scholarly journals CONFIDENTIALITY AND INTRUSION: BUILDING STORM DEFENCES RATHER THAN TRYING TO HOLD BACK THE TIDE

2016 ◽  
Vol 75 (3) ◽  
pp. 452-455
Author(s):  
Oliver Michael Butler
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Private Information ◽  
Information Age ◽  
Online Media ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
High Court ◽  
National Courts ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Face ◽  
Held Back

THE image of King Canute trying to hold back the tide is a popular one used to critique attempts by national courts to restrain the publication of private information in the face of a global and online media. The truth, or at least the allegation, will out. The issue is certainly not a new one. The futility of an injunction in England and Wales, given extensive publication out of the jurisdiction, played a key role in the Spycatcher litigation in the late 1980s. Such futility is a feature of confidentiality or secrecy: the tide of information cannot be held back in an information age. In PJS v News Group Newspapers [2016] UKSC 26, the Supreme Court, endorsing an approach developed by the High Court in several earlier authorities, distinguished between protecting confidentiality and preventing intrusion as twin rationales for the tort of misuse of private information. The intrusion of a pending media storm in the jurisdiction, repeating allegations already widely available, was a further misuse of private information and could usefully be restrained in England and Wales. Even where confidentiality had already been lost, privacy injunctions could continue to play a useful role as a defence against the significant additional intrusion, at least where it could be practicably restrained, and the pending media storm that would accompany a lifting of the injunction represented one such case.

scholarly journals Settlements in the Supreme Court of Israel

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 111 ◽  
pp. 41-44 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Kretzmer
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
High Court ◽  
Palestinian Territories ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Government

One of the unique features of Israel's legal, military, and political control over the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) has been the review by the Supreme Court of Israel of the actions and decisions of the authorities in those territories. Sitting as a High Court of Justice that has the competence to review the actions of all persons exercising public functions under law, the Court has entertained thousands of petitions relating to the legality of such varied actions as house demolitions, deportations, land requisition, entry permits, and establishment of settlements. There can be little doubt that the very existence of judicial review has had a restraining effect on the authorities. While the Court has not ruled against the government that often, and has provided legitimization for acts of dubious legality, such as punitive house demolitions and deportations, it has handed down some important rulings on questions of principle. Furthermore, in the shadow of the Court, many petitions have been settled without a court ruling, allowing for a full or partial remedy for the Palestinian petitioner.

6. The Structure of the Courts

2019 ◽  
pp. 201-224
Author(s):  
Alisdair A. Gillespie ◽  
Siobhan Weare
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Family Court ◽  
Privy Council ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
High Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Family ◽  
Family Division

This chapter discusses the organization of the modern court structure and what each court does. The courts in England and Wales (ie excluding the Supreme Court which is a UK court) are administered by a single agency, HM Courts and Tribunal Service. The courts of original jurisdiction (ie which hear trials of first instance) are ordinarily the magistrates’ court, county court, Crown Court, and High Court although they have now been joined by the Family Court. The Crown Court and High Court have both an original and appellate jurisdiction. The High Court is divided into three divisions (Queen’s Bench Division, Chancery Division, and Family Division) and when two or more judges sit together in the High Court it is known as a Divisional Court. The chapter also briefly describes the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, Court of Protection, and Coroner’s Courts.

6. The Structure of the Courts

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alisdair Gillespie ◽  
Siobhan Weare
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Family Court ◽  
Privy Council ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
High Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Family ◽  
Family Division

This chapter discusses the organization of the modern court structure and what each court does. The courts in England and Wales (i.e. excluding the Supreme Court which is a UK court) are administered by a single agency, HM Courts and Tribunal Service. The courts of original jurisdiction (i.e. which hear trials of first instance) are ordinarily the magistrates’ court, county court, Crown Court, and High Court although they have now been joined by the Family Court. The Crown Court and High Court have both an original and appellate jurisdiction. The High Court is divided into three divisions (Queen’s Bench Division, Chancery Division, and Family Division) and when two or more judges sit together in the High Court it is known as a Divisional Court. The chapter also briefly describes the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, Court of Protection, and Coroners’ Courts.

