In this case, the Court of Appeal held section 185(4) of the 1996 Housing Act to be incompatible with Article 14 of the European Convention of Human Rights, “to the extent that it requires a dependent child of a British citizen, if both are habitually resident in the United Kingdom, to be disregarded when determining whether the British citizen has a priority need for accommodation, when the child is subject to immigration control”.
|
The House of Lords found that the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 did not render a clause under the lease void. The said clause meant that the tenant had to pay rent arrears under the headlease as the clause limited in time the landlord's liability for rent arrears. The statute was not intended to curtail the parties' right to limit liability under covenants from the outset in whatever way they agreed.
|
Applicable Law. This case considered whether Iowa law (or US law) should apply to a reinsurance contract or whether it should be English law. This question had to be determined because there was a very significant difference between the substantive Iowa law and English law in relation to what constitutes “damages on account of … Property Damage”. Where an insurance contract provides for an express choice of English governing law then that should be self-evident.
|
In cases where an adult D is convicted of murder, and the question is the minimum length of the punitive term of imprisonment to be served, the judge has the discretion to order an oral hearing whenever he believes such a hearing to be required in the interests of fairness.
|
S.75(1) Representation of the People Act 1983 is compatible with Art.10 ECHR but there is not an absolute bar in unauthorised third party election expenses in relation to s.75(1)(a) and (b). It follows that the judge misdirected the jury when he told them that D "was not allowed to promote a candidate by incurring any election expenses".
|
Considerations for Judge in whether to recuse himself. Where the claimants had intended to call a witness who was in fact well known to the judge, but had accordingly decided not to call him but to call other witnesses instead, the judge considering whether to recuse himself had to decide whether he should do so because of the risk that new facts might emerge during the course of the trial that would place that witness's role in a new light and lead the judge to conclude that he would then have ...
|
Employment Discrimination
Appellant was unsuccessful in application for post with respondents and presented an application to the employment tribunal claiming that in a number of ways he had in respect of his application for the post of Unit Manager been unlawfully discriminated against by the respondent contrary to section 4(2)(b) of the Race Relations Act 1976. The employment tribunal sustained the claim and made a calculation of compensation payable to the appellant. The respondent appealed to the Employment Appeal Tr ...
|
Appeal Against Refusal to Extend Employment:
Appeal to Court of Session under section 37(1) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996. Racial discrimination contrary to Race Relations Act 1976. The only complaint which is now in issue is whether the respondent had discriminated against the appellant within the meaning of section 1(1)(a) of the Act ("direct discrimination"). The employment tribunal by a but the put more precisely it is whether the employment tribunal having found that the respondent had treated the appellant less favourably than ...
|
Criminal:Appeal By Way of Stated Case
Appeal by way of stated case against verdicts of not guilty which were returned by the sheriff at Kirkcaldy in respect of four charges on a complaint against the respondent. Road Traffic Offence. Although the respondents evidence that he had not been the driver of a vehicle travelling at 156 mph in a 70 zone and whilst on his mobile phone was rejected the sheriff did accept his evidence to the effect that he had not received a notice of intended prosecution in respect of certain of the alleged o ...
|
Where a school had in place a system to ensure that containers were stored away safely at the end of the day, but that system had not been followed with the result that a cleaner had fallen over a container suffering personal injury, the school was held liable under Reg.12(3) of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992.
|
| 1 |