‘UK judges are refusing to extradite an alleged American paedophile, who has been on the run from the FBI since 2007, until they receive assurances that his human rights will not be breached.’
The Guardian, 7th October 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The Insurance Act 2015, which does not come into force until August 2016, changes the way in which insurance is conducted. The delay in commencement of the Act is intended, at least in part, to give insurers time to change their policy wording and procedures. It is likely that some of the new policy wordings and procedures will give rise to disputes and in the context of construction insurance in particular, there are likely to be issues relating to the concept of fair presentation of risk that is introduced by the Act.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 14th September 2015
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘Consumers are ‘asked’ to agree to a deluge of contractual terms on an ever more frequent basis. If they do not agree, they are often told to lump it or leave it. However, consumers have, for some time, been protected against being bound by ‘unfair terms’ by virtue of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UCTA) and the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (UTCCR). From 1 October 2015 that statutory protection will change; Part 2 of the Consumer Rights Act (the Act) will replace UCTA (to the extent that it relates to business to consumer contracts) and the UTCCRs (in their entirety) respectively.’
Henderson Chambers, 16th September 2015
Source: www.hendersonchambers.co.uk
‘Ministry of Justice figures show there has been a steep rise in the number of wills being contested in court, and many lawyers think it is because of more complex relationships, with divorces and remarriages.’
BBC News, 7th October 2015
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Chris Milsom considers the recent EAT Judgment which decides that a limited company can sue for discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 .’
Cloisters, 29th September 2015
Source: www.cloisters.com
‘In Ramphal v Department for Transport, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) provided clear guidance on the extent of the role that human resources (HR) departments may legitimately perform during a disciplinary procedure.’
Littleton Chambers, 7th October 2015
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘The double negative is not in error. Shareholder disputes are frequently similar to an old fashioned divorce, with emotion and greed outgunning logic and truth in the contest for control of anything of value left over from the wreckage of a once prosperous partnership. But in the recent BVI case of Zhangyong v Union Zone Management Limited and others, the issue arose as to whether, as with a modern disaffected couple, unhappy shareholders could get a no fault divorce. In Union Zone, the Claimants had sought to establish unfair prejudice under s184I of the BVI Companies Act 2004 (which is similar in effect to s994 Companies Act 2006) but wholly failed to prove the alleged quasi partnership that underpinned the unfair prejudice allegations. The Claimants, who had pleaded winding up on the just and equitable ground as an alternative remedy for unfair prejudice, then sought to avail themselves of that as a free standing remedy, on the basis that it provided “a neat and fair solution”. The relevant question, however, was “a neat and fair solution to what?” The answer was, to their disenchantment with the manner in which the majority was conducting the business of the company. The authorities are clear: wide though the just and equitable jurisdiction may be, it is not a get out of jail free card for disaffected shareholders. Lord Wilberforce said, in Ebrahimi v Westbourne Galleries.’
New Square Chambers, 30th September 2015
Source: www.newsquarechambers.co.uk
‘Mixed residential and commercial developments frequently cause problems for the residential occupiers and work for lawyers, in particular when the commercial units are let to bars or restaurants which create noise and nuisance in the evenings and at weekends.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 16th September 2015
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘Such issues were central in Vestergaard A/S v Bestnet Europe Limited [2013] UKSC 31 (V v B). Shortly afterwards the Patents County Court (two months before it became the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court) had to decide in Pintorex Limited v Parax Limited [2013] EWPCC 36 (P v P), theliability of a sole director and sole shareholder of a company, by the application of the guidelines in Vestergaard. The Judge in P v P was Mr Recorder Alastair Wilson QC, who represented the successful respondents in V v B.’
New Square Chambers, 30th September 2015
Source: www.newsquarechambers.co.uk
‘It is difficult to imagine what could possibly have happened yesterday to cause the CJEU’s judgment in Case C-71/14 East Sussex County Council v Information Commissioner (judgment of 6 October 2015) to slip beneath the waves, but for those who spent the day reading, talking and thinking about Safe Harbo(u)rs (presumably something to do with shipping?) East Sussex represents a comforting return to normality, if not mundanity, where the CJEU is asked straightforward questions and it doesn’t quite answer them.’
