‘Shoppers have been ripped off by as much as £400 each due to unfair chip and pin charges in shops, lawyers preparing a historic class action case against MasterCard have claimed.’
Daily Telegraph, 6th July 2016
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘Is Commercial Arbitration the Future of Commercial Justice?’
Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, 5th July 2016
Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk
‘Britain would still be bound by the judgments of international courts under any serious international free trade agreement with other countries, a leading legal academic has warned MPs.’
The Independent, 5th July 2016
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘MasterCard is facing a claim of up to £19 billion in damages in a UK collective action over card charges that were passed on to shoppers.’
The Independent, 6th July 2016
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘Post-Brexit the separation of powers could be said to be all that is holding this nation together. The Executive is in tatters and Parliament has entered a hiatus without an effective opposition. The only element of our constitutional framework which carries on without pause is the judiciary. It’s a moving proposition to think that those who daily work in courts and public services decimated by cuts are the ones who right now form the only fully functioning element of government.’
Legal Futures, 4th July 2016
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘A law firm is taking action to ensure the formal process for the UK leaving the EU is not started without an act of Parliament.’
BBC News, 4th July 2016
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Theresa May, expected to shortly emerge as the “stop Boris” prime ministerial candidate in this post-referendum world, kept her head down during the Brexit campaign apart from one notable intervention.’
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 4th July 2016
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
‘Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) is the red button for the nuclear option of withdrawal from the EU, and in its design, it was never really, truly envisioned to be pressed. Without testing, and without precedent, we are left with no idea of the potential fallout of pressing that red button. Compared to the quasi-constitutionism of Article 2 TEU evoking the values ‘common to the Member States’ of ‘pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between men and women’; or the brutal legalism of Title VII of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) on competition, tax and the approximation of laws; Article 50 TEU is anaemic. It is, essentially, a button triggering a countdown clock, which is on a comparable level of advancement to the 1980s floppy disk.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 4th July 2016
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘In each case the requested person, a Polish national was convicted of serious offences in Poland and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. In the first case the sentence was suspended but later activated because the requested person failed to adhere to the terms of the suspension. In the second case the requested person, with regard to two relevant sentences, had been (i) on release pending an unsuccessful appeal and (ii) on conditional early release which had been revoked because of breaches of the applicable conditions. In each case the requested person was required to surrender himself to the Polish authorities to serve the outstanding sentence but failed to do so. Various summonses and arrest warrants were issued in Poland which failed to achieve the apprehension of the requested persons and, upon discovering that the requested persons were in England, European arrest warrants were issued and served on the appropriate authorities.’
WLR Daily, 30th June 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Criminal proceedings against Kossowski (Case C-486/14)
‘The accused fled from Germany to Poland after being accused of committing a criminal offence in Germany, and a criminal investigation was initiated against him in that state. The Polish authorities subsequently arrested the accused with a view to the enforcement of a term of imprisonment to which he had been sentenced in Poland in a different case. Subsequently, the Polish authorities opened an investigation procedure against the accused, accusing him of an offence based on his actions in Germany but decided eventually to terminate the criminal proceedings for lack of sufficient evidence. The Higher Regional Court, Hamburg, hearing an appeal brought by the Hamburg Public Prosecutor’s Office against that decision, took the view that under the German law, the evidence against the accused was sufficient to justify the opening of trial proceedings before the Regional Court, Hamburg, and the acceptance of the indictment for the purposes of those proceedings, unless that was barred by the principle of ne bis in idem (protection from multiple prosecutions in different member states) laid down in article 54 of the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders (1995) (OJ 2000 L239, p 19) (the “CISA”) and article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Accordingly, the Hamburg court referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling a number of questions on the interpretation of those provisions.’
WLR Daily, 30th June 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘In litigation in Romania concerning the care and custody of a 10 year-old child born to Romanian parents who had lived most of his life with his mother in England, the Bucharest Court of Appeal awarded custody of the child to his father. The father obtained an order in the High Court for recognition and registration of that decision under article 21(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility. The mother appealed to a High Court judge pursuant to article 33 of the Regulation. The judge, allowing the appeal, refused recognition of the Romanian court order under article 23(b) on the ground that the order had been made without the child having been given an opportunity to be heard. The father, having unsuccessfully appealed to the Court of Appeal, obtained leave for a further appeal to the Supreme Court. Upon the mother challenging the father’s right to a further appeal, the Supreme Court convened a preliminary hearing to determine whether it had jurisdiction to proceed with the appeal.’
WLR Daily, 29th June 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A group of businesses has launched a legal challenge to prevent the Government from launching Brexit without a formal Act of Parliament.’
The Independent, 4th July 2016
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘Katy Chokowry and Nicholas Anderson, barristers of 1 King’s Bench Walk, explain the rationale of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Re D (A Child) and consider the lessons that survive form the Court of Appeal’s judgment.’
Family Law Week, 30th June 2016
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘Guidance and specimen policy documents to help quoted companies comply with new market abuse rules when dealing in shares have been published by the UK’s main trade bodies for governance professionals and general counsel.’
OUT-LAW.com, 29th June 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘In “Pulling the Article 50 ‘Trigger’: Parliament’s Indispensable Role” Nick Barber, Jeff King and Tom Hickman argued that it is Parliament, and not the government, who get to decide whether to trigger an notification under Article 50 of the Treaty of the European Union. I agree with them.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 30th June 2016
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘The UK could set out its own guidance on net neutrality in light of the country’s decision to leave the EU, an expert has said.’
OUT-LAW.com, 28th June 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘The only legal way for a Brexit – or for any member state to withdraw from the European Union – is by triggering an obscure and controversial clause in the Lisbon Treaty: article 50. It gives the departing country two years to negotiate the terms of its withdrawal and has never been used before. Tom Clark explains how it works’
The Guardian, 29th June 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘It is only four days since the UK public narrowly voted to leave the European Union. A lot of people are now arguing for a second referendum. But would that be democratic?’
UK Human Rights Blog, 28th June 2016
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘An ironic Gallic shrug to the question on all our lips: OK so what now? The referendum debate is just getting under way. It may seem a little late but the chanteuse has yet to enter the stage to sing the final aria so nothing is concluded. Real politick has yet to stamp its mark on the concept of exiting the EU. In the meantime the Gods are laughing at the mayhem caused within the establishment by the vote.’
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 28th June 2016
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025