header-logo header-logo

19 September 2019
Issue: 7856 / Categories: Case law , In Court , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Weekly law digests

Advertisement

R (on the application of Actegy Ltd) v Advertising Standards Authority Ltd and another [2019] EWHC 2374 (Admin), [2019] All ER (D) 23 (Sep)

The claimant was unable to show that the first defendant’s general approach for assessing whether or not efficacy claims made for a medical device in an advertisement were substantiated had failed any test of proportionality and it was not established that the first defendant had adopted an approach on the facts of the case which had been unlawful. Accordingly, the Administrative Court dismissed the claimant’s application for judicial review of the decision, upholding complaints against a newspaper advertisement placed by the claimant for a medical device.

Constitutional law

R (on the application of Miller) v Prime Minister (Baroness Chakrabarti and others intervening) [2019] EWHC 2381 (QB), [2019] All ER (D) 24 (Sep)

The decision of the defendant prime minister to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament from a date between 9 and 12 September until 14 October 2019 had not been justiciable, as the criteria adopted by the

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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
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?
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
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
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll