Private Enforcement in the UK

2021 ◽  
pp. 311-336
Author(s):  
Barry J Rodger
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Private Enforcement ◽  
Court Ruling ◽  
Supreme Court Ruling ◽  
Opt Out ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Uk

In Chapter 12, Barry Rodger retraces his footsteps in relation to his contributions in both earlier collections on the theme of private enforcement in the UK, with a particular slant on the extent to which consumers have benefited, or may benefit, from statutory and case law developments in the area. Accordingly, this chapter assesses how private enforcement of competition law rights has developed in the UK over the last twenty years. Key legislative developments, inter alia the Competition Act 1998, Enterprise Act 2002 and Consumer Rights Act 2015, have transformed the private enforcement architecture, notably with the introduction, and increasingly significant and enhanced role of the specialist tribunal, Competition Appeal Tribunal, and the availability of an opt-out collective redress mechanism. The chapter assesses the key UK statutory and case law developments, in comparison with the US private antitrust enforcement model, to reflect on the disappointing extent to which effective redress for consumers has been provided to date, despite those legal and institutional developments, although the recent Supreme Court ruling in Merricks should be pivotal in this context.

scholarly journals Imprisonment during COVID-19 in Brazil: A Brief Review on the Prison Situation during the Pandemic

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Flávio Mirza Maduro
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Status Quo ◽  
Historical Background ◽  
Court Ruling ◽  
Supreme Court Ruling ◽  
House Arrest ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Lower Courts

This mini-review aims to reflect upon the conditions of penitentiaries in Brazil during times of the pandemic; it also brings to discussion the recent decision by the Supreme Court of Brazil which allowed for certain detainees to carry out their sentences under house arrest; in addition, it aims to discuss how the judges on lower courts have decided in light of the aforementioned Supreme Court ruling. By outlining the conditions of imprisonment that can be observed in the jailing system, the authors seek to critically reflect upon the role of justice in the society during times of hardship. The authors begin by tracing a historical background in a concise way, in order to elucidate how situations of illnesses and bereavement have developed during the years. After that, the authors compare judicial rulings involving the current prison status quo. To conclude, the authors seek to add to the debate joining the voices who cry out for more assertive measures in the preservation of life and health of detainees and prison workers.

12. Concepts and Contexts

Land Law ◽  
2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ben McFarlane ◽  
Nicholas Hopkins ◽  
Sarah Nield
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Court Ruling ◽  
Land Law ◽  
Supreme Court Ruling ◽  
Legislative Reform ◽  
Private Rights ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Impact

This chapter explores some of the wider issues raised by the rules applying to private rights to use land, along with the nature of the challenges faced by judges and Parliament when deciding how best to develop those rules. It begins by discussing the importance of concepts and contexts in land law, as well as the tension between concepts and contexts and the effect of different judicial approaches to land law. It then considers the relative merits of judicial and legislative reform of land law and goes on to examine the impact of statutory reform, particularly of registration statutes, in land law. It also assesses the impact of human rights and regulation on land law, citing the Supreme Court ruling in Scott v Southern Pacific Mortgages Ltd (2015), before concluding with an analysis of the role of non-doctrinal approaches in evaluating land law.

scholarly journals The Politics of Hate Speech: A Case Comment on Warman v Lemire

2012 ◽  
Vol 19 (1, 2 & 3) ◽  
pp. 2011
Author(s):  
Ranjan K. Agarwal
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Court Ruling ◽  
Supreme Court Ruling ◽  
Teleological Reasoning ◽  
Academic Debate

In September 2009, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal waded into a highly public and acrimonious debate about the role of human rights tribunals and commissions, especially in policing hate speech. In Warman v Lemire,1 the Tribunal held that section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act2 (CHRA), which prohibits the communication of hate messages, infringed the constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression, section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.3 The decision added to a firestorm of media, political and academic debate about whether anti-discrimination statutes should prohibit hate speech. The Warman decision is complicated by a twenty-year-old Supreme Court ruling, in a 4–3 decision, that a predecessor provision in the CHRA is constitutional. In this article, I argue that the Tribunal’s decision is logically unsound and likely the result of ends-based or teleological reasoning. In my view, ends-based reasoning does not assist in Charter analysis as it produces decisions that call into question the legitimacy of the courts. This article first outlines the facts in Warman and the Tribunal’s holding on the constitutional issues. It goes on to survey the legal and constitutional background to the Warman decision and discuss the Taylor precedent. It then describes the Tribunal’s reasoning on constitutional issues, including the Taylor decision and amendments to the CHRA after Taylor. Finally, it criticizes the Tribunal’s ends-based reasoning and argues that this type of reasoning is illegitimate in constitutional decision-making.

The Role of Private Enforcement within EU Competition Law

2014 ◽  
Vol 16 ◽  
pp. 143-187 ◽  
Author(s):  
Niamh Dunne
Keyword(s):  
Hard Core ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Private Enforcement ◽  
Public Enforcement ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Eu Competition Law ◽  
Competition Rules ◽  
The Right

AbstractPrivate enforcement is an increasingly prominent element of EU competition law. The forthcoming Directive on damages actions aims to strengthen and, to a degree, harmonise procedures for private competition litigation, while recent case law of the Court of Justice reaffirms the centrality of the right to claim compensation for losses stemming from breach of the competition rules. Moreover, this right has been presented as an essentially unitary one, whereby any victim of any type of competition infringement has, in principle, the right to claim damages. This chapter reviews the evolving framework, and considers, specifically, the role for private enforcement within the overall system of EU competition law. Taking into account the Commission’s efforts to facilitate and increase private enforcement, the emerging EU public enforcement framework, as well as the substantive EU competition rules more generally, this chapter argues that, contrary to the rhetoric, private enforcement is a mechanism best adapted, and arguably most appropriate, for use only in the context of hard-core cartels. It is further suggested that the gap between rhetoric and reality is not problematic as such, yet difficulties may arise insofar as these divergences conflict with the principle of effectiveness.

12. Concepts and Contexts

Land Law ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 406-424
Author(s):  
Ben McFarlane ◽  
Nicholas Hopkins ◽  
Sarah Nield
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Court Ruling ◽  
Land Law ◽  
Supreme Court Ruling ◽  
Legislative Reform ◽  
Private Rights ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Impact

This chapter explores some of the wider issues raised by the rules applying to private rights to use land, along with the nature of the challenges faced by judges and Parliament when deciding how best to develop those rules. It begins by discussing the importance of concepts and contexts in land law, as well as the tension between concepts and contexts and the effect of different judicial approaches to land law. It then considers the relative merits of judicial and legislative reform of land law and goes on to examine the impact of statutory reform, particularly of registration statutes, in land law. It also assesses the impact of human rights and regulation on land law, citing the Supreme Court ruling in Scott v Southern Pacific Mortgages Ltd (2015), before concluding with an analysis of the role of non-doctrinal approaches in evaluating land law.

scholarly journals Collective Proceedings for Damages in UK Competition Law Case Comment to the Judgment Merricks v Mastercard [2019] EWCA Civ 674

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (19) ◽  
pp. 245-257
Author(s):  
Kathryn McMahon
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Class Actions ◽  
Opt Out ◽  
Legal Test ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Court Of Appeal

Merricks v Mastercard [2019] is the first action under the newly developed ‘opt-out’ collective proceedings regime for aggregate damages under UK competition law to be considered by the UK Court of Appeal. It is significant for both the level of damages (£14 billion (€16 billion)) and the clarification of the legal test at the certification stage for the suitability for an aggregate award: the method for calculation of the aggregate damages and the sufficiency of evidence. The Court’s lowering of these thresholds importantly opens the door to future class actions and reasserts the importance of collective proceedings as a valuable means of redress for competition law infringements. The decision has now been appealed to the UK Supreme Court where these issues may be further clarified and resolved.

