Reconsideration or review? – Local Government Lawyer
‘Owain Rhys James looks at an inspector’s jurisdiction under section 195 of the Town and Country Planning Act.’
Local Government Lawyer, 30th October 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
Category: statutory interpretation
FS v RS and JS – A Most Unusual Case about the bank of mum and dad… – Transparency Project
‘Described as “a most unusual case”, the Family Court at the Royal Courts of Justice recently dismissed a forty-one-year-old son’s claim that the “bank of mum and dad” was legally obligated to maintain him. Most court orders for the payment of maintenance of children provide for that obligation to end at the age of 18 or upon the child leaving school. The courts retain jurisdiction to make or vary orders for maintenance of children in limited circumstances, including where there is already a court order in force, to meet expenses in connection with education or training for a trade, profession or vocation, and where the child has expenses attributable to a disability. In FS v RS and JS [2020] EWFC 63, Sir James Munby considered whether the court had jurisdiction in relation to claims under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and the Children Act 1989 and whether jurisdiction under the inherent jurisdiction could be exercised as the Applicant asserted. This is an overview of Munby J’s remarkable judgment in light of an unprecedented proposition upon the court’s traditionally paternal or parental character.’
Transparency Project, 19th October 2020
Source: www.transparencyproject.org.uk
When is it too harsh to separate a child from their parent? – UK Human Rights Blog
‘There has, in recent years, been a proliferation of case law on appeals against deportation by foreign national criminals on grounds of private and family life. The statutory scheme is complex enough, but the various tests (“unduly harsh”, “very compelling circumstances”) have also been subject to extensive judicial gloss, leaving practitioners and judges to wade through a confusing sea of alphabet-country soup case names.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 16th October 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
Were the March 2020 lockdown restrictions lawfully imposed? (Part 1) — Emmet Coldrick – UK Human Rights Blog
‘The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 (“the Regulations”) contained the most draconian restrictions on the liberty of the general population ever imposed in England. They purported to create several new criminal offences (see reg. 9), including an offence of contravening a regulation that “… no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse” (see reg. 6) and an offence of contravening, without reasonable excuse, a regulation that (subject to limited exceptions) “no person may participate in a gathering in a public place of more than two people” (see reg. 7).’
UK Human Rights Blog, 24th September 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
Ronan Cormacain: The United Kingdom Internal Market Bill and Breach of Domestic Law – UK Constitutional Law Association
‘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
Gender-fluid engineer wins landmark UK discrimination case – The Guardian
‘Judge decides that there is protection for non-binary people under the Equality Act.’
The Guardian, 17th September 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Lawful object’ – Section 4(1) of the Explosive Substances Act 1883 – KCH Garden Sq
‘On the 11 March 2020 the Supreme Court gave their judgment in the case of R v Copeland [2020] UKSC 8. This case concerned the interpretation of the Explosive Substances Act 1883 (‘the Act’), section 4(1). This provides that anyone who makes or has in their possession explosive substances is liable to prosecution unless they can show it was ‘for a lawful object’. Specifically, the Court considered the meaning of what constituted ‘a lawful object’ and the case is likely to be of some interest to those involved in counter-terrorism matters.’
KCH Garden Sq, August 2020
Source: kchgardensquare.co.uk
New Judgment: Commissioners for HMRC v Parry & Ors [2020] UKSC 35 – UKSC Blog
‘This appeal was about whether the pension scheme transfer by the late Mrs Staveley, and her omission to take income benefits which were then payable, constituted, or are to be treated as constituting, for the purposes of the Inheritance Tax 1984 a “disposition” which is a “transfer of value” in favour of her sons, who were to be the beneficiaries of the death benefit.’
UKSC Blog, 19th August 2020
Source: ukscblog.com
The public/private divide in the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 – Monckton Chambers
‘In a judgment that will be of interest to a number of entities, particularly in the transport and utilities sectors, the Upper Tribunal in IC v Poplar Housing Association [2020] UKUT 182 (AAC) has provided a boost to this analysis, upholding a narrow definition of “public authority” under Regulation 2(2)(c) of the Environmental Information Regulations (“EIR”) that will exclude many organisations from the scope of the regime.’
Monckton Chambers, 24th July 2020
Source: www.monckton.com
Uber BV v Aslam – Old Square Chambers
‘In this case the drivers argue Uber is a transportation company for whom they provide services as “workers”. Uber disagrees, arguing it is a technology services provider acting as an agent for drivers in their business relationship with passengers. The question for the Court is whether the drivers are “workers” for the purposes of s.230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, s.54(3)(b) of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 and reg.2(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998. If this threshold is passed, a further issue is when the drivers are workers. Possible options include: (1) from the collection of the passenger until the driver reaches the passenger’s destination, (2) from the moment a booking is accepted until the passenger is dropped off, (3) any time when the driver is in the relevant territory with the Uber app switched on. This case is important as it provides an opportunity for the Supreme Court to provide guidance on the interpretation of Autoclenz v Belcher [2011] UKSC 41 and the correct approach to when it is permissible to disregard written contractual terms in an employment context.’
