Podcasts about ewca civ

On a quiet Monday morning in 1999, the shocking murder of beloved British television presenter Jill Dando rocked the nation. Gunned down on her doorstep in broad daylight with a single shot, her death sparked one of the most high-profile investigations in UK history. With unexpected twists, unanswered questions, and a verdict that would later be overturned, this case remains one of the most puzzling in modern crime history. Tune in to unravel the mysterious story of Jill Dando's tragic death.   Thank you to this week's sponsors!    Don't wait—head to Wayfair now and get your outdoor space ready to enjoy. Shop a huge selection of outdoor furniture online. This summer, get outside with Wayfair. Head to Wayfair.com right now!  Thoughtful. Timeless. Totally her. Shop Mother's Day at Quince. Go to Quince.com/moms for free shipping on your order and 365 -day returns. Got dinner-making fatigue? Take advantage of this exclusive offer: For a limited time get 40% off your first box of Hungryroot PLUS get a free item in every box for life when you go to Hungryroot.com/moms and use code moms!.     Check-out the BelleVitale now! Go to BelleVitale.com and then use code BV15 to get 15% off.     Check-out bonus episodes up on Spotify and Apple podcast now! Or check-out patreon for bonus episodes and exclusive features at patreon.com/momsandmysteriespodcast. To advertise on the show, contact sales@advertisecast.com or visit https://www.advertisecast.com/MomsandMysteriesATrueCrimePodcast.  Listen and subscribe to Melissa's other podcast, Criminality!! It's the podcast for those who love reality TV, true crime, and want to hear all the juicy stories where the two genres intersect. Subscribe and listen here: www.pod.link/criminality    Check-out Moms and Mysteries to find links to our tiktok, youtube, twitter, instagram and more.  Sources: https://web.archive.org/web/20140805173627/http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2007/2722.html https://www.studocu.com/en-gb/document/northumbria-university/the-criminal-process/r-v-george-2002-ewca-crim-1923/5257160?origin=home-recent-1 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/328911.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/328919.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/328804.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/329326.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/329356.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/329957.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/330099.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/331969.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/333125.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/332125.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/333682.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/343738.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/347348.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/348554.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/407006.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/410443.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/443044.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/558272.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/595175.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/717522.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/718743.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/718743.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1194572.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1308595.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1312670.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1312965.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1323186.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1325333.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1329670.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1331783.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1343493.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1345016.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1351633.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1388689.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1402264.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1415003.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2158386.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/2385221.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5315212.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7435612.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7443792.stm http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44734000/jpg/_44734096_gowanavenue226b.jpg http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7517427.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7536815.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7541465.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8682512.stm https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-23241520 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-bristol-47779606 https://www.mosslaw.co.uk/jury-trial-fate-decided/    

This episode, Michelle Rousell and Yassir Mahmood from Practical Law Construction discuss the latest building safety developments (starts at 00.58), before moving on to the NEC4's new practice note on using conflict avoidance clauses (starts at 19.00). They also analyse the judgment in Disclosure and Barring Service v Tata Consultancy Services Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 380 (starts at 27.22). Finally, they briefly highlight the launch of the new National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority (starts at 32.39) and discuss the judgment in Vitsoe Ltd v Waugh Thistleton Architects Ltd [2025] EWHC 850 (TCC) (starts at 36.45).

This episode is a strong start to the year.  It is essential listening for all professionals working with separating families.  We are joined by Jenny Beck KC (Beck Fitzgerald) , Dr Jamie Craig (Consultant Clinical Psychologist) and Zoe Fleetwood (Mills & Reeve) to discuss children that are reluctant, resistant or refusing to see the other parent, as well as parents engaging in psychological manipulation of their children by alienating behaviour. We examine the Family Justice Council guidance in this area. The report is both erudite and succient at only 30 pages long and should be read by everyone involved in this field:https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Family-Justice-Council-Guidance-on-responding-to-allegations-of-alienating-behaviour-2024-1-1.pdf Zoe reminds of what has happened in the last 10 years to lead us here from PD12J, to the presumption in favour of a parent's involvement which was inserted into the Children Act in 2014, LASPO which removed legal aid, the Domestic Abuse Act, Re HN , RE C [2023] EWHC 345 (Fam), Re S (Parental Alienation: Cult) : [2020] EWCA Civ 568 https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/re-s-a-child-judgment290420.pdf, the Harm report from 2020, and the Domestic Commissioner's Abuse Commissioners report of 2023https://domesticabusecommissioner.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/DAC_Family-Court-Report-_2023_Digital.pdf. Zoe concludes with the case of Re (Parental Alienation: Factual Findings) [2024] EWFC 75 which maybe an example of the Court starting to change coursehttps://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2024/75.html Jenny reminds us that there are three elements that a Court needs to find before concluding there have been alienating behaviours:There must actually be a child who is reluctant, refusing or resistant to engage in a relationship with a parent;That reluctant, refusal or resistant must be as a result of something other than appropriate justified rejection, or caused by alignment, affinity or attachment.It has to be as a result of other behaviours that has impacted the child and that has led to the child's reluctance, refusal or resistance.Jamie points out that the child's behaviour is not evidence of the adult's behaviour.  Nor is the absence of a reason for a child not to want to see the other parent proof that a child is alienating. The guidance reminds us that there is not a equivalence between domestic abuse and parental alienation.  The guidance also reminds us about the importance of the choosing appropriately qualified experts in complex family situations. Jamie warns us of the dangers of pseudo-science and the psychobabble.  He cautions against jumping to a conclusion that a child has been alienated if they are reluctant, refusing or resistant to the other parent.  For example, a child may just be exhibiting attachment response, or a child demonstrating an affinity for a particular parent, or they may have come to their own decision about how they have understood the situation. All of this is not to say that there are never occasions when parents have psychologically manipulated their children. We know that they do.  Indeed, sometimes perpetrators of abuse psychologically manipulate children to believe the other parent is a danger.  The point is that the burden of proof should not be reversed, and the Court approaching the case as if a parent has to prove they are not engaging in alienating behaviours. Zoe links back to when we last discussed this topic from March 2022; Finding the Middle Ground; Parental alienation and High conflict cases, with Dr Mark Berelowitz and Alex Verdan KC.https://resolution.org.uk/podcast/resolution-podcast-season-1/ Finally we ask our guests to wrestle with the question of what professionals should do if they have been involved in a case where the Court has relied on advice from an expert who lacked the appropriate qualifications, or has made recommendations based on what we do is pseudo-science.  Jenny suggests that if there has been an error in process then the professional or the Court may now need to engage with what is in the best interest of the child, therefore an appeal out of time maybe an appropriate step in some cases.  Please note that Jenny and Jamie were the Chairs of the Family Justice Council working group that wrote the guidance.  However, they appear on this episode in their personal capacity and were not speaking on behalf of the Council.

This episode, Michelle Rousell and Yassir Mahmood from Practical Law Construction discuss FIDIC's new practice note on appointing dispute boards and the results of King's College London's 2024 international survey on dispute boards (starts at 02.32). They also analyse the judgments in 381 Southwark Park Road RTM Company Ltd v Click St Andrews Ltd [2024] EWHC 3179 (TCC) (starts at 11.01), BNP Paribas Depository Services Ltd v Briggs & Forrester Engineering Services Ltd [2024] EWHC 2903 (TCC) (starts at 12.53), BDW Trading Ltd v Ardmore Construction Ltd [2024] EWHC 3235 (TCC) (starts at 27.30) and Sky UK Ltd v Riverstone Managing Agency Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 1567 (starts at 43.29).

Emma Humphreys and Laura Bushaway are joined by Guy Fetherstonhaugh KC and Imogen Dodds of Falcon Chambers to look at what lies ahead for property law during 2025.  Themes discussed include the Law Commission's consultation on the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, upcoming appeals related to the Building Safety Act 2022 in March 2025 and an interesting case on injunctions against protestors. The cases and legislation referred to in this episode of Property Patter are: Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (and Guy refers to TFS Stores Ltd v. BMG (Ashford) Ltd & Ors [2021] EWCA Civ 688 – see TFS Stores Ltd v Designer Retail Outlet Centres (Mansfield) General Partner: The end of the road | Falcon Chambers) Leisurespace v. CRT Property Investments – Newcastle-Upon-Tyne Crown Court – Hearing in February 2025 University of London v. Harvie-Clark [2024] EWHC 2895 – Final Injunction to be heard in 2025 (relating to protestors) Building Safety Act 2022 Adriatic Land 5 Limited v. Long Leaseholders at Hippersley Point [2023] UKUT 271 – Court of Appeal hearing on 17 March 2025 Triathlon Homes LLP v. Stratford Village Development Partnership & Others [2024] UKFTT 26 – Court of Appeal hearing on 19 March 2025 Other references: Forthcoming book “Injunctions protecting land” by Falcon Chambers (due for publication later in 2025) The 50th anniversary of the Blundell Lecture series – this is an annual series of four lectures discussing topical issues in Property Law. Guy Fetherstonhaugh KC will be speaking at one of the lectures taking place in June 2025.  The dates for 2025 are 3, 10, 17 and 24 June.

This month we are joined by Sarah Branson (Coram Chambers) and Professor James Coulson (Professor in Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology at Cardiff University).  We discuss the concern that over-reliance on the numbers generated in hair testing can lead to miscarriages of justice.  The issue is that the use of a standardised cut-off levels have a racial bias, because the dark melanin in the hair helps to incorporate the drugs in the hair so someone with black hair will have a much higher reading than someone with red or blond hair, even if they have used the same amount of drugs over the same period of time.  Sarah recommends that from now on when hair testing is commissioned that it has to be instructed like other expert evidence – with a letter of instruction, there is a full forensic history.  Sarah has drafted a template LOI and order which you can access on the Coram website: https://www.coramchambers.co.uk/resources/hair-strand-testing-resources/ James makes the point that in other Courts (like to civil, criminal or coroners courts) it is unusual to have an analytical chemist commenting on the wider interpretation of the result.  James agrees that it is very important that evidence is not seen in isolation.  James takes us through the information that he would to see in these instructions in the future.  Sarah reminds us that we should start thinking about this evidence as expert opinion evidence rather than elevating the presumptive weight that should be given to the evidence.  Sarah directs us to the judgment of Lord Peter Jackson in D, Re (Children: Interim Care Order: Hair Strand Testing) [2024] EWCA Civ 498 (10 May 2024)https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2024/498.html.  Sarah points out the numbers from a test is the science but what those numbers mean is just someone's opinion like any other expert evidence.  During the discussion, Sarah and James refer to:  The incorporation of drugs into hair: relationship of hair color and melanin concentration to phencyclidine incorporation M H Slawson, D G Wilkins, D E Rollins J Anal Toxicol 1998 Oct 22. The effect of hair color on the incorporation of codeine into human hair. Rollins DE, Wilkins DG, Krueger GG, Augsburger MP, Mizuno A, O'Neal C, Borges CR, Slawson MH.J Anal Toxicol. 2003 Nov-Dec;27(8):545–51. doi: 10.1093/jat/27.8.545. Cuypers E, Flanagan RJ. The interpretation of hair analysis for drugs and drug metabolites. Clin Toxicol (Phila). 2018 Feb;56(2):90-100.  Forensic Science Internation (2018)

Bethany Scarsbrook and Georgina Swinglehurst of St John's Chambers Family & Divorce team grapple with the topical issue of when an asset is deemed to have become matrimonialised. They consider the case law leading up to Standish v Standish [2024] EWCA Civ 567, before analysing whether the Court of Appeal decision fell into error, and considering the extent of the potential ramifications, particularly in light of the pending appeal to the UKSC.

This episode, Michelle Rousell and Yassir Mahmood from Practical Law Construction discuss the latest building safety developments, (starts at 00.57), before moving on to the JCT's 2024 Edition of its Repair and Maintenance Contract (starts at 05.14) and reasons to amend the JCT standard forms (starts at 08.00). They also revisit the judgment in Providence Building Services Ltd v Hexagon Housing Association Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 962 (starts at 28.50) and take a look at Beck Interiors Ltd v Eros Ltd [2024] EWHC 2084 (TCC) (starts at 33.22). Finally, they end the episode discussing the judgment in ATG Services (Scotland) Ltd v Ogilvie Construction Ltd [2024] CSOH 94 (starts at 42.57).

This episode, Michelle Rousell and Yassir Mahmood from Practical Law Construction discuss the latest building safety developments, including the phase two report from the Grenfell Tower public enquiry (starts at 00.53), before moving on to the JCT's 2024 Edition of its Standard Building Contract suite of contracts and its Pre-Construction Services Agreement (starts at 27.32). They also discuss the judgments in Providence Building Services Ltd v Hexagon Housing Association Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 962 (starts at 37.10) and CNO Plant Hire Ltd v Caldwell Construction Ltd [2024] EWHC 2188 (TCC) (starts at 54.36). Finally, they end the episode looking at the construction products testing regime and CE marking (starts at 1.02.30).

Send us a Text Message.Show notes:1:20 background and work in IP law and technology2:20 blog article, “What can internet history teach us?”3:25 IP issues emerging in the age of AI5:10 inevitability of AI6:40 global regulation of AI8:25 Emily Gould - which body would handle global regulation of AI11:00 Council of Europe's adoption of first AI international treaty 11:50 Gould - UK proposal to expand text and data mining exception to cover commercial uses 14:55 transparency issues 18:40 Gould - response - need for legislation20:20 authorship question 21:40 THJ Systems v. Sheridan (THJ Systems Ltd. v. Sheridan [2023] EWCA Civ 1354, [2024] E.C.D.R. 4, CA, 20 November 2023) is of great interest because it confirms the test for originality in copyright law in the UK after Brexit.22:55 Li v. Liu, Case Number: (2023) Jing 0491 Min Chu No. 11279, Beijing Internet Court, 27 November 202325:00 NFTs25:30 Thaler v. Perlmutter and USCO, USCA Case #23-5233  29:30 continued utility of copyright 32:40 AI copyright suits in the US36:30 cultural impact of AI models' accelerated training capabilities 38:20 view of whether there is a future for careers in art42:50 tools like spawning.ai for artists' protections 43:00 opt ins versus opt outs43:50 technological protections like Glaze and Nightshade 45:15 difficulty of implementing opt ins 47:45 injustices in the AI age and definition of justice50:33 mark that Andres hopes to make with his work53:40 Stefania Salles-Bruins - IP protection for AI software and outputsPlease share your comments and/or questions at stephanie@warfareofartandlaw.comTo hear more episodes, please visit Warfare of Art and Law podcast's website.Music by Toulme.To view rewards for supporting the podcast, please visit Warfare's Patreon page.To leave questions or comments about this or other episodes of the podcast and/or for information about joining the 2ND Saturday discussion on art, culture and justice, please message me at stephanie@warfareofartandlaw.com. Thanks so much for listening!© Stephanie Drawdy [2024]

Interim Injunctions in judicial review: key points to take away from British Standards Institution v RRR Manufacturing In the latest edition of our Public Law Podcast series, James Wood and Antonia Smith are joined by Tim Johnston of Brick Court Chambers, to discuss interim injunctions in the context of judicial review proceedings, including in the light of the recent Court of Appeal decision in British Standards Institution v RRR Manufacturing Pty Ltd, R (on the application of) [2024] EWCA Civ 530. The podcast includes a refresher from Antonia on interim injunctions in judicial review – what they are, why they are sought and the legal tests that the court applies. Having successfully represented the British Standards Institution in the appeal, Tim explains the background to the decision and discusses with James its implications, as well as practical points to take away. The podcast will be of particular interest to businesses that deal with public bodies, whether that be Government or regulators. Don't forget to subscribe to the channel to receive updates on future episodes. Speakers: James Wood (Partner), Antonia Smith (Senior Associate), Tim Johnston (Barrister, Brick Court Chambers).

We are joined by Charles Hale KC (4PB) and Tammy Knox (Pennington Manches Cooper) to discuss relocation. Charles and Tammy consider the law and principles applied in these cases.  They point out that the law is the same for internal and external relocation cases, as set out in Re C (Internal Relocation), Re [2015] EWCA Civ 1305, where Charles and PMC were successful in the Court of Appeal:https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2015/1305.htmlHowever, they both agree that the welfare evaluation can be different. Charles and Tammy discuss the impact of domestic abuse and alienating behaviours.  They discuss C, Re (Parental Alienation: Permanent Removal to Germany) [2023] EWHC 1955:https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2023/1955.html They make the point that practitioners should not shy away from dealing with financial plans, as cases can be made, or challenged on whether there is sufficient finance available. Charles and Tammy caution us to make sure the rules around mediation are really clear, particularly if the mediation is abroad so that clients know what is without prejudice Charles mentions research by Professor Marilyn Freeman: https://www.qmul.ac.uk/clpn/members/f/profiles/freeman.html#:~:text=Marilyn%20Freeman%20is%20widely%20acknowledged,in%20her%20areas%20of%20expertise.

