‘The UK Supreme Court’s judgment in Gilham demonstrates how human rights can be used to widen the class of individuals who benefit from employment rights (the “personal scope” of the rights). Further, the court’s reasoning evidences a shift away from contractual thinking in labour law.’
Oxford Human Rights Hub, 1st November 2019
Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk
‘This appeal concerned who should pay the legal costs of 426 claimants who successfully sued a medical group for the supply of defective silicone breast implants. It allows the Supreme Court to review the principles concerning third-party costs orders. 426 uninsured claimants applied to the court for an order that Travelers pay their costs. The High Court and Court of Appeal held that Travelers be ordered to pay them, albeit for slightly different reasons. Travelers appealed to the Supreme Court.’
UKSC Blog, 30th October 2019
Source: ukscblog.com
‘Supreme Court justices have ruled by a three to two majority that a freeholder was entitled to withhold consent for a leaseholder to apply for planning permission that might reduce the value of a West End property.’
Law Society's Gazette, 30th October 2019
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘Whistleblowing protection continues to expand and develop. Even without reliance on Art.10 ECHR the Courts have not been shy of adopting what might at first appear to be a strained construction of the legislation to further the underlying policy objectives. Now the Supreme Court’s decision in Gilham v Ministry of Justice [2019] UKSC 44 has demonstrated the strength of the interpretative obligation to construe the legislation in accordance with Article 10 (or that article read with A.14 ECHR). Indeed this points to the possibility of extending the scope of protection much further. Litigation over the position of secondees, applicants, volunteers and others, as well as in relation to detriment inflicted because of a perception (justified or not) that a worker has or may be about to make a disclosure, or was associated in some way with someone else’s disclosures, can be expected. These cases will need to explore the scope of the State’s positive obligation to protect freedom of expression. They will no doubt face arguments that the necessary reading down is against the grain, or contrary to fundamental features, of the statutory provisions.’
Littleton Chambers, 17th October 2019
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘This appeal concerned a father’s application for an order for the immediate return of his daughter from England and Wales to Israel. The issue raised was whether the Court of Appeal, having determined that such an order could not be granted under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980, was nonetheless entitled to grant it under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to make orders in relation to children.’
UKSC Blog, 30th October 2019
Source: ukscblog.com
‘Just a quick note to record that the Supreme Court has held that the equitable remedy of relief from forfeiture is not restricted to those with a proprietary interest (lease/tenancy, mortgage etc) but can also extend to licensees with possessory rights (ie a right to occupy or use the land). The whole thing is fascinating, but this is not the place to get into the details of the history of equitable relief.’
Nearly Legal, 29th October 2019
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘Has the court in Miller (No 2) done the very thing it said it wouldn’t do in Miller (No 1)? Has it given legal enforceability to the constitutional convention of ministerial accountability? Several authors appear to suggest that is has (here, here and here). Indeed, conventions were given rather peculiar judicial treatment in Miller (No 1) not least when placed against Miller (No 2), but also due to the general unenforceability of ‘statutory conventions’ (more here). But back to the apparent elevation of the convention of ministerial accountability (CoMA) to a constitutional principle – or what I refer to as the principle-isation of the convention.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 24th October 2019
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is to reconsider its opposition to putting on trial in the UK a pair of British Islamic State terrorists who were members of so-called “Beatles” cell.’
Daily Telegraph, 22nd October 2019
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘The UK Supreme Court has unanimously granted an appeal by a district judge against the Court of Appeal’s decision that she did not qualify as a “worker” under the Employment Rights Act 1996 (the “1996 Act”), and therefore could not benefit from the whistleblowing protections it conferred.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 18th October 2019
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The issue in this appeal was whether a movement of capital between the United Kingdom and Jersey should be regarded as an internal transaction taking place within a single member state for the purposes of article 56 of the Treaty Establishing the European Community; and if not, whether the refusal of relief under section 23 in respect of the gift to the Coulter Trust is justifiable under EU law.’
UKSC Blog, 16th October 2019
Source: ukscblog.com
‘Ms Gilham appealed on all three grounds. She also appears to raise the distinct but related question whether she can bring her claim as a ‘Crown employee’ within the meaning of the ERA, s191.’
UKSC Blog, 9th October 2019
Source: ukscblog.com
‘Claire Gilham is a district judge. She claims that she was subjected to various detriments as a result of making complaints about her judicial workload and the poor management of the courts.’
UKSC Blog, 9th October 2019
Source: ukscblog.com
‘In the case of The UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Legal Continuity) (Scotland) Bill – A Reference by the Attorney General and the Advocate General for Scotland, the Supreme Court briefly directed its focus to its understanding of the nature of “nullity” following a finding of administrative unlawfulness. Its approach surprised some commentators, but in this post I will suggest that, far from being completely novel, the distinctions it appears to draw are familiar within the law of habeas corpus. This comparison will, I suggest, cast light upon the shifting and somewhat complex idea of “nullity” in UK public law.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 8th October 2019
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘It was a “one off”. A conclusive determination on a series of seismic constitutional clashes: representative democracy versus direct democracy, the executive versus Parliament, and the role of the Court in the separation of powers. Judges examining the constitution against a seething political background. But the lions emerged from beneath the throne, unanimously, in a judgment that unlocked the doors of Parliament and clearly, soberly reasserted our sovereign legislature.’
Oxford Human Rights Hub, 9th October 2019
Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025