How to survive pupillage – Counsel
‘As the new pupils settle in, Daniel Sokol offers his views on the challenges of pupillage.’
Counsel, November 2016
Source: www.counselmagazine.co.uk
Day: 31 October 2016
Funding revisited – New Law Journal
‘David Wright examines a recurring costs theme.’
New Law Journal, 18th October 2016
Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk
Sharia Courts interfered to protect domestic abusers, MPs told – The Independent
‘A leading British Sharia Council intervened to prevent men accused of domestic violence from facing criminal charges, according to testimony submitted to a Commons Committee.’
The Independent, 31st October 2016
Source: www.independent.co.uk
Cost benefit analysis – New Law Journal
‘Costs orders: who pays & when, asks Kerry Underwood.’
New Law Journal, 20th October 2016
Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk
Regina (Drax Power Ltd and another) v HM Treasury and another – WLR Daily
Regina (Drax Power Ltd and another) v HM Treasury and another [2016] EWCA Civ 1030
‘The claimants who were renewable source electricity generators brought proceedings for judicial review challenging the decision of the Government, announced in the Budget statement on 8 July 2015 and to take effect on 1 August 2015, to remove the exemption for renewable source electricity (“RSE”) from the Climate Change Levy (“CCL”), an environmental tax levied on electricity, gas, solid fuels and liquefied petroleum gas supplied to business and the public sector. Use by domestic consumers was excluded from the CCL. Article 15 of Council Directive 2003/96/EC permitted member states to apply exemptions or reductions in tax to electricity of renewable origin, and article 3 of the Parliament and Council Directive 2009/28/EC obliged them to ensure by 2020 at least 15% of all energy came from renewable sources. The removal of the exemption was provided in section 49 of the Finance (No 2) Act 2015, amending paragraph 19 of Schedule 6 to the Finance Act 2000. The judge dismissed the claimants’ claim for judicial review, holding that (1) the exemption fell within the scope of European Union law; (2) the claimants had failed to establish an express or inferred assurance that the Government had promoted a legitimate expectation not to withdraw the RSE exemption, that there was no basis for the contention that there had to be a two-year time limit for any withdrawal and that a prudent and circumspect operator should not have inferred that the exemption would not be removed without such a time limit; and (3) on the evidence the exemption’s removal had been justified in the public interest and, notwithstanding its evident harm to the claimants’ private interests and right to property in the form of concluded contracts to supply companies, came within the appropriate margin of discretion.’
WLR Daily, 21st October 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Kilker Projects Ltd v Purton (trading as Richwood Interiors) – WLR Daily
Kilker Projects Ltd v Purton (trading as Richwood Interiors) [2016] EWHC 2616 (TCC)
‘The parties entered into an oral construction contract, to which the Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Regulations 1998 (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2011 applied. Following completion of the works, a dispute arose as to the sums due in respect of the final account. In a first adjudication, the adjudicator, having held that no valid “payment notice” or “pay less notice” had been served by the employer, ordered it to pay the “notified sum”, as defined by section 111 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, in respect of the contractor’s final account application. The employer subsequently paid the judgment sum. In a second adjudication, the adjudicator determined the true value of the final account for the works and directed the contractor to repay the employer a sum found to have been overpaid. On the employer’s application to enforce that decision, the contractor contended that adjudicator had not had jurisdiction to determine the dispute because it had been decided in the earlier adjudication.’
WLR Daily, 22nd September 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Kazakhstan Kagazy plc and others v Zhunus and others – WLR Daily
Kazakhstan Kagazy plc and others v Zhunus and others [2016] EWCA Civ 1036
‘The claimants were a group of companies. The first and second defendants had been, respectively, the chairman of the board and the chief executive officer of the first and second claimants. The third defendant had been the finance director of the second claimant. The claimants issued proceedings alleging, inter alia, that the defendants had dishonestly caused the claimant companies to enter into transactions in which large sums of money were paid to entities owned or controlled by the defendants and which had caused the claimants to incur substantial financial losses. All three defendants served defences denying fraud and dishonesty or that they had personally benefitted from the transactions. Subsequently, the first defendant reached a settlement of the claim against him with the claimants. The second and third defendants applied for permission pursuant to CPR r 20.6(2)(b) to bring a contribution claim against the first defendant, no such claim having been filed and served when they served their defence. The second defendant further sought a worldwide freezing order against the first defendant. The judge refused the applications, holding that (i) the claim for contribution was bound to fail because the draft contribution notice sought to be relied upon by the second and third defendants did not advance a case of actual fraud or wrongdoing by the first defendant and, following the their settlement agreement with the first defendant, no such case was being advanced by the claimants which the second and third defendants could adopt as an alternative to their primary position that they had acted honestly; and (ii) the court could only grant a freezing injunction once the applicant had an accrued cause of action, which, in the context of a claim for contribution, was once the contribution notice had been filed and served under CPR r 20.6(2).’
