Weekly Notes: legal news from ICLR, 10 October 2022

This week’s roundup of legal news includes law librarians, barristers, legislation and media law, plus recent cases and commentary.

Stanford Law School

Legal information

Team ICLR is in California this week, attending the 40th Annual Course of the International Association of Law Libraries, which is being hosted at Stanford Law School.

Paul Magrath, Head of Product Development and Online Content, and Paul Hastings, Account Manager (aka “the two Pauls”) are here, meeting delegates who have come from jurisdictions around the world, both civil and common law, to discuss legal information and learn about other legal systems.

The campus of Stanford is vast and busy, like a small town set in a beautiful landscape of trees, lawns and sculpture. We’ve been treated to learned talks and informative walks. The delegates have come here to discuss technology, constitutional issues, legal history and human rights, and learn about archives. We’re here to tell them about ICLR and our new AI-driven case law research tool, Case Genie.

Paul M (on the left) and Paul H (on the right)

Legal aid

Members of the Criminal Bar Association have voted to end strike action after accepting the revised deal on legal aid fees proposed in a meeting with the new Lord Chancellor, Brandon Lewis. According to the Law Society Gazette (Barristers vote for legal aid deal),

“57% of 2,605 barristers said ‘yes’ to the government’s new deal that will see a 15% fee uplift apply to the ‘vast majority’ of cases in the Crown court backlog, which is currently hovering around the 60,000 mark. Under the government’s original reform package, the uplift only applied to new cases from 1 October.”

The CBA made clear in its announcement that acceptance of the deal was contingent on the government putting its money where its mouth is:

“It remains the government’s responsibility to stop the Criminal Justice System tipping over the cliff edge. Barristers should not have to fight so hard again to bring this responsibility back home to government. Barristers should not again have to endure working all hours to ensure that cases are brought to Courts whilst government pares criminal legal aid fees to the bone. The offer from the Government is an overdue start. Its acceptance by barristers is on the basis that it is implemented.”

Even if the barristers are satisfied with the outcome, there remains the question of whether a similar deal will be reached with criminal solicitors. The government will face action from solicitors if they fail to “bridge the funding gap between solicitors and barristers”, according to the Gazette (Dispute not over: Law Society issues fresh warning on ‘fair deal’ for solicitors).

“Of the extra £54m being offered under the deal to the criminal bar, £19m will be earmarked for solicitors and further uplifts will be announced later this year. The Ministry of Justice says solicitors will also benefit from an annual £5m uplift for youth court fees.

However, the Society said the further investment is mainly a one-off and does not raise rates in the long term, so solicitors have well below the 15% increase that barristers are receiving.”


The Law Commission of England and Wales last month unveiled proposals to update the Arbitration Act 1996, to ensure that the UK continues to be the foremost destination for international arbitration.

The new proposals include measures to improve the efficiency of cases, give further protections to arbitrators, grant extra provisions to the courts to support cases, and refine the process for challenging an arbitrator and their decisions.

Consultation proposals from the Law Commission include:

  • Provisions to allow arbitrators summarily to dismiss claims, made by parties, that lack legal merit.
  • Retaining current duties on the impartiality of arbitrators, with an additional provision on disclosing conflicts of interest, so that such disclosure is fully codified in the Act.
  • Further protections under the law for arbitrators: strengthening their immunity in certain cases and introducing provisions in support of equality in arbitral appointments.
  • Extending the capacity of the courts to support arbitration proceedings.
  • Refining the process for challenging the jurisdiction of an arbitrator, so that challenges in the courts take place by way of an appeal, rather than a full rehearing.
  • Retaining current provisions around confidentiality and privacy in arbitration proceedings.

See also: Out-Law News (from Pinsent Masons): Law Commission proposes Arbitration Act updates

More commentary

Tama Leaver on Inforrm’s Blog comments on the coroner’s findings in the Molly Russell case: Coroner finds social media contributed to 14-year-old Molly Russell’s death. How should parents and platforms react?

In Data Protection Reform progress paused, Jon Baines of Mishcon de Reya LLP reports on news that the second reading of the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill would not take place as scheduled, in order to “allow Ministers to consider the legislation further”.

