‘“Quick and dirty” online dispute resolution (ODR) is better than “no justice or absurdly over-priced justice”, the president of the Supreme Court has said in a wide-ranging speech that included a devastating critique of legal aid policy over the past two decades.’
Legal Futures, 5th July 2017
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘Following the Strasbourg Court’s request for interim measures for the UK – which means the hospital may not take Charlie Gard off life support as the Supreme Court has allowed it to do – the Supreme Court arranged a short hearing to take place Monday 19 June, to give directions. The Strasbourg Court has now put in place a further request that treatment and nursing care be continued beyond its original deadline of 19 June (see the press release from Strasbourg here: Gard and Others v. the UK) . This is because that Court has to consider the parents’ application that the case does not just concern Charlie’s right to die with dignity but their rights under Article 8 as his parents to be afforded respect for their decisions as to what is in Charlie’s interests.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 20th June 2017
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Was it unlawful for the Secretary of State for Health, who had power to make provisions for the functioning of the National Health Service in England, to have failed to make a provision which would have enabled women who were citizens of the UK, but who were usually resident in Northern Ireland, to undergo a termination of pregnancy under the NHS in England free of charge?’
UK Human Rights Blog, 15 June 2017
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘R (Kiarie) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; R (Byndloss) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] UKSC 42. The Government’s flagship scheme to deport foreign criminals first and hear their appeals later was ruled by the Supreme Court to be incompatible with the appellants’ right to respect for their private and family life.’
UK Human Rights Blog, June 15th 2017
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The supreme court has ruled that women from Northern Ireland are not entitled to free access to abortions on the NHS, a decision that was condemned by campaigners as a “further blow to women” from the region.’
The Guardian, 14th June 2017
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The Home Office’s “deport first, appeal later” policy for removing foreign criminals has been ruled unlawful by the supreme court.’
The Guardian, 14th June 2017
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The UK’s highest court will temporarily move from its London home to Edinburgh this week.’
BBC News, 12th June 2017
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Judicial supervision of decision-making powers is often associated with administrative law. However courts also review the exercise of discretions in other fields. For example courts review powers exercised by trustees, and indeed much of equity might be characterised as a law of administration. Our focus here will be the legal principles sourced in the law of contract which regulate the exercise of powers of decision, including discretions, under contracts (‘contractual review’) and the interrelationship between these principles and those common law principles regulating exercise of administrative powers under statute (‘administrative law review’).’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 31st May 2017
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘The parents of a severely ill baby will take their legal battle to an emergency hearing at the supreme court next week in the hope of persuading judges that he should be treated in the US.’
The Guardian, 31st May 2017
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Teachers at a sixth form college participate in a full day of lawful strike action. The collective agreement (the Red Book) incorporated into their individual contracts of employment provides that in such a situation their employer can withhold their pay. But how much can the deductions be? That was the issue in Hartley v King Edward VI College (2017) UKSC 39. The employer had made the deductions at a rate of 1/260 of their annual pay. That was based on the number of weekdays in a calendar year. That was wrong say the Supreme Court. The employer was entitled to make deductions only at a rate of 1/365 of their annual salary. This is the effect of the Apportionment Act 1870 (“the Act”). This provides for accrual from day to day: Section 2.’
Education Blog, 24th May 2017
Source: education11kbw.com
‘A group of teachers have won a “landmark victory” against their employer, after having too much pay deducted from their annual salaries. The Supreme Court decision follows a lengthy legal battle involving three teachers at King Edward VI College in Stourbridge, who took part in a union-led strike in 2011 over changes to public sector pensions.’
The Independent, 24th May 2017
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘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.’
Nearly Legal, 21st May 2017
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
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
‘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.’
Litigation Futures, 16th May 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘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.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 12th May 2017
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘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
‘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.’
Arden Chambers, 10th May 2017
Source: www.ardenchambers.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024