‘In this article I shall introduce the basics of deploying consumer law to timeshare contracts. Before I do that, I need to recap or explain two matters. One is the central “mischief” of timeshare contracts. The second is the mechanics of such contracts.’
Park Square Barristers, 29th November 2017
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
‘This recent judgment of the Court of Appeal resolved two important questions:
1. Where a line manager, who is not involved in the investigatory or disciplinary process, has tainted the evidence supplied to a person deciding whether an employee should be dismissed, and that decision-maker is innocent of any discriminatory motivation, whose knowledge or state of mind is to be attributed to the employer for the purpose of s.103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996)?
2. Can an employee recover damages for dismissal consequent on detriment in the whistleblowing context?
Old Square Chambers, 6th December 2017
Source: www.oldsquare.co.uk
‘Is the ET required, when deciding whether to give permission to amend a claim to add a new claim which may be out of time, to decide the ‘time point’? Not necessarily, according to the judgment of the EAT in Galilee v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis.’
Old Square Chambers, 30th November 2017
Source: www.oldsquare.co.uk
‘In a much anticipated decision, the Court of Appeal has held that a pre-LASPO CFA can be transferred from one firm of solicitors to another – even post – LASPO – without losing the right to recover success fees from the defendant. The decision depended highly on policy considerations. It will be welcomed by solicitors who in a wide variety of circumstances have been party to such transfers.’
Hailsham Chambers, 7th December 2017
Source: www.hailshamschambers.com
‘The decision in Tiuta continues the series of recent Supreme Court decisions that make for essential reading among professional liability practitioners.’
Hailsham Chambers, 29th November 2017
Source: www.hailshamchambers.com
‘I was recently instructed by Sterling & Law LLP in an EEA appeal against the refusal of permanent residence. The Appellant was a non-EEA national in a civil partnership with her wife, an EEA national. The Appellant sought to establish that she was entitled to permanent residence having lived in the UK in accordance with the EEA Regulations for five years.’
Drystone Chambers, 1st December 2017
Source: drystone.com
‘“The corporate veil” is a much discussed, but much misunderstood phrase. When Lord Halsbury LC stated in Salomon v A Salomon and Co Ltd [1897] AC 22 that a limited liability company was to be viewed ‘like any other independent person with its rights and liabilities appropriate to itself’ he imbedded in law the idea of corporations having a separate legal identity from their directors. That principle is agreed. What has been in dispute, and is still uncertain to a degree, is when that separation can be made. ‘
Drystone Chambers, 4th December 2017
Source: drystone.com
‘Burnley Hall brought a claim for specific performance of a put option agreement. The agreement was part of a broader transaction by which the claimant, a limited liability partnership, entered into a joint venture for the development of student accommodation. The venture was entered into on condition that Business Premises Renovation Allowances (under Part 3A of the Capital Allowances Act 2001) would be available and in the event that they were not, Burnley Hall secured the right to extricate itself from the transaction by exercising a put option to require the defendants to take back the leases they had granted and to repay the sums invested by the individuals behind the LLP.’
Falcon Chambers, 14th November 2017
Source: www.falcon-chambers.com
‘The principles of fair procedure ought to be well known to most sporting disciplinary bodies by now, but a case before the disciplinary and appellate bodies of the Greyhound Board of Great Britain (GBGB) illustrates how procedural slips can still occur, causing substantial unfairness to a person facing disciplinary action. The case also shows the power of a fair appellate body to put right procedural defects.’
Blackstone Chambers, 4th December 2017
Source: www.sportslawbulletin.org
‘Acting for the UK’s largest holder of licences for onshore shale gas exploration, and a number of private individuals, Janet Bignell QC and Gavin Bennison have successfully obtained the long-term continuation of interim injunctions restraining a wide range of unlawful conduct by protestors opposed to hydraulic fracturing (‘fracking’). The injunctions were initially obtained on an ex parte basis in July 2017, and continuation was secured with only minor modification at an opposed hearing on 12 September 2017. At a three-day hearing in November 2017 before Morgan J which attracted considerable media interest, the claimants resisted applications to discharge the injunctions brought by two well-known “anti-fracking” campaigners.’
Falcon Chambers, December 2017
Source: www.falcon-chambers.com
‘The Court of Appeal decision in Re H (Surrogacy Breakdown) [2017] EWCA 1798 (Civ) this week has confirmed that the ordinarily principles of children’s law, and the fundamental question of: What is in the best interests of the child? apply in relation to surrogacy in the ordinary way. There are no special rules or considerations which apply in the case of surrogacy disputes.’
Park Square Barristers, 24th November 2017
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
‘The Commercial Court (Andrew Baker J) has given judgment in favour of the Claimants in their action for damages against Credit Suisse under s.138D of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA).’
Blackstone Chambers, 27th November 2017
Source: www.blackstonechambers.com
‘Despite some suspect behaviour by the Defendants, the High Court refused to grant a springboard injunction to the Claimant for breach of confidence because the balance of evidence did not support the conclusion that any advantage had been gained through misuse of confidential information.’
Blackstone Chambers, 27th November 2017
Source: www.employeecompetition.com
‘Recent press reports have suggested that competition lawyers in other Member States have been confidently predicting the death of cartel claims in the UK following Brexit. But reports of the demise of this species of litigation are premature. The European Communities Act 1972 (the ECA 1972) will be repealed following the entry into force of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill (the Bill). But this is unlikely to have any significant impact on the ability of claimants to bring claims before UK courts for damages caused by infringement of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) – at least for quite some time. The reason for this is the provisions of the Bill that protect rights that have accrued prior to “exit day”.’
Blackstone Chambers, 4th December 2017
Source: www.blackstonechambers.com
‘In the majority of, if not all cases, a notice of arbitration will be preceded by negotiation or correspondence between employees or agents of the parties. The trap for the unwary, as illustrated by the recent decisions in Sino Channel Asia Limited v Dana Shipping and Trading Pte and Glencore Agriculture BV v Conqueror Holdings Ltd, is that serving the notice of arbitration on the person whom the serving party has previously dealt with may not be effective service at all.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 1st December 2017
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘On 17th May this year I discussed the Court of Appeal decision in the tragic case of R (on the application of T) v HM SENIOR CORONER FOR THE COUNTY OF WEST YORKSHIRE (2017) EWCA Civ 318 in which the Court of Appeal were asked to deal with an application for judicial review of two decisions of the West Yorkshire Coroner; first to hold an Inquest into the death of a baby who may or may not have been born alive and second not to grant an anonymity order to the baby’s mother. ‘
Park Square Barristers, 5th December 2017
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal decision in Re M (A Child) (2017) has confirmed that for the purpose of conducting an assessment under the Adoption and Children Act 2002 s.42(7), a local authority are not confined to the period after the adoption application has been made; it can include periods before the application. The decision emphasises that section 42(7) should not be construed in narrow terms but it should be given a wider, purposeful interpretation.’
Park Square Barristers, 6th December 2017
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
‘The First Tier Tribunal is entitled to rely on an applicant to send its application, but not the FTT’s subsequent decision, to the respondents to that application. Time will not start running for a party to apply for a permission to appeal until the FTT has itself provided a copy of its decision to that party.’
Tanfield Chambers, 1st December 2017
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024