Lord Sales – Purpose in Statutory Interpretation, Oxford University and University of Notre Dame Seminar on Public Law Theory, 19 September 2024
Supreme Court, 19th September 2024
Source: www.supremecourt.uk
‘The Land Registration Act 2002 was thought to have killed off adverse possession as an active legal mechanism, but the recent case of Brown v Ridley has reopened the debate. The central issue: when is the 10-year period during which the applicant must have a reasonable belief to satisfy paragraph 5(4) of schedule 6? This is one of the three conditions which an applicant must satisfy if the registered title owner objects to the application for adverse possession.’
Law Society's Gazette, 2nd October 2024
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘Today [16 August], the Supreme Court has handed down a significant judgment in the second ever “leapfrog” appeal from the Upper Tribunal: A1 Properties (Sunderland) Ltd v Tudor Studios RTM Company Ltd [2024] UKSC 27. The appeal concerns an issue of statutory interpretation that frequently arises across all areas of the law: where a statute lays down a procedural framework for exercising a statutory right, but is silent as to the consequences of a failure to comply with that framework, how should the court ascertain what Parliament intended should follow from the non-compliance?’
Landmark Chambers, 16th August 2024
Source: landmarkchambers.co.uk
‘Pensions analysis: In a landmark ruling, dismissing the appeal brought by Virgin Media Ltd (Virgin) against the first instance decision of Mrs Justice Bacon, the Court of Appeal held that the term ‘section 9(2B) rights’ in regulation 42(2) of the Occupational Pension Schemes (Contracting-out) Regulations 1996 (the Contracting-out Regulations), as in force from 6 April 1997 to 5 April 2013, included pension rights earned by both past and future service. The judgment potentially has very significant implications for occupational pension schemes that were contracted out of the Additional State Pension on the salary-related basis under section 9(2B) of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 (PSA 1993) : absent actuarial confirmation as required by PSA 1993, s 37, it now appears certain historical alterations to members’ future (as well as past) service rights under such schemes will be void. Important practical issues concerning the nature and scope of the required actuarial confirmation, however, remain unresolved. Written by Henry Day, barrister at Radcliffe Chambers.’
Radcliffe Chambers, 19th August 2024
Source: radcliffechambers.com
‘In G v S (Family Law Act 1996: Publicity) [2024] EWFC 231 (B) (6 June 2024) HHJ Reardon asked:
“What is the default position in terms of publication in a case where s 12 [of the Administration of Justice Act 1969] does not apply?”’
Financial Remedies Journal, 1st September 2024
Source: financialremediesjournal.com
‘Leon Glenister reports on a successful defence to a judicial review challenging the established interpretation of teaching regulation legislation.’
Local Government Lawyer, 19th August 2024
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘In an important recent judgment, the UK Supreme Court has rewritten the post-Brexit rules on application of EU case law in the UK courts, so that they apply retrospectively in proceedings in respect of pre-Brexit events.’
OUT-LAW.com, 29th July 2024
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘I recently acted in the High Court appeal in Wetherell v Student Loans Company Ltd [2024] EWHC 1443 (KB) which raises some interesting questions about the personal injury landscape after the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013.’
Ropewalk Personal Injury Blog, 10th July 2024
Source: ropewalk.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal has clarified the meaning of “antisocial behaviour” for the purposes of Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. Sian McGibbon examines the ruling.’
Local Government Lawyer, 21st June 2024
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘In extradition proceedings, questions may arise relating to the requested person’s purported deliberate absence from a criminal trial. In March, the UK Supreme Court (UKSC) handed down two decisions which clarify important tests to be met in these circumstances.’
Law Society's Gazette, 14th June 2024
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘In Black Horse Limited v Andrew Curtis (Bristol CC, 21 February 2024), HHJ Railton heard an appeal in relation to a novel point under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (the Act).’
Littleton Chambers, 23rd May 2024
Source: littletonchambers.com
‘A man who sold goods in the streets of Birmingham did not break the law as he was protected under an 1871 act by being a pedlar, the High Court has found.’
