Carl Gardner, can always be relied upon to provide some good analysis on matters legal. Here is Carl’s new book on Fixed term Parliaments.
What a Fix-Up! is my new e-book about the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011: what it says, its place in the constitution, the different ways it can be read, and how politicians might use and abuse it in the 2015 Parliament.
What a Fix-Up! gives a quick guide to the constitution (with a clear explanation of who’s appointed PM in a hung Parliament). After settting out the old system and telling how the rules were changed, What a Fix-Up! provides an in-depth analysis of the Act’s provisions, explaining the different ways it can be interpreted and the political implications of each of them, before looking at how the Act might be used and contested by politicians in three hypothetical Parliaments.
What a Fix-Up! is not only the essential guide to the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, but a sharp critique and a passionate argument for repeal.
David Allen Green: The Seven Hurdles for Repeal of the Human Rights Act
An extract from the introduction: “The new Conservative government wants to repeal the Human Right Act 1998 (the “Act”) and replace with a “British Bill of Rights”.
The intention appears to be to do this in “one hundred days”.
This post sets out as seven distinct “hurdles” the various legal and political difficulties which the new Conservative government will have to address in doing this. Each “hurdle” has the appropriate links to relevant materials and news reports.
In essence, the “hurdles” are: (1) addressing the issue of Scottish Devolution; (2) addressing the issue of repeal impacting on the Good Friday Agreement; (3) dealing with Conservative supporters of the Act and the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR); (4) getting repeal and a replacement “British Bill of Rights” through the House of Lords; (5) working out which rights are to be protected; (6) working out how those rights will be enforced and the legal form of the “British Bill of Rights”; and (7) explaining why any of this exercise is necessary in the first place….”
Although I am not a family lawyer or, indeed, a family man…John Bolch of Family Lore is both: If family hearings are boxing matches, I’m Angelo Dundee* (John appears to be wearing boxing gloves – this must be a first for him?)
Professor John Flood on his RATs blog asks: Are We Seeing the Real Multidisciplinary Practices Emerge?
“EY Law has hired partners from Baker & McKenzie and Weil Gotshal & Manges to join its financial services practice. They combine with lawyers from Freshfields, BLP and Addleshaw’s.
It makes sense, and since the SRA is easing its rules on forming ABS and therefore becoming an MDP, that the big accounting firms are resurrecting earlier ideas about becoming multidisciplinary practices. Despite Enron and the debacle of Arthur Andersen’s implosion in the early 2000s, the Big 4 accounting firms realise legal services are too important to be left to the lawyers alone.
EY Law’s website shows their imperial ambitions with the sole exclusion of North America (but for how long?)…..”
Giles Peaker on his Nearly Legal blog: Vulnerability – a fresh start
“Hotak (Appellant) v London Borough of Southwark (Respondent)
Kanu (Appellant) v London Borough of Southwark (Respondent)
Johnson (Appellant) v Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (Respondent)
Crisis & Shelter, EHRC, SS for CLG interveners
 UKSC 30
The thing about the Supreme Court is that all those years of accrued, encrusted High Court and Court of Appeal case law just don’t matter. If the Supreme Court thinks otherwise, they are so much chaff. And so, to some extent, it proved to be in these joined appeals, where the issue was the meaning of vulnerability in s.189(1)(c) Housing Act 1996.
There were three key issues raised on the appeals…..
And finally, for now, Obiter J: Human Rights ~ Weekend reading !!!
“The week since the General Election (previous post) has seen a massive amount of comment about the government’s intentions to “scrap” the Human Rights Act 1998. None of the detailed plans have yet emerged from within government and so we really only have the Conservative Party manifesto (see this post) to inform us as well as their announcement last October (discussed at length here).
Most of the comment during the week has favoured retention of the present system of human rights protection for all the peoples of the United Kingdom. It has mostly been reasoned and responsible comment from many respected legal commentators….
See also Obiter J on: Human Rights ~ Battle lines are forming