Our special guest this week is Simon Wicks, Deputy Editor of the Planner, the official member magazine of the Royal Town Planning Institute. Latest News Update on planning related matters. Decision of the High Court dated 3rd May 2024 in Friends of the Earth et al v Secretary of State for Energy Security & Net Zero [2024] EWHC 995 (Admin) concerning a challenge to the Secretary of State's Carbon Budget Delivery Plan laid before Parliament under s14 of the Climate Change Act 2008, pursuant to the order made by Holgate J in R (Friends of the Earth v Secretary of State for Energy Security & Net Zero [2023] 1 WLR 225. Decision of the Court of Appeal dated 2nd May 2024, in Secretary of State for LUH&C v Caldwell & Timberstore Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 467 dismissing an appeal from the decision of Lieven J [2023] EWHC 2053 (Admin) quashing an inspector's decision, dated 14 February 2023, to dismiss an appeal under section 174 of the TCPA 1990 and to uphold an enforcement notice alleging a breach of planning control requiring the cessation of residential use and demolition of a bungalow known as “The Goose House”. Misapplication of the Murfitt. Decisions of an inspector dated 3rd May 2024 allowing Burlington Property Group's appeals against the refusal by Three Rivers DC, of outline planning applications for A) up to 83 new homes, a new surgery & access & B) 9 homes & access in the Green Belt.

The Ordinary Elite is a Scottish podcast series brought to you from Glasgow by John McGovern and Mike Dailly. Both are Solicitor Advocates - John a criminal defence practitioner and Mike a civil litigation practitioner and social justice campaigner. In our 7th episode in Season 2, we discuss the recording of hate incidents in Scotland and the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021; due to come into force on April Fools Day. Police Scotland's guidance on recording non-crime hate incidents hasn't been updated - unlike in England and Wales - following the England and Wales Court of Appeal decision in Miller v. The College of Policing [2021] EWCA Civ 1926. Is the Scottish guidance lawful? That and much more.

This episode, Michelle Rousell and Yassir Mahmood from Practical Law Construction discuss the latest building safety developments (starts at 00.50), before moving on to the judgments in Bellway Homes Ltd v Surgo Construction Ltd [2024] EWHC 269 (TCC) (starts at 10.55) and Taylor v Jones and another (Rev1) [2024] EWCA Civ 170 (starts at 30.35). Finally, they also discuss the annual budget (starts at 47.29) and other judgments from around the courts (starts at 49.04).

Hello, and welcome to episode 97 of the Financial Crime Weekly Podcast, I'm Chris Kirkbride. It is yet another busy week for financial crime. The sanctions news is focused on a series of updates from the UK, and the opening of an inquiry into the operation of the UK sanctions regime as it relates to Russia. On money laundering news, there's a little spinning around the FATF, together with some action from the EU agencies respecting action taken against launderers in the bloc member states. The fraud news is dominated by Covid-19 fraud, as it almost always seems to be, while there is news of action taken by the Central Bank of Ireland against a stockbroker for breaching MAR. There is more, and the usual round-up of all the cyber-attack news this week. Lots to get through, so let's crack on. As usual, I have linked the main stories flagged in the podcast in the description. These are: Central Bank of Ireland, Enforcement Action: Goodbody Stockbrokers Unlimited Company fined €1,225,000 by the Central Bank of Ireland for breach of its obligations under MAR.Department for Business and Trade, General Trade Licence for sanctioned iron and steel.Department for Business and Trade, Transparency data: COVID-19 loan guarantee schemes performance data as at 31 December 2023.Department of Justice, Couple Charged For $2 Million Bank Loan And COVID-19 Relief Fraud Schemes.Department of Justice, 11 Defendants Indicted for $220,000 Covid Fraud Conspiracy.Eurojust, Full-scale action against EUR 2 billion money laundering network via Lithuanian financial institution.Financial Action Task Force, Outcomes FATF Plenary, 21-23 February 2024.Financial Action Task Force, Public Consultation on Recommendation 16 on Payment Transparency.Financial Conduct Authority, Evolving our enforcement approach to protect and grow our markets (speech).Financial Conduct Authority, CP24/2: Our Enforcement Guide and publicising enforcement investigations - a new approach.Financial Conduct Authority, Investigation opening criteria.HM Treasury, Money Laundering Advisory Notice: High Risk Third Countries.Kroll, Data Breach Outlook 2024.Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation, Russia sanctions: guidance.Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation, General Licence INT/2024/4398024 - Court Funds Office Payments.Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation, General Licence INT/2022/2300292 - Payment to Energy Companies for Gas and/or Electricity.Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation, An update on OFSI's licensing process and policies (blog post).Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation, UK financial sanctions guidance: Guidance and webinars to help you understand how to comply with UK financial sanctions.Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation, Financial Sanctions Notice: Iran.Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation, Financial Sanctions Notice: Yemen.Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation, Financial Sanctions Notice: Russia.Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation, Financial Sanctions Notice: ISIL (Da'esh) and Al-Qaida.Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation, Guidance: Who is subject to financial sanctions in the UK?Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation, Guidance: Financial sanctions guidance for maritime shipping.Spotlight on Corruption, The first UK sanctions strategy – our analysis.Treasury Select Committee (UK parliament), New Treasury Committee inquiry launch: are the UK's financial sanctions on Russia working? (press release).Treasury Select Committee (UK parliament), Are the UK's Russian financial sanctions working? (Committee Website).Treasury Select Committee (UK parliament), Are the UK's Russian financial sanctions working? (Call for Evidence).UK Court Judgments, Dalston Projects Ltd & Ors v Secretary of State for Transport [2024] EWCA Civ 172.UK government, Deter, disrupt and demonstrate – UK sanctions in a contested world: UK sanctions strategy.UK government, Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023: Factsheets.US Department of Justice (US Attorney's Office, Southern District of New York), Russian International Money Launderer Pleads Guilty To Illicitly Procuring Large Quantities Of U.S.-Manufactured Dual-Use, Military Grade Microelectronics For Russian Entities.US Department of Justice (Office of Public Affairs), Russian International Money Launderer Pleads Guilty to Illicitly Procuring Large Quantities of U.S.-Manufactured Dual-Use, Military Grade Microelectronics for Russian Entities.US Department of the Treasury, Treasury Announces Enhanced Fraud Detection Process Using AI Recovers $375M in Fiscal Year 2023.

This month we are treated to this tour de force by Robert Cole who is Head of the Family Team at Broadway House Chambers, Leeds and regularly sits as an arbitrator and ENE/pFDR adjudicator across the country, and Peter Smith from Quantis Forensic Accountants about how to analyse business accounts.  We immediately launch into a discussion about what should cause you concern in business accounts, and the well known issue that businesses always seem to be failing when people are getting divorced.  Therefore, how professionals need to have four to five years accounts to be able to look at trends.  Peter suggests we should take an overview of:Has revenue, sales or turnover gone down?Have gross profit margins gone down? And Have costs gone up?These factors will provide a good indicator of any causes for concern. Robert adds to that you should have look at what fixed assets there are, and whether the valuation has been updated.  If you consider these points, you will have good insight into whether you need to ask for a valuer from the Court.  Peter and Robert give us some tips for questionnaires, including: Asking for a copy of up-to-date profit & loss accounts, management accounts and balance sheets as most decent size businesses with accounting software will have that immediately available;Summaries from the VAT portal; And always checking viewing the Companies Article of Association;  We discuss when valuations from the business's own accountants are reliable. Before moving on to consider what type of valuations should be used for each business.  Robert advises us that to be successful in a Daniels v Walker application that you first need to have tried to clarify matters with the expert, but even where you are not going to pursue a Daniels v Walker application but just want to make submissions about the reliability of the conclusions then questions are important to tease out vulnerabilities in the report.  Peter also points out that there is a distinction between wanting to challenge the expert's judgment – which can be done without a separate expert – and where an expert has made a mistake for example an error in the factual basis. We discuss when should a quasi-partnership apply, and Robert advises us to use the checklist from Re: Bird Precision Bellows [1986] 2 WLR 158:close working relationship between the shareholders (usually pre-existing the incorporation);restriction on the transfer of shares to a third party;the shareholders continue to be actively involved in the day-to-day running of the company (not necessarily employed but consulted about day-to-day and strategic decisions) During the discussion, we refer to the following cases:  V v V (Financial Remedy) [2005] 2 FLR 697J v J [2014] EWHC 3654   HTTPS://WWW.JUDICIARY.UK/WP-CONTENT/UPLOADS/2014/11/J-V-J-JUDGMENT.PDFMartin v Martin [2018] EWCA Civ 2866 – risk and liquidity https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2018/2866.html Versteegh v Versteegh [2018] EWCA Civ 1050 – on the lack of reliability in valuationshttps://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2018/1050.html&query=(versteegh) Ebrahimi v Westbourne Galleries Ltd [1973] AC 360 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebrahimi_v_Westbourne_Galleries_Ltd G v G (Financial Provision: Equal Division) [2002] 2 FLR 1143 - Where shareholders act in concert and would be unlikely to sell separately then discount less applicable Clarke v Clarke [2022] EWHC 2698 – on whether a minority discount should applyhttps://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2022/2698.html Technical factsheet from ACCA – for minority interests discountshttps://www.accaglobal.com/content/dam/ACCA_Global/Technical/fact/technical-factsheet-167.pdf  WM v HM [2017] EWFC 25 (09 May 2017) https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2017/25.html

