‘The London Borough of Hillingdon has lost a judicial review challenge over a decision by government ministers to allow High Speed Two’s appeal over the council’s refusal to grant approval for proposed works for the creation of an ecological mitigation area.’
Local Government Lawyer, 3rd January 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The Association of British Insurers (ABI) has decided not to launch judicial review proceedings over the previous government’s decision to raise the discount rate, but only to -0.25%.’
Litigation Futures, 17th December 2019
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘A Deputy High Court judge has quashed a decision by a borough council to refuse a claimant’s second homelessness application, after it failed to take into account new medical evidence.’
Local Government Lawyer, 16th December 2019
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘A solicitor who had an oral agreement with the son-in-law of a client that he would cover the legal fees did not fall foul of the 1677 Statute of Frauds, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 16th December 2019
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The Court of Appeal has dismissed a council’s appeal over whether it acted unlawfully when it resolved to fix the fees for vehicle licences for taxis and private hire vehicles at an amount which included recovery of all or part of the cost of supervising the conduct of drivers licensed to drive such vehicles.’
Local Government Lawyer, 11th December 2019
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘There is no basis for a law firm’s challenge to a Legal Aid Agency (LAA) decision to reject its tender for a legal aid contract, the High Court has ruled.’
Legal Futures, 9th December 2019
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘A trafficked Vietnamese woman has lost a judicial review against two councils over her age assessment, though the judge involved criticised both authorities for failing to resolve the matter earlier.’
Local Government Lawyer, 5th December 2019
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal had dismissed as academic a case brought against the London Borough of Islington over its discretionary housing payments (DHP) policy and a requirement for a claimant to make a contribution to a shortfall in rent.’
Local Government Lawyer, 4th December 2019
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Did the UK Supreme Court enforce a constitutional convention in Miller (No 2)? Most writers say no. I say yes.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 3rd December 2019
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘The Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal of the Secretary of State for the Home Department from the Court of Appeal decision in R(Hemmati and others) v SSHD [2018] EWCA Civ 2122 in which it was held that the Home Office was not entitled to detain asylum seekers for removal under the Dublin III Regulation because of the failure until 15 March 2017, to set out in law the requirements for detention.’
Garden Court Chambers, 27th November 2019
Source: www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk
‘The High Court has given an important decision on governmental powers to supplement statutory procedures with non-statutory guidance and directions.’
Blackstone Chambers, 3rd December 2019
Source: www.blackstonechambers.com
‘R (Hemmati and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] UKSC 56. In a significant public law decision, the Supreme Court dismissed the Secretary of State’s appeal and held that the policy governing detention pending removal fails to comply with the Dublin III Regulation as it lacks adequate certainty and predictability.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 3rd December 2019
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The government’s refusal to hold a public inquiry into allegations that the security services were complicit in the torture and abduction of terror suspects after 9/11 is to be subjected to a full scale legal challenge.’
The Guardian, 2nd December 2019
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘By declaring the prorogation of parliament to be unlawful, the Supreme Court made a decision with huge legal consequences.’
The Guardian, 29th November 2019
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The family of teenage motorcyclist Harry Dunn have launched a legal action against the Foreign Office which they said could cost them “upwards of £50,000”.’
The Guardian, 28th November 2019
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The five respondents arrived in the United Kingdom illegally and claimed asylum. Each of the respondents was detained for a period of time pending his or her removal from the United Kingdom pursuant to the Immigration Act 1971 of Schedule 2 paragraph 16(2). The respondents challenged the lawfulness of their detention by bringing claims against the Secretary of State for the Home Department.’
UKSC Blog, 27th November 2019
Source: ukscblog.com
‘Alison Chabloz was convicted in 2018 at Westminster Magistrates’ Court of three offences contrary to s.127(1) of the Communications Act 2003.
On appeal, in R v Alison Chabloz [2019] Southwark Crown Court 13 February, the issue was whether or not the three songs were “grossly offensive” [2]. She lost.
She then sought to appeal by way of case stated; however, following a hearing in May concerned with how the matter should proceed, the judge refused to state a case and indicated that the proper course was for her to seek permission for judicial review of the written ruling. No such application was ever formally made, although written grounds for judicial review were produced in September 2019. In Chabloz v Crown Prosecution Service [2019] EWHC 3094 (Admin), Coulson LJ sets out the rather confusing procedural history of the case at [2]-[5].
Law & Religion UK, 20th November 2019
Source: www.lawandreligionuk.com
‘On 30 October 2019 the High Court ordered that seven family members be entitled to see 16 West Yorkshire police offers and a custody nurse give evidence at the inquest into the death of Andrew Hall, quashing the coroner’s ruling on anonymity.’
Garden Court Chambers, 8th November 2019
Source: www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk
‘The Claimant, DS, is a victim of sexual exploitation and human trafficking. In 2018 the Home Office rejected her claim to have been trafficked. Her lawyers obtained new significant expert evidence in support of her claim and asked the Home Office to reconsider the negative decision. The Home Office refused to consider this request, relying on a policy, which stated that only a First Responder or NRM support provider can make a reconsideration request on behalf of the victim. The Home Office refused to even look at the evidence on this basis. It was only after a court challenge was launched and the Court granted DS permission to proceed with her case to trial that the Home Office agreed to look at her individual decision again, and finally accept that she is a victim of trafficking.’
Garden Court Chambers, 15th November 2019
Source: www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025