Shamima Begum: Bid to return in citizenship fight goes to Supreme Court – BBC News

‘The case of runaway Shamima Begum, who is fighting to return to the UK from Syria, will go to the Supreme Court.’

Full Story

BBC News, 31st July 2020

Source: www.bbc.co.uk

Uber BV v Aslam – Old Square Chambers

‘In this case the drivers argue Uber is a transportation company for whom they provide services as “workers”. Uber disagrees, arguing it is a technology services provider acting as an agent for drivers in their business relationship with passengers. The question for the Court is whether the drivers are “workers” for the purposes of s.230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, s.54(3)(b) of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 and reg.2(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998. If this threshold is passed, a further issue is when the drivers are workers. Possible options include: (1) from the collection of the passenger until the driver reaches the passenger’s destination, (2) from the moment a booking is accepted until the passenger is dropped off, (3) any time when the driver is in the relevant territory with the Uber app switched on. This case is important as it provides an opportunity for the Supreme Court to provide guidance on the interpretation of Autoclenz v Belcher [2011] UKSC 41 and the correct approach to when it is permissible to disregard written contractual terms in an employment context.’

Full Story

Old Square Chambers, 21st July 2020

Source: www.oldsquare.co.uk

Reining in the rule against reflective loss: Sevilleja v Marex Financial Ltd – Hardwicke Chambers

Posted July 30th, 2020 in causation, company law, damages, insolvency, news, shareholders, Supreme Court by sally

‘In a much-anticipated judgment, the Supreme Court in Sevilleja v Marex Financial Ltd unanimously allowed an appeal against a decision which, if it had been allowed to stand, would have denuded the intentional economic torts of much of their practical utility.’

Full Story

Hardwicke Chambers, 28th July 2020

Source: hardwicke.co.uk

Reflecting on “reflective loss”: Case note on Sevilleja v Marex Financial Ltd [2020] UKSC 31 – Hailsham Chambers

Posted July 30th, 2020 in causation, company law, damages, insolvency, news, shareholders, Supreme Court by sally

‘The appeal to the Supreme Court in Sevilleja v Marex Financial Ltd [2020] UKSC 31 re-states the principle that a company’s shareholders cannot recover damages against a wrongdoer for loss which is “reflective” of a loss caused by the wrongdoer to the company itself.’

Full Story

Hailsham Chambers, July 2020

Source: www.hailshamchambers.com

New Judgment: Lehtimaki & Ors v Cooper [2020] UKSC 33 – UKSC Blog

Posted July 30th, 2020 in charities, company law, fiduciary duty, jurisdiction, news, Supreme Court by sally

‘The Children’s Investment Fund Foundation is a charitable company with more than $4bn in assets helping children in developing countries. It was founded by Sir Christopher Hohn and Ms Jamie Cooper in 2002, but it became difficult to manage when their marriage broke down. These proceedings stem from the steps they took to resolve those difficulties. Specifically, they agreed that in exchange for a grant of $360 million to Big Win Philanthropy, a charity founded by Ms Cooper, she would resign as a member and trustee of CIFF.’

Full Story

UKSC Blog, 29th July 2020

Source: ukscblog.com

Sevilleja v Marex: Reflective Loss Restated – 4 New Square

Posted July 30th, 2020 in causation, company law, damages, insolvency, news, shareholders, Supreme Court by sally

‘The Supreme Court’s decision in Sevilleja v. Marex Financial Ltd, 15 July 2020, fundamentally restates the doctrine of reflective loss in company law so that:

A claim by a company’s creditor against a third party will not be barred where it reflects loss suffered by the company, even if the creditor is also a shareholder; and
There is no longer an exception to the doctrine where the wrongdoer has brought about the company’s impecuniosity.’

Full Story

4 New Square, 17th July 2020

Source: www.4newsquare.com

High Court provides clarity on third-party access to court documents – OUT-LAW.com

‘The English High Court has refused to give access to court documents on the basis that doing so would not advance the principles of open justice.’

Full Story

OUT-LAW.com, 28th July 2020

Source: www.pinsentmasons.com

Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants: further blurring boundaries in employment status? – by Anna Williams – UK Human Rights Blog

‘In a judgment handed down on 1 April 2020, the Supreme Court reversed the decisions of Nicola Davies J (as she then was) and a unanimous Court of Appeal, allowing the appeal on the ground that no vicarious liability can lie for the acts of an independent contractor: Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants (“Barclays”).’

