United Kingdom (U.K.) Supreme Court of Judicature-Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Abbasiv. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, by Colin Warbrick

2003 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 355-383
Author(s):  
Colin Warbrick
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
Court Of Appeal

United kingdom (u.k.) Supreme court of judicature - court of appeal (civil division): n. V. Secretary of state for the home department

2004 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 115-132
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
Oral Argument ◽  
Home Department ◽  
Court Of Appeal

This is an appeal against a decision of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal (“the IAT”) given on 20 February 2003 when it allowed the Secretary of State's appeal against the determination of the Adjudicator promulgated on 10 July 2002. The Adjudicator had allowed the appellant's appeal against the decision of the Secretary of State, made on 26 April 2001, by which he refused the appellant leave to enter the United Kingdom. Permission to appeal to this court was granted by Pill LJ and Maurice Kay J on 26 June 2003, following earlier refusal by Kennedy LJ on 2 June 2003 on consideration of the papers only. I should add that shortly before the substantive hearing in this court the Terrence Higgins Trust (“the THT”) applied to intervene in the appeal. I directed that while the court would take account of the skeleton argument submitted by the THT, we would decide at the substantive hearing of the appeal whether or to what extent we wished to hear oral submissions on its behalf. In the event we received without objection certain further documentation from the THT but declined to hear oral argument from its counsel Ms. Webber. We are grateful for the documentary materials which the THT has provided.

Rubin v. Eurofinance SA (U.K. Sup. Ct.)

2013 ◽  
Vol 52 (2) ◽  
pp. 623-658
Author(s):  
Charles Camp ◽  
Theresa Bowman
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Traditional Approach ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Central Issue ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Default Judgment ◽  
Court Of Appeal

In October 2012, the United Kingdom Supreme Court (the Court), by a 4-1 majority, signaled a sweeping return to a more traditional approach to the enforceability of foreign judgments in avoidance in Rubin v. Eurofinance SA. The Court rejected the more liberal rule previously advocated by the Court of Appeal, which gave English courts discretion to allow enforcement of in personam judgments in avoidance where they were related to insolvency and bankruptcy proceedings. The central issue in Rubin v. Eurofinance was whether an in personam judgment, entered in default but made as part of, or pursuant to, insolvency or bankruptcy proceedings abroad could be enforced at English common law. The Court held that the American default judgment at issue in Rubin was not enforceable in English courts.

scholarly journals Climate change and nationally significant infrastructure projects: R (on the application of Plan B Earth) v Secretary of State for Transport

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 125-132
Author(s):  
Edward Mitchell
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
National Policy ◽  
Paris Agreement ◽  
Policy Statement ◽  
Infrastructure Projects ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Plan B ◽  
Court Of Appeal

In R ( on the application of Plan B Earth) v Secretary of State for Transport [2020] EWCA Civ 214, [2020] 2 WLUK 372, the Court of Appeal held that the Secretary of State had acted unlawfully by failing to take into account the UK’s commitments in the 2015 Paris Agreement when he decided to designate a policy formulated to enable the construction of a third runway at Heathrow airport as a ‘national policy statement’ under the Planning Act 2008. An appeal to the Supreme Court is pending. The outcome of that appeal should help to clarify the legal significance of the Paris Agreement and will have significant implications both for expansion at Heathrow airport, for other major infrastructure projects and for other planning and environmental litigation.

Pham v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] UKSC 19, Supreme Court

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Public Law ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
Home Department ◽  
The Relationship

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Pham v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] UKSC 19, Supreme Court. This case considers the introduction of proportionality as a ground of judicial review beyond human rights and European Union law in the United Kingdom. The relationship between proportionality and Wednesbury unreasonableness is also discussed. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

Pham v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] UKSC 19, Supreme Court

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Public Law ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
Home Department

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Pham v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] UKSC 19, Supreme Court. This case considers the introduction of proportionality as a ground of judicial review beyond human rights and European Union law in the United Kingdom. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

scholarly journals United Kingdom Patent Decisions 2020

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robyn Trigg
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
High Court ◽  
The Public ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
Selection Of

AbstractThis report highlights a selection of the most important UK patent decisions from 2020, including: two Supreme Court judgments (one concerning insufficiency and one concerning FRAND); two Court of Appeal judgments (considering SPC fees and Arrow declarations); and four High Court judgments (regarding the Crown use exception, injunctions and the public interest, the treatment of experts in patents trials and technical primers, and interim injunctions).

Pham v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] UKSC 19, Supreme Court

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Public Law ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
Home Department ◽  
The Relationship

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Pham v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] UKSC 19, Supreme Court. This case considers the introduction of proportionality as a ground of judicial review beyond human rights and European Union law in the United Kingdom. The relationship between proportionality and Wednesbury unreasonableness is also discussed. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document