‘The European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill 2019-20 will pave the way for the UK to ratify the UK-EU Withdrawal Agreement and thus depart from the European Union (EU) soon thereafter, having received its third reading in the House of Commons just last week. This contribution examines certain major consequences deriving from the Bill becoming law and, in particular, the controversial, but little discussed Clause 26 which (as Lord Pannick remarked in a recent article in the Times) requires particularly careful scrutiny.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 14th January 2020
‘Well, yes you probably did as a legal matter reach (or attain) age 21 at the start of your 21st birthday – ie at midnight at the start of that day (even if you had been born later in the day). But legally this has not always been the case in England and Wales.’
Wilberforce Chambers, 7th January 2020
‘The High Court has ruled that the London Borough of Ealing acted unlawfully in its assessment of whether applicant AB was a “former relevant child” within the meaning of section 23C of the Children Act 1989.’
Local Government Lawyer, 13th December 2019
‘Within the U.K. there are two judicial systems: the law of England and Wales and the law of Scotland; which differ slightly. The Human Rights Act 1998 came into force on the 2nd October 2000 to incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950 (‘the Convention’) into the law of England & Wales. At the same time that the Human Rights Act 1998 was passing through parliament the Scotland Act 1998 was also making its’ way through parliament. Under the Scotland Act 1998, in May 1999, the U.K. devolved legislative and executive power to Scotland. The primary function of the Scotland Act 1998 was to set up a system of devolved government for Scotland, but it also included important provisions relating to the protection of the rights guaranteed by the Convention (‘Convention rights’).’
5SAH, 10th December 2019
‘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