Episode 4: Leading Questions Episode 4 provides a deeper dive into Compulsory Mediation and the recent Court of Appeal case Churchill -v- Merthyr Tydfil [2023] EWCA Civ 1416.  We provide our thoughts on the issues and key practical takeaways for those managing litigation in the UK.  To listen to all episodes in this series, visit our Leading Questions webpage.

Episode 4: Leading Questions Episode 4 provides a deeper dive into Compulsory Mediation and the recent Court of Appeal case Churchill -v- Merthyr Tydfil [2023] EWCA Civ 1416.  We provide our thoughts on the issues and key practical takeaways for those managing litigation in the UK.  To listen to all episodes in this series, visit our Leading Questions webpage.

Our Special Guest this week is Andreas Markides, Chairman of Markides Associates & Author of Urban Myths. Latest News Update on planning related matters. Decision of the Court of Appeal in R (oaf Substation Action Save East Suffolk Ltd) v Secretary & State for Energy Security & Net Zero & others [2024] EWCA Civ 12 dismissing an appeal against the decision of the Lang J who had refused a claim for judicial review of two decisions by the first respondent to make development consent orders under section 114 of the Planning Act 2008 for two nationally significant infrastructure projects for onshore and offshore windfarms. The first ground of challenge relates to flood risk and the application of the sequential test, the second, to the decision on the cumulative impacts. Decision of the High Court, Holgate J dated 17 January 2024 in R (oao Aysen Dennis) v London Borough of Southwark & Notting Hill Genesis [2023] EWHC 3210 (Admin) who granted an application for judicial review quashing the Council's decision under section 96A to make a non-material amendment to an outline planning permission for the phased redevelopment & regeneration of the Aylesbury Estate on the grounds that the introduction of “severable” was material. Decision of a Planning Inspector dated 17th January 2024 to dismiss an appeal by Templeview Developments Ltd against the refusal of Milton Keynes Council to grant full planning permission for the change of use of agricultural land to a linear park, new access road and stopping up and outline planning permission for 277 C2 extra care apartments, a 70 bed care home, 41 retirement bungalows & up to 196 C3 homes. Issues around effect on neighbouring properties including the agent of change principle, history, and living conditions of future residents.

Rachel Marcus and Marcus Coates-Walker of 1 Crown Office Row join Lucy McCann to explore the principle of the scope of duty in the context of clinical negligence claims. First by analysing the decision in Khan v Meadows [2021] UKSC 21 and then discussing how the courts have grappled with scope of duty issues since. Cases discussed in this episode include: -          Khan v Meadows [2021] UKSC 21 -          McFarlane v Tayside Board of Health [2000] 2 AC 59 -          Groom v Selby [2001] EWCA Civ 1522 -          Parkinson v St James & Seacroft UH NHS Trust [2001] EWCA Civ 530 -          SD v Grampian Health Board [2022] CSOH 63 -          DD v NHS Fife Health Board [2022] SAC (Civ) 27 -          Radia v Marks [2022] EWHC 145 (QB) -          McCulloch v Forth Valley Health Board [2023] UKSC 26 Law Pod UK is published by 1 Crown Office Row. Supporting articles are published on the UK Human Rights Blog. Follow and interact with the podcast team on Twitter.

Our Special Guest this week is the Attorney General for England & Wales, the Rt Hon Victoria Prentis KC MP. Decision of the Court of Appeal in R (oaf Fiske) v Test Valley BC & Woodington Solar Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 1495 dismissing an appeal against the decision of the HHJ Jarman KC who had dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review of the Council's decision to grant planning permission for development including the construction of a 132kV substation on land at Woodington Farm, East Wellow, on the ground that the Council failed to take into account the incompatibility of that planning permission with one previously granted. Decision of the High Court, Karen Ridge sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, dated 15 December 2023 in R (oao Lidl Great Britain Ltd) v East Lindsey DC & Aldi Stores Ltd [2023] EWHC 3210 (Admin) on a renewed oral application to seek judicial review of the Council's decision to grant planning permission to Aldi for retail development at Spilsby Road, Horncastle. Permission granted because two of the four grounds judged to be arguable. Decision of an inspector dated 3rd January 2024 allowing an appeal by A2 Dominion Developments Ltd against the refusal of the LB of Hounslow to grant full planning permission for part 2 and 3 storey development for a SEND school and 124 homes in 3 blocks ranging from 3 to 5 storeys. Issues around effect on neighbouring properties including the agent of change principle, history, and living conditions of future residents.

Hello, and welcome to episode 79 of the Financial Crime Weekly Podcast, I'm Chris Kirkbride. Sanctions and fraud news take our focus this week, but the other areas of financial crime keep those areas ticking along nicely. We also take a look at this week's cyber-attack news. As usual, I have linked the main stories flagged in the podcast in the description. These are: Criminal Cases Review Commission, Financial trader's conviction referred to Court of Appeal.Crown Prosecution Service, Bernie Ecclestone convicted of fraud.Financial Conduct Authority, Cryptoasset AML / CTF regime: feedback on good and poor quality applications.Financial Conduct Authority, Whistleblowing quarterly data 2023 Q2.Financial Conduct Authority, Financial watchdog fines Equifax Ltd £11 million for role in one of the largest cyber-security breaches in history.Financial Conduct Authority, Final Notice: Equifax Ltd.Financial Conduct Authority, Restrictions placed on IBP Markets Limited and the firm enters special administration.Financial Conduct Authority, First Supervisory Notice: IBP Markets Limited.Financial Reporting Council, Sanctions against KPMG LLP, KPMG Audit plc and two former partners.Hiscox, Cyber Readiness Report 2023.Home Office, Independent Review of Disclosure and Fraud Offences: terms of reference.Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, The 21st-century evolution of cyber security.National Cyber Security Centre, Mastering your supply chain (blog post).New Zealand Supreme Court, David Charles Rae v Commissioner of New Zealand Police - SC 33/2023.Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation, General licence - INT/2023/3024200.Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation, General Licence INT/2022/2300292.Ogier, Employee Cyber Awareness Still A Major Concern - Make Sure Your Team Is On The Ball.Payment Systems Regulator, PSR responds to Which?, Age UK, National Trading Standards and Victim Support.UK Court Service, Boris Mints & Ors v PJSC National Bank Trust & Anor [2023] EWCA Civ 1132.US Bureau of Justice Statistics, Victims of Identity Theft, 2021.US Department of Justice, Deputy Attorney General Lisa O. Monaco Announces New Safe Harbor Policy for Voluntary Self-Disclosures Made in Connection with Mergers and Acquisitions.US Department of Justice, Acting Assistant Attorney General Nicole M. Argentieri Delivers Remarks at the American Bar Association 10th Annual London White Collar Crime Institute.US Department of Justice, Ten Individuals Charged for $950,000 COVID-19 Relief Fraud Schemes.US Department of Justice, Man Sentenced for Over $500,000 COVID-19 Relief Fraud and Money Laundering Scheme.US Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury Sanctions Entities for Transporting Oil Sold Above the Coalition Price Cap to Restrict Russia's War Machine.War & Sanctions, Artworks owned by Roman Abramovich.

