DOCSLIB.ORG

Royal Courts of Justice Cause List, Friday XX February 2021 (Example List)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Royal Courts of Justice Cause List, Friday XX February 2021 (Example List) Royal Courts of Justice Cause List, Friday XX February 2021 (example list) Administrative Court in London Due to coronavirus (COVID-19), the Administrative Court Office is working remotely till further notice. Dedicated team members are working remotely and will be dealing with urgent business only and can be contacted via email: • [email protected] • [email protected] • [email protected] If a representative of the media wishes to attend a remote hearing they should contact the listing office [email protected] Before Mr Justice Martin Spencer Remote video conference hearing 10:30am Application: CO/313/2021 The Queen on the application of Ogilvy v Secretary of State for the Home Department Before Sir Ross Cranston sitting as a Judge of the High Court Remote video conference hearings 9am Application for Permission: CO/3397/2020 The Queen on the application of Save Warsash and the Western Wards v Hanslip 11:15am Application for Permission: CO/2619/2020 Oprea v National Crime Agency Before Sir Duncan Ousley sitting as a Judge of the High Court Remote video conference hearings 9:30am Hearing: CO/272/2021 Majcherski v Sad Okregowy In Kielce (Poland) 10:30am Applications for Permission CO/756/2019 Armean v National Crime Agency 2pm Application: CO/3539/2019 Koszegi v National Crime Agency 3pm Hearing: CO/290/2021 Kocsis v Judicial Authority of Hungary Before Mr Clive Sheldon QC sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court Remote video conference hearing 12 noon Judgment read out: CO/189/2021 The Queen on the application of Kelly v Secretary of State for the Home Department Before Richard Cayton QC sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court Remote video conference hearing 12 noon Judgment read out: CO/139/2021 The Queen on the application of Gg v Kent County Council Court of Appeal Civil Division Selected cases from the Court of Appeal Civil Division are now being live streamed. More information about upcoming hearings to be streamed. Hearings in the Court of Appeal Civil Division are being conducted remotely. Members of the press or other interested persons who wish to view remote hearings should email [email protected]. The present arrangements will be kept under review. Before Lord Justice Lewison, Lord Justice Moylan and Lord Justice Nugee 10:30am Judgment Applications: B6/2019/3030(A) Baker -v- Finch. Application of appellant for appellant's application for permission to rely on unagreed bundle. B6/2019/3030(B) Baker -v- Finch. application of respondent for respondent's application for permission to rely on unagreed bundler B6/2019/3030(C) Baker -v- Finch. Application of appellant for permission to rely on second unagreed bundle. Appeal from County Court Family proceedings final order: B6/2019/3030 Baker -v- Finch. Appeal of appellant from the order of His Honour Judge Bromilow, dated 18 November 2019, filed 9 December 2019. Covid-19 protocol: This judgment will be handed down remotely by circulation to the parties or their representatives by email, release to BAILII and publication on the courts and tribunals judiciary website. The date and time for hand-down will be deemed to be Friday 5 February 2021 at 10:30am. A copy of the judgment in final form as handed down should be available on the judiciary website (www.judiciary.uk ) or BAILII shortly thereafter but can otherwise be obtained on request by email to the Judicial Office ([email protected] ) Before Lord Justice Bean, Lady Justice Rose and Lord Justice Males 2pm Judgment Appeal from the Queen's Bench Division (Commercial) Final decision: A4/2020/0346 Priminds Shipping (HK) Co Ltd -v- Noble Chartering Inc. Appeal of defendant from the order of HHJ Pelling QC, dated 4 February 2020, filed 20 February 2020. Covid-19 Protocol: This judgment will be handed down remotely by circulation to the parties or their representatives by email, release to BAILII and publication on the courts and tribunals judiciary website. The date and time for hand-down will be deemed to be Friday, 5 February 2021 at 2pm. A copy of the judgment in final form as handed down should be available on the judiciary website (www.judiciary.uk ) or BAILII shortly thereafter but can otherwise be obtained on request by email to the judicial office ([email protected]) Before Lord Justice Mailes 9:45am Application to be heard remotely C4/2020/1190 The Queen on the Application of AS -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department. Application of claimant for permission to appeal the decision to refuse permission to apply for judicial review and an extension of time. Notices for judgment Take notice that on Monday 8 February 2021 at 10:30am judgment will be given in the following: Appeal from the Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court and Divisional Court) Final decision: C4/2019/2729 The Queen on the Application of A l-Siri -v- The Secretary of State for the Home Department. Appeal of claimant from the order of Mr Richard Clayton QC, dated 10 October 2019, filed 31 October 2019. Covid-19 Protocol: This judgment will be handed down remotely by circulation to the parties or their representatives by email, release to BAILII and publication on the courts and tribunals judiciary website. The date and time for hand-down will be deemed to be Monday, 8 February 2021 at 10:30am. A copy of the judgment in final form as handed down should be available on the judiciary website (www.judiciary.uk or BAILII shortly thereafter but can otherwise be obtained on request by email to the judicial office ([email protected]) Take notice that on Monday 8 February 2021 at 10:30am in court 63 judgment will be given in the following: Appeal from The Chancery Division Final decision: A3/2020/1464 Ocado Group PLC and anr -v- Mckeeve. Appeal of claimants from the order of Mr Justice Marcus Smith, dated 11 June 2020, filed 19 August 2020. Take notice that on Monday 8 February 2021 at 10:30am judgment will be given in the following: Appeal from the Family Division Family proceedings final order: B4/2020/1824 A-M (Children). Appeal of respondent from the order of Sir Andrew McFarlane President of the Family Division and Mr Justice Chamberlain, dated 29 October 2020, filed 3rd November 2020. Covid-19 Protocol: This judgment will be handed down remotely by circulation to the parties or their representatives by email. The date and time for hand-down will be deemed to be Monday 8 February 2021 at 10.30am Take notice that on Tuesday 9 February 2021 at 10:30am judgment will be given in the following: Appeal from the Family Division Family proceedings final order: B4/2020/1914 G (Children). Appeal of respondent from the order of NNG Cusworth QC, dated 12 November 2020, filed 18 November 2020. Covid-19 Protocol: This judgment will be handed down remotely by circulation to the parties or their representatives by email, release to BAILII and publication on the courts and tribunals judiciary website. The date and time for hand-down will be deemed to be Tuesday 9 February 2021 at 10:30am. A copy of the judgment in final form as handed down should be available on the judiciary website (www.judiciary.uk) or BAILII shortly thereafter but can otherwise be obtained on request by email to the judicial office ([email protected]) Court of Appeal Criminal Division Please note our usual email addresses are currently unavailable. Please send any queries to Court 4: Before the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, Mr Justice Edis and Mrs Justice Whipple 10:30am Hand down judgment Interlocutory applications/appeals under S35/36 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 Reporting restrictions under S.37 Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 apply 202100094 B1 R v J 202100110 B1 R v E 202100112 B1 R v W 202100113 B1 R v C This judgment will be handed down by the judge remotely, by circulation to the parties’ representatives by email and, if appropriate, by publishing on www.judiciary.uk and/or release to Bailii. The date and time for hand down will be deemed to be as above. The court order will be provided to Liverpool Crown Court, for entry onto the record. Court 5: Before Lady Justice Thirlwall, Mr Justice Holgate and Mr Justice Johnson 10:30am Hand down judgment This case involves reporting restrictions 201900777 B1 R v L This case involves reporting restrictions 201900779 B1 R v L This judgment will be handed down by the judge remotely, by circulation to the parties’ representatives by email and, if appropriate, by publishing on www.judiciary.uk and/or release to Bailii. The date and time for hand down will be deemed to be as above. The court order will be provided to Wolverhampton