“In Avon Estates (London) Limited v Sinclair Gardens Investments (Kensington) Limited [2013] UKUT 0264 (LC) [not online yet we have a transcript] the Upper Tribunal considered the question of whether an insurance premium had been reasonable incurred.”
NearlyLegal, 11th June 2013
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
“These are the latest in a series of freedom of information requests for disclosure of material from the UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU). These requests arose following the ‘climategate’ affair where hacked university emails suggested that individuals within CRU might have attempted to abuse the process of peer review to prevent publication of opposing research papers and evidence. Hence the sensitivity of the data to both requester and CRU, and the passions engendered on these appeals.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 10th June 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“Lawyers say police could ‘circumvent criminal justice’ by using intelligence in civil immigration courts to increase deportations.”
The Guardian, 6th June 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“The concept of fairness embodied in the different strands of natural justice have to be seen as flexible and as not requiring the courts to lay down over rigid rules, so that where it had been agreed that a tribunal member could be temporarily absent for part of the hearing, there had been no breach of the rules of natural justice.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 5th June 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“Closed material and closed proceedings are commonplace in FOIA litigation. As regards the disputed information itself, the need is self-explanatory. But what about closed material other than the disputed information, such as evidence in support of a public authority’s reliance on exemptions? To what extent is it appropriate for FOIA proceedings to be determined by reference to such material which the requester is unable to see and challenge? Also, if the public authority’s concern is with public disclosure of such material, is the solution to be found in a readiness to bring the requester’s legal representatives into a ‘confidentiality ring’? In other words, do natural and open justice demand that requesters’ legal representatives be allowed to attend the closed part of the hearing and see the closed material?”
Panopticon, 22nd May 2013
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
“Two people with mental health problems, who claimed the test for sickness benefit would discriminate against them, have won their legal challenge.”
BBC News, 22nd May 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
A female police firearms officer tricked into opening a filing cabinet full of porn and offered a “pink gun” as a weapon has been awarded £20,000 in compensation.
Daily Telegraph, 21st May 2013
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“The Supreme Court held in The President of the Methodist Conference v Preston that a Methodist minister was not an employee and therefore had no claim for unfair dismissal.”
Employment Law Blog, 20th May 2013
Source: www.employment11kbw.com
“Employment programmes for welfare recipients – often referred to as ‘workfare’ – are highly controversial. In Department for Work and Pensions v Information Commissioner and Zola (EA/2012/0207,0232 and 0233), the First-tier Tribunal considered three FOIA requests for information about companies participating in such programmes. The Tribunal ordered disclosure, rejecting the Department’s reliance on the exemptions in FOIA section 43(2) (prejudice to commercial interests) and section 36(2)(c) (prejudice to the effect conduct of public affairs).”
Panopticon, 20th May 2013
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
“The Department for Work and Pensions has lost a major court battle to keep the locations of thousands of workfare placements secret.”
The Guardian, 19th May 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“This a late note on OR -v- Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Isle of Anglesey CC [2013] UKUT 065 (AAC) because, bluntly, I had read it quickly at the time and overlooked its broader significance.”
NearlyLegal, 19th May 2013
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
“Radical cleric Abu Qatada will launch a fresh bid for freedom today as he seeks to be released from prison at an immigration tribunal.”
The Independent, 20th May 2013
Source: www.independent.co.uk
“The Home Office Discretionary Leave policy and instruction document (issued 27 October 2009) was not capable of being read and applied in a way which was compliant with section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 and the associated jurisprudence.”
WLR Daily, 8th May 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“One of the issues which commonly arises for information law practitioners is the question, which arises under both FOIA and the EIR, of whether a public authority actually holds the information which has been requested. The leading case on section 1(1) FOIA is University of Newcastle v IC & British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection [2011] UKUT 185 (AAC), [2011] 2 Info LR 54 and substantially the same approach has been adopted in, for example, Keiller v IC and University of East Anglia [2012] 1 Info LR 128 and Clyne v IC & London Borough of Lambeth [2012] 2 Info LR 24 in relation to regulation 3(2) EIR. What is required is a common-sense and non-technical approach. That, of course, is easier stated than applied.”
Panopticon, 7th May 2013
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
“In 2009 someone hacked into e-mails belonging to the Climate Research Unit at UEA and leaked them widely. Climate change sceptics whooped with delight because they thought that the e-mails showed attempts to suppress or gerrymander climate data (see e.g. this example from James Delingpole with some of the ticklish e-mails, and for more background, less tendentiously put, my post on an earlier UEA case). And the CRU data was important; it had made its way into the highly influential IPCC reports.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 7th May 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“In Harrow Council v AM [2013] UKUT 0157 (AAC), the Upper Tribunal considered a local authority’s obligations where a parent chose mainstream education for a child with complex special educational needs. The decision also discusses two important procedural issues, namely when a First-tier Tribunal can rely on its own knowledge without seeking views from the parties and its powers on review.”
Education Law Blog, 6th May 2013
Source: www.education11kbw.com
“This important case deals with the approach a leasehold valuation tribunal (LVT) should take in relation to applications for dispensation from complying with the consultation requirements.”
Full story (PDF)
Zenith Chambers, 23rd April 2013
Source: www.zenithchambers.co.uk
“Where a tribunal found that a person who had committed suicide had been reckless as to whether his action would also cause injury to some other person, and it had in fact done so an offence of inflicting grievous bodily harm contrary to section 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 had been committed which was a ‘crime of violence’ entitling that other person to claim under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme. However, the question as to what the offender had actually foreseen was for the First-tier Tribunal to answer, not an appellate court, which should not readily intervene in issues best left for determination by specialist appellate tribunals by classifying them as issues of law.”
WLR Daily, 17th April 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“A consultation published today sets out proposals for fee remissions (waivers) for courts and tribunals which are better targeted, fairer for the taxpayer and easy for users to understand.”
Ministry of Justice, 18th April 2013
Source: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-justice
“Supreme court’s backing of initial tribunal reaffirms principle that suicidal people may not realise full effects of their actions.”
The Guardian, 18th April 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025