Durkin (Appellant) v DSG Retail Ltd and another (Respondents) (Scotland) – Supreme Court
Durkin (Appellant) v DSG Retail Ltd and another (Respondents) (Scotland) [2014] UKSC 21 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 26th March 2014
Category: Supreme Court
Kennedy (Appellant) v The Charity Commission (Respondent) – Supreme Court
Kennedy (Appellant) v The Charity Commission (Respondent) [2014] UKSC 20 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 26th March 2014
Kennedy v Information Commissioner and another (Secretary of State for Justice and others intervening) – WLR Daily
‘The Freedom of Information Act 2000 did not provide an exhaustive scheme in respect of the disclosure of information held by the Charity Commission relating to inquiries which they conducted. Although an absolute exemption under section 32(2) of that 2000 Act from disclosure under that Act lasted beyond the completion of such an inquiry, the question whether disclosure of information relating to such an inquiry was available would be governed by the Charities Act 1993, as substituted by the Charities Act 2006, construed in the light of common law principles.’
WLR Daily, 26th March 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Durkin v DSG Retail Ltd and another – WLR Daily
Durkin v DSG Retail Ltd and another [2014] UKSC 21; [2014] WLR (D) 144
A restricted-use credit agreement under section 12(b) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 which related to a specified supply transaction was conditional upon the substantive survival of that supply transaction, so that a purchaser who rescinded the supply agreement for breach of contract could also rescind the credit agreement.
WLR Daily, 26th March 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
FOIA’s not all that: Kennedy v The Charity Commission [2014] UKSC 20 – Panopticon
‘The Supreme Court’s much anticipated judgments in Kennedy v The Charity Commission make for a long read. But they are very important. All the parties in Kennedy were represented by Counsel from 11KBW: Andrew Sharland for Mr Kennedy; Karen Steyn and Rachel Kamm for the Charity Commission and the Secretary of State; Ben Hooper for the ICO; and Christopher Knight for the Media Legal Defence Initiative and Campaign for Freedom of Information.’
Panopticon, 28th March 2014
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
Supreme Court: Strasbourg’s mixed messages about Article 10 and any right to receive information – UK Human Rights Blog
‘Kennedy v. Charity Commission et al, Supreme Court, 26 March 2014. In judgments running to 90 pages, the Supreme Court dismissed this appeal by Mr Kennedy, a Times journalist, for access to documents generated by the Charity Commission under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 concerning three inquiries between 2003 and 2005 into the Mariam Appeal. This appeal was George Galloway’s response to the sanctions imposed on Iraq following the first Gulf War, and little Mariam was a leukaemia sufferer. Mr Kennedy’s suspicion, amongst others, was that charitable funds had been used by Galloway for political campaigning.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 26th March 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
Richard Durkin: ‘Mixed feelings’ for the man who fought a £250,000 16-year PC World laptop credit dispute with HFC bank – The Independent
‘A man placed on a credit blacklist after a row over payments for a laptop computer said today he had “mixed feelings” despite winning a court battle that lasted 16 years.’
The Independent, 26th March 2014
Source: www.independent.co.uk
The Supreme Court reconsiders nuisance and the power to award damages in lieu of an injunction – Henderson Chambers
‘In the case of Coventry and others (Respondents) v Lawrence and another (Appellants) [2014] UKSC 13 the Supreme Court has addressed five key matters which will play an important role in informing future claims for nuisance.’
Henderson Chambers, 25th March 2014
Source: www.hendersonchambers.co.uk
Supreme Court set to hear latest in series of village green cases – Local Government Lawyer
‘The latest in a series of village green cases to reach the Supreme Court will be heard next week by a five-judge panel led by Lord Neuberger.’
Local Government Lawyer, 25th March 2014
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
R (on the application of British Sky Broadcasting Limited) (Respondent) v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (Appellant) – Supreme Court
Supreme Court, 12th March 2014
P (by his litigation friend the Official Solicitor) (Appellant) v Cheshire West and Chester Council and another (Respondents); P and Q (by their litigation friend, the Official Solicitor) (Appellants) v Surrey County Council (Respondent) – Supreme Court
Supreme Court, 19th March 2014
Surrey County Council v P and others (Equality and Human Rights Commission and others intervening); Cheshire West and Chester Council v P and another (Same intervening) – WLR Daily
‘Mentally incapacitated persons had the same rights to liberty as everyone else, and if their living arrangements would amount to a deprivation of liberty of a capacitous person they were also a deprivation of liberty of the incapacitated person, who was therefore entitled to periodic independent checks to ensure that the deprivation of liberty remained justified in his or her best interests.’
WLR Daily, 19th March 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Deprivation of Liberty Defined by the Supreme Court: a difference of views concerning deprivation of liberty of disabled persons – Garden Court Chambers Blog
‘Tim Baldwin comments on today’s Supreme Court judgment regarding the deprivation of liberty of people with disabilities.
This note concerns the case of P (by his litigation friend the Official Solicitor) (Appellant) v Cheshire West and Chester Council and another (Respondents); P and Q (by their litigation friend, the Official Solicitor)(Appellants) v Surrey County Council (Respondent) [2014] UKSC 19 handed down on the 19 March 2014.’
Garden Court Chambers Blog, 19th March 2014
Source: www.gclaw.wordpress.com
Disabled patients ‘have right to liberty’, Supreme Court rules – BBC News
‘Disabled people have the same right to “physical liberty” as others, one of the UK’s most senior judges has said. Lady Hale, deputy president of the Supreme Court, said the state had a duty to uphold that right and to cater for disabled people.’
BBC News, 19th March 2014
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
Hitting the Balls out of Court: Are Judges Stepping Over the Line? – Speech by Lord Justice Moses
‘Hitting the Balls out of Court: Are Judges Stepping Over the Line?
Speech by Lord Justice Moses: Creaney Memorial Lecture 2014, 26/02/2014’
Judiciary Of England & Wales, 18th March 2014
Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk
Supreme Court rules on EU conditions for asylum seekers – UK Human Rights Blog
‘The Supreme Court overturned the Court of Appeal’s decision on the correct test for when an asylum seeker or refugee resists their return to another EU country (here Italy) in which they first sought or were granted asylum. The parties before the court all agreed that the test applied by the Court of Appeal, namely a requirement for a systemic deficiencies in the listed country’s asylum procedures and reception conditions was incorrect.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 10th March 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
Supreme Court decision provides much-needed clarity on VAT status of online tour operators, says expert – OUT-LAW.com
‘A travel company which marketed and arranged the sale of holiday accommodation to holidaymakers through its website was acting as an “agent” for the providers of that accommodation, and so did not have to account for VAT on those sales, the UK’s highest court has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 5th March 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
Regina (Ali) v Secretary of State for Justice; Regina (Dennis) v Same; Regina (Tunbridge) v Same – WLR Daily
‘In determining whether an individual, whose conviction had been quashed on the basis of new evidence, qualified for compensation under section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 on the ground of miscarriage of justice, the Secretary of State for Justice was required to make a decision by applying the statutory test in accordance with Supreme Court guidance to the facts of the particular case. Those facts could include events which postdated the quashing of the conviction in the event that further facts of relevance to the application of the statutory test arose. The Secretary of State might come to his own view, having regard to the terms of the judgment by the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) quashing the conviction, and provided the decision did not conflict with that judgment. The decision was then amenable to judicial review on conventional grounds of challenge, not merely because the court would have reached a different view. Save in exceptional circumstances, it should not be necessary for the court to engage in a detailed review of the facts.’
WLR Daily, 27th February 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