Old Square Chambers, 21st July 2020
Source: www.oldsquare.co.uk
‘Reading down’ the statute: The case of Re: A (Surrogacy: s.54 Criteria) [2020] – Garden Court Chambers
‘In Re: A (Surrogacy: s.54 Criteria) [2020] EWHC 1426 (Fam) Mr Justice Keehan granted an application for a parental order in a case where a child had been conceived using surrogacy. The case was notable as it required the court to ‘read down’ a number of the statutory criteria contained in section 54 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008.’
Garden Court Chambers, 23rd July 2020
Source: www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk
UK search warrants following an International Letter of Request (R (on the application of Terra Services Ltd) v NCA): Lexis Nexis Analysis – 5SAH
‘Corporate Crime analysis: This judgment is the latest in an application for judicial review brought by Terra Services Ltd against the National Crime Agency (NCA), Secretary of State and Inner London Crown Court. The challenges centre around a search warrant applied for by the NCA on the basis of a direction under section 13 of the Crime (International Cooperation) Act 2003 (C(IC)A 2003) from the UK Central Authority (UKCA)—a direction made following a Letter of Request (LOR) from the US Department of Justice (DOJ) seeking assistance with a search of a storage unit. All challenges were dismissed by the court. It was held that C(IC)A 2003, ss 13 and 16 did not require the UKCA to decide for itself which statutory search power should be the subject of a direction; it was for the relevant authority to carry out a PACE-compliant inquiry.’
5SAH, 27th July 2020
Source: www.5sah.co.uk
OHL v Qatar Foundation and tribunal’s powers to correct awards and scope of permissible challenges – Atkin Chambers
‘Challenges were brought by a contractor (JV) under sections 67 and 68(2)(b) of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) in respect of an addendum award (the Addendum) issued by an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) tribunal. The Addendum was issued following an application by the employer to correct a fourth partial award. JV’s challenges were dismissed and the judge gave helpful guidance as to the scope of AA 1996, ss 67 and 68 and the scope of a tribunal’s power to correct and/or interpret its award. Written by Simon Lofthouse QC and Zulfikar Khayum, barristers, at Atkin Chambers, and counsel for Qatar Foundation.’
Atkin Chambers, 6th July 2020
Source: www.atkinchambers.com
Attending a court to give evidence for the employer is not ‘‘work’’ for the purposes of the ‘furlough’ scheme – 3PB
‘According to a report in the Nottinghamshire Law Society Civil Court User Bulletin No 5. HHJ Godsmark QC, on an application to vacate a trial on account of the Defendant’s witnesses being “furloughed”, stated that, “attending a court to give evidence for the employer is not ‘work’ and certainly not work within the meaning of the furlough scheme”.’
3PB, 3rd July 2020
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
The Digitisation of Welfare and Irrationality Review: SSWP v Johnson – Oxford Human Rights Hub
‘In Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Johnson & Ors [2020] EWCA Civ 778, the England & Wales Court of Appeal took the uncommon step of holding an executive decision unlawful for Wednesbury irrationality. Johnson highlights that irrationality is not merely a desperate ground of last resort for judicial review applicants. The case is also an important illustration of how substantive review may be relied upon by those affected by the digitisation of welfare.’
Oxford Human Rights Hub, 30th June 2020
Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk
Penalised for parking on your own land – Law Society’s Gazette
‘Funny thing, the law. You would not, for instance, think you could get a ticket for parking on your own land. But you can. Who says? The Court of Appeal, for one. On 27 November 2009 in Dawood v Parking & Traffic Appeals Service & Another [2009] EWCA Civ 1411, in refusing permission to appeal against a penalty charge notice, Sedley LJ said that: “One might have thought that nobody could commit a criminal offence by parking a motor scooter on his own land. But the adjudicator took the law to be otherwise and HHJ Oliver‑Jones held that the contrary was not arguable.” As did Sedley LJ.’
Law Society's Gazette, 6th July 2020
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
Travel between England and Wales – UK Human Rights Blog
‘The position in relation to cross-border travel between England and Wales has caused confusion in recent weeks. It has been subject to posts from UKHR readers and there have been news articles showing that many people have been entering Wales from England to access beauty spots, unaware that there are different regulations governing the two countries. This post will attempt to clarify the current position.’
UK Human Right Blog, 26th June 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
Mesothelioma compensation scheme considered at appellate level for the first time – Hardwicke Chambers
‘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
Safe workplaces and the commute to work – how far does section 44 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 go? – Six Pump Court
‘On 11 May 2020, the Government published practical Guidance[1] in a bid to encourage workplaces to be made as safe as possible for returning employees during the Covid-19 pandemic. Whilst the Guidance has been developed in consultation with unions and industry bodies, there still exists the very real possibility that employees do not have sufficient confidence that their workplaces are, in fact, ‘Covid-19 secure’ and consider that by returning, they have been subjected to a detriment by their employer.’
Six Pump Court, 9th June 2020
Source: www.6pumpcourt.co.uk