Panopticon, 7th October 2015
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
‘Banksy has been described as a pseudonymous graffiti artist, political activist, film director, and painter. In The Creative Foundation v Dreamland Leisure Ltd & Others [2015] EWHC 2556 (Ch) Mr Justice Arnold had to decide the ownership of a mural known as “Art Buff” attributed to Banksy and spray-painted overnight in September 2014 onto an external flank wall of an amusement arcade (”the building”) in Folkestone owned by Stonefield Estates Ltd (“Stonefield”). The ingenuous arguments advanced on behalf Dreamland in support of its claim to be the owner of the mural are arguably at least as imaginative as the mural. The judgment addresses a novel point.’
New Square Chambers, 30th September 2015
Source: www.newsquarechambers.co.uk
‘The bulk of existing consumer rights legislation was enacted before the rise of the internet. Accordingly, it is hardly surprising that it is silent in relation to defective digital products. As the law stands, the legal status of digital content, particularly whether it can amount to “goods” within the meaning of the Sale of Goods Act 1979, is unclear. With the advent of theConsumer Rights Act 2015 this will all change – the Act introduces a new category of sales contract, namely contracts between a trader and consumer in relation to ‘digital content’ (as distinct from goods or services). The rights and remedies for digital content are found in Part 3 of the Act.’
Henderson Chambers, 10th September 2015
Source: www.hendersonchambers.co.uk
‘The police watchdog has warned that public satisfaction with the police continues to fall as fresh figures revealed a record number of complaints against forces in England and Wales last year.’
The Guardian, 7th October 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The Consumer Rights Act 2015 comes into force on 1 October 2015. In anticipation, Henderson Chambers is publishing a series of Alerters reviewing the key provisions. In this final article in the series, Rachel Tandy considers the impact of the legislation on the financial services sector.’
Henderson Chambers, 28th September 2015
Source: www.hendersonchambers.co.uk
‘This article examines the procedure under section 45 of the Arbitration Act 1996 for referring a preliminary question of law arising in arbitral proceedings to the Court. It also touches on some of the specific issues raised by the questions of law referred to the Court in Secretary of State for Defence v Turner Estate Solutions Limited [2015] EWHC 1150 (TCC).’
Hardwicke Chambers, 8th September 2015
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘In its 27 May 2015 Queen’s speech, the Conservative government announced that ‘early legislation will be introduced to provide for an in/out referendum’. The following day, it introduced the European Union Referendum Bill, which passed its third reading in the House of Commons on 7 September 2015 (by 316 votes to 53). The second reading in the House of Lords is scheduled for 13 October 2015. Following the recommendation of the Electoral Commission, the initially proposed question: ‘Should the UK remain a member of the European Union?’ was replaced with an arguably more neutral question: ‘should the UK remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union’.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 7th October 2015
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘It has been an admirable trend of Tribunals in FOIA cases over the last few years that they have been increasingly sceptical of assertions on the part of public authorities that disclosure will provide chilling effects on their activities. An inevitable pattern forms of an insistence that the sky will fall in if information is released, information is released (or leaked), and the sky appears not to fall in. Government grinds on. But Judge Jacobs has provided a little more comfort for such arguments in DWP v Information Commissioner, Slater & Collins [2015] UKUT 535 (AAC). The case related to various risk register documents related to Universal Credit.’
Panopticon, 7th October 2015
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
‘The practice of discriminating against EU migrants in the UK by subjecting them to a residence test for benefit payments is legal, according to a preliminary European court ruling.’
The Guardian, 6th October 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘In certain occupations, it is common for the employment contract to require the employee to sleep overnight at the place of employment some or all nights of the week and to be “on call” should any incidents arise. Typically those occupations attract low wages and include care workers, supervisors at boarding schools and porters in residential blocks of flats. If the employee is entitled to be paid for all the hours whilst they are present at the workplace, even when they are asleep, and not just those hours when they are attending incidents, then their average wage may fall below the National Minimum Wage [“NMW”]. What, then, is the test to be applied to whether hours spent asleep are to be taken into account?’
No. 5 Chambers, 30th September 2015
Source: www.no5.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024