‘In the case of Coventry and others (Respondents) v Lawrence and another (Appellants) [2014] UKSC 13 the Supreme Court has addressed five key matters which will play an important role in informing future claims for nuisance.’
Henderson Chambers, 25th March 2014
Source: www.hendersonchambers.co.uk
‘The latest in a series of village green cases to reach the Supreme Court will be heard next week by a five-judge panel led by Lord Neuberger.’
Local Government Lawyer, 25th March 2014
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
Supreme Court, 12th March 2014
Supreme Court, 19th March 2014
‘Mentally incapacitated persons had the same rights to liberty as everyone else, and if their living arrangements would amount to a deprivation of liberty of a capacitous person they were also a deprivation of liberty of the incapacitated person, who was therefore entitled to periodic independent checks to ensure that the deprivation of liberty remained justified in his or her best interests.’
WLR Daily, 19th March 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Tim Baldwin comments on today’s Supreme Court judgment regarding the deprivation of liberty of people with disabilities.
This note concerns the case of P (by his litigation friend the Official Solicitor) (Appellant) v Cheshire West and Chester Council and another (Respondents); P and Q (by their litigation friend, the Official Solicitor)(Appellants) v Surrey County Council (Respondent) [2014] UKSC 19 handed down on the 19 March 2014.’
Garden Court Chambers Blog, 19th March 2014
Source: www.gclaw.wordpress.com
‘Disabled people have the same right to “physical liberty” as others, one of the UK’s most senior judges has said. Lady Hale, deputy president of the Supreme Court, said the state had a duty to uphold that right and to cater for disabled people.’
BBC News, 19th March 2014
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Hitting the Balls out of Court: Are Judges Stepping Over the Line?
Speech by Lord Justice Moses: Creaney Memorial Lecture 2014, 26/02/2014’
Judiciary Of England & Wales, 18th March 2014
Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk
‘The Supreme Court overturned the Court of Appeal’s decision on the correct test for when an asylum seeker or refugee resists their return to another EU country (here Italy) in which they first sought or were granted asylum. The parties before the court all agreed that the test applied by the Court of Appeal, namely a requirement for a systemic deficiencies in the listed country’s asylum procedures and reception conditions was incorrect.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 10th March 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘A travel company which marketed and arranged the sale of holiday accommodation to holidaymakers through its website was acting as an “agent” for the providers of that accommodation, and so did not have to account for VAT on those sales, the UK’s highest court has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 5th March 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
‘In determining whether an individual, whose conviction had been quashed on the basis of new evidence, qualified for compensation under section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 on the ground of miscarriage of justice, the Secretary of State for Justice was required to make a decision by applying the statutory test in accordance with Supreme Court guidance to the facts of the particular case. Those facts could include events which postdated the quashing of the conviction in the event that further facts of relevance to the application of the statutory test arose. The Secretary of State might come to his own view, having regard to the terms of the judgment by the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) quashing the conviction, and provided the decision did not conflict with that judgment. The decision was then amenable to judicial review on conventional grounds of challenge, not merely because the court would have reached a different view. Save in exceptional circumstances, it should not be necessary for the court to engage in a detailed review of the facts.’
WLR Daily, 27th February 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The law of private nuisance is the way of balancing the rights of neighours, the right to be noisy or smelly, and to be free of noise or smells. Hitherto it is has been explicitly a private law remedy, and has slightly odd rules. But it has been struggling with public interests for some years; are they irrelevant, or can they carry the day for claimant or defendant in a private nuisance claim?’
UK Human Rights Blog, 3rd March 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
Supreme Court, 26th February 2014
Coventry and others (Respondents) v Lawrence and another (Appellants) [2014] UKSC 13 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 26th February 2014
‘Martin Burns provides five important factors to consider when instructing an expert witness (or acting as one).’
New Law Journal, 28th February 2014
Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk
‘Westminster City Council has been given permission to take to the Supreme Court the landmark Hemming case concerning the setting of licensing and regulatory fees.’
Local Government Lawyer, 28th February 2014
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The residents of Hardhorn, in Lancashire, won at the Supreme Court but still face a £200,000 legal bill.’
Daily Telegraph, 19th February 2014
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
Supreme Court, 12th February 2014
© Inner Temple Library 2025