‘The Supreme Court has ruled out claims for physicatric harm suffered by family members witnessing death or serious injury as a result of medical negligence. Rosalind English talks to Judith Rogerson of 1 Crown Office Row about the implication of this ruling.’
Law Pod UK, 1st February 2024
Source: audioboom.com
‘A proposed amendment to English law could stop innocent people being imprisoned under the controversial joint enterprise doctrine.’
The Guardian, 1st February 2024
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Two teenagers who murdered 16-year-old Brianna Ghey after devising a “kill list” of children to target will be named for the first time today.’
BBC News, 2nd February 2024
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Lawyers have raised alarm at the lack of oversight in local government, as a Guardian analysis found almost one in 10 councils in the UK have been subject to a corruption investigation in the past decade.’
The Guardian, 2nd February 2024
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Allowing journalists to report on hearings is welcome. Now editors need to give them the resources to be able to tell these complex stories properly.’
The Guardian, 31st January 2024
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The recently announced plan to increase the minimum income requirement (MIR) to £38,700 led to widespread criticism, with the government appearing to exclude all but the affluent from establishing family life in the UK. This has led to a partial policy shift, with it now announced that the threshold to sponsor a spouse will not rise to this amount until 2025, with an interim rise to £29,000 taking place in the Spring. Nonetheless, even this lower amount will be unaffordable to many families, raising questions about the compatibility of the rise with Convention rights. In R (MM) Lebanon v SSHD [2017] UKSC 10 the Supreme Court found that the initial MIR, set at £18,600, was lawful. In this post, I will highlight two key problems with the judgment, along with the failure of the MIR to restrict the social security entitlement of many affected families: the MIR’s primary justification.’
EIN Blog, 31st January 2024
Source: www.ein.org.uk
‘The director of public prosecutions is appealing to the supreme court in an ongoing and expensive battle to overturn the acquittal of two protesters found to have acted reasonably in calling Iain Duncan Smith “Tory scum”.’
The Guardian, 31st January 2024
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Successive UK Governments have promised to regulate less, better or smarter to promote economic growth and competitiveness while protecting consumers, workers and the environment. Relatively low visibility reviews and reports – recast and relaunched over time – have belied the public politics of “burning red tape”. But as the fireworks faded over Westminster as 2024 began, you could be forgiven for thinking that the lingering smoke was from the incineration of swathes of regulation produced during EU membership and revoked by the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023. Quite how big this bonfire really is, and how much is smoke and mirrors, is quantified in the first six-monthly statutory report to Parliament under section 17 of the Act and published on 22 January 2024. This post examines what we do and do not learn from this report about what is really changing in UK regulatory policy.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 29th January 2024
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘A builder who killed a customer in a brutal hammer attack after “chronic” delays in building an extension to her home has been jailed for life.’
The Guardian, 31st January 2024
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Two High Court judges have described the system of criminal legal aid as “slowly coming apart at the seams” and reliant on solicitors’ goodwill and sense of public duty.’
Legal Futures, 1st February 2024
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
Supreme Court
Potanina v Potanin [2024] UKSC 3 (31 January 2024)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Imani v General Dental Council [2024] EWHC 132 (Admin) (31 January 2024)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Baldudak v Matteo [2024] EWHC 167 (Ch) (31 January 2024)
High Court (King’s Bench Division)
Santander Consumer (UK) PLC v Chaudhry [2024] EWHC 170 (KB) (31 January 2024)
Nightingale & Anor v Bromford Housing Association Ltd [2024] EWHC 136 (KB) (31 January 2024)
Source: www.bailii.org
‘Businesses across the UK have been forced to pay an extra 10% on average for their gas and electricity because suppliers routinely add third-party broker commissions to their bills, according to a leading litigation law firm.’
The Guardian, 31st January 2024
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Atrial concerning the copyright and performance rights of 1960s guitar legend Jimi Hendrix’s bandmates, bass guitarist Noel Redding and drummer “Mitch” Mitchell, is to go ahead, a judge has ruled.’
Law Society's Gazette, 30th January 2024
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Braceurself Ltd v NHS England (No 2 – Substantive Appeal) [2024] EWCA Civ 39 (30 January 2024)
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Ripple Markets APAC PTE Ltd v P Dot Money Ltd & Anor [2024] EWHC 156 (Comm) (30 January 2024)
ABFA Commodities Trading Ltd v Petraco Oil Company SA [2024] EWHC 147 (Comm) (30 January 2024)
High Court (King’s Bench Division)
Source: www.bailii.org
‘The recently announced plan to increase the minimum income requirement (MIR) to £38,700 led to widespread criticism, with the government appearing to exclude all but the affluent from establishing family life in the UK. This has led to a partial policy shift, with it now announced that the threshold to sponsor a spouse will not rise to this amount until 2025, with an interim rise to £29,000 taking place in the Spring. Nonetheless, even this lower amount will be unaffordable to many families, raising questions about the compatibility of the rise with Convention rights. In R (MM) Lebanon v SSHD [2017] UKSC 10 the Supreme Court found that the initial MIR, set at £18,600, was lawful. In this post, I will highlight two key problems with the judgment, along with the failure of the MIR to restrict the social security entitlement of many affected families: the MIR’s primary justification.’
EIN Blog, 31st January 2024
Source: www.ein.org.uk
‘It is difficult to provide a satisfying account of constitutional accountability in the UK without considering the internal processes of major political parties (especially the governing party and the largest opposition party). Yet, intra-party processes often do not receive the attention of constitutional scholars. Therefore, in this blog, I will discuss the constitutional importance and the legal treatment of intra-party processes. I will start with the constitutional significance of certain intra-party processes. Subsequently, I will discuss the consequences of the existing private law status of parties. I will then comment on the amenability of intra-party processes to judicial review in light of a recent judgment delivered by Fordham J in R (Tortoise Media) v Conservative Party [2023] EWHC 3088 (Admin) (“Tortoise Media”). The blog concludes with a caution against a blanket rejection of judicial review of intra-party processes.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 31st January 2024
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘Consumer claims firm SSB Law, which went into administration earlier this month owing six litigation funders £200m, faces up to 1,400 professional negligence claims, it has emerged.’
Legal Futures, 31st January 2024
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘A daughter seeking to propound a copy of her deceased mother’s will has been “let down” by her solicitors in failing to comply with an unless order to issue proceedings, the High Court has ruled.’
Legal Futures, 31st January 2024
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025