Crown Court, for entry onto the record. Hand down judgment This case involves reporting restrictions 201902028 C2 R v S This case involves reporting restrictions 201902032 C2 R v S This judgment will be handed down by the judge remotely, by circulation to the parties’ representatives by email and, if appropriate, by publishing on www.judiciary.uk and/or release to Bailii. The date and time for hand down will be deemed to be as above. The court order will be provided to Manchester Crown Court, for entry onto the record. Court 6: Before Lord Justice Davis, Mr Justice William Davies, His Honour Justice Lodder QC 10:45am This case involves reporting restrictions 202001957 B1 R v X For hearing: Reference by the Attorney General under S36 of the Criminal Justice
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Claim Form Commercial Court N1 (CC) : CPR Part 7 : V4.0 Royal Courts of Justice
    In the High Court of Justice Queen's Bench Division Claim Form Commercial Court N1 (CC) : CPR Part 7 : v4.0 Royal Courts of Justice Claim number Claim title Notes for completion Once completed please e-mail this form to [email protected]. You will receive a 'sealed for service' version and an amendable version of the form by return of e-mail. Claimant(s) Add New Claimant Clear All Claimants Name Address Postcode Country Telephone No Delete this Claimant Add New Claimant Defendant(s) Add New Defendant Clear All Defendants Defendants unknown at present Name Address Postcode Country Telephone No Delete this Defendant Add New Defendant The court office at the Admiralty and Commercial Registry, Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LL is open from 10:00am to 4:30pm Monday to Friday. When corresponding with the court, please address forms or letters to the Court Manager and quote the claim number. Page 1 of 3 Financial information Non-Monetary What type of claim is this ? Monetary Only Part Monetary Relief Court fee breakdown Non-monetary relief fee (if applicable) £0.00 Part 7 fee £0.00 Court fee total £0.00 Solicitors costs (£) GBP. To be assessed Reset Financial Data Brief details of claim You should type into this section a concise statement of the nature of the claim, together with the remedy sought and statement of value where appropriate pursuant to CPR 16.2(1) (Part 7 Claim) or CPR 8.2(Part 8 Claim). If you wish to file more detailed particulars of claim with this claim form you can use the attachment option in section 4b, or you may file them separately at a later stage using the 'MultiPurpose' form which will be available to you once you have issued.
    [Show full text]
  • Legal Notices a Copy of the Petition Will Be Supplied by the Under- the COMPANIES ACT 1948 Signed on Payment of the Prescribed Charge
    THE LONDON GAZETTE, SlsT MARCH 1981 4659 VALE ROYAL DISTRICT COUNCIL Copies of the Order, statement of reasons and relevant plans may be inspected free of charge, at all reasonable HIGHWAYS ACT 1980, SECTION 14 hours from 31st March to 16th May 1981 at the Council The District of Vale Royal (Northwich Internal By-Pass Offices, Church Street, Northwich, the Council Offices, A 559 Chesterway Phase III Classified Road) (Side Roads) Whitehall, School Lane, Hartford and also at the Depart- Order 1981. ment of Transport, North-West Region, Sunley Buildings. Notice is hereby given that the Vale Royal District Council Piccadilly Plaza, Manchester. hereby give notice that they have made and submitted Any person wishing to make representations or objections to the Secretary of State for the Enviroment and Trans- to the confirmation of the Order may do so in writing port for confirmation an Order under section 14 of the before 16th May 1981, to the Minister of Transport at Highways Act 1980 and of all other enabling powers the office of the Regional Controller (Roads and Trans- which will authorise the Council: portation), North-West Region, Sunley Buildings, Piccadilly (a) To carry out the improvement of highways. Plaza, Manchester Ml 4BE, stating the grounds of (b) To stop-up highways. objection. (c) To construct a new highway which shall be a road. W. R. T. Woods, Chief Executive Officer and Secretary (d) To stop-up a private means of access to premises. (e) To provide a new means of access to premises. Council Offices, All on or in the vicinity of the route of the classified Whitehall, School Lane, road which the Council are proposing to construct between Hartford, Northwich.
    [Show full text]
  • In the High Court of Justice of the Isle of Man Civil Division Probate Application Form
    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE ISLE OF MAN CIVIL DIVISION PROBATE APPLICATION FORM Please refer to the GUIDANCE NOTES to assist you in completing this form. Please use CAPITAL LETTERS The Guidance Notes can be viewed online at https://www.courts.im/court-procedures/probate-and-admin-of-estates/ or they can be obtained by email from [email protected] or by telephoning (01624) 685243 There are guidance notes provided to help you complete this probate application form. They should not be treated as a complete and authoritative statement of the law. Please note that Probate Office staff members are not permitted to give legal advice or offer opinions and therefore if you are in any doubt about your rights, or the procedures to follow in relation to obtaining probate, you should seek legal advice. The Probate Staff can however provide assistance in the completion of this form. Where required, please refer to the Glossary of Terms of commonly used legal expressions in the Guidance Notes. Section A – Details of the Deceased 1. Surname Title MR MRS MISS MS OTHER 2. Forename(s) 3. Alias name(s) – (if any) 4. Address (enter last, full permanent address, including postcode) 5. Place of Domicile 6. Nationality 7. Occupation (if any) 8. Date of Death (Death Certificate attached herewith) 9. Place of Death (enter full address, including postcode) 1 Section B – Details of the Estate 10. Did the deceased leave a Will? YES NO If NO, go to Q.14 11. Date of Will (being submitted with this form) 12.
    [Show full text]
  • SAS V. WPL: a Longstanding Transatlantic Dispute with an East Texas Flavor
    Free Speech, Due Process and Trial by Jury SAS v. WPL: A Longstanding Transatlantic Dispute with an East Texas Flavor NOVEMBER 25, 2020 | BY NATALIE POSGATE SAS Institute and World Programming Limited • The case involved claims of infringement of have sparred against each other in courtrooms “non-literal” elements of a software work, a on both sides of the Atlantic for 11 years. less-frequented claim in intellectual property law that is as nuanced as it is hard to prove; The storied litigation between the two software and programming competitors essentially tells the same tale each time: SAS accuses World • Just as the case was heading to a jury trial Programming of copyright infringement. SAS in September, the complexity of the issues doesn’t prevail. SAS sues WPL somewhere prompted Judge Gilstrap to delay the trial and else but includes additional allegations. WPL set a special hearing to determine the extent counterclaims. And the case has also caused to which the non-literal elements of SAS’ a trans-Atlantic tiff between judges in the U.S. software were copyrightable. “A hearing like and the United Kingdom. that in itself is a rare event, due to the unusual allegations here, but Judge Gilstrap embraced This plot has played out on the home turfs of the need to dig in and make sure the scope of both companies with mixed results. The High SAS’ IP rights were properly framed to a jury,” Court of Justice in London – previously known Caldwell said. as “Her Majesty’s High Court of Justice” – ruled against SAS.
    [Show full text]
  • Aldwych-House-Brochure.Pdf
    Executive summary • An iconic flagship in the heart of Midtown • This imposing building invested with period grandeur, has been brought to life in an exciting and modern manner • A powerful and dramatic entrance hall with 9 storey atrium creates a backdrop to this efficient and modern office • A total of 142,696 sq ft of new lettings have taken place leaving just 31,164 sq ft available • A space to dwell… 4,209 – 31,164 SQ FT 4 | ALDWYCHHOUSE.COM ALDWYCHHOUSE.COM | 5 Aldwych House • MoreySmith designed reception • Full height (9 storey) central atrium fusing a modern which provides a light, modern, interior with imposing spacious circulation area 1920s architecture • Floors are served by a newly refurbished lightwell on the west side and a dramatically lit internal Aldwych House totals 174,000 atrium to the east from lower sq ft over lower ground to 8th ground to 3rd floor floors with a 65m frontage • An extensive timber roof terrace onto historic Aldwych around a glazed roof area • Showers, cycle storage and a drying room are located in the basement with easy access from the rear of the building • The ROKA restaurant is on the ground floor 6 | ALDWYCHHOUSE.COM ALDWYCHHOUSE.COM | 7 8 | ALDWYCHHOUSE.COM Floorplate Typical upper floor c. 18,000 sq ft Typical upper floor CGI with sample fit-out 10 | ALDWYCHHOUSE.COM ALDWYCHHOUSE.COM | 11 Floorplate Typical upper floor with suite fit-out 12 | ALDWYCHHOUSE.COM ALDWYCHHOUSE.COM | 13 SOHO TOTTENHAM COURT ROAD MIDTOWN | LONDON Aldwych House, now transformed as part of the dynamic re-generation of this vibrant eclectic midtown destination, stands tall and COVENT GARDEN commanding on the north of the double crescent of Aldwych.
