‘Readers of this blog will be aware of the dispute between the Scottish and UK Governments over who should legislate in areas hitherto covered by EU law after Brexit (or more accurately after the end of the post-withdrawal Implementation Period). That dispute saw the Scottish Parliament enact its own Continuity Bill intended as an alternative to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (EUWA). That Bill – the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Legal Continuity) (Scotland) Bill (the “first Continuity Bill”) (discussed here and here) – was subsequently referred to the Supreme Court and held to be outwith devolved competence so far as it conflicted with the EUWA (discussed here). Although some provisions of the Bill survived the Supreme Court reference, the Scottish Government decided not to proceed with Bill, but undertook to bring back the remaining provisions on a future occasion.’
UK Constitutional Law Associations, 30th July 2020
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘In three conjoined judicial reviews concerning the legality of the Home Secretary’s exercise of her power under paragraph 9 of Schedule 10 of the Immigration Act 2016 to provide accommodation to those who are granted immigration bail, Mr Justice Johnson held in R (Humnyntskyi) v SSHD [2020] EWHC 1912 (Admin) that each of the three claimants had been unlawfully denied such accommodation, and that the relevant policy was systemically unfair.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 30th July 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Video manipulation software, including ‘deepfake’ technology, poses problems for remote courts in verifying evidence and that litigants or witnesses are who they say they are, a report has warned.’
Legal Futures, 29th July 2020
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal has given important clarity and breathing space to commercial and residential tenants in its recent judgment in TFS Stores Ltd v BMG (Ashford) Ltd & Ors [2020] EWCA Civ 833 by confirming that all parts of proceedings involving a claim for possession brought by a landlord are automatically stayed.’
Wilberforce Chambers, 23rd July 2020
Source: www.wilberforce.co.uk
‘Complex commercial arrangements can generate difficulties for the parties where their obligations are set out in a multitude of related contracts or a single contract containing inconsistent dispute resolution clauses. It is not uncommon for parties to complex commercial contracts to find themselves arguing over the interpretation of inconsistent jurisdiction clauses which are either found in a single contract, or different but related contracts forming part of the same arrangements. Disagreements over the interpretation of jurisdiction clauses can arise in large-scale energy and infrastructure projects, and other types of arrangements where transactions usually take place under a master agreement. This note will explore the most common scenarios in which courts are often asked to interpret inconsistent dispute resolution clauses, with particular focus on the ‘centre of gravity’ approach adopted by courts.’
3PB, 27th July 2020
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
‘In Re: A (Surrogacy: s.54 Criteria) [2020] EWHC 1426 (Fam) Mr Justice Keehan granted an application for a parental order in a case where a child had been conceived using surrogacy. The case was notable as it required the court to ‘read down’ a number of the statutory criteria contained in section 54 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008.’
Garden Court Chambers, 23rd July 2020
Source: www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court’s decision in Sevilleja v. Marex Financial Ltd, 15 July 2020, fundamentally restates the doctrine of reflective loss in company law so that:
A claim by a company’s creditor against a third party will not be barred where it reflects loss suffered by the company, even if the creditor is also a shareholder; and
There is no longer an exception to the doctrine where the wrongdoer has brought about the company’s impecuniosity.’
4 New Square, 17th July 2020
Source: www.4newsquare.com
‘The government has confirmed that the stay that has been in place on virtually all possession claims will not be the subject to a further extension.’
St Ives Chambers, 20th July 2020
Source: www.stiveschambers.co.uk
‘On the 8th of July 2020 the first reported arrest took place in the West Midlands of a 57-year-old man suspected of “furlough fraud”. The arrest and search of his property has been reported widely in the national media. It was reported that following arrest the man had his computers, digital devices and documents seized in relation to an alleged £495,000 fraud. His bank accounts have been frozen.’
