Hillsborough: the key lessons for our justice system – Law Society’s Gazette
‘What can lawyers learn from the tortuous 27-year struggle for justice?
Law Society’s Gazette, 8th June 2016
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
High Court’s confidentiality comments could have unintended consequences in pension rectification cases – OUT-LAW.com
‘Comments by a High Court judge during a recent application for rectification of a pension trust deed could have “unintended consequences” for future applications, an expert has said.’
OUT-LAW.com, 9th June 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
New protocol for criminal defence on prosecution ‘failures’ – Law Society’s Gazette
‘A practitioner group is challenging what it claims to be ‘repeated’ failures by prosecutors to disclose information on time by issuing a step-by-step guide for criminal defence solicitors.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 8th June 2016
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
Is there a human right to the city? Rethinking the politics of rights – OUP Blog
‘What gives you the right? We are familiar with rights claiming, it comes easily to our lips when we believe we are entitled to something—to respect, to our fair share. Rights are fighting words. We invoke them when we have been wronged, when a situation has become intolerable. Rights claims are a way of fighting for control.’
OUP Blog, 9th June 2016
Source: www.blog.oup.com
Fiduciary Duties, Football, and the Fundamental Importance of the Contractual Relationship – Sports Law Bulletin
‘Can a senior employee be ordered to pay back his past contractual remuneration to his employer as a remedy for breach of fiduciary duty, in particular a duty to confess his own wrongdoing? There has been an increasing trend over the past few years for employers, outraged at the belatedly discovered wrongdoing of a trusted senior employee, to not only seek to justify summary dismissal on the basis of after-discovered gross misconduct but also to go a step further and try to recover the salaries or bonuses already paid to the employee prior to discovery of the misconduct.’
Sports Law Bulletin, 7th June 2016
Source: www.sportslawbulletin.org
Council to refund tenants £28.6m after High Court water overcharging ruling – Local Government Lawyer
‘The London Borough of Southwark has decided to repay 48,000 current and former tenants £28.6m following a High Court ruling earlier this year that it had overcharged for water and sewerage for 12 years.’
Local Government Lawyer, 9th June 2016
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
Court refuses to declare arbitration agreement ineffective before proceedings begin – OUT-LAW.com
‘It would be “wrong in principle” for the High Court to rule on the existence of a valid arbitration agreement between two companies ahead of any actual proceedings, as this would deny the arbitral tribunal the power to rule on its own jurisdiction, a judge has found.’
OUT-LAW.com, 8th June 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
High heels row: Inquiry launched by MPs following petition – BBC News
‘Women who have been made to wear high heels at work are being invited to share their experiences with MPs, as part of a new inquiry.’
BBC News, 9th June 2016
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
Refusnik rev: the vicar whose council tax protest could put him in jail – The Guardian
‘Retired clergyman Paul Nicolson, who is refusing to pay council tax in solidarity with those hit by benefit cuts, explains why he’s happy to take the consequences.’
The Guardian, 8th June 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
EU referendum: Voter registration extension could face legal challenge – Daily Telegraph
‘The EU referendum could face a legal challenge after the deadline for voter registration was extended by 48 hours when a Government website crashed.’
Daily Telegraph, 9th June 2016
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
CPS will not bring charges against MI6 over rendition of Libyan families – The Guardian
‘Prosecutors are set to announce that they are bringing no charges following a police investigation into MI6’s involvement in the kidnapping of two families who were “rendered” to the late Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi’s prisons, despite protests by the victims and their lawyers that the evidence against the agency is overwhelming.’
The Guardian, 8th June 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Man ordered to tell police of sex plans ‘devastated’ – BBC News
‘A man who must give police 24 hours’ notice before he has sex after he was cleared of rape has said the ruling “puts an end to your life”.
BBC News, 8th June 2016
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
More than 1,200 FGM cases recorded across England in three months – The Guardian
‘Midwives have called for renewed efforts to tackle female genital mutilation (FGM) after more than 1,200 cases were recorded across England in just three months. This includes 11 Britons who were identified as being subject to FGM.’
The Guardian, 9th June 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Sino Channel Asia Ltd v Dana Shipping and Trading Pte Singapore and another – WLR Daily
Sino Channel Asia Ltd v Dana Shipping and Trading Pte Singapore and another [2016] EWHC 1118 (Comm)
‘The charterer engaged a third party company to arrange contracts which would be concluded in the charterer’s name but performed by the third party. Through the third party, the charterer entered into a contract of affreightment with the owner. The principal contact point between the owner and the charterer was a junior employee at the third party company. When a dispute arose the owner appointed an arbitrator and e-mailed their notice of arbitration to the third party’s employee, calling on the charterer to appoint their arbitrator. The charterer having not responded, the owner’s arbitrator, in accordance with the terms of the contract, proceeded as the sole arbitrator and made an award in favour of the owner. The charterer applied, pursuant to section 72(1)(b)(c) of the Arbitration Act 1996, for a declaration that the award had been made without jurisdiction, on the ground that the third party’s employee had not had authority to accept service of notice of commencement of arbitration proceedings on the charterer’s behalf and that service on him had not been in accordance with section 76 of the 1996 Act. The owner contended that the employee had had actual implied authority and/or ostensible authority to receive notice of arbitration on the charterer’s behalf.’
WLR Daily, 20th May 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Singh v Secretary of State for the Home Department – WLR Daily
Singh v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 492
‘When a party seeks to appeal to the Upper Tribunal on the grounds that there had been bias or misconduct on the part of the First-tier Tribunal, the following guidance should be followed. (1) Any application for permission to appeal, if based (in whole or part) on such a ground, should be closely scrutinised. Such an allegation, if to be sufficient to merit the grant of permission at all, should ordinarily be expected to be properly particularised and appropriately evidenced. (2) If an allegation of bias or misconduct is raised which is adjudged sufficient to merit the grant of permission to appeal then it should be normal practice for the Upper Tribunal thereafter to obtain the written comments of the judge concerned. (3) Such written comments of the judge, where obtained, should be provided to the parties for the purposes of the appeal hearing in the Upper Tribunal. In addition, any such written comments should be retained on the file pending any possible further appeal to the Court of Appeal. (4) There may be some cases where it may be necessary to obtain the tribunal judge’s own note or record of the entire hearing since proceedings in the First-tier Tribunal are not ordinarily recorded and no transcript of the hearing will be available. (5) It will normally be likely to be of assistance to the Upper Tribunal to know what the advocate for the respondent has to say as to what happened or what was said before the First-tier Tribunal. Providing such observations is more likely to help produce a fuller and accurate picture of what actually happened or was said in the First-tier Tribunal. Where the advocate does not have a precise note or recollection, the Upper Tribunal can be told. (6) Whether oral evidence is needed at the hearing of the appeal on the issue of what happened or what was said below should be carefully considered by the parties. (7) It is likely to be important in appeals of this nature for the file to be reviewed and any directions given by an Upper Tribunal judge in good time before the substantive appeal hearing (para 53).’
WLR Daily, 27th May 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
HC Trading Malta Ltd v Tradeland Commodities SL – WLR Daily
HC Trading Malta Ltd v Tradeland Commodities SL [2016] EWHC 1279 (Comm)
‘The parties were in communication in relation to a proposed transaction whereby the defendant would purchase 250,000mt of clinker from the claimant. However, no actual shipments occurred and some months after the last significant communication between the parties, the claimant asserted that there was a binding contract, containing a London arbitration clause, that the defendant was required to perform. The defendant denied that any such contract had been concluded. The claimant made clear its settled intention to make a contractual claim against the defendant in a London arbitration pursuant to the arbitration clause, so that such an arbitration could be viewed as imminent. The defendant, denying the existence of the contract, had no claim of its own against the claimant, and indicated that it would contest jurisdiction once the arbitration proceedings were commenced. The claimant, prior to commencing arbitration proceedings, issued a claim in the High Court by which it sought a declaration that there was a binding arbitration agreement subject to English law and which covered its proposed claims. The defendant applied, inter alia, to have that claim set aside.’
WLR Daily, 2nd June 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v AXN; Regina v ZAR – WLR Daily
Regina v AXN; Regina v ZAR [2016] EWCA Crim 590
‘Where an offender convicted of a crime has rendered assistance to the police or other law enforcement authorities, the police may provide the court with information regarding the assistance rendered in a confidential letter signed by a senior police officer, known as a “text”, but the obligation of the police to provide a text when requested by the offender is a very limited one. Although the court will always expect the police to inform the court of the fact that the police have made a decision not to provide a text as matter of case management, it is sufficient if the police merely state that they will not provide any information to the court in relation to the offender’s assertions of assistance. The police are not required to give any explanation of their reasons for the decision, or the stage at which they decided not to provide any information. The police need do no more than say that the police will not provide any information to the court. Such a statement to the court can generally be provided by letter and not by text. There may unusually be circumstances where the police would have to reveal in the reply the assertions of the offender that he had provided assistance; in such a case it might therefore be necessary to provide the response in the form of a text. Whether it is provided by letter or text, it must be signed by a senior officer of police (normally a superintendent) or an equivalent senior official in other law enforcement agencies (paras 6, 18, 22).’
WLR Daily, 27th May 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
