“The Crown Prosecution Service has published detailed guidance on how to handle sex abuse allegations. It comes down to is a simple shift in thinking that can make a profound difference: Trust, rather than doubt, what the victim is saying.”
BBC News, 17th October 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“The seminars will provide an authoritative and concise overview of the year’s most significant legal developments and will clearly set out their impact on the areas of law under discussion.
At each seminar, the two speakers will be Professor Charles Mitchell (an author of Goff and Jones: The Law of Unjust Enrichment and Underhill and Hayton: Law Relating to Trusts and Trustees) and Professor Ben McFarlane (an author of The Structure of Property Law and Land Law: Text, Cases and Materials).”
1.5 CPD hours
Date: Unjust Enrichment – 4th December 2013, 6.00-7.30pm
Land Law and Trusts – 11th December 2013, 6.00-7.30pm
Location: UCL Faculty of Laws – Graduate Wing, 1-2 Endsleigh Street, London WC1H 0EG
Charge: Single seminar: £100. Both seminars: £160.
More information can be found here.
“Guessing that it was not on my usual diet of journals, a colleague recently suggested an article in The Conveyancer that might be of interest. Emma Lees had written an interesting piece ((2013) 77 Conv. 211) on protest occupations and actions for possession but one aspect unrelated to the main topic intrigued me more than any other. In Olympic Delivery Authority v Persons Unknown [2012] EWCA 1012 Ch, the ODA, established under s.3 of the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006, sought injunctions to restrain protesters from entering and/or occupying land that was being developed as part of the Olympic site. Mr Justice Arnold had held that he was required to balance the rights of the putative protesters under Articles 10 and 11 with the ODA’s rights to peaceful enjoyment of possessions under the 1st Protocol (at [24]). I’d skimmed the case last year when judgment was delivered but hadn’t really noticed the point that Emma Lees was making: that it was ‘somewhat surprising that [the ODA] is deemed capable also of possessing human rights’ (Lees, p.215) as it is acknowledged elsewhere in the judgment as a public authority (though Lees uses the term ‘public body’).”
UK Constitutional Law Group, 17th October 2013
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
“Both our common law constitution and human rights law treat liberty as a central value. Yet, immigration detention remains less constrained, both normatively and institutionally, than other forms of detention. International human rights bodies and courts, and indeed domestic courts, routinely review and indeed sometimes condemn detention of migrants. Yet, that jurisprudence has been subject to a convincing critique, for failing to properly scrutinise the necessity of immigration detention. Many scholars have thus pointed out the law’s anomalously indulgent approach to immigration detention, compared with other forms of deprivation of liberty. Yet, powerful as this critique is, it sometimes fails to address prior questions concerning the political purposes and legal grounds of detention. By examining these grounds and purposes, both legitimate and illegitimate, the lecture will aim to elucidate the manner in which immigration law produces reasons to detain, and thwarts any test of necessity from effectively constraining the state’s power to detain migrants. The diverse approaches of the UN Human Rights Committee, European Court of Human Rights and Court of Justice of the European Union will be contrasted. The likely impact of new EU norms on detention of asylum-seekers and pre-removal detention will also be explored.”
Date: Thursday 21st November 2013, 6.00-7.00pm
Location: UCL Faculty of Laws, Bentham House, Endsleigh Gardens, London WC1H 0EG
Charge: Free
More information can be found here.
“Social media has revolutionised the way we interact with each other and is increasingly being used by law firms and lawyers to communicate with their clients.
This seminar will explore how social media can assist with business development and how the personal brand of an individual solicitor can complement that of their firm’s. It will also promote discussion around core issues, including reputation management and ethics.
This will be an interactive seminar and you will be encouraged to tweet questions to the speakers at the end of each session.”
CPD hours 3.5
Date: 4th December 2013, 12.30-4.50pm
Location: The Law Society, 113 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1PL
Charge: See website of details
More information can be found here.
“Crime against households and adults in England and Wales fell 7% to a record low in the year to June, official figures have revealed.”
The Guardian, 17th October 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Of all areas of law, it is property – particularly as it relates to housing and home – that affects people most consistently and directly. Yet, while people are intensely interested in property, property – broadly understood as the laws, doctrines and policies that govern the acquisition, accumulation, management and transfer of resources – does not appear to reciprocate. This lecture explores how the traditional methodologies of property law scholarship – centred on the status quo of established rights, obligations and duties, and invoking the ‘property values’ of certainty, autonomy, efficiency – marginalise the human ‘subjects’ of the property system. The lecture seeks to raise questions concerning the role of property law and property scholarship: is it to understand and make the best out of the available material; to achieve change in a progressive (or progressive but incremental) way; or to contribute to, or at least not to prevent, progress towards greater substantive equality between property’s ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’? In exploring these questions, the lecture reflects on the hidden politics of property discourse and its impact on the (in)visibility of the property outsider’s human experience within legal analyses, arguments and decision-making. Finally, this analysis is related to a series of ‘property problems’ in which ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’ compete for ownership or access to resources, with the aims of considering an alternative approach to problem-based property scholarship that starts from the person rather than the law, and reflecting on the implications of this approach for normative arguments invoking ‘property’s values’.”
Date: Thursday 5th December 2013, 6.00-7.00pm
Location: UCL Faculty of Laws, Bentham House, Endsleigh Gardens, London WC1H 0EG
Charge: Free
More information can be found here.
“Liz Davies explains that, although the courts may be able to help a few individuals, we need to step up the political battle.”
