‘The High Court has slashed a claimant company’s costs budget from £9.5m to £4.3m, describing it as “entirely unreliable” and “deliberately manipulated”.’
Litigation Futures, 9th March 2015
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The Hon Mr Justice Hickinbottom gave a speech at The First Administrative Court in Wales Lecture on “Administrative Court in Wales – Evolution or Revolution” on 20 February 2014.’
Judiciary of England and Wales, 6th March 2015
Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk
‘Millions of pounds of parking fines could have been charged illegally, according to the RAC Foundation.’
BBC News, 20th February 2015
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘The successful party in a civil court case is not entitled to recover the cost of any ‘after the event’ (ATE) legal expenses insurance premium from an unsuccessful opponent, no mater how “reasonable” it was to have taken out the policy in the first place, the UK’s highest court has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 30th January 2015
Source: www.out-law.com
‘This is a housing case, but the procedural issue in this decision is only tangentially related to that. Nonetheless, it is a matter worth noting.’
NearlyLegal, 10th January 2015
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘The High Court has recently granted Richemont a blocking order requiring the five largest ISPs in the UK to prevent access to various third party websites from advertising and selling goods which infringe Richemont’s trade mark rights. This was the first time that such a blocking order had been sought against ISPs on the basis of trade mark infringement anywhere in the EU (other than, perhaps, in the Danish case of Home v Telenor).’
Full story
RPC IP Hub, 8th January 2015
Source: www.rpc.co.uk
‘Informal visits by the police officers to a registered sex offender’s home seeking entry by consent were in accordance with the law. The scheme for the protection of vulnerable persons from sex offenders as a whole was not disproportionate.’
WLR Daily, 18th December 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Judicial review is an excellent and flexible remedy, filling the gaps when statutory and other appeals do not provide a remedy for unlawful administrative acts or omissions.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 17th December 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
The Senior Court Cost Office has handed down a decision in the above case offering additional guidance as to when and what costs of attending an inquest can be recovered in subsequent civil proceedings.
Zenith PI Blog, 17th December 2014
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
Supreme Court, 12th November 2014
‘In April 2014 Sadiq Khan, Shadow Secretary of State for Justice, asked Karon Monaghan QC and Geoffrey Bindman QC to review the options for a future Labour Government to improve diversity in the judiciary. On November 6th their report, entitled “Judicial Diversity: Accelerating change”, was published. Starting from the premise that “[t]he near absence of women and Black, Asian and minority ethnic judges in the senior judiciary is no longer tolerable”, it proposes a range of recommendations designed to speed up the glacial pace of change. Perhaps the most controversial of these is for the introduction of a quota system for women and BAME candidates. The report reviews the use of quotas in other UK institutions as well as their use in judicial appointments processes around the world, before addressing the question of whether such quotas would be lawful under EU law. This is a key question: EU law casts a long shadow in this context, as the Monaghan and Bindman report makes clear, given that any legislation enacted in Westminster to give effect to a quota system in the process of judicial appointments must conform to the requirements of EU law.’
Full story
UK Constitutional Law Association, 12th November 2014
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘In his lecture to the Administrative Law Bar Association earlier this month, Lord Sumption surveys the concept of “anxious scrutiny” – a judicial method which he characterises as a forerunner to the principle of proportionality. The term was actually coined by Lord Bridge in Bugdaycay (1986), and was meant to apply where the rights engaged in a case were sufficiently fundamental, and stretched the traditional “Wednesbury” test to public authority decisions or actions which were not, on the face of it, irrational. (The citation given in the PDF of the speech incidentally is incorrect). The same way of thinking had been arrived at in the US courts a few years earlier, with their “hard look” doctrine, but to Lord Sumption there was something peculiarly English about the “crab-like” way in which our courts approached and eventually acknowledged this doctrine, hitherto alien to the judicial toolbox.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 10th November 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
Anxious Scrutiny (PDF)
Lord Sumption
Administrative Law Bar Association Annual Lecture, 4th November 2014
Source: www.supremecourt.uk
‘The rule that a fraudulent insurance claim deprived the insured of any right to recover anything applied also to fraudulent devices, namely, the making of statements which were known by the insured to be untrue or which were made recklessly, not caring whether they were true or false, in support of a claim honestly believed by him to be good both as to liability and amount.’
WLR Daily, 16th October 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Strack v European Commission (Case C‑127/13 P) ECLI:EU:C:2014:2250; [2014] WLR (D) 40
‘An institution of the European Union could, in exceptional circumstances, refuse access to certain documents on the ground that the workload relating to their disclosure would be disproportionate as compared to the objectives set by the application for access to those documents. However, reliance on the principle of proportionality could not allow the time-limits laid down by Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L145, p 43) to be changed without creating a situation of legal uncertainty.’
WLR Daily, 2nd October 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘As the Tories attempt to dilute the treaty’s authority in the UK, James Cusick takes a look at the difference it has made.’
The Independent, 3rd October 2014
Source: www.independent.co.uk
The High Court is at odds over the relationship between budgeting and indemnity costs, after one judge expressly disagreed with the view of another that the costs management order (CMO) should also be the starting point for an assessment of indemnity costs.
Litigation Futures, 1st September 2014
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024