‘Broken’ care system for most vulnerable – BBC News
‘Patients with mental health problems, autism and learning disabilities are being let down by a “broken” care system, a report warns.’
BBC News, 21st May 2019
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Patients with mental health problems, autism and learning disabilities are being let down by a “broken” care system, a report warns.’
BBC News, 21st May 2019
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Offenders have been locked in an “expensive merry-go-round” by a key plank of Chris Grayling’s disastrous probation overhaul, which has failed to reduce reoffending, a watchdog has said.’
The Guardian, 21st May 2019
Source: www.theguardian.com
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
National Car Parks Ltd v Revenue And Customs [2019] EWCA Civ 854 (20 May 2019)
RA (Iraq) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWCA Civ 850 (17 May 2019)
Revenue And Customs v Fortyseven Park Street Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 849 (17 May 2019)
Zurich Insurance Plc v Romaine [2019] EWCA Civ 851 (17 May 2019)
Serafin v Malkiewicz & Ors [2019] EWCA Civ 852 (17 May 2019)
HM Revenue and Customs v Smart Price Midlands Ltd & Anor [2019] EWCA Civ 841 (16 May 2019)
The Secretary of State for Work And Pensions v Goulding [2019] EWCA Civ 839 (16 May 2019)
Wiltshire Council v Cooper Estates Strategic Land Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 840 (16 May 2019)
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Kuddus v R. [2019] EWCA Crim 837 (16 May 2019)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Bialkowski v Regional Court In Kielsce, Poland [2019] EWHC 1253 (Admin) (16 May 2019)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Davies v Wolverhampton Wanderers Football Club (1986) Ltd [2019] EWHC 1252 (Ch) (15 May 2019)
Davies v Wolverhampton Wanderers Football Club (1986) Ltd [2019] EWHC 1252 (Ch) (15 May 2019)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Vodafone Ltd & Ors v The Office of Communications (Ofcom) [2019] EWHC 1234 (Comm) (17 May 2019)
Auden MckEnzie (Pharma Division) Ltd & Ors v Patel & Anor [2019] EWHC 1257 (Comm) (17 May 2019)
GA-Hyun Chung v Silver Dry Bulk Co Ltd [2019] EWHC 1147 (Comm) (17 May 2019)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Podesta v Akhtar & Anor [2019] EWHC 1245 (QB) (16 May 2019)
Source: www.bailii.org
‘Curo Places Ltd v Pimlett (LANDLORD AND TENANT – service charges – tenancy agreement of a bungalow in a sheltered housing scheme) (2019) UKUT 130 (LC). Another Upper Tribunal case on a landlord adding additional services and charges to assured tenancy agreements, but where Wilcock v The Guinness Partnership Ltd (2019) UKUT 146 (LC) (our report) concerned an agreement with specified services only, this appeal concerned a tenancy agreement with a clause that did allow the landlord to add additional services and charge for them.’
Nearly Legal, 19th May 2019
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘Build UK, a leading representative organisation for the construction industry, has published a non-binding recommendation on which contract terms its members should (as a minimum) refrain from using. The recommendation “seeks to form a new common ground between clients and the supply chain on contractual practice in the construction sector” with the key objectives being “to promote collaboration, encourage a fairer allocation of risk through the supply chain, and deliver better project outcomes”. In this blog I look at each of Build UK’s recommendations and consider whether they represent a departure from current market practice, or a consolidation of the examples of best practice that we are already seeing clients and contractors adopting in the current market.’
Practical Law: Construction Blog, 15th May 2019
‘Where a court finds a wrongful arrest, it is often due to inadequate grounds for belief in its necessity. However, a brief judgment in Smith v Police Service for Northern Ireland [2019] NIQB 39 is a demonstration of where there is a lack of reasonable suspicion that the person arrested has, themselves, committed the offence. Also of interest is the sum for damages – £3,550 for the unlawful arrest and ten hours’ consequent unlawful detention.’
UK Police Law Blog, 10th May 2019
Source: ukpolicelawblog.com
‘Rose-Marie Drury, Senior Associate, Mills & Reeve LLP analyses the news and case law relating to financial remedies and divorce during April 2019.’
Family Law Week, 14th May 2019
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘Proposals for the first register of foreign-owned property aimed at preventing “McMafia-style” money laundering should be put in practice urgently and reinforced to plug potential loopholes, the government has been told.’
The Guardian, 20th May 2019
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The parents of a student who took her own life because she was too anxious to make a public presentation are taking legal action against her university.’
The Independent, 19th May 2019
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘The High Court has thrown out a personal injury claim – without letting the case go to full quantum trial – after the litigant presented an ‘egregiously untrue picture’ of his disabilities.’
Law Society's Gazette, 16th May 2019
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The government says it will make it easier to find out who owns empty buildings on the High Street in a bid to revitalise the UK’s retail sector.’
BBC News, 16th May 2019
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Clinical negligence claims could be handled by a tribunal under a new test for liability of whether the patient has suffered ‘reasonably avoidable injury’, Sir Rupert Jackson has proposed.’
Litigation Futures, 17th May 2019
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘A takeaway boss found guilty of the manslaughter of a schoolgirl who suffered an allergic reaction to a meal containing peanut proteins has won an appeal against his conviction.’
Daily Telegraph, 16th May 2019
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘Government security decisions will in future be open to challenge in the courts after judges ruled that a secretive intelligence tribunal could not be exempt from legal action.’
The Guardian, 15th May 2019
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘It would not be reasonable for an “impecunious” company to withdraw a crowdfunded claim for judicial review if it was denied a costs-capping order (CCO), because its shareholders have sufficient resources to back the case, the High Court has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 16th May 2019
Source: www.litigationfutures.com