‘On 30 April 2019, giving the lead judgment in the Court of Appeal, the Lord Chief Justice considered that the impact of a custodial sentence is likely to be heavier during the coronavirus pandemic than it would otherwise be, and that this was a factor that judges and magistrates can and should keep in mind when sentencing.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 12th May 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘A High Court judge has been forced to issue a detailed judgment in writing because his voice was “breaking up” at the end of a telephone hearing with a litigant in person (LiP) and the law firm suing her for fees.’
Legal Futures, 13th May 2020
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal has upheld the lawfulness of Practice Direction 51Z, the Housing Law Practitioners Association (HLPA) has reported.’
Local Government Lawyer, 12th May 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The Presidential Guidance issued in connection with the conduct of Employment Tribunal proceedings during the COVID-19 pandemic was effective from 18th March 2020.’
3PB, 4th May 2020
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
‘The government acted unlawfully when it refused to compensate two low-income households left up to £180 a month out of pocket when their legacy benefits were wrongly stopped and they had no choice but to move on to universal credit, the appeal court has ruled.’
The Guardian, 12th May 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The protection offered by a registered trade mark is defined by the particular goods and services for which it is registered. But how broad can a trade mark specification be? Too narrow and you risk having no control over the use of your brand in closely linked goods or services, and with little wriggle room for protection as you expand your offering. Too broad and you run the risk of having the trade mark registration challenged.’
Technology Law Update, 12th May 2020
Source: www.technology-law-blog.co.uk
‘In Goodenough v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police [2020] EWHC 695 (QB), the High Court, Turner J, considered a claim for damages brought by Robin Goodenough’s mother and sister. The claims arose out of Mr Goodenough’s death on 27 September 2003 following a short car chase and traffic stop. The Claimants asserted that police officers had assaulted Mr Goodenough and that thereafter had been breaches of Article 2 of the Human Rights Act 1998. The case provides useful insights into the approach to be taken when conducting a judicial analysis of incidents such as this and may be relied upon by those arguing that an Art. 2 inquest is required in order to meet investigative short comings.’
UK Police Law Blog, 12th May 2020
Source: ukpolicelawblog.com
‘Clearly recent events have had a huge impact on business and substantial changes to the nature and size of workforces is expected which will, unfortunately, require consideration of redundancies.’
Six Pump Court, 11th May 2020
Source: www.6pumpcourt.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd [2020] EWCA Civ 599 (12 May 2020)
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Koza Ltd & Anor v Koza Altin Isletmeleri AS [2020] EWHC 1092 (Ch) (12 May 2020)
Dreams Ltd v Pavilion Property Trustees Ltd & Anor [2020] EWHC 1169 (Ch) (12 May 2020)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Russian Commercial Bank (Cyprus) Ltd v Khoroshilov [2020] EWHC 1164 (Comm) (12 May 2020)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Quality Solicitors Harris Waters v Okonkwo [2020] EWHC 1168 (QB) (12 May 2020)
Barclay & Anor v Barclay & Ors (No 2) [2020] EWHC 1180 (QB) (07 May 2020)
Source: www.bailii.org
‘Denying exiled Chagos islanders the right to return to their homes on the Indian Ocean archipelago is a continuing breach of their human rights and not just a historical injustice, the court of appeal has been told.’
The Guardian, 12th May 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘On a sunny afternoon in April 2020, a couple sit on the grass in Finsbury Park, North London. A police officer approaches them. A month later, they plead Not Guilty at Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court to an offence of Leaving/Being Outside Home Without Reasonable Excuse, contrary to Regulations 9(1) and 6(1) of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 (as amended). Two months later, they attend court again for trial.’
The 36 Group, 24th April 2020
Source: 36group.co.uk
‘A judge has questioned the Crown Prosecution Service’s decision to charge a man who said he was homeless with allegedly breaching coronavirus regulations by leaving “the place where he was living”.’
The Guardian, 12th May 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Immigration Law Update with articles from Kate Jones, Tori Adams, Daniel Wand, Ben Haseldine and Jyoti Wood.’
4 King's Bench Walk, 5th May 2020
Source: www.4kbw.co.uk
‘In this blog, we consider the employment protections from discrimination and dismissal available to disabled people who are also shielding during Covid-19.’
1MCB, May 2020
Source: 1mcb.com
‘This is the Court of Appeal judgment in the appellant’s challenge to the lawfulness, extent and effect of the stay of Part 55 possession proceedings until 25 June 2020 under Practice Direction 51Z.’
Nearly Legal, 11th May 2020
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘The standard of proof in dishonesty cases: simple to state, difficult to apply. In Bank St Petersburg PJSC v Arkhangelsky [2020] EWCA Civ 408 the difficulty led the Court of Appeal to reverse an experienced High Court judge’s dismissal of a counterclaim. The matter was remitted after a 46 day trial spread over 6 months in 2016, 22 months waiting for a 388 page judgment and nearly 2 years waiting for the Court of Appeal decision on 18 March 2020. Jack Dillon and Amy Held consider the implications.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 10th May 2020
Source: hardwicke.co.uk
‘It is not uncommon for defendants to professional negligence claims to argue that the claimant should be barred from recovering damages because his or her cause of action is tarred by illegality. However, over recent years, the law has taken a variety of approaches to when illegality will provide a defence. With the issue about to come before the Supreme Court again, Helen Evans and Ian McDonald of 4 New Square explain.’
4 New Square, 4th May 2020
Source: www.4newsquare.com
‘The 126 claimants in this case were all employees of Barclays Bank who, at the start of their employment between the late 1960s and early 1980s, were required to undergo a medical examination. Examinations were carried out by Dr Bates (now deceased), a general practitioner who was not an employee of the Bank but engaged as an independent contractor to provide this service, and did so at his home. The Claimants alleged that they were sexually assaulted by Dr Bates while undergoing this examination and brought a group action against the Bank for compensation. A preliminary issue was whether Barclays could be vicariously liable for his actions.’
3PB, May 2020
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025