‘Judicial supervision of decision-making powers is often associated with administrative law. However courts also review the exercise of discretions in other fields. For example courts review powers exercised by trustees, and indeed much of equity might be characterised as a law of administration. Our focus here will be the legal principles sourced in the law of contract which regulate the exercise of powers of decision, including discretions, under contracts (‘contractual review’) and the interrelationship between these principles and those common law principles regulating exercise of administrative powers under statute (‘administrative law review’).’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 31st May 2017
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘The parents of a severely ill baby will take their legal battle to an emergency hearing at the supreme court next week in the hope of persuading judges that he should be treated in the US.’
The Guardian, 31st May 2017
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Teachers at a sixth form college participate in a full day of lawful strike action. The collective agreement (the Red Book) incorporated into their individual contracts of employment provides that in such a situation their employer can withhold their pay. But how much can the deductions be? That was the issue in Hartley v King Edward VI College (2017) UKSC 39. The employer had made the deductions at a rate of 1/260 of their annual pay. That was based on the number of weekdays in a calendar year. That was wrong say the Supreme Court. The employer was entitled to make deductions only at a rate of 1/365 of their annual salary. This is the effect of the Apportionment Act 1870 (“the Act”). This provides for accrual from day to day: Section 2.’
Education Blog, 24th May 2017
Source: education11kbw.com
‘A group of teachers have won a “landmark victory” against their employer, after having too much pay deducted from their annual salaries. The Supreme Court decision follows a lengthy legal battle involving three teachers at King Edward VI College in Stourbridge, who took part in a union-led strike in 2011 over changes to public sector pensions.’
The Independent, 24th May 2017
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘Poshteh v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea [2017] UKSC 36. Ms Posheth had refused an offer of accommodation in discharge of duty because a round window in the property had reminded her of when she was imprisoned in Iran (though she did say it would have been suitable as temporary accommodation). She had had a panic attack on viewing the property. RBKC found the property was suitable and reasonable to accept on review, upheld on appeal and in the court of appeal.’
Nearly Legal, 21st May 2017
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
A Question of Taste : T he Supreme Court and the Interpretation of Contracts (PDF)
Speech by Lord Sumption
Harris Society Annual Lecture, Keble College, Oxford, 8th May 2017
Source: www.supremecourt.uk
‘Lord Sumption has called for a return to a more straightforward approach to how judges construct contracts that focuses on the words rather than trying to work out what the parties intended by looking at the surrounding circumstances.’
Litigation Futures, 16th May 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Aggregation clauses are commonly used in professional liability policies and can have a substantial impact on the recoverable damages in a claim. The Supreme Court considered the proper construction of the aggregation clause in the Law Society’s Minimum Terms and Conditions (“the Minimum Terms”) in AIG Europe v Woodman [2017] UKSC 18 and in so doing also provided useful guidance on the approach to be taken to the construction of aggregation clauses more generally.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 12th May 2017
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court has now ruled on the tricky “no loss” arguments raised in this accountant’s negligence claim, reversing the decision of the lower courts. Nicola Rushton of Hailsham’s professional negligence team considers the implications.’
Full story (PDF)
Hailsham Chambers, 13th April 2017
Source: www.hailshamchambers.com
‘The Supreme Court has declined to depart from its previous judgment in Ali v Birmingham CC that the right to homelessness accommodation under s193 Housing Act 1996 was not a civil right under art 6, despite a decision of the ECtHR to the contrary in Ali v UK; it has affirmed the dicta of Lord Neuberger in Holmes-Moorhouse v Richmond upon Thames LBC that a “benevolent approach” is to be taken to homelessness review decisions under s202; and said (obiter) that the principles governing the right of appeal to the county court under s204 had been authoritatively established by the House of Lords in Runa Begum v Tower Hamlets LBC and other cases including Holmes-Moorhouse, and should be taken as settled.’
Arden Chambers, 10th May 2017
Source: www.ardenchambers.com
‘Two local authorities have lost appeals today to the Supreme Court, although judges did back the councils’ interpretation of a key part of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).’
Local Government Lawyer, 10th May 2017
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Only those local planning policies dealing with housing-specific questions, such as numbers and distribution of housing, will be deemed out of date in the absence of a five year supply of deliverable sites for housing in a particular area, the UK’s highest court has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 11th May 2017
Source: www.out-law.com
‘The Supreme Court has upheld a reviewing officer’s decision that it was reasonable for a refugee to accept an offer of accommodation which she claimed reminded her of prison in Iran.’
Local Government Lawyer, 10th May 2017
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court has dismissed appeals by two local authorities in a case that centres on the wording of the government’s 2012 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).’
Law Society’s Gazette, 11th May 2017
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court will this week hand down a key ruling on whether Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the right to a fair hearing, applies to decisions on entitlement under Part V of the Housing Act 1996.’
Local Government Lawyer, 8th May 2017
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court will hear the dispute over the planned introduction of alcohol minimum pricing in Scotland in July, it has been confirmed.’
