Homeless duties, human rights and suitability decisions – Nearly Legal

‘Poshteh v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea [2017] UKSC 36. Ms Posheth had refused an offer of accommodation in discharge of duty because a round window in the property had reminded her of when she was imprisoned in Iran (though she did say it would have been suitable as temporary accommodation). She had had a panic attack on viewing the property. RBKC found the property was suitable and reasonable to accept on review, upheld on appeal and in the court of appeal.’

Full story

Nearly Legal, 21st May 2017

Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk

Comments Off on Homeless duties, human rights and suitability decisions – Nearly Legal

A Question of Taste : The Supreme Court and the Interpretation of Contracts – Speech by Lord Sumption

Posted May 17th, 2017 in contracts, interpretation, news, Supreme Court by sally

A Question of Taste : T he Supreme Court and the Interpretation of Contracts (PDF)

Speech by Lord Sumption

Harris Society Annual Lecture, Keble College, Oxford, 8th May 2017

Source: www.supremecourt.uk

Comments Off on A Question of Taste : The Supreme Court and the Interpretation of Contracts – Speech by Lord Sumption

Sumption: Supreme Court pulling back from broad construction of contracts – Litigation Futures

Posted May 17th, 2017 in contracts, interpretation, news, Supreme Court by sally

‘Lord Sumption has called for a return to a more straightforward approach to how judges construct contracts that focuses on the words rather than trying to work out what the parties intended by looking at the surrounding circumstances.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 16th May 2017

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Comments Off on Sumption: Supreme Court pulling back from broad construction of contracts – Litigation Futures

Similarities, Connections or Relationships? Aggregation following AIG Europe v Woodman – Hardwicke Chambers

Posted May 16th, 2017 in appeals, contracts, damages, news, Supreme Court by sally

‘Aggregation clauses are commonly used in professional liability policies and can have a substantial impact on the recoverable damages in a claim. The Supreme Court considered the proper construction of the aggregation clause in the Law Society’s Minimum Terms and Conditions (“the Minimum Terms”) in AIG Europe v Woodman [2017] UKSC 18 and in so doing also provided useful guidance on the approach to be taken to the construction of aggregation clauses more generally.’

Full story

Hardwicke Chambers, 12th May 2017

Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk

Comments Off on Similarities, Connections or Relationships? Aggregation following AIG Europe v Woodman – Hardwicke Chambers

Lowick Rose LLP v. Swynson Ltd [2017] UKSC 32 – Hailsham Chambers

Posted May 16th, 2017 in accountants, appeals, negligence, news, Supreme Court by sally

‘The Supreme Court has now ruled on the tricky “no loss” arguments raised in this accountant’s negligence claim, reversing the decision of the lower courts. Nicola Rushton of Hailsham’s professional negligence team considers the implications.’

Full story (PDF)

Hailsham Chambers, 13th April 2017

Source: www.hailshamchambers.com

Comments Off on Lowick Rose LLP v. Swynson Ltd [2017] UKSC 32 – Hailsham Chambers

Poshteh v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea – Arden Chambers

‘The Supreme Court has declined to depart from its previous judgment in Ali v Birmingham CC that the right to homelessness accommodation under s193 Housing Act 1996 was not a civil right under art 6, despite a decision of the ECtHR to the contrary in Ali v UK; it has affirmed the dicta of Lord Neuberger in Holmes-Moorhouse v Richmond upon Thames LBC that a “benevolent approach” is to be taken to homelessness review decisions under s202; and said (obiter) that the principles governing the right of appeal to the county court under s204 had been authoritatively established by the House of Lords in Runa Begum v Tower Hamlets LBC and other cases including Holmes-Moorhouse, and should be taken as settled.’

Full story

Arden Chambers, 10th May 2017

Source: www.ardenchambers.com

Comments Off on Poshteh v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea – Arden Chambers

Supreme Court hands down key ruling over meaning of planning framework – Local Government Lawyer

Posted May 12th, 2017 in housing, local government, news, planning, Supreme Court by sally

‘Two local authorities have lost appeals today to the Supreme Court, although judges did back the councils’ interpretation of a key part of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).’

Full story

Local Government Lawyer, 10th May 2017

Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk

Comments Off on Supreme Court hands down key ruling over meaning of planning framework – Local Government Lawyer

Supreme Court favours narrow interpretation of ‘relevant policies for supply of housing’ – OUT-LAW.com

Posted May 12th, 2017 in housing, local government, news, planning, Supreme Court by sally

‘Only those local planning policies dealing with housing-specific questions, such as numbers and distribution of housing, will be deemed out of date in the absence of a five year supply of deliverable sites for housing in a particular area, the UK’s highest court has ruled.’

Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 11th May 2017

Source: www.out-law.com

Comments Off on Supreme Court favours narrow interpretation of ‘relevant policies for supply of housing’ – OUT-LAW.com

Supreme Court backs decision of reviewing officer over accommodation offer – Local Government Lawyer

‘The Supreme Court has upheld a reviewing officer’s decision that it was reasonable for a refugee to accept an offer of accommodation which she claimed reminded her of prison in Iran.’

Full story

Local Government Lawyer, 10th May 2017

Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk

Comments Off on Supreme Court backs decision of reviewing officer over accommodation offer – Local Government Lawyer

Supreme Court denies councils’ appeals in housing policy case – Law Society’s Gazette

Posted May 11th, 2017 in appeals, housing, local government, news, planning, Supreme Court by tracey

‘The Supreme Court has dismissed appeals by two local authorities in a case that centres on the wording of the government’s 2012 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).’

Full story

Law Society’s Gazette, 11th May 2017

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Comments Off on Supreme Court denies councils’ appeals in housing policy case – Law Society’s Gazette

Supreme Court to rule this week on Article 6 and housing decisions – Local Government Lawyer

Posted May 9th, 2017 in appeals, housing, human rights, news, Supreme Court by tracey

‘The Supreme Court will this week hand down a key ruling on whether Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the right to a fair hearing, applies to decisions on entitlement under Part V of the Housing Act 1996.’

Full story

Local Government Lawyer, 8th May 2017

Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk

Comments Off on Supreme Court to rule this week on Article 6 and housing decisions – Local Government Lawyer

Date set for Supreme Court hearing in minimum alcohol pricing case – Local Government Lawyer

Posted May 2nd, 2017 in alcohol abuse, appeals, news, price fixing, Scotland, Supreme Court by sally

‘The Supreme Court will hear the dispute over the planned introduction of alcohol minimum pricing in Scotland in July, it has been confirmed.’

Full story

Local Government Lawyer, 2nd May 2017

Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk

Comments Off on Date set for Supreme Court hearing in minimum alcohol pricing case – Local Government Lawyer

EnergySolutions EU Ltd (now ATK Energy EU Ltd) v Nuclear Decommissioning Authority – WLR Daily

EnergySolutions EU Ltd (now ATK Energy EU Ltd) v Nuclear Decommissioning Authority [2017] UKSC 34

‘A company was unsuccessful in its bid in a tender process carried out by a public authority for a contract which fell within the ambit of Parliament and Council Directive 2004/18/EC (“the Public Procurement Directive”) and Council Directive 89/665/EEC , as amended, which provided for remedies for unsuccessful applicants (“the Remedies Directive”) and which had been given effect to in England and Wales by the Public Contracts Regulations 2006, as amended. The Regulations provided that, after notification of the contracting authority’s decision to award the contract, there would be a ten-day standstill period prior to the actual award of the contract during which time an unsuccessful bidder could issue proceedings to challenge the award. The issuing of proceedings would trigger automatic suspension of the contract award until the challenge was determined or otherwise disposed of, although the court had power to require a cross-undertaking from that party to cover the authority’s losses from not entering into the contract with its preferred bidder. Regulation 47D(2), as inserted, however, allowed for a period of 30 days for the issuing of any proceedings, with regulation 47J(2)(c), as inserted, making provision for an award of damages to the unsuccessful bidder if the court found a breach of duty after the contract had been entered into. The company, having been notified that it was an unsuccessful bidder, expressed its concerns with the procurement process but did not issue proceedings until after the expiry of the standstill period, albeit within the 30-day period. On a trial of preliminary issues, where the authority relied on Court of Justice authority which imposed minimum conditions for claims for breaches of an European Union law right, including that the breach had to be “sufficiently serious”, the judge stated that (i) there was nothing in the Remedies Directive which limited the company to recovery of damages on that basis, and (ii) ordinary principles of English law applied to any award of damages under the 2006 Regulations and so the Court of Justice’s rule would not limit the recovery of damages to “sufficiently serious” breaches of the 2006 Regulations. He declined to make any ruling on a third issue, whether the company’s failure to start proceedings within the standstill period and before the authority had entered into the contract meant that it was not entitled to damages, since it could have acted within the ten-day period to prevent the claimed loss from occurring by causing a suspension of the award of the contract to the successful bidder. On the authority’s appeal on the first two issues the Court of Appeal held that the minimum conditions for an award of damages for breach of an European Union law right had been established by the Court of Justice and so article 2(1)(c) of the Remedies Directive only called for an award of damages where the breach was sufficiently serious, but upheld the judge’s decision that there was no such constraint under the 2006 Regulations, and, on an appeal by the company on the third issue, accepted its submission that the judge ought to have decided as a matter of domestic law that it could not be deprived of damages simply because it had failed to avail itself of the opportunity under the 2006 Regulations to issue the proceedings in time to stop the contract being awarded. The authority appealed on the second and third issues, with the company arguing in relation to the first issue that damages could be awarded under article 2(1)(c) for any breach, whether serious or not. After the hearing the parties reached a settlement of the disputes between them in relation to liability and quantum but requested that the court hand down its judgment on the appeal in any event.’

