‘Issue #35 of Spire Barristers’ Family Law Newsletter: edited by Connie Purdy and Taz Irshad; news and Case Reviews by Georgina Dalton.’
Spire Barristers, 22nd July 2020
Source: spirebarristers.co.uk
‘Geeta Koska recently published a blog on the future impact on the protection of children’s welfare of the High Court’s decision in R (W, A Child By His Litigation Friend J) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department & Another [2020] EWHC 1299 (Admin). The blog was published in “Children and Young People Now”.’
1MCB, July 2020
Source: 1mcb.com
‘The High Court found that there was no duty of good faith or duty to act reasonably in respect of an option to withdraw engines from a maintenance agreement. The judgment provides a helpful discussion of the case law concerning the principles of contractual interpretation and implied terms (including on the basis of the Braganza v BP Shipping Ltd and Socimer International Bank v Standard Bank London line of cases and relational contracts). The judgment also serves as a reminder to practitioners that evidence of statements made in precontractual negotiations, including mutual understanding (subject to limited exceptions) are generally inadmissible to assist with the interpretation of a concluded contract. Written by Rebecca Farrell, counsel, at 3 Paper Buildings.’
3PB, July 2020
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
‘As the UK emerges from lockdown, and as local spikes start to emerge, it is increasingly important that new cases of coronavirus are identified quickly and that anyone who may be infectious complies with guidelines on quarantine, self-isolation and contact tracing. This article considers the potential of Part 2A Public Health Orders as a tool for local authorities to enforce testing and quarantine requirements where infectious individuals refuse to comply voluntarily and pose a threat to public health.’
4-5 Gray's Inn Square, 20th July 2020
Source: www.4-5.co.uk
‘The Children’s Investment Fund Foundation is a charitable company with more than $4bn in assets helping children in developing countries. It was founded by Sir Christopher Hohn and Ms Jamie Cooper in 2002, but it became difficult to manage when their marriage broke down. These proceedings stem from the steps they took to resolve those difficulties. Specifically, they agreed that in exchange for a grant of $360 million to Big Win Philanthropy, a charity founded by Ms Cooper, she would resign as a member and trustee of CIFF.’
UKSC Blog, 29th July 2020
Source: ukscblog.com
‘The loss of a loved one is already an incredibly difficult and emotional time. Sometimes the situation is made worse by the discovery of suspicious circumstances surrounding the making of the will. This series of posts will examine some of the ways in which a will can be challenged.’
Pallant Chambers, 22nd July 2020
Source: www.pallantchambers.co.uk
‘Two applicants have been told they cannot claim adverse possession of council-owned land which is not adjacent to their own.’
Local Government Lawyer, 30th July 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Worcestershire County Council has lost an Upper Tribunal case over which school a child with special educational needs should attend.’
Local Government Lawyer, 30th July 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Measures brought in to tackle the pandemic meant that universities, much like everyone else, had to implement policies of working or learning remotely. These are likely to continue at varying extents across England for the 2020-2021 academic year. If students, in particular those residing otherwise abroad, do not need to attend lectures in person, and face difficulties in returning to England due to travel restrictions, then this is likely to raise an issue for landlords of HMOs targeted at that sector of the market. This is because students renting a room in shared accommodation or those who had agreed to do so for the next academic year are likely to try to surrender their lease. Where does this leave the landlords?’
4-5 Gray's Inn Square, 17th July 2020
Source: www.4-5.co.uk
‘Readers of this blog will be aware of the dispute between the Scottish and UK Governments over who should legislate in areas hitherto covered by EU law after Brexit (or more accurately after the end of the post-withdrawal Implementation Period). That dispute saw the Scottish Parliament enact its own Continuity Bill intended as an alternative to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (EUWA). That Bill – the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Legal Continuity) (Scotland) Bill (the “first Continuity Bill”) (discussed here and here) – was subsequently referred to the Supreme Court and held to be outwith devolved competence so far as it conflicted with the EUWA (discussed here). Although some provisions of the Bill survived the Supreme Court reference, the Scottish Government decided not to proceed with Bill, but undertook to bring back the remaining provisions on a future occasion.’
UK Constitutional Law Associations, 30th July 2020
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘In three conjoined judicial reviews concerning the legality of the Home Secretary’s exercise of her power under paragraph 9 of Schedule 10 of the Immigration Act 2016 to provide accommodation to those who are granted immigration bail, Mr Justice Johnson held in R (Humnyntskyi) v SSHD [2020] EWHC 1912 (Admin) that each of the three claimants had been unlawfully denied such accommodation, and that the relevant policy was systemically unfair.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 30th July 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Video manipulation software, including ‘deepfake’ technology, poses problems for remote courts in verifying evidence and that litigants or witnesses are who they say they are, a report has warned.’
Legal Futures, 29th July 2020
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal has given important clarity and breathing space to commercial and residential tenants in its recent judgment in TFS Stores Ltd v BMG (Ashford) Ltd & Ors [2020] EWCA Civ 833 by confirming that all parts of proceedings involving a claim for possession brought by a landlord are automatically stayed.’
Wilberforce Chambers, 23rd July 2020
Source: www.wilberforce.co.uk
‘Complex commercial arrangements can generate difficulties for the parties where their obligations are set out in a multitude of related contracts or a single contract containing inconsistent dispute resolution clauses. It is not uncommon for parties to complex commercial contracts to find themselves arguing over the interpretation of inconsistent jurisdiction clauses which are either found in a single contract, or different but related contracts forming part of the same arrangements. Disagreements over the interpretation of jurisdiction clauses can arise in large-scale energy and infrastructure projects, and other types of arrangements where transactions usually take place under a master agreement. This note will explore the most common scenarios in which courts are often asked to interpret inconsistent dispute resolution clauses, with particular focus on the ‘centre of gravity’ approach adopted by courts.’
3PB, 27th July 2020
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
‘In Re: A (Surrogacy: s.54 Criteria) [2020] EWHC 1426 (Fam) Mr Justice Keehan granted an application for a parental order in a case where a child had been conceived using surrogacy. The case was notable as it required the court to ‘read down’ a number of the statutory criteria contained in section 54 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008.’
Garden Court Chambers, 23rd July 2020
Source: www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court’s decision in Sevilleja v. Marex Financial Ltd, 15 July 2020, fundamentally restates the doctrine of reflective loss in company law so that:
A claim by a company’s creditor against a third party will not be barred where it reflects loss suffered by the company, even if the creditor is also a shareholder; and
There is no longer an exception to the doctrine where the wrongdoer has brought about the company’s impecuniosity.’
4 New Square, 17th July 2020
Source: www.4newsquare.com
© Inner Temple Library 2025