‘The London Borough of Brent breached its section 20 duties under the Children Act 1989 when it chose not to provide proper accommodation to unaccompanied asylum seekers while awaiting an assessment of their age, a High Court judge has ruled.’
Local Government Lawyer, 26th October 2021
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘In 2015, the Court of Appeal found that the fast-track procedure rules for appeals against the refusal of some types of asylum claim (the FTR) was “structurally unfair, unjust and ultra vires” (R (Detention Action) v First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) [2015] EWCA Civ 840; [2015] 1 WLR 5341, known as DA6). The Court of Appeal quashed the FTR because this structural unfairness “created a risk that the applicants would have inadequate time to obtain advice, marshall their evidence and properly present their cases”, which “created an unacceptable risk of unfairness in a significant number of cases”.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 26th October 2021
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘In Ho v Adelekun [2021] UKSC 43, the Supreme Court considered the mechanics of qualified one-way costs shifting (QOCS). The claimant was injured in a road traffic accident in 2012. In 2017, she was offered £30,000 by the defendant in settlement of her claim in what was described as a “Part 36 offer letter”. In that letter, the defendant offered to pay the claimant’s costs “in accordance with Part 36 rule 13”, such costs to be subject to detailed assessment if not agreed, if the offer was accepted within 21 days. The claimant decided to accept the offer and a Tomlin order was subsequently made by consent. However, the defendant then argued that the claimant’s costs were limited to the fixed costs recoverable in accordance with the terms of Part 45 Section IIIA of the Civil Procedure Rules.’
Law Society's Gazette, 25th October 2021
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The former president of the Supreme Court has revealed that he is ‘unconvinced’ by a major argument used to justify the government’s controversial judicial review reforms.’
Law Society's Gazette, 22nd October 2021
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The attorney general has defended the government’s decision to reform judicial review, telling public law specialists that cases such as the Article 50 and prorogation challenges have introduced ‘uncertainty’ into the constitutional balance between parliament, government and the courts.’
Law Society's Gazette, 19th October 2021
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘In January 2010 the respondent and their husband were on holiday in Egypt. They stayed at the Four Seasons Hotel Cairo at Nile Plaza. On 3 January 2010, they went on a guided driving tour booked through the hotel. The vehicle they were travelling in during the tour crashed, killing the respondent’s husband and seriously injuring the respondent.’
UKSC Blog, 20th October 2021
Source: ukscblog.com
‘The Appellant is a national of Rwanda who had been granted indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom. After being convicted of serious criminal offences in 2006, he received a sentence of imprisonment and in 2012 was made the subject of a deportation order which has never been implemented. When he was later released on licence, the Secretary of State decided that The Appellant should be detained under paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 1971 (“the 1971 Act”), pending his removal or departure from the United Kingdom.’
UKSC Blog, 20th October 2021
Source: ukscblog.com
‘The Appellant is a national of Rwanda who had been granted indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom. After being convicted of serious criminal offences in 2006, he received a sentence of imprisonment and in 2012 was made the subject of a deportation order which has never been implemented. When he was later released on licence, the Secretary of State decided that The Appellant should be detained under paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 1971 (“the 1971 Act”), pending his removal or departure from the United Kingdom.’
EIN Blog, 20th October 2021
Source: www.ein.org.uk
‘Parliamentary sovereignty has traditionally been understood to mean that Parliament is free to enact legislation on any area of law that it chooses, and that Acts of the U.K. Parliament take precedence over subordinate legislation, regulation, or common law rule. Understood this way, parliamentary sovereignty is a constitutional principle that is couched explicitly in legal terms: it is a legal principle with legal effect, speaking to other legal entities within our constitutional order regarding how they are to exercise their legal functions in light of legislation passed by Parliament. In essence, it is a doctrine of legislative supremacy which honours Parliament’s constitutional role by according its enactments their due authority. On this view, no discernible distinction exists between parliamentary sovereignty and Parliament’s law-making powers because sovereignty describes the scope and weight of those very powers.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 18th October 2021
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed this appeal concerning the petition for judicial review against the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy for failure to provide effective interim protection for successful workplace discrimination and harassment claims, in breach of EU law.’
UKSC Blog, 13th October 2021
Source: ukscblog.com
‘The Supreme Court has held that defendants cannot set off opposing costs orders in cases covered by qualified one-way costs shifting (QOCS), in what has been hailed as a significant win for claimants.’
Legal Futures, 6th October 2021
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘Judges at the Supreme Court have ruled that provisions in two bills passed by MSPs were beyond Holyrood’s powers.’
BBC News, 7th October 2021
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed this appeal concerning the effect of structural unfairness in the Fast Track Procedure 2005 on individual appeal determinations.’
UKSC Blog, 22nd September 2021
Source: ukscblog.com
‘The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed this appeal concerning the effect of structural unfairness in the Fast Track Procedure 2005 on individual appeal determinations.’
EIN Blog, 22nd September 2021
Source: www.ein.org.uk
‘A recent decision by the UK’s highest court has clarified the circumstances in which a party to a commercial contract is entitled to rescind that contract on the grounds of ‘economic duress’ under English law.’
OUT-LAW.com, 6th September 2021
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘On 23 July 2021 the Supreme Court handed down its unanimous judgment on the issues of restraint of trade and solicitors’ undertakings. This article considers the central issue before the court, namely whether a non-compete undertaking within a non-disclosure agreement was an unreasonable restraint of trade and therefore unenforceable.’
3PB, 9th August 2021
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed this appeal concerning two questions of law:
(i) whether a change in the wording of equality legislation has altered the burden of proof in employment discrimination cases, and
(ii) when a tribunal may draw adverse inferences from the absence of a potential witness.’
3PB, 9th August 2021
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
‘Extinction Rebellion has demanded to know how its upcoming demonstrations will be policed after the Supreme Court ruled that protest can be a “lawful excuse” to block roads under human rights law.’
The Independent, 22nd August 2021
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘The issue in this appeal is whether, and if so in what circumstances, a party can set aside a contract on the ground that it was entered into as a result of the other party threatening to do a lawful act.’
UKSC Blog, 18th August 2021
Source: ukscblog.com
‘A and B v Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority and another [2021] UKSC 27. On appeal from [2018] EWCA Civ 1534. The claimants in the case were victims of human trafficking with unspent convictions in Lithuania. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme (CICS) provides compensation to victims of crime, apart from where they have unspent criminal convictions (“the exclusionary rule”). The question for the Supreme Court was whether the exclusionary rule breached the claimants’ rights under Articles 4 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court found that the rule did not breach these rights.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 16th August 2021
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
© Inner Temple Library 2025