“Christians are to launch a landmark legal case arguing their religion is being treated as a ‘thought crime’ by government and courts.”
Daily Telegraph, 20th April 2013
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“The act of communication to the public for the purposes of article 3(1) of Parliament and Council Directive 2001/29/EC and section 20 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 occurred both where the communication originated and where it was received.”
WLR Daily, 28th February 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“When a litigator enters into settlement discussions, the general rule is that the content of those communications are protected by the Without Prejudice Rule and cannot be relied upon as evidence in court if the case doesn’t settle. This rule, however, does not constitute a blanket ban. In this note James Barnard reminds us of the Without Prejudice Rule framework, its recognised exceptions and how the Supreme Court case of Oceanbulk Shipping & Trading SA v TMT Asia Ltd [2010] UKSA 44 created another wide-ranging exception.”
Full story (PDF)
11 Stone Buildings, February 2013
Source: www.11sb.com
“Does accommodation available for occupation by a person and those reasonably expected to reside with them have to be in one unit of accommodation?”
NearlyLegal, 24th February 2013
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
Sharif (FC) (Respondent) v The London Borough of Camden (Appellant) [2013] UKSC 10 | UKSC 2011/0117 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 20th February 2013
“Introductory tenancies require a notice under s.128 Housing Act 1996 to be served before possession proceedings. That notice shall inform the tenant of his right to request a review of the landlord’s decision to seek an order for possession and of the time within which such a request must be made. [s.128(6)]”
NearlyLegal, 26th January 2013
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
“The Government is consulting on new laws which would extend producers’ and performers’ rights in sound recordings from 50 to 70 years.”
OUT-LAW.com, 9th January 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
“Section 72(1)(c) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, as amended, which provided, inter alia, that the showing or playing in public of a broadcast to an audience who had not paid for admission to the place where the broadcast was to be seen or heard did not infringe any copyright in any film included in it, provided a defence to the act of communicating a film included in a broadcast to the public, which would otherwise be an act restricted by copyright under section 20 of the Act.”
WLR Daily, 20th December 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The government has been handed a mild reprimand by the Council of Europe for its delaying tactics over giving prisoners the right to vote.”
The Guardian, 10th December 2012
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Yeates and another v Line and another [2012] EWHC 3085 (Ch); [2012] WLR (D) 319
“An oral compromise agreement was not void by virtue of section 2(1) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 merely because it had a disposing effect. The compromise agreement was not an agreement for ‘the sale or other disposition of an interest in land’ within the meaning of section 2(1), so that despite being oral it was a valid contract.”
WLR Daily, 12th November 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Eleven Winterbourne View staff have pleaded guilty to 38 charges of ill-treatment and neglect of a mental health patient under s127 Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA). In this post I want to consider why we need ‘special’ offences like s127 MHA and also s44 Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA), rather than prosecuting crimes in care settings using more ‘mainstream’ offences.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 14th August 2012
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“It is no part of the court of construction to improve a document.”
NearlyLegal, 10th August 2012
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
“A recent High Court decision which appears to confirm that the failure to serve notice of intention to appoint an administrator on the relevant company does not invalidate the appointment leaves unanswered questions, a restructuring law expert has said.”
OUT-LAW.com, 6th August 2012
Source: www.out-law.com
“Thomas Pascoe in the Telegraph gives a familiar layperson’s lament about the amount and complexity of legislation in the UK.”
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 31st July 2012
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
“Sally Gore, barrister, of 14 Gray’s Inn Square, examines developments concerning applications for assessment under section 38(6) of the Children Act 1989 culminating in the Court of Appeal’s clarification in S (A Child) [2011].”
Family Law Week, 27th July 2012
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
“The government has ‘painted itself into a corner’ over its refusal to grant prisoners’ voting rights, according to Europe’s most senior human rights official.”
The Guardian, 15th July 2012
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Prosecutors aim to decide by the end of this month whether they will bring phone-hacking charges against former News of the World journalists, the director of public prosecutions has told the Guardian.”
The Guardian, 8th July 2012
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“The Home Office has released its Statement of Intent on Family Migration, which, amongst other things, makes the position a little clearer on its plans for Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as discussed in my earlier post.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 13th June 2012
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“Tomorrow, the Home Secretary will announce to Parliament plans to give judges guidance on how to interpret Article 8 ECHR (the right to private and family life) in foreign criminal deportation cases. There has been already significant speculation as to whether the long-heralded changes will make much or even any difference.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 10th June 2012
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
Neave and others v Court of Rome, Italy: [2012] EWHC 358 (Admin); [2012] WLR (D) 46
“In the context of the Extradition Act 2003 a person who was no more than a suspect was not an accused person. The mere suspicion that an individual had committed offences was insufficient to place him in the category of ‘accused’ persons. The dividing line between a suspect wanted for questioning and an accused person was fact specific and was complicated by the fact of the different legal systems in Part 1 countries. A purposive interpretation of ‘accused’ was to be adopted in order to accommodate the differences between legal systems. Courts had to adopt a cosmopolitan approach to the question whether, as a matter of substance rather than form, the requirement of there being an ‘accused’ person was satisfied. Resolving the issue would require an intense focus on the particular facts of each case. The fact that under the criminal procedure of the requesting state a person might be asked further questions before a decision was made to charge him was not decisive, as also was the absence of a full file. A person could be accused of an offence even though the decision had not finally been taken to prosecute or charge.”
WLR Daily, 23rd February 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025