Richardson and another (Appellants) v Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent) – Supreme Court
Richardson and another (Appellants) v Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent) [2014] UKSC 8 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 5th February 2014
Richardson and another (Appellants) v Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent) [2014] UKSC 8 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 5th February 2014
Supreme Court, 5th February 2014
‘The Supreme Court is set to rule this week on two conjoined cases concerning whether it is just to de-register land registered as a town or village green when there was a legal error that led to the registration.’
Local Government Lawyer, 4th February 2014
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
Supreme Court, 29th January 2014
Supreme Court, 29th January 2014
‘A man embroiled in a mammoth 16-year legal battle over a laptop found himself in the “absurd and horrid” position of having to keep paying for an item he had already returned to the shop, the supreme court has been told.’
The Guardian, 28th January 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘John Tughan, barrister of 4 Paper Buildings, analyses recent judgments in public law children cases and, in particular, the Re B-S line of authorities.’
Family Law Week, 24th January 2014
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘England and Wales’s parole system is on the brink of a crisis that will result in reformed prisoners being detained months after they should have been released, The Independent on Sunday can reveal.’
The Independent, 26th January 2014
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘Earlier this week, the UK Supreme Court gave judgment in R (HS2 Action Alliance Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport [2014] UKSC 3. A good overview of the issues at stake in the case can be found in the Court’s press summary, as well as in a post by David Hart on the UK Human Rights Blog. This post is concerned only with one aspect of the decision, and with some very interesting dicta concerning not only the relationship between UK and EU law, but the nature of the UK’s constitutional order itself.’
UK Constitutional Law Group, 23rd January 2014
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘Alfred and Maureen Rawlings’ wills were contested after a clerical error saw them sign each other’s paperwork.’
Daily Telegraph, 23rd January 2014
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
Marley v Rawlings and another [2014] UKSC 2; [2014] WLR (D) 18
A will did not have to satisfy the requirements for formal validity prescribed by section 9 of the Wills Act 1837, as amended, or have the testator’s knowledge and approval before it could be treated as a “will” which was capable of being rectified under section 20 of the Administration of Justice Act 1982.
WLR Daily, 22nd January 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Marley (Appellant) v Rawlings and another (Respondents) [2014] UKSC 2 | UKSC 2012/0057 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 22nd January 2014
‘In relation to an adolescent child, is the state of mind of the child relevant to whether or not habitual residence has been acquired in the place where the child is living?’
Sovereign Chambers, 20th January 2014
Source: www.sovereignchambers.co.uk
‘In determining whether an adolescent child had achieved a sufficient degree of integration into a social and family environment in a country in which she was living, so as to be habitually resident there, a relevant factor was her state of mind during that residence.’
WLR Daily, 15th January 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Tony Nicklinson lost his legal battle in 2012 for a judicial ruling that, were his wife to administer life-ending drugs to him at his express request, she would not be liable to prosecution for murder.’
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 20th January 2014
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
‘Katy Chokowry, barrister of 1 King’s Bench Walk, considers the Supreme Court’s judgment in LC (Children).’
Family Law Week, 19th January 2014
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk