Regina (Hunt) v North Somerset Council [2015] UKSC 51; [2015] WLR (D) 331
‘Where a claimant for judicial review had sought a quashing order but not declaratory relief and the court, having found the defendant to have acted unlawfully, refused the quashing order due to the passage of time, it was not obliged of its own initiative to grant a declaration.’
WLR Daily, 22nd July 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina (Champion) v North Norfolk District Council and another [2015] UKSC 52; [2015] WLR (D) 333
‘The formal procedures prescribed in the Environmental Impact Assessment (“EIA”) legislation, including screening, preparation of an environmental statement and mandatory public consultation, had no counterpart in the habitats legislation. The decision whether an EIA was required had to be taken early in the planning process, although a negative decision might be reviewed subsequently. Mitigation measures might properly be considered at the screening stage and, where appropriate, included in the environmental statement.’
WLR Daily, 22nd July 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The costs regime in place between 1999 and 2013, which could require losing defendants to pay not only the claimants’ base costs but any success fee and after the event (“ATE”) insurance premium which they had paid as part of their conditional fee arrangement— even though the total costs were far in excess of the value of the claim— was not contrary to defendants’ rights to a fair trial and to the protection of their property under article 6 of, and article 1 of the First Protocol (“A1P1”) to, the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.’
WLR Daily, 22nd July 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Plans to extend a Norfolk factory should be allowed to proceed despite procedural irregularities, as proper compliance with the environmental impact assessment (EIA) process would not have led to a different conclusion, the UK’s highest court has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 24th July 2015
Source: www.out-law.com
‘In this case, the Supreme Court considered to what extent lessees could escape what appeared to be a very bad bargain indeed. The crux of the case was: to what extent can commercial common sense defeat a contractual provision which defies it?”
Hardwicke Chambers, 24th July 2015
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court has handed down its Judgment in Coventry v Lawrence in which it considered the compatibility of the system for the recovery of success fees and ATE premiums under the Access to Justice Act 1999 with the European Convention on Human Rights, Articles 6 and Article 1 Protocol 1. The Court held by a majority of 5-2 (Lord Neuberger, Lord Dyson, Lord Sumption, Lord Mance and Lord Carnwarth in the majority and Lord Clarke and Lady Hale dissenting) that the system is compatible. Success fees and ATE premiums entered into under the AJA 1999 scheme will therefore remain to be recoverable by successful claimants. Whether the decision will be challenged before the ECtHR in Strasbourg and, if so,whether the European Court will take the same view as the Supreme Court remains to be seen.’
Henderson Chambers, 24th July 2015
Source: www.hendersonchambers.co.uk
‘A speedway track operator must pay the legal expenses of the couple who successfully sued it for noise-related nuisance after the UK’s highest court ruled that the old fee recovery regime did not breach its right to a fair trial.’
OUT-LAW.com, 24th July 2015
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Lawyers are in a legal slug-fest in the Supreme Court trying to determine if the English law on penalties has any place in the modern commercial world.’
The Independent, 23rd July 2015
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘The wife of a convicted terrorist, who was prosecuted after refusing to submit to a police interrogation, has lost her human rights case in the Supreme Court.’
BBC News, 22nd July 2015
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘The pre-April 2013 Conditional Fee Agreement system, under which claimants could recover uplifts on their costs and their insurance premiums from defendants, has survived – just. It received a sustained challenge from defendants to the effect that such a system was in breach of their Article 6 rights to a fair trial.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 22nd July 2015
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Does the law of joint enterprise cause injustice? That’s the question the supreme court will confront in October. If its answer is yes, the UK’s most senior judges will have the chance to put things right.’
The Guardian, 14th July 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The element of chance in a computerised slot machine connected to a separate random number generator (RNG) was still “provided by means of the machine” for the purposes of VAT legislation, meaning that the takings from that machine were subject to VAT, the UK’s highest court has confirmed.’
OUT-LAW.com, 10th July 2015
Source: www.out-law.com
‘In commercial negotiations you may have used the words “subject to contract” or something similar. But what does this actually mean?’
Technology Law Update, 9th July 2015
Source: www.technology-law-blog.co.uk
Rank Group plc v Revenue and Customs Comrs: [2015] UKSC 48; [2015] WLR (D) 299
‘Slot machines operating through multi-terminal systems in which random number generators (“RNGs”) were housed separately from the terminals were to be treated as composite machines providing players with an element of chance in the game within the meaning of section 26 of the Gaming Act 1968 and Group 4, item 1, note (3) of Schedule 9 to the Value Added Tax Act 1994. The takings from such machines were, accordingly, not exempt but liable to value added tax.’
WLR Daily, 8th July 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘In determining the ordinary residence of an adult, who lacked mental capacity to choose where to live, it was incorrect to apply a test that by reason of such incapacity he was in the same position as a small child and that his ordinary residence was that of his parents because that was his base.’
WLR Daily, 8th July 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Mathieson v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: [2015] UKSC 47; [2015] WLR (D) 296
‘The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions violated the Convention rights of a severely disabled child when he suspended payment to him of disability living allowance once he had been an in-patient in an NHS hospital for more than 84 weeks.’
WLR Daily, 8th July 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court has rejected a Court of Appeal ruling on who has financial responsibility for the care of an adult with physical and learning disabilities, instead ruling that the local authority initially responsible for meeting his needs as a child should be responsible for his care after the age of 18.’
Local Government Lawyer, 9th July 2015
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Following a period of considered reflection, or laziness depending on one’s view, it is worth noting the decision of the Supreme Court in In the matter of an application by JR38 for Judicial Review [2015] UKSC 42. The case is all about Article 8 ECHR, and is of particular interest because of the dispute about the breadth of the correct test for the engagement of Article 8. The context is also one which will be familiar to English data protection and privacy lawyers: the publication by the police of photographs seeking to identify a suspect. If anyone remembers that famous picture of a youth in a hoodie pointing his fingers like a gun behind an awkward looking David Cameron, JR38 is basically that, but with Molotov cocktails and a sprinkling of sectarian hatred.’
Panopticon, 9th July 2015
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024