UKLawyers Archive of Litigation, Courts and Human Rights Materials - March 2006
Materials published by us on 30 March 2006
Foreign Funeral Payments To Benefit Claimants
Esfandiari and others v the Secretary of State for Work and
Pensions
CA
23 March 2006
BAILII Judgment
Refusal of Foreign Funeral Payments To Benefit Claimants Not
Discriminatory or in Breach of Human Rights
Schools Can Control Uniforms
R (Shabina Begum) v Head Teacher and Governors of Denbigh High
School [2006] UKHL 15
HL
22 March 2006
House of Lords Judgment
Daily Law Notes Report Summary
A refusal to allow a pupil to attend school unless she wore the
prescribed school uniform and not the jilbab, a garment which she
said conformed with her strict religious beliefs, did not amount
to an interference by the school with the pupil's right to
manifest her religion or a denial of her right to education.
Exclusion From School and Human Rights
Ali v Head Teacher and Governors of Lord Grey School [2006] UKHL
14
HL
22 March 2006
Daily Law Notes Report Summary
House of Lords Judgment
A pupil's exclusion from his school did not amount to a denial of
his right to education under art 2 of the First Protocol to the
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms as scheduled to the Human Rights Act 1998
when the pupil had access to educational facilities outside the
school or at another school.
Materials published by us on 16 March 2006
New Civil Procedure Rules
The Register of Judgments, Orders and Fines Regulations 2005
HM Courts Service Information
17 March 2006
These new rules which come into effect on 6 April 2006 and cause a
number of form and leaflet changes. The new rules and regulations
provide for: -
* The mandatory provision of a postcode for any address supplied
to the court by the parties
* Details of the information that must be provided on a claim form
* The provision of the defendant's date of birth on reply to a
claim or on entering judgment
* The Register of Judgments Orders and Fines will replace the
Register of County Court Judgments
Materials published by us on 16 March 2006
Human Rights against Local Authority
Whether European Court Decisions Take Precedence
Over House of Lords
Kay v Lambeth London Borough Council; Leeds City Council v Price
[2006] UKHL 10
HL
8 March 2006
Daily Law Notes Report Summary
http://www.lawreports.co.uk/WLRD/2006/HLPC/mar0.7.htm
House of Lords Judgment
http://digbig.com/4gsfg
A public authority landlord's unqualified right to possession
under domestic law would automatically supply the justification
under article 8(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights for
interference with an occupier's right to respect for his home
under article 8(1) save in an exceptional case where it was
seriously arguable that domestic law was not compatible with the
Convention; a claim based on the defendant's personal
circumstances was not permissible.
". . . domestic courts were not strictly required to follow
rulings of the Strasbourg court but they had to give practical
recognition to the principles it expounded. . . "
Human Rights - Costs Orders and Presumption of Innocence
Case of Yassar Hussain V. the United Kingdom
ECHR
7 March 2006
ECHR Judgment
http://digbig.com/4gsfh
If the link does not work go to the search page:
http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/search.asp?skin=hudoc-en
and enter the Application number: 8866/04
The reasons given by the judge for refusing the costs order were
"There is clear evidence on the court papers ... there is
compelling evidence in respect of those matters". The only natural
interpretation which can be put on those words is that the judge
was refusing the order because he was of the view that, although
the key witness had not given evidence and the applicant had been
acquitted, the applicant was, in fact, guilty of the offence.
This amounts, in the view of the Court, to a reliance on
suspicions as to the applicant's innocence after he had been
acquitted, and is incompatible with the presumption of innocence.
There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 2 of the
Convention.
The Insolvency Proceedings (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2006
SI 2006/561
Comes into force 1 April 2006
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2006/20060561.htm
Article 2(2) of this Order increases the amount of the various
deposits payable pursuant to article 6 of the 2004 Order. Article
2(3) reduces the deposit payable under article 7(1) of the 2004
Order in connection with the registration of an individual
voluntary arrangement and the performance by the official receiver
of the functions of nominee in relation to such an arrangement.
The Table of Fees in Schedule 2 to the 2004 Order is amended by
article 2(4) of this Order so as to reduce the fee currently
payable to the Secretary of State to register an individual
voluntary arrangement, fee IVA1, from 35 to 15 GBP. These
amendments are subject to the transitional provisions in Article
6.
Materials published by us on 9 March 2006
Defamation - Fair Comment Requirements
Lowe v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2006] EWHC 320 (QB)QBD
28 February 2006
Daily Law Notes Report Summary
Where a defendant pleaded fair comment in defence to a defamation
claim the facts pleaded in support of the defence must have been
known, at least in general terms, at the time the comment was
made, although it was not necessary that they should have been in
the forefront of the commentator's mind.
Reinstatement After Non-Appearance
Gaydamak and another v UBS Bahamas Ltd and another [2006] UKPC 8Privy Council
28 February 2006
Daily Law Notes Report Summary
A litigant whose case was struck out because, through no fault of
his own, he failed to appear at the hearing, was prima facie
entitled to have his case reinstated, regardless of the merits,
provided there had been no undue delay and there was no likelihood
of prejudice to any other parties. It was for any party opposing
reinstatement to show that the applicant's case had no chance of
success.
Committal Proceedings - Hearsay
Daltel Europe Ltd (in liquidation) and others v Makki and others[2006] EWCA Civ 94
CA
28 February 2006
Daily Law Notes Report Summary
Committal proceedings in the High Court were not criminal
proceedings but were civil proceedings subject to the Civil
Evidence Act 1995. Hearsay evidence which might be excluded in
criminal proceedings was therefore admissible in committal
proceedings.
Limitation Period - Latent Damage
Haward and others v Fawcetts (a firm) and another [2006] UKHL 9
HL
1 March 2006
Daily Law Notes Report Summary
House of Lords Judgment
Where the claimants had brought an action against defendants for
damages in respect of allegedly negligent advice given in
connection with the purchase of a company and relied on the
three-year limitation period in s 14A of the Limitation Act 1980,
they had to show that the date when they had first known enough
for it to be reasonable to investigate the possibility that the
advice had been negligent had been after the commencement of the
three-year period and had failed to discharge that burden.