‘In these strange and confusing times, every aspect of our legal system has been touched by delays, adjournments, revision and fundamental change. The management of housing, so reliant on face-to-face contact at all stages, has been subject to significant amendment.’
Park Square Barristers, 14th April 2020
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
‘Society is experiencing the biggest Government led restriction of movement since the Second World War, instigated by The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 which came into force at 1pm on 26th March 2020.’
St John's Buildings, 15th April 2020
Source: stjohnsbuildings.com
‘Many will no doubt pore over the Supreme Court’s recent judgment in Elgizouli v Secretary of State for the Home Department to evaluate its significance for the common law constraint of prerogative power. Ultimately, however, the Supreme Court held that it was not the common law but rather a failure by the Home Secretary to consider his duties under the Data Protection Act 2018 that rendered the decision in question unlawful. This post considers the significance of the Data Protection Act 2018 for protecting the fundamental rights and freedoms of data subjects. Although the narrow ground upon which the judgment was decided will offer some procedural protections for fundamental rights and freedoms, the case’s significance lies in its suggestion as to how data protection law might offer some scope for extending the extraterritorial application of human rights beyond the limits of the European Convention on Human Rights.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 17th April 2020
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘The House of Lords Constitution Committee recently published its recommendations in relation to the government’s fast-tracked Coronavirus Bill 2020. The House of Lords debates have welcomed the government’s decision not to derogate from the ECHR (in contrast to several other contracting parties). However, in seeking to ensure ECHR-compliance of the proposed scheme, the Committee placed significant emphasis on the availability of judicial review and administrative oversight of the powers contained therein to ensure their legality and constitutional acceptability. In this piece I suggest that, whilst these suggestions are no doubt welcome, the Committee’s focus on procedure rather than on the substantive requirements of human rights is indicative of wider concerning trends in human rights discourse.’
Oxford Human Rights Hub, 9th April 2020
Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk
‘It is a brave new world. The lockdown brought about by the coronavirus crisis is forcing the hand of our infamously old-fashioned profession to adapt quickly or lose myriad court dates; leaving our clients without satisfactory and timely resolutions to their disputes.’
3PB, 19th April 2020
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
‘The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 were made by the Health Secretary on 26 March 2020. Understandably, given the speed with which the crisis was and still is developing, the Regulations were made using a statutory emergency procedure, meaning that they were not subject to Parliamentary scrutiny. They have yet to be challenged in the courts. In the meantime, a lively and important debate has developed about whether those regulations are lawful.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 20th April 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Marie Dinou, the woman from York convicted of a non-existent coronavirus offence after being found “loitering between platforms” at Newcastle railway station was lucky to be charged with something newsworthy. Had hers been a mundane motoring charge it is highly unlikely that anyone would have spotted that her treatment by the police and the justice system was stupid, incompetent and unlawful.’
Pump Court Chambers, 7th April 2020
Source: www.pumpcourtchambers.com
‘The Metropolitan police are to review the role of officers in schools after a legal challenge raised concerns that they could have a disproportionately negative effect on pupils from black and minority ethnic groups.’
The Guardian, 20th April 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Two judgments from the Supreme Court have set restrictions on the scope of vicarious liability. In Barclays Bank v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13 the test was whether the tortfeasor was in fact the ‘employee’ of the employer. The claimants alleged that they had suffered sexual abuse by a GP hired by the bank to carry out medical assessments of employees.’
Law Society's Gazette, 20th April 2020
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The applicant in Hafeez is a sixty-year old man with a number of health conditions, including diabetes and asthma. He was arrested pursuant to a request by the US Government for his extradition on drugs charges. He challenges the decision to extradite him, arguing that his pre-conviction and post-conviction detention conditions in the US would be inhuman and degrading; and that there is a real risk that he would be sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 18th April 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Alaina Wadsworth, Chris Horsefield and Ben Brown, who all work within the Insurance & Reinsurance Group at CMS, comment on the decision handed down by the UK Supreme Court earlier this month, in the matter of Barclays Bank Plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13.’
UKSC Blog, 20th April 2020
Source: ukscblog.com
‘Covid 19 has already had a tragic impact upon the health of many in the UK. One notable other consequence however, has been the impact upon the British economy.’
Parklane Plowden, 3rd April 2020
Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk
‘The procedure by which a landlord may recover arrears of rent in relation to commercial premises was fundamentally changed several years ago. Chapter 2 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 abolished the common law right to distrain for arrears of rent, replacing it with the commercial rent arrears recovery procedure (‘CRAR’). But what has been the impact of this change on whether a landlord taking enforcement action to recover arrears waived his right to forfeiture of a lease?’
Tanfield Chambers, 9th April 2020
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘The public inquiry into the Grenfell Tower disaster could resume in virtual form with evidence taken by Zoom videolink, its senior legal adviser has told bereaved people and survivors.’
The Guardian, 21st April 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
High Court (Administrative Court)
Mallya v Government of India [2020] EWHC 924 (Admin) (20 April 2020)
High Court (Patents Court)
Akebia Therapeutics Inc v Fibrogen, Inc [2020] EWHC 866 (Pat) (20 April 2020)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Slade v Abbhi [2020] EHWC 935 (QB) (20 April 2020)
Bonsor v Bio Collectors Ltd [2020] EWHC 918 (QB) (20 April 2020)
Source: www.bailii.org
‘Many small to medium sized businesses will, thankfully, rarely be involved in litigation. As a result, they will have little experience of what is to follow once they commence a dispute resolution process regardless of the nature of that process. In many cases, disputes will be addressed via litigation[1]. In many instances the perceived wrong done by the other side will drive the dispute forward. It is only perhaps when some of the initial expectation of a quick positive trial outcome fades, whilst the pre-trial process winds on, that parties will wonder ‘should this have gone on for so long’ and/or ‘was there a quicker way to do this?’ Nevertheless, once litigation is commenced it takes on an energy of its own and many parties are able to see the case through to an initial judgment. Matters may thereafter get more complex as (further) fatigue potentially sets in.’
33 Bedford Row, 10th April 2020
Source: www.33bedfordrow.co.uk
‘The Coronavirus Act 2020 (“the Act”) came into force on 25th March 2020. Among other things, the Act confers powers on public health officers, constables, and immigration officers to enable them to manage potentially infectious persons during the Covid-19 crisis. Schedule 21 of the Act contains provisions that enable the relevant officials to exercise their powers in respect of individuals in England, Wales and Scotland. This article will only focus on Part 2 of Schedule 21, which pertains to the powers of the government in England.’
3PB, 17th April 2020
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
‘In a judgment handed down by Snowden J on a bank holiday on 13 April 2020 in the matter of Carluccio’s Limited (in administration) [2020] EWHC 886 (Ch), we have the first decision regarding the application of the Government’s Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (“the Scheme”). The Scheme allows employers to claim for 80% of an employee’s salary (up to a maximum of £2500 per month) if staff are kept on the books doing no work (furloughed) rather than dismissed as redundant.’
Parklane Plowden, 16th April 2020
Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk
‘Ironically, in terms of its timing, on the day the country went into lockdown, the Upper Tribunal took a decision which will have a significant impact for those seeking to challenge restrictions on their liberty under the Mental Health Act 1983. This case originated in Cornwall and the solicitors were Conroys Solicitors of Truro. Sally Daulton of Devon Chambers represented the patient before the First-tier Tribunal and obtained leave to appeal. Before the Upper Tribunal, the patient was represented by Robert Pezzani and Stephen Simblet QC of Garden Court Chambers’ Civil Liberties Team.’
Devon Chambers, April 2020
Source: www.devonchambers.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025