header-logo header-logo

Law digests: 7 June 2024

07 June 2024
Issue: 8074 / Categories: Case law , In Court , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Police powers

R (on the application of ­National Council for Civil Liberties) v ­Secretary of State for the Home Department (Public Law Project ­intervening) [2024] EWHC 1181 (­Admin), [2024] All ER (D) 89 (May)

The Administrative Court, in allowing the claimant’s judicial review claim in part, held that the Public Order Act 1986 (Serious Disruption to the Life of the Community) Regulations 2023 (SI 2023/655), which strengthened police powers concerning protests, were unlawful. Sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 (POA 1986) empowered the police to impose conditions on public processions and assemblies if an officer reasonably believed that there would be ‘serious disruption to the life of the community’. The government laid two amendments to the Public Order Bill, which sought to expand the definition of ‘serious disruption’ in POA 1986 to include anything which was ‘more than minor’. However, the House of Lords had rejected one of the amendments. Before the Public Order Act 2023 (POA 2023) had received Royal Assent, the government had then exercised the ‘Henry VIII power’ to amend legislation by secondary

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

Pillsbury—Steven James

Pillsbury—Steven James

Firm boosts London IP capability with high-profile technology sector hire

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Private client specialist joins as partner in Taunton office

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

Finance and restructuring offering strengthened by partner hire in London

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll