From criminal Bar, to 'big fraud' at the SFO, to international law firm - Patrick Rappo, Partner in DLA Piper UK LLP's Corporate Crime and Regulatory Investigations Group (call 1995) charts his career moves and shares the highlights of working at the employed Bar
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>Why Oxbridge colleges are increasingly recruiting Heads of House from the Bar’s ranks: barrister-principals <em>Helen Mountfield QC, Lord Grabiner, John Bowers QC and Sir Ernest Ryder </em> explain the role, its delights and the impact </p>
<p>With freedoms at stake, the rule of law and legal precedent are used to protect and honour community resources, and calls for the organisation’s services grow louder each year. <strong><em>By Fiona Darroch </em></strong> </p>
<p>Dealing with<em> </em>the fall-out of coronavirus business interruption: <em>Ricky Diwan QC </em>'s guide to how international arbitration can be used for effective dispute resolution as we face the prospective deluge of court litigation <em> </em> </p>
<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>
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).