‘The first trader jailed worldwide for Libor interest rate rigging has been left with a possible route clear his name, despite being refused permission to appeal against his conviction at the UK’s Supreme Court.’
The Independent, 21st May 2024
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘A recent UK Supreme Court ruling clearly sets out the parameters of the law of private nuisance claims in the context of Japanese knotweed, clarifying the nature and extent of evidence needed to enable a claim to succeed, an expert has said.’
OUT-LAW.com, 17th May 2024
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘Directors of companies that infringe trade marks can only be held personally liable as an accessory to that infringement in the UK if they know that what their company was doing amounted to trade mark infringement, the UK’s highest court has confirmed.’
OUT-LAW.com, 15th May 2024
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘The first part of this blog outlined the facts and decision in the Supreme Court case, Secretary of State for Business and Trade v Mercer, as well as the approach the Court took in distinguishing between private sector and public sector employment. The second part of this blog considers the approach of the Supreme Court in distinguishing between the “core” and “essential” in respect of trade union rights. While the reasoning of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is sometimes a little opaque, these two terms are not interchangeable in RMT. The right to strike is not yet designated as an “essential” trade union freedom, though it is an integral prop to other “essential” rights such as the right to make representations and the right to bargain collectively. In RMT, the distinction between “core” and “accessory” is being used in a different sense, to emphasise gradations of importance within a specific right (“essential” or otherwise). In RMT, for example, the Court was drawing a distinction between primary strike action, which was “core” and deserving of stronger protection, and “secondary” strike action which was “accessory” and therefore amenable to a wider margin of appreciation. The situation in Mercer involved a primary strike, and hence applying RMT it was at the “core” of the right to strike. This conceptual distinction is therefore internal to the right to strike. It is very likely that the right to bargain collectively, essential in Article 11 terms, also has “core” and “accessory” elements to it.’
Oxford Human Right Hub, 10th May 2024
Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk
‘Individual strikers are protected from dismissal where they are dismissed for participating in “protected” (i.e lawful and official) industrial action, under s. 238A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULRCA). However, there are many ways in which employers can penalise individual strikers other than through dismissal, such as through demotion, suspension, fines, disciplinary warnings, and disproportionate pay deductions. In Secretary of State for Business and Trade v Mercer, the Supreme Court considered if a worker proposing to strike was protected from “detriment” under TULRCA 1992, s. 146. This was because it concerned her participation in the “activities of an independent trade union”. The Supreme Court concluded that strike action was excluded from s.146, principally because it was not “at an appropriate time” [44]-[45]. This meant that there was no statutory protection for the claimant, Ms Mercer, who (on the assumed facts) had been suspended for activities connected to a lawful and official strike. The effect of this was to create a zone of impunity for employers engaged in the selective victimisation of individual strikers.’
Oxford Human Rights Hub, 10th May 2024
Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk
‘Litigation funding has become an essential ingredient in collective actions for breaches of competition law brought in the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT). In the recent PACCAR proceedings, the Supreme Court was asked to rule on the nature and enforceability of litigation funding agreements (LFAs) between third-party litigation funders and group representatives where the success fee is determined as a percentage of the damages award. The Court held with a 4:1 majority (Lady Rose dissenting) that the LFAs in question are damages-based fee agreements (DBAs) and, as such, unenforceable. This judgment has wide-ranging consequences, as the CAT is unlikely to allow collective actions to proceed if the funding agreements cannot be relied on. The decision has caused uncertainty and upheaval in the funding market as a considerable number of funding agreements in collective proceedings contain DBAs. It also triggered legal challenges in collective proceedings where funders are seeking to amend the funding agreements to deal with the Supreme Court ruling. The fall-out from the decision suggests that funding rules for collective actions may need more legislative attention – litigation funding was given some thought during the drafting of the opt-out action regime, but the legal framework for litigation funding remains fragmented and open to interpretation.’
Legal Studies, 6th May 2024
Source: www.cambridge.org
‘Afascinating debate looks set to continue to the Supreme Court after the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals of former traders Tom Hayes and Carlo Palombo. This case not only places traders back in the spotlight; it also subjects the Court of Appeal itself to scrutiny for the global uncertainty resulting from its judgment and its role as gatekeeper to the Supreme Court.’
