‘The David Hare screenplay for the recent film Denial contains the following advice to the client: ‘stay seated, button your lip, and win.’ This article seeks to plot a path for advocates to winning in large scale discrimination claims in the employment tribunal, based on the writer’s long experience of the ET and, more recently, briefs to act for the respondents in two high stakes cases, AB -v- A Chief Constable[i] and Aubrey -v- The Chief Constable of Northumbria Police[ii]. The suggested lessons apply to all types of large-scale claim in the ET.’
UK Police Law Blog, 27th June 2017
Source: ukpolicelawblog.com
‘The David Hare screenplay for the recent film Denial contains the following advice to the client: “stay seated, button your lip, and win.” This article seeks to plot a path for advocates to winning in large scale discrimination claims in the employment tribunal, based on the writer’s long experience of the ET and, more recently, briefs to act for the respondents in two high stakes cases, AB -v- A Chief Constable[i] and Aubrey -v- The Chief Constable of Northumbria Police[ii]. The suggested lessons apply to all types of large-scale claim in the ET.’
UK Police Law Blog, 27th June 2017
Source: ukpolicelawblog.com
Regina (Khan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 424
‘The claimant, a national of Pakistan, had limited leave to remain in the United Kingdom. A few days before the expiry of his leave he applied for an extension of his period of leave. The Secretary of State rejected that application on the grounds that it had not been accompanied by the required fee. Since the claimant had no right of appeal against this rejection, he submitted a renewed application accompanied by the required fee. The Secretary of State refused that application on the merits, informing the claimant that he had no right of appeal against her refusal since his renewed application had been made at a time when he had no leave to remain. The claimant sought judicial review of the Secretary of State’s determination that he had no right of appeal, contending that he had had leave to remain at the time of making his renewed application since his leave had been automatically extended pursuant to section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 when he made his original application for an extension, and was still continuing. The claimant was granted permission to proceed with his claim, but at the full hearing the Upper Tribunal dismissed the claim on the basis that the claimant had an alternative remedy in the form of an appeal to the First-tier Tribunal.’
WLR Daily, 8th June 2017
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The London Borough of Islington has secured a £3,000-plus costs order in its favour after a judge found that landlords had “behaved unreasonably in bringing an appeal which they never intended to pursue properly and never did pursue properly”.’
Local Government Lawyer, 19th June 2017
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The Upper Tribunal reversed decisions from the First Tier Tribunal in respect of the validity of estimated service demands, the requirements to prove the service of a notice under section 20B in light of the incorporation of section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925 in the lease, and whether a tenant had waived the Landlord’s non-compliance with service charge mechanism of the lease by conduct.’
Tanfield Chambers, 1st June 2017
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘Since the Supreme Court turned the law of dispensation from the consultation requirements upside down in Daejan Investments Ltd v Benson [2013] UKSC 14; [2013] 2 EGLR 45, the Upper Tribunal has been troubled with very few cases involving the requirements to consult leaseholders on major works. However, the decision in Lessees of Foundling Court and O’Donnell Court v Camden London Borough Council and others [2016] UKUT 366 (LC); [2016] EGLR 59 has rewritten preconceptions as to who needs to be consulted and caused landlords some new headaches.’
Tanfield Chambers, 12th June 2017
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘The longest and most expensive case brought in the history of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) has ended with high-profile claimant lawyer Martyn Day, two of his colleagues and his firm Leigh Day fully exonerated.’
Legal Futures, 9th June 2017
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
General Medical Council v Jagjivan and another [2017] EWHC 1247 (Admin)
‘Where, at the conclusion of a hearing by the Medical Practitioners Tribunal, a direction under section 35D of the Medical Act 1983 has not been given, on the ordinary wording of section 40A(1)(d) of the Act the tribunal has made a decision not to give a direction under section 35D. Accordingly, where the tribunal has made such a decision, the General Medical Council has jurisdiction to appeal, pursuant to section 40A, against that decision. The words “after determining that the person’s fitness to practise is impaired” are not present at the end of section 40A(1)(d) and do not require to be read into that subsection. Moreover, it would be anomalous if the General Medical Council’s right of appeal were confined to cases where the tribunal had made a finding of impairment or imposed some sanction, and no regard could be had to an erroneous failure by the tribunal to find an impairment of fitness to practise (paras 27, 32).’
WLR Daily, 26th May 2017
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘EU judges may be asked to decide whether the intelligence services’ bulk collection of email data in order to prevent terrorist attacks is legal.’
The Guardian, 5th June 2017
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The president of the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has reproached the Law Society for a “deeply unimpressive” explanation of its failure to disclose all the documents it should have done in the Socrates case.’
Legal Futures, 7th June 2017
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘A solicitor has been fined £7,500 for making false claims about being in possession of documents in personal injury cases – misconduct which a psychiatrist attributed to an illness that temporarily affected her ability to work.’
Litigation Futures, 7th June 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The UK’s first ‘opt-out’ class action claim has been withdrawn on the basis that its costs would outweigh the potential damages available.’
OUT-LAW.com, 5th June 2017
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Where the Secretary of State makes an error of law in a decision which is then appealed to the tribunal, does the tribunal have to allow that appeal on the basis that the decision contains an error of law? Not unless the decision as a whole is unlawful, finds the Court of Appeal in Singh (India) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 362 (24 May 2017).’
Free Movement 5th June 2017
Source: www.freemovement.org.uk
‘The first attempt to bring an opt-out class action has failed after a decision of the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) that meant the claim would not be worth enough money to proceed.’
Litigation Futures, 5th June 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Where the Secretary of State makes an error of law in a decision which is then appealed to the tribunal, does the tribunal have to allow that appeal on the basis that the decision contains an error of law? Not unless the decision as a whole is unlawful, finds the Court of Appeal in Singh (India) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 362 (24 May 2017).’
Free Movement, 5th June 2017
Source: www.freemovement.org.uk
‘The fall-out from the decision that the Law Society breached competition law looks set to last for several more months after the Competition Appeal Tribunal laid out the timetable for determining damages.’
Legal Futures, 5th June 2017
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘A Romanian nurse hired after being interviewed via Skype put patients’ health at risk because his English was so bad, a tribunal has heard.’
Daily Telegraph, 2nd June 2017
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘Can an employee claim direct or indirect discrimination on grounds of religion because she feels that her employer’s behaviour is inconsistent with what she understands to be “the Christian way of life”? That was one of the issues raised in Miss M Keens-Betts v The Anthony Gregg Partnership Ltd [2017] UKET 2208102/2016.’
Law & Religion UK, 1st June 2017
Source: www.lawandreligionuk.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024