header-logo header-logo

30 June 2011 / Oliver Gayner
Issue: 7472 / Categories: Features , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

A love supreme?

Oliver Gayner reviews the work of the UK Supreme Court in its Hilary term

A busy first term of the judicial year sees the Justices abolish immunity for expert witnesses, among other things, and the Judicial Appointments Committee confirm the appointments of Lord Justice Wilson & Jonathan Sumption QC.

While the UK Supreme Court continues to see a high proportion of human rights and public law cases, its caseload for the Hilary term was notably diverse. Among other issues, the justices were asked to consider noise levels in the knitting industry, the rights of nesting bats, collapsing oil rigs, and the characteristics of a barn as opposed to a dwelling house.

Alongside these more esoteric cases, there were also some more traditionally “Supreme Court” decisions, such as whether it is still justified in law to grant immunity to expert witnesses in civil proceedings, and the remedies available in cases of unlawful detention by government power. Set out below are some of the highlights of the term, both in and out of the courtroom.

Statistics

At

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
In this week’s NLJ, Fred Philpott, Gough Square Chambers, invites us to imagine there was no statutory limitation. What would that world be like?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
back-to-top-scroll