Local Government Lawyer, 12th June 2024
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Throughout the life of devolution, the courts appear to have diverged on how to properly determine the scope and limits of devolved lawmaking power, and the extent to which norms and principles not expressly contained in the text of the devolution statutes can usefully sculpt or inform those statutes’ interpretation.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 28th May 2024
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘Common-law judges frequently claim to apply the “always speaking” principle. But they recognise that they are not clear on what it means, with Lord Leggatt recently calling the metaphor “enigmatic”. In this article, I seek to clarify this by showing that the “always speaking” metaphor is associated with at least four different types of principle, each of which responds to a distinct issue (although there is a common theme: change over time). I explore the origins of the “always speaking” metaphor, distinguish the four issues and explain how they relate. I argue that it is important to disentangle the four types of “always speaking” principle, with a focus on distinguishing principles of dynamic (versus originalist) interpretation from principles that empower judges to strain or “recast” legislation to deal with new developments sensibly. In doing so, I analyse and critique the judgments in the recent UK Supreme Court case of News Corp.’
Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 10th May 2024
Source: academic.oup.com
‘EJ Richard Wood held that the Airport had breached s.145B of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 by offering pay increases directly to 9 members of Prospect, the trade union recognised by the Airport for collective bargaining purposes. The Tribunal’s judgment provides a helpful application of the interpretation of s. 145B in the Supreme Court’s decision in Kostal UK Ltd v Dunkley and ors [2021] UKSC 47 and the EAT’s decision in Ineos Infrastructure Grangemouth Ltd v Jones & ors and Ineos Chemicals Grangemouth Ltd v Arnott & ors [2022] EAT 82. Under s. 145B employers are prohibited from making offers to employees who are members of a recognised trade union which, if accepted, would have the result that one or more terms of their employment will not, or will no longer, be determined by collective bargaining (the “prohibited result”), if the employer’s sole or main purpose in making the offers is to achieve the prohibited result. Where liability is established, the ET must make a prescribed award (£4,554 at the time the claim was presented) to each member to whom the offer is made.’
Old Square Chambers, 24th April 2024
Source: oldsquare.co.uk
‘In Savage v Savage [2024] EWCA Civ 49 (“Savage”), the Court of Appeal reached a much required decision on the statutory interpretation of Section 15 of the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (“TOLATA 1996”) and held that, when considering an application under Section 14 TOLATA 1996 and a dispute between beneficiaries of a trust of land, the Court was permitted to consider the circumstances and wishes of the minority beneficiaries under Section 15 (3) TOLATA 1996.’
St Philips Barristers, 16th April 2024
Source: st-philips.com
‘This is a note of a county court appeal on the issue of whether Section 7 Interpretation Act 1978 applied to the prescribed documents required to be given to the tenant before service of a section 21 notice – EPC, GSC, How to Rent Guide. This judgment is of particular interest because permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal has been given, so this will (eventually) be a matter for Court of Appeal authority.’
Nearly Legal, 6th May 2024
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘When a company becomes insolvent, particularly if it is a large company, this will often mean that there will be a large-scale redundancy process. The requirements of the process can be technical, but there is a list of obligations that must be adhered and these are set out within the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULRCA 1992).’
Legal Studies, 19th April 2024
Source: www.cambridge.org
‘The decision late last year by Ritchie J in Aga v GDC caused uproar in the regulatory and professional discipline worlds.’
2 Hare Court, 5th April 2024
Source: www.2harecourt.com
‘The Court of Appeal has held that a child born to a French national mother who was ordinarily resident in the UK while she was exercising her right of free movement as a worker had not automatically acquired British citizenship at birth under section 1(1)(b) of the British Nationality Act 1981 as the child of someone “settled” in the UK. In so concluding, the Court of Appeal held that the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2000 were “immigration laws” which subjected the mother to a restriction on her entitlement to remain in the UK and meant that she had not been “settled” for the purposes of section 1(1)(b) at the time of the child’s birth. At first instance Eyre J had dismissed Mr Roehrig’s claim for judicial review of the decision made by the SSHD refusing his application for a British passport. The issue in this appeal, as it was before the single judge, was whether Mr Roehrig automatically acquired British citizenship at birth under section 1(1)(b) of the British Nationality Act 1981. Notably, section 1(1)(b) of the 1981 Act provides that “A person born in the United Kingdom after commencement shall be a British citizen if at the time of the birth his father or mother is …(b) settled in the United Kingdom.” The SSHD refused the application stating: “As you were not able to provide documentary evidence to show your Mother was free from immigration time restrictions at the time of your birth, we are not able to issue a passport to you at this time…”.’
EIN Blog, 10th April 2024
Source: www.ein.org.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024