‘Caspar Glyn QC, Schona Jolly QC and Sian McKinley consider the implications of today’s seismic decision from the Supreme Court which ruled that ET fees are unlawful: R (on the application of UNISON) v Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51.’
Cloisters, 26th July 2017
Source: www.cloisters.com
‘The Supreme Court have, this morning, handed down Judgment in the case of R (on the application of UNISON) v Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51, more commonly known as ‘the appeal against Employment Tribunal fees’.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 26th July 2017
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘Dispute Resolution analysis: Colm Nugent, barrister at Hardwicke Chambers, explains why the appeal court will not readily countenance a complete change of case on an appeal when the claim or defence as advanced has been struck out, or summary judgment given.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 15th August 2017
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘Often, a litigator’s single greatest desire is for clarity: of instructions, tactics, or argument. Few circumstances can disrupt this as effectively as a large group of clients or opponents, each clamouring for different (often mutually exclusive) approaches. Once such a case reaches a certain size, it is simply not feasible to proceed in the usual way, with all parties giving evidence and making submissions. There are a number of ways of addressing this problem, each with unique benefits and pitfalls.’
Hardwick Chambers, 25th July 2017
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘On 21 July, the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) issued its decision dismissing an application for a collective proceedings order (“CPO”) in the MasterCard litigation (Walter Merricks v MasterCard Inc & ors [2017] CAT 16). It is a decision whose significance goes beyond the fact that it is a further illustration of the difficulties of advancing opt-out class actions. It remains the case that, despite nearly two years having elapsed since implementation of schedule 8 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, no CPO has been made, nor is one likely to be made at any time soon. Whilst the decision is subject to Mr Merricks’ right of appeal, this alerter briefly considers the implications for the management of class actions. In very broad terms, the decision underlines the requirements of a high level of precision and a sound and principled evidential basis in relation to: (1) the definition of the class; (2) the calculation of aggregate class damages; (3) the means for distributing damages within the class; and (4) the elements of a funding agreement.’
Henderson Chambers, 25th July 2017
Source: www.hendersonchambers.co.uk
‘Coroners have no power to award costs of legal advice or representation at inquests. Where a successful civil claim follows, parties will naturally wish to recover the costs of the inquests as well as the costs of the civil proceedings from the losing party. The starting point is Section 51 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 which enables the court to award costs “of and incidental to” civil proceedings.’
Park Square Barristers, 10th August 2017
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
‘The FTT had correctly ruled that a management agreement was for a term of more than twelve months, and therefore a long-term qualifying agreement for the purposes of s.20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.’
Tanfield Chambers, 31st July 2017
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘Serious pollution incidents in the UK from livestock farms are now a weekly occurrence, leading to damage to wildlife, fish, farm livestock and air and water pollution.’
The Guardian, 21st August 2017
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 is a powerful way to avoid exclusions of liability. Its power, however, is tempered by need for one party to deal with the other ‘as a consumer or on the other’s written standard terms of business’ (s. 3(1)).’
Littleton Chambers, 19th July 2017
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘Prior to today’s decision of the Supreme Court the score read Her Majesty’s Government 2: UNISON 0 in the efforts of the union to overturn the Employment Tribunal fees regime which has been in place since July 2013.’
Littleton Chambers, 26th July 2017
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘Whilst the Taylor Review may be the talking point of the week, Michael Duggan QC writes that the case of Chesterton Global Limited v Mohamed Nurmohamed, Public Concern At Work (intervener) [2017] EWCA Civ 979, 10th July 2017 is perhaps the case of the week. It concerns the vexed question of good faith in public interest disclosures of whistleblowing.’
Littleton Chambers, 19th July 2017
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘Boundary disputes are among the most expensive and acrimonious litigation. It is rare to find an area of law in which a “point of principle” so often leads to such disregard of otherwise compelling considerations such as time, energy and cost. Kerry Bretherton QC of Tanfield Chambers provides a summary of some of the main legal principles applicable in boundary disputes that RICS professionals should be aware of.’
Tanfield Chambers, 9th August 2017
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘Britain will be subject to the rulings of European courts after Brexit, the government has conceded, in an apparent climbdown from its promise of judicial independence.’
The Guardian, 21st August 2017
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The amount of a costs order in the employment tribunal (ET) can be made subject to detailed assessment, to be carried out (either by the ET or by a county court) in accordance with the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR) (rule 78, ET Rules). It was traditionally understood that this application of the CPR to ET procedure was limited to the assessment of the level of costs, as opposed to the separate question of whether costs should be ordered at all. As reflected in the CPR, “costs follow the event” in the civil courts. In contrast, the ET has a limited costs jurisdiction, which depends on the existence of improper or unreasonable conduct and the exercise of discretion in the presence of such conduct as to whether to award costs.’
Littleton Chambers, 24th July 2017
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘The Court of Appeal last week heard a case under the Care Act 2014 for the first time, with a disabled man challenging a High Court decision that a county council had acted lawfully in deciding to reduce his weekly personal budget by 42%.’
Local Government Lawyer, 21st August 2017
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Joey Barton, the controversial Burnley FC midfielder (and sometime BBC Question Time panellist), was in December 2016 charged by the FA with a breach of rule E8: betting. It was said that he had placed 1,260 bets on professional football matches over a ten-year period. He pleaded guilty to the alleged misconduct. An FA regulatory commission (the “Commission”) was convened to hear submissions and decide on sanction. Its decision, made on 26 April 2017, was to suspend Barton from all football-related activities for 18 months with immediate effect.’
Littleton Chambers, 31st July 2017
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘The High Court has granted an injunction against a party that was well aware that a document it was using was a privileged letter accidentally disclosed by the other side.’
Litigation Futures, 22nd August 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘A lettings agency has been ordered to pay more than £20,000 in fines, compensation and costs after issuing ‘sham licences’ to renters and using a letting agency association logo when it was not a member, in what is thought to be the first prosecution of its kind in England.’
Local Government Lawyer, 21st August 2017
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Richard Susskind, IT adviser to the Lord Chief Justice, has spent many years looking into the future of the law. In a fascinating podcast paving the way for his new book The Future of the Professions and the updated Tomorrow’s Lawyers, he discusses with OUP’s George Miller the new world of technological advancements in the day to day management of dispute resolution. We have taken the liberty of summarising the podcast here and posting a link to the interview at the end of this post.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 21st August 2017
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘It is well known that the governing principle of the Land Registration Act 2002 is to enable anyone to be aware of any interest affecting a piece of land by simply inspecting the land register (subject to some limited exceptions, e.g. where a person is in occupation and their interest is likely to be obvious from a reasonable inspection). If an interest affecting the land is not noted within the register then it ought not bind a subsequent registered proprietor.’
Tanfield Chambers, 4th August 2017
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025