Law Society's Gazette, 7th May 2024
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘On 31 May 2021, the Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021 (SI 2021/642) came into force, transforming the landscape for personal injury claimants with whiplash injuries in motor vehicle accidents. For claims accruing after that date, the regulations limited the recoverable damages for pain, suffering, and loss of amenity (‘PSLA’) to amounts set out in a tariff.’
7BR, 5th April 2024
Source: www.7br.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court recently considered the correct approach to quantum of general damages for PSLA in claims concerning whiplash and non-whiplash injuries.’
Becket Chambers, 5th April 2024
Source: becket-chambers.co.uk
‘The government is still considering concerns expressed about the retrospective effect of the bill to overturn last year’s Supreme Court ruling in PACCAR, a minister said yesterday.’
Legal Futures, 30th April 2024
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘A ruling requiring a Gazprom entity, RusChemAlliance (RCA), to bring an end to litigation proceedings in Russia was upheld by the UK Supreme Court on Tuesday, in a complex case that has raised questions relating to the jurisdiction of courts and the interpretation of arbitration agreements.’
OUT-LAW.com, 23rd April 2024
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘Five Supreme Court justices today [24th April] unanimously allowed the home secretary’s appeal over a claim for leave to remain by an asylum seeker currently in “limbo status.” ‘
Law Society's Gazette, 25th April 2024
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘On 6 March 2024, the Supreme Court handed down two important decisions that related to issues under section 20 Extradition Act 2003:
– Bertino v Public Prosecutor’s Office Italy [2024] UKSC 9
– Merticariu v Judecatoria Arad, Romania [2024] UKSC 10
Notably, these two cases had the same constitution of the Court, with Stephens and Burnett LJJ giving a joint judgment in both cases, with which the rest of the Court agreed.’
5SAH, 22nd April 2024
Source: www.5sah.co.uk
‘Wolverhampton City Council and others v London Gypsies and Travellers and other [2023] UKSC 47 is an appeal concerning a number of conjoined cases in which injunctions had been sought by Local Authorities to prevent unauthorised encampments by Gypsies and Travellers. Such injunctions had generally been sought against ‘persons unknown’ as the members of a group of Gypsies or Travellers who might in future camp in a certain location were not known in advance. In some cases, the Defendants to the injunction sought had been described by reference to the conduct the injunction had sought to prohibit, for example ‘persons unknown forming unauthorised encampments within the Borough of Nuneaton and Bedworth’.’
Becket Chambers, 2nd April 2024
Source: becket-chambers.co.uk
‘The Ministry of Justice is being threatened with judicial review over the draft legislation that aims to reverse the impact of the Supreme Court’s PACCAR ruling.’
Legal Futures, 19th April 2024
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘In this post, Sarah Coates-Madden, Senior Associate at CMS, and Fiona Dalling, Associate at CMS, preview the decision awaited from the Supreme Court in Davies v Bridgend County Borough Council.’
UKSC Blog, 17th April 2024
Source: ukscblog.com
‘UK legislation allowing employers to take disciplinary action against employees for their participation in lawful strike action is in breach of those employees’ human rights, according to a new Supreme Court ruling.’
OUT-LAW.com, 17th April 2024
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘The Supreme Court is this week hearing an appeal over the discharge of reporting restriction orders (RROs) protecting the identity of medical professionals involved in the care of patients in respect of whom an application to withdraw treatment had been made.’
Local Government Lawyer, 16th April 2024
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Lord Carnwath joins Lady Hale, who was president of the UK’s highest court, and lords Sumption and Wilson, in urging ministers to act to prevent the “plausible risk” of genocide in Gaza.’
The Guardian, 4th April 2024
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘On 6 March 2024 the Supreme Court handed down two separate judgments in the cases of Bertino v Public Prosecutor’s Office, Italy [2024] UKSC 9 and Merticariu v Judecatoria Arad, Romania [2024] UKSC 10. The constitution of the Court for both cases was the same with the judgments written by Lord Stephens and Lord Burnett. Lords Hodge, Sales and Burrows completed the panel.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 4th April 2024
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
© Inner Temple Library 2025