Full Story

UK Human Rights Blog, 28th July 2020

Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com

Kate Ollerenshaw: Retained EU Case Law: A Fourth Option – UK Constitutional Law Association

Posted July 28th, 2020 in brexit, EC law, news, precedent, Privy Council, Supreme Court by sally

‘The Ministry of Justice issued a consultation paper on Retained EU Case Law on 2 July 2020, seeking views on the exercise of the powers contained within Section 6(5A) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (“the 2018 Act”) that were inserted by Section 26(1) of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 (“the 2020 Act”). These powers allow the Government, inter alia, to designate additional courts and Tribunals (over and above those already given the power via Section 6(4) of the 2018 Act) as having the ability to depart from retained EU case law.’

Full Story

UK Constitutional Law Association, 27th July 2020

Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org

Stevie Martin: Bullying, threatening and animus: what remains of the rule against apparent bias following the Supreme Court’s judgment in Serafin? – UK Constitutional Law Association

‘At the heart of the Supreme Court judgment in Serafin v Malkiewicz was the question of whether the Court of Appeal was correct in finding that the defamation proceedings before Justice Jay had been unfair (though the Court’s reasons with respect to the public interest defence under s 4 of the Defamation Act 2013 are also profoundly significant).’

Full Story

UK Constitutional Law Association, 22nd July 2020

Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org

Supreme Court rules there is no right to privacy against “paedophile hunters” – an extended look – UK Human Rights Blog

‘In Sutherland v Her Majesty’s Advocate, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that it was compatible with the accused person’s rights under ECHR article 8 to use evidence obtained by “paedophile hunter” (“PH”) groups in a criminal trial.’

Full Story

UK Human Rights Blog, 21st July 2020

Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com

Uber v Heller and the Prospects for a Transnational Judicial Dialogue on the Gig Economy – II – Oxford Human Rights Hub

‘In the coming days, labour lawyers from around the world will be tuning in to watch the arguments in Uber v Aslam. In terms of the wider ramifications of the reasoning in Heller, what are the prospects for the ‘contractual’ and the “constitutional” approaches in Aslam? As already noted, the wider doctrine of unconscionability in Heller is unlikely to find favour in the English courts. More importantly, disputes about the employment contract in English courts are rarely about the contract rights themselves. The (private) contract is a gateway into a suite of (public) statutory employment protections. It would make little sense for a worker to seek to set aside the contract by using unconscionability as a vitiating factor, when the statutory protections depend upon the contract being valid and enforceable. This limits the practical relevance of Heller’s expanded unconscionability doctrine, given the statutory context to most employment litigation in the UK.’

Full Story

Oxford Human Rights Hub, 20th July 2020

Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk

Uber v Heller and the Prospects for a Transnational Judicial Dialogue on the Gig Economy – I – Oxford Human Rights Hub

‘Across the world, Gig employers are now facing a legal reckoning in the highest courts. On 21st July, the issue of whether Uber drivers are “workers” will be considered by a seven-member panel of the UK Supreme Court. This follows on from Mr Heller’s momentous victory in a recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) in Uber Technologies Inc. v. Heller which involved a legal challenge to a mandatory arbitration clause in a contract between Uber and an UberEATS driver. The arbitration clause required disputes to be referred to arbitration in Amsterdam, which would be subject to the law of the Netherlands. The clause also required the payment of US $14,500 as an upfront administrative cost. The appellant earned $20,800–$31,200 per year before taxes and expenses were deducted. Nor did the fee include other costs likely to be incurred in an arbitration, such as travel to Amsterdam, accommodation, and legal representation. Students of transnational labour law of a certain generation cut their teeth on great debates about “offshoring” and the disintegrative risks to labour standards posed by capital mobility. The Heller case is an important reminder that we are now in an era of juridical mobility: employing entities seek to escape national labour law systems without the cost and inconvenience of spatial mobility.’

