Rejects the appeal brought by the Kingdom of Bahrain, the Arab Republic of Egypt, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates on 4 July 2018 from the Decision of the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organization, dated 29 June 2018; Holds that the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organization has jurisdiction to entertain the application submitted to it by the Government of the State of Qatar on 30 October 2017 and that the said application is admissible.
Supreme Court of Pakistan Quashed Reference filed by President of Pakistan against Justice Qazi Faez Isa-19/06/2020
One of our pivotal Constitutional values is that the independence of judiciary shall be fully secured. The same Constitution also ordains that to enjoy the protection of law and to be treated in accordance with law is the inalienable right of every citizen. Therefore, it is reiterated that in our constitutional democracy, neither the petitioner judge, nor any other judge, or any individual or any institution, is above the law.
QUESTION: These appeals concern whether the High Court of England and Wales has jurisdiction to hear claims to recover sums paid under a settlement agreement relating to the loss of an insured vessel.ANSWER: The Supreme Court unanimously dismisses the Insurers’ appeal and allows the Bank’s appeal, declaring that the High Court does not have jurisdiction over any of the Insurers’ claims against the Bank. Lord Hodge gives the sole judgment with which the other Justices agree.
The GoI made an extradition request in respect of the Appellant, submitted on 9 February 2017, which was certified by the Secretary of State on 16 February 2017. We consider that while the scope of the prima facie case found by the SDJ is in some respects wider than that alleged by the Respondent in India, there is a prima facie case which, in seven important respects, coincides with the allegations in India.
Myanmar asserts that the allegations contained in the OIC documents and statements regarding the situation of the Rohingya mentioned by The Gambia could not give rise to a dispute between the Parties as they did not amount to allegations of violations of the Genocide Convention made by The Gambia . In this regard, Myanmar asserts that the allegations contained in the OIC documents and statements regarding the situation of the Rohingya mentioned by the Gambia could not give rise to a dispute between the Parties.
The principal piece of legislation governing adoption in England & Wales is the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (“2002 Act”). Section 3 of the 2002 Act places a duty on local authorities to maintain an adoption service within their area, and sets out the minimum facilities that must be made in the provision of the service.
DORSET MAGISTRATES COURT : ROAD TRAFFIC OFFENCE- The Court is satisfied so that it is sure that the defendant Mark James Redknapp is guilty of the offence charged of driving a motor vehicle with a proportion of a specified controlled drug above the specified limit. The defendant was fined £3000 and ordered to pay costs of £2,500, £120 Victim surcharge (payable in 14 days) and disqualified from driving for 3 years.
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council – In their Decision on Facts the Committee did not expressly address the issue of whether Dr Schulze Allen’s infraction was a criminal conviction. But they must have decided that it was. For otherwise they would have had no power to direct the removal of his name from the register under section 16(1)(a) of the Act.
The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom -A company employs a business executive pursuant to a written agreement. Following the termination of her employment she wishes to become employed by a firm whose business is in competition with that of the company. The company contends that her proposed employment would breach a covenant in the agreement. She answers that the covenant is void at common law because part of it is in unreasonable restraint of trade.
R (on the prosecution of Wolverhampton City Council) -v- Cushman & Wakefield Debenham Tie Leung Limited – 2nd July 2019
Crown Court at Wolverhampton – Court imposes a fine of £1,333,000 to be paid within a period now to be fixed. This is in my judgment a level of fine which represents both the seriousness of the offence and the extent to which the Company fell below the required standard, together with the relevant financial circumstances. It is also a proportionate one which is sufficiently substantial to meet the objectives of the health and safety legislation and sentencing regime.
Sheffield Crown Court-No sentence I impose can bring Stanley back. No sentence I impose can undo what you have done and heal the rifts in your family. All I can do is impose what the law considers to be the appropriate sentence for a case of this nature. I do that by following the guidelines for sentencing in cases of manslaughter.
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)-The states from whom extradition is sought will recognise that breach of bail is a separate matter in the UK. With an explanation of the way in which breach will be considered by the court and on the basis that punishing those who fail to answer bail is a necessary component of an effective criminal justice system which releases most of those charged with crime rather than requiring their detention in custody. In every case the consent of the state from which extradition is sought should unequivocally be requested with an explanation of why this is necessary. If, in those circumstances, criminal proceedings have to be commenced, it should not be impracticable to start such proceedings at the time that extradition is sought.
The Queen (on the application of Campaign Against Arms Trade) -v- Secretary of State for International Trade and others – 20 /6/ 2019
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) -The Export Control Act 2002- This appeal concerns the lawfulness of the grant by the UK government of export licences for the sale or transfer of arms or military equipment to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, for possible use in the conflict in Yemen. The appeal is from the order of the High Court of 10 July 2017, which dismissed the claims of the appellant, Campaign Against the Arms Trade, (“CAAT”) for judicial review. The High Court concluded that the government decision was lawful. This is a claim for judicial review. The courts are not concerned with the merits of the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia. Different people in society will have different views on that, but that is not a matter for the courts, who are only concerned with the law and whether the decision by government was lawful.