‘The Court of Appeal has handed down a key ruling on the scope of a public authority’s power to reject a request for information as ‘vexatious’ or ‘manifestly unreasonable’.’
Local Government Lawyer, 20th May 2015
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
Society of Lloyd’s v Noel [2015] EWHC 734 (QB); [2015] WLR (D) 142
‘In considering whether “a party had persistently issued claims or made claims which are totally without merit” for the purpose of meeting the criteria for the making an extended civil restraint order in accordance with paragraph 3.1 of Practice Direction 3C supplementing CPR r 3.11, the court was entitled to have regard to all such claims and applications made by the litigant, including those made prior to the making of an earlier extended civil restraint order.’
WLR Daily, 20th March 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘This paper covers key information rights cases in 2014. The breadth of issues covered below, from legal professional privilege, human rights to vexatious requests, demonstrates the overlap between information law and many other areas of public law. This paper is intended to provide guidance, even for those who are not steeped, day-to-day, in the workings of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“FOIA”) and the Data Protection Act 1998 (the “DPA”), on the practical implications of these developments.’
Full story (PDF)
Thirty Nine Essex Street, February 2015
Source: www.39essex.com
‘Changes to the rules governing judicial review (JR) claims will ensure that those challenging the decisions of public bodies face a “fair level of financial risk”, the Government has said.’
OUT-LAW.com, 7th February 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
“Government proposals to allow people of ‘modest means’ to sue for libel without having to pay the other side’s legal costs if they lose could have a ‘chilling effect’ on free speech, a leading media lawyer has warned.”
Daily Telegraph, 13th September 2013
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“What is the test the Court should apply in deciding whether an application is ‘totally without merit’? The question is prompted by the Lord Chancellor’s announcement on 23 April 2013 that he will press ahead with plans to reform judicial review procedure to target ‘weak, frivolous and unmeritorious cases’. A key change will be to give judges of the Administrative Court, when refusing permission to apply for judicial review on the papers, the power to certify a claim as ‘totally without merit’ (TWM), thus depriving the claimant of the right to renew the application before the court at an oral hearing.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 25th April 2013
Surce: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“Public authorities often have cause to consider whether to treat requests for information as vexatious (section 14 of FOIA) or manifestly unreasonable (regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR). Precise definitions of those terms are difficult to pin down. They are not supplied by legislation. There is no binding authority from appellate courts or tribunals on their meaning in the information rights context. The Information Commissioner’s guidance is long-standing, but First-Tier Tribunals vary in the extent to which they use that guidance.”
Panopticon, 7th February 2013
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
“A litigant who began 31 sets of employment tribunal proceedings over 28 months has been told he can bring no more cases without the Employment Appeal Tribunal’s express permission.”
Law Society’s Gazette, 15th June 2012
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
Star Reefers Pool Inc v JFC Group Co Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 14; [2012] WLR (D) 3
“A judge’s decision that a party’s foreign proceedings were vexatious or oppressive was an evaluative judgment in a matter on which there was a right or wrong answer, not an exercise of discretion. Accordingly it was open to the Court of Appeal to conduct a serious review of the issue.”
WLR Daily, 20th January 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Natasha Sivanandan has spent 25 years pursuing tribunal cases and has now secured her biggest victory with a £425,000 payout.”
Daily Telegraph, 11th June 2011
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
Supperstone v Hurst and another [2009] EWHC 1271 (Ch); [2009] WLR (D) 176
“The court did not have jurisdiction to make an extended civil restraint order which prevented the person subject to the order from engaging in any form of mere communication with the person for whose benefit the order was made.”
WLR Daily, 10th June 2009
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Ewing v Director of Public Prosecutions; [2008] WLR (D) 276; [2008] WLR (D) 276
“It was necessary for a person who was the subject of a civil proceedings order to seek leave, under s 42(3) of the Supreme Court Act 1981, to make an application for permission to proceed with a claim for judicial review notwithstanding that the underlying decision he sought to challenge related to a criminal cause or matter.”
WLR Daily, 1st August 2008
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
© Inner Temple Library 2024