‘House of Lords is scheduled to vote on the Government’s proposals for a residence test for access to legal aid, Angela Patrick, Director of Human Rights Policy at JUSTICE considers today’s judgment of the Divisional Court in PLP v Secretary of State for Justice.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 15th July 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘A clause which said that parties to a contract would “endeavour” to resolve any dispute through Swiss arbitration, failing which the English courts would have non-exclusive jurisdiction, was not a valid arbitration agreement within the meaning of the Arbitration Act, the English High Court has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 20th June 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
‘In Haile v Waltham Forest LBC [2014] EWCA Civ 792, the question for the Court of Appeal was the relevant date for determining whether an applicant is intentionally homeless. On the facts, this was a significant question: Ms Haile had left her room in a hostel on 25th October 2011 to go to stay with a friend. Only one person was entitled to occupy the room. She said that she left the room because of unpleasant smells in the hostel. At the time she left the room, she was pregnant and she gave birth to the beautifully named Delina on 15th February 2012. Now, clearly, as of Delina’s birth, the room would not have been reasonable for Ms Haile to continue to occupy because more than one person would be occupying it in breach of the tenancy agreement. However, the council found her intentionally homeless because they did not accept that, as of 25th October 2011, the smells into the room made it not reasonable to continue to occupy.’
NearlyLegal, 16th June 2014
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
Kruppa v Benedetti and another [2014] EWHC 1887 (Comm); [2014] WLR (D) 250
‘A governing law and jurisdiction clause in an agreement which provided that “the parties will endeavour to first resolve the matter through Swiss arbitration” but where no resolution was forthcoming that the “courts of England shall have non-exclusive jurisdiction” did not constitute an arbitration agreement within the meaning of section 6(1) of the Arbitration Act 1996.’
WLR Daily, 11th June 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Internet users who visit a website are safe from the threat of a copyright lawsuit, thanks to a landmark case which concluded in the European court of justice on Thursday.’
The Guardian, 5th June 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Employees who were required to work in a different location after their work was outsourced were not exempted from legal protections aimed at such workers under pre-2014 rules, the UK’s employment appeal tribunal (EAT) has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 21st May 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
‘The phrase “rights of custody,” within the meaning of articles 3 and 5(a) of the 1980 Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and article 2(9)(11) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003, was not limited to rights which were already legally recognised and enforceable but was to be interpreted purposively as including a reference to a wider category, termed “inchoate rights”, the existence of which would have been legally recognised if the matter had arisen before the particular act of removal or retention in question.’
WLR Daily, 15th May 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Lord Justice Jackson, architect of the civil justice reforms, has overturned a High Court decision which wrongly interpreted his own changes to the system.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 19th May 2014
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
In the matter of K (A child) (Northern Ireland) [2014] UKSC 29 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 15th May 2014
‘When a notice is served under Section 8 Housing Act 1988, how precise does the wording of the ground(s) under which possession will be sought have to be?’
NearlyLegal, 18th May 2014
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
Supreme Court, 14th May 2014
‘CCGs may face pressure to disclose information about commissioning in at least four ways. From:
Their duties to involve the public in “planning of the commissioning arrangements by the group” (s14 Z2 National Health Service Act 2006).
Their duties to involve individual patients in “their care or treatment” (s14U National Health Service Act 2006).
Applications to provide information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Applications for disclosure, as part of litigation brought by failed tenderers following procurement exercises.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 10th April 2014
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘Joshua Viney, pupil at 1 Hare Court, considers the implications of the Court of Appeal judgment in Tan v Choy and the ongoing debate concerning the fifth indent of Article 3 of Brussels IIR.’
Family Law Week, 26th March 2014
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘Hitting the Balls out of Court: Are Judges Stepping Over the Line?
Speech by Lord Justice Moses: Creaney Memorial Lecture 2014, 26/02/2014’
Judiciary Of England & Wales, 18th March 2014
Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk
Regina (Alansi) v Newham London Borough Council: [2013] EWHC 3722 (Admin); [2014] WLR (D) 117
‘The court’s approach to the interpretation of statements made by public bodies that were said to give rise to a legitimate expectation required it, inter alia, to ascertain the meaning which the authority’s statements would reasonably convey to the claimant in the light of all the background knowledge which he/she had in the situation in which she was at the time that the statements were made.’
WLR Daily, 27th November 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘In Magmatic Ltd v PMS International Ltd [2013] EWHC 1925 (Pat) (11 July 2013) Mr Justice Arnold held that PMS International Ltd (“PMS”) had infringed registered Community design number 43427-0001 (“the RCD”), some of Magmatic Ltd (“Magmatic”)’s design rights and Magmatic’s literary copyright in its safety notice. Magmatic appealed to the Court of Appeal on the grounds that the judge fell into error in finding infringement of the RCD in that he had wrongly interpreted the RCD and improperly excluded from his consideration various aspects of the design of Magimax’s product. In Magmatic Ltd v PMS International Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 181 (28 Feb 2014) the Court of Appeal (Lords Justices Moses and Kitchin and Lady Justice Black) allowed the appeal.’
NIPC Law, 4th March 2014
Source: www.nicplaw.blogspot.co.uk
Supreme Court, 26th February 2014
‘Paul Griffiths, a planning inspector nicknamed “Inspector Blight” because of the number of wind farms he has approved, is criticised in a Court of Appeal judgement over his interpretation of guidelines’
Daily Telegraph, 28th February 2014
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘As a matter of construction of section 77A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, where a creditor had provided the debtor with a statement which failed to set out the information required by the Consumer Credit (Information Requirements and Duration of Licences and Charges) Regulations 2007, the period of non-compliance commenced on a date to be calculated as if no statement had been served at all, and the period of non-compliance began on the day following the last day on which a compliant statement could have been given.’
WLR Daily, 19th February 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025