‘There has been a 9% increase in the number of complaints to law firms last year, but they continue to resolve eight out of 10 themselves, according to official statistics.’
Legal Futures, 31st July 2020
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘In the recent case of Re T (A Child: Refusal of Adoption Order) [2020] (EWCA Civ 797), the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by grandparents against a decision of the trial judge not to grant them an adoption order in respect of their grandchild, who had lived with them since birth. The Court of Appeal made an adoption order in their favour without remitting for retrial, dispensing with the mother’s consent. Although special guardianship is the legal framework more typically used to secure a long term placement of a child with extended family, the unusual facts of the case merited the making of an adoption order rather than leaving the existing special guardianship order in place. This post discusses the “unusual” circumstances that led to the Court of Appeal’s decision.’
Transparency Project, 31st July 202
Source: www.transparencyproject.org.uk
‘The High Court has today handed down judgment in R (EA and Anor) v Chairman of the Manchester Arena Inquiry [2020] EWHC 2053 (Admin) refusing permission for judicial review to a group of survivors who unsuccessfully sought core participant status in the forthcoming inquiry into the Manchester Arena bombing attacks. A full legal analysis of the decision will follow. This article provides a summary of the judgment and its context.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 30th July 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘A man has been sentenced to life in prison for the “inexplicable” murder of a woman who he “lured” to his flat after meeting in a pub.’
BBC News, 30th July 2020
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
KN (A Child) (Art 15 Transfer) [2020] EWCA Civ 1002 (30 July 2020)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Frank Schrijver UK Ltd & Anor v Smart Dry Intl Ltd & Ors [2020] EWHC 2092 (Ch) (30 July 2020)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Apache North Sea Ltd v Ineos FPS Ltd [2020] EWHC 2081 (Comm) (30 July 2020)
Vale SA v BSG Resources Ltd & Anor [2020] EWHC 2021 (Comm) (30 July 2020)
High Court (Patents Court)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
Source: www.bailii.org
‘The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) is prosecuting a UK subsidiary of Europe’s largest aerospace multinational, Airbus, along with three men over alleged corruption in an arms deal with Saudi Arabia.’
The Guardian, 30th July 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘An attempt by terrorism offender Mohammed Zahir Khan to overturn a ban on early release from prison has been thrown out by the High Court.’
BBC News, 30th July 2020
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘In this case the drivers argue Uber is a transportation company for whom they provide services as “workers”. Uber disagrees, arguing it is a technology services provider acting as an agent for drivers in their business relationship with passengers. The question for the Court is whether the drivers are “workers” for the purposes of s.230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, s.54(3)(b) of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 and reg.2(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998. If this threshold is passed, a further issue is when the drivers are workers. Possible options include: (1) from the collection of the passenger until the driver reaches the passenger’s destination, (2) from the moment a booking is accepted until the passenger is dropped off, (3) any time when the driver is in the relevant territory with the Uber app switched on. This case is important as it provides an opportunity for the Supreme Court to provide guidance on the interpretation of Autoclenz v Belcher [2011] UKSC 41 and the correct approach to when it is permissible to disregard written contractual terms in an employment context.’
Old Square Chambers, 21st July 2020
Source: www.oldsquare.co.uk
‘Rape prosecutions and convictions have halved in three years, prompting concerns that the offence is effectively being decriminalised. These are some of the challenges rape victims face in getting their cases to court.’
The Guardian, 30th July 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Video and phone hearings are set to become a permanent feature of the Senior Courts Costs Office (SCCO) even after the coronavirus pandemic has passed, the Senior Costs Judge has said.’
Litigation Futures, 30th July 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘A £37m schools reorganisation in the south Wales valleys has been quashed after a judicial review.’
BBC News, 30th July 2020
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘The Crown Prosecution Service has faced a barrage of criticism after rape convictions in England and Wales fell to a record low, with police publicly censuring its charging policies and a judge paving the way for a landmark legal challenge.’
The Guardian, 30th July 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Across the board people have been reassessing how the traditional views of what it means to be an “employee” fit within our modern world.’
Littleton Chambers, 21st July 2020
Source: littletonchambers.com
‘In a much-anticipated judgment, the Supreme Court in Sevilleja v Marex Financial Ltd unanimously allowed an appeal against a decision which, if it had been allowed to stand, would have denuded the intentional economic torts of much of their practical utility.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 28th July 2020
Source: hardwicke.co.uk
‘First it was CPR PD 51Z. Then CPR 55.29. Not to mention Arkin v Marshall [2020] EWCA Civ 620; Hackney LBC v Okoro [2020] EWCA Civ 681; TFS Stores Ltd v Designer Retail Outlet Centres (Mansfield) General Partner Ltd [2020] EWCA Civ 833. Has any other element of civil procedure law, not least one with a mere 5 month lifespan, ever received consideration no fewer than three times by the Court of Appeal? Such is the significance of the coronavirus-related general stay of possession claims.’
Falcon Chambers, 20th July 2020
Source: www.falcon-chambers.com
‘There is, generally, a right to cross-examine. It was established in the 1992 rules, and is present in the same form in r 16(5) of the 2000 Rules:
“A person entitled to appear at an inquiry shall be entitled to call evidence and the appellant, the local planning authority and any statutory party shall be entitled to cross-examine persons giving evidence, but, subject to the foregoing and paragraphs (6) and (9), the calling of evidence and the cross-examination of persons giving evidence shall otherwise be at the discretion of the inspector.” ’
No. 5 Chambers, 21st July 2020
Source: www.no5.com
‘The Claimant was due to have his 4 day trial commence in Leeds Crown Court on 27th April 2020. On 23rd March the Lord Chief Justice pronounced that no new trials would commence until further notice. This was categorised during the claim as a “listing decision”; one that affected every single criminal case in the jurisdiction that was pending trial before the Crown Court. The application to extend the Claimant’s CTL was made the same day the decision was made on the recent pro-forma application which states that each application is “made due to the current public health crisis”. The application was heard on what would have been the first day of trial and in a written judgement of the Claimant’s CTL was extended. These applications have been made up and down the country on the same basis and so the claim was of wide public importance.’
Exchange Chambers, 23rd July 2020
Source: www.exchangechambers.co.uk
‘The appeal to the Supreme Court in Sevilleja v Marex Financial Ltd [2020] UKSC 31 re-states the principle that a company’s shareholders cannot recover damages against a wrongdoer for loss which is “reflective” of a loss caused by the wrongdoer to the company itself.’
Hailsham Chambers, July 2020
Source: www.hailshamchambers.com
© Inner Temple Library 2025