Shop Direct Group (Appellant) v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Respondent) – Supreme Court
Supreme Court, 17th February 2016
Category: Supreme Court
In the matter of B (A child) – Supreme Court
In the matter of B (A child) [2016] UKSC 4 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 3rd February 2016
Supreme Court abolishes “wrong turn” Joint Enterprise law – UK Human Rights Blog
‘Today the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in the conjoined appeals of R v Jogee and Ruddock v R [2016] UKSC 8, having heard the latter sitting as the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Both cases were appeals against murder convictions founded on a discrete principle of secondary liability, sometimes referred to as ‘joint enterprise’, sometimes as ‘parasitic accessorial liability’ (‘PAL’).’
UK Human Rights Blog, 18th February 2016
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
Shop Direct VAT repayments were subject to corporation tax, Supreme Court rules – OUT-LAW.com
‘Catalogue company Shop Direct must pay corporation tax on a £125 million repayment of VAT overpaid by companies in the group that no longer trade, the Supreme Court has confirmed.’
OUT-LAW.com, 18th February 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
Joint enterprise law wrongly interpreted for 30 years, court rules – The Guardian
‘A key test imposed by judges in assessing guilt in so-called joint enterprise killings has been wrongly interpreted for the past 30 years, the supreme court has ruled.’
The Guardian, 18th February 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Pursuing damages for bribery in the civil courts – OUT-LAW.com
‘Under the 2010 Bribery Act, bribery is a criminal offence and companies are required to have in place adequate procedures in order to prevent those associated with them from undertaking bribery. Adequate procedures provide the company with a defence to the criminal offences set out in the Act. However, what is often overlooked is the ability of the company to pursue both the recipient of the bribe as well as the briber for its financial losses and, in some cases, damages for fraud.’
OUT-LAW.com, 16 February 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
In the Matter of B (A Child): Habitual Residence and the Child-Centric Approach to Jurisdiction – Family Law Week
‘Habitual residence lies at the heart of the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“the 1980 Hague Convention”), and is the cornerstone of jurisdiction in international child law. Yet despite the centrality of the concept, its definition and application have always left much room for argument; and although it is often described as “a question of fact”, it has generated large volumes of authority at the highest level.’
Family Law Week, 14 February 2016
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
High Court enforcement continued – Nearly Legal
‘In what has turned into a continuing series, there are further updates on enforcement of possession orders via the High Court, obtaining writs and the scandalous conduct of many High Court Enforcement Officers.’
Nearly Legal, 13th February 2016
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
MPs better placed than judges to decide public interest, says attorney general – The Guardian
‘Politicians are frequently better placed than judges to decide what constitutes the public interest in releasing information about foreign relations, national security and other areas, according to the attorney general.’
The Guardian, 8th February 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
An open or shut case? – UK Human Rights Blog
‘R(C) v. Secretary of State for Justice [2016] UKSC 2. When is it right to keep the names of parties to litigation a secret? That was the difficult question the Supreme Court had to grapple with in this judgment, handed down on Wednesday. The decision to allow a double-murderer to remain anonymous led to outraged headlines in the tabloids. Yet the Court reached the unanimous conclusion that this was the right approach. Why?.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 29th January 2016
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
Paroled murderer wins fight to remain anonymous – The Guardian
‘A convicted murderer, recently released from a psychiatric hospital, has won his supreme court battle to keep his identity secret.’
The Guardian, 27th January 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Gordon-Saker: Newspaper’s rights not breached by success fees and ATE recovery – Litigation Futures
‘A newspaper’s right to free expression under article 10 of the European Convention was not breached by being ordered to pay success fees and after-the-event (ATE) insurance premiums, Master Gordon-Saker has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 19th January 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
Asset acquisitions and mergers: Eurotunnel in the Supreme Court – Competition Bulletin from Blackstone Chambers
‘The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Eurotunnel II ([2015] UKHL 75) brings some much-needed clarity to what was becoming a rather opaque corner of the UK merger regime. It also contains statements of general principle which are bound to make it one of the most frequently-cited merger cases.’