WLR Daily, 26th October 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v Norman (Robert) – WLR Daily
Regina v Norman (Robert) [2016] EWCA Crim 1564
‘The defendant was a prison officer who was paid more than £10,000 by a tabloid journalist in return for information about the prison which formed the subject matter of numerous published articles. He was charged with one count of misconduct in public office. The newspapers voluntarily disclosed evidence of the defendant’s identity and conduct. It was the prosecution case that the stories did not, save in a few cases, have any public interest and that the defendant knew that what he was doing was very wrong given the scale and scope of his activities, conducted behind his employer’s back, in return for substantial payments which were routed via his son’s bank account in order to conceal them. The defendant was convicted. He appealed against conviction the grounds that (i) the judge should have acceded to his submission to stay the proceedings as an abuse of process since the defendant’s identity and the evidence upon which the prosecution depended had been obtained by police misconduct in putting pressure upon the newspapers to give disclosure in order to avoid corporate prosecution; and (ii) the judge should have acceded to his submission of no case to answer, since the defendant’s misconduct did not meet the high threshold of seriousness required for it to be characterised as a criminal abuse of the public’s trust in him as an officer holder.’
WLR Daily, 20th October 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
QS v RS – WLR Daily
QS v RS [2016] EWHC 2470 (Fam)
‘The parents who were British citizens adopted a child in Nepal in 2008. Neither parent was habitually resident or domiciled in Nepal at the time of the adoption, both being domiciled in the United Kingdom. The family moved to Dubai and the child was granted British citizenship. Soon afterwards the marriage broke down leading to a troubled period of dispute between the parents. The father remained living in Dubai and the mother in due course resided in the United Kingdom. The child, aged 12, resided with the father in Dubai. The mother applied, inter alia, for the recognition of the child’s foreign adoption order at common law and for a declaration under section 57 of the Family Law Act 1986 that she was the adopted child of the parents for the purposes of section 67 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. The issue arose whether, in the light of the common law rule that an English court was not entitled to recognise a foreign adoption order unless the adopting parents were domiciled (or habitually resident) in the relevant country at the time of the adoption, there were any circumstances in which that rule did not apply or might not be applied such that a foreign adoption would be recognised in England notwithstanding that at the time of the adoption the adopters were not domiciled in that country.’
WLR Daily, 10th October 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v Nelson (Scott) and another – WLR Daily
Regina v Nelson (Scott) and another [2016] EWCA Crim 1517
‘The defendants, S and N, were members of a gang. The police were on high alert on a housing estate because they were aware that the defendants’ gang might mount a revenge attack on a rival gang. S ran towards a police officer who shouted to him to stop but S pulled out a submachine gun and fired one shot which missed the police officer. S ran off and hid in a block of flats where he disposed of the gun but was eventually arrested. He pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm with intent to endanger life, contrary to section 16 of the Firearms Act 1968. Following the shooting incident N had hidden the gun in the loft where it was found six months later. He was charged with possession of a prohibited firearm, contrary to section 5(1)(a) and (aba) of the 1968 Act, and assisting an offender, contrary to section 4(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967. N applied for leave to appeal against conviction on the ground that the judge had erred in law in failing to direct the jury to consider the two counts which he faced as alternatives when they arose out of a single transaction.’
WLR Daily, 20th October 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Lorry driver jailed over four-death A34 crash – BBC News
‘A lorry driver who hit and killed a mother and her three children while using his phone behind the wheel has been jailed for 10 years.’
BBC News, 31st October 2016
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
The aged accused – Counsel
‘Is it ever too late to prosecute historic allegations? Richard Jory QC and Sam Jones consider whether it’s time for a rethink.’
Counsel, November 2016
Source: www.counselmagazine.co.uk
Negotiating in the Shadow of the Court: Mediation in parallel with litigation – Family Law Week
‘Madeleine Reardon, barrister of 1 King’s Bench Walk, considers the role of mediation in the course of family proceedings, practical issues arising therefrom and, in particular, confidentiality of the mediation process.’
Family Law Week, 27th October 2016
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
Attorney general quizzed on unduly lenient sentences – Law Society’s Gazette
‘The attorney general has reaffirmed the government’s plans to extend the scheme for reviewing ‘unduly lenient’ sentences, with stalking one of the crimes that could be considered in any extension.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 28th October 2016
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
Transferring the blame? – New Law Journal
‘John McMullen examines the conditions of TUPE.’
New Law Journal, 28th October 2016
Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk
One direction – New Law Journal
‘Kerry Underwood examines qualified one-way costs shifting.’
New Law Journal, 18th October 2016
Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk
Finger on the trigger – New Law Journal
‘Does triggering Art 50 require a prior Act of Parliament, asks Michael Zander QC.’
New Law Journal, 12th October 2016
Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk
Uber awaits tribunal ruling over drivers’ status as workers – The Guardian
‘An employment tribunal in London will decide whether Uber drivers should be treated as workers with basic employment rights, in a case that could affect tens of thousands of other people working across the gig economy.’
The Guardian, 28th October 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Family: financial needs on divorce – Law Society’s Gazette
‘In June the Family Justice Council published Guidance on ‘Financial Needs’ on Divorce. It has been disseminated among judges and is essential reading for all practitioners undertaking financial remedy work.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 31st October 2016
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
