Bull and another (Appellants) v Hall and another (Respondents) [2013] UKSC 73 | UKSC 2012/0065 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 27th November 2013
Preddy v Bull and another; Hall v Same: [2013] UKSC 73; [2013] WLR (D) 454
‘The refusal of hoteliers, who believed that sex outside marriage was sinful, to provide a same sex couple who were in a civil partnership with a double-bedded room because they were not married constituted unlawful discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. The limitation on the hoteliers’ right to manifest their religion was justified as a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of protecting the rights and freedoms of others.’
WLR Daily, 27th November 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The owners of a Christian guesthouse who were ordered to pay damages for turning away a gay couple have lost their UK Supreme Court fight.”
BBC News, 27th November 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘The Home Secretary was not under a duty to issue a direction for removal from the United Kingdom at the same time as refusing an application for an extension of limited leave to remain in the United Kingdom. A tribunal hearing an immigration appeal against a refusal of further leave to remain in the United Kingdom may consider additional grounds which had not been raised before the Home Secretary before the decision under appeal had been made but which had subsequently been raised in response to a one stop notice.’
WLR Daily, 20th November 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A European arrest warrant issued by a government ministry in respect of a convicted person with a view to his or her arrest and extradition could be regarded as issued by a judicial authority for the purposes of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA— and Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003 which gave effect to it in the United Kingdom— if the ministry had only issued the warrant at the request of and by way of endorsement of a decision that the issue of such a warrant was appropriate made by the court responsible for the sentence or some other person or body properly regarded as a judicial authority responsible for its execution. A ministry which had power to issue an European arrest warrant of its own motion and had done so, or which had issued a warrant at the request of a non-judicial authority, including an executive agency such as a prison department, could not be regarded as a judicial authority for those purposes.’
WLR Daily, 20th November 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Supreme Court, 20th November 2013
Supreme Court, 6th November 2013
Supreme Court, 6th November 2013
“A taxpayer must perform a calculation of the amount of tax due itself, rather than leave that calculation to HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC), in order to retain possession of funds under dispute, the Supreme Court has ruled.”
OUT-LAW.com, 8th November 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
“When an application was made for an order that it would be lawful, as being in the patient’s best interests pursuant to section 1(5) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, for life sustaining medical treatment to be withheld, the focus had to be on whether it would be in the patient’s best interests to give the treatment, rather than on whether it would be in his best interests to withhold or withdraw it.”
WLR Daily, 30th October 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Where a statute required that something be prescribed in delegated legislation, it envisaged that the latter would add something to what was contained in the primary legislation. Therefore the Jobseeker’s Allowance (Employment, Skills and Enterprise Scheme) Regulations 2011, purportedly made under section 17A of the Jobseekers Act 1995 which provided for the making of regulations to require claimants in receipt of jobseeker’s allowance to participate in schemes of a ‘prescribed description’, were unlawful because they set up a named scheme without any description over and above what was already in section 17A.”
WLR Daily, 30th October 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“TV cameras are recording Court of Appeal hearings from today. The BBC, ITN, Sky News and the Press Association are cooperating on the project, and have hired an in-court video-journalist who will recommend the most interesting cases.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 31st October 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
Supreme Court, 30th October 2013
“The government has lost a Supreme Court appeal over a ruling its flagship ‘back to work’ schemes were legally flawed.”
BBC News, 30th October 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“Kate Mckinlay considers the impact of the recent Supreme Court decision in Woodland v Essex County Council UKSC 2013.”
Full story (PDF)
Zenith Chambers, 25th October 2013
Source: www.zenithchambers.co.uk
“On 23 October 2013, the Supreme Court gave judgment in Szepietowski v. the National Crime Agency (formerly the Serious Organised Crime Agency, ‘SOCA’). The case is now the leading authority on the marshalling of securities and will be of interest to those advising banks and other businesses involved in secured lending. The case, however, will also be of general interest in light of the Court’s consideration of the principles applicable to the construction of settlement agreements which involved the Court distinguishing the decision of the House of Lords in Bank of Credit and Commerce International v. Ali [2002] 1 AC 251.”
Full story (PDF)
11 Stone Buildings, 23rd October 2013
Source: www.11sb.com
“The UK supreme court will hand down judgment on Wednesday morning in what is expected to be the final chapter in a long-running dispute between the Department of Work and Pensions and former jobseeker Cait Reilly over the legality of so-called workfare schemes.”
The Guardian, 30th October 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Earlier this week the Supreme Court gave judgment in Woodland v Essex County Council [2013] UKSC 66. The case is important because it extends the circumstances in which schools and local authorities will be liable for injuries to the children in their care that are caused by negligence.”
Education Law Blog, 26th October 2013
Source: www.education11kbw.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024