scholarly journals Independence and impartiality of sports disputes resolution in the UK

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leanne O’Leary
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Common Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Governing Body ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Resolution System ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Dispute Resolution System

AbstractPrivate sports governing bodies in the United Kingdom have the contractual freedom to organise their own sports tribunals and disputes procedures. There is no legislation in the UK that governs the form of a sports governing body’s dispute resolution procedure. The common law and, to a certain extent, other industry measures influence the structure of a disputes procedure within a private sports governing body. When establishing dispute resolution systems in self-regulating industries, there is potential for structural conflicts of interest to arise. Reporting mechanisms and adjudicatory processes may be structurally bias through, for example, the way appointments are made to a dispute resolution panel. There may be the suggestion of implicit bias of panel members because of the interests that control the appointment process. Even if no actual bias arises, the perception of bias can damage the engagement of stakeholders in a dispute process and damage the reputation of the sport with sponsors or the general public. The key is to minimise structural conflicts of interest and ensure that the process is independent and impartial. This article examines the challenges faced with organising sports dispute resolution procedures, the requirements of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and highlights the important factors that a sports governing body should consider when designing an independent and impartial dispute resolution system. It concludes with a discussion of whether the legal basis for sports dispute resolution in the UK requires reconsideration to provide certainty, independence, impartiality and, above all, to guarantee a fair hearing.

The Future of Informed Consent in British Common Law

1999 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 235-248 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Informed Consent ◽  
Medical Profession ◽  
Common Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Future ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law

AbstractWithin the common law world, the use of the term informed consent implies the American doctrine. Informed consent as a doctrine is not part of the law in the United Kingdom. However, it is possible to predict a way forward in disclosure cases yet to be heard in the courts of the United Kingdom. These predictions are based on current developments in the common law in the United Kingdom as well as those in Canada and Australia, on the European convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine and on trends within the medical profession itself in the light of the Bolam test.

The Legal Protection of Believers and Beliefs in the United Kingdom

2007 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 66-86 ◽  
Author(s):  
Javier García Oliva
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Legal Mechanism ◽  
Degree Of Overlap

The enactment of the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 is the most recent legal mechanism developed to protect believers, beliefs and religious feelings in the United Kingdom. Despite the recognition of a certain degree of overlap between the different categories, this article proposes a broad distinction between legal devices which protect believers and those which safeguard beliefs and religious feelings. The common law offence of blasphemy is analysed, taking into consideration the response of both the UK courts and the European Court of Human Rights. The endorsement of the English law of blasphemy by Strasbourg is particularly relevant. Furthermore, this paper focuses on different instruments that, throughout the last few decades, have been articulated to protect the faithful, such as the crimes of religiously aggravated offences and the offence of incitement to religious hatred.

EU Countries and the UK

2021 ◽  
pp. 295-306
Author(s):  
Mads Andenas
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Rapid Development ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Court System ◽  
Eu Countries ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Relationship

This chapter compares European Union countries to the United Kingdom. It aims at ascertaining not so much whether a common core exists but how it is shaped and evolves, also in response to influences by supranational legal orders. EU countries do not adhere to one model. Administrative law is subject to rapid development, and even countries that share many structures and general features do not develop at the same speed or in the same direction. In the UK, there is no specialized administrative court jurisdiction. There is one general court system that deals with civil, criminal, and administrative cases; but there are many administrative tribunals and appeals tribunals. Nearly all the EU countries have a specialised administrative court system, and the majority has a constitutional court. The chapter considers the perceived divide between civil law countries and the common law in the UK, in the light of the relationship between national law and EU and European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) law. It also looks at the four main features of the legal systems selected for comparison: the constitutional relevance of judicial review; the limitations of judicial review; procedural errors or omissions; and annulment and damages.

scholarly journals The Leave of Court Requirement for Instituting Derivative Actions in the UK: A Ten-Year Jurisprudential Excursion

2021 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. 1-25
Author(s):  
Friedrich Hamadziripi ◽  
Patrick C Osode
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Judicial Interpretation ◽  
Commercial Law ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Policy Objectives ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Current Derivative ◽  
Law Commission

The judiciary-exclusive role to allow or deny the commencement or continuation of contemporary derivative litigation is one of the critical aspects of such proceedings. Before the 2006 codification, derivative actions were brought under the common law as exceptions to the rule in Foss v Harbottle (1843) 67 ER 189. However, after realising intolerable deficiencies in the common law, the United Kingdom Law Commission (the Law Commission) recommended that there should be a new derivative procedure that met modern demands. This resulted in a statutory derivative remedy which can be activated in terms of Chapter 1 of Part 11 of the UK Companies Act, 2006. The effectiveness of legislative regulatory devices generally, and commercial law-related ones in particular, may to a greater extent depend on judicial interpretation and application. A conservative and literal interpretive approach that is purpose-neutral will significantly undermine the prospect of the current derivative remedy regime’s achieving the intended policy objectives. To that end, this contribution examines several court decisions handed down after the enactment of the 2006 Act and spanning over a period of approximately ten years. Ultimately, it will be considered whether the leave requirement in English derivative litigation is proving to be an invaluable and indispensable procedural prerequisite or an implausible barrier to honest litigants.

Irish Criminal Trials and European Legal Culture: A Backdrop to Brexit

2020 ◽  
pp. 002201832097753
Author(s):  
Liz Heffernan
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Legal Culture ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Criminal Trials ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Common ◽  
Shared Commitment ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Eu

This paper explores select themes relating to legal culture in European criminal justice post-Brexit by focusing on aspects of the common law trial process in the Irish courts. The incorporation of EU law and the ECHR within the domestic legal order has necessitated the nurturing of a constructive co-existence with the country’s longer standing constitutional and common law traditions. Ireland and the United Kingdom have collaborated closely as common law Member States and the departure of the UK from the EU will affect Ireland’s position in EU criminal justice in many and varied ways. Using the examples of victim participation in criminal trials and pre-trial access of suspects to legal assistance, the paper seeks to illuminate trends of consonance and dissonance in Ireland’s relationship with European law. Drawing on the shared commitment to the protection of fundamental rights in the EU and the ECHR, the discussion reflects on some of the longer term implications of Brexit for the common law presence in European criminal legal culture.

scholarly journals The evolution of alternative dispute resolution and online dispute resolution in the European Un

CES Derecho ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-17
Author(s):  
Shamaise Peters
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Alternative Dispute Resolution ◽  
Consumer Trust ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Online Dispute Resolution ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Resolution System ◽  
Dispute Resolution System ◽  
The Eu

The evolution of Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) as an augmentation from Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) may lead to an authentic paradigm shift in the way disputes are handled beyond the traditional court systems. To assess state of the art and convey awareness, this paper explores the regulatory landscape of the European Union (EU) using the United Kingdom and Estonia to illustrate the key advancements and shortcomings of the supranational strategy. It discusses the relationships between ADR capabilities and its productive use in ODR, the ODR deployment and adoption, and the consequences that may arise if dispute resolution technologies leapfrog. The paper also speaks of automation and suggests the need to build integrative models into Artificial Intelligence (AI) - powered ODR platforms. It is apparent that the early challenges in the development of the ADR culture in the EU are still unresolved, affecting the proper integration of ADR principles and ODR technologies. A more effective coupling could be expected to smooth digital trade interactions by increasing access to justice and consumer trust in the redress capacities of the Dispute Resolution System (DRS) as a whole. 

MoDiSo: A TOOL FOR BUILDING CONTRACT DISPUTE RESOLUTION SYSTEMS

2012 ◽  
Vol 21 (01) ◽  
pp. 1250002 ◽  
Author(s):  
NGUYEN DUY HUNG ◽  
PHAN MINH THANG ◽  
PHAN MINH DUNG
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Real World ◽  
Formal Language ◽  
State Of The Art ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Modular Architecture ◽  
Resolution System ◽  
Legal Outcomes ◽  
Dispute Resolution System

Real-world dispute resolution should be guided by laws, even if such disputes may be resolved by bodies other than the court of laws. Hence in order to build contract dispute resolution systems we need a tool capable of representing, reasoning and programming with contract laws. In this paper we present such a tool called MoDiSo (MOdular Argumentation for DIspute ReSOlution ) which combines the strengths of state-of-the-art argumentation-based techniques for different aspects of law, to propose: first, a modular architecture for contract dispute resolution systems with an edit-compile-dispute loop facilitating incremental system developments; and second, a methodology to represent and reason with legal doctrines in contract laws in the formal language of assumption-based argumentation. We demonstrate the tool with several legal doctrines for performance relief in common law of contracts. As a by-product, we obtain a dispute resolution system capable of explaining legal outcomes by automatically generating relevant arguments.

scholarly journals Justice and Security in the United Kingdom

2014 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 305-329 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam Tomkins
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
National Security ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Litigation ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Security Service ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Special Advocates

This article outlines the ways in which the United Kingdom manages civil litigation concerning sensitive national security material. These are: (i) the common law of public interest immunity; (ii) the use of a closed material procedure and special advocates; and (iii) the secret hearings of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. With these existing alternatives in mind the article analyses the background to, the reasons for, and the controversies associated with the Justice and Security Act 2013, enacted in the wake of the UK Supreme Court's 2011 ruling in Al Rawi v Security Service.

3. The European Convention and the law of the United Kingdom

2021 ◽  
pp. 50-65
Author(s):  
Howard Davis
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Common Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Legal Knowledge ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Key Points ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
The Uk

Without assuming prior legal knowledge, books in the Directions series introduce and guide readers through key points of law and legal debate. Questions, discussion points, and thinking points help readers to engage fully with each subject and check their understanding as they progress and knowledge can be tested by self-test questions and exam questions at the chapter end. This chapter focuses on the European Convention on Human Rights, which the UK signed in 1950, and on its impact in the UK prior to the Human Rights Act coming into force in October 2000. The UK’s signing of the Convention entailed the country’s acceptance of the obligation to ‘secure for everyone within [its] jurisdiction the rights and freedoms in Section 1 of this Convention’. The Convention is not applied directly by the UK courts. The Convention remains part of international law, which is not directly enforceable in UK courts. The chapter also considers the development of fundamental common law rights which have developed in parallel to the Convention. There is a section on ‘Brexit’ and its impact on the protection of human rights in the UK.

The Problem of the Non-justiciability of Religious Defamations

2015 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-52
Author(s):  
Peter Smith
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Public Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Religious Doctrine ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Common ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Right

English courts have historically been wary of deciding cases that rest on contested findings of fact about the practices and doctrines of religions. This is particularly true in defamation cases. However, the recent case of Shergill and others v Khaira and others [2014] UKSC 33 in the UK Supreme Court has narrowed the principle of non-justiciability on the grounds of subject matter. Defamation cases such as Blake v Associated Newspapers Limited [2003] EWHC 1960 (QB) have treated religious doctrine and practice as matters not justiciable per se, even if a determination is essential for the exercise of private or public law rights and obligations. The Supreme Court indicated in Khaira that it may be appropriate for courts to treat such disputes as justiciable. The common law, domestic statute and the European Convention on Human Rights protect the right to reputation, and Khaira indicates that it is time that defamation claims resting on disputes about religious doctrine and practice were entertained by the courts to a much greater extent than recent cases have allowed. However, the judgment has left open the possibility of some religious disputes still being non-justiciable.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document