Competition Bulletin from Blackstone Chambers, 18th January 2016
Source: www.competitionbulletin.com
No relief from the Supreme Court – Radcliffe Chambers
‘The Supreme Court has held in Thevarajah v Riordan [2015] UKSC 78 that:
(1) a party who failed to obtain relief from sanctions for non compliance with an order
cannot make a second application for relief without demonstrating a material change
in circumstances; and
(2) belated compliance with an order does not, of itself, constitute a material change
in circumstances.’
Radcliffe Chambers, 7th January 2016
Source: www.radcliffechambers.com
Footage of Supreme Court hearings proves an unlikely hit with the public – The Independent
‘It was expected to be little more than an iPlayer for law students: more than 900 hours of footage from inside the Supreme Court, offering a window on the often dry and sometimes fiendishly complex legal deliberations.’
The Independent, 3rd January 2016
Source: www.independent.co.uk
Supreme Court: Failure to disclose evidence did not breach Art 6 – UK Human Rights Blog
‘The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed an appeal against a decision of Scotland’s High Court of Justiciary (available here) in which it refused to overturn a criminal conviction on the basis that the non-disclosure of evidence breached the appellant’s right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).’
UK Human Rights Blog, 18th December 2015
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
Supreme Court: no “material change” means no second application for relief from sanctions – Litigation Futures
‘Litigants are not entitled to make a second application for relief from sanctions unless there has been a “material change in circumstances”, the Supreme Court has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 17th December 2015
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
Britain’s Supreme Court says targeting young black men for stop-and-search ‘benefits them’ – The Independent
‘The Supreme Court has been accused of using “stereotypes” to justify the “targeting of young black men” after five judges gave their strong backing to the police’s random stop and search powers.’
The Independent, 17th December 2015
Source: www.independent.co.uk
Austerity and Public Law: Alexander Latham: Defending Rights in the Face of Austerity: Is the Supreme Court Calling Time on Social Housing Managerialism? – UK Constitutional Law Association
‘In cases involving social housing, English courts have traditionally taken what we might call a “managerial” approach: their starting-point for analysis has not been the tenant or applicant for housing as a rights-holder, but the need of local authorities to distribute their scarce resources effectively. In Burrows v Brent LBC [1996] 1 WLR 1448, for example, where a tenant who was permitted to remain after a possession order was held not to have been impliedly granted a new tenancy, Lord Browne-Wilkinson said that “housing authorities try to conduct their housing functions as humane and reasonable landlords” (at 1455). The tenant might be forgiven for wondering why this should count against him, but clearly the implication is that as ‘humane and reasonable landlords’ local authorities should be left to manage their housing stock with as little interference from the courts as possible. More recently this attitude led to the courts’ extreme reluctance to enable a public sector tenant to rely on article 8 ECHR in possession proceedings. When the Supreme Court finally acceded to pressure from Strasbourg, it nevertheless drew the teeth from the human rights defence by agreeing with the Secretary of State’s submission that “a local authority’s aim in wanting possession should be a ‘given’ ” (Manchester CC v Pinnock [2011] UKSC 6, per Lord Neuberger at [53]), so that “there will be no need, in the overwhelming majority of cases, for the local authority to explain and justify its reasons for seeking a possession order” (Hounslow LBC v Powell [2011] UKSC 8, per Lord Hope at [37]). The local authority is simply assumed to be acting in a way which benefits the general welfare; this assumption is then taken to justify the effect of its actions on individuals in all but the most extreme of cases.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 9th December 2015
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
Judicial system should be “more ready to accommodate academics”, Lord Neuberger says – Litigation Futures
‘The judicial system should be “more ready to accommodate academics” who were “more notable for their quality than for their quantity”, Lord Neuberger has said.’
Litigation Futures, 9th December 2015
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