33 Bedford Row, 27th July 2020
Source: www.33bedfordrow.co.uk
‘R (Mendes) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] EWCA Civ 924 (17 July 2020): The only target of this appeal was Murray J’s order refusing interim relief in the form of a mandatory order requiring the Home Office to facilitate the return of Mr Mendes to the UK pending determination of the judicial review challenge of the certification of his case under regulation 33 of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 that his removal pending any appeal would not be in breach of his human rights. The Court of Appeal granted permission to appeal, allowed the appeal, quashed the order of Murray J refusing the earlier application for interim relief in R (Mendes) v SSHD [2019] EWHC 2233 (Admin), and remitted the application to the Administrative Court for re-consideration and re-determination. A Portuguese national and an EU citizen, Mr Mendes, was born in 2000 and settled in the UK with his family in 2013 or 2014. But from 2015 to 2018, he was convicted of numerous criminal offences, including, on 6 March 2018, six robberies and he was sentenced to a 12-month detention and training order. While serving his custodial part of that sentence (and while aged only 17 years) the Home Office served notice of liability to deportation. Representations made by him were rejected. Instead, a deportation order was made on his eighteenth birthday on 17 September 2018. In the decision letter, the decision-maker certified under regulation 33, that Mr Mendes’s removal pending any appeal would not be in breach of his human rights.’
EIN Blog, 28th July 2020
Source: www.ein.org.uk
‘ ‘‘Baby-shaking”, or “baby-shaking syndrome” is a colloquial term used to describe the situation where the prosecution allege that a baby has either died or suffered serious injury as the result of being shaken. In a large number of these cases the prosecution are able to show that at the time of the causative event the child was in the sole care of its parents; the difficulty that arose historically however was when it was not possible to prove which of the two parents was the actual perpetrator. Prosecutors often found themselves in this scenario, with not enough evidence to conclusively prove which parent caused the harm to the child and neither parent prepared to implicate the other. However, on 21st March 2005, Section 5 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 became law, and it meant that prosecutors could now take a different approach, one that didn’t require them to single out the primary offender.’
KCH Garden Sq, July 2020
Source: kchgardensquare.co.uk
‘MPs have today launched an inquiry to investigate delays in the court system and what should be done to clear the backlog of cases.’
Legal Futures, 30th July 2020
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘Furloughed workers losing their jobs will be eligible for redundancy pay based on their normal wages – not the furlough rate – from Friday.’
BBC News, 30th July 2020
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘This summer Newsletter has, as always, a range of articles. For those of us who, just, knew a time before the dishonesty test in Ghosh, it is disturbing that it has been described as a wrong turn, and Arthur Kendrick analyses for us the consequences of the recent judgment of the Court of Appeal in Barton and Booth. The pandemic may be the result of the mis-handling of food sources, and Dharmendra Toor reflects on a decision from the early days of the pandemic that highlights the importance for us of the compliance with food safety regulations by food manufacturers, restaurants and supermarkets. Sally Hobson provides a helpful analysis and some guidance when dealing with cases following extradition to the UK for offences for which the individual was not specifically extradited. We are grateful to Mary Prior Q.C. for another summary of important and instructive cases recently decided across the broad range of practice and procedure in the criminal courts.’
The 36 Group, July 2020
Source: 36group.co.uk
‘In Episode 119 Emma-Louise Fenelon speaks to Gideon Barth about secondary victim claims, and the recent case of Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust.’
Law Pod UK, 28th July 2020
Source: audioboom.com
‘There has been an avalanche of commentary on the recent decision of the Supreme Court in WM Morrison Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 12. The case has provided some welcome guidance on vicarious liability in the wake of the earlier decision of Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc [2016] UKSC 11, and also represents the first class action of its kind in the UK.’
Pump Court Chambers, 23rd July 2020
Source: www.pumpcourtchambers.com
‘“I was just sick of there being so many low expectations about Travellers,” said former teaching assistant Lisa Smith, on what set her on her path to campaign for the rights of the UK’s Gypsy, Roma and Traveller (GRT) children.’
Each Other, 29th July 2020
Source: eachother.org.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024