The UK government is considering extending this power to depart from retained EU case law to additional lower courts and tribunals, namely the Court of Appeal in England and Wales and the High Court of Justice in England and Wales and their equivalents.
From 31 December 2020, the amended European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 vests the power to depart from retained EU case law in the Supreme Court and the High Court of Justiciary (where there is no leave of appeal to the UK Supreme Court). The UK government is considering extending this power to depart from retained EU case law to additional lower courts and tribunals, namely the Court of Appeal in England and Wales and the High Court of Justice in England and Wales and their equivalents.
The consultation on this proposal began on 2 July 2020 and closes on 13 August 2020. Browne Jacobson LLP will be submitting a response to the consultation.
As a firm, we do not support extending the power to depart from retained EU case law to other courts and tribunals beyond the UK Supreme Court and the High Court of the Justiciary. Our view is that extending the power to depart to lower courts would be likely to cause great legal uncertainty, and potentially divergence between the UK legal jurisdictions. Uncertainty would weaken the UK’s reputation as a strong legal centre because it would present a difficulty in advising about the prospects of success of cases. Any extension of the power to depart would also be likely to cause a dramatic increase in re-litigation of previously closed issues, which would in turn increase costs for litigants, particularly in areas of law such as intellectual property, environment and planning and procurement.
Our stance is that if the law is to be changed, it should primarily be changed through the legislature. To leave the decisions on when to depart from European case law entirely to the judiciary is arguably a dereliction of the government’s duty to legislate. In our view, retaining the right to depart from EU case law to the Supreme Court and the High Court of Justiciary constitutes a satisfactory compromise between legal certainty and UK sovereignty following the end of the transition period. It would also allow any such departure to take place in a controlled and consistent manner.
We would urge our clients, and colleagues within the wider legal profession to comment upon the proposals. If you would like to input into our final response, please ensure any comments are sent to charlotte.butler@brownejacobson.com by midday on 12 August 2020.
Law firm Browne Jacobson has collaborated with Wiltshire Council and Christ Church Business School on the launch event of The Council Company Best Practice and Innovation Network, a platform which brings together academic experts and senior local authority leaders, allowing them to share best practice in relation to council companies.
In the Autumn Statement delivered on 17 November, rises to the National Living Wage and National Minimum Wage rates were announced, to take effect from 1 April 2023.
Announced in September but scrapped on 17 November the investment zone proposals were very short lived. The proposal has now morphed into the proposal for a smaller number of clustered zones earmarked for investment.
Settlement agreements are commonplace in an employment context and are ordinarily used to provide the parties to the agreement with certainty following the conclusion of an employment relationship.
On 2 November 2022, the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in the much awaiting case of Hillside Parks Ltd v Snowdonia National Park Authority [2022] UKSC 30. The Court’s judgment suggests that the long established practice of using drop-in applications is in fact much more restricted than previously thought. This judgment therefore has significant implications for both the developers and local planning authorities.
In ‘failure to remove’ claims, the claimant alleges abuse in the family home and asserts that the local authority should have known about the abuse and/or that they should have removed the claimant from the family home and into care earlier.
Across the UK, homelessness is an urgent crisis, and one that is set to grow amid the rising cost of living. Local authorities are at the forefront of responding to this crisis, but with a lack of properties that are suitable for social housing across the UK, vulnerable individuals and families are often housed in temporary accommodation.
Claims arising from interest-only mortgages have been farmed in volume. Many such claims to date have sought to drive a narrative that interest-only mortgages are an inherently toxic product and brokers were negligent simply for suggesting them. Taylor is a helpful recalibration, focussing instead on what the monies raised by the mortgage product were being used for and whether the client understood the inherent risks.
Settlement agreements in an employment context are ordinarily used to provide both parties with certainty following the conclusion of an employment relationship – but what happens when there is alleged discrimination after entering into a settlement agreement?
Updates include UK Shared Prosperity Fund, contracts, Subsidy Control Bill, data controller liability, Government Covid-19 procurement and Highway Code revisions.
The complex and rather nebulous transitional subsidy control regime set out in the UK-EU Trade and Co-operation Agreement and the UK’s wider international commitments has made it difficult for public authorities and those working with them to proceed with certainty where subsidies are involved.
Investment zones have been introduced by the Conservative party to get the United Kingdom (UK) ‘working, building and growing’. They are to be designated sites which provide time-limited tax incentives, streamlined planning rules and wider support for local growth to encourage investment and accelerate the development of housing and infrastructure that the UK needs to drive economic growth. Processes and requirements that slow down development will be stripped back with the intention of attracting new investment.
In a judgment handed down yesterday the Supreme Court has affirmed that a so called “creditor duty” exists for directors such that in some circumstances company directors are required to act in accordance with, or to consider the interests of creditors. Those circumstances potentially arise when a company is insolvent or where there is a “probability” of an insolvency. We explore below the “trigger” for such a test to apply and its implications.
