Many sets are rethinking their space due to the financial and operational impact of COVID-19, and Cornwall Street Barristers has already adapted its business model for the future. <em>By James Farmer </em>
As courts re-open and barristers' diaries begin to fill back up, the need for pro bono will skyrocket as Advocate's applicants try to untangle the devastating mess caused by COVID-19.<em> By Shyam Popat </em>
With fast-track justice measures reportedly back on the table, the risks of miscarriages of justice through rushed proceedings in a criminal justice system already at breaking point. By <em>Zo </em><em>ë </em><em> Chapman </em>
<p><strong>As the number of daily deaths from COVID-19 declines, calls grow for a judge-led public inquiry into the UK’s response to the pandemic. How appropriate would an inquiry be and what practical challenges would it face? <em>By </em> <em>Ryan Ross </em></strong> </p>
Courtenay Griffiths QC discusses with Sally Penni barriers to BAME representation in the judiciary and Women in the Law UK will host a special <a href="https://www.womeninthelawuk.com/friday-3rd-july-blm-special-with-courtenay-griffiths/" target="_blank" data-sf-ec-immutable="">Why Black Lives Matter</a> webinar on 3 July
<p>What can the Bar learn from crisis? Lockdown has forced the profession to experiment with the idea of mass working from home. We should identify and bank the benefits. But we must guard against the risks, too </p><p><em>By Joanna Hardy </em> </p>
<p>The junior Bar - which makes by far the largest contribution to the diversity of the profession as a whole - is at risk of sinking as a result of lockdown. Ideas for how we can best use this time to redouble the Bar's diversity efforts </p><p><em>By </em><em>Zoë Chapman </em><em>and Francesca Kirby </em> </p>
<p>The barrister shares his views on the biggest stress test of human rights laws since they were designed and his mission to convert ‘sceptical supporters’. </p><p>Interview by <em>Charlotte Goodman </em> </p>
Construction – Dwellings. The claimant's claim against the fourth defendant building control inspector, that it had breached its duty owed under s 1(1) of the Defective Premises Act 1972 in respect of the faulty construction of premises, had been rightly struck out on the basis that s 1(1) did not apply to building control inspectors. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, so held, finding that the focus of s 1(1) was on the doing of positive work which had related to the provision of a dwelling, whereas in certifying, or refusing to certify, plans and works, the building inspector was not engaged in the positive role of the provision or creation of the relevant building.
Air traffic – Airport. The defendant Civil Aviation Authority had not misinterpreted or failed to comply with s 70 of the Transport Act 2000, nor had it reached irrational conclusions. Accordingly, the Administrative Court dismissed the claimant gliding club's application for judicial review of its decision to permit the introduction of air traffic controls in airspace around an airport, which was largely uncontrolled.
Employment – Redundancy. The Central Arbitration Committee (the CAC) had correctly decided that in exceptional circumstances affecting employees' interests, where para 8 of Sch 1 to the Transnational Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 1999, SI 1999/3323, as amended, applied, the employer did not have to wait for a European Works Council (the EWC) to give an opinion on the employer's proposed actions, provided that the employer had given the EWC the necessary information on its proposals and had engaged in consultation. The Employment Appeal Tribunal in dismissing the EWC's appeal against the CAC's decision, held that there was no prohibition in either those Regulations nor the Transnational Information and Consultation Directive (EC) 2009/39 on the employer taking or implementing its decision after it had consulted but before the EWC had produced an opinion. Nor could the Regulations be construed to have that effect.
Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Employment Tribunal (ET) in refusing to make a cost order against the appellant, who had been partially successful, had not erred in law. The Administrative Court in refusing the appellant's appeal reiterated that the power to award costs in the ET was a disciplinary power, not a compensatory one, and further by withdrawing an allegation it could not be said that he respondent had acted unreasonably in his conduct of the proceedings.
Value added tax – Input tax. The defendant Revenue and Customs Commissioners' (HMRC) decision, upholding its rejection of a claim for repayment of significant amounts of under-recovered VAT input tax made exactly ten years earlier, was so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it. Accordingly, the Administrative Court quashed the decision and ordered HMRC to pay the claim (to the extent its quantum had been accepted).