‘The First-Tier Tribunal General Regulatory Chamber (Information Rights) has – with immediate effect – stayed for a period of 28 days all proceedings under section 48 of the Data Protection Act 1998, section 162 of the Data Protection Act 2018 and section 57 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.’
Local Government Lawyer, 3rd April 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The Civil Contingencies Act 2004 (‘CCA’) represents a legal landmark. It updated and consolidated laws which enabled public authorities to prepare for, and respond effectively to, emergencies, replacing the Emergency Powers Act 1920 with a more comprehensive and consensual design. While it was motivated by domestic and global crises, it was not enacted in haste but benefited from a prolonged consultation period led by a special parliamentary joint committee. The final draft systematically furnished the executive with all conceivable powers, yet contained vital legal and parliamentary oversight to avert disproportionate action. The CCA addressed the widest range of possible eventualities: terrorist attacks, protests, environmental events – and human and animal disease pandemics. In other words, there already existed legislation designed to tackle the circumstances of coronavirus which indubitably qualifies as an emergency. Yet, rather than utilise this framework, the government has resorted to fresh legislation in the Coronavirus Act 2020. Why?’
Law Society's Gazette, 2nd April 2020
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘At this point, it is almost trite to say that we are living through unprecedented events. The global spread of the Coronavirus pandemic poses serious challenges to society. So far, the global death-toll has exceeded 21,000 and life as we know it in the UK has changed dramatically. In response to this crisis the Government has announced drastic measures in order to curb the spread of the virus and to support those who may be affected. Indeed, it seems that Cicero’s famous injunction to let the welfare of the people be the highest law has gained a new relevance in the age of COVID-19.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 2nd April 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘A conman funded a “lavish lifestyle” that included trips to Las Vegas by scamming rail delay compensation schemes out of £40,000.’
BBC News, 3rd April 2020
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘In this appeal, the Supreme Court is asked to decide whether Barclays Bank is vicariously liable for sexual assaults allegedly committed between 1968 and about 1984 by the late Dr Gordon Bates. Dr Bates was a self-employed medical practitioner with a portfolio practice. His work included conducting medical assessments and examinations of prospective Barclays employees. Barclays required job applicants to pass a pre-employment medical examination as part of its recruitment and employment procedures.’
UKSC Blog, 1st April 2020
Source: ukscblog.com
‘In R (DN – Rwanda) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] UKSC 7, the Supreme Court held that the Claimant was entitled to purse a claim for unlawful detention on the basis that the decision to detain for the purposes of deportation could not be separated from the decision to deport. Accordingly, if the decision to deport was unlawful, then so inevitably was the decision to detain.
UK Human Rights Blog, 3rd April 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘More than 25 organisations helping domestic violence victims have reported an increase in their caseload since the start of the UK’s coronavirus epidemic.’
The Guardian, 4th April 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The High Court of England and Wales does not have jurisdiction to hear claims to recover sums paid under a settlement agreement relating to the loss of an insured vessel.’
UKSC Blog, 1st April 2020
Source: ukscblog.com
‘Sometimes cases stand for far more than their strict ratio decidendi. The High Court’s recent ruling in Hafeez v Secretary of State for the Home Department is a prime example of such a case. The facts are simple. The US sought from the UK the extradition of Mr Hafeez, the alleged leader of an international crime syndicate and so-called “Sultan of drugs”. Unsurprisingly, Mr Hafeez resisted that motion, claiming that were he to be extradited, he would in all likelihood be sentenced to life without parole in the US, which would breach his rights under the ECHR. The UK, he argued, would be complicit in breaching his rights were it to proceed with the extradition. The High Court was to determine whether this was in fact the case.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 3rd April 2020
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘The clearing of ancient woods for HS2 is to proceed this month after the high court refused an emergency injunction and judicial review of the government’s decision to proceed with the high-speed railway.’
The Guardian, 3rd April 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘As many as 4,000 prisoners in England and Wales are to be temporarily released from jail in an effort to try and control the spread of coronavirus, the government has announced.’
The Guardian, 4th April 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The case concerned whether Zipvit, a trader selling vitamins and minerals by mail order, is entitled when accounting for VAT on its sales to make deductions of input VAT (the tax paid by the trader on goods and services purchased in connection with its business, as opposed to output VAT, which is the tax charged to the consumer by the trader on its goods or services) in respect of the price of postal services supplied to it by Royal Mail.’
UKSC Blog, 1 April 2020
Source: ukscblog.com
‘Bar exams have been delayed until August, but trainees have called on regulators to move their assessments online.’
The Guardian, 3rd April 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The term “PPE” has become one of general comment and concern. Here our newest recruit at Kings Jasmine Chan explains the Regulations, the duties owed and the government guidance in relation to PPE and coronavirus.’
Coronavirus: Guidance for Lawyers and Businesses, 2nd April 2020
‘By this notable decision the Court of Appeal has offered a useful illustration of the strict limits to the scope for claims by previously convicted claimants against their former lawyers,
alleging negligence in respect of the defence of the earlier criminal proceedings.’
Hailsham Chambers, 30th March 2020
Source: www.hailshamchambers.com
‘With the government ordering people to stay at home during the COVID-19 global pandemic, questions necessarily arise for those whose “home” is a rented property. What does this mean for landlords and tenants alike? Broadly, whilst the Government made loud promises about banning evictions, the Coronavirus Act 2020 makes more ‘watered down’ provision, giving greater comfort to landlords but potentially leaving tenants mired in uncertainty.’
Henderson Chambers, 27th March 2020
‘The Covid 19 pandemic has led to lock-downs of populations the world over. The global has become the local. For our safety we are subject to unprecedented restrictions on our movement. So, it is cruelly ironic that Government inaction has created the situation where Covid-19 has taken a hold on those in our prisons.’
Nexus Chambers, 3rd April 2020
Source: www.nexuschambers.com
‘Many events, including music, theatre, conferences and exhibitions have been cancelled or postponed in the wake of COVID-19 and more will follow.’
4 New Square, 25th March 2020
Source: www.4newsquare.com
‘Maintaining access to justice and enabling people to exercise their rights and have effective participation in the legal system has never been more important than now. The judiciary are quickly adapting their ways of working to deliver justice during the coronavirus pandemic.’
Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, 3rd April 2020
Source: www.judiciary.uk
‘At present, the contest between need and the environmental effects of expansion of Heathrow has been settled by a virus. The Government advises against all international travel. In the minds of many, and in particular the media, R (oao) Planet B Earth v Secretary of State for Transport [2020] EWCA Civ 214, is a case about climate change and, of course, it is. But it is also a case which yields learning in a host of other areas. This short piece highlights one of them. It is this question: in a technical or scientific case, how closely will the court mark the parties’ homework? Is it ‘tick and flick’ or PhD viva? As always, lawyers have coined their own term – ‘intrusiveness of review’.’
No. 5 Chambers, 19th March 2020
Source: www.no5.com
© Inner Temple Library 2025