Full Story

Oxford Human Rights Hub, 19th July 2020

Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk

Uber drivers’ fight for workers’ rights reaches supreme court – The Guardian

Posted July 21st, 2020 in news, self-employment, Supreme Court, taxis by sally

‘A five-year battle over the status and rights of Uber drivers reaches the supreme court in a case that lawyers believe has the potential to transform the gig economy in Britain.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 21st July 2020

Source: www.theguardian.com

Uber drivers to launch legal bid to uncover app’s algorithm – The Guardian

‘Minicab drivers will launch a legal bid to uncover secret computer algorithms used by Uber to manage their work in a test case that could increase transparency for millions of gig economy workers across Europe.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 20th July 2020

Source: www.theguardian.com

Asbestos victims fail again in bid to access case papers – Litigation Futures

‘The group whose bid to access a bundle from litigation involving an asbestos manufacturer led to a Supreme Court ruling on open justice has failed in its application for the documents.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 16th July 2020

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

‘Paedophile hunters’ do not violate right to privacy, Supreme Court rules as convict’s appeal dismissed – The Independent

Posted July 15th, 2020 in appeals, child abuse, deceit, internet, news, privacy, sexual offences, Supreme Court by tracey

‘”Paedophile hunters” do not violate the right to privacy, the Supreme Court has ruled while dismissing a convict’s appeal.
Mark Sutherland was convicted after communicating with a member of an activist group, who he believed to be a 13-year-old boy. He appealed his conviction, arguing that his right to a private life and correspondence, enshrined in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Delivering the Supreme Court’s ruling on Wednesday, Lord Sales said the appeal had been “unanimously dismissed”.’

Full Story

The Independent, 15th July 2020

Source: www.independent.co.uk

Case Preview: R (Gourlay) v Parole Board – UKSC Blog

Posted July 13th, 2020 in appeals, costs, jurisdiction, news, parole, Supreme Court by sally

‘In this case the “court” in question is the Parole Board. The inverted commas are because one of the issues is whether the Board is, in fact, a court for these purposes. Mr Gourlay is a life sentence prisoner. On 10 March 2014 the Parole Board refused to recommend that he be transferred to open conditions (almost always an essential precondition to later release). The Secretary of State usually, but does not always, accept such recommendations. Mr Gourlay challenged the Board’s refusal to make a recommendation. In accordance with a published “litigation strategy” that it has had since 2013 the Board did not engage with that challenge. That strategy takes advantage of a practice encapsulated in a case concerning coroners, R (Davies) v Birmingham Deputy Coroner [2004] 1 WLR 2739, which is that courts and tribunals will not usually be ordered to pay costs provided they have maintained a neutral stance. Mr Gourlay succeeded in his challenge, but both the High Court, and the Court of Appeal, held that Davies applied to the Board, and so Mr Gourlay did not recover his costs. This meant, amongst other things, that his lawyers were only entitled to be paid at around a quarter to a third of the rate they would have received if party-party costs had been awarded in Mr Gourlay’s favour.’

Full Story

UKSC Blog, 10th July 2020

Source: ukscblog.com

Supreme Court hands down judgment in Villiers v Villiers – Parklane Plowden Chambers

‘Charles and Emma Villiers married in 1994. They moved to Scotland the following year and lived there throughout their married life. The couple separated in 2012, when the wife and the parties’ daughter left the former matrimonial home and moved to England, where the wife continues to reside. Mrs Villiers issued a divorce petition in July 2013 on the basis of her habitual residence for 12 months preceding the presentation of the petition.’

Full Story

Parklane Plowden Chambers, 1st July 2020

Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk

Landmark Supreme Court Judgment on Interchange Fees – Monckton Chambers

Posted July 10th, 2020 in appeals, banking, chambers articles, competition, fees, news, Supreme Court by sally

‘On 17 June 2020, the Supreme Court (Lords Reed, Hodge, Lloyd-Jones, Sales and Hamblen) handed down a landmark judgment on whether certain fees which are paid by merchants to banks under the Visa and Mastercard payment card schemes breach competition law. The judgment finally settles years of litigation in the UK courts, and deep divisions in the rulings which had been given in the lower courts and tribunals. It is also the first judgment of the Supreme Court dealing with the Court of Appeal’s powers of remittal.’

Full Story

Monckton Chambers, July 2020

Source: www.monckton.com