Bounce Back Loans, Injunctions and the Misappropriation of Funds – 33 Bedford Row
‘Make sure you can lawfully access the money, or you will find yourself paying a heavy penalty!’
33 Bedford Row, 4th June 2020
Source: www.33bedfordrow.co.uk
Covid-19 and Limitation Periods in Cross-Border Disputes – Blackstone Chambers
‘The law governing limitation periods is critical in managing a dispute; a failure to commence proceedings within the required limitation period is usually nothing less than fatal to a claim. This article considers the potential impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on limitation periods affecting international civil litigation in the courts of England and Wales (henceforth, with apologies, the English courts). The focus of this article is on statutory limitation periods, but it is important to note that some claims may also be subject to contractually agreed limitation periods which require separate and careful consideration.’
Blackstone Chambers, 29th May 2020
A Local Authority v The Mother and others [2020] EWHC 1233 (Fam) by Ned Sproston – Broadway House Chambers
‘What can we take away from the judgment in this recent Covid-19 related remote hearing case?’
Broadway House Chambers, 29th May 2020
Source: broadwayhouse.co.uk
Group litigation – taking the lead – Doughty Street Chambers
‘Dominic Lis Waniso Lungowe & ors v Vedanta Resources PLC & anor [2020] EWHC 749 (TCC) gives important guidance on the position and role of lead solicitors in group litigation. It highlights the need for careful written arrangements setting out the relationship between lead and other solicitors and their respective responsibilities.’
Doughty Street Chambers, 19th May 2020
Source: insights.doughtystreet.co.uk
The government has failed care home residents – Doughty Street Chambers
‘This piece analyses the UK government’s performance against ten policy objectives published by WHO Europe. It seeks to shed light on why there have been an estimated 22,000 ‘excess deaths’ in care homes, and why it is still not too late for the government to act.’
Doughty Street Chambers, 1st June 2020
Source: insights.doughtystreet.co.uk
Supreme Court hears argument on whether £14 billion consumer competition class action should proceed against Mastercard – Exchange Chambers
‘The Supreme Court last week heard Mastercard’s appeal seeking to prevent a proposed class action on behalf of 46 million consumers valued at £14 billion from proceeding against it. The case is interesting not merely from the perspective of whether the “juggernaut” of a claim should proceed against Mastercard but also because of its impact on other competition law class actions waiting in the wings and its influence more generally on how the fledgling competition law class action regime will develop in the UK.’
Exchange Chambers, 22nd May 2020
Source: www.exchangechambers.co.uk
Implications for expulsions following the Supreme Court ruling of AM (Zimbabwe) – Garden Court Chambers
‘Cases where applicants seek to resist removal from the UK because of adverse health consequences have given rise to both great passions and difficult points of principle. The decision of the Supreme Court in AM (Zimbabwe) [2020] UKSC 17 gave the opportunity for the UK’s approach to catch up with that taken by the ECtHR in recent years. In this post we look at the implications of the judgment both generally and in relation to two specific scenarios, namely destitution and “fitness to fly”.’
Garden Court Chambers, 19th May 2020
Source: www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk
BI insurance test case set for late July – Litigation Futures
‘The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) is expecting the High Court to hear its test cases on whether business interruption (BI) insurance policies cover Covid-19 in the second half of July.’
Litigation Futures, 1 June 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
Business rates relief: an empty promise? – Falcon Chambers
‘Even before the current Covid-19 outbreak, non-domestic rates were a critical concern for landlords and tenants of business premises alike. This crisis, and subsequent lockdown, has provoked even closer focus on the issue, and led to some major changes to the rates regime.’
Falcon Chambers, May 2020
Source: www.falcon-chambers.com
The consequences of breaching absolute covenants – Tanfield Chambers
‘Residential leases can last a long time. A lot can change in 99 years or 999 years. What the landlord deemed an absolute “no-no” in 1965 might not seem such a bad idea now. However, following the Supreme Court’s decision in Duval v 11-13 Randolph Crescent Ltd [2020] UKSC 18; [2020] PLSCS 84 if the landlord has given other leaseholders in the block the benefit of a mutual enforceability covenant, the landlord will put itself in breach of covenant if it gives a tenant permission to do something which would breach an absolute covenant. The consequences of this decision are potentially far reaching.’
Tanfield Chambers, 13th May 2020
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
High Court Dismisses Claim in Drax Challenge – Francis Taylor Building
‘Mr Justice Holgate has given judgment in ClientEarth’s judicial review of the Secretary of State’s decision to make a development consent order for the construction of two gas-fired units, and related development, at Drax Power Station in North Yorkshire (R (ClientEarth) v SSBEIS [2020] EWHC 1303 (Admin)).’