scholarly journals Implicațiile Deciziei RIL X(10)/2005 asupra recidivei și asupra modalității de sancționare a concursului de infracțiuni în cazul grațierii antecondamnatorii

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (3) ◽  
pp. 9-28
Author(s):  
Tudor-Andrei CHIȚIMIA
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
The Other ◽  
High Court ◽  
National Courts ◽  
The Supreme Court

This research seeks to analyse the effects produced in matters of pardon and plurality of crimes by the High Court of Cassation and Justice’s Decision X(10)/2005. Although the modality of sanctioning the concurrent crimes established by the supreme court seems fair from the convict’s point of view, the benefit resulted from the pardon is doubled in an unjustified manner. This way, the prior pardon would also remove an eventual state of recidivism, besides the forgiveness of the punishment’s execution applied by the court. As a result, it will be brought up for discussion a principle created by the criminal law’s older literature, followed by the corroboration between the arguments in favour of this principle, the other opinions of the criminal law’s literature in this matter and some national courts decisions. These will be done with the purpose to suggest a possible solution for solving this law issue which respects the effects that pardon can legally produce. Later, we will also compare this problematic with some particular hypotheses which can occur in practice. In the end, we will present another mandatory jurisprudence of the supreme court which is in contradiction with the decision from which the assumption of this article was made.

6. The Structure of the Courts

2021 ◽  
pp. 201-224
Author(s):  
Alisdair A. Gillespie ◽  
Siobhan Weare
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Family Court ◽  
Privy Council ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
High Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Family ◽  
Family Division

This chapter discusses the organization of the modern court structure and what each court does. The courts in England and Wales (i.e. excluding the Supreme Court which is a UK court) are administered by a single agency, HM Courts and Tribunal Service. The courts of original jurisdiction (i.e. which hear trials of first instance) are ordinarily the magistrates’ court, county court, Crown Court, and High Court although they have now been joined by the Family Court. The Crown Court and High Court have both an original and appellate jurisdiction. The High Court is divided into three divisions (Queen’s Bench Division, Chancery Division, and Family Division) and when two or more judges sit together in the High Court it is known as a Divisional Court. The chapter also briefly describes the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, Court of Protection, and Coroner’s Courts.

A Note on Mandela v Executors, Estate Nelson Mandela 2018 (4) SA 86 (SCA) and the Conundrum around the Customary Marriage between Nelson and Winnie Mandela

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sipho Stephen Nkosi
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
The State ◽  
The Other ◽  
Customary Law ◽  
Eastern Cape ◽  
High Court ◽  
Nelson Mandela ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Court Of Appeal

The note is about the appeal lodged by the late Mrs Winnie Madikizela-Mandela to the SCA against the decision of the Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha, dismissing her application for review in 2014. In that application, she sought to have reviewed the decision of the Minister of Land Affairs, to transfer the now extended and renovated Qunu property to Mr Mandela and to register it in his name. Because her application was out of time, she also applied for condonation of her delay in making the application. The court a quo dismissed both applications with costs, holding that there had been an undue delay on her part. Mrs Mandela then approached the Supreme Court of Appeal, for special leave to appeal the decision of the court a quo. Two questions fell for decision by the SCA: whether there was an unreasonable and undue delay on Mrs Mandela’s part in instituting review proceedings; and whether the order for costs was appropriate in the circumstances of the case. The SCA held that there was indeed an unreasonable delay (of seventeen years). Shongwe AP (with Swain, Mathopo JJA, Mokgothloa and Rodgers AJJA concurring) held that the fact that there had been an undue delay does not necessarily mean that an order for costs should, of necessity, particularly where, as in this case, the other litigant is the state. It is the writer’s view that two other ancillary points needed to be raised by counsel and pronounced on by the Court: (a) the lawfulness and regularity of the transfer of the Qunu property to Mr Mandela; and (b) Mrs Mandela’s status as a customary-law widow—in relation to Mr Mandela.

