‘Theresa May vows to end ‘vexatious claims’ against service personnel. In the UK about £100 million has been spent since 2004 dealing with thousands of cases lodged against soldiers who served in Iraq. Many were launched under ECHR laws on rights to life and liberty.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 4th October 2016
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Controversial plans for the military to opt out from the European convention on human rights (ECHR) during future conflicts will be introduced by ministers, to see off what the prime minister described as an “industry of vexatious claims” against soldiers.’
The Guardian, 4th October 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The imminent litigation concerning the government’s response to the Brexit vote is much anticipated. The skeleton arguments have now been filed. The High Court has just resisted an application for partial redaction of the arguments, so they are open for public perusal.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 29th September 2016
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Sarah Lucy Cooper, barrister of Thomas More Chambers, considers the circumstances in which a respondent might secure a costs order against an applicant in Hague Convention abduction proceedings.’
Family Law Week, 21st September 2016
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
In re W (Children) (Child Arrangements Orders: Non-molestation Orders):[2016] EWHC 2226 (Fam)
‘The parties married in Russia in September 2010 and came to live in London in August 2014. In June 2016, following the breakdown of the marriage, the father issued applications in the High Court, inter alia, for orders under the court’s inherent powers to locate his step-son, A, aged ten and his son, J, aged two, a prohibited steps order preventing their removal from the jurisdiction and a request to the Russian Embassy and the British Passport Office that no further passports be issued until further order of the court. Location and passport orders were made and the children located. Meanwhile, on 19 July 2016 the mother sought and was granted an ex parte non-molestation order against the father by a district judge in the family court. The order stated that it was to endure until 19 July 2017 and that the order would be considered at a further hearing on a date to be fixed by the court officer on request by the respondent father. The father issued further applications in the family court for child arrangement orders in respect of the children.’
WLR Daily, 10th August 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘This is an extremely important judgment from the Court of Appeal on the reach of the ECHR into war zones, in this case Iraq. The CA, with the only judgment given by Lloyd Jones LJ, disagreed in part with Leggatt J.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 11th September 2016
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘“Vote leave, take control” was the slogan of almost fiendish simplicity that helped win the Brexit referendum, masking the mendacity and absence of vision that underlay it. The impulses it captures—wresting sovereignty back from remote elites to Westminster, with its proud democratic tradition—echo those that have for years underpinned the opprobrium directed at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg in British public debate.’
OUP Blog, 12th September 2016
Source: www.blog.oup.com
‘On 3 September 2016, the European Convention on Human Rights celebrates 63 years since coming into effect. To mark the anniversary, we are taking a look at the Convention and other powerful documents which protect our rights. How do they work and which, if any, is the most important?’
RightsInfo, 31st August 2016
Source: www.rightsinfo.org
‘This post sets out some of the legal issues arising after the referendum of 23 June 2016, taking a generous liberty with the interpretation of the lyrics of The Eagles’ song “Hotel California”.’
Littleton Chambers, 12th August 2016
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘This second paper examines the impact of the decision to withdraw from the EU on the UK’s current extradition arrangements, in particular the European Arrest Warrant (“EAW”) system. The focus of the paper is on the legal consequences that will follow from a decision to trigger the process of withdrawal under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, and possible alternatives to the current system of extradition that could be adopted in any post-EU legal system.’
6 KBW, 13th July 2016
Source: www.6kbw.com
‘Most discussion relating to the referendum result has focussed on the effect that Brexit will have upon our constitutional arrangements or workers’ rights. This blog post will focus on the effect that Brexit will have upon the UK system of company law. Unfortunately, the current uncertainty regarding the terms on which the UK will leave the EU (if indeed it does) means that a definitive answer cannot be provided, but several principal possibilities can be advanced.’
OUP Blog, 19th July 2016
Source: www.blog.oup.com
‘The only relevant question now left for the UK about the Art 50 notification is what needs to be done before it is given. It is politically inevitable that the referendum result will be accepted and the notification given, perhaps in January next year.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 18th July 2016
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘Nuclear doom is nearer than most of us believe, experts warn. Britain must set a moral lead by becoming the first of the ‘big five’ powers to reduce its arsenal
The Guardian, 15th July 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The EU widened the scope of protection against gender discrimination considerably. Advancements have included protection relating to equal pay, paid time off for antenatal appointments, pregnancy discrimination, parental leave and urgent time off for family reasons, paid maternity leave and the right to equal treatment for part-time, fixed-term and agency workers.’
Cloisters, 22nd June 2016
Source: www.cloisters.com
‘One area of law where Brexit may have an impact is employment law.’
No. 5 Chambers, 1st July 2016
Source: www.no5.com
‘On 24 June 2016 the right to live in the United Kingdom for over 3 million people of its people was suddenly cast into doubt. If generous provision is not made for them we are looking at the biggest mass expulsion of population since 1290, when Edward I infamously ordered the Jews of England into exile.’
Free Movement, 12th July 2016
Source: www.freemovement.org.uk
‘On the legal front, the current debate focuses on the question of who has the legal authority to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty and begin the Brexit process. Some argue (quite convincingly) that only Parliament has this authority (and see Barber, Hickman, and King’s post). Others argue that Government, and in fact the Prime Minister, acting under the Royal Prerogative, can act without the approval of Parliament. The latter is, apparently, the view of Government’s lawyers.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, July 2016
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘Considerable public interest has recently been focused on the ‘trigger’ mechanism for exit from the EU which is set out in Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. Expert opinion has divided between those who believe that the power to trigger Article 50 rests with the Executive using the legal authority of the royal prerogative from the Crown with no further parliamentary involvement necessary and those who argue that fresh legislation is required to confer statutory authorisation on the Executive to do something which could render nugatory rights under the European Communities Act 1972 (‘ECA’). An ingenious third way involving section 2(2) of the ECA has also been suggested.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 8th July 2016
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘The first legal attempt to prevent the prime minister initiating Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union is to be heard later this month.’
The Guardian, 8th July 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025