‘Earlier intervention and more formal measures of success are needed if confiscation orders are to be successfully used by the UK courts to deprive fraudsters of the proceeds of their crimes.’
OUT-LAW.com, 20th April 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
Van der Merwe v Goldman and another [2016] EWHC 790 (Ch)
‘The claimant and the first defendant were husband and wife and the joint freehold owners of a house, where they lived. On 24 March the claimant and the first defendant executed a transfer of the title to the house to the claimant alone, for no stated consideration. On 27 March the claimant executed a deed of settlement whereby he settled the house on the terms of that deed and appointed himself and the first defendant as trustees of the settlement. The claimant also executed a transfer of the title to the house to himself and the first defendant as the trustees of the settlement. The principal beneficiaries of the settlement were the claimant, the first defendant, their children and remoter issue. Although the transactions were entered into in order to obtain certain tax advantages, in fact, as a consequence of a change in the law, they gave rise to a substantial tax liability. The claimant and first defendant brought a claim for an order setting aside the transfer of 24 March and the settlement and transfer of 27 March. In issue in the proceedings, to which the revenue was joined as a second defendant, was whether the transactions were governed by common law rules for declaring a contract to be void by reason of mistake or the equitable rules for setting aside a gift for mistake.’
WLR Daily, 11th April 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘An estate adjoining the foreshore on the east side of the Wash owned a private fishery with an exclusive right to take shellfish over part of the foreshore. In 1970 the estate granted a lease of that exclusive right to the claimant. The claimant brought proceedings against the defendants alleging that they had been fishing for cockles in areas of foreshore which were part of the private fishery of which he was the lessee. The defendants accepted that a private fishery had been established by prescription but disputed its extent. In particular, they contended that it did not extend to large sandbanks which had been detached from the foreshore until the channels separating them had silted up; that such sandbanks were not subject to the doctrine of accretion, properly understood; and that, even if they were, it would not follow that the fishery rights had increased commensurately since that would have required a Crown grant and the power of the Crown to make such a grant had been removed by Magna Carta. The judge, however, held that the terms of the grant presumed as a result of the past prescriptive activities was a grant before 1189 of a fishery extending over the whole of the foreshore as it varied from time to time, and accordingly included the sandbanks; that on that basis, the defendants were liable in damages; and that the most practical of the various alternative lines put forward as the defined seaward boundary of the fishery was the mean low water mark of spring tides, rather than extreme low water as contended for by the claimant. The defendants appealed and the claimant cross-appealed. The Court of Appeal dismissed the defendants’ appeal and held that as conditions changed and more or less of the seabed was exposed at low water, the area of the private fishery would expand or shrink, and held, allowing the claimant’s cross-appeal in part, that the fishery extended in law as far as lowest astronomical tide, which was the lowest point to which the tide fell as a result of normal astronomical forces.’
WLR Daily, 13th April 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The Broads comprised over 300 square kilometres of wetland landscapes in east Norfolk and Suffolk. The Broads Authority (“the authority”) was constituted under the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988 and had a general duty to manage the Broads. The authority was also the local planning authority for the area and a harbour and navigation authority. However, the Broads was not a National Park designated under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, nor was the authority a National Park Authority under that statute. In January 2015 the authority passed a resolution by which it decided that the brand “Broads National Park” be adopted for marketing related purposes. The claimant sought judicial review of that decision on the ground, inter alia, that unless it conformed to the “Sandiford principle” it should not hold itself out as a National Park. That principle, set out in para 2.15 of the Report of the National Park Policies Review Committee 1974, stated that the preservation and enhancement of natural beauty should take precedence to the promotion of public enjoyment. An issue arose as to whether a public body which in law was not a National Park, could represent itself (and allow itself to be represented) as a National Park and thereby to enjoy the benefits of National Park status despite the fact that the public body had decided to cease to seek to become a National Park, inter alia, because it did not wish to be subject to the legal duties imposed on National Parks and National Park Authorities.’
Regina (Harris and another) v Broads Authority [2016] EWHC 799 (Admin)
WLR Daily, 12th April 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A High Court judge has expressed concern at “the substantial degree of uncertainty that exists” in relation to how the courts, both magistrates and the bankruptcy county court, should deal with the enforcement of domestic council tax liability orders in the context of the availability of the remedy by way of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.’
Local Government Lawyer, 19th April 2016
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘British expats living in Europe are today heading to the High Court in the hope of forcing the Government to let millions of them vote in the EU referendum.’
Daily Telegraph,
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘Changes made to the UK government’s Housing and Planning Bill will confine the sale of starter homes to those aged 23 or over and require a proportion of the discount on their purchase price be repaid if the homes are sold on within 20 years.’
OUT-LAW.com, 19th April 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘The explosion of genetic testing in the last half century has produced unquantifiable benefits, allowing scientists to understand the constitution of genetic disorders and dramatically improve disease diagnosis, avoidance and treatment. Consider the near-eradication of Tay-Sachs, a fatal neurodegenerative disease, since the introduction of screening in the 1970s; the standardisation of newborn testing; and the introduction of BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing for inherited cancer genes.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 19th April 2016
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The Criminal Cases Review Commission was supposed to provide a safety net for those wrongly convicted, but it hasn’t shone a light on miscarriages of justice.’
The Guardian, 19th April 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Lower-than-expected court fees from high-value cases and increased demand in the criminal justice system are behind the Ministry of Justice’s (MoJ) request for £427m extra funding over and above its designated department spending limit for 2015-16, it has emerged.’
Legal Futures, 20th April 2016
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘Lily Allen’s awful experience – being stalked, then failed by the criminal justice system – is sadly all too common.’
The Guardian, 19th April 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The government is paying more than £4m each year in compensation to people who were held unlawfully in immigration detention centres, figures show.’
BBC News, 20th April 2016
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘A man who urinated on the Manchester Cenotaph has been ordered to spend 200 hours cleaning war memorials across the city as part of his punishment.’
The Guardian, 20th April 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘A boy as young as eight is among scores of children feared by judges to be at risk of forced marriage as official figures reveal police are struggling to bring cases to court.’
The Guardian, 20th April 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘A judge has offered to pay the court fine of a Bradford teenager who stabbed a paedophile on his doorstep after he avoided jail for abusing her when she was just eight-years-old.’
The Independent, 19th April 2016
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal has upheld a decision to conduct a solicitor-own client assessment in private so as to protect legal professional privilege (LPP), even though the client had given a waiver to enable international law firm Dechert to defend its multi-million pound bills.’
Litigation Futures, 20th April 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Council tax – how do you go about setting aside and/or appealing a council tax liability order? It turns out to be far from straightforward (you might already have known this. I didn’t!). In Okon v London Borough Of Lewisham [2016] EWHC 864 (Ch) – quite astonishingly, an appeal against a making of a bankruptcy order – Mr. Robin Hollington QC addressed the issue. The bankruptcy petition was founded on a number of council tax liability orders and the efforts of Ms Okon to set aside those orders were at issue.’
Nearly Legal, 19th April 2016
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘A “hot-tempered” father accused of killing his six-year-old daughter had a conviction for assaulting her as a baby quashed, a court has heard.’
BBC News, 19th April 2016
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025