‘Royal Mail has been fined £1.5m by the regulator for being late with first class deliveries and overcharging customers for second class stamps.’
BBC News, 10th July 2020
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Security firm G4S has been fined £44m by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) as part of an agreement that will see it avoid prosecution for overcharging the Ministry of Justice for the electronic tagging of offenders, some of whom had died.’
The Guardian, 10th July 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Oxton Farm had unsuccessfully sought judicial review of the decision of Harrogate Borough Council (the Council) to grant outline planning permission for 21 new homes and a village shop in Bickerton, North Yorkshire in September 2018 and appealed the judgment of the High Court to the Court of Appeal.’
No. 5 Chambers, 8th July 2020
Source: www.no5.com
‘This article has been prepared by two barristers at 33 Bedford Row outlining the basic principles in relation to redundancy as well as calculation of any redundancy payment.’
33 Bedford Row, 30th June 2020
Source: www.33bedfordrow.co.uk
‘The Domestic Abuse bill which is making its way through the legislative process and which was delayed as a result of the calling of the general election (and the prorogation of Parliament) has reached the report stage in the commons this week. It is expected to be amended to incorporate the reforms to the legislation recommended by an expert panel and which will implement those recommendations and commence a pilot scheme to trial them.’
Becket Chambers, 1st July 2020
Source: becket-chambers.co.uk
‘Charles and Emma Villiers married in 1994. They moved to Scotland the following year and lived there throughout their married life. The couple separated in 2012, when the wife and the parties’ daughter left the former matrimonial home and moved to England, where the wife continues to reside. Mrs Villiers issued a divorce petition in July 2013 on the basis of her habitual residence for 12 months preceding the presentation of the petition.’
Parklane Plowden Chambers, 1st July 2020
Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk
‘This case is a High Court challenge by statutory judicial review to the Secretary of State’s decision to grant a development consent order for the construction and operation of two gas-fired generating units at an existing coal-fired power station site in Yorkshire. The decision was contrary to the recommendation of her examining Panel. The challenge was unsuccessful largely because the Panel itself had made an error which the Secretary of State declined to follow. The Panel had misinterpreted national policy on the assessment of “need” for the development and the Secretary of State had been entitled to conclude that that need outweighed the substantial adverse environmental impacts of the proposed development.’
No. 5 Chambers, 30th June 2020
Source: www.no5.com
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
A v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] EWCA Civ 858 (09 July 2020)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Government of Ecuador v Larco [2020] EWHC 1797 (Admin) (10 July 2020)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd v Lufthansa Technik AG [2020] EWHC 1789 (Ch) (10 July 2020)
The Law Debenture Trust Corporation Plc, Re [2020] EWHC 1792 (Ch) (09 July 2020)
Basra & Ors v Badhan [2020] EWHC 1825 (Ch) (09 July 2020)
Starling v The Climbing Gym Ltd & Ors [2020] EWHC 1833 (Ch) (09 July 2020)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Valla PTC Ltd v Faiman [2020] EWHC 1819 (Comm) (09 July 2020)
High Court (Patents Court)
Lenovo (Singapore) PTE Ltd v Comptroller General of Patents [2020] EWHC 1706 (Pat) (09 July 2020)
Facebook Ireland Ltd v Voxer IP LLC [2020] EWHC 1806 (Pat) (07 July 2020)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Millett v Corbyn [2020] EWHC 1848 (QB) (10 July 2020)
P14 Medical Ltd v Mahon [2020] EWHC 1823 (QB) (09 July 2020)
Ameyaw v McGoldrick & Ors [2020] EWHC 1924 (QB) (09 July 2020)
Source: www.bailii.org
‘The Court of Appeal has delivered judgment in the case of Robinson v Department for Work and Pensions [2020] EWCA Civ 859, a decision which confirms that it is insufficient for a Claimant to argue, on a claim under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010, that “but for” their disability they would not have been put in a situation that led to unfavourable treatment. Rather, the focus needs to be on the reasons for the treatment itself. In so finding, the Court has approved of the obiter comments of Underhill LJ in Dunn v Secretary of State for Justice [2019] IRLR 298.’
Old Square Chambers, 7th July 2020
Source: www.oldsquare.co.uk
‘A landlord under a fixed-term flexible tenancy did not have any right to determine the tenancy prior to the expiry of the fixed term because the tenancy agreement did not contain a forfeiture clause. The tenancy did not fall within the ambit of s82(1)(b) Housing Act 1985 and the landlord could only seek possession under s107D at the end of the fixed term.’
Tanfield Chambers, 30th June 2020
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal has upheld a law firm’s case that a £125,000 professional negligence claim against a firm for its handling of a divorce was issued too late. In Holt v Holley & Steer Solicitors (a firm), judges held that any alleged cause of action happened in the lead-up to divorce proceedings being finalised, and this was the starting point for the six-year limitation period.’
Law Society's Gazette, 8th July 2020
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The colossal impact of Covid 19 and the steps taken to address it are leading to a ‘plethora of defaults’ warns Mario Draghi. This emerging increase in disputes arises from circumstances like contractual failures in supply chains, disputed insurance claims, insolvency issues from business failures, employment losses and property disputes e.g. between landlords and tenants.’
Doughty Street Chambers, 1st July 2020
Source: insights.doughtystreet.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal in Dhillon v Barclays Bank Plc and the Chief Land Registrar [2020] EWCA Civ 619 has recently given judgment in an important case involving the rectification of the Land Register. It has given new guidance on the test of ‘exceptional circumstances’ in Schedule 4 of the Land Registration Act 2002. It has also repeated a warning to practitioners that pleadings should clearly identify the issues to be resolved.’
39 Essex Chambers, 1st July 2020
Source: www.39essex.com
‘This month’s newsletter comprises articles from:
Nigel Edwards Q.C. and Daniel Walker– “Sentencing Serious Violent and Sexual Offenders”;
Ayesha Smart and Nigel Edwards Q.C. – “Section 13(1) Terrorism Act 2000 offences- are they strict liability?”;
Sharmila Salvi – “Second Post Mortem Examinations – The Defence Position”;
Andrew Kerr – “Adverse Inferences”; and
Rabia Mir – “How High Fiving Police Officers Turned Off a Jury”.’
33 Bedford Row, 6th July 2020
Source: www.33bedfordrow.co.uk
‘The possibility of a detailed assessment of their costs under Section 70 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (the “Act”) is a possibility that all solicitors should be alive too. It is likely to be encountered in some sense during the course of a career and clients are becoming increasingly aware of the option. When a client changes firms it is also not uncommon for the new solicitors to advise on the prospect of a detailed assessment of the previous bills, especially if they seem high.’
Becket Chambers, 3rd July 2020
Source: becket-chambers.co.uk
‘The Secretary of State for Justice recently confirmed that the government is considering whether to introduce primary legislation to suspend jury trials for offences triable either way as a way to address the backlog of criminal cases arising from the public health crisis. This development has caused alarm amongst practitioners who might be hoping that Humphreys J was right when he said: “I cannot bring myself to believe that there are any persons other than the inmates of a lunatic asylum who would vote in favour of the abolition of trial by jury in serious criminal cases” (Do We Need a Jury? [1954] Crim LR 457).’
6 KBW College Hill, 30th June 2020
Source: blog.6kbw.com
‘The Claimant, Mr Gould, was a vicar of an evangelical Christian church, St Johns, Downshire Hill, in Hampstead, London (the Respondent). In August 2016, he was dismissed from his role. The reason given by the Respondent was an irretrievable breakdown in relations between the Claimant and the Trustees, the Leadership Team, certain members of staff and other members of the congregation. The Claimant alleged that the reason for his dismissal was the breakdown of his marriage in May 2015. He brought a claim to the ET, alleging direct marriage discrimination, and that his dismissal was for a discriminatory reason and procedurally unfair.’
3PB, 1st July 2020
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
‘The recent judgment of the Court of Appeal in Re LC (A Child) (Placement Order) [2020] EWCA Civ 787 should serve as a reminder to practitioners in the field of Children Law that each case has to be considered on its peculiar facts and by reference, where applicable, to the welfare checklist in section 1 of the Children Act 1989 or the enhanced welfare checklist contained in section 1 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002.’
No. 5 Chambers, 30th June 2020
Source: www.no5.com
‘In PQ (a child, by her litigation friend) v Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, Martin Spencer J was required to rule on an application that the identity of the Claimant and her family be anonymised, for the purposes of a liability-only clinical negligence trial. Although only a short, first-instance decision, the case effectively makes anonymisation orders in such circumstances all but inevitable.’
Parklane Plowden Chambers, 30th June 2020
Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025