‘A former senior legal officer for the British Army has spoken out against The Overseas Operations Bill currently on its way through parliament, saying it does nothing to protect soldiers and breaches international law.’
Each Other, 12th January 2021
Source: eachother.org.uk
‘The family of a young man stabbed to death by a convicted terrorist are suing the government over alleged failures to manage the attacker in the community.’
The Guardian, 26th November 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The Law Society has endorsed parliamentary criticism of proposed legislation aimed at curbing what the government calls vexatious claims against service personnel.’
Law Society's Gazette, 30th October 2020
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The Overseas Operations Bill (‘OOB’) aims to prevent what the government has long termed as ‘vexatious legislation’ being brought against members of the UK’s armed forces for their conduct in engagements abroad.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 12th October 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Lord chancellor Robert Buckland has revealed that the government is to commission an independent review of the Human Rights Act.’
Law Society's Gazette, 7th October 2020
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘Huge controversy has already been generated over provisions in the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill granting Ministers the power to disapply the Withdrawal Agreement. Most of the debate (Elliott, Armstrong) has been focused on the potential breaches of international law. This could severely damage the reputation of the United Kingdom in the world. However, what has been relatively overlooked is that this Bill is also a flagrant attack on the Rule of Law at the UK domestic level. This remains the case even if amendments proposed by Sir Bob Neill MP (and apparently accepted by the Government) pass.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 23rd September 2020
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘The Overseas Operation (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill was introduced in the House of Commons in March 2020 and is due its second reading on 23 September 2020. In short, the Bill aims to limit prosecution and civil proceedings against military personnel, as well as to enable the UK government to derogate from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) during combat operations. The Bill emerges in response to what numerous Defence Secretaries have referred to as the “judicialisation of war”, a term which has been used to resist the application of the ECHR to overseas military combat operations. Despite the Bill being described as a way to protect soldiers from the “industry” of “vexatious claims” and preserve the ability of combat forces to fight wars effectively, there is every suggestion that this is really about precluding, or at least severely limiting, the accountability of the British state in its overseas military deployments.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 22nd September 2020
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘NHS Resolution, the Society of Clinical Injury Lawyers (SCIL) and patient safety charity Action against Medical Accidents (AvMA) have signed up to a new protocol to better manage claims during Covid-19.’
Litigation Futures, 14th August 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘On 30 March 2018, whilst working on the demolition of an oil tanker on the beach at Chittagong, Bangladesh, Mr Mollah fell to his death.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 17th July 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The Upper Tribunal has handed down judgment in DP v Topmark Claims Management Ltd [2020] UKUT 0106 (AAC), which is the first time the Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme (“DMPS”) has been considered at an appellate level. It gave guidance on the scope of the scheme, as well as wider points on the nature of an appeal before the First Tier Tribunal (“FTT”) and on statutory interpretation.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 2nd June 2020
Source: hardwicke.co.uk
‘In clinical negligence cases things change. That’s often because new expert evidence, witness evidence, or medical records come to light. So, when can you add to your existing case?’
Parklane Plowden Chambers, 5th June 2020
Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk
‘The key phrase in most but not all of the sections of the Limitation Act 1980 is the accrual of the “cause of action”. Time runs from the accrual of the cause of action.’
Hailsham Chambers, June 2020
Source: www.hailshamchambers.com
‘The law governing limitation periods is critical in managing a dispute; a failure to commence proceedings within the required limitation period is usually nothing less than fatal to a claim. This article considers the potential impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on limitation periods affecting international civil litigation in the courts of England and Wales (henceforth, with apologies, the English courts). The focus of this article is on statutory limitation periods, but it is important to note that some claims may also be subject to contractually agreed limitation periods which require separate and careful consideration.’
Blackstone Chambers, 29th May 2020
‘On Halloween in 2003, the Service Charge (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003 (the “Regulations”) came into force, amending section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“LTA 1985”). This amendment set a financial limit to works carried out on a residential building, beyond which a landlord would have to consult with tenants. That threshold is £250 per tenant. The nature of the consultation is prescribed by section 20 LTA 1985.’
Becket Chambers, 27th May 2020
Source: becket-chambers.co.uk
‘The diagnosis and quantification of NIHL is affected by innumerable confounding factors, which include:
(i) Constitutional issues, such as unrelated third pathologies, which can
‘replicate’ the pattern of threshold elevation as appears in NIHL cases;
(ii) Personal susceptibility to hearing damage: ‘soft and hard ears’;
(iii) The actual threshold at birth or before noise exposure, which means assumptions must be made regarding the extent of any allegedly raised threshold;
(iv) Age. Particularly how the effects of age are to be calculated and the assumptions which are valid in arriving at an approved or reliable AAHL table of estimates’
Parklane Plowden Chambers, 22nd May 2020
Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk
‘This article discusses whether to list a case for trial of “limitation” as a preliminary issue. This can be a matter of conflict between parties but, in the “age of QOCS”, can have significant benefits or repercussions for the litigants depending on the Court’s approach.’
Parklane Plowden Chambers, 21st May 2020
Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk
‘A series of judgments have already been handed down this year that deal with limitation in historic sex abuse cases. Each addresses whether it is equitable to allow the claim to proceed by disapplying the long-expired limitation period, by exercising the discretion under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980.’
12 King's Bench Walk, 1st May 2020
Source: www.12kbw.co.uk
‘A High Court judge has narrowly allowed a case to survive despite a wait of almost three years following the identification of a party. Solicitors for the claimant in Gregory v H J Haynes had applied for the limitation period to be extended after a fruitless search for the defendant’s insurer had taken them past the initial three-year limitation date.’
Law Society's Gazette, 28th April 2020
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The Defendants employed a 30 year old man “Hughes” as a kitchen porter from 15 October 1990 to 10 July 1991 at their school for girls. He was provided with accommodation on the school premises. The Defendants were not aware that Hughes had a criminal record, including offences of indecent assault on a female and unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of 15. Had the Defendants been aware of these convictions, Hughes would not have been offered employment.’
39 Essex Chambers, 22nd April 2020
Source: www.39essex.com
© Inner Temple Library 2025