Cambridge students build a ‘lawbot’ to advise sexual assault victims – The Guardian
‘Imagine RoboCop went to Oxbridge – well, it’s nothing like that at all.’
The Guardian, 9th November 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Form over substance? The ‘But For’ Test after Tiuta – Hardwicke Chambers
‘The case throws up an interesting issue as to both the application and scope of the ‘but for’ test in professional negligence claims by lenders against valuers where there has been re-financing of the original lending transaction. The fact that the Court of Appeal was split in its decision, and the fact that an application for permission to appeal is currently outstanding to the Supreme Court, demonstrate the complexities of the legal position.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 4th November 2016
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
Fairhold Freeholds No. 2 Limited v Moody [2016] UKUT 311 (LC) – Tanfield Chambers
‘The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) has held that an indemnity given in a lease can be viewed as a promise by the tenant to protect the landlord from the landlord’s liability to a third party. For the tenant to be liable, the tenant’s breach must be the reason for the landlord’s liability to the third party. In this case, the indemnity was not drafted widely enough to render the tenant responsible for the administrative and legal costs incurred by the landlord once the ground rent had been tendered (even though it was tendered late).’
Tanfield Chambers, 10th October 2016
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
Whistleblowing Detriment and the Liability of Co-Workers: Valuable or Valueless? By Daniel Northall – Littleton Chambers
‘The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 introduced a substantial amendment to s.47B Employment Rights Act 1996. The newly inserted subsections (1A) – (1E) allowed a worker to bring an action for whistleblowing detriment against a co-worker or agent of the employer directly.’
Littleton Chambers, 7th November 2016
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
Nemcova v Fairfield (‘the Airbnb ruling’): Stirring up the Hornets’ Nest of Short-Term Lets – Hardwicke Chambers
‘In Nemcova v Fairfield Rents Ltd [2016] UKUT 303 (LC), in what has become known as ‘the Airbnb ruling’, the Upper Tribunal gave guidance on the circumstances in which short-term lets might amount to a breach of covenant prohibiting the use of a property for anything other than ‘a private residence’. In this article, Jamal Demachkie (who acted for the successful landlord at first instance and on appeal) provides his analysis of this important decision.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 12th October 2016
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
Landlord & Tenant – Unlawful sub-letting – Tanfield Chambers
‘The Upper Tribunal upheld the FTT’s determination that the lessee had breached a covenant in her lease not to use her flat other than as a private residence by granting a series of short-term lettings of the property. The fact that the lessee had granted the lettings meant that her occupation of the flat was so transient and not sufficiently permanent that she would not consider the property her private residence.’
Tanfield Chambers, 10th October 2016
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
23 Dollis Avenue (1998) Limited v Vejdani [2016] UKUT 365 – Tanfield Chambers
‘A failure to comply with the Service Charge (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003 (“the Regulations”) could be relevant to the reasonableness of the amount of service charge to be paid under section 19(2) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. However, it is simply one factor to be considered. In the instant case, the non-compliance comprised including within the estimate the estimated cost of works not within the proposed works; the amount demanded would be reduced by excluding that ‘extra’ work.’
Tanfield Chambers, 10th October 2016
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
Upholding the Values of the Profession Comment by Eleena Misra, Head of Professional Discipline & Regulatory Law Group – Littleton Chambers
‘Whether it is a barrister struck off for evading train fares (recent press reports of the tribunal hearing of Peter Barnett) or for posting anti-Semitic tweets (Ian Millard – see below), to name but two recent high-profile instances of conduct found to be disreputable by disciplinary tribunals, or a British Olympic gymnastics champion subjected to a two-month competition ban for apparently laughing at a wedding as another gymnast pokes fun at a call to prayer (Louis Smith), it is clear that the prevailing climate is one of expecting the great and the good to be, well, great and good. Indeed, it might be said that just being famous is being seen as attracting a moral price tag or responsibility by virtue of the opportunity to influence people. There is currently no formal code of conduct applicable to celebrities, though perhaps sporting bodies are becoming more paternalistic in this regard, but it is certainly still the case that being a member of a profession comes with its own responsibilities.’
Littleton Chambers, 3rd November 2016
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
Short-term Lettings and the Sharing Economy – Tanfield Chambers
‘The beginning of 2016 has seen much focus on the buy to let market with the changes to the tax implications for those purchasers who already own property. The Government has announced further changes to come for buy to let landlords – might budding landlords seek to overcome these changes by exploring opportunities for shorter lets of their own homes, or alternatively, rooms in their own homes?’
