‘Other dictatorial moves may follow if Boris Johnson’s ruse is allowed to pass. The high court must listen to our case against it.’
The Guardian, 29th August 2019
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘A Scottish judge has refused to order a temporary halt to Boris Johnson’s plan to shut down the UK Parliament.’
BBC News, 30th August 2019
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘A man who shared photos of himself with a gun alongside anti-Muslim messages has been found guilty of stirring up religious and racial hatred.’
BBC News, 29th August 2019
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Charles Pigott examines an Employment Appeal Tribunal ruling that racially offensive Facebook posting was not done in the course of employment.’
Local Government Lawyer, 30th August 2019
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘It is most unlikely we will ever get any authoritative insight into what the Queen thought about the prime minister’s request for her to suspend Parliament.’
BBC News, 29th August 2019
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘The number of prisoners in England and Wales is projected to fall in the short term due to fewer people being charged with criminal offences.’
The Guardian, 29th August 2019
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘A senior finance partner at City giant Hogan Lovells has been rebuked by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) after a tribunal found that he discriminated against his children’s pregnant nanny.’
Legal Futures, 29th August 2019
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘When an obsessed fan’s adoration of beauty queen Samantha Bumford became physical, she alerted police and he was given a restraining order and sent to prison.’
BBC News, 30th August 2019
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘MPs had three years to come up with an alternative to no deal – and they failed.’
The Guardian, 29th August 2019
Source: www.theguardian.com
High Court (Chancery Division)
Brown v Bray & Anor [2019] EWHC 2304 (Ch) (29 August 2019)
High Court (Family Division)
X Health Authority v D [2019] EWHC 2311 (Fam) (22 August 2019)
Source: www.bailii.org
‘A Planning Inspector recently delivered a long-awaited decision following an appeal under Section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The appeal was lodged following non-determination by Wiltshire Council over a site for major housing development in Old Sarum Airfield, in one of the original ‘rotten boroughs’ of Old Sarum.’
No. 5 Chambers, 8th August 2019
Source: www.no5.com
‘The most recent episode in litigation between two Russian Oligarch involving an application to set aside a World-wide Freezing Order (“WFO”) and permission for service out of jurisdiction (“Service Out Order”) for failures in the duty of full and frank disclosure (“the Full and Frank Duty”).’
Hardwicke Chambers, 9th August 2019
Source: hardwicke.co.uk
‘In an interesting and rare case, a Revocation Order (‘the Order’) made by Thanet District Council was successfully challenged. The Order had aimed to revoke planning permission for the erection of a detached 2 storey 3 bedroom dwelling. The objector was the owner and occupier of the Order Property.’
No. 5 Chambers, 7th August 2019
Source: www.no5.com
‘The exercise of the ancient common law right to conduct a private prosecution has become a growth area in the last decade. A number of members of Park Square Barristers now receive instructions to advise and appear in court in this burgeoning area.’
Parl Square Barristers, 30th July 2019
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
‘In a decision handed down on 30th July 2019, the Court of Appeal have overturned a controversial first instance decision. Mostyn J had refused permission to bring a claim under s4 Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. The substance of the claim under the Act related to whether a beneficial interest under a discretionary trust, rather than outright provision, failed to make reasonable provision for a spouse. The first instance decision created a stir because, among other findings, Mostyn J made obiter comments that it was not appropriate for parties to enter into ‘stand still agreements’ as an attempt to extend the 6-month time limit for bringing claims under the Act whilst negotiations were underway.’
No. 5 Chambers, 7th August 2019
Source: www.no5.com
‘Interim payment applications are often the battleground for pre-trial skirmishes, the warm-up before the main event. Recent cases have identified some successful arguments made by defendants in disputed IP applications and particularly the evidence needed by a defendant if they wish to successfully challenge an application.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 8th August 2019
Source: hardwicke.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal declines to give guidance on whether a treating clinician who was also an expert would, in some cases, be able to give expert evidence without meeting the requirements of Part 25. It did recommend input by the President’s working group on the issue.’
Park Square Barristers, 27th August 2019
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
‘Every professional negligence lawyer knows that establishing the necessary causative link between a professional’s breach of duty and the loss suffered by the client can be the most difficult aspect of any claim. That can prove even more problematic in construction professional negligence cases, in particular those involving costs “overrun”, both because of the broader range of alternative hypotheticals and the number of other professionals involved with the project.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 6th August 2019
Source: hardwicke.co.uk
‘It was recently confirmed in Fernandes de Oliveira v Portugal [2019] ECHR 106 (no.78103/14, 31 January 2019) that a state’s positive obligation under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) applies not only to compulsorily detained patients, but also to those in hospital. However, there was a disappointing caveat. The European Court on Human Rights (ECtHR) concluded that “a stricter standard of scrutiny” might be applied to patients detained “involuntarily” following judicial order (para.124). Indeed, no Article 2 violation was found. In a partly dissenting Minority Opinion (MO), Portugal’s Judge Pinto De Albuquerque and Judge Harutyunyan describe the decision scathingly as “the result of a creative exercise of judicial adjudication for an imagined country” (MO, para.16). This article analyses the case law the ECtHR failed to apply, contends that the decision is plainly wrong, and argues that no differentiation between voluntary and involuntary patients can be justified.’
No. 5 Chambers, 6th August 2019
Source: www.no5.com
© Inner Temple Library 2025