Joint Administrators of Heritable Bank plc (Respondent) v The Winding-Up Board of Landsbanki Islands HF (Appellant) (Scotland) – Supreme Court
Supreme Court, 27th February 2013
Category: Supreme Court
Davies and another t/a All Stars Nursery (Appellants) v. The Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care (Scotland) (Respondent) – Supreme Court
Supreme Court, 27th February 2013
Attack of the Clones: Supreme Court keeps its white male first eleven – UK Human Rights Blog
“Baroness Helena Kennedy has argued that judges have a tendency to clone themselves when choosing successors. It is hard to avoid that impression in the Supreme Court, which kept its white male first eleven in place yesterday by appointing three new justices: Lord Justice Hughes, Lord Justice Toulson and Lord Hodge. The sole woman amongst 12 justices of our highest appeal court remains Lady Hale. There are no black or Asian judges, not have there ever been.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 27th February 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
Judicial appointments: new boys at the supreme court – The Guardian
“Who’s in and who’s out of the top tier of the judiciary? Joshua Rozenberg’s money is on Lady Hale for deputy president.”
The Guardian, 27th February 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Three judges appointed to Supreme Court bench – The Lawyer
“The Queen has approved the latest appointment to the Supreme Court bench with Lord Justices Toulson and Hughes and Lord Hodge being promoted.”
The Lawyer, 26th February 2013
Source: www.thelawyer.com
When Can Judges Change Their Minds? The Supreme Court’s judgment in L and B (Children) – Family Law Week
“Martha Gray, Pupil at 1 Garden Court, considers whether and in what circumstances a judge who has announced her decision is entitled to change her mind, particularly in the context of fact-finding hearings in care proceedings, in the light of the Supreme Court’s recent judgment.”
Family Law Week, 22nd February 2013
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
In re L and another (Children) (Preliminary Finding: Power to Reverse) – WLR Daily
“Contrary to the practice previously adopted, a judge’s power to reverse his or her decision at any time before the court order had been sealed was not reserved for exceptional circumstances. A carefully considered change of mind by the judge was permisssible in the interests of the overriding objective of dealing with a case justly.”
WLR Daily, 20th February 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Sharif (FC) (Respondent) v The London Borough of Camden (Appellant) – Supreme Court
Sharif (FC) (Respondent) v The London Borough of Camden (Appellant) [2013] UKSC 10 | UKSC 2011/0117 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 20th February 2013
In the matter of L and B (Children) – Supreme Court
In the matter of L and B (Children) [2013] UKSC 8 | UKSC 2012/0263 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 20th February 2013
In the matter of J (Children) – Supreme Court
In the matter of J (Children) [2013] UKSC 9 | UKSC 2012/0128 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 20th February 2013
British soldiers protected under human rights law, supreme court told – The Guardian
“British soldiers have the right, enshrined in European human rights law, to expect the government to take all reasonable steps to prevent them getting killed, the supreme court heard on Monday, in a case with profound implications for military commanders and their conduct of future operations.”
The Guardian, 18th February 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Supreme court denies government pressure to select a woman – The Guardian
“The UK supreme court has denied rumours that it has come under pressure from the government to select a woman for appointment to one of three current vacancies.”
The Guardian, 15th February 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Enforcement of foreign insolvency judgments in England and Wales ~ Rubin, New Cap and beyond – 11 Stone Buildings
“After the euphoria engendered by the Court of Appeal judgments in Rubin v Eurofinance SA and New Cap Reinsurance v Grant, the longawaited judgment of the Supreme Court which was handed down on 23 October 2012, has left the insolvency profession scratching its collective head. Lexa Hilliard QC takes a closer look at the judgment and explains why its reasoning is not entirely convincing.”
Full story (PDF)
11 Stone Buildings, January 2013
Source: www.11sb.com
VTB Capital plc v Nutritek and others – WLR Daily
VTB Capital plc v Nutritek and others [2013] UKSC 5; [2013] WLR (D) 41
“Where a claimant alleged that it had been induced by the fraudulent misrepresentations of a third party to enter a contract with a company, and sought to make a contractual claim against the third party as being jointly and severally liable with the company, it was not appropriate for the court to pierce the corporate veil, even if it could do so on appropriate facts, since to do so would render the third party liable as if he had been a co-contracting party with the company when he had not, and when none of the contracting parties, including the claimant, had intended that he should be.”
WLR Daily, 6th February 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
O’Brien (Appellant) v Ministry of Justice (Formerly the Department for Constitutional Affairs) (Respondents) – Supreme Court
Supreme Court, 6th February 2013
VTB Capital plc (Appellant) v Nutritek International Corp and others (Respondents) – Supreme Court
Supreme Court, 6th February 2013
B (Algeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department – WLR Daily
B (Algeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] UKSC 4; [2013] WLR (D) 29
“Where a person held by a civil court or tribunal to be in contempt of court appealed against a sentence of imprisonment imposed for the contempt and the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) found that the lower court’s factual findings had been flawed but that nevertheless, on the basis of the true facts, there had still been contempt requiring imprisonment, it could decide for itself what the appropriate sentence should be by asking whether the lower court’s sentence had been manifestly excessive, provided that the lower court’s decision had not been influenced by its flawed findings of fact.”
WLR Daily, 30th January 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Legal advice privilege should not extend to accountant’s advice, says Supreme Court – UK Human Rights Blog
“The Supreme Court has ruled that legal advice privilege should only apply to advice given by a member of the legal profession; that this is what the common law has always meant, and that any wider interpretation would lead to uncertainty. Two strong dissents do not find any principled underpinning for the restriction of the privilege to advice from solicitors or barristers.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 24th January 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
