‘In this highly anticipated judgment, the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal and held that the Defendant doctor was only liable for losses which fell within the scope of her duty of care, thereby significantly reducing the damages recoverable by the Claimant.’
Hailsham Chambers, 21st July 2021
Source: www.hailshamchambers.com
‘In its 23 July 2021 judgment, the Supreme Court tackled the severe limitations of solicitors’ undertakings in the modern era in Harcus Sinclair LLP v Your Lawyers Ltd [2021] UKSC 32. All practitioners will need to know about this vitally important unanimous judgment.’
Hailsham Chambers, 26th July 2021
Source: www.hailshamchambers.com
‘In this post, Tim Sales, a partner in the Dispute Resolution team at CMS, and Hannah Jones, who works in the Tax team at CMS, comment on the decision handed down by the UK Supreme Court in the matter of R (on the application of Haworth) v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs [2021] UKSC 25.’
UKSC Blog, 28th July 2021
Source: ukscblog.com
‘The UK Supreme Court has delivered its long-awaited judgment in R (on the application of SC, CB and 8 children) (Appellants) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and others (Respondents) on the two-child rule (in the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016) limiting key subsistence benefits to two children per household, and it wastes no opportunity to disappoint.’
Oxford Human Rights Hub, 26th July 2021
Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk
‘The Supreme Court has unanimously allowed this appeal concerning whether a non-compete clause, by which one law firm agreed with another law firm not to take part in the emissions litigation without the latter’s permission, is enforceable or not.’
UKSC Blog, 23rd July 2021
Source: ukscblog.com
‘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.’
UKSC Blog, 23rd July 2021
Source: ukscblog.com
‘A non-compete undertaking given by one law firm to another ahead of them working together was reasonable and not a restraint of trade, the Supreme Court ruled today.’
Legal Futures, 23rd July 2021
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court has unanimously allowed this appeal concerning the law of limitation.’
UKSC Blog, 23rd July 2021
Source: ukscblog.com
‘The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed an appeal which considered whether treatment throughout a 55 day period in solitary confinement of a then 15-year-old appellant in Feltham Young Offenders’ Institution constituted a violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 22nd July 2021
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘In this post, Angus Maudslay, an associate in the litigation and arbitration team at CMS, comments on the decision of the UK Supreme Court in the matter of R (on the application of Fylde Coast Farms Ltd (formerly Oyston Estates Ltd)) v Fylde Borough Council [2021] UKSC 18, which concerns whether section 61N of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 should be interpreted to mean that an application for judicial review was made out of time.’
UKSC Blog, 21st July 2021
Source: ukscblog.com
‘Two campaigners have lost a challenge against the government’s “two-child limit” for welfare payments – an austerity measure brought in by former Tory chancellor George Osborne and one which critics have described as “desperately unfair”.’
The Independent, 9th July 2021
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘John Clargo discusses the recent Supreme Court decision in Rittson-Thomas & Ors v Oxfordshire County Council [2021] UKSC 13 and its implications for “statutory reverters” under section 2 of the School Sites Act 1841.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 1st July 2021
Source: hardwicke.co.uk
‘The Scottish and UK governments are to face off at the Supreme Court over whether two bills passed by MSPs are within Holyrood’s powers.’
BBC News, 28th June 2021
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘In Meadows v Khan [2021] UKSC 21, the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed Ms Meadows’ appeal, finding that there was no principled basis for excluding a clinical negligence claim from the ambit of the ‘scope of duty principle’ in the tort of negligence. The judgment can be read here. This short blog looks at the majority’s reasoning.’
Ropewalk Clinical Negligence Blog, 24th June 20201
Source: www.ropewalk.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court has ruled that protests can be a “lawful excuse” to block roads, as the government pushes for new laws to limit peaceful demonstrations. Britain’s most senior judges said it was right to acquit a group of protesters who blockaded the Defence and Security Equipment International (DSEI) arms fair in London in 2017.’
The Independent, 26th June 2021
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘In Khan v. Meadows [2021] UKSC 21 the Supreme Court has revisited the principles to be applied in “wrongful birth” claims: claims for the cost of bringing up a disabled child who would not have been born but for a doctor’s negligent medical advice/treatment. However, the judgment has implications beyond the world of clinical negligence litigation. The Supreme Court has taken the opportunity to clarify the components or ingredients of the tort negligence more generally. In particular, the Court has affirmed the importance of the “scope of duty” principle: a principle which limits the recoverability of damages wherever it applies. In particular, it is not sufficient for a claimant to establish that – with competent advice – they would have made a different decision about their treatment or care. They must also demonstrate that the particular harm that they have suffered fell within the scope of the defendant’s duty of care.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 24th June 2021
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The Supreme Court has provided a “wholly new legal roadmap” for professional negligence after its ruling last week in two linked cases, the Professional Negligence Lawyers Association (PNLA) has said.’
Legal Futures, 22nd June 2021
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court has backed a building society’s claim against its former auditor, in a ruling that provides a “more generous” test for the duty of care owed by professional advisers.’
Law Society's Gazette, 18th June 2021
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
Establishing an individual’s employment rights can feel like a minefield, with varying degrees of obligations on the employer depending on the employment status. Earlier this year the Supreme Court upheld earlier decisions in the Employment Tribunal, Employment Appeal Tribunal and Court of Appeal that Uber drivers are “workers” of Uber for the purposes of employment rights, and not, as Uber argued, self-employed contractors each operating their own minicab business.
Mills & Reeve, 14th June 2021
Source: www.mills-reeve.com
© Inner Temple Library 2025