‘The government is facing a legal battle over whether the UK stays inside the single market after it has left the EU, the BBC has learned.’
BBC News, 28th November 2016
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘The UK’s most senior judge, Lord Neuberger, has announced he will retire next summer and signalled the launch of a judicial appointments process that could – through offering flexible working practices – improve diversity on the supreme court bench.’
The Guardian, 21st November 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court’s most senior judge has been urged to stand down from a crucial legal hearing on Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union after it emerged his wife had posted a series of anti-Brexit tweets.’
Daily Telegraph, 18th November 2016
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘Theresa May has refused to say she will defend judges from attacks in the press ahead of a vital judgment on the legal details of of Brexit.’
The Independent, 16th November 2016
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘Amid a level of scrutiny unprecedented in the Supreme Court’s seven-year history, that is a headline unlikely to make it into tomorrow’s tabloids.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 16th November 2016
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The High Court has ruled that the UK Government cannot legally begin the process of leaving the EU without first consulting Parliament. What does the decision mean for our rights and what happens next?’
RightsInfo, 11th November 2016
Source: www.rightsinfo.org
‘The Supreme Court has handed down its judgment in the culmination of years of cases on the discriminatory impact of the ‘removal of the spare room subsidy’ – the bedroom tax. The outcome was mixed, even including a split judgment on one case, but in at least one respect, the bedroom tax regulations were held to unlawfully and unjustifiably discriminate against households with disabled members.’
Nearly Legal, 9th November 2016
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘Two families who claimed that the bedroom tax, which restricts housing subsidies, was unfair have won their appeals against the UK government at the supreme court.’
The Guardian, 9th November 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘I’m glad if it was the Lord Chief Justice’s concern about the reversibility or otherwise of the Article 50 procedure which catalyzed the current debate on whether the Article 50 litigation needs a reference to the Court of Justice, as has been rumoured, but on the face of last week’s judgment it seems that the parties at least were in agreement on the point after all: it is not (they say) reversible: R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the EU, para 10 (hereinafter “Miller”). However, I believe that there is a far simpler, and so far as I can see compulsory, route from the Supreme Court to Luxembourg in this matter, assuming that the Crown does indeed appeal today’s ruling to that court, and that is that (a) the case turns on the interpretation of the phrase “in accordance with its own constitutional requirements” from Article 50(1) of the Treaty on European Union (“Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements”), and (b) interpretation of the Treaty, or indeed any EU Law, is the exclusive competence of the Court of Justice of the EU (“CJEU”).’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 8th November 2016
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘The Supreme Court has consolidated three cases on whether the continuing recoverability of additional liabilities in publication and privacy cases are incompatible with publishers’ rights to freedom of expression.’
Litigation Futures, 27th October 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Loans provided to the clients of a firm of solicitors by a third party funder were not ‘legal services’, and so were not covered by the terms of the firm’s professional indemnity (PI) policy, the UK’s highest court has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 26th October 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘The political row over whether human rights law can be extended to the battlefield will be reopened this week in a supreme court case over the legality of detaining a Taliban suspect in Afghanistan.’
The Guardian, 25th October 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Over the past 3 years family lawyers, social workers, judges and magistrates have got themselves into a fair old spin over four short words. The words are “Nothing else will do” and they appeared, for the first time, in three of the judgments of the five Supreme Court Justices who presided over the case of Re B in 2013…’
FLBA National Conference, Keynote Address, 22nd October 2016
Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk
‘A man jailed for manslaughter has won his battle against deportation after judges ruled he was being discriminated against because his parents were unmarried.’
BBC News, 19th October 2016
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘The recent case of Zurich Insurance Co v Hayward [2016] 3WLR 637 undoubtedly strengthens the hand of insurance companies. It resolves certain issues of uncertainty, but, as I shall indicate, appears to create further problems.’
Zenith PI, 15th September 2016
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘The Supreme Court has joined an appeal over the recoverability of additional liabilities in defamation cases to a long-running libel case where it is to consider which party won for the purposes of costs.’
Litigation Futures, 12th September 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Miss Moreno was injured in an RTA in Greece by an uninsured driver. Liability was admitted. Miss Moreno brought a claim against the MIB in the UK as is permissible under the various Council Directives of the EU (culminating in the Sixth Directive 2009/103/EC) and consequent Regulations that implement those directives in the UK.’
Zenith PI Blog, 12th September 2016
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘Peter Allchorne translates the message from Moreno v Motor Insurers’ Bureau for motor accident victims.’
New Law Journal, 17th August 2016
Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk
‘Wyatt v Vince illustrates the growing trend towards openness of family proceedings, says Sarah Hughes.’
New Law Journal, 17th August 2016
Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court has refused to give the London Borough of Enfield permission to appeal in a dispute with the Government over the number of trains stopping near a major regeneration scheme.’
Local Government Lawyer, 31st August 2016
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024