    [Show full text]
  • England and Wales
    UK – ENGLAND AND WALES Official name Judges Council of England and Wales in original language Official name in English Judges Council of England and Wales Judicial Office, Room C110, Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London Address WC2A 2LL Telephone number +44 (0) 20 7947 7752 Website www.judiciary.gov.uk e-mail [email protected] The Judges’ Council of England and Wales was first set up under the Judicature Act 1873. It was chaired by the Lord Chancellor and all the judges of the Supreme Court were members. The Council continued to function until 1981. At that time a new Judges’ Council was set up chaired by the Lord Chief Justice with a smaller membership of the more senior judges. In 2002 the Council adopted a written Constitution and has subsequently widened its membership to include representatives from all ranks of the Brief history judiciary, including the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal, the High Court, the Circuit and District Benches, the Magistracy and the Tribunals. In March, 2006 the Council further revised its Constitution and membership following the coming into effect of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. This Act and the Concordat of 26th January 2006 between the Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice vest in the latter very considerable responsibilities in respect of the judiciary and of the business of the Courts of England and Wales. The Lord Chief Justice exercises these responsibilities through the Judges’ Council and the Judicial Executive Board. It has no constitutional status but is protected by legislation in the Constitutional or legal form of the Judicature Act 1873 and the Constitutional Reform Act status/basis 2005.
    [Show full text]
  • A Veritable Revolution: the Court of Criminal Appeal in English
    A VERITABLE REVOLUTION: THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL IN ENGLISH CRIMINAL HISTORY 1908-1958 A THESIS IN History Presented to the Faculty of the University of Missouri-Kansas City in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree MASTER OF ARTS by CECILE ARDEN PHILLIPS B.A. University of Missouri-Kansas City, 1986 Kansas City, Missouri 2012 © 2012 CECILE ARDEN PHILLIPS ALL RIGHTS RESERVED A VERITABLE REVOLUTION: THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL IN ENGLISH CRIMINAL HISTORY 1908-1958 Cecile Arden Phillips, Candidate for the Masters of Arts Degree University of Missouri-Kansas City, 2012 ABSTRACT In a historic speech to the House of Commons on April 17, 1907, British Attorney General, John Lawson Walton, proposed the formation of what was to be the first court of criminal appeal in English history. Such a court had been debated, but ultimately rejected, by successive governments for over half a century. In each debate, members of the judiciary declared that a court for appeals in criminal cases held the potential of destroying the world-respected English judicial system. The 1907 debates were no less contentious, but the newly elected Liberal government saw social reform, including judicial reform, as their highest priority. After much compromise and some of the most overwrought speeches in the history of Parliament, the Court of Criminal Appeal was created in August 1907 and began hearing cases in May 1908. A Veritable Revolution is a social history of the Court’s first fifty years. There is no doubt, that John Walton and the other founders of the Court of Criminal Appeal intended it to provide protection from the miscarriage of justice for English citizens convicted of criminal offenses.
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial and Court Statistics 2007 Cm 7467
    Judicial and Court Statistics 2007 Judicial and Court Statistics 2007 Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor by Command of Her Majesty The Queen September 2008 Cm 7467 £33.45 © Crown Copyright 2008 The text in this document (excluding the Royal Arms and other departmental or agency logos) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium providing it is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and the title of the document specified. Where we have identified any third party copyright material you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. For any other use of this material please write to Office of Public Sector Information, Information Policy Team, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU or e-mail: [email protected] ISBN: 9 78 010174 672 4 Contents Introductory Note 5 1. Appellate Courts 7 2. High Court – Chancery Division 31 3. High Court – Queen’s Bench Division 41 4. County courts (non family) 53 5. Family Matters 81 6. The Crown Court 103 7. Magistrates’ Courts 135 8. Offices of the Supreme Court 159 9. The Judiciary 171 10. Assessment of litigation costs, and publicly funded legal services 185 Annex A: Data Quality and Sources 197 Judicial and Court Statistics 2006 | Introductory Note Introductory Note This Ministry of Justice report “Judicial and Court Statistics 2007”, presents a comprehensive set of statistics on judicial and court activity in England and Wales during 2007. This report was formerly entitled “Judicial Statistics” (for the 2005 edition and earlier years) and was published by the Department for Constitutional Affairs and its predecessors.
    [Show full text]
  • Aldwych Key Features
    61 ALDWYCH KEY FEATURES 4 PROMINENT POSITION ON CORNER OF ALDWYCH AND KINGSWAY HOLBORN, STRAND AND COVENT GARDEN ARE ALL WITHIN 5 MINUTES’ WALK APPROXIMATELY 7,500 – 45,000 SQ FT OF FULLY REFURBISHED OFFICE ACCOMMODATION AVAILABLE 2,800 SQ FT ROOF TERRACE ON 9TH FLOOR DUAL ENTRANCES TO THE BUILDING OFF ALDWYCH AND KINGSWAY TEMPLE 61 ALDWYCH 14 KINGSWAY 6 HOLBORN COVENT GARDEN FARRINGDON 14 4 CHANCERY LANE N LOCAL AMENITIESSmitheld Market C NEWMAN’S ROW 15 HOLBORN H A 12 N C E OCCUPIERS R 13 FARRINGDON STREET 7 Y 1 British American Tobacco 9 Fladgates TOTTENHAM COURT ROAD L A 2 BUPA 10 PWC KINGSWAY N 3 11 Tate & Lyle D R U R Y L N E LSE 6 4 Mitsubishi 12 ACCA 11 5 Shell 13 Law Society E 9 N 6 Google 14 Reed D 7 Mishcon De Reya 15 WSP E E V L 8 Coutts 16 Covington and Burlington L A S 10 Y T LINCOLN’S INN FIELDS 13 R GREAT QUEEN ST U 3 C A R E Y S T RESTAURANTS B S Covent E 1 Roka 8 The Delauney T Garden F 2 The Savoy 9 Rules A CHARING CROSS RD Market 61 8 H 3 STK 10 Coopers S ALDWYCH 1 4 L’Ate l i e r 11 Fields Bar & Kitchen 11 5 The Ivy 12 Mirror Room and Holborn 16 N D 6 Dining Room 5 8 L D W Y C H A Radio Rooftop Bar 4 2 A R 13 8 L O N G A C R E 3 S T 7 Balthazar Chicken Shop & Hubbard 4 and Bell at The Hoxton COVENT GARDEN 7 LEISURE & CULTURE 6 3 1 National Gallery 6 Royal Festival Hall 1 2 7 Theatre Royal National Theatre ST MARTIN’S LN 3 Aldwych Theatre 8 Royal Courts of Justice LEICESTER 5 4 Royal Opera House 9 Trafalgar Square 5 Somerset House BLACKFRIARS SQUARE 9 2 TEMPLE BLACKFRIARS BRIDGE T 2 E N K M N B A STRAND M E 5 I A R WATERLOO BRIDGE O T STAY CONNECTED 1 C 8 12 I V CHARING CROSS STATION OXO Tower WALKING TIME 9 Holborn 6 mins Temple 8 mins Trafalgar Square Covent Garden 9 mins 10 NORTHUMBERLAND AVE Leicester Square 12 mins EMBANKMENT 7 Charing Cross 12 mins Embankment 12 mins Chancery Lane 13 mins Tottenham Court Road 15 mins 6 London Eye WATERLOO RD THE LOCATION The building benefits from an excellent location on the corner of Aldwych and Kingsway, which links High Holborn to the north and Strand to the south.