“The delay is almost certainly in part the result of the news that Culture Secretary (and, therefore, head of the sponsoring department for the Bill) Nadine Dorries has announced that she will be stepping down from the role. Whether this means that the incoming Culture Secretary will wish to make significant changes to the Bill (and indeed to the Online Safety Bill, the progress of which had already been paused) remains to be seen.”

Pinsent Masons’ Out-Law blog reports that UK government has introduced a Bill to repeal retained EU law en masse. The Retained EU Law (Reform and Revocation) Bill (42 pages / 1.86MB PDF) will amend the 2018 European Union (Withdrawal) Act, which provided continuity by incorporating former EU law into the UK legal system after Brexit as ‘retained EU law’.

“The Bill will allow ministers to replace retained EU law with new domestic legislation more easily, and will see large parts of retained EU law ‘sunsetted’ in 2023 — repealed automatically unless ministers decide to preserve or replace them beforehand.”

Recent case summaries from ICLR

A selection of recently published WLR Daily case summaries from ICLR.4:

AIRCRAFT — Carriage by air — Compensation and assistance to passengers: flightright GmbH v American Airlines Inc, 06 Oct 2022 (Case C-436/21); EU:C:2022:762; [2022] WLR(D) 390, ECJ

CONTEMPT OF COURT — Committal proceedings — Breach of injunction: Business Mortgage Finance 4 plc v Hussain, 04 Oct 2022 [2022] EWCA Civ 1264; [2022] WLR(D) 385, CA

CRIME — Sexual offence — Sentence: R v AYO (R v BKL, R v Burgess (Mark Ashley), R v BCJ, R v Elahi (Abdul Hasib), R v AVJ), 30 Sep 2022 [2022] EWCA Crim 1271; [2022] WLR(D) 384, CA

FINANCIAL SERVICES — Insurance — Insurance intermediary: Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen v TC Medical Air Ambulance Agency GmbH, 29 Sep 2022 (Case C-633/20); EU:C:2022:733; [2022] WLR(D) 386, ECJ

MEDICAL PRACTITIONER — Medical treatment — Feeding: R (JJ) v Spectrum Community Health Community Interest Co, 30 Sep 2022 [2022] EWHC 2440 (Admin); [2022] WLR(D) 388, KBD

PRACTICE — Service out of Jurisdiction — Third party disclosure: Gorbachev v Guriev, 30 Sep 2022 [2022] EWCA Civ 1270; [2022] WLR(D) 387, CA

Recent case comments on ICLR

Expert commentary from firms, chambers and legal bloggers recently indexed on ICLR.4 includes:

UK Human Rights Blog: Court of Appeal concludes in AG referral of jury acquittal of Colston 4 that ECHR rights were not engaged where damage to property was criminal: Attorney General’s Reference (№1 of 2022) [2022] EWCA Crim 1259; [2022] WLR(D) 383, CA

RPC Perspectives: (Establishing a) Line of duty — Miller v Irwin Mitchell LLP [2022] EWHC 2252 (Ch), Ch D

RPC Perspectives: Tribunal considers salaried member rules for the first-time and allows taxpayer’s appeal in part: Bluecrest Capital Management (UK) LLP v Revenue & Customs [2022] UKFTT 204 (TC), FTT (TC)

Free Movement: Human Rights court confirms deportation of a Nigerian national does not breach Article 8, despite family ties: Otite v United Kingdom (Application no. 18339/19), ECtHR

Free Movement: Afghan interpreter successfully challenges entry clearance refusal: R (ALO) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] EWHC 2380 (Admin), QBD (Admin)

Law & Religion UK: Euthanasia and the right to life under Article 2 ECHR: Mortier v Belgium (Appn no 78017/17); [2022] ECHR 764, ECtHR

And finally…

offers a paws for thought over the next legal pets calendar:

Follow the account for more legal petting.

That’s it for this week. Thanks for reading, and thanks for all your tweets and links. Take care now.

This post was written by Paul Magrath, Head of Product Development and Online Content. It does not necessarily represent the opinions of ICLR as an organisation.



Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store

The ICLR publishes The Law Reports, The Weekly Law Reports and other specialist titles. Set up by members of the judiciary and legal profession in 1865.