scholarly journals 12. The Relationship between Parliament, the Executive and the Judiciary

2019 ◽  
pp. 325-357
Author(s):  
Alison L. Young
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Checks And Balances ◽  
Parliamentary Sovereignty ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Traditional Understanding

When examining the recent evolution of the Constitution, it is argued that the UK has become more ‘legal’ as opposed to ‘political’. The last twenty years has seen a growth in legislation and case law, particularly that of the Supreme Court, regulating aspects of the UK constitution. This chapter investigates this claim. It argues that, whilst we can point to a growth in both legislation and case law, when we look at the case law more closely we can see that the courts balance an array of factors when determining how far to control executive actions. These factors include an analysis of the relative institutional features and constitutional role of the legislature, the executive and the courts. This evidence, in turn, questions the traditional understanding of the separation of powers as a hidden component of the UK constitution. It is not the case that courts merely balance the rule of law and parliamentary sovereignty in order to determine how far to control executive actions. Rather, the courts determine how to make this balance through the lens of the separation of powers, evaluating institutional and constitutional features. In doing so, they are upholding necessary checks and balances in the UK constitution.

Divided by Law: The Sit-ins and the Role of the Courts in the Civil Rights Movement

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 93-149 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher W. Schmidt
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Civil Rights Movement ◽  
Direct Action ◽  
Board Of Education ◽  
Court Ruling ◽  
Supreme Court Ruling ◽  
Civil Rights Organizations ◽  
Student Control

A central goal of the lunch counter sit-ins of 1960, the protests that launched the direct-action phase of the Civil Rights Movement, was to give new meaning to the very idea of “civil rights.” To the students who took part in the protests, civil rights work entailed litigation and lobbying. It required relying on the older generation of civil rights activists and working through established civil rights organizations. It meant surrendering student control over the demonstrations. And, as the great unrealized promise of the then 6-year-old Supreme Court ruling inBrown v. Board of Educationmade painfully clear, it meant patience. For the thousands of students who joined the sit-in movement, reliance on their elders, litigation, and patience—the stuff of civil rights, traditionally understood—was precisely what they wanted to avoid.

Partidos políticos y grupos municipales: un debate no cerrado sobre sus relaciones jurídicas

2014 ◽  
pp. 225-250
Author(s):  
Iñaki LASAGABASTER HERRARTE
Keyword(s):  
Political Parties ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Court Ruling ◽  
Local Autonomy ◽  
Supreme Court Ruling ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
El Alto ◽  
Political Groups

LABURPENA: Lan honek Konstituzio Auzitegiaren 10/2013 Epaia du aztergai. Epai horrek Auzitegi Gorenak emandakoa berresten du, zeinaren arabera organo konstituzional gorenak ez duen ezagutzen alderdi politikoen eta udal-taldeen arteko aldeari buruzko jurisprudentzia, finkatuta dagoena. Auzitegiek, lege-gaikuntzarik gabe, udal-taldeen erregulazioari eta existentziari buruzko erabakiak hartzea tokiko autonomiaren aurkakoa da. RESUMEN: En el trabajo se analiza la sentencia del Tribunal Constitucional 10/2013, que confirma la dictada por el Tribunal Supremo, precisando que el Alto órgano constitucional desconoce su jurisprudencia, ya consolidada, sobre la diferenciación entre partidos políticos y grupos municipales. La intervención de los tribunales, sin habilitación legal, resolviendo sobre la regulación y existencia de grupos municipales es contraria a la autonomía local. ABSTRACT: In this work, we analyze the Constitutional Court judgement 10/2013, which upholds the Supreme Court ruling specifying that the Higher Constitutional body does not know its case law, already well-established, about the distinction between political parties and municipal political groups. The intervention of courts, without legal authorization, solving the regulation and existence of municipal political groups is contrary to local autonomy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document