    [Show full text]
  • In the High Court of Justice Queen's Bench Division
    In the High Court of Justice CO Ref: COI 8229/2011 Queen's Bench Division Administrative Court In the matter of an application for Judicial Review The Queen on the application of GREENPEACE LTD versus SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE Application for permission to apply for Judicial Review NOTIFICATION of the Judge's decision (CPR Part 54.11, 54.12) Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant, the Acknowledgement of service filed by the Defendant and the correspondence about Dr Weightman's final report Order by the Honourable Mr Justice OUSELEY Permission is hereby refused. Reasons: The case is not arguable for the reasons given in the AOS. The claim does not in reality recognise the role of the ONR and site licensing in dealing with flood protection, off -site supplies and communications. The potential for the 8 sites to be protected against flooding does not prevent a later decision by the ONR or by IPC on its advice that anyone can not be protected, nor does it prevent a decision by IPC that the as yet undefined measures have planning implications which tell against a site. The claim that a comparative safety exercise was required ignores the fundamental judgment that all were potentially safe, and a decision that no examination of the degree of margin was required is not irrational. The consultation was lawful. • The costs of preparing the Acknowledgment of Service are to be paid by the Claimant to the Defendant in the sum of £ 11813; if the application is renewed, it shall be determined at the renewal hearing.
    [Show full text]
  • The Blair Government's Proposal to Abolish the Lord Chancellor
    The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law CUA Law Scholarship Repository Scholarly Articles and Other Contributions Faculty Scholarship 2005 Playing Poohsticks with the British Constitution? The Blair Government's Proposal to Abolish the Lord Chancellor Susanna Frederick Fischer The Catholic University, Columbus School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.edu/scholar Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Susanna Frederick Fischer, Playing Poohsticks with the British Constitution? The Blair Government's Proposal to Abolish the Lord Chancellor, 24 PENN. ST. INT’L L. REV. 257 (2005). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at CUA Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Scholarly Articles and Other Contributions by an authorized administrator of CUA Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. I Articles I Playing Poohsticks with the British Constitution? The Blair Government's Proposal to Abolish the Lord Chancellor Susanna Frederick Fischer* ABSTRACT This paper critically assesses a recent and significant constitutional change to the British judicial system. The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 swept away more than a thousand years of constitutional tradition by significantly reforming the ancient office of Lord Chancellor, which straddled all three branches of government. A stated goal of this legislation was to create more favorable external perceptions of the British constitutional and justice system. But even though the enacted legislation does substantively promote this goal, both by enhancing the separation of powers and implementing new statutory safeguards for * Susanna Frederick Fischer is an Assistant Professor at the Columbus School of Law, The Catholic University of America, in Washington D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Female Plaintiffs in the King's Court in Thirteenth and Fourteenth-Century
    Western Michigan University ScholarWorks at WMU Master's Theses Graduate College 8-2016 Agents of Justice: Female Plaintiffs in the King’s Court in Thirteenth and Fourteenth-Century England J. Savannah Shipman Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/masters_theses Part of the Legal Commons, Medieval History Commons, and the Women's History Commons Recommended Citation Shipman, J. Savannah, "Agents of Justice: Female Plaintiffs in the King’s Court in Thirteenth and Fourteenth-Century England" (2016). Master's Theses. 711. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/masters_theses/711 This Masters Thesis-Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate College at ScholarWorks at WMU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at WMU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. AGENTS OF JUSTICE: FEMALE PLAINTIFFS IN THE KING’S COURT IN THIRTEENTH- AND FOURTEENTH-CENTURY ENGLAND by J. Savannah Shipman A thesis submitted to the Graduate College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts History Western Michigan University August 2016 Thesis Committee: Robert Berkhofer III, Ph.D., Chair Eve Salisbury, Ph.D. Anise Strong, Ph.D. AGENTS OF JUSTICE: FEMALE PLAINTIFFS IN THE KING’S COURT IN THIRTEENTH- AND FOURTEENTH-CENTURY ENGLAND J. Savannah Shipman, M.A. Western Michigan University, 2016 It has often been assumed that medieval women, noble or common, had little or no agency, were forced into submissive roles by dominating men, and had little control over their day-to-day lives. Theoretical statements about law served to support these assumptions as they forbade women from prosecuting men for any crimes other than the murder of her husband or for rape.
    [Show full text]