Garden Court Chambers Blog, 17th October 2013
Source: www.gclaw.wordpress.com
“‘Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it’, wrote Santayana at the dawn of the twentieth century. And indeed, throughout history, politicians and policy-makers have — more or less self-consciously — turned to the lessons of their nation’s past to shape their judgement and inform their decision making. I shall be asking the question, ‘Is this a strategy which can be followed today?’ when the boundaries of nationhood are giving way to global histories and narratives in which forgetting is as important as remembering.”
Date: Tuesday 19th November 2013, 6.00-8.15pm
Location: UCL Cruciform Lecture Theatre, UCL Main Campus, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT
Charge: Free
More information can be found here.
“UCL is hosting a symposium on the occasion of the re-publication of Hersch Lauterpacht’s An International Bill of Rights of Man, with an Introduction by Professor Philippe Sands, UCL,
published by Oxford University Press
The symposium will have the participation of
Sir Elihu Lauterpacht QC CBE
And contributions from:
Lord Faulks QC
(1 Chancery Lane)
Baroness Helena Kennedy of the Shaws QC
(Labour Member, House of Lords)
Lord McNally
(Minister of State at the Ministry of Justice, and Deputy Leader of the House of Lords)
Stuart Wheeler
(Treasurer, United Kingdom Independence Party)
Chaired by
Professor Philippe Sands QC
(UCL / Matrix Chambers)”
Date: Thursday 31st October 2013, 6.30-7.30pm
Location: UCL Faculty of Laws – Graduate Wing, 1-2 Endsleigh Street, London WC1H 0EG
Charge: Free
More information can be found here.
The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (External Investigations) Order 2013
The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (External Requests and Orders) (Amendment) Order 2013
The Syria (Restrictive Measures) (Overseas Territories) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2013
The Transfer of Functions (Elections and Referendums) Order 2013
The General Optical Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules Order of Council 2013
The Nitrate Pollution Prevention (Designation and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2013
The Patents (Isle of Man) Order 2013
Source: www.legislation.gov.uk
Supreme Court
Chester, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice [2013] UKSC 63 (16 October 2013)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Beverley Winchester & Anor v Farmer [2013] EWCA Civ 1235 (16 October 2013)
B4U Network (Europe) Ltd v Performing Right Society Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1236 (16 October 2013)
West Sussex County Council v Pierce (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 1230 (16 October 2013)
JJ Food Service Ltd v Zulhayir [2013] EWCA Civ 1226 (16 October 2013)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Flogas Britain Ltd v Calor Gas Ltd [2013] EWHC 3060 (Ch) (16 October 2013)
SC Johnson & Son Inc v Hillshire Brands Company & Anor [2013] EWHC 3080 (Ch) (16 October 2013)
Maresca v Brookfield Development & Construction & Anor [2013] EWHC 3151 (Ch) (16 October 2013)
Invideous Ltd & Ors v Thorogood & Ors [2013] EWHC 3015 (Ch) (11 October 2013)
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Al Nasr CO for Coke and Chemicals v Fairdeal Supplies Ltd [2013] EWHC 3131 (Comm) (16 October 2013)
AP-Fonden v Bank of New York Mellon SA/NV & Ors [2013] EWHC 3127 (Comm) (16 October 2013)
Source: www.bailii.org
“The Lord Chancellor Chris Grayling recently told The Spectator that he wants ‘to see our Supreme Court being supreme again’. In light of his respect for the court, he should read today’s judgment on prisoner votes very carefully indeed, as should David Cameron who has already endorsed the decision as a ‘great victory for common sense’.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 16th October 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“Solicitors will no longer need to have a degree in order to qualify under a radical shake-up of legal training that it has been claimed could spell the ‘death’ of some law undergraduate courses.”
Times Higher Education, 17th October 2013
Source: www.timeshighereducation.co.uk
“Transport chiefs in London have been accused of reopening a bitter row over homosexuality which saw Boris Johnson step in to ban advertisements on London buses promoting the idea that gay people could be ‘cured’.”
Daily Telegraph, 17th October 2013
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“The High Court’s refusals to hear the outcome of two defamation claims serve as a pre-cursor to stiffer rules on libel tourism, two experts have said.”
OUT-LAW.com, 16th October 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
“Halsbury’s Law Exchange has assembled a panel of great experience and distinction to discuss ethical practice in arbitration.
Speaking at this event:
Khawar Qureshi QC (Chair) – Barrister at Serle Court
Gary Born – Partner at WilmerHale
Cyrus Benson – Gibson Dunn
Hilary Heilbron QC – Brick Court Chambers
Points for discussion include:
Are the existing professional codes or conduct or institutional rules sufficient?
Are there any reasons why arbitrators should not be able to sanction parties and Counsel who behave improperly?
What are the main issues which require further regulation (if any) and how – by code/guidance or court and arbitral decisions?”
Date: Monday 18 November 2013, 6.00-8.00pm
Location: The Honourable Society of Lincoln’s Inn, The Old Hall, London WC2A 3TL
Charge: Free
More information can be found here.
“Judges ruled that schools should not have to ‘to safeguard children against harm in all circumstances’ after a boy injured himself on a water fountain.”
Daily Telegraph, 16th October 2013
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“In ‘Evans (No. 1)’, a 2010 case concerning the transfer of suspected insurgents for questioning in certain military centres in Afghanistan, the High Court had ruled, partly in an open judgment, partly in closed proceedings, that UK transfers to NDS Kandahar and NDS Lashkar Gah could proceed without risk of ill treatment (which is contrary to UK policy), but that it would be a breach of the policy and therefore unlawful for transfers to be made to NDS Kabul. It was subsequently discovered that there had not been jurisdiction to follow a closed procedure in that case, but what was done could not be undone, so the confidentiality agreements and the closed judgment remained in force.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 16th October 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024