‘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).’
Local Government Lawyer, 10th May 2017
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘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planning policies dealing with housing-specific questions, such as numbers and distribution of housing, will be deemed out of date in the absence of a five year supply of deliverable sites for housing in a particular area, the UK’s highest court has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 11th May 2017
Source: www.out-law.com
‘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.’
Local Government Lawyer, 10th May 2017
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘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).’
Law Society’s Gazette, 11th May 2017
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘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.’
Local Government Lawyer, 8th May 2017
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court will hear the dispute over the planned introduction of alcohol minimum pricing in Scotland in July, it has been confirmed.’
Local Government Lawyer, 2nd May 2017
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
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
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
‘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.’
Free Movement, 26th April 2017
Source: www.freemovement.org.uk
‘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.’
OUT-LAW.com, 18th April 2017
Source: www.out-law.com
‘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.’
Free Movement, 18th April 2017
Source: www.freemovement.org.uk
‘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.’
Litigation Futures, 11th April 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘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.’
The Guardian, 11th April 2017
Source: www.guardian.co.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.’
Law & Religion UK, 7th April 2017
Source: www.lawandreligionuk.com
‘”Skiing” or “Spending Kids’ Inheritance” is a regular source of conflict between parents (or their estates) and their children. After 10 years and numerous appeals, the saga of Ilott v The Blue Cross [2017] UKSC 17 has finally reached its conclusion. The case concerned a claim pursuant to the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975 by an estranged adult daughter for financial provision from her mother’s estate.’
Radcliffe Chambers, 16th March 2017
Source: www.radcliffechambers.com
‘The Supreme Court today allowed the charities’ appeal in the case of Ilott v Mitson [2017]
UKSC 17. It is the first opportunity for the Supreme Court to give guidance on the vexed
question of what constitutes ‘reasonable financial provision’ within the meaning of the
Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 and to bring to an end a saga
which began with the death of Melita Jackson in June 2004.’
New Square Chambers, 15th March 2017
Source: www.newsquarechambers.co.uk
‘In 1494 Botticelli completed painting “the Calumny of Apelles.” It depicts an innocent painter, Apelles, who has been wrongly accused of capital crimes, dragged before the King’s throne by personifications of Slander, Ignorance, Suspicion and Envy. It hangs in the Uffizi today and is thought to have been commissioned by a Florentine banker. In the story Apelles is pardoned from death at the last minute when a third party tells the king that he could not possibly have committed the offence, but the painting captures the moment when Apelles seems inevitably about to meet a sticky end, surrounded and almost entirely enveloped by Slander, Ignorance and Suspicion. Was this commissioned by a worried banker, concerned that he might meet his professional end without the ability to put the record straight or see the underlying disclosure? In Renaissance Florence this is unlikely but it does seem to reflect (at least some) of the anxieties of those who work in regulated professions today, that they may be hampered from obtaining future employment because of their previous employer’s interactions with a regulator.’
Littleton Chambers, 3rd April 2017
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘Criticism can hurt. Public criticism by a regulator taking enforcement action can hurt more. The law has long sought to ensure that those potentially subject to criticism have an opportunity to answer what is said against them.’
Blackstone Chambers, 5th April 2017
Source: www.blackstonechambers.com
‘Robin Allen QC and Anna Beale consider the latest case on indirect discrimination and ask the pressing question: are equal pay cases suddenly significantly easier for Claimants?’
Cloisters, 5th April 2017
Source: www.cloisters.com
‘SS (Congo) v Entry Clearance Officer, Nairobi, [2017] UKSC 10. The Supreme Court has ruled that, in principle, the need for spouses or civil partners in the UK to have an annual minimum income of £18,600 in order to obtain entry clearance for their non-EEA spouse/civil partner to be compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”). However, the Supreme Court stated that the relevant Immigration Rules relating to such Minimum Income Requirements (“MIR”) failed to adequately take account of the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children when making an entry decision. Finally, the prohibition on taking into account prospective earnings of the foreign spouse or civil partner when applying the MIR was inconsistent with the evaluative exercise required under Article 8, ECHR.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 6th April 2017
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024