Monkey on my back* Even since McCann v. UK (2008) 47 EHRR 40, a lot of people (around these parts) have been waiting for a case on Article 8 and the rule in Hammersmith v Monk (Hammersmith and Fulham LBC v. Monk  AC 478) to reach the higher Courts.
Trade Mark and Patent Attorneys Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988 The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (and amending legislation) is reproduced under the terms of Crown Copyright Policy Guidance issued by HMSO. 15th November 1988 BE IT ENACTED by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-
Tenancy deposit schemes: surprise decision on pre-2007 deposits! Another court decision equals another headache for landlords of residential property. Landlords have to do two things within 30 days of receiving a deposit paid in connection with an assured shorthold tenancy: first, pay the deposit into a registered scheme and second, give the tenant certain prescribed information about how the deposit is held. Unless both of these steps have been taken, a landlord cannot serve a section 21 notice under the Housing Act 1988 to obtain possession of the property once the tenancy expires.
Introduction to Welfare Benefits (2 days) “The trainer seemed to know everything about everything- was unfazed by any question. Very engaging. Made what could have been dry material vivid, vibrant and va va voom.” Shelter Shop - Universal Credit and Benefit Reform SEMINAR *We have delivered this seminar in-house to groups of staff at well over 200 organisations!* The Government is accelerating the expansion of Universal Credit from January 2015. Blog posts - Page 2 of 325 - The Landlord Law Blog The Landlord Law Blog from Tessa Shepperson Tessa is an English lawyer specialising in residential landlord and tenant law. Legal Services Legal services are provided via Tessa's online service Landlord Law. Case Previews Archive – UKSCBlog Case Preview: Youssef v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs & Anor 16 Nov 2015 Introduction On 18 and 19 November 2015, the Supreme Court will hear an appeal for judicial review of the Foreign… Continue reading » Case Preview: Société Coopérative De Production Seafrance S.A. v Competition and Markets Authority 13 Nov 2015 On 14 and 15 October, the Supreme Court heard an appeal from the Competition and Markets Authority in relation to… Continue reading » Case Preview: Kennedy v Cordia (Services) LLP (Scotland) 11 Nov 2015 On 19 October 2015, the Supreme Court heard the appeal of Kennedy v Cordia (Services) LLP (Scotland).
Case Comments Archive – UKSCBlog The Supreme Court on the penalties doctrine: recast and restricted but not rejected in full 12 Nov 2015 Last week’s highly anticipated and seminal Supreme Court judgment in the joined cases of Cavendish Square Holding BV v Makdessi… Continue reading » Case Comment: Mandalia v Secretary of State for the Home Department  UKSC 59 05 Nov 2015 The Supreme Court considered whether the Secretary of State had acted unlawfully in refusing an application without following her published… Continue reading » Case Comment: Bunge SA v Nidera BV  UKSC 43 29 Oct 2015 Background Bunge SA (the “Seller”) contracted to sell 25,000 tonnes of Russian milling wheat to Nidera BV (the “Buyer”).
The Supreme Court on the penalties doctrine: recast and restricted but not rejected in full – UKSCBlog Last week’s highly anticipated and seminal Supreme Court judgment in the joined cases of Cavendish Square Holding BV v Makdessi and ParkingEye v Beavis  UKSC 67 marked the first time in a century that the highest court of England and Wales has considered the penalties doctrine. The Supreme Court Justices made the most of th is opportunity by restating the law on penalties and thereby creating a new leading authority for this doctrine, to replace the early 20th Century authority of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company v New Garage and Motor Company  AC 79. The long-cited test of whether a liquidated damages clause is a “genuine pre-estimate of loss” designed to compensate the innocent party rather than deter the defaulting party from committing the breach is no longer conclusive (nor is it completely redundant – indeed, it still may have applicability in the simplest of cases). Whilst this is helpful clarification, the Supreme Court has still left wide open the questions of: