‘A proposed amendment to English law could stop innocent people being imprisoned under the controversial joint enterprise doctrine.’
The Guardian, 1st February 2024
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The recently announced plan to increase the minimum income requirement (MIR) to £38,700 led to widespread criticism, with the government appearing to exclude all but the affluent from establishing family life in the UK. This has led to a partial policy shift, with it now announced that the threshold to sponsor a spouse will not rise to this amount until 2025, with an interim rise to £29,000 taking place in the Spring. Nonetheless, even this lower amount will be unaffordable to many families, raising questions about the compatibility of the rise with Convention rights. In R (MM) Lebanon v SSHD [2017] UKSC 10 the Supreme Court found that the initial MIR, set at £18,600, was lawful. In this post, I will highlight two key problems with the judgment, along with the failure of the MIR to restrict the social security entitlement of many affected families: the MIR’s primary justification.’
EIN Blog, 31st January 2024
Source: www.ein.org.uk
‘Megan Forbes analyses a recent High Court case that has provided guidance on the practical implications of the Supreme Court’s Hillside decision.’
Local Government Lawyer, 26th January 2024
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill will receive its second reading in the House of Lords on 29 January 2024, having cleared the House of Commons unamended. There are a great many problems with the Rwanda Bill, any of which might weigh with the Lords, but this blog post focuses on just one: the likelihood that, if enacted, the Bill may well trigger a constitutional crisis between the courts and Parliament. It would be a crisis that is likely to endure beyond the life of the policy embodied in the Bill. I argue here that one of the roles of the House of Lords is to act as a constitutional safeguard, a steam-valve, and, in exercise of this function under the rare circumstances that attend this Bill, it would be legitimate for the Lords to not only make and insist upon far-reaching changes to the Bill, but even to refuse to pass it altogether. This post is not concerned with the realpolitik of whether peers would in fact vote the Bill down – though I come to the point in the conclusion. It rather seeks to refute the constitutional argument that it would be illegitimate to block or make potent amendments to it.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 26th January 2024
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘Rachel Marcus and Marcus Coates-Walker of 1 Crown Office Row join Lucy McCann to explore the principle of the scope of duty in the context of clinical negligence claims. First by analysing the decision in Khan v Meadows [2021] UKSC 21 and then discussing how the courts have grappled with scope of duty issues since.’
Law Pod UK, 25th January 2024
Source: audioboom.com
‘In this case, Catherine McAndrew, a Senior Associate in the Insurance and Reinsurance team at CMS, comments on the Supreme Court’s decision in TUI Limited v Griffiths [2023] UKSC 48, which was handed down on 29 November 2023.’
UKSC Blog, 26th January 2024
Source: ukscblog.com
‘In this post, Liz Jackson, Trainee Solicitor, and Max Wiktorsson, Associate, in the Employment Team at CMS, comment on the decision from the Supreme Court in Independent Workers Union of Great Britain v Central Arbitration Committee and Anor. [2023] UKSC 43. The case was heard by the Supreme Court on 25 and 26 April 2023 and judgment was handed down on 21 November 2023.’
UKSC Blog, 23rd January 2024
Source: ukscblog.com
‘In a December 2023 decision, the UK Supreme Court sought to clarify how courts should use their remedial discretion to make mandatory orders against local authorities. In doing so, the Court arguably made the right to be provided with housing (in the form of suitable accommodation) a justiciable right for certain categories of homeless persons.’
Oxford Human Rights Hub, 23rd January 2024
Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk
‘The Supreme Court has refused a claimant permission to appeal over the Court of Appeal’s dismissal of her claim that a school was vicariously liable for sexual abuse by an individual who had undertaken a work experience placement.’
Local Government Lawyer, 18th January 2024
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘A leading lawyer who sits in the Lords has warned that Rishi Sunak’s Rwanda bill is “a step toward totalitarianism”.’
The Independent, 18th January 2024
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘Members of Parliament in the UK will on 16 and 17 January 2024 debate the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill, which “gives effect to the judgement of Parliament that the Republic of Rwanda is a safe country” for asylum-seekers. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in November 2023 that Rwanda was manifestly not safe as asylum seekers sent to the country would face a real risk of ill-treatment due to insufficient guarantees against refoulement. The Bill thus aims to use law to determine a factual situation for as long as the law is in force. This blog discusses the risks inherent in creating such a “legal fiction” and how the Bill could be revised to mitigate this risk, before assessing the chances of it becoming law in the currently turbulent political context.’
EIN Blog, 16th January 2024
Source: www.ein.org.uk
‘Last year’s Supreme Court decision in R (AAA) v Home Secretary – which found the British government’s Rwanda policy to be unlawful – has reignited broader debates about the position of a government which commands a majority in Parliament vis a vis the judiciary, the separation of powers, the extent to which legislating against judicial decisions is constitutionally proper or compatible with the rule of law, and the appropriateness of disapplying sections of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998). This post does not restate or reengage with such topics; substantive attention has already been given by Tom Hickman KC, Professor Mark Elliott, Adam Tucker, Professor Sarah Singer, and Richard Ekins KC et al. Neither does it take a position on the feasibility or desirability of any specific government policy, the continued operation of HRA 1998, or membership of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Instead, this post will argue that the backlash to and disapproval of the British government’s response to R (AAA) – the introduction of the Safety of Rwanda Bill, which, amongst other measures, allows Parliament to diverge from the Supreme Court’s judgment – neatly evidences the intended effect of New Labour and Lord Derry Irvine’s HRA 1998 system and judicial reforms.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 15th January 2024
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘In Paul and another v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust [2024] UKSC 1, the Supreme Court had to decide whether (and, if so, when) an individual can make a claim for psychiatric injury caused by witnessing the death or other horrifying event of a close relative as a result of earlier clinical negligence. In dismissing the three conjoined appeals, a majority of the Supreme Court held that, while doctors owe a duty of care to protect the health of their patients, they do not owe a duty of care to members of the patient’s close family to protect them against the risk of illness from the experience of witnessing the death or medical crisis of their relative from a condition which the doctor has negligently failed to diagnose or treat.’
Mental Capacity Law and Policy, 11th January 2024
‘On 21 November 2023, the Supreme Court handed down its long-awaited judgment in the Deliveroo case, dismissing the appeal of the IWGB trade union. The Court confirmed that the union is not entitled to apply for statutory recognition under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (“TULRCA”) because its members, Deliveroo’s delivery riders (“the Riders”), are not workers within the autonomous concept under article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”).’
Cloisters, 27th November 2024
Source: www.cloisters.com
‘Andrew Roy KC considers the implications of the Court of Appeal’s recent decision CDE v Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust [2023] EWCA Civ 1330 in respect of the vexed and important issue of material contribution.’
12 King's Bench Walk, 22nd November 2023
Source: clinicalnegligence.blog
‘In Lord Tennyson’s Arthurian ballad ‘The Lady of Shalott’, the eponymous heroine is stranded in her island castle. Continually weaving a web in her loom of the reflections of the outside world she sees in her mirror, she knows she will be cursed if she stops and looks out to nearby Camelot. But one day, Sir Lancelot rides by her castle and she abandons her loom and looks outside. Her mirror cracks “from side to side” and she is cursed. She leaves her castle and floats down to Camelot in a boat, dying before she reaches it.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 5th January 2024
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘In this post, Lisa Fox, a senior associate in the litigation team at CMS, comments on the decision by the Supreme Court in London Borough of Merton Council v Nuffield Health [2023] UKSC 18. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether Nuffield Health is entitled to mandatory relief from non-domestic rates in respect of its occupation of its members-only gym under the Local Government Finance Act 1988.’
UKSC Blog, 3rd January 2024
Source: ukscblog.com
‘The central question facing the Supreme Court in Griffiths v TUI UK Limited [2023] UKSC 48 concerned the extent to which a party must put criticisms of a witness’ evidence to him in cross-examination. The Supreme Court made clear that the general rule in civil cases is that a party is required to challenge by cross-examination the evidence of any witness (whether factual or expert) if he wishes to submit that the evidence should not be accepted by the court. Importantly, this rule is not confined to allegations that the witness is dishonest. The rule is, however, a flexible one; it will not always be necessary for every point of challenge to be put to a witness, and in some cases (such as where evidence is “manifestly incredible”) it may not apply at all. Although the Supreme Court gave a conceptually clear answer to the question before it, difficult practical issues are likely to continue to arise for trial advocates who wish to challenge factual or expert witness evidence.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 3rd January 2024
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The Supreme Court today handed down its long-awaited judgment in the case of Griffths v TUI [2023] UKSC 48. It is a thorough, important, and helpful statement (or, depending on one’s view, re-statement) of the laws and rules of evidence, what must be put to a witness before that evidence can be challenged in closing submissions, and the limits on any Judge’s power to dismiss relevant evidence which has not been challenged (or challenged sufficiently) at trial. At the heart of the judgment is the Court’s assessment of what it means for the parties to have a fair trial.’
St John's Chambers, 29th November 2023
Source: www.stjohnschambers.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025