‘Shamima Begum’s legal fight to restore her UK citizenship has received a big blow after the supreme court refused to hear an appeal.’
The Guardian, 7th August 2024
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Tax deductions were not available for professional fees incurred by an investment company once a decision to sell a business it held had been made, because they were expenses of a capital nature even though they are accepted to have been expenses of management, the UK’s highest court has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 31st July 2024
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘Winston Churchill once remarked that “[for] my own part, I see little glory in an Empire which can rule the waves and is unable to flush its sewers”. Had he been alive today, he may have lamented that modern Britain now does neither.’
Francis Taylor Building, 18th July 2024
Source: www.ftbchambers.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court in Manchester Ship Canal (No.2) [2024] UKSC 22 has decided that a riparian owner will have a right of action in private nuisance against a water company for discharge of foul water, without needing to show the water company’s negligence or deliberate misconduct. This is a substantial clarification of Marcic v Thames Water Utilities Ltd [2003] UKHL 66, which (it was thought) decided that such claims were barred against sewerage undertakers by the existence of the statutory scheme following privatisation. This decision may mark the beginning of group litigation against sewerage undertakers for discharging untreated sewage into rivers and canals.’
Henderson Chambers, 12th July 2024
Source: www.hendersonchambers.co.uk
‘Absent negligence or deliberate misconduct, can owners of watercourses or bodies of water bring actions for nuisance or trespass where water is polluted from statutory sewerage undertakers?’
Lamb Chambers, July 2024
Source: www.lambchambers.co.uk
‘In an important recent judgment, the UK Supreme Court has rewritten the post-Brexit rules on application of EU case law in the UK courts, so that they apply retrospectively in proceedings in respect of pre-Brexit events.’
OUT-LAW.com, 29th July 2024
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘A tale of small win against airline leads to big Supreme Court ruling on pre- and post- Brexit compensation. Rosalind English in conversation with David Hart KC.’
Law Pod UK, 25th July 2024
Source: audioboom.com
‘In Abbey Healthcare (Mill Hill) Ltd v Augusta 2008 LLP (formerly Simply Construct (UK) LLP) [2024] UKSC 23 the Supreme Court decided unanimously that the collateral warranty in issue was not a construction contract for the purposes of the 1996 Act and that most collateral warranties will also be regarded as the same. This overrules the decision of the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) in Parkwood Leisure Ltd v Laing O’Rourke Wales and West Ltd [2013] EWHC 2665 (TCC). The Supreme Court’s judgment provides much-needed clarity for the industry.’
Local Government Lawyer, 17th July 2024
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘In this article, 4 New Square Chambers’ Douglas James considers the Supreme Court’s decision in Abbey Healthcare (Mill Hill) Ltd (Respondent) v Augusta 2008 LLP (formerly Simply Construct (UK) LLP) (Appellant) [2024] UKSC 23 and its implications for adjudication business.’
4 New Square, 15th July 2024
Source: www.4newsquare.com
‘The Supreme Court’s ruling that a canal owner can seek redress for unauthorised discharges of foul water by a sewage utility could open the floodgates to “thousands” of similar claims.’
Law Society's Gazette, 9th July 2024
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘In this post, 4 New Square Chambers’ Alex Forzani explores the Supreme Court’s decision in R (Finch) v Surrey County Council [2024] UKSC 20 and analyses its implications on the scope of environmental impact assessments. The judgment is likely to have significant implications on the development of, and investment in, new projects in the UK.’
4 New Square, 2nd July 2024
Source: www.4newsquare.com
‘R (on the application of Finch on behalf of the Weald Action Group) (Appellant) v Surrey County Council and others (Respondents). A detailed summary of the issues and the facts in this case can be found in the Supreme Court’s Press Release. The report below gives a very short account of these followed by a focus on the majority and dissenting judgments. I quote Lord Sales in some detail as the concerns expressed in his dissent will only prevail if Parliament were to legislate for them to do so.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 1st July 2024
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Vivienne Sedgley and Simon Randle have put together a detailed analysis of a significant development from the Supreme Court in R (Finch) v Surrey County Council [2024] UKSC 20. This landmark decision mandates that Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) must consider not just emissions during oil extraction but also those from the eventual use of the oil as fuel.’
4-5 Gray’s Inn Square, 25th June 2024
Source: www.4-5.co.uk
‘A unanimous Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal’s and High Court’s decision to strike out the libel claim as an abuse of process.’
5RB, 20th June 2024
Source: www.5rb.com
‘When deciding whether to grant planning consent for development, the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) should consider the downstream, indirect greenhouse gas emissions effects of the development in some cases, the UK Supreme Court has ruled, demonstrating a significant development for environmental law.’
OUT-LAW.com, 20th June 2024
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘The Supreme Court has ruled a local council should have considered the full climate impact of burning oil from new wells – a landmark decision that could put future UK oil and gas projects in question.’
BBC News, 20th June 2024
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘In extradition proceedings, questions may arise relating to the requested person’s purported deliberate absence from a criminal trial. In March, the UK Supreme Court (UKSC) handed down two decisions which clarify important tests to be met in these circumstances.’
Law Society's Gazette, 14th June 2024
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘On 11 June 2024, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights handed down its judgment in Nealon and Hallam v United Kingdom. The case is important for two reasons: firstly, because it provides a long-awaited clarification of the law relating to the presumption of innocence under Article 6 of the Convention; secondly, because it allows Strasbourg to perform a “return shot” after UK courts were very hostile to its earlier judgments on this issue.’
Constitutional Law Association, 13th June 2024
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘The Supreme Court will next week (20 June) hand down its ruling in a landmark case about environmental impact assessments and downstream greenhouse gas emissions.’
Local Government Lawyer, 13th June 2024
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The claim arose from the encroachment of Japanese knotweed from the appellant local authority’s (“LA”) land into the respondent’s garden. The respondent had purchased his property in 2004, after the encroachment of Japanese knotweed had begun. It was held that the LA could not be blamed for the encroachment at this time. An actionable tort of private nuisance however arose in 2013, when the local authority should have become aware of the risk of damage and loss of amenity to the respondent’s land as a result of information about Japanese knotweed which became publicly available at that time. The LA was held liable in private nuisance for having failed to prevent the encroachment between 2013 to 2018 when the LA implemented a reasonable and effective treatment programme.’
Gatehouse Chambers, 28th May 2024
Source: gatehouselaw.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025