‘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
‘The ban on parents taking their children out of school for family holidays during term time has been upheld by the supreme court.’
The Guardian, 6th April 2017
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘In the joined cases of Essop and Naeem ([2017] UKSC 27) the Supreme Court has taken on a daunting task: the simplification of indirect discrimination law. This is not a case note in the usual sense. We have not set out the facts, the law and then a statement of what is novel. At the hearing we tried to give the Supreme Court a new vocabulary to use as a tool for its analysis. The aim of this note is to explain that language as simply as we can. If we succeed, what we have to say will seem obvious. Those reading Lady Hale’s judgment (with which all of their Lordships agreed) will have had that experience. She has distilled, from an area of law that was submerging into great complexity, a handful of principles that dispel confusion and whch make intractable issues straightforward.’
Full story (PDF)
11 KBW, 5th April 2017
Source: www.11kbw.com
‘Should a person be free to dispose of property as she wishes on death, or be forced to leave it to certain family members? This is one of the most fundamental questions in succession law. Some (particularly continental European) jurisdictions allocate compulsory portions to certain family members, irrespective of any will. England and Wales, however, has a default testamentary freedom principle combined with the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, allowing certain people to claim discretionary provision out of the estate in limited circumstances.’
OUP Blog, 4th April 2017
Source: www.blog.oup.com
‘The correct interpretation of a contract in England and Wales will depend on a range of factors, including the words of the contract and the context in which they are used, according to the UK’s highest court.’
OUT-LAW.com, 3rd April 2017
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Transitional provisions allowing the recoverability of solicitors’ success fees and an after the event (ATE) insurance premium after April 2013 extend to where the policy is assigned, and where the case is later appealed, the Supreme Court has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 31st March 2017
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Some readers might be surprised if told that one of the most significant cases on discrimination law generally, and race discrimination in particular, is likely to be decided by the Supreme Court before long. The UKSC heard the appeal against the Court of Appeal’s ruling in Home Office v Essop (2015) in December 2016. It is still to deliver its judgment. Readers can look up doctrinal niceties in a note on this case [132 Law Quarterly Review (2016) 35]. In this post, I wish to discuss its broader policy implications.’
OUP Blog, 3rd April 2017
Source: www.blog.oup.com
‘The Supreme Court has allowed the recovery of a pre-LASPO success fee and after-the-event (ATE) premium where the conditional fee agreement (CFA) and insurance had to be extended after 1 April 2013 to cover appeals.’
Litigation Futures, 29th March 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘A law firm that made a mistake when drafting a loan letter on its client’s instructions, and failing to draw critical information to his attention, was not liable to that client when the loan failed. The client would have made a loss on the loan in any event due to his commercial misjudgments, the UK’s highest court has ruled.
OUT-LAW.com, 29th March 2017
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Steep rises in fees for bringing unfair dismissal claims at employment tribunals – which have led to a 70% fall in the number of cases – are to be challenged at the UK’s highest court.’
The Guardian, 27th march 2017
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Mark Jones, barrister, Three Dr Johnson’s Buildings, examines the judgment in the first Inheritance Act appeal to be heard by the Supreme Court and its implications for future claims.’
Family Law Week, 23rd March 2017
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court has upheld a ruling that a law firm which had been negligent in drawing up a loan facility agreement was not legally responsible for their client’s decision to actually make the loan.’
Legal Futures, 23rd March 2017
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘The term ‘a series of related matters or transactions’ in a professional indemnity (PI) insurance policy merely requires some inter-connection between the matters or transactions, and not an ‘intrinsic’ relationship, the UK’s highest court has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 22nd March 2017
Source: www.out-law.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024