‘Speech by the Lord Chief Justice: Grand Court of the Cayman Islands guest lecture 2017.’
Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, 7th march 2017
Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk
‘Whatever your opinion on the ethical implications of third party funding in international arbitration, the past six months have seen two firm nods in its favour. These have signaled that, as a method of financing arbitration, it is here to stay.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 25th January 2017
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘In the last six months there have been lectures, seminars, evidence-givingsand-takings, reports issued, all over town, in which the future of commercial litigation in England has been discussed. It may not be completely true that these have as their object the utter immiseration of everyone within earshot, but that does appear to be the principal effect. Those who, like me, do not seem to be invited to such gatherings are at liberty to see things rather differently. We have a once-in-a generation opportunity to compare the rules of private international law which we currently have with what we might instead have, and to take stock. When that is done, the path ahead will be seen to be rather clearer and brighter than some others would tell you it is. One certainly hears people suggesting that secession from the European Union is going to have a damaging effect, but for our private international law the truth may well be otherwise. And while the need to deal with these tasks may be an un-looked-for interruption to normal work, for some of us the chance to ask questions challenges us to think about what we would like our rules of private international law to say. My conclusion will be that less will change than most seem to suppose (or, in some cases, seem to hope for). There will be minor changes, certainly, but need be nothing major; and if anything major does change, it will not be a change for the worse. In short, though I am very fearful of sounding like the Daily Mail in human form, private international law has no cause for alarm. I should perhaps say that a fuller and footnoted version of this paper will be available from the Combar website if anyone is interested.’
Full story (PDF)
Blackstone Chambers, 24th January 2017
Source: www.blackstonechambers.com
‘It should not be obligatory for banks in the UK to pre-agree where their data will be processed and stored when contracting with cloud service providers.’
OUT-LAW.com, 13th February 2017
Source: www.out-law.com
‘A judicial review that aims to halt UK arms sales to Saudi Arabia because they could be used to illegally kill civilians in Yemen is set to begin on Tuesday.’
The Guardian, 7th February 2017
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The judgments in Miller highlight the fact that the common law has never managed to arrive at a satisfactory intellectual framework for European law. I will focus first on Lord Reed’s dissent. On Lord Reed’s account, the situation is simpler than anyone who had observed UK and EU law for the past 45 years could have imagined. The UK takes a dualist approach to international law, and EU law is international law. Once this characterisation is accepted the case is over.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 30th January 2017
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘Changes to the official ministerial code that removed a requirement that ministers must comply with international laws and treaties are to be challenged in the court of appeal.’
The Guardian, 26th January 2017
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Attorney General discusses the modern law of self-defence at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.’
Attorney General’s Office, 11th January 2017
Source: www.gov.uk/ago
‘Pre-emptive military strikes against terrorist targets overseas are required for national self-defence and the legal basis on which they are carried out should be made more explicit to deal with increasing threat levels, the UK’s attorney general is due to say on Wednesday.’
The Guardian, 11th January 2017
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal has dismissed a high profile challenge by four Portuguese state-owned transport companies to the jurisdiction of the English courts in a dispute over a commonly-used standard form derivatives agreement.’
OUT-LAW.com, 14th December 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Corporations are now widely seen as having responsibilities in regard to human rights abuses. This was thrown starkly onto the front pages recently when a number of high profile UK companies, including M&S and Asos, were caught up in allegations of child refugees from Syria working in very poor conditions for clothing suppliers based in Turkey. They are just one of many instances around the world where corporations have been shown to be involved in human rights abuses.’
OUP Blog, 19th December 2016
Source: www.blog.oup.com
‘This is an extremely important judgment from the Court of Appeal on the reach of the ECHR into war zones, in this case Iraq. The CA, with the only judgment given by Lloyd Jones LJ, disagreed in part with Leggatt J.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 11th September 2016
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘In 2007, I published an article that sought to show in detail how the Iraqi economy had been opened up to allow the transformation of the economy and the routine corruption that enabled a range of private profit-making companies to exploit the post-invasion economy. The article argued that the illegal war of aggression waged by a ‘coalition’ headed by George Bush and Tony Blair was tied to a series of subsequent crimes of pillage and occupation. These included the transformation of the economy and the political system that was explicitly illegal under the terms of the Geneva and Hague Convention; and the mobilisation of political and economic instruments to ‘liberate’ the oil. The recently published Chilcot Report recognizes this corruption – and indeed UK joint legal responsibility for the corruption – and yet the evidence for it has been buried. – See more at: http://blog.oup.com/2016/07/iraq-inquiry-chilcot-money/#sthash.UiY9VxUh.dpuf
OUP Blog, 31st July 2016
Source: www.blog.oup.com
‘Evanna Fruithof, Alexandria Carr and Gordon Nardell QC set out possible models for the UK’s relationship with the EU post-Brexit.’
Counsel, August 2016
Source: www.counselmagazine.co.uk
‘With the constitution of a new UK Government formed around a policy of ‘Brexit’, and the creation of the new ministerial position of ‘Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union’, the likelihood that Article 50 will actually be triggered has increased significantly. In addition to the cavalcade of recent posts addressing who is constitutionally empowered to make the Article 50 notification, attention has also been given to the question of whether an Article 50 notification made in conformity with the constitutional requirements of the UK could be subsequently revoked. An interesting argument raised by Charles Streeten is that ‘an Article 50 notification can be withdrawn unilaterally at any point prior to the expiry of the two year guillotine imposed by Article 50’. This post responds by challenging this argument on two grounds, arguing that ultimately a Member State cannot unilaterally revoke an Article 50 notification once it is made. It will do so by firstly outlining the argument made by Streeten, before explaining its difficulties and attempting to clarify the legal position. In concluding, it will be argued that the decision to trigger Article 50 is one that should be taken with the greatest care; relying upon technical legal arguments to provide a safety net risks creating further uncertainty and undermining the position of the UK in subsequent negotiations.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 27th July 2016
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘Nuclear doom is nearer than most of us believe, experts warn. Britain must set a moral lead by becoming the first of the ‘big five’ powers to reduce its arsenal
The Guardian, 15th July 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Khawar Qureshi QC provides an overview of recent trends and issues relating to the arbitral process’
Counsel, July 2016
Source: www.counselmagazine.co.uk
‘By acting in defiance of the UN charter, as I warned when I was a Foreign Office lawyer in 2003, we put our reputation at risk. So it has proved.’
The Guardian, 7th July 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.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
© Inner Temple Library 2025