‘The future of a key part of the government’s system to remove failed asylum seekers is in doubt after the High Court ruled it was unlawful.’
BBC News, 12th June 2015
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘The scope of regulation 5A of the Civil Legal Aid (Remuneration) (Amendment) (No 3) Regulations 2014 extended beyond the circumstances which could be seen as rationally connected to the stated purpose given for its introduction, making it inconsistent with the purposes of the statutory scheme contained in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.’
WLR Daily, 3rd March 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Lord Justice Fulford and Mrs Justice Lang DBE have rejected Rights of Womens much needed challenge against the regulations (regulation 33) on domestic violence. For practitioners who work in the field of domestic violence and for people who care about gender based violence this is a disappointing and somewhat confusing blow.’
The World of Family Law (Garden Court Chambers), 4th February 2015
Source: www.gcfamily.wordpress.com
‘The High Court has rejected a challenge to the legality of government changes to legal aid for victims of domestic violence.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 22nd January 2015
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘Regulation 24A of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 was within the ambit of the rule making power in section 2(2)(b) of the European Community Act 1972.’
WLR Daily, 19th December 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The ability of many state schools to enter into lease agreements (often for office equipment such as photocopiers) is limited by statute. Where a school exceeds its statutory power, the agreement will be void and unenforceable by the creditor. This article examines the issue of ultra vires, the consequences and potential remedies for both creditors and schools.’
Full story (PDF)
Henderson Chambers, 18th December 2014
Source: www.hendersonchambers.co.uk
‘The qualified one-way costs shifting provisions under CPR 44.13 and 44.14 were not ultra vires the general discretion of the court on the ordering of costs under section 51(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, and although applying to claims for damages for personal injuries brought by a claimant against a defendant, they did not apply to claims for an indemnity or contribution brought by such a defendant against a third party.’
WLR Daily, 31st July 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The provisions of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 did not empower a billing authority for an area to impose a condition of residence on individuals seeking to utilise a council tax reduction scheme created under section 13A(2) of the Act.’
WLR Daily, 30th July 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A local authority acted illegally when it introduced strict residency criteria designed to prevent it becoming a magnet for “benefit tourists” priced out of high-cost areas of London and the south-east by welfare reforms, a judge has ruled.’
The Guardian, 30th July 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘In a judgment released yesterday a Divisional Court unanimously struck down the government’s attempt to introduce a residence test for eligibility for legal aid, finding it incompatible with the objective of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (“LASPO”). The ratio of the judgment was that the residence test had been introduced via an amendment to the schedule in the Act (that is, via subsidiary legislation) that was not compatible with the objective of the primary legislation. While that sounds like a rather technical decision, it has important ramifications for democratic accountability. It means, in essence, that if the government wants to make such a drastic change as this, it will need to do so via an amendment to the Act itself, with the full Parliamentary debate that that would entail. The case is also interesting because of the two rights-based grounds that were argued before it. The first, that the introduction of a residence requirement violated the fundamental right of access to a court, the court declined to engage with. The second was that residence was not a lawful ground for discriminating in the provision of legal aid between equally meritorious claims. The court accepted this claim, but apparently in obiter dicta, since only the statutory construction point was strictly required to reach the outcome.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 17th July 2014
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org/blog
‘In years to come, we may all wonder what all the fuss was about, but Tuesday’s judgement in R (Public Law Project) v the Secretary of State for Justice has provided some relief and not a little amusement to legal aid practitioners girding themselves for yet another grim landmark in the legal aid story: the residence test.’
NearlyLegal, 17th July 2014
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/
‘The Administrative Court has declared that the proposed residence test for civil legal aid is discriminatory and unlawful, following a successful judicial review challenge against the Secretary of State for Justice. The case was brought by the Public Law Project, a national legal charity that promotes access to justice, on the basis that the residence test would, if implemented, violate fundamental constitutional rights guaranteed by the common law and the European Convention on Human Rights, as incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998.’
LegalVoice, 16th July 2014
Source: www.legalvoice.org.uk
‘The proposed statutory instrument, the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Amendment of Schedule 1) Order 2014, amending Schedule 1 to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 by introducing a residence test, was unlawful as it was ultra vires and discriminatory.’
WLR Daily, 15th July 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Public Law Project v Secretary of State for Justice [2014] EWHC 2365. Angela Patrick of JUSTICE has provided an excellent summary of this important ruling, which declared a proposed statutory instrument to be ultra vires the LASPO Act under which it was to have been made. The judgment is an interesting one, not least for some judicial fireworks in response to the Lord Chancellor’s recourse to the Daily Telegraph after the hearing, but before judgment was delivered.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 15th July 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘House of Lords is scheduled to vote on the Government’s proposals for a residence test for access to legal aid, Angela Patrick, Director of Human Rights Policy at JUSTICE considers today’s judgment of the Divisional Court in PLP v Secretary of State for Justice.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 15th July 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The government’s attempt to introduce a residence test for legal aid has been struck down by the high court on the grounds that it is discriminatory and unlawful.’
The Guardian, 15th July 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The provisions in Part V of the Police Act for the automatic release of a person’s convictions, cautions and warnings— regardless of their relevance or the length of time that had elapsed— when that person was required, by reason of articles 3 or 4 of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975, to obtain and disclose an enhanced criminal record certificate for the purpose of obtaining employment or some other position which involved working with children or other vulnerable groups of persons, did not meet the requirement of legality for the purposes of article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and so was incompatible with the person’s right to respect for their private life guaranteed by that article. Moreover, the provisions contravened article 8 in that they were not “necessary in a democratic society”, as required by article 8.2.’
WLR Daily, 18th June 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024