‘The Supreme Court has been accused of using “stereotypes” to justify the “targeting of young black men” after five judges gave their strong backing to the police’s random stop and search powers.’
The Independent, 17th December 2015
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘In cases involving social housing, English courts have traditionally taken what we might call a “managerial” approach: their starting-point for analysis has not been the tenant or applicant for housing as a rights-holder, but the need of local authorities to distribute their scarce resources effectively. In Burrows v Brent LBC [1996] 1 WLR 1448, for example, where a tenant who was permitted to remain after a possession order was held not to have been impliedly granted a new tenancy, Lord Browne-Wilkinson said that “housing authorities try to conduct their housing functions as humane and reasonable landlords” (at 1455). The tenant might be forgiven for wondering why this should count against him, but clearly the implication is that as ‘humane and reasonable landlords’ local authorities should be left to manage their housing stock with as little interference from the courts as possible. More recently this attitude led to the courts’ extreme reluctance to enable a public sector tenant to rely on article 8 ECHR in possession proceedings. When the Supreme Court finally acceded to pressure from Strasbourg, it nevertheless drew the teeth from the human rights defence by agreeing with the Secretary of State’s submission that “a local authority’s aim in wanting possession should be a ‘given’ ” (Manchester CC v Pinnock [2011] UKSC 6, per Lord Neuberger at [53]), so that “there will be no need, in the overwhelming majority of cases, for the local authority to explain and justify its reasons for seeking a possession order” (Hounslow LBC v Powell [2011] UKSC 8, per Lord Hope at [37]). The local authority is simply assumed to be acting in a way which benefits the general welfare; this assumption is then taken to justify the effect of its actions on individuals in all but the most extreme of cases.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 9th December 2015
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘The judicial system should be “more ready to accommodate academics” who were “more notable for their quality than for their quantity”, Lord Neuberger has said.’
Litigation Futures, 9th December 2015
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The question of whether a seven-year-old girl, caught up in an international dispute between her estranged lesbian mothers, should be subject to British justice is to be decided by the supreme court.’
The Guardian, 8th December 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Directors of a publicly-listed gas exploration company were not entitled to impose voting restrictions on certain shareholders which had failed to comply with statutory disclosure notices, the UK’s highest court has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 4th December 2015
Source: www.out-law.com
Menelaou v Bank of Cyprus plc: [2015] UKSC 66; [2015] WLR (D) 438
‘Where a person was given a property by her parents bought with money from the sale of the family home, made possible by a bank having agreed to release its charges over the family home (securing the parents’ borrowing) to allow it to be sold, in return for receiving a lump sum payment out of the proceeds of sale to reduce the borrowing and a fresh charge over the new property to secure the remaining indebtedness, but— because the person had not been told of the fresh charge and it had been defectively executed— the new charge was void, the bank had an equitable interest in the new property to the extent of the value of the purported charge, which it could enforce by means of subrogation to an unpaid vendor’s lien.’
WLR Daily 4th November 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Relatives of 24 rubber plantation workers killed by British troops almost 70 years ago in Malaya have lost an appeal for an official investigation.’
BBC News, 25th November 2015
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Reports of the decision of the Supreme Court in the joined appeals in Cavendish Square and ParkingEye left me confused because some reckoned the decision represented a narrowing of the application of the penalty doctrine whilst others considered it had expanded the doctrine’s scope. So on a wet weekend afternoon I took hold of a copy of the Judgment – [2015] UKSC 67- and tasked myself to find out. Here is what I found.’
Employment Law Blog, 23rd November 2015
Source: www.employment11kbw.com
‘Norman Murray Pringle, an accountant living in High Wycombe, is attempting to prove his aristocratic entitlement as the next baronet of Stichill.’
Daily Telegraph, 25th November 2015
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘The former foreign secretary Jack Straw and Sir Mark Allen, a former senior MI6 officer, could avoid prosecution over complicity in the rendition and torture of two Libyan dissidents by claiming immunity, the supreme court has been told.’
The Guardian, 11th November 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘This week the UK Supreme Court gave a single decision on a pair of wildly different cases. They involved a chip shop owner overstaying in a retail car park and the heavily negotiated sale of a substantial Middle Eastern advertising group. (Cavendish Square v El Makdessi and ParkingEye v Beavis) Why? Because they both concerned the idea of a penalty clause – very roughly, a clause that is unenforceable because it imposes an exorbitant obligation to pay on a party that breaches a contract.’
Technology Law Update, 6th November 2015
Source: www.technology-law-blog.co.uk
‘Where a coroner has reason to suspect that a person has died in custody or “otherwise in state detention” and that the death was violent, unnatural or by way of unknown cause, the coroner must hold an inquest with a jury (section 7 Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (“CJA”)). The interesting issue in this case was whether and/or in what circumstances a person who has died whilst in intensive care will be regarded as having died “in state detention”, thus triggering a jury inquest.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 6th November 2015
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The UK’s supreme court should be “ashamed” if it does not radically improve its diversity in the next round of judicial appointments, according to its only female judge, Lady Justice Hale.’
The Guardian, 6th November 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘A Chinese dissident convicted of murder after a secret trial has appealed to Britain’s most senior judges to overturn a ban on him taking his case to the European court of human rights.’
The Guardian, 2nd November 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Murder appeals being heard at the Supreme Court over the next three days will have ‘important consequences’ for the controversial principle of joint enterprise, some lawyers believe.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 27th OCtober 2015
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘A man convicted of murder under the doctrine of “joint enterprise” because he encouraged a friend to stab a former police officer is mounting a supreme court challenge.’
The Guardian, 27th October 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Convicted murderer who committed crimes “high up on the scale of horrific” believes he has the right to keep his identity secret from the press and public.’
Daily Telegraph, 26th October 2015
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘With warnings coming thick and fast about the stark ramifications of the government’s sweeping cuts to legal aid, it was probably inevitable that someone would come up with a new way to plug some gaps in access to justice. Enter the legal crowdfunder, CrowdJustice, an online platform where people who might not otherwise get their case heard can raise cash to pay for legal representation and court costs.’
The Guardian, 21st October 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Lord Justice Jackson has called for the recently extended exemption for insolvency cases from the impact of his reforms to come to an end, describing recoverability as “an instrument of oppression, which is liable to crush defendants who have a good defence”.’
Litigation Futures, 20th October 2015
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
© Inner Temple Library 2025