Basfar v Wong [2022] is exceptional in both result and method. It recognised an exception for diplomatic immunity where a diplomat subjects someone to circumstances of modern slavery. This was achieved by regarding employment in such conditions as a “commercial activity” under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961 (‘VCDR’). The Majority’s reasoning also clarifies judicial treatment of human rights arguments and comparative case law. The case has hence revolutionised both modern slavery and judicial methodology within public law cases more broadly. Nonetheless, Basfar contains a fi ..read more

The High Court decided that the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy’s Net Zero Strategy (“NZS”) breached its obligations under sections 13 and 14 of the Climate Change Act 2008 (“the Act”). The strategy sets out the Government’s policies and proposals for meeting carbon budgets set by Parliament. The case joined three legal challenges (judicial review) brought by ClientEarth, Friends of the Earth, Good Law Project and, environmental campaigner, Jo Wheatley in June. Interestingly, the judgment was published amid the first ever red alert for extreme heat (38 ..read more

Generally speaking, you cannot be forced to undergo medical treatment without your consent. However, there are exceptions to this rule. For people who lack the capacity to make decisions about their care and treatment, the Mental Capacity Act 2005 allows other people to make the decision for them, if it is in their best interests. Under the Mental Health Act 1983, patients who are detained can also be treated without their consent in certain circumstances. This year, five cases have been brought to the Court of Protection regarding vaccinations for those who lack capacity with three being befo ..read more

Introduction Director of Public Prosecutions v Ziegler and others [2021] UKSC 23 (“Ziegler”) concerned a protest against the Defence and Security Equipment International (DSEI) arms fair, one of the world’s largest arms fairs. The Appellants were strongly opposed to the arms trade and the fair. They laid down on the road leading to the Excel Centre and attached themselves to lockboxes. The Appellants were arrested and charged with “wilful obstruction of a highway without lawful authority or excuse”, contrary to section 137(1) of the Highways Act 1980 (“HwA”). At trial, the first-instance judge ..read more

Commonly referred to as the ‘Highest Court in the Land’, the Supreme Court holds a unique ability to declare the law with finality. However, the Appellant in Attorney General v Crosland [2021] UKSC 58 successfully challenged this. The majority in this judgment declared that where an order for contempt of court is granted by the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court itself has jurisdiction to hear an appeal on the same order. Thus, the Supreme Court has reviewed a former Supreme Court panel on the same case.  This challenges orthodox perceptions of the Supreme Court’s constitutional position wi ..read more

Introduction This post forms the second part of our series on Uber and UTAG v TfL. The High Court has determined that Uber and Free Now’s business model, of acting as an agent for its drivers is unlawful. Their model must be updated to be in accordance with the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998. Uber and Transopco (trading as Free Now) must contract directly with passengers who book. This will affect all private hire operators in England and Wales, with very limited exceptions. The High Court has confirmed Lord Leggat’s obiter in Uber v Aslam [2021] UKSC 5, and has given b ..read more

Introduction The High Court has determined that Uber and Free Now’s business model, of acting as an agent for its drivers is unlawful. Their model must be updated to be in accordance with the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998. Uber and TRANSOPCO (trading as Free Now) must contract directly with passengers who book. This will affect all private hire operators in England and Wales, with very limited exceptions. The High Court has confirmed Lord Leggat’s obiter in Uber v Aslam [2021] UKSC 5, and has given both drivers and passengers more protection when using private hire apps. Alexi Norris ..read more

Today, the Supreme Court (UKSC) has handed down its judgement today in R (on the application of Elan-Cane) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) [2021] UKSC 56. We asked Robin White, barrister specialising in employment and discrimination law at Old Square Chambers, for comment. Her thoughts have been compiled by the Blog’s Assistant Editor, Lavanya Sridhar. Facts: R (Elan-Cane) v Secretary of State for the Home Department is a judicial review case seeking to challenge the Government’s passport policy. The appellant’s argument is that the Government’s refusal to ..read more

A comment on Kostal UK Ltd v Dunkley & Ors [2021] UKSC 47 By Alexi Norris, Paralegal at Cole Khan Solicitors LLP On 27 October 2021, the UK Supreme Court (‘SC’) released its long-awaited decision on Kostal UK Ltd v Dunkley & Ors [2021] UKSC 47 (‘Kostal v Dunkley‘). Kostal v Dunkley is the first case which has brought the interpretation of s.145B of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (“the 1992 Act”) to the Supreme Court. This section prohibits employers from making offers to union members which would have the “prohibited result”, in that a term is not ..read more

Introduction The judgement in Forstater v CGD Europe & others [2021] UKEAT/0105/20/JOJ (“Forstater”) concerned social media posts by Maya Forstater (“Appellant”), which expressed gender-critical beliefs, including the belief that sex is immutable and not to be conflated with gender identity. The Appellant had been a visiting fellow of the Centre for Global Development (“Respondent”). In late 2018, members of the Respondent’s staff complained that they had found her comments offensive. Following an investigation, the Appellant was not offered further work, and her visiting fellowship was no ..read more