×

Matrix Judgments & Commentary

Matrix’s Legal Support Service produce summaries of