Local Government Lawyer, 2nd May 2017
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
EnergySolutions EU Ltd (now ATK Energy EU Ltd) v Nuclear Decommissioning Authority [2017] UKSC 34
‘A company was unsuccessful in its bid in a tender process carried out by a public authority for a contract which fell within the ambit of Parliament and Council Directive 2004/18/EC (“the Public Procurement Directive”) and Council Directive 89/665/EEC , as amended, which provided for remedies for unsuccessful applicants (“the Remedies Directive”) and which had been given effect to in England and Wales by the Public Contracts Regulations 2006, as amended. The Regulations provided that, after notification of the contracting authority’s decision to award the contract, there would be a ten-day standstill period prior to the actual award of the contract during which time an unsuccessful bidder could issue proceedings to challenge the award. The issuing of proceedings would trigger automatic suspension of the contract award until the challenge was determined or otherwise disposed of, although the court had power to require a cross-undertaking from that party to cover the authority’s losses from not entering into the contract with its preferred bidder. Regulation 47D(2), as inserted, however, allowed for a period of 30 days for the issuing of any proceedings, with regulation 47J(2)(c), as inserted, making provision for an award of damages to the unsuccessful bidder if the court found a breach of duty after the contract had been entered into. The company, having been notified that it was an unsuccessful bidder, expressed its concerns with the procurement process but did not issue proceedings until after the expiry of the standstill period, albeit within the 30-day period. On a trial of preliminary issues, where the authority relied on Court of Justice authority which imposed minimum conditions for claims for breaches of an European Union law right, including that the breach had to be “sufficiently serious”, the judge stated that (i) there was nothing in the Remedies Directive which limited the company to recovery of damages on that basis, and (ii) ordinary principles of English law applied to any award of damages under the 2006 Regulations and so the Court of Justice’s rule would not limit the recovery of damages to “sufficiently serious” breaches of the 2006 Regulations. He declined to make any ruling on a third issue, whether the company’s failure to start proceedings within the standstill period and before the authority had entered into the contract meant that it was not entitled to damages, since it could have acted within the ten-day period to prevent the claimed loss from occurring by causing a suspension of the award of the contract to the successful bidder. On the authority’s appeal on the first two issues the Court of Appeal held that the minimum conditions for an award of damages for breach of an European Union law right had been established by the Court of Justice and so article 2(1)(c) of the Remedies Directive only called for an award of damages where the breach was sufficiently serious, but upheld the judge’s decision that there was no such constraint under the 2006 Regulations, and, on an appeal by the company on the third issue, accepted its submission that the judge ought to have decided as a matter of domestic law that it could not be deprived of damages simply because it had failed to avail itself of the opportunity under the 2006 Regulations to issue the proceedings in time to stop the contract being awarded. The authority appealed on the second and third issues, with the company arguing in relation to the first issue that damages could be awarded under article 2(1)(c) for any breach, whether serious or not. After the hearing the parties reached a settlement of the disputes between them in relation to liability and quantum but requested that the court hand down its judgment on the appeal in any event.’
WLR Daily, 11th April 2017
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Investment Trust Companies v Revenue and Customs Comrs [2017] UKSC 29
‘The claimants were “closed-ended” investment funds constituted as limited companies. Between 1992 and 2002 they received supplies of services from investment managers rendered pursuant to agreements which provided for the managers to be remunerated by the payment of fees plus VAT “if applicable”. Under the legislation then in force such services did not qualify for exemption and the managers charged VAT at the standard rate. The managers made periodic VAT returns which accounted for the VAT charged as output tax, reclaimed input tax and paid the revenue the net difference. Following a decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union it transpired that the supplies of the investment management services should have been exempt from VAT. Accordingly, the managers made claims to the revenue under section 80 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 for repayment of sums accounted for and paid by them in error. The revenue met those claims but, in accordance with the statutory provisions, limited repayments to the net amounts which the managers had paid and did not include any amounts relating to periods which were time-barred. The managers forwarded the reimbursements to the claimants as required under section 80 but since they were insufficient to meet the full amount of VAT which had been mistakenly paid by them the claimants brought proceedings against the revenue on grounds of unjust enrichment and breach of European Union law. The judge found that the revenue had been enriched by the full amount of VAT paid by the claimants to the managers; that the claimants had no cause of action at common law because the statutory scheme protected the revenue from any liability to refund VAT except as provided for under section 80 of the 1994 Act, but that, since, within the limitation period, European Union law required that exclusion to be disapplied, the claimants were entitled to repayment of the full amount of VAT paid by the claimants within that period. The claim in relation to the time-barred periods was therefore dismissed. On appeal by both parties the Court of Appeal concluded that the statutory scheme did not exclude a common law claim but that, since the revenue had only received payment of output tax net of input tax from the managers, it had not been unjustly enriched over the periods in which a refund had been paid to the managers, although a similar repayment was payable to cover the time-barred periods.’
WLR Daily, 11th April 2017
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Shortly after Christmas in 2009, a young woman from Somalia flew into Stansted and claimed asylum. She had just turned 18. As later accepted by the Home Office, she had experienced severe depredations in her home country. This included her rape at the age of six in the presence of her disabled mother, and the murder of both of her parents. She fled Somalia in 2008, initially to Yemen, where she spent the next year. She was eventually able to fly to Europe with the help of an agent, who provided a British passport to facilitate her entry into the UK.’
Free Movement, 26th April 2017
Source: www.freemovement.org.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025