Share it
From Wednesday 3 July 2013 is the matter of Woodland v Essex County Council, listed for two days in front of L Hale, L Clarke, L Wilson, L Sumption and L Toulson. The appellant was a pupil at a junior school run by the local education authority, which was obligated to provide swimming lessons to pupils under the National Curriculum. The appellant was involved in a near drowning accident during a lesson and as a result suffered serious brain damage. A case brought on her behalf alleged that the contractors providing the lessons were negligent and provided lax supervision, a claim supported by expert evidence. Insurers of the company contracted to provide the lessons did not accept that they were liable to indemnify under the policy on the ground that Essex County Council owed a non-delegable duty to ensure that reasonable care is taken of the pupils by private actors engaged by them to fulfil their duties under the Curriculum. The respondent Council then applied to strike out the pleadings so far as they claimed the “non-delegable” duty. It is for the Supreme Court to define the criteria to be applied in determining the circumstances in which a school’s duty to its pupils under the National Curriculum can be delegated.
In Courtroom 1 on Wednesday 3 July 2013 are the linked appeals of Patel & Ors v SSHD, Anwar v SSHD, and Alam v SSHD. In Patel, the issue is whether it is lawful for the Secretary of State to refuse leave to remain without at the same time (or shortly afterwards) also making and serving removal directions. The issue in the second two appeals is whether an immigration appeal against a decision concerning further leave to remain in the UK may consider additional grounds that were not raised at the time of the original decision, and also whether the nature and degree of non-compliance with the Immigration Rules is relevant to the balance to be struck between immigration control and family or private life under ECHR, art 8.
On Wednesday 3 July 2013 the Supreme Court will hand down judgment in the following: Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Zodiac Seats UK Ltd (formerly known as Contour Aerospace Ltd); and R (Sturnham) v Parole Board for England and Wales & Anor.
In the Privy Council on Monday 1 July 2013 is the appeal of Ramnarine v Ramnarine. The issue stemming from these divorce proceedings is whether the Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago had jurisdiction and was correct to make an order for security for costs in connection with the grant of conditional leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee.
The following Supreme Court judgments remain outstanding:
Benedetti v Sawiris & Ors, heard 26 – 28 February 2013.
Booth v The Parole Board, Osborn v The Parole Board and In the matter of an application of Reilly for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland), heard 16 – 18 April 2013.
R (AA) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, heard 6 – 7 May 2013.
Re Nortel Companies; Re Lehman Companies; and Re Lehman Companies (No 2), heard 14 – 16 May 2013.
Re an application by Central Craigavon Ltd for Judicial Review, heard 15 May 2013.
R v Hughes, heard 5 – 6 June 2013.
R (New London College Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, and R (West London Vocational Training College) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, heard 5 – 6 June 2013.
R (Chester) v Secretary of State for Justice, and McGeoch v Lord President of the Council & Anor, heard 10 – 11 June 2013.
Kapri v Lord Advocate representing the Government of the Republic of Albania, heard 13 June 2013.
Teal Assurance Company Ltd v W R Berkley Insurance (Europe) Ltd & Anor, heard 17 – 18 June 2013.
R (Modaresi) v Secretary of State for Health, heard 19 June 2013.
R v Gul, heard 25 – 26 June 2013.
Secretary of State for the Home Department v Al-Jedda, heard 27 June 2013.