header-logo header-logo

Elections

10 June 2016
Issue: 7702 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Shindler and another v Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and another [2016] EWCA Civ 469, [2016] All ER (D) 151 (May)

The Court of Appeal dismissed the claimants’ appeal challenging s 2 of the EU Referendum Act 2015, on the basis that exclusion from franchise of UK citizens who had moved abroad and were last registered to vote in the UIK more than 15 years ago constituted an unjustified restriction on their EU law rights of free movement. The court upheld the decision of the Divisional Court and held that s 2 of the 2015 Act did not fall within the scope of EU law by virtue of Art 50(1) of the Treaty on European Union and, even if it did, s 2 did not restrict the rights of free movement of the claimants or those in the same situation as them.

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

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll