‘The Supreme Court is today due to rule whether job applicants should be forced to disclose all convictions to certain potential employers.’
The Independent, 18th June 2014
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court has just reversed a decision of the Court of Appeal (see my previous post here) that a dispute about the trust deeds of two Sikh religious charities was non-justiciable and so could not and should not be decided by the Courts. By contrast, the SC said that two initial issues concerning the meaning of trust deeds were justiciable, and, because of this, further issues which did raise religious issues had to be determined by the courts.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 11th June 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Copyright law struggles to keep up with developing technology. In February’s Svensson decision the European court said that using hyperlinks to access material already freely available on the internet did not infringe.’
Technology Law Update, 9th June 2014
Source: www.technology-law-blog.co.uk
‘Britain’s finest legal minds have been asked to make sense of some of life’s thorniest problems, but few compare to that posed by the followers of Sant Baba Jeet Singh Ji Maharaj – specifically whether he is a Sikh saint, the Third Holy Saint in fact.’
The Independent, 8th June 2014
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘The Strasbourg Court has ruled that local authorities are within their margin of discretion to balance individuals’ personal interests against the more general interest of the competent public authority in carrying out their social responsibility of provision of care to the community at large.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 7th June 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Internet users who visit a website are safe from the threat of a copyright lawsuit, thanks to a landmark case which concluded in the European court of justice on Thursday.’
The Guardian, 5th June 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘A British grandmother facing execution by firing squad in Indonesia for drug smuggling has no funds to mount a legal challenge against her sentence, the UK’s highest court has been told.’
The Guardian, 4th June 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘A tribunal conducting asylum proceedings could admit, as expert evidence, a report by an organisation based on a telephone interview with an asylum claimant in which its analysts commented on the likelihood of that person originating from his claimed place of origin, based on the person’s dialect and answers to questions about the area in question, even though the report was in the name of the organisation rather than an individual and those contributing to it were identified only by serial numbers. However it was necessary for the tribunal in each particular case to be satisfied that the anonymity was necessary, with safeguards for the claimant in place, and that the authors of the report had demonstrated that they had relevant expertise for each matter on which they had commented.’
WLR Daily, 21st May 2014
Regina (Barkas) v North Yorkshire County Council [2014] UKSC 31; [2014] WLR (D) 228
‘Local inhabitants indulged “by right” in lawful sports and pastimes on a recreation ground which had been provided for that purpose by a local authority in the exercise of its statutory powers, not “as of right” as was necessary pursuant to section 15(2) of the Commons Act 2006 in order to register the land as a town or village green.’
WLR Daily, 21st May 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Professional services firms that operate as limited liability partnerships (LLPs) could be open to certain employment-related claims from aggrieved former members of the LLP following a recent UK Supreme Court decision, an expert has said.’
OUT-LAW.com, 23rd May 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
‘The Supreme Court has upheld a county council’s refusal to register a recreation ground – which had been provided for that purpose by another local authority – as a village green.’
Local Government Lawyer, 21st May 2014
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Following the Supreme Court’s lengthy, slightly unexpected, and difficult to grasp judgment in Kennedy v Charity Commission [2014] UKSC 20 (on which I have been quiet because of my involvement, but see Tom Cross’s blogpost here) there has been room for quite a large amount of debate as to how far it goes. Was the majority only suggesting access to the Charity Commission’s information under the common law principle of open justice applied because of the particular statutory regime and/or the nature of the statutory inquiry involved? Or was the principle rather more wide-ranging?’
Panopticon, 20th May 2014
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
‘The phrase “rights of custody,” within the meaning of articles 3 and 5(a) of the 1980 Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and article 2(9)(11) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003, was not limited to rights which were already legally recognised and enforceable but was to be interpreted purposively as including a reference to a wider category, termed “inchoate rights”, the existence of which would have been legally recognised if the matter had arisen before the particular act of removal or retention in question.’
WLR Daily, 15th May 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
In the matter of K (A child) (Northern Ireland) [2014] UKSC 29 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 15th May 2014
‘The supreme court will hear a challenge by four offenders on Monday who allege that indeterminate sentences infringe the rights of prisoners if they are unable to get on to rehabilitative courses.
The Guardian, 19th May 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Supreme Court, 14th May 2014
‘Social policy towards those without capacity changed on 19 March 2014. It changed not as a result of a public discussion about the issue but because of a judgment given by the Supreme Court – Cheshire West [2014] UKSC 19. The change was not preceded by a Royal Commission, Green Paper, debate in Parliament or any other engagement with the public, but after seven judges received legal submissions from 17 barristers. The change was not determined by the needs of those in care, but by the requirements of human rights laws.’
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 13th May 2014
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
‘Those are not my words but the view expressed on 2 April by Lord Sumption on the effective over-compensation which can result under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 (“the FAA”). The other Supreme Court Justices agreed with him. He expressed the view that, “What is clear is that sections 3 and 4 [of the FAA] mark a departure from the ordinary principles of assessment in English law, which can fairly be described as anomalous”. This was in a Supreme Court case which had to decide whether in a foreign accident case to apply German principles of assessment of damages (effectively full compensation) or English law in the form of the FAA: Cox v Ergo Versicherung AG (formerly known as Victoria) [2014] UKSC 22.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 11th April 2014
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
L Batley Pet Products Limited (Appellant) v North Lanarkshire Council (Respondent) [2014] UKSC 27 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 8th May 2014
© Inner Temple Library 2025