Case Preview: Protect Rural England (Kent) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government – UKSC Blog

Posted January 28th, 2021 in appeals, costs, government departments, local government, news, planning, Supreme Court by sally

‘On 28 January 2021 the Supreme Court will hear the appeal in Campaign to Protect Rural England (Kent) (Appellant) v. Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Respondent). The case concerns two issues. First, the extent to which a court can make an adverse costs order in favour of more than one defendant or interested party in a planning case, where permission to apply for statutory or judicial review is refused. Second, how the capping mechanism in the Aarhus Convention costs regime properly applies to cases in which permission is refused.’

Full Story

UKSC Blog, 27th January 2021

Source: ukscblog.com

Supreme Court to consider costs orders against regulators – Legal Futures

‘The Supreme Court is to consider whether costs should only be awarded against regulators in unsuccessful cases where there is good reason to make an order, it announced today [27 January].’

Full Story

Legal Futures, 27th January 2021

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

Email attachments not covered by legal privilege, court clarifies – Law Society’s Gazette

‘Email attachments are not to be covered by legal professional privilege even if the email is, the Supreme Court effectively decided this week.’

Full Story

Law Society's Gazette, 21st January 2021

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Standard of Proof and the Chief Coroner’s Law Sheet No.6 – Maughan and Beyond – Parklane Plowden Chambers

‘On 13th January 2021, the new Chief Coroner, HHJ Teague QC, published Law Sheet No.6. This new guidance comes exactly two months after the Supreme Court gave judgment on 13th November 2020 in the case of R (on the application of Thomas Maughan) v. HM Senior Coroner for Oxfordshire [2020] UKSC 46 where it ruled by majority that all conclusions in coronial inquests, whether short form or narrative, are to be determined on the civil standard of proof: the balance of probabilities.’

Full Story

Parklane Plowden Chambers, 19th January 2021

Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk

FCA v Arch Insurance (UK) Ltd and others – St John’s Chambers

‘This short note summarises the key parts of the Supreme Court’s decision in this important test case, by which it allowed most of the FCA’s appeals against the decision of the Divisional Court and found largely in favour of policyholders.’

Full Story

St John's Chambers, 21st January 2021

Source: www.stjohnschambers.co.uk

Email attachments are not privileged just because message is – Legal Futures

Posted January 21st, 2021 in appeals, disclosure, electronic mail, news, privilege, Supreme Court by sally

‘The Supreme Court has refused to interfere in a ruling that legal professional privilege (LPP) which covers an email does not extend to any attachments.’

Full Story

Legal Futures, 21st January 2021

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

New Judgment: Financial Conduct Authority v Arch Insurance (UK) Ltd and Ors [2021] UKSC 1 – UKSC Blog

‘In March 2020, the UK Government began to take a series of measures to combat the transmission of COVID-19. The present appeals considered the impact of these actions and measures on 28 clauses in the 21 lead policies written by the Appellant Insurers.’

Full Story

UKSC Blog, 15th January 2021

Source: ukscblog.com

Carwyn Jones: Is Dicey dicey? – UK Constitutional Law Association

Posted January 18th, 2021 in constitutional law, devolution, news, parliament, rule of law, Supreme Court by sally

‘For nearly a hundred and fifty years, parliamentary sovereignty or supremacy (the terms are used interchangeably) has been taken as immutable and unchanging by the UK Parliament and the courts. As devolution has developed, the concept deserves greater examination to see whether the concept is as sound as it has been supposed.’

Full Story

UK Constitutional Law Association, 18th January 2021

Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org

Supreme Court lowers the bar – Law Society’s Gazette

‘On 11 December, in a long-awaited judgment (and in perhaps unique circumstances), the Supreme Court dismissed Mastercard’s appeal in the “gargantuan” collective action brought by Walter Merricks CBE. In doing so, the court has markedly lowered the bar to be applied at the certification stage for competition collective actions. This judgment will have a significant impact on collective actions – which are still in their relative infancy – for years to come. Merricks’ claim will now return to the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT), which will decide again (now with clear guidance from the Supreme Court) whether to certify the claim by granting a collective proceedings order (CPO).’

Full Story

Law Society's Gazette, 11th January 2021

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

David Feldman: Departing from Retained EU Case law – UK Constitutional Law Association

Posted January 12th, 2021 in brexit, EC law, judiciary, news, practice directions, precedent, Supreme Court by sally

‘Following the end of the UK’s transition period for withdrawing from the EU, the status of earlier case law on retained EU law is somewhat complicated. Section 6(3) and (4)(a) and (b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, as amended by the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, provides that the Supreme Court and in criminal matters the High Court of Justiciary are not to be bound by any retained EU case law, but other courts and tribunals are to determine issues of retained EU law in accordance with retained EU case law. In relation to certain aspects of competition law, section 60A(7) of the Competition Act 1998, inserted by reg. 23 of the Competition (Amendments etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, SI 93 of 2019, provides that any court or tribunal, the Competition and Markets Authority, and anyone acting on behalf of the Authority, may depart from retained EU case law. In addition, section 6(5A) of the 2018 Act allows regulations to be made to designate other courts and tribunals as “relevant courts” or “relevant tribunals” which, by virtue of section 6(4)(ba), are not to be bound by retained EU case law to the extent specified in the regulations.’

Full Story

UK Constitutional Law Association, 11th January 2021

Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org

Barrister broke Supreme Court embargo in “act of civil disobedience” – Litigation Futures

‘A barrister broke the embargo on today’s Supreme Court ruling on the Heathrow airport expansion case “as an act of civil disobedience”.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 16th December 2020

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Top UK court overturns block on Heathrow’s third runway – The Guardian

Posted December 17th, 2020 in airports, environmental protection, news, planning, Supreme Court by sally

‘The Supreme Court has overturned a February judgment that a third runway at Heathrow airport was illegal. It means the project can now seek planning permission, but the ultimate completion of the runway remains uncertain.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 16th December 2020

Source: www.theguardian.com

No business interruption decision from Supreme Court until next year – Law Society’s Gazette

‘Judgment in an urgent test case to determine whether businesses hit by Covid-19 will receive insurance pay-outs will not be handed down by the Supreme Court until January at the earliest. Five Supreme Court justices heard a case between the Financial Conduct Authority and six insurance companies in November. The dispute concerned business interruption insurance (BII) and the court was asked to rule on provisions in insurance policies relating to disease clauses, prevention of access clauses and hybrid clauses.’

Full Story

Law Society's Gazette, 15th December 2020

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Top UK court overturns block on Heathrow’s third runway – The Guardian

‘The Supreme Court has overturned a February judgment that a third runway at Heathrow airport was illegal. It means the project can now seek planning permission, but the ultimate completion of the runway remains uncertain.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 16th December 2020

Source: www.theguardian.com

Collective Actions in the Supreme Court – Competition Bulletin from Blackstone Chambers

‘The big news from today’s UK Supreme Court collective action decision in Mastercard v Merricks [2020] UKSC 51 is not only that Mr Merricks won and defeated the appeal, but that the Supreme Court approached the issues in a far more claimant-friendly way than even the Court of Appeal had done.’

Full Story

Competition Bulletin from Blackstone Chambers, 11th December 2020

Source: competitionbulletin.com

Mastercard judgment ‘lowers bar’ for collective action – Law Society’s Gazette

‘The Supreme Court’s ruling against Mastercard will make it easier for group damages claims to proceed to trial, commentators have said. However, the card issuer’s solicitors have stressed the “very unusual circumstances” of the judgment, in which justices were divided on key issues.’

Full Story

Law Society's Gazette, 11th December 2020

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Financial Remedy Update, December 2020 – Family Law Week

‘Sue Brookes Principal Associate, Family Lawyer, Collaborative Lawyer and Mediator for Mills & Reeve LLP considers the important news and case law relating to financial remedies and divorce during November 2020.’

Full Story

Family Law Week, 10th December 2020

Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk

Case Comment: Shagang Shipping Company Ltd (in liquidation) v HNA Group Company Ltd [2020] UKSC 34 – UKSC Blog

Posted December 9th, 2020 in appeals, bribery, charterparties, evidence, news, Supreme Court, torture by sally

‘On 5 August 2020, the UK Supreme Court handed down judgment in Shagang Shipping Company Ltd (in liquidation) v HNA Group Company Ltd [2020] UKSC 34; [2020] 1 W.L.R. 3549. Against the background of a commercial charterparty dispute, this appeal raised important questions about the admissibility of evidence potentially obtained through torture.’

Full Story

UKSC Blog, 8th December 2020

Source: ukscblog.com

New Judgment: R (on the application of Gourlay) v Parole Board [2020] UKSC 50 – UKSC Blog

Posted December 7th, 2020 in appeals, costs, judicial review, news, parole, prisons, Supreme Court by sally

‘The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed this appeal concerning the role of the Court in relation to the principles governing the award of costs in lower courts.’

Full Story

UKSC Blog, 4th December 2020

Source: ukscblog.com

The law applicable to an arbitration agreement: Part 1 of our analysis of Enka v OOO Insurance – Hardwicke Chambers

‘In the eagerly awaited judgment in Enka Insaat Ve Sanayi AS v OOO Insurance Company Chubb [2020] UKSC 38, the Supreme Court finally settled an important issue in the law of arbitration that has long divided the authorities and commentary: in the absence of a choice by the parties, where the law applicable to the main contract differs from that of the seat, it is the law of the seat that governs the validity and scope of the arbitration agreement. Our Overview on the decision sets out the key holdings; Part I (below) of our commentary on the decision examines the reasoning of the Majority in greater depth.’

Full Story

Hardwicke Chambers, 2nd December 2020

Source: hardwicke.co.uk