Apollo Theatre ceiling collapse family seeks payout – BBC News
‘A family injured when the Apollo Theatre ceiling collapsed is suing the theatre’s owners for compensation.’
BBC News, 7th February 2014
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘A family injured when the Apollo Theatre ceiling collapsed is suing the theatre’s owners for compensation.’
BBC News, 7th February 2014
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘The number of registered sex offenders in England and Wales has risen by more than a third in the past five years. More than 40,000 registered sex offenders, including 2,700 judged to pose a serious risk to the public, are living in the community and being monitored by probation services.’
Daily Telegraph, 9th February 2014
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘John Gardner FBA is Professor of Jurisprudence and a Fellow of University College. He was formerly Reader in Legal Philosophy at King’s College London (1996-2000), Fellow and Tutor in Law at Brasenose College, Oxford (1991-6) and Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford (1986-91). He has also held visiting positions at Columbia University, Yale University, the University of Texas, Princeton University, the Australian National University and the University of Auckland. He serves on the editorial boards of numerous journals including the Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Legal Theory, Law and Philosophy, and The Journal of Moral Philosophy. Called to the Bar in 1988, he has been a Bencher of the Inner Temple since 2002 (although he does not practice).’
Date: 28th April 2014, 6.00pm
Location: UCL Gustave Tuck Lecture Theatre, Wilkins Building, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT
Charge: Free, registration required
More information can be found here.
‘Two brothers have been jailed for trafficking 12 Czech and Slovak men into the UK to exploit them for wages and benefits.’
BBC News, 7th February 2014
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Our keynote speaker will be The Honourable Mrs Justice Rose, whose career has spanned the Independent Bar, the Public Sector and the Judiciary.
The keynote speech will be followed by a panel discussion and Q&A with:
Margaret Casely Heyford – Head of Legal, John Lewis
Clive Rich – Media Lawyer and Negotiator, involved in executive coaching of women in the City.
Kathleen Harris – Partner at Arnold & Porter LLP, White Collar Criminal Defence Practice Group.
Alison Levitt – Principal Legal Advisor to the Director of Public Prosecutions
Nicky Oppenheimer – Chair of Central Government and Head of International Arts and Heritage Practices, Odgers Berndtson.’
Date: 24th March 2014, 5.30-9.00pm
Location: Middle Temple Hall
Middle Temple Lane
EC4Y 9AT London
United Kingdom
Charge: Free, registration required
More information can be found here.
‘Nine people have been sent to prison for conspiracy to supply Class A drugs across England.’
BBC News, 7th February 2014
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Criminals will be made to pay towards the cost of their court case under legislation introduced to Parliament today by Justice Secretary Chris Grayling.’
Ministry of Justice, 5th February 2014
Source: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-justice
‘A client’s loss of mental capacity in the course of proceedings does not automatically terminate their solicitor’s retainer, the High Court ruled yesterday.’
Litigation Futures, 6th February 2014
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Readers over the age of 24 do not fall into Jack Wills’ core target market, and may therefore be unfamiliar with the clothing brand’s “Mr Wills” pheasant logo. On the other hand, those readers who are Jack Wills devotees may want to check when you get home that you have not got confused and accidentally purchased, for about the same price, a House of Fraser product adorned with this equally delightful but nonetheless different bird. If you did get confused, it is perfectly understandable. After all, they’re both silhouettes of birds “equipped with accessories associated with an English gentleman”, as Mr Justice Arnold explained last week in Jack Wills Ltd v House of Fraser (Stores) Ltd [2014] EWHC 110 (Ch).’
Competition Bulletin from Blackstone Chambers, 4th February 2014
Source: www.competitionbulletin.com
‘Richardson v Director of Public Prosecutions [2014] UKSC 8. The tactics of protesters engaging in demonstrations, or acts of civil disobedience, frequently raise interesting questions of law. A demonstration by two activists opposed to the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian Territories, who entered a shop in Covent Garden which sold produce from the Dead Sea, produced on an Israeli settlement, recently resulted in the Supreme Court addressing two such questions.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 7th February 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Public lawyers across the country are anxiously scrutinising yesterday’s response by the Lord Chancellor, Chris Grayling, to the Judicial Review consultation and the associated Criminal Justice and Courts Bill. They are seeking to ascertain the extent to which access to judicial review will be restricted and, in the case of many firms with legal aid contracts in public law, to see if whether their business will remain financially viable at all.’
UK Constitutional Law Group, 6th February 2014
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘The Supreme Court has allowed the removal of two pieces of land, that were incorrectly registered as town or village greens (TVGs), from the register preventing their redevelopment, despite the landowners’ lengthy delays in applying for the rectifications.’
OUT-LAW.com, 7th February 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Controversial proposals to restrict judicial review will go ahead by way of a “a tough package of reform”, the government confirmed yesterday. Publishing its response to the consultation, Judicial Review: Proposals for further reform, the justice secretary, Chris Grayling, said: “I believe in protecting judicial review as a check on unlawful executive action, but I am equally clear that it should not be abused, to act as a brake on growth.”
LegalVoice, 6th February 2014
Source: www.legalvoice.org.uk
‘Would it be a fantasy too far to imagine that the ghost of the late Lord Denning has been whispering in the ears of their Lordships Neuberger, Clarke, Sumption, Carnwath and Hodge? Possibly not, given the Denning-esque outcome in the wills “mix-up” case of Marley v Rawlings and another. The facts of the case were simple. Mr and Mrs Rawlings wanted mirror wills leaving everything to each other and thereafter to Terry Marley who they treated as a son. On 17 May 1999 their solicitor visited them with drafted wills for the purpose of execution. However, Mr Rawlings executed Mrs Rawlings’ will and vice versa. Both wrongly executed wills were witnessed by their solicitor and a secretary. Each will correctly used such relevant words as “his”, “her”, “testator” and “testatrix”.’
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 6th February 2014
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
‘In Hazel and Huggins v Manchester College [2014] EWCA Civ 72 the Court of Appeal has dismissed the College’s appeal against a majority Employment Tribunal decision that the dismissals of two lecturers at HMP Elmley in Kent, Mrs Hazel and Mrs Huggins (“H&H”) were not for an “economic technical or organisational” (ETO) reason that entailed a change in the workforce, but were because they refused to agree to new, reduced terms, and this was connected to a TUPE transfer, making their dismissals automatically unfair.’
Education Law Blog, 7th February 2014
Source: www.education11kbw.com
The Housing Benefit (Transitional Provisions) (Amendment) Regulations 2014
The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Consumer Credit) (Miscellaneous Provisions) Order 2014
The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Appointed Representatives) (Amendment) Regulations 2014
The Olive Oil (Marketing Standards) Regulations 2014
The Football Spectators (2014 World Cup Control Period) (Amendment) Order 2014
The Housing Benefit (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2014
The St George’s Healthcare National Health Service Trust (Transfer of Trust Property) Order 2014
Source: www.legislation.gov.uk
‘In order to determine whether conduct which amounted to an offence contrary to section 3(1) of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 of being the owner of a dog which was dangerously out of control in a public place was a “crime of violence”, for the purposes of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme, it was necessary to have regard to the nature of the offence rather than its consequences. Negligently to allow a dog to escape, even a dog known to be aggressive, did not constitute a crime of violence.’
WLR Daily, 3rd February 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk