header-logo header-logo

Human rights

28 March 2013
Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Swift v Secretary of State for Justice [2013] EWCA Civ 193,  [2013] All ER (D) 155 (Mar)

Section 1(3)(b) of the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 was not incompatible with Art 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights when read in conjunction with Art 8. It was a proportionate means of pursuing a legitimate aim. Even if Art 14 of the Convention was engaged, the difference in treatment of cohabitees on the basis of two years’ cohabitation was justified.

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

Browne Jacobson—Matthew Kemp

Browne Jacobson—Matthew Kemp

Firm grows real estate team with tenth partner hire this financial year

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

NEWS
Early determination is no longer a novelty in arbitration. In NLJ this week, Gustavo Moser, arbitration specialist lawyer at Lexis+, charts the global embrace of summary disposal powers, now embedded in the Arbitration Act 1996 and mirrored worldwide. Tribunals may swiftly dismiss claims with ‘no real prospect of succeeding’, but only if fairness is preserved
The Ministry of Justice is once again in the dock as access to justice continues to deteriorate. NLJ consultant editor David Greene warns in this week's issue that neither public legal aid nor private litigation funding looks set for a revival in 2026
Civil justice lurches onward with characteristic eccentricity. In his latest Civil Way column, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist, surveys a procedural landscape featuring 19-page bundle rules, digital possession claims, and rent laws he labels ‘bonkers’
Can a chief constable be held responsible for disobedient officers? Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth, professor of public law at De Montfort University, examines a Court of Appeal ruling that answers firmly: yes
Neurotechnology is poised to transform contract law—and unsettle it. Writing in NLJ this week, Harry Lambert, barrister at Outer Temple Chambers and founder of the Centre for Neurotechnology & Law, and Dr Michelle Sharpe, barrister at the Victorian Bar, explore how brain–computer interfaces could both prove and undermine consent
back-to-top-scroll