In this episode we are joined by Nicholas Bennett (29 Bedford Row), and Connie Atkinson (Kingsley Napley) who are both experts and enjoy pre-nuptial work including drafting, supporting or challenging pre-nups in Court. Any discussion of pre-nups of course starts with Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC 42, but we swiftly move on to Crossley applications (an application to the Court that the process of disclosure should be truncated because of the existence of the pre-nup) pursuant to Crossley v Crossley [2007] EWCA Civ 1491https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2007/1491.html.  It is ‘tempting but risky' was the conclusion, so it is only prudent when the pre-nup is a knock out blow. We discuss the three essential procedural points that the Court is looking for before giving weight to the agreement – no unfair pressure, financial disclosure and independent legal advice.  We touch on the suggestion that an agreement has to be signed 28 days before the wedding and its relevance to giving time and space to understand and reflect on the proposed agreement and advice being given. We then turn to duress, fraud and misrepresentation and whether they are vitiating factors and what you would take into account when evaluating their impact on the agreement.  Connie refers us to the case of Traharne v Limb [2022] EWFC 27 (31 March 2022) https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2022/27.html  and AD v BD [2020] EWHC 857 (Fam) (08 April 2020) https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2020/857.html.Nick discusses whether it is possible to entirely exclude what would otherwise be matrimonial property in a pre-nup, and refers to  Brack v Brack [2020] EWHC 2142 (Fam) (29 July 2020);  https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2020/2142.html.  Connie discusses whether a pre-nup meets needs. She refers us to Ipekçi v McConnell [2019] EWFC 19 (04 April 2019);https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2019/19.html, and Cummings v Fawn (Rev1) [2023] EWHC 830 (Fam) (14 April 2023) https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2023/830.html.  Nick mentions HD v WB [2023] EWFC 2 (13 January 2023) - https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2023/2.htmlWe also discuss international agreements, and marriage contracts, including CMX v EJX (French Marriage Contract) [2022] EWFC 136; https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/2022/136

Compliance Clarified's first episode of season 9 brings together Alexander Robson, managing editor, Helen Parry, senior regulatory expert and Rachel Wolcott, senior editor to discuss the state of UK Financial Conduct Authority's (FCA) enforcement and markets oversight division.Does it have "all bases covered" as Therese Chambers, its new co-executive director for enforcement said in a speech? Or is its approach and execution of enforcement cases, to use the words of an Upper Tribunal judge, "highly unsatisfactory"?Chambers and Steve Smart, the other co-executive director, have their work cut out for them. The 621-strong department is currently running 577 cases and 200 odd investigations. Cases are taking years to complete and a few recent Upper Tribunal judgments have gone against it and highlighted the department's errors and issues. Will the FCA close cases and focus, or open even more investigations?For more information about Regulatory Intelligence please see: www.legal.thomsonreuters.com/en/products/regulatory-intelligence Links:Julius Baer story: http://go-ri.tr.com/qQc7wABlueCrest storieshttp://go-ri.tr.com/qQc7wAhttp://go-ri.tr.com/0olu4Nhttp://go-ri.tr.com/fWunnjhttp://go-ri.tr.com/hGFF7rGopee judgment: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2023/881.htmlOutside the paywall:UK FCA closed 37 enforcement cases in Q1; new leadership faces big challenges https://regintel-content.thomsonreuters.com/document/I838002305C6911EEA33AE89A432BD9D5Contact us!Alexander.Robson@thomsonreuters.comHelen.Parry@thomsonreuters.comRachel.Wolcott@thomsonreuters.com Compliance Clarified is a podcast from Thomson Reuters Regulatory Intelligence.Listen to wide-ranging, insightful discussions on all things compliance for financial services firms. We delve into the hot topics of the day, the challenges faced and offer up practical ideas for emerging good practice. We de-mystify regulation and explore the art, as well as the science, of the ever-expanding role of the compliance officer.  Enforcements, digital transformation, regulatory change, governance, culture, conduct risk – anything and everything impacting the compliance function is up for discussion.

We all agree that costs applications, and costs orders, are becoming more prevalent in Children Act as well as financial remedy proceedings.  Public policy certainly seems to favour the use of costs orders as a way of ensuring that litigation is proportionate and reasonable.    In this episode we are assisted by HHJ Reardon (who sits in East London Family Court and the CFC hearing both Children Act and Financial Remedy cases) and Laura Moys (barrister at 1 KBW) talk us through costs orders in respect of Children Act and Financial Remedy cases.   We discuss LSPO including: ·      HHJ Reardon reminds us (in the context of ever increasing interest rates) of the provision in Rubin V Rubin that: viii) If a litigation loan is offered at a very high rate of interest it would be unlikely to be reasonable to expect the applicant to take it unless the respondent offered an undertaking to meet that interest, if the court later considered it just so to order. ·      What happens in second LSPO applications; and ·      LSPO in Children Act proceedings, including the need for equality of arms in accordance with BC v DE (Rev 1) [2016] EWHC 1806 (Fam) (21 July 2016). We look at Costs orders in Children Act cases, and are reminded of the dicta in Re S (a Child), Re [2015] UKSC 20 (25 March 2015).  They discuss when a Court may order costs after a fact-finding hearings and refer to Re T (Children), Re [2012] UKSC 36 (25 July 2012).  Finally we discuss costs in Financial remedy proceedings, including:·      the Court's approach to making orders that cover legal costs in needs cases.  Laura refers us to Azarmi-Movafagh v Bassiri-Dezfouli [2021] EWCA Civ 1184 (30 July 2021);·      When we should be dealing with costs arguments; and ·      General guidance about Wwhat is and is not reasonable, in order to consider what sort of positions may result in costs orders;·      We are reminded that the Court can make costs awards where a party has refused to negotiate; JB v DB [2020] EWHC 2301 (Fam) (23 July 2020);

This episode, Michelle Rousell and Yassir Mahmood from Practical Law Construction highlight the latest building safety developments (starts at 0.44) and attempt to clear up confusion over CE marking (starts at 7.07). They then consider the judgments in Sudlows Ltd v Global Switch Estates 1 Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 813 (starts at 10.42), Home Group Ltd v MPS Housing Ltd [2023] EWHC 1946 (TCC) (starts at 22.30), Henry Construction Projects Ltd v Alu-Fix (UK) Ltd [2023] EWHC 2010 (TCC) (starts at 31.18) and ISG Retail Ltd v FK Construction Ltd [2023] EWHC 2012 (TCC) (starts at 37.05). Finally, they end with a brief look at some of the highlights from the latest TCC annual report (starts at 48.00).

Join Mark Ablett for an enlightening chat with Pump Court's Cordelia Williams about the rise in the practice of nesting in child arrangements cases, as reported by the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2023/jul/15/birdnesting-divorcing-couples-family-home-turns-childrenThe pod looks at the pros and cons (mainly cons...) of the arrangement, for both children and parents, considering the one recent reported decision on the issue of A, B and C (Children: Nesting Arrangement) [2022] EWCA Civ 68 and with Cordelia providing invaluable insight from handling a multitude of nesting cases recently. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This month, Michelle Rousell and Yassir Mahmood from Practical Law Construction discuss the Court of Appeal's judgment in URS Corporation Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 772 (starts at 1.50) before turning to discuss a number of other building safety developments (starts at 20.16), BCLP's survey on AI in international arbitration (starts at 33.20), new TCLP construction clauses (starts at 37.20) and JCT 2024 (starts at 39.40).

Tara speaks to star guests Ros Bever from Irwin Mitchell and Jenna Lucas of Pump Court about set aside applications and the recent Court of Appeal decision of Goddard-Watts v Goddard-Watts [2023] EWCA Civ 115 in which Ros acted. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Our Special Guest this week is Steve Norris, former Minister for Transport, Director of Steve Norris Ltd & Chairman of Soho Estates. Decisions of the Week Decision of the High Court dated 19 May 2023 in R (0ao Coal Action Network) v Welsh Ministers & the Coal Authority [2023] EWHC 1194 (admin) dismissing a JR claim relating to two decisions to authorise coal mining operations at Aberpergwm in the Vale of Neath. Decision of the Court of Appeal dated 25 May 2023 in Devine v SSLU,H&C & Cheshire West & Chester Council [2023] EWCA Civ 601, in which they dismissed an appeal against the decision of Fordham J in the High Court, who had dismissed a section 289 appeal against the decision of an inspector appointed to conduct an appeal under section 174 (2)(d) of the 1990 TCPA against an enforcement notice alleging the erection of a new building without planning permission having concluded the building in question was not “substantially complete” and so did not enjoy immunity from enforcement. Decision of an inspector dated 24th May relating to land off Coate Road, Devizes outside the limits of the settlement boundary, allowing an appeal by Robert Hitchin against the decision of Wiltshire Council to refuse an outline application for up to 200 dwellings & a local centre in the context of a Core Strategy more than 5 years old and no 5 yr HLS. Decision of an inspector dated 25th May relating to land in the Green Belt dismissing an appeal by Griggs (Options) Ltd against the decision of Hertsmere Borough Council to refuse an outline application for 37 dwellings of which 40% would be affordable, despite there being a very substantial and acute housing supply shortfall. Significant harm to openness of Green Belt, moderate harm to character & appearance. VSC not found.

This month, Michelle Rousell and Yassir Mahmood from Practical Law Construction look at a number of building safety developments (starts at 0.44), before moving on to the judgments in FK Construction Ltd v ISG Retail Ltd [2023] EWHC 1042 (TCC) (starts at 8.03) and FM Conway Ltd v The Rugby Football Union [2023] EWCA Civ 418 (starts at 16.30). Finally, they end with a brief look at the impact of recent proposed changes to the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill (starts at 22.26).

In this episode we speak to two keen advocates known for their appellate work; Chris Barnes and Joe Rainer.  Chris speaks about appeals in Children Act work and Joe speaks to financial remedy appeals.  We discuss how to evaluate the type of decision – is it an evaluative or discretionary decision, or is it a finding of fact and how this impact on your likelihood of success.  This is the speech of Mr Justice Mostyn about that:https://www.judiciary.uk/speech-by-mr-justice-mostyn-to-the-hong-kong-family-law-association/In the context of the discussion, Joe talks about the decision of HHJ Hess in SC - and -TC  [2022] EWFC 67 in respect of a pre-nup:https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/2022/67We also discuss the ability of the respondent to put in a written response to an appeal, pursuant to:Jolly v Jay & Anor [2002] EWCA Civ 277 (7th March, 2002)https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/277.html Chris mentions that the current case law in respect of costs on appeal in Children Act cases is contained in Re S [2015] UKSC 20 and Re T [2012] UKSC 36https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2015/20.htmlhttps://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2012/36.htmlPlus we cover when to file a notice of appeal, caulderbanks, when to participate in the permission stage, costs, and procedural issues. If you have an appeal, or a potential appeal on your desk, this is a really helpful episode.

Our special guest this week is Oliver Bulleid, Executive Director of the London Community Land Trust. Decisions of the Week: Decision of the High Court dated 12 May 2023in R (0ao Nelson Richardson) v London Borough of Lambeth et SSLU,H&C [2023] EWHC 1131 (admin)refusing multiple applications related to 4 separate JJ claims – all ruled to be totally without merit. Decision of the Court of Appeal dated 16 May 2023 in SSLU, H&C v, Smith & London Borough of Hackney [2023] EWCA Civ 514, in which they quashed the decision of Kerr J in the High Court, who had allowed an appeal against the decision of an inspector appointed to conduct an appeal determined by written representations, who had been assisted by an appeal planning officer who had prepared a report on facts, evidence, issues and contentions in the appeal and a recommendation based on an evaluative planning judgement. Decision of an inspector dated 11 Mayrelating toland at Lowerside Lane, Glastonbury allowing an appeal against the decision of Mendip District Council to refuse an outline application for up to 90 dwellings in the context of a new unitary authority, no 5 yr HLS, agreement between the main parties that the appeal be allowed, evidence from interested parties contending otherwise, observations from the inspector around the relevance of the travel of direction indicated through LURB and NPPF consultation. Joint Determination by DoT & SSLU,H&C dated 10 May 2023in accordance with the inspector's recommendation, allowing HS2's appeal under para 6 Schedule 17 of the High Speed Rail (London to West Midlands) Act 2017, against the decision of the Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council, to refuse approval for a lorry route serving five worksites at Balsall Common.

This month, Michelle Rousell and Yassir Mahmood from Practical Law Construction discuss 25 years of the payment and adjudication provisions of the Construction Act 1996 applying to construction contracts (starts at 1.18), a number of building safety developments (including registering higher-risk buildings, draft Responsible Actors Scheme Regulations, the Independent Review of Construction Products and new Practical Law materials (starts at 15.12) and two judgments upheld on appeal (Atalian Servest AMK Ltd v BW (Electrical Contractors) Ltd [2023] CSIH 18 and FM Conway Ltd v The Rugby Football Union and others [2023] EWCA Civ 418) (starts at 36.27). They end with the Construction Contracts (Exclusion) (Wales) Order 2023 (WSI 2023/475) (starts at 42.37) and the first edition of the IChemE's engineering, procurement and construction management contract (EPCM), known as the Blue Book (starts at 44.11).

In this episode, we are joined by Blackstone Chambers' Michael Beloff KC, Ian Mill KC, Catherine Callaghan KC, and Tim Parker as they share their most memorable cases. Listen in as Michael Beloff KC recalls his first case, representing the band Love Affair. In this amusing account, he shares the satisfaction of achieving his first successful outcome for the band. He then follows with his most interesting case, Merdeka University Bhd v. Government of Malaysia, which is also included in ‘MJBQC: A Life Within and Without the Law'.Ian Mill KC shares his experience representing high profile celebrities, George Michael [1994] ChD 142 and Ed Sheeran [2022] EWHC 827(Ch), in recording contracts and copyright disputes. Ian discusses the challenges of media attention in these high-profile cases.Catherine Callaghan KC discusses the complexity of Mr. and Mrs M. Against the Fertilisation and Embryology Authority [2016]EWCA Civ 611, and highlights the memorable impact this case had on her own life.Finally, Tim Parker reflects on one of his earlier cases in the Hong Kong Court of Appeal (unreported, CACV 117/2017, 25 September 2017) as a pupil at Blackstone Chambers, and the impact of this case on same-sex rights in Hong Kong. Join us for this insightful and thought-provoking episode as these distinguished barristers detail their most memorable cases and the lessons they learned from them.

Our Special Guest this week is Sue Bridge FRTPI, President of the Royal Town Planning Institute for 2023 and Director at Sue Bridge Consultancy Ltd. Episode Resources Planning Aid England Planning Aid Scotland Decisions of the Week Decision of the Court of Appeal in R (oaf Kinnersley) v Maidstone Borough Council [2023] EWCA Civ 172 dated 22nd February allowing an appeal against the decision of HHJ Waldon-Smith who had dismissed a claim for JR of a decision to grant planning permission on a brownfield site based on the true meaning of the word site in Policy DM5. Decision of High Court in R (oao Bentley Pauncefoot PC) v Redditch BC & Bromsgrove DC [2023] EWHC 456 dated 2nd March 2023 dismissing a challenge to a decision to grant a hybrid permission for a residential led mixed use scheme for 2560 homes on an allocated site straddling the two LPAs area based on allegations that the committee was misled as to details of highway impacts. Decision of an inspector dated 22 February on land at Stratford Road, Shirley, dismissing an appeal, against the refusal of Solihull Metropolitan BC to grant permission, for a residential mixed-use scheme of 111 C3 units plus 84 bed C2 Care Home, gym, salon & restaurant rising to 6 storeys, on a pdl recommended for approval in context of shortfall in HLS. Decision of an inspector dates 22 February allowing an appeal against the decision of Trafford Metropolitan BC to refuse outline permission for up to 116 C3 units on land in the Green Belt which was found to be at odds with local plan spatial strategy. VSC demonstrated.

Our Special Guest this week is Lord Ed Vaizey, politician, media columnist & commentator. Decisions of the Week: Decision of the Supreme Court in Fearn et al v Board of Trustees of Tate Gallery [2023] SCUK 4 dated 1st February 2023 allowing, by 3-2, an appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal who had dismissed an appeal from Mr Justice Mann who declined to grant an injunction based on the common law of private nuisance to stop members of the public from using a viewing gallery which afforded uninterrupted views into their glass walled flats. Decision of the Court of Appeal in R (oaf Whitley PC) v N Yorks CC & EPUK Investments Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 92 dated 3rd February dismissing an appeal against the decision of Mr Justice Lane who had dismissed a claim for JR of a decision to grant planning permission for the extraction & export of pulverised ash based on alleged errors in the officer report & the failure to consider alternatives. Decision of High Court in Bristol Action Network Co-Ordinating Committee v SoS DLUC & Bristol City Airport dated 31st January 2023 challenging a decision of the appointed panel to allow a s78 appeal by the Airport, against the decision of North Somerset Council to refuse an application for the amendment of existing conditions to increase capacity by 2 million passengers per year on grounds related to emissions of greenhouse gases and impact on a SAC on which horseshoe bats roost & breed. Issues raised include the interaction/relationship with the CCA 2008 and local plan policy for the airport. Decision of High Court in Armstrong V SOS DLUC & Cornwall Council [2023] EWHC 176 (admin) dated 27th January 2023 quashing a decision letter dismissing an appeal by Mr Armstrong against the decision of Cornwall Council to refuse an application under section 73 of the TCPA 1990 to vary plans for construction of a new dwelling under an extant planning permission on the basis the application gave rise to a fundamental variation to the permission even though it would not give rise to any conflict with the description of the permission. The views expressed by our guests are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of the panellists.

This month, Michelle Rousell and Yassir Mahmood from Practical Law Construction discuss building safety developments, including the building safety developers' contract, various consultations and LDC (Portfolio One) Ltd v George Downing Construction Ltd [2022] EWHC 3356 (TCC) (starts at 1.00); three adjudication enforcement judgments (Sudlows Ltd v Global Switch Estates 1 Ltd [2022] EWHC 3319 (TCC), LJR Interiors Ltd v Cooper Construction Ltd [2023] EWHC 3339 (TCC) and A & V Building Solutions Ltd v J & B Hopkins Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 54) (starts at 14.35); notices of dissatisfaction (starts at 26.35); judgment in Energy Works (Hull) Ltd v MW High Tech Projects UK Ltd [2022] EWHC 3275 (TCC) (starts at 32.37); and the Equal Representation in Adjudication Pledge (starts at 35.30).

Listen to Michael Edwards (a barrister at 4PB), Amy Rowe (a partner at Dawson Cornwell) and Roz Osbourne (the Director of GlobalARRK which is a charity to support the stuck parent and children) discuss the law in respect of child abduction.  Amy and Michael take us through recent case law in respect of the defences to return orders under the Hague Convention 1980, and the use of inherent jurisdiction, they share practical and specialist insights about how to approach these summary proceedings.   In the discussion they refer to: Re B (Children) (Abduction: Consent: Oral Evidence) (Article 13(b)) [2022] EWCA Civ 1171 Re NY (A Child) [2019] UKSC 49 G v G [2020] UKSC 9 Roz invites us to look at abduction cases from a different angle and the impact on the 'stuck parent'.  GlobalARRK supports the stuck parent and campaigns for change to the current law and procedure.  Follow the link to read their Principles for Change document https://www.globalarrk.org/policies-principles/ Note, just before the end Michael says ‘abduction' when he means and is talking about ‘asylum' - this was just a slip of the tongue. 

Our Special Guest this week is Joanna Averley, Chief Planner for the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. Joanna is a planner who has worked across all aspect of the town planning, regeneration, built environment and development process. She has worked in consultancy, charity and as a government adviser. Decisions of the Week: Decision of the Court of Appeal in R(oaf Blacker) v Chelmsford City Council [2023] EWCA Civ 25 dated 17th January 2023 dismissing an appeal against the decision of Mrs Justice Thornton who declined to quash a decision granting outline planning permission for housing on a part PDL /greenfield site in Roxwell. First resolution minded to grant but at a second meeting the decision was to refuse. Issues of inconsistency raised. A Minded to Grant Decision made on behalf of the Secretary of State dated 19th January 2023 giving the applicant, the Ministry of Justice, time to provide further evidence to address highway issues identified by the inspector, recommending refusal of the appeal against the dismissal by Chorley Borough Council of a hybrid application for a new prison on land adjacent to HMP Garth & HMP Wymott, Leyland, Lancashire in the Green Belt. Decision of an inspector dated 9th January 2023 allowing an appeal by Ainscough Strategic Land against the decision of West Oxfordshire DC to refuse an outline application for up to 120 dwellings on greenfield land at Witney Road, Ducklington. Land said to be in a gap between Ducklington and Witney, impact on landscape character and setting of conservation area, no 5 yr HLS. NPPF 202 exercise engaged. Decision of an inspector dated 18th January 2023 dismissing an appeal by Senior Living (Freelands) Ltd against the decision of West Oxfordshire DC to refuse an outline application for up to 160 C2 extra care units & retention of veterinary practice in Coach House on a 4.3 ha site in the grounds of Freeland House, a NDHA and itself in use as a Care Home. The views expressed by our guests are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of the panellists.

This month, Michelle Rousell and Yassir Mahmood from Practical Law Construction discuss what construction practitioners might expect in 2023, with an appeal to the Supreme Court in Abbey Healthcare (Mill Hill) Ltd v Simply Construct (UK) LLP [2022] EWCA Civ 823 (starts at 0.43), an expectation that cladding claims will continue to make their way through the courts, following on from Martlet Homes Ltd v Mulalley & Co Ltd [2022] EWHC 1813 (TCC) (starts at 3.00). This includes two recent judgments (in LDC (Portfolio One) Ltd v George Downing Construction Ltd and another and BDW Trading Ltd v AECOM Infrastructure & Environment UK Ltd), and building safety and the Building Safety Act 2022, with a myriad of anticipated developments (starts at 8.27).

This episode is EXPLOSIVE! I'm honored to introduce to you this week someone who caught my eye on social media, had an immediate impact on my heart, and whose voice I knew needed to be featured in a podcast episode: mother, podcaster and content creator, child abuse and family court advocate, and Litigation Consultant, Sian Gissing. Sian is a mother of 3 who lost parental rights to her children through the corrupt Family Court system and has since become one of the boldest and bravest public advocates of court reform in the world and a voice that will go down in history as one of the most influential of our time.If you've been following my podcast, you have seen many other examples of innocent parents watching helplessly as their children are trafficked through or abused by the Family Court systems to horrific abusers, and the ways these systems and those running the systems then go on to abuse the innocent parents and children in and out of court.  Her podcast, “Sian Gissing: Litigation Consultant” is a powerful tool in educating those of us on the outside looking in eager to learn as well as educating and empowering parents all over the world on their rights and how they can step into their own sovereignty and power. Today, we are going to get to know Sian as both a mother and a Litigation Consultant as she uses personal experiences to educate on us the law and the procedures open to all parents and victims in the hope they can get access to justice to hold their abusers accountable. This is going to be a jam-packed episode you'll want to listen to more than once. Please make sure to give Sian your full attention and grab a pen and paper as you'll be learning a ton! In this episode, Sian talks about her journey and reasons of returning to law school and how she plans on helping bring justice to survivors of SRA and crimes against children by exposing the system from within. Sian details how the system currently works, PROVES satanic ritual abuse exists (and comes with receipts!), and how she plans on being a beacon of hope for parents, victims and survivors.CONNECT WITH SIAN: Website: Sian Gissing | Public Speaker | Litigation Consultant | Author – www.siangissing.com (siangissingmcmeel.co.uk)Instagram: @sian.gissing - Sian Gissing (@sian.gissing) • Instagram photos and videosYouTube:  @SianGissing Podcast on Spotify: Sian Gissing Podcast: Mother | Litigation Consultant | Public Speaker | Podcast on SpotifyPodcast on iTunes: Sian Gissing Podcast: Mother | Litigation Consultant | Public Speaker on Apple PodcastsRECOMMENDED RESOURCES FROM THIS EPISODE: Case Law on SRA:1. Rochdale Brough Council v A and others [1991] 2 FLR 192 - Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council v A: 1991 - swarb.co.uk2. A Local Authority v X and others [2021] EWFC 913. Re C (minors) [1991] 1 FCR 574. Re F and another (children) (sexual abuse allegations) [2022] EWCA Civ 1002 - Family Law Week: F And G (Children : Sexual Abuse Allegations) [2022] EWCA Civ 1002Books: Thomas Paine - Rights of Man, Common LawMark Elliot and Robert Thomas 2nd Edition - 'Public Law' Support the show

Jess Harrold is joined by Guy Fetherstonhaugh QC, of Falcon Chambers, to discuss the eagerly awaited Court of Appeal decision in the combined appeals in Bank of New York Mellon (International) Ltd v Cine-UK Ltd; London Trocadero (2015) LLP v Picturehouse Cinemas Ltd and others [2022] EWCA Civ 1021; [2022] PLSCS 125 - cases both arising out of rent arrears accrued during lockdown periods imposed as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic. Fetherstonhaugh outlines the parties involved in the appeals, including two connected cinema tenants, and how those tenants saw their defences to actions for unpaid rent rejected at first instance. He explains how the arguments were presented in the Court of Appeal, and why it dismissed the tenants' appeals. In addition, Fetherstonhaugh shares his thoughts on where this leaves any tenants who are yet to resolve pandemic rent arrears disputes with their landlords, and whether this might lead to a late rush to use the government's so far under-utilised arbitration scheme.  

