The budget cuts to the administration of justice have had a profound impact since their implementation. Access to justice has been hampered for some of the most vulnerable in society but they are not the only ones affected. In this case we look at a
The relationship between the Channel Islands and the UK is fairly settled but in this case a new element is added into the equation: the European Union. The background to the dispute is relief from inheritance tax but in these proceedings the Supreme Court also
Whether someone consents to the deprivation of their liberty is often an irrelevant question. Sometimes people are locked up because they are a danger to society whereas others are simply limited because it is in their best interests. Nevertheless that point of consent in a
In one of the most important, constitutional judgments of modern times, the Supreme Court was charged with deciding whether the prorogation of Parliament announced on 28th August 2019 was lawful or not. With a Brexit deadline of 31st October looming the judgment was also of
What happens when the will of a totalitarian regime comes up against the English legal system? How can that system maintain its integrity in the face of such manifest injustice? In this case that concerns a jurisdictional dispute we get answers to those questions and
In this case about farming subsidies and the payment of VAT we consider the issue from a moral standpoint and ask what role the law can play to establish a more just system. Music from bensound.com
Access to information about a legal case in open court is vitally important to any functioning democracy but is also necessarily subject to certain restrictions. In this case the Asbestos Victims Support Groups Forum UK are seeking information about proceedings involving a former asbestos manufacturer.
When X went on holiday to Sri Lanka she was raped and assaulted by a hotel employee. In this claim against the tour operator she is seeking compensation but, as we discuss in this episode, it will require a stretched interpretation of EU law. There
When the Cleveland Meat Company bought a bull at auction they were dismayed when it was found post-mortem that the meat was not fit for human consumption. They sought to challenge the decision of the Official Veterinarian on this matter but the means of doing
MM was denied the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) benefit because he did not fit into the right category when it came to the support he needed for face to face social engagement. The dispute reached the Supreme Court and it was up to the Justices