHS) when making the evaluative judgment of what it would expect to pay for residential care for the elderly.’
Garden Court Chambers, 10th November 2017
Source: www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk
Contributory negligence and construction contracts – Hardwicke Chambers
‘A plethora of issues were raised, and disposed of, by Fraser J’s recently handed-down judgment in Riva Properties and others v Foster + Partners Ltd, the most awkwardly entertaining one being the sense of pantomime arising from the court’s clear disapproval of the architect’s behaviour, which was described at various stages as “grubby”, “disingenuous” and “wholly unprofessional”.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 10th November 2017
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
Reasonable Belief in Adverse Possession – 14 Years Later – Hardwicke Chambers
‘The doctrine of adverse possession arises from the Limitation Act 1980. Section 15(1) provides that no action shall be brought by any person to recover any land after the expiration of 12 years from the date on which the right of action accrued. Sections 1-7 provide that at the expiration of the period of 12 years the title of the paper owner is extinguished. The claim of a person to a possessory title was therefore based on the negative effect of the extinguishment of the paper owner’s title, and the basic principle that what is required for a case in trespass is not ownership, but possession or a right to possession.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 9th November 2017
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