Public Committee Against Torture in Israel v. Government of Israel. Case No. HCJ 769/02

2007 ◽  
Vol 101 (2) ◽  
pp. 459-465 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Bodansky ◽  
Orna Ben-Naftali ◽  
Keren Michaeli
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Direct Part ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
High Court ◽  
Additional Protocol ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Supreme Court

Public Committee Against Torture in Israel v. Government of Israel. Case No. HCJ 769/02. At <http://elyonl.court.gov.il/files_eng/02/690/007/a34/02007690.a34.pdf>.Supreme Court of Israel, sitting as the High Court of Justice, December 13, 2006.In Public Committee Against Torture in Israel v. Government of Israel1 Targeted Killings) the Supreme Court of Israel, sitting as the High Court of Justice, examined the legality of Israel's “preventative targeted killings” of members of militant Palestinian organizations. The Court's unanimous conclusion reads:The result of the examination is not that such strikes are always permissible or that they are always forbidden. The approach of customary international law applying to armed conflicts of an international nature is that civilians are protected from attacks by the army. However, that protection does not exist regarding those civilians “for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities” (§51(3) of [Additional Protocol I]). Harming such civilians, even if the result is death, is permitted, on the condition that there is no less harmful means, and on the condition that innocent civilians are not harmed. Harm to the latter must be proportional. (Para. 60)

Equity and certainty in contract law

Acta Juridica ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 141-176
Author(s):  
F Brand
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
High Court ◽  
Contractual Relationships ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
Do So

The role of abstract values such as equity and fairness in our law of contract has been the subject of controversy for a number of years. In 2002 the Supreme Court of Appeal took the position that these values do not constitute self-standing grounds for interfering with contractual relationships. Despite this being consistently maintained by the SCA in a number of cases, some High Court judges deviated from this position on the basis that they were permitted to do so by some minority judgments and obiter dicta in the Constitutional Court. The uncertainty thus created has fortunately now been removed by the judgment of the Constitutional Court in Beadica v The Trustees for the Time being of the Oregon Trust.

The UK courts and EU law post-Brexit

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. Christopher-Vajda
Author(s):  
Christopher Vajda
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Transition Period ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
National Courts ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Future ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Court Of Appeal

Following the expiry on 31 December 2020 of the ‘transition period’ under the UK/EU Withdrawal Agreement, the relationship between UK and EU law had changed. Whilst much EU legislation at that date will continue to apply in UK law as ‘retained EU law’ and judgments of the EU courts handed down before that date will remain binding on UK courts as ‘retained EU case law’, the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court can depart from that case law. Whilst EU court judgments handed down after that date are not binding on UK courts, they may be taken into account. This article considers both the status of EU retained case law and when the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal may depart from it, and the future of EU law that is not ‘retained EU case law’ and how judgments of the European Courts and national courts of its Member States may influence UK judges in the future.

scholarly journals Disclosure in Centre for Child Law v the Governing Body of Hoërskool Fochville

2017 ◽  
Vol 20 ◽  
pp. 1-20
Author(s):  
Michael Tsele
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
High Court ◽  
Governing Body ◽  
Foreign Law ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Children's Interests ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
Do So

When a party refers to evidentiary material in the course of litigation, ordinarily this party is under an obligation to make this evidence available to his opponent, particularly when called upon to do so. However, over the years various principles have developed which make this obligation subject to certain limitations. The Fochville cases dealt with a situation where a party to litigation sought to withhold certain information from its adversary, notwithstanding the fact that the material had been relied upon as a ground for the institution of the litigation. This note critiques the judgments of the High Court and in particular the Supreme Court of Appeal in this dispute. In so doing, it draws on useful foreign law to argue that the Supreme Court of Appeal's judgment was an unfortunate one in that the court failed to clarify with reasonable precision the circumstances in which a party to litigation involving children's interests may legitimately resist disclosing evidence to his adversary, in which the party resisting disclosure invokes the principle of public interest immunity. In this regard, the note concludes that the High Court's overall approach to the issue is to be preferred.       

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document