‘The high court has rejected an attempt to force the government to grant millions of UK citizens living abroad a vote in this June’s EU referendum.’
The Guardian, 28th April 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘With the in/out Europe vote to come (or having gone) what will the result mean for Human Rights? How is or has the debate been framed?’
Gresham College, 6th April 2016
Source: www.gresham.ac.uk
‘One of the great benefits of modern society is the amount of information available to us everyday. Much of that information is now stored electronically. However, collecting a lot of information together creates risks. Big data showcases the potential utility of amassing information in bulk, but we need to be wary of the possible threat to our right to privacy.’
RightsInfo, 16th April 2016
Source: www.rightsinfo.org
‘The cabinet split over Theresa May’s call to withdraw from the European convention on human rights has deepened, after Michael Gove’s Ministry of Justice confirmed it was not government policy.’
The Guardian, 26th April 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘If the UK leaves the EU what will happen to the UK’s environmental policy? This is not, as outlined below, a purely academic question.’
Cloisters, 7th April 2016
Source: www.cloisters.com
‘In two recent decisions, the County Court at Liverpool has held that infants carried in the arms of another passenger were not themselves fare-paying passengers, but had in fact travelled for free. As a consequence, the infants were not eligible for the fixed compensation available to fare-paying passengers under the Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004 (“the Regulation”).’
4 KBW, 22nd April 2016
Source: www.4kbw.net
In re N (Children) (Adoption: Jurisdiction) (AIRE Centre and others intervening) [2016] UKSC 15
‘Two children, who like their parents were Hungarian nationals, were born in England and habitually resident in the United Kingdom, having lived with the same English foster carers for most of their lives, initially with the consent of their parents. The local authority sought a care order under section 31 of the Children Act 1989 and, subsequently, an order for placement of the children with the foster carers with a view to their adoption pursuant to section 21 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. The mother, who had returned to Hungary and had a third child with the father, opposed the orders and applied under article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 for the proceedings to be transferred to Hungary. The Hungarian authorities supported her application, maintaining that only the Hungarian authorities could order the adoption of a Hungarian national minor. They proposed that upon return to Hungary the children would be placed with English speaking foster parents but maintain contact with their parents. The judge directed that both the care and placement order proceedings be transferred in accordance with article 15 on the ground that the Hungarian courts would be better placed to determine the welfare issues. The Court of Appeal decided, inter alia, that the placement order proceedings were outside the scope of article 15 by virtue of article 1(3)(b) of the Regulation and could not, therefore, be transferred to Hungary, but that, since the judge had not erred in ordering the transfer of the care proceedings, the placement order proceedings would be stayed even though they could not be transferred. ‘
WLR Daily, 13th April 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Marussia Communications Ireland Ltd v Manor Grand Prix Racing Ltd and another [2016] EWHC 809 (Ch)
‘The claimant was the proprietor of a Community registered trade mark for the “Marussia” name and logo, which it licensed to the defendant to use for a certain period. The claimant brought a claim for trade mark infringement, claiming that the defendant had continued to use the trade mark after the licence period had ended and that the use of the “Marussia” name contravened article 9(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark. The defendants relied upon five defences, including consent of the claimant within the meaning of Council Regulation 207/2009. On the claimant’s application for summary judgment am issue arose as to whether, if it failed to prove the claimant had given consent, the defendant could none the less rely on English law principles of estoppel to achieve either the same or a similar result.’
WLR Daily, 13th April 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘British expats living in Europe are today heading to the High Court in the hope of forcing the Government to let millions of them vote in the EU referendum.’
Daily Telegraph,
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘A counter-terrorism plan to share air-passenger data is set to become European law after five years of wrangling over security needs and privacy concerns.’
The Guardian, 13th April 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court has unanimously allowed an appeal brought by a Children’s Guardian in a case concerning whether the courts of England or Hungary should have jurisdiction to determine proceedings concerning the future welfare of two young girls.’
Local Government Lawyer, 13th April 2016
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘On 1 October 2015 the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (“CRA”) came into force. CRA superseded the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (“UTCCR”). The CRA aims to modernise, simplify and consolidate key parts of consumer law; it is the cornerstone of an extensive consumer law reform programme. Anyone acting in a landlord and tenant dispute or drafting tenancy or lease agreement needs to be familiar with its provisions’
Hardwicke Chambers, 11th March 2016
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
England and Wales Cricket Board Ltd and another v Tixdaq Ltd and another [2016] EWHC 575 (Ch)
‘The claimants owned the copyrights in television broadcasts, and in films incorporated within such broadcasts, of most cricket matches played by the English cricket teams in England and Wales. The defendants operated a website and various mobile applications (“Apps”) which used screen capture technology to copy clips of broadcast footage of sporting events and uploaded those clips to the Apps. The defendants’ uploaded a considerable number of clips of broadcasts of cricket matches, lasting up to eight seconds, to the Apps where they could be viewed by users. Users could also upload clips, together with commentary, on to the website and the defendants’ social media accounts. The claimants brought a claim for damages, alleging uploading the clips prima facie constituted breaches of sections 16, 17 and/or 20 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988. The 1988 Act did not require either broadcasts or films to be original in order for copyright to subsist in them. An issue arose as to the applicable test for substantiality in circumstances where there was no intellectual creation. The question went to both infringement, which required an act such as reproduction or communication to the public of the whole, or any “substantial part” of a work, and also to the applicability of the fair dealing defence in section 30(2) of the 1988 Act, on which the defendants relied.’
WLR Daily, 18th April 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Howe v Motor Insurers’ Bureau [2016] EWHC 640 (QB)
‘Regulation 13(1) of the Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) (Information Centre and Compensation Body) Regulations 2003 provides: “(1) This regulation applies where— (a) an accident, caused by or arising out of the use of a vehicle which is normally based in an EEA state, occurs on the territory of— (i) an EEA state other than the United Kingdom, or (ii) a subscribing state, and an injured party resides in the United Kingdom, (b) that injured party has made a request for information under regulation 9(2), and (c) it has proved impossible— (i) to identify the vehicle the use of which is alleged to have been responsible for the accident, or (ii) within a period of two months after the date of the request, to identify an insurance undertaking which insures the use of the vehicle.”’
WLR Daily, 22nd March 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Health Executive of Ireland v Z and others [2016] EWHC 784 (Fam)
‘The applicant sought and obtained an order in the Irish High Court authorising the treatment in a specialist unit in an English hospital of an Irish child aged 15 who had developed a very serious eating disorder and who required treatment which could not be provided in her home country. Her doctors, supported by her parents but against her wishes, made arrangements for her to be admitted and treated in a specialist unit in an English hospital which was able to provide the treatment required. The applicant applied to the English High Court for an order, under the inherent jurisdiction of the court, for recognition and enforcement of the Irish High Court order. At an initial hearing the court made an interim emergency order under inherent jurisdiction permitting the child’s emergency admission for treatment in the hospital in England. At a further hearing on notice a number of issues arose for determination, including whether article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 (“the Regulation”) applied to the case, whether the court had power under its inherent jurisdiction to make an interim emergency order for the recognition and enforcement of the Irish High Court order pending an application under FPR Pt 31, whether recognition should be refused on any of the grounds set out in article 23 of the Regulation, and whether the child should be represented in the proceedings.’
WLR Daily, 8th April 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The EU’s highest court will hear arguments on Tuesday concerning the validity of UK data retention laws.’
OUT-LAW.com, 12th April 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘The legality of Britain’s surveillance laws will come under the intense scrutiny of 15 European judges on Tuesday in a politically sensitive test case that could limit powers to gather online data.’
The Guardian, 11th April 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Gurieva & Anor v Community Safety Development (UK) Ltd [2016] EWHC 643 (QB), a judgment of Warby J of 6 April 2016, is the High Court’s latest word on subject access requests. It illustrates some of the emerging trends in subject access litigation. It is also a salutary reminder to ensure that, for subject access request cases as for any other, adequate evidence is presented.’
Panopticon, 8th April 2016
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
‘Britain’s intelligence agencies are preparing to vet the final version of the Chilcot Inquiry’s report into the Iraq war ahead of publication this summer.’
The Independent, 10th April 2016
Source: www.independent.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025