header-logo header-logo

13 May 2016
Issue: 7698 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Animal

Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v Mccormick and others [2016] EWHC 928 (Admin), [2016] All ER (D) 05 (May)

The Divisional Court, in dismissing the RSPCA’s appeal, held that, in order for an offence of animal fighting to be committed, contrary to s 8 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, as defined by s 8(7) of that Act, the other animal, with which a protected animal was placed, had to be the subject of some control or restraint by some person or persons connected with that activity or some other artificial constraint so that its ability to escape was prevented.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Boodle Hatfield—Tom McLaughlin

Boodle Hatfield—Tom McLaughlin

Boodle Hatfield welcomes new employment partner, Tom McLaughlin

Arc Pensions Law—Victoria Thompson-Hill, Jonathan Mason & Georgi Ivanov

Arc Pensions Law—Victoria Thompson-Hill, Jonathan Mason & Georgi Ivanov

National specialist pensions law firm strengthens team with three new appointments

Jurit—Christian Abletshauser

Jurit—Christian Abletshauser

Jurit appoints Christian Abletshauser to lead family law practice

NEWS
Burges Salmon appoints Benn Richards to strengthen Contentious Insolvency offering
A High Court decision has clarified that a home may be unfit for human habitation not only where conditions endanger health or safety, but also where they seriously undermine comfort and convenience

A longer time limit for employment tribunal claims, new charity law thresholds, property tribunal recruitment and appellate guidance on small-claims costs feature in the latest Civil Way round-up

A recent High Court ruling could make issue estoppel considerably more complex in cross-border litigation, requiring parties to consider the foreign law governing the underlying claim
The Supreme Court has overturned Cheshire West’s bright-line test for deprivation of liberty, replacing it with a broader, more contextual assessment that gives greater weight to an individual’s wishes, feelings and apparent consent
back-to-top-scroll