‘A recent decision by the UK’s highest court reinforces how important it is for litigants to succeed in the court of first instance as chances of success on appeal are getting slimmer an expert has said.’
OUT-LAW.com, 8th July 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
Henderson v Foxworth Investments Ltd and another: [2014] UKSC 41 ; [2014] WLR (D) 290
‘In the absence of some other identifiable error, an appellate court would interfere with a trial judge’s factual findings only if it were satisfied that his decision was “plainly wrong” in the sense that it could not reasonably be explained or justified.’
WLR Daily, 2nd July 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Henderson (Respondent) v Foxworth Investments Limited and another (Appellants) [2014] UKSC 41 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 2nd July 2014
‘Why were drug courts set up?
The introduction of drug courts in the UK has followed a slightly different trajectory to other jurisdictions, where drug courts filled an important gap in the range of community-based sanctions available to the courts to deal with drug-related crime.’
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 13th May 2014
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
L Batley Pet Products Limited (Appellant) v North Lanarkshire Council (Respondent) [2014] UKSC 27 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 8th May 2014
A (Respondent) v British Broadcasting Corporation (Appellant) (Scotland) [2014] UKSC 25 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 8th May 2014
‘This appeal related to whether the Scottish Courts took the correct approach to prohibit the publication of a name or other matter in connection with court proceedings under section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, and whether the court’s discretion was properly exercised in this case. The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal by the BBC.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 9th May 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
Cramaso LLP v Ogilvie-Grant (Earl of Seafield) and others [2014] UKSC 9; [2014] WLR (D) 64
‘A contracting party could be liable in negligence for a representation made in pre-contractual negotiations which induced the conclusion of the contract by someone other than the original representee.’
WLR Daily, 12th February 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘National decision-makers had an independent and autonomous responsibility under the Convention and Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (1951) (Cmd 9171) and (1967) (Cmnd 3906) to determine the applications of those who had applied for asylum. An earlier decision of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (“UNHCR”) to grant refugee status was not binding on the national decision-maker, nor did it create any presumption or shift the burden of proof.’
WLR Daily, 29th January 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Supreme Court, 29th January 2014
Supreme Court, 18th December 2014
JO v GO and others [2013] EWHC 3932 (COP); [2013] WLR (D) 495
‘The English Court of Protection had no jurisdiction under section 7(1)(a) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to exercise its functions under the Act in relation to an incapacitated adult no longer habitually resident in England and Wales. In the case of an adult lacking capacity to decide where to live, habitual residence could in principle be lost and another habitual residence acquired without the need for any court order or other formal process. Provided that the removal had not been wrongful the doctrine of necessity applied; what was required was a decision taken by a relative or carer which was reasonable, arrived at in good faith and taken in the best interests of the assisted person. There was nothing in the 2005 Act to displace that approach.’
WLR Daily, 13th December 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Zoumbas v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] UKSC 74; [2013] WLR (D) 458
“The fact that the children of failed asylum seekers were not British citizens, and therefore had no right to education and health care in the United Kingdom, was relevant when assessing whether it was reasonable to expect them to live in another country if their parents were removed from the United Kingdom.”
WLR Daily, 27th November 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Zoumbas (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] UKSC 74 | UKSC 2013/0100 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 27th November 2013
‘The Supreme Court issued its decision in H v Lord Advocate (pdf) in 2012. The decision has been virtually ignored by constitutional scholars, but we believe it may be of great constitutional significance. In this post we explain why, starting with some background about constitutional statutes.’
UK Constitutional Law Group, 26th November 2013
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org/blog
“A Lecture to the Denning Society, at Lincoln’s Inn by Lord Sumption on 5 November 2013.”
CrimeLine, 6th November 2013
Source: www.crimeline.info
“The current storms brought down a turbine in Teignmouth: see here for good pics of this and other mayhem. And the rule of law recently brought down a massive wind farm proposed for Shetland. The Scottish Ministers had waved aside a request for a public inquiry, and ended up drafting reasons which ignored the obligations in the Wild Birds Directive in respect of this bird – the whimbrel. Lady Clark quashed the consent on this ground, and also decided that the wind farmer could not apply for the consent anyway because it had not got the requisite licence which she concluded was a pre-condition for such an application. ”
UK Human Rights Blog, 28th October 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
Supreme Court, 31st July 2013
McGraddie v McGraddie and another [2013] UKSC 58; [2013] WLR (D) 323
“An appellate court should not interfere with the trial judge’s conclusions on primary facts unless it was satisfied that he was plainly wrong.”
WLR Daily, 31st July 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
South Lanarkshire Council v Scottish Information Commissioner [2013] UKSC 55; [2013] WLR (D) 307
“Whether processing personal data was ‘necessary’ within the meaning of condition 6 in Schedule 2 to the Data Protection Act 1998 was to be determined as part of the proportionality test established in European Union law so that a measure which interfered with a right protected by such law had to be the least restrictive for the achievement of a legitimate aim.”
WLR Daily, 29th July 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024