header-logo header-logo

18 July 2014
Issue: 7615 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Elections

Mabbutt (on his own behalf and on behalf of the Conservative Party) [2014] EWHC 2244 (QB), [2014] All ER (D) 86 (Jul)

The focus of a court’s inquiry in connection with reg 108(3)(b) of the European Parliamentary Elections Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/293) was the act or omission and the good faith (or otherwise) of the applicant for relief. Correspondingly, if the application was successful it was the applicant who was relieved from any liability or consequences in respect of the errors which prompted the application. It might be said that the closing words of reg 108 appeared at first sight to have a wider impact, but should be interpreted as meaning, “and upon the making of the order no such person shall be subject to any of the consequences under these Regulations of that act or omission”. Were it otherwise, a person who should be entitled to relief would be denied it because of the nature of someone else’s act or because of their bad faith. That would not be consistent with the intention of the regulation, which

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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll