Blog
Should staff be compelled to have the COVID-19 vaccine?
Nadjia Zychowicz
9 October 2019
When do contracts and goodwill amount to A1P1 possession?
In this case (Solaria v Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy), a government department was granted summary judgment against a claimant (Solaria) who had no real prospect of succeeding in a damages claim based on an alleged unlawful interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions under Article 1 of the First Protocol (A1P1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
16 September 2019
In deep water: High Court decides on level of compensation for interference with fishing quotas
The latest judgment in the long-running dispute between salmon fisherman, Mr Mott, and the Environment Agency (Mott & Merrett v Environment Agency [2019] EWHC 1892 (Admin)) about the imposition of restrictions on his fishing licence provides useful guidance on the calculation of damages under the Human Rights Act 1998 (“HRA”).
29 July 2019
High Court finds Mayor’s Congestion Charge decision did not involve unlawful discrimination
On 24 July 2019, the High Court handed down judgment in R (on the application of Independent Workers Union Of Great Britain and others) v Mayor Of London [2019] EWHC 1997 (Admin). This case related to the decision in December 2018 by the Mayor of London to remove an exemption and require private hire vehicles (“PHV”) to pay the Congestion Charge from 8 April 2019
30 May 2019
‘World-leading’ Modern Slavery Act 2015: review confirms more to be done
The Independent Review of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 commenced in July 2018 with a remit to consider specific provisions of the Act: the role of the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner; transparency in supply chains; Independent Child Trafficking Advocates; and the legal application of the act. The final report was published in May 2019. This follows a series of interim reports on the four themes.
3 April 2019
Court finds approach by DWP to Universal Credit ‘odd in the extreme’
The High Court judgment of R (Johnson, Woods, Barrett and Stewart) v SSWP [2019]EWHC 23 (Admin) involved a judicial review challenge to the method of calculating universal credit. The claimants successfully demonstrated that the DWP’s method of calculation was an incorrect interpretation of the Universal Credit Regulations 2013 (the Regulations) as it failed to account for circumstances where workers’ pay dates do not converge with the fixed assessment periods under the universal credit scheme.