WLR Daily, 11th April 2017

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off on EnergySolutions EU Ltd (now ATK Energy EU Ltd) v Nuclear Decommissioning Authority – WLR Daily

Investment Trust Companies v Revenue and Customs Comrs – WLR Daily

Posted April 26th, 2017 in appeals, EC law, HM Revenue & Customs, law reports, restitution, Supreme Court, VAT by sally

Investment Trust Companies v Revenue and Customs Comrs [2017] UKSC 29

‘The claimants were “closed-ended” investment funds constituted as limited companies. Between 1992 and 2002 they received supplies of services from investment managers rendered pursuant to agreements which provided for the managers to be remunerated by the payment of fees plus VAT “if applicable”. Under the legislation then in force such services did not qualify for exemption and the managers charged VAT at the standard rate. The managers made periodic VAT returns which accounted for the VAT charged as output tax, reclaimed input tax and paid the revenue the net difference. Following a decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union it transpired that the supplies of the investment management services should have been exempt from VAT. Accordingly, the managers made claims to the revenue under section 80 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 for repayment of sums accounted for and paid by them in error. The revenue met those claims but, in accordance with the statutory provisions, limited repayments to the net amounts which the managers had paid and did not include any amounts relating to periods which were time-barred. The managers forwarded the reimbursements to the claimants as required under section 80 but since they were insufficient to meet the full amount of VAT which had been mistakenly paid by them the claimants brought proceedings against the revenue on grounds of unjust enrichment and breach of European Union law. The judge found that the revenue had been enriched by the full amount of VAT paid by the claimants to the managers; that the claimants had no cause of action at common law because the statutory scheme protected the revenue from any liability to refund VAT except as provided for under section 80 of the 1994 Act, but that, since, within the limitation period, European Union law required that exclusion to be disapplied, the claimants were entitled to repayment of the full amount of VAT paid by the claimants within that period. The claim in relation to the time-barred periods was therefore dismissed. On appeal by both parties the Court of Appeal concluded that the statutory scheme did not exclude a common law claim but that, since the revenue had only received payment of output tax net of input tax from the managers, it had not been unjustly enriched over the periods in which a refund had been paid to the managers, although a similar repayment was payable to cover the time-barred periods.’

WLR Daily, 11th April 2017

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off on Investment Trust Companies v Revenue and Customs Comrs – WLR Daily

Supreme Court refuses damages to refugee wrongly prosecuted for illegal entry – Free Movement

‘Shortly after Christmas in 2009, a young woman from Somalia flew into Stansted and claimed asylum. She had just turned 18. As later accepted by the Home Office, she had experienced severe depredations in her home country. This included her rape at the age of six in the presence of her disabled mother, and the murder of both of her parents. She fled Somalia in 2008, initially to Yemen, where she spent the next year. She was eventually able to fly to Europe with the help of an agent, who provided a British passport to facilitate her entry into the UK.’

Full story

Free Movement, 26th April 2017

Source: www.freemovement.org.uk

Comments Off on Supreme Court refuses damages to refugee wrongly prosecuted for illegal entry – Free Movement

Supreme Court dismisses media publishers’ appeals against costs awards – OUT-LAW.com

‘The UK’s highest court has dismissed the appeals of three media publishers against costs orders made against them by High Court judges in separate libel and privacy cases.’

Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 18th April 2017

Source: www.out-law.com

Comments Off on Supreme Court dismisses media publishers’ appeals against costs awards – OUT-LAW.com

Court of Appeal decides Supreme Court ruling in Hesham Ali is already redundant – Free Movement

Posted April 20th, 2017 in appeals, human rights, immigration, judgments, news, precedent, Supreme Court by sally

‘The Court of Appeal has in the case of NE-A (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 239 decided that the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Hesham Ali [2016] UKSC 60 is confined to cases in which the Immigration Rules are applied and does not apply to cases decided under the statutory human rights considerations introduced by the Immigration Act 2014.’

Full story

Free Movement, 18th April 2017

Source: www.freemovement.org.uk

Comments Off on Court of Appeal decides Supreme Court ruling in Hesham Ali is already redundant – Free Movement

Supreme Court backs pre-LASPO recoverability of success fees and ATE premiums – Litigation Futures

‘The Supreme Court has ruled against three leading newspaper groups over having to pay claimants’ success fees and after-the-event insurance under the pre-LASPO regime, saying that the media’s rights under the European Convention on Human Rights were not engaged as critically as the rights of those suing them.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 11th April 2017

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Comments Off on Supreme Court backs pre-LASPO recoverability of success fees and ATE premiums – Litigation Futures

UK supreme court denies tobacco firms permission for plain packaging appeal – The Guardian

Posted April 12th, 2017 in appeals, health, news, smoking, Supreme Court by sally

‘All cigarettes sold in the UK must have standardised packaging from next month after the supreme court refused permission to the tobacco industry to appeal against the new laws.’

Full story

The Guardian, 11th April 2017

Source: www.guardian.co.uk

Comments Off on UK supreme court denies tobacco firms permission for plain packaging appeal – The Guardian

Lady Hale on indirect discrimination: Essop and Naeem – Law & Religion UK

‘In Essop & Ors v Home Office (UK Border Agency) [2017] UKSC 27, there were two conjoined cases: Essop and Naeem v Secretary of State for Justice. The Supreme Court gave a unanimous judgment on both.’

Full story

Law & Religion UK, 7th April 2017

Source: www.lawandreligionuk.com

Comments Off on Lady Hale on indirect discrimination: Essop and Naeem – Law & Religion UK