“The UK Supreme Court has ruled that companies found to have infringed patents can rely on the subsequent amendment of patent claims to exonerate them from liability for damages.”
OUT-LAW.com, 4th July 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
“Dumfries and Galloway -v- North [2013] UKSC 45. Yesterday’s much heralded equal pay ‘victory’ in the Supreme Court (see BBC Report) undoubtedly will be good news for the specific female claimants in the case who seek to vindicate their European Union rights to equal pay.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 27th June 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“Employees hired to carry out jobs of equal value need not work in the same
‘establishment’ in order to benefit from protections given to those in the ‘same
employment’ under equal pay law, the UK’s highest court has confirmed.”
OUT-LAW.com, 28th June 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
“The question of when equal pay claimants can rely upon comparators employed at different establishments on common terms and conditions under s.1(6) Equal Pay Act 1970 (and now, s.79(4) Equality Act 2010) has long generated an inordinate amount of heat, not light. A unanimous Supreme Court (Lady Hale giving the single judgment) has now cleared away some of the fog of confusion in North v Dumfries and Galloway Council [2013] IKSC 45. In the process, it has overturned both the EAT and the Court of Session Inner House.”
Employment Law Blog, 27th June 2013
Source: www.employment11kbw.com
“To widespread surprise, the Supreme Court allowed the wife’s appeal in Prest v Petrodel Resources [2013] UKSC 34, [2013] All ER (D) 90 (Jun) although on a different basis from the decision of Mr Justice Moylan at first instance. For those law “nerds” amongst us, the new Supreme Court live feed added an extra frisson, with social media abuzz with speculation as to what it might mean that Lord Sumption was to give the lead judgment. It quickly became clear that this may be a red herring (for Lady Hale to give the lead judgment would have been too obvious a clue). However, a more detailed consideration of the judgment may lead us to conclude that Lord Sumption was a clue indeed and that the corporate veil has survived fully intact, albeit it with the Supreme Court wedging open some doors for family lawyers on the issues of trusts and inferences to be drawn from both pre- and post-litigation behaviour.”
New Law Journal, 27th June 2013
Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk
Abela v Baadarain [2013] UKSC 44; [2013] WLR (D) 251
“The court’s power, when the parties were within the jurisdiction, to make an order under CPR r 6.15(2), that steps already taken to bring the claim form to the attention of the defendant by an alternative method or at an alternative place was good service, was applicable to claims where the defendant was outside the jurisdiction in a state in respect of which no relevant bilateral convention on service of judicial documents existed.”
WLR Daily, 26th June 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The Supreme Court has allowed an appeal by a 251-strong group of female council employees and restored an Employment Tribunal decision that they could bring equal pay claims.”
Local Government Lawyer, 26th June 2013
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
Supreme Court, 26th June 2013
Abela and others (Appellants) v. Baadarani (Respondent) [2013] UKSC 44 | UKSC 2012/0023 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 26th June 2013
“This is the tale of how a solicitor from Harrow ended up litigating about his off-street parking in the Supreme Court – and reached for Article 1 of Protocol 1 (A1P1) of ECHR, by way of a second string to his bow. Not his choice, as he had won in the Court of Appeal on other grounds. But his failure on the point reminds us that in the majority of cases A1P1 is a difficult argument to bring home.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 25th June 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“Last week, the Supreme Court gave judgment in Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (no.1) [2013] UKSC 38. The Bank Mellat case involved financial restrictions imposed by HMT on the Bank under the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 (“the 2008 Act”), on the basis that it enabled funding for Iran’s nuclear weapons programme. The High Court and Court of Appeal had both adopted a closed material procedure (“CMP”) – i.e. a procedure in which the court sits in private, and hears evidence and/or submissions without one party either being present or seeing the material – in order to consider sensitive material adduced by HMT which could not be disclosed to the Bank. They had specific statutory authority to do so under the 2008 Act. The Supreme Court did not have such authority. The relevant questions were whether it was possible for the Supreme Court to adopt a CMP on appeal, in the absence of specific statutory provision; and if so, whether it was appropriate to do so in that particular case. The Supreme Court was faced with the difficulty of reconciling two strong but opposing interests. On the one hand, it was important that the Court should be able to see and consider any relevant material before the High Court and Court of Appeal. On the other, the Supreme Court itself in Al Rawi v Security Service [2012] 1 AC 531 had uncompromisingly set its face against any derogation from the open justice principle. The Supreme Court was divided; but the majority considered that the Court had implied authority to adopt a CMP under its powers conferred by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, where the lower courts had themselves used a CMP. Nevertheless, the Court was uncomfortable about doing so, and expressed that discomfort in strong terms.”
Panopticon, 25th June 2013
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
“Lady Hale has become the most senior female judge in British legal history with her appointment as deputy president of the UK’s supreme court.”
The Guardian, 24th June 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“The Supreme Court had jurisdiction to entertain a closed material procedure on an appeal from decisions of the courts of England and Wales on applications brought under section 63 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008. On very rare occasions it would be appropriate for the court to go into closed session for that purpose and in the circumstances of the present appeal it would do so.”
WLR Daily, 19th June 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Baroness Hale of Richmond has been appointed Deputy President of the Supreme Court, it was announced today.”
Supreme Court, 24th June 2013
Source: www.supremecourt.gov.uk
“My post of earlier this week explained why the majority of the Supreme Court struck down a direction telling all financial institutions not to deal with this Iranian Bank. The legal ground (involving, as Lord Sumption described it, ‘an exacting analysis of the factual evidence in defence of the measure’ [20]) was that the direction was ‘disproportionate’. The judgments (particularly the dissenting one of Lord Reed) tell us a lot about the scope of proportionality. And there is a good deal more to it than there might at first sight appear.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 22nd June 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“Smith and Others (Appellants) v The Ministry of Defence (Respondent) and other appeals. So, the Supreme Court has refused to allow these claims to be struck out on the principle of combat immunity. It has also asserted that jurisdiction for the purpose of an Article 2 right to life claim can extend to non-Convention countries, and that the state can owe a positive duty to protect life, even in a situation of armed combat.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 20th June 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“This appeal concerned whether a child of two years of age should be permanently removed from her parents and placed for adoption; and, in that regard, whether the child was likely to suffer significant harm: within the meaning of s.31(2)(a) of the Children Act 1989; and a consideration of whether her permanent removal might interfere with the exercise of the right to respect for family life under Article 8 of the ECHR, and, if so, whether the order should be proportionate to its legitimate aim of protecting the child.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 20th June 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
Cusack (Respondent) v London Borough of Harrow (Appellant) [2013] UKSC 40 | UKSC 2012/0006 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 19th June 2013
© Inner Temple Library 2025