‘The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed this appeal addressing when an arbitrator should make disclosure of circumstances which may give rise to justifiable doubts as to his impartiality.’
UKSC Blog, 27th November 2020
Source: ukscblog.com
‘The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed this appeal concerning the correct approach as to determining the value of non-negotiable chips for the purpose of calculating gaming duty.’
UKSC Blog, 27th November 2020
Source: ukscblog.com
‘R (o.t.a of Aviva & Swiss Re) v. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2020] EWHC 3118 (Admin). At first sight, a rather abstruse dispute, but the 63 page judgment of Henshaw J gives rise to a host of important and difficult human rights points. But his central conclusion is that a statute which was not challengeable at the time of its enactment became so, because of the subsequent evolution of the law, principally common law, to the detriment of insurers.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 25th November 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The Supreme Court has on 13 November 2020 handed down the judgment in this case concerning the appropriate standard of proof for conclusions at inquests.’
Park Square Barristers, 13th November 2020
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court has unanimously allowed this long-awaited appeal arising in the course of long-running proceedings known as the Franked Investment Income (“FII”) Group Litigation. The FII Group Litigation brings together many claims concerning the way in which advance corporation tax and corporation tax used to be charged on dividends received by UK-resident companies from non-resident subsidiaries. The respondents to this appeal are claimants within the FII Group Litigation whose cases have been selected to proceed as test claims on certain common issues (“the Test Claimants”). These issues are being determined in phases, with the courts’ decisions affecting not just the other claims within the FII Group Litigation, but potentially also a number of other sets of proceedings brought by corporate taxpayers against the appellant, the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (“HMRC”).’
UKSC Blog, 20th November 2020
Source: ukscblog.com
‘Can an English family court order the unlawful detention of a Welsh child?’
Transparency Project, 22nd November 2020
Source: www.transparencyproject.org.uk
‘Shamima Begum ran away to Syria as a 15-year-old to join the self-proclaimed Islamic State. But when the terror group was defeated, she ended up in a refugee camp in Syria.’
BBC News, 22nd November 2020
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Zealots bent on upsetting the constitutional applecart or the only friends we have? And what is the alternative? Thomas Grant QC takes a look at the Independent Review of Administrative Law, its context and the charges against the senior judiciary.’
Counsel, November 2020
Source: www.counselmagazine.co.uk
‘By a majority of three to two, the Supreme Court has held that the standard of proof for findings of suicide and unlawful killing at an inquest is the balance of probabilities: R (Maughan) v Her Majesty’s Senior Coroner for Oxfordshire [2020]
UKSC 46.’
Ropewalk Chambers, 16th November 2020
Source: www.ropewalk.co.uk
‘The appeal in Alexander Devine Children’s Cancer Trust v Housing Solutions Ltd [2020] UKSC 45 was the first time that either the Supreme Court or the House of Lords had considered the Upper Tribunal’s power to discharge or modify restrictive covenants affecting land under section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925. The case confirms important principles affecting the interplay between private law property rights, planning and land use. Lord Burrows, giving the only substantive judgment of the Supreme Court, agreed with the Court of Appeal that the Upper Tribunal’s decision was wrong, but disagreed in a number of important respects with the speech of Sales LJ (as he then was) in the Court of Appeal ([2018] EWCA Civ 2679). For a number of reasons, it is likely that we shall be reading and re-reading this Supreme Court decision for many years to come.’
39 Essex Chambers, 9th November 2020
Source: www.39essex.com
‘The Supreme Court has today lowered the standard of proof for all conclusions in inquest proceedings, including unlawful killing and suicide, in a decision that could have wide-reaching implications for the recording of deaths in England and Wales.’
Law Society's Gazette, 13th November 2020
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court has given judgment in R (on the application of Maughan) v HM Senior Coroner for Oxfordshire [2020] UKSC 46, a case dealing with the applicable standard of proof for reaching a narrative verdict of suicide or unlawful killing. A detailed case preview by my colleague Tim James-Matthews is available here, as a useful starting point for the issues arising in the appeal. By a 3-2 majority (with Lady Arden giving the leading judgment), the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the applicable standard of proof is the civil standard (i.e. the balance of probabilities). Lord Kerr gave the dissenting judgment, with which Lord Reed agreed: they would both have allowed the appeal.’
UKSC Blog, 16th November 2020
Source: ukscblog.com
‘In R (on the application of Z and another) (AP) (Appellants) v Hackney London Borough Council and another (Respondents) UKSC 2019/0162, the Supreme Court held that it was lawful for a housing association to provide social housing only to Orthodox Jews, in its first ever ruling on positive action. In this blog, Charlotte Goodman, an equality law barrister at Cloisters, considers the importance of the judgment.’
Cloisters, 6th November 2020
Source: www.cloisters.com
‘On 15 July 2020 the Supreme Court handed down its findings in Sutherland (Appellant) v Her Majesty’s Advocate (Respondent) (Scotland) [2020] UKSC 32.’
2 Hare Court, 2nd November 2020
Source: www.2harecourt.com
‘By a majority the Supreme Court has dismissed this appeal concerning the standard of proof, or degree of conclusivity, required for the determination of the result of an inquest into a death where the question is whether the deceased committed suicide.’
UKSC Blog, 13th November 2020
Source: ukscblog.com
‘The Supreme Court has now issued its judgment in this important case for Coroners and inquests dealing with the standard of proof to be applied where the death might have been caused by suicide or unlawful killing.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 13th November 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Eight months since the UK coronavirus lockdown forced the temporary closures of restaurants, bars, shops, hairdressers and other small businesses, thousands who are still awaiting payouts from their insurers to cover lost income will hope a supreme court hearing will result in a ruling that favours about 200,000 policyholders.’
The Guardian, 16th November 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The common law defence of illegality was considered by the Supreme Court in Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 42. The Court rejected the reliance principle as applied in Tinsley v Milligan [1994] 1 AC 340, according to which relief was refused to parties who had to rely on their own illegality to establish their case. In its place, the majority adopted a more flexible approach which openly addressed the underlying policy considerations involved and invited Courts to reach a balanced judgment in each case, permitting account to be taken of the proportionality of the outcome.’
Littleton Chambers, 4th November 2020
Source: littletonchambers.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024