‘The Court of Appeal decision in Dr Julia Duval v 11 – 13 Randolph Crescent Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 2298 was a wake-up call to landlords to be alive to their, often overlooked, obligations to enforce tenants’ covenants at the behest of other tenants. That decision has been confirmed by the Supreme Court: [2020] UKSC 18.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 12th May 2020
Source: hardwicke.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court recently ruled that Morrison Supermarkets was not vicariously liable for a data breach committed maliciously by a former employee who disclosed employee payroll data online (WM Morrison Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 12). The judgment clarified that the test for vicarious liability is whether the acts committed by the employee were ‘so closely connected’ with the acts that they were authorised to carry out by their employer that such acts ‘can fairly and properly be regarded as done’ by the employee acting in the ordinary course of his or her employment.’
Law Society's Gazette, 18th May 2020
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court has refused the Welsh Ministers’ application for permission to appeal a ruling that s.73 permissions cannot alter the description of development, it has been reported.’
Local Government Lawyer, 19th May 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The first Justice of the Supreme Court to be appointed direct from academia, Professor Andrew Burrows, will be sworn in at a closed ceremony on 2 June, it has been announced.’
Local Government Lawyer, 19th May 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘This decision exemplifies the stricter approach the courts are now taking in disciplinary cases where the regulated person fails to attend a hearing.’
Blackstone Chambers, 13th May 2020
Source: www.blackstonechambers.com
‘Under the Detention of Terrorists (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, art 4 an Interim Custody Order was made where the Secretary of State considered that an individual was involved in terrorism. On foot of an ICO, the person was taken into custody and had to be released within 28 days, unless the Chief Constable referred the matter to the Commissioner, who had the power to make a detention order if satisfied that the person was involved in terrorism.’
UKSC Blog, 13th May 2020
Source: ukscblog.com
‘Gerry Adams has won his appeal to have two convictions for attempting to escape from prison in the 1970s overturned.’
BBC News, 13th May 2020
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Immigration Law Update with articles from Kate Jones, Tori Adams, Daniel Wand, Ben Haseldine and Jyoti Wood.’
4 King's Bench Walk, 5th May 2020
Source: www.4kbw.co.uk
‘In this landmark decision, a five – judge constitution of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), headed by the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, clarified that the test for dishonesty in criminal law is that set out by Lord Hughes in the Supreme Court authority of Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) (trading as Cockfords Club) [2017] UKSC 67; [2018] AC 391. This test is to be preferred to the test of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division in R v Ghosh [1982] QB 1053.’
Park Square Barristers, 30th April 2020
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
‘Morrisons, the Appellant by the time this case reached the Supreme Court, are, of course, a well-known national chain of supermarkets. The Respondents in this case were approximately 9,000 employees or former employees of Morrisons.’
3PB, May 2020
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
‘Two of the leases of 11-13 Randolph Crescent are held by the respondent, Dr Duval and a third lease Is held by Ms Martha Winfield. Each lease contains a covenant, clause 2.6, which prevents the lessee from making any alteration or improvement in, or addition to, the premises demised by the lease without the prior consent of the landlord. Each lease contains an absolute covenant, clause 2.7, which prevents the lessee from cutting into any roofs, walls, ceilings or service media. Clause 3.19 requires the landlord to enforce, at the request and cost of the lessee, certain covenants in the leases held by other lessees, including any covenant of a similar nature to clause 2.7. Mrs Winfield sought a licence from the landlord to carry out works to her flat which the landlord granted, subject to Mrs Winfield securing adequate insurance. Dr Duval then issued proceedings against the landlord seeking a declaration that the landlord did not possess the power to permit Mrs Winfield to act in breach of clause 2.7 of her lease. The landlord appealed to the Supreme Court.’
UKSC Blog, 6th May 2020
Source: ukscblog.com
‘In AM (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] UKSC 17, Lord Wilson calls the European Court on Rights out on its claim that in Paposhvili v Belgium [2017] Imm AR 867, it was doing no more than “clarifying” its judgment in N v United Kingdom (2008) 47 EHRR 39 as to the circumstances in which removal or deportation will breach Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Close readers of the judgment in Paposhvili will be well aware of the numerous points at which the court uses, it is hard to doubt, intentionally, the very same language as is used in N to come to different conclusions.’
No. 5 Chambers, 29th April 2020
Source: www.no5.com
‘In this post, Alaina Wadsworth and Sophie Newman, who both work within the insurance and reinsurance group at CMS, comment on the decision handed down by the UK Supreme Court last month in the matter of Aspen Underwriting Ltd and others v Credit Europe Bank NV [2020] UKSC 11.’
UKSC Blog, 5th May 2020
Source: ukscblog.com
‘The long anticipated judgment in Elgizouli v Secretary of State for the Home Department was handed down by the Supreme Court on the 25th March. The Court held that it was not the common law but rather a failure by the Home Secretary to consider his duties under the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA) that rendered the decision of the then Home Secretary- Sajid Javid- to hand over evidence to US authorities unlawful. While others have commented on the DPA aspect of this case (see here, here, and here), this post touches on the common law strand. However, rather than interrogating the Court’s decision, here I discuss the under-examined issue of rationality, arguing that the factual matrix of the case warranted a greater examination of the Home Secretary’s decision.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 6th May 2020
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘On 29 April 2020, the UK Supreme Court handed down its judgment in the case of AM(Zimbabwe) v SSHD [2020] UKSC. This completes the domestic line of authority grappling with the ECtHR’s Grand Chamber’s judgment in Paposhvili v Belgium, which reformulated the applicable test where appellants allege that their proposed removal to a third country would be in breach of Article 3 ECHR as exposing them to inhuman or degrading treatment as a result of the unavailability of medical treatment there.’
Oxford Human Rights Hub, 3rd May 2020
Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk
‘Rosalind English discusses with William Edis QC a recent Supreme Court ruling that a woman could claim against the NHS damages that covered a commercial surrogacy arrangement that would be illegal in this country. The principle is now clear, and there is no parliamentary appetite to overturn it. You can get compensation to make a commercial surrogacy arrangements abroad, if negligence has deprived you of the ability of bearing your own children.’
Law Pod UK, 1st May 2020
Source: audioboom.com
‘The Supreme Court has overturned ministerial guidance to the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) that was intended to put a stop to certain types of ethical disinvestment.’
Local Govdernment Lawyer, 29th April 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘This appeal related to the UK’s ability to deport a Zimbabwean citizen who, whilst being lawfully resident in the UK, had committed serious crimes. He sought to challenge the decision to deport him on the basis of ECHR, article 3. Being HIV positive, he argued that if deported he would be unable to access the medication he receives in the UK and which prevents his relapse into AIDS.’
UKSC Blog, 29th April 2020
Source: ukscblog.com
‘The European Court of Human Rights court held in Gaughran v United Kingdom [2020] ECHR 144 that the police’s indefinite retention of DNA profile, fingerprints and photographs of person convicted of a minor offence without a possibility of review constituted an infringement of Article 8 ECHR (respect for private life). This is the latest in a number of cases where the ECtHR has disagreed with a decision of the Supreme Court and represents a further development of the meaning of “private life”.’
UK Police Law Blog, 30th April 2020
Source: ukpolicelawblog.com
© Inner Temple Library 2025