Making the case for an urgent formal public inquiry, <em>Theo Huckle QC </em>, <em>Nick Brown </em> and <em>Frederick Powell </em>discuss its potential form, function and how best to manage the formidable process
Clearly something has gone badly wrong in the UK. The proportion of care home residents who have died is a third higher than in Ireland and 13 times greater than Germany. With a second wave ahead, lessons learned can save lives. <em>By Oliver Lewis </em>
<p>Something must be done or the much-vaunted ‘new normal’ will be taking place without us. <em>The Secret Barrister </em>boils down the critical issues into a five-point alternative recovery plan for criminal justice </p>
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>
<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>
<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>
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.
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.
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.
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.
Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The mother's appeal against findings of fact made against her in care proceedings, made on the basis of fresh evidence that suggested that her account of events had been plausible, was dismissed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the family court had the statutory power under s 31F(6) of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 to review its findings of fact, and it would generally be more appropriate for the significance of the further evidence to be considered by the trial court rather than by way of an appeal.