header-logo header-logo

05 January 2018
Issue: 7775 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Weekly law digests

European Union

R (on the application of Gureckis) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; R (on the application of Cielecki) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; R (on the application of Perlinski) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWHC 3298 (Admin), [2017] All ER (D) 107 (Dec)

The linked claims for judicial review of the three claimants had been selected as test cases in which to consider the lawfulness of the defendant Secretary of State for the Home Department’s policy, and its application, to European Economic Area (EEA) nationals found sleeping rough in the UK. The Queen’s Bench Division, in granting the claims for judicial review, held, among other things, that the policy was unlawful because to treat rough sleeping as an abuse of the right to freedom of movement and residence, as the defendant had done, was contrary to EU law.

Extradition order

Sobczyk v Circuit Court in Katowice, Poland [2017] EWHC 3353 (Admin), [2017] All ER (D) 120 (Dec)

The appellant’s appeal against an order for

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

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

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