‘A recent High Court decision shows that courts in England will not usually interfere with litigation taking place in other countries that are signatories to the Brussels Regulation, an expert has said.’
OUT-LAW.com, 27th March 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
‘In the case of Coventry and others (Respondents) v Lawrence and another (Appellants) [2014] UKSC 13 the Supreme Court has addressed five key matters which will play an important role in informing future claims for nuisance.’
Henderson Chambers, 25th March 2014
Source: www.hendersonchambers.co.uk
‘In the second part of her article reviewing reporting restriction orders and the new transparency Mary Lazarus, barrister of 42 Bedford Row, considers those cases involving aggrieved parties and cases with international implications.’
Family Law Week, 4th March 2014
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘The law of private nuisance is the way of balancing the rights of neighours, the right to be noisy or smelly, and to be free of noise or smells. Hitherto it is has been explicitly a private law remedy, and has slightly odd rules. But it has been struggling with public interests for some years; are they irrelevant, or can they carry the day for claimant or defendant in a private nuisance claim?’
UK Human Rights Blog, 3rd March 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
Coventry and others (Respondents) v Lawrence and another (Appellants) [2014] UKSC 13 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 26th February 2014
‘A Suffolk couple who were unaware that they had purchased a house near a speedway stadium were entitled to obtain an injunction against the noise from the site, regardless of the fact that the stadium had been operating for years before they moved in, the Supreme Court has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 27th February 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Litigation costs are troublesome, but they are particularly difficult in environmental cases where the claimant is not necessarily pursuing his private interests. This case is the result of a long-running and successful campaign by NGOs to persuade the EU Commission to investigate UK environmental legal costs. The main finding may not bother the UK too much, because wisely it saw this one coming and changed costs rules in environmental public law cases. But a subsidiary ruling about cross-undertakings as to damages will cause the courts, if not the Government, to rethink things.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 18th February 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The important general principle is of course that a party to whom a document has been disclosed in litigation may use that document only for the purpose of the proceedings in which it is disclosed. There are, nonetheless, three significant exceptions to that principle, set out in CPR r31.22(1).’
Panopticon, 7th February 2014
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
‘If last Wednesday’s vote in the House of Lords was not a reminder as to why we need a second house to protect us then nothing will be. Many members of the public will not realise just how close this country came to fundamentally damaging the democratic society we live in and abandoning the principle of free speech, whilst simultaneously providing an unwieldy weapon against practically anybody for doing pretty much anything that another person does not like.’
Sovereign Chambers, 15th January 2014
Source: www.sovereignchambers.co.uk
‘It is again time for a round-up of recent competition law developments which have caught our attention.’
Competition Bulletin from Blackstone Chambers, 14th January 2014
Source: www.competitionbulletin.com
‘This week, the International Criminal Court has received a dossier detailing the UK’s involvement in abuse in Iraq. Meanwhile, the House of Lords has put up a fight over the so-called “annoyance injunctions”, while the Government has sought to find a solution to the European Court of Human Rights’ ruling on whole life tariffs.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 13th January 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘One Direction’s Harry Styles has won a court order banning the paparazzi from pursuing him in the street or waiting outside his house.’
The Guardian, 16th December 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Two interesting recent blog posts dealt with the meaning of public and private under s. 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. They were motivated by injunction proceedings in the High court whereby the Olympic Delivery Authority, (ODA) the body charged with the logistics and infrastructure of the London Olympic Games, had sought injunctions to restrain protestors from entering and occupying land which was to be developed as part of the Olympic site. The main issues emerging from this case discussed in the two posts was whether the ODA constituted a ‘core’ or ‘hybrid’ public authority under s. 6 HRA; whether it could itself enjoy human rights to defeat or counter any human rights obligations it may hold in its capacity as a ‘hybrid’ body exercising public functions; and where the ‘centre of gravity’ for determining the human rights obligations of hybrid bodies lay under the Act; under the s. 6(3)(b) ‘public function’ test or the definition of ‘private act’ under s. 6(5).’
UK Constitutional Law Group, 13th December 2013
Source: www.ukconstituionallaw.org
HTC Corpn v Nokia Corpn: [2013] EWHC 3778 (Pat); [2013] WLR (D) 468
‘The criteria to be applied in deciding whether or not to grant an injunction for infringement of intellectual property rights were those of efficacy, proportionality, dissuasiveness, the avoidance of creating barriers to legitimate trade and the provision of safeguards against abuse as set out in article 3(2) of Parliament and Council Directive 2004/48/EC.’
WLR Daily, 3rd December 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘For a case about garden leave, the apparently aptly named (the irony comes later) employee was a Mr Holliday. He is a stockbroker. On 5 July 2013 he gave notice to his employers that he was intending to leave to join a competitor. On 10 July 2013 he was placed on garden leave. The contract under which he worked had been amended in 2008. It provided for 12 months garden leave on notice to terminate being given. At the same time, his salary was tripled from £40,000 to £120,000 per year. He had an exit interview on 29 July 2013, the purpose of which was to ensure he understood the conditions of his garden leave.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 22nd November 2013
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘People taking high value cases through civil courts in England and Wales will be expected to pay much more towards their running costs, Courts Minister Shailesh Vara has announced – while the fees for domestic violence injunctions will be scrapped.’
Ministry of Justice, 3rd December 2013
Source: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-justice
‘Man admits knowingly breaching an injunction on images or information claiming to be the adults Jon Venables or Robert Thompson.’
Attorney General’s Office, 27th November 2013
Source: www.gov.uk/ago
‘A sex offender should be jailed for allegedly defying the orders of a court to stay away from a former girlfriend who has a learning disability, a judge was told yesterday.’
The Independent, 29th November 2013
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘A security guard who tweeted images purporting to be of Jon Venables as an adult has avoided jail after a court heard he was close to James Bulger’s family.’
Daily Telegraph, 27th November 2013
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘Businesses that merely publish a link on their website to copyright infringing material online may not themselves be liable for copyright infringement, a High Court judge has said.’
OUT-LAW.com, 22nd November 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024