‘Campaigners have this week been granted permission to appeal a Planning Court ruling allowing fracking at a site in Lancashire.’
Local Government Lawyer, 8th June 2017
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘A soldier who admitted grooming a child after sending explicit messages over the internet from his Army barracks, has been jailed.’
BBC News, 8th June 2017
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
High Court (Commercial Court)
High Court (Patents Court)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
Source: www.bailii.org
‘The prime minister’s kneejerk proposal to rip up laws to fight the growing terrorist threat is a dangerous distraction.’
The Guardian, 7th June 2017
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The High Court will next week (14-15 June) hear a judicial review challenge over a decision in a neighbourhood plan to allocate a quarry site for heavy industry and housing.’
Local Government Lawyer, 7th June 2017
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Solicitors and legal academics have called for new powers enabling people to decide what happens to their digital legacy when they die, including by making a provision for online data to be included in wills.’
Law Society's Gazette, 7th June 2017
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘A change in the law that makes it more challenging to prove defamation in England and Wales is just one reason why the number of defamation cases brought in the UK fell last year, according to a media law expert.’
OUT-LAW.com, 7th June 2017
Source: www.out-law.com
‘The rules around photography at elections were not drawn up with social media in mind, so it’s best to keep that phone in your pocket while you vote.’
The Guardian, 8th June 2017
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘It sometimes vexes police lawyers – how the police can be a prosecutor for the purpose of malicious prosecution when it is the Crown Prosecution Service that makes the decision to prosecute. Further, it has not always been easy to identify what acts of officers can result in liability for misfeasance in a public office. In Rees v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2017] EWHC 273 (QB), Mitting J explained both of these – disagreeing with some previous cases and explaining others.’
UK Police Law Blog, 7th June 2017
Source: ukpolicelawblog.com
‘Care home bosses could increasingly face prosecution over the neglect of residents after a “groundbreaking” court case into “organised and systematic” abuse.’
Daily Telegraph, 7th June 2017
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘The London Bridge attacks have triggered a big spike in hate crimes with a significant amount of them being attacks in the street directed at British Muslims.’
The Guardian, 7th June 2017
Source: www.theguardian.com
General Medical Council v Jagjivan and another [2017] EWHC 1247 (Admin)
‘Where, at the conclusion of a hearing by the Medical Practitioners Tribunal, a direction under section 35D of the Medical Act 1983 has not been given, on the ordinary wording of section 40A(1)(d) of the Act the tribunal has made a decision not to give a direction under section 35D. Accordingly, where the tribunal has made such a decision, the General Medical Council has jurisdiction to appeal, pursuant to section 40A, against that decision. The words “after determining that the person’s fitness to practise is impaired” are not present at the end of section 40A(1)(d) and do not require to be read into that subsection. Moreover, it would be anomalous if the General Medical Council’s right of appeal were confined to cases where the tribunal had made a finding of impairment or imposed some sanction, and no regard could be had to an erroneous failure by the tribunal to find an impairment of fitness to practise (paras 27, 32).’
WLR Daily, 26th May 2017
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina (ZX) v Secretary of State for Justice [2017] EWCA Civ 155
‘The claimant, a married British citizen of Bangladeshi origin with three children, was convicted on his guilty plea of two terrorism related offences and sentenced in the Crown Court to a term of three years’ imprisonment. Following his release on licence, conditions were imposed on his licence precluding him, inter alia, from having contact with his children save as directed by the National Probation Service (“the NPS”) and local children’s services. He sought to challenge the imposition of those conditions on the basis that the NPS had no lawful entitlement to give a direction separating him from his children, that there was no properly identified risk and that no separation could properly be directed without due compliance with the provisions of the Children Act 1989 and the Children Act 2004 and, if need be, without an order of the Family Court. Permission to proceed with the claim for judicial review was refused on the basis that the grounds raised were not arguable. The claimant appealed on the grounds, inter alia, that the judge had misdirected himself as to the scope and effect of the NPS’s duties under section 11 of the 2004 Act (to make arrangements for ensuring that its functions were discharged having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children).’
WLR Daily, 17th March 2017
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
In re RBS rights issue litigation (No 2) [2017] EWHC 1217 (Ch)
‘Subsequent to the defendant bank and its directors having learnt of the identity of the third party funders of the claimants following a successful application made under CPR r 25.14, the defendants sought security for costs pursuant to CPR r 25.14(2)(b) against those funders. That application was prompted by settlements with some of the original claimants, as a result of which the remaining claimants’ exposure to adverse costs increased, and by the defendants learning that the claimants did not have adequate after-the-event (“ATE”) insurance cover in place. The first respondent, a commercial funder and British Virgin Islands entity, opposed the application on the grounds that: (a) its financial position was such that it would be well able to meet any award for costs and in any event the defendants had not demonstrated that the claimants would fail to meet a costs award against them; and (b) the application was made extremely late and therefore caused it and the claimants real prejudice. The second respondent, an Isle of Man entity that was not in the business of litigation funding and provided funding close to the eve of trial, opposed the application on the grounds that: (a) it was unlikely that a section 51 order would be made against it in due course; and (b) no security was justified or necessary on the evidence and the timing was oppressive. Both respondents also argued that: (c) the quantum of security sought was excessive.’
WLR Daily, 23rd May 2017
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
In re Y (A Child) (Wardship: Assistance on Transition to Adulthood) [2017] EWHC 968 (Fam)
Approving a package of support suggested by the local authority, the court identified the range and scope of support available for a radicalised child approaching the end of their wardship, compared with that available to a child who was instead leaving care, before observing that this may be one of many factors to be bourne in mind when considering which legal framework is most appropriate to protect a young person in danger of radicalisation (paras 12–64, 65–68).
WLR Daily, 27th April 2017
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The Law Society has told the Department of Health that its proposed rapid resolution and redress (RRR) scheme will fail to deliver its intended result of fewer severe avoidable birth injuries.’
Local Government Lawyer, 7th June 2017
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Substantial damages of £10,500 have been awarded to a claimant who was unlawfully detained for a period of 70 days. The Home Office had failed to serve the Claimant with notice of a decision on his application to vary his leave to remain in the UK before detaining him, rendering his detention unlawful. The case is R (on the application of) Godwin Chaparadza v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWHC 1209 (Admin).’
Free Movement, 7th June 2017
Source: www.freemovement.org.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025