Francis Taylor Building, 22nd May 2020
Source: www.ftbchambers.co.uk
Recent Statutory Instruments – legislation.gov.uk
Coronavirus: Are protests legal amid lockdown? – BBC News
‘Solidarity protests against the death of George Floyd in the US are continuing to take place in the UK – but are they actually legal given the coronavirus lockdown?’
BBC News, 3rd June 2020
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
New Judgment: Serafin v Malkiewicz & Ors [2020] UKSC 23 – UKSC Blog
‘Serafin had sued Malkiewicz & Ors for libel in respect of an article they had published about him in Nowy Czas, a newspaper addressing issues of interest to the Polish community in the UK. The Court of Appeal found that the conduct of the trial by Mr Justice Jay in the High Court had been unfair towards the claimant and allowed the claimant’s appeal. The defendants appealed against that finding to the Supreme Court. They also challenged the Court of Appeal’s analysis of the effect of the Defamation Act 2013, S4, which sets out “the public interest defence” to a defamation claim.’
UKSC Blog, 3rd June 2020
Source: ukscblog.com
Environmental Law News Update – Six Pump Court
‘In this latest Environmental Law News Update, Charles Morgan, Christopher Badger and Mark Davies consider a Court of Appeal case on the meaning of exempt waste operations, a new report on financing energy efficient buildings and the impact of COVID-19 on the aqueous environment.’
Six Pump Court, 26th May 2020
Source: www.6pumpcourt.co.uk
Leasehold enfranchisement – options to reduce the price – Tanfield Chambers
‘In relation to the qualifying criteria and procedure, the Law Commission was asked to make recommendations and the report on those aspects is due in the Spring. On the question of valuation, the Law Commission’s remit was slightly different. It was required to come up with “options” to reduce the premiums payable by leaseholders, not “recommendations”. It will then be a matter for the politicians to decide which option should be adopted. The Law Commission Report (Leasehold home ownership: buying your freehold or extending your lease. Report on options to reduce the price payable (HMSO, 2020), Law Com. No. 387) on those options was published on 9 January 2020.’
Tanfield Chambers, 26th May 2020
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
Mike Gordon: Dominic Cummings and the Accountability of Special Advisers – UK Constitutional Law Association
‘It is far from new for the conduct of Dominic Cummings to be a matter of political controversy. The man who is Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s current chief adviser was the Campaign Director of Vote Leave during the 2016 Brexit referendum, an organisation which was subsequently investigated by the Electoral Commission and fined for breaking electoral spending limits. Cummings has been held in contempt of Parliament, for refusing to attend a session of the House of Commons Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee into ‘Disinformation and “Fake News”’, examining issues raised during the referendum campaign about data use and targeted political advertising. And he is widely believed to have been a key architect of the Prime Minister’s unlawful attempt to prorogue Parliament for five weeks in September 2019, in an undemocratic attempt to subvert an intransigent and hostile legislature at a key moment in the planned process of exiting the EU.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 3rd June 2020
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
“The Law of Humanity”: Home Office no recourse to public funds policy ruled unlawful – UK Human Rights Blog
‘In this judgment on the Home Secretary’s “no recourse to public funds” (NRPF) policy, the Divisional Court of the Queen’s Bench Division has confirmed that it does, citing authority going back to the time of the poor laws.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 3rd June 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
BAILII: Recent Decisions
Supreme Court
Serafin v Malkiewicz & Ors [2020] UKSC 23 (3 June 2020)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
B-T (A Child: Threshold Conditions) [2020] EWCA Civ 697 (03 June 2020)
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Smith, R. v [2020] EWCA Crim 669 (06 May 2020)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Sandu v Italian Judicial Authority [2020] EWHC 1440 (Admin) (03 June 2020)
Pajumagi v Tartu County Court, Viljandi Courthouse, Estonia [2020] EWHC 1424 (Admin) (03 June 2020)
High Court (Chancery Division)
La Micro Group (UK) Ltd & Anor v La Micro Group, Inc & Ors [2020] EWHC 1405 (Ch) (03 June 2020)
Colt Technology Services v SG Global Group SRL [2020] EWHC 1417 (Ch) (03 June 2020)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Carillion Plc v KPMG LLP & Anor [2020] EWHC 1416 (Comm) (03 June 2020)
Pipia v BGEO Group Ltd [2020] EWHC 1359 (Comm) (02 June 2020)
High Court (Patents Court)
Teva UK Ltd v Chiesi Farmaceutici SpA [2020] EWHC 1311 (Pat) (02 June 2020)
Source: www.bailii.org
“Hostile” judge harassed litigant in person, Supreme Court rules – Litigation Futures
‘A High Court judge “harassed and intimidated” a litigant in person in ways which “surely would never have occurred if the claimant had been represented”, the Supreme Court has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 3rd June 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
