‘The Supreme Court has granted Mastercard permission to appeal against the Court of Appeal ruling that kept the massive £14bn class action over interchange fees alive.’
Litigation Futures, 8th October 2019
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The Supreme Court will rule on a landmark case that will test the standards applied to a Collective Proceedings Order in a major competition claim. Permission has been granted for the defendant in Merricks v Mastercard Incorporated & Anor to bring its appeal against a Court of Appeal ruling from April this year.’
Law Society's Gazette, 4th October 2019
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘On 24 September, the UK Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Prime Minister’s advice to prorogue Parliament was unlawful, and that the resulting Order in Council and subsequent prorogation were ‘null, void and of no effect’. The litigation on the justiciability of prorogation and the lawfulness of the Prime Ministerial advice has led to one of the most engaging constitutional cases of recent times. As observers at the High Court and Supreme Court hearings, this post considers the context of the ruling, and certain striking implications of the judgment for the current and future Prime Ministers.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 2nd October 2019
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘Lord Neuberger, former president of the Supreme Court, has told expert witnesses that they can learn from the “impartial” way the court handled the Brexit case.’
Litigation Futures, 2nd October 2019
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘In a succinct and surprisingly unanimous judgment in Miller and Cherry [2019] UKSC 41 the UK Supreme Court delivered an unprecedented rebuke to the Prime Minister in deciding that he had not shown “any reason – let alone a good reason” to advise the Queen to prorogue Parliament, ruling that the prorogation was unlawful, void and of no effect. While the Court was anxious (and perhaps over-eager) to stress that the judgment was a “one-off”, constitutional lawyers have and will continue to debate the far-reaching effects of the ruling on the UK Constitution for decades to come. One discrete point that will divide commentators is the precise juridical basis for the decision, with eyebrows raised at the repeated appeals by the Court to common law constitutionalism in arriving at its decision. Aiden O’Neill QC, for the Cherry respondents referenced the landmark Marbury v Madison ruling of the US Supreme Court to highlight the significance of Wightman v Brexit Secretary and perhaps remind the Supreme Court of the momentousness of the prorogation appeals before it. Indeed, commentators have made comparisons between the UK Supreme Court and the US Supreme Court in the course of the increasingly fraught recent constitutional cases. While such comparisons may mushroom in the days (and years) to come, I argue that a tellingly apposite comparison in the underlying ratio of Miller and Cherry lies with a constitutional court on the other side of the world: The Supreme Court of India.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 1st October 2019
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘Rory Thomson, a senior associate in the Insurance and Reinsurance Group at CMS, previews the appeal pending in the case of Edwards v Hugh James Ford Simey (a firm). The case concerns the correct approach to the assessment of damages in a claim for loss of chance arising from solicitors’ negligence, and the extent to which a court should admit evidence obtained after the date of settlement of the original claim as part of that assessment. The appeal was heard by the UK Supreme Court on 25 July 2019, and its judgment is currently awaited.’
UKSC Blog, 30th September 2019
Source: ukscblog.com
‘As a result of a new Supreme Court judgment, local authorities will no longer be able to offer residential care, with parents’ agreement, to 16 and 17 year olds where they are supervised and not free to leave – unless there is a court order. This decision potentially affects many thousands of teenagers who are in supportive placements.’
Transparency Project, 28th September 2019
Source: www.transparencyproject.org.uk
‘Emma-Louise Fenelon talks to Jo Moore and Jon Metzer from 1 Crown Office Row about the UK Supreme Court decision in R (Miller) v The Prime Minister and Cherry & Ors v Advocate General for Scotland.’
Law Pod UK, 27th September 2019
Source: audioboom.com
‘Next Tuesday, 1 October, marks the 10th anniversary of the supreme court. Over the past decade, its neo-gothic portico, beneath which lawyers, litigants, protesters and politicians parade, has become an increasingly recognisable feature of national life.’
The Guardian, 26th September 2019
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The decision of the Supreme Court is remarkable for many reasons. One is that it was produced in such a short time. Another, of immense importance, is that it is unanimous. A third is that it rejects the reasoning of the Divisional Court’s unanimous decision given by the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls and the President that the issue was not justiciable.’
New Law Journal, 24th September 2019
Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk
‘In X v Kuoni Travel Ltd [2019] UKSC 37, the claimant was on holiday with her husband in Sri Lanka on a package holiday purchased from the defendant. While on her way to the hotel reception, she came across a member of the hotel staff, who was employed as an electrician. He offered to show her a short cut to reception, but instead sexually assaulted her. She claimed damages against the defendant for breach of contract under the Package Travel, Package Holidays and Package Tours Regulations 1992 …’
Law Society Gazette, 23rd September 2019
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘Boris Johnson’s decision to suspend Parliament was unlawful, the Supreme Court has ruled.’
BBC News, 24th September 2019
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Boris Johnson would have no option but to recall MPs to Westminster if the supreme court rules he misled the Queen, senior legal sources told the Observer yesterday.’
The Guardian, 22nd September 2019
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Downing Street put out “misleading” statements about the prorogation of parliament and published excuses for Boris Johnson’s five-week suspension of the Commons that are “not the true reasons”, the supreme court has been told by a lawyer for the former prime minister John Major.’
The Guardian, 19th September 2019
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘This was no ordinary court case. The battle in the Supreme Court over the shutdown of Parliament is a historic test of the powers of the prime minister, MPs and the courts.’
BBC News, 19th September 2019
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘The issue of remedies for any finding that the 2019 prorogation of the UK Parliament is unlawful is presently under discussion in pleadings in the joined appeals of Miller No.2 and Joanna Cherry MP (and others) in the Supreme Court. Essentially, the question concerns what must occur if the minister’s advice is found unlawful, and what is the effect of ‘declaring’ the Order in Council which authorized the prorogation of Parliament to be ultra vires. Does it mean prorogation never legally happened? Should Parliament have been in session all along? How is any summoning or recall to take effect?’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 19th September 2019
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘Laws governing the release of court material to non-parties in civil cases post Cape Intermediate are clear, but has the decision moved transparency laws forward for family proceedings? David Burrows reports.’
Family Law, 19th September 2019
Source: www.familylaw.co.uk
‘The Scottish Court of Session (Inner House) today ruled that the Prime Minister’s advice to the Queen to prorogue Parliament was unlawful. The High Court of England and Wales today handed down its judgment on the same issue – and came to the opposite conclusion.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 11th September 2019
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘In R (Miller) and Others v The Prime Minister (hereinafter Miller No.2), the High Court of England and Wales found that the decision of the Prime Minister to advise the Queen to prorogue parliament was non-justiciable. In doing so, the judgment reveals the propensity of the judiciary to be much more protective of its own empire than that of the legislature. Ultimately, however, it is an approach that undermines both due to the creation of a legal black hole.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 13th September 2019
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
© Inner Temple Library 2025