header-logo header-logo

24 July 2015
Issue: 7662 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Practice

McGartland and another v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 686, [2015] All ER (D) 147 (Jul)

The claimants appealed against the judge’s decision that their proceedings were proceedings in which a closed material application might be made to the court, under s 6 of the Justice and Security Act 2013. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the judge had correctly decided to make a s 6 declaration before having considered the claimants’ application, under CPR 3.1(2)(m), for an order requiring the secretary of state to plead a full defence, rather than a limited defence, which stated that the government would neither confirm nor deny the facts pleaded in their claim.

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—Vicky Tomlinson

Browne Jacobson—Vicky Tomlinson

Browne Jacobson appoints Vicky Tomlinson as Head of Independent Health and Care

DWF—five appointments

DWF—five appointments

DWF further strengthens major injury and casualty offering with new partner and four directors from DAC Beachcroft

Switalskis—Laura Ornsby

Switalskis—Laura Ornsby

Switalskis strengthens Grimsby child care team

NEWS
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’

Safety fears do not automatically justify shutting an interested person out of a statutory will application

back-to-top-scroll