Bailii Re P (Disclosure) P (Children : Disclosure) [2022] EWCA Civ 495 (12 April 2022)   Re M (Intimate Images) M (A Child : Private Law Children Proceedings: Case Management: Intimate Images) [2022] EWHC 986 (Fam) (29 April 2022)   Recommendations Spider Woman: A Life by Lady Hale https://www.foyles.co.uk/witem/biography/spider-woman-a-life-by-the-former,lady-hale-9781847926593?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI7Oe8t92E-AIViLbtCh1C9gfPEAAYAiAAEgISefD_BwE   Lily Singh, “Seat at the table isn't the solution for gender equity” https://youtu.be/9EBkS2kE7uk   Heard v Depp trial (ongoing) https://youtu.be/OuZDNakM7QU   Panorama, Protecting Our Children: A Balancing Act BBC One - Panorama, Protecting Our Children: A Balancing Act   Tweets https://twitter.com/evesrobinson/status/1518840102310629378?s=21&t=_TRWs-Ilb6UWUfnvISs-xg   And finally, congratulations to all future and wannabe pupils from both of us! 

Jess Harrold is joined by Tom Weekes QC, of Landmark Chambers, and Caroline Priest, partner at Royds Withy King, to discuss the Court of Appeal decision in Bath Rugby Ltd v Greenwood and others [2021] EWCA Civ 1927; [2021] PLSCS 220 - a dispute over stadium redevelopment plans. Weekes and Preist, who acted for the successful appellants, explain the restrictive covenant at the heart of the case, and what the courts had to say about a complex area of the law. In addition, they set out the implications of the Court of Appeal decision, both for Bath Rugby's redevelopment and the wider field of restrictive covenants.

Bailii
A Child (Application of PD12J: No 2 Findings of Fact) [2022] EWFC 2 https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2022/2.html  Griffiths v Tickle & Ors [2021] EWCA Civ 1882 https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2021/1882.html  Podcasts & Articles
Sweet Bobby https://www.tortoisemedia.com/listen/sweet-bobby/ 
Fear or Favour https://audioboom.com/channels/5065900 
A finding of rape, Tortoise Slow Newscast https://www.tortoisemedia.com/audio/a-finding-of-rape/ 
Transfer of tenancies and occupation orders under the Family Law Act 1996 and their interplay with housing and rent provisions, Madeleine Whelan & Mark Galtrey, FLJ [2022] Jan Fam Law 109  Additional resources
Griffiths v Tickle, a lawyer's view https://www.transparencyproject.org.uk/griffiths-v-tickle-a-lawyers-view/ 
Transparency in the Family Courts, Eloise Marriott, St Ives' Chambers https://www.stiveschambers.co.uk/content/uploads/2022/01/Transparency-in-the-Family-Courts.pdf  Tweets
@LouisaWhitney https://twitter.com/LouisaWhitney/status/1483013247754289152 
@sglaisteryoung https://twitter.com/sglaisteryoung/status/1478128480130895884   

In Episode 6 of Series 6, Todd is joined by Professor Aoife Nolan, to discuss the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the human rights of children. Aoife is Professor of International Human Rights Law and Co-Director of the Human Rights Law Centre in the School of Law at the University of Nottingham. She is also Vice-President of the Council of Europe European Committee of Social Rights and has worked with a range of civil rights organisations. 0.00-04.10 Todd begins by asking Aoife to outline the impact of the pandemic on the human rights of children. She points to the wide-ranging global impact of the pandemic and associated lockdowns, in terms of the health and survival of children and identifies a range of issues including, education, food access, mental health, increased levels of child abuse, the impact of poor housing, loss of social contact and increased risk of online harm. All of these directly affect children's rights.  Aoife explains that the pandemic has had a hugely unequal impact on children from different backgrounds and living in different situations. She adds that this has entrenched existing inequalities. Unaddressed, she concludes, this will have an impact on the future life-course of some children. 04.10-08.18 Todd moves on to focus on the actions of governments during the pandemic and the extent to which they were compatible with the rights of children. Aoife points to the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which recognises that restrictions on human rights may be necessary in times of crisis but also the limitations on the exercising of those powers. Todd wonders whether in the light of criticism from anti-lockdown groups, governments have responded to the crisis in an appropriate way. Aoife makes the following points: There have been a wide range of measures in different states In the UK there have been positive measures, but also shortcomings in terms of food and support for families Some governments have used the crisis to push long-standing agendas not consistent with child rights, for example in relaxing obligations to children in care 08.18-11.36  Aoife gives an example of how the pandemic has been used to weaken various statutes related to the protection of children in social care. She explains how changes have been made in relation to the duty of Local Authorities towards education health and social care. She notes that these changes have been reversed as a result of pressure on the government. She says there are concerns that Covid-19 was being used as a cover for mass de-regulation of social care. She mentions that the UK's Department of Education was found to have acted unlawfully in scrapping a range of rights for children in care. A child rights impact assessment carried out by the department, which signed off the measure showed a lack of understanding of child rights. She points out that this move was later reversed. 11.36-13.45 Todd moves the discussion to the USA, which has not ratified the UN convention on human rights. He points to differences in approach between the Trump administration and the Biden administration and asks Aoife to comment on the progress towards getting children back into school. Aoife points out that approaches to education are very much state driven, and although not an expert on matters relating to US education points out that: Schools cannot re-open without adequate planning, safety provision, and funding Even though the USA is not a party to the UN Convention, individual state constitutions include provisions for the protection of children's rights 13.45-16.55 Aiofe reviews the situation in South Africa around school closures and re-opening, and says the net effect has been to amplify inequalities within the country: The effect of closures was to move education online but large numbers of children did not have access to the internet There were issues around re-opening in terms of infrastructure shortcomings and lack of support for school re-opening As a result, re-opening took place against in non-Covid safe schools with implications for health, provision of school meals, and education. They move on to discuss the terrible situation with Covid-19 cases and deaths in India and what Aoife thinks about the impact on children's rights. She suggests that, beyond concerns related to Covid infections, the health crisis and associated lockdowns have interfered with the normal processes of vaccinations and health interventions, as well as in education. 16.55-18.12 Asked about the response of the Council of Europe, of which she is a member, Aoife reports that the Council has identified worrying trends in respect of: School closures Lack access to healthcare services Mental health issues Loss of social contact 18.12-20.23 Todd asks about the work of activists and advocacy groups in mitigating the impacts of the pandemic. Aoife says she has been impressed by the large amount of energetic work, and advocacy by both regional and international groups including: The strength of the ongoing discourse on children's rights globally. The UN policy brief The Impact of COVID-19 on children. Is evidence of the traction of children's rights. Children's rights currently occupy a higher profile than other affected groups. 20.23 – 23.10 Todd's asks about priorities for the post-Covid era. In Aoife's view there must be meaningful steps to get children's rights to the centre of the recovery effort and policy planning She warns of the potential austerity cuts that may follow in the post-Covid phase and predicts that they will be catastrophic for children's rights There is a need to acknowledge and deal with the structural inequalities in society, which are exacerbated by the pandemic, and which impinge directly on children's rights 23.10-end Todd asks Aoife to reflect on the importance of the voices of children themselves. She believes children have been excluded from the decision-making process. Their voices and views have been ignored by governments and that this is contrary to Human Rights Law. There is an urgent need for this situation to be redressed.  However, the issue of children's rights is part of a wider concern for Human Rights she concludes. There is a need for “inter-generational solidarity.” This requires children's rights groups to work alongside disabled groups, older people, women's groups and others to bring about change. Further Reading Protecting the most vulnerable children from the impact of coronavirus: An agenda for action. UNICEF, Policy Brief: The Impact of COVID-19 on Children United Nations 2020  COVID-19 Statement United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, April 2020 Statement on COVID-19 and Social Rights European Committee of Social Rights, April 2021 A Child Rights Crisis  A. Nolan, LRB Blog, May 2020 Should Schools Reopen? The Human Rights Risk -An Advisory Note for the Independent SAGE – A. Nolan,  May 2020  Of Limitations and Retrogression: Assessing COVID-19's Impact on Children's ESC Rights A. Nolan & J. Bueno de Mesquita, May 2020 Covid-19 Protocol R(Article 39) v Secretary of State for Education  [2020] EWCA Civ 1577 24 Sept 2020,  Equal Education & Others v Minister of Basic Education & Others  2020 ZAGPPHC 306 (17 July 2020)

La señora Carlill vió un anuncio en la prensa que prometía un remedio contra la epidemia que arropaba Europa. "Take my money!" Referencias Basado en el caso Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. [1892] EWCA Civ 1, [1893] 1 QB 256, [1893] QB 256 de el Tribunal de Apelaciones de Inglaterra