Tanfield Chambers, 6th October 2016
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
Beware the dangers of uncertainty with letters of intent – Hardwicke Chambers
‘Alexander Nissen QC’s recent decision in Spartafield Ltd v Penten Group Ltd brings a degree of finality to the long-running dispute between these two parties. It comes after multiple adjudications and previous proceedings in the TCC. Back in March, my colleague Ebony Alleyne discussed what was then the most recent judgment, dealing with the enforcement of an adjudicator’s decision.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 2nd November 2016
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
Lords justice spokesman condemns ‘ill-informed’ attacks on judiciary – The Guardian
‘The Lords’ spokesperson for the ministry of justice has condemned “ill-informed” media attacks on judges, as political pressure mounts for Liz Truss to speak out more clearly in defence of judicial independence.’
The Guardian, 8th November 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Some Lessons from Uber – No. 5 Chambers
‘Anthony Korn highlights some lessons from the much publicised and controversial tribunal ruling in Aslam and Farrar v Uber BV, Uber London Ltd and Uber Britannia Ltd (case Nos 2202551/2015).’
No. 5 Chambers, 31st October 2016
Source: www.no5.com
Sinclair Gardens Investments (Kensington) Ltd v Wisbey [2016] UKUT 203 (LC) – Tanfield Chambers
‘Solicitors costs of and incidental to the preparation of a counter notice were recoverable under s. 60 LRHUDA 1993. There ought to be some reduction in costs where a landlord was dealing with multiple claims involving the same building.’
Tanfield Chambers, 1st November 2016
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
Making waves: the decision in Essar v Norscot: a view from the Bar – Hardwicke Chambers
‘Can a successful claimant recover the costs of a funding agreement from the defendant? No in litigation but yes in arbitration, according to the Commercial Court in Essar Oilfields Services Limited v Norscot Rig Management PVT Limited. This decision has sent shockwaves through the arbitration community.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 25th October 2016
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
If it ain’t broke – Hardwicke Chambers
‘The interplay between tenants’ rent obligations and their ability to break the term of their leases has for a number of years been a topic which has been of considerable interest to practitioners advising both either landlords or tenants. Two cases in particular will have been high on the radar in advising clients both before and after the exercise of a break clause.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 12th October 2016
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
Committal Applications in the Absence of the Defendent: Two Recent Cases, By Ashley Cukier – Littleton Chambers
‘Ashley Cukier considers two recent judgments of the High Court (Alfa Bank v Reznik [2016] EWHC B21 (Comm) and Taylor v Van Dutch Marine & Others [2016] EWHC 2201 (Ch)), which demonstrate the courts’ willingness, if the circumstances justify it, to hear committal applications in the absence of the defendant.’
Littleton Chambers, 6th October 2016
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
Moving on from Bolam – the High Court applies the Montgomery v Larnarkshire test in a financial professionals – Hailsham Chambers
‘The High Court has for the first time outside a medical context declined to apply the traditional Bolam v Friern Barnet Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582 test for the standard of care in favour of the new test in Montgomery v Larnarkshire Health Board [2015] AC 1430. Coutts, the private bank, was found to owe a duty to take reasonable care to ensure that their clients were aware of the risks of suggested investments. This is an important development in professional negligence law and one that may have far-reaching consequences.’
Hailsham Chambers, 3rd November 2016
Source: www.hailshamchambers.com
Caution: Slippery Claimant – Park Square Barristers
‘Holly Clegg considers: If a Judge finds the Claimant’s evidence to be incredible, should the Defendant necessarily seek a finding of fundamental dishonesty? Not unless such a finding is clearly sustainable on the evidence, according to the case of Meadows v La Tasca Restaurants Limited.’
Park Square Barristers, 7th November 2016
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
David Feldman: Brexit, the Royal Prerogative, and Parliamentary Sovereignty – UK Constitutional Law Association
‘In R. (Miller) v. Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2016] EWHC 2768 (Admin) judges had to decide, as a matter of law, on the constitutionally correct procedure for deciding whether and when to notify the President of the European Council that the UK intends to leave the EU, pursuant to Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union. This legal question is fraught with difficulty. The situation is unprecedented, so judges have to answer the question from constitutional first principles. Inevitably in such cases there is room for disagreement as to what the first principles are, and (more intractably) what weight each has as against the others in the particular circumstances of the case.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 8th November 2016
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
Warning of potential rise in legal actions as adult care funding gap bites – Local Government Lawyer
‘The number of cases in relation to adult care could rise with local authorities struggling to cope with a funding gap, it has been claimed.’
Local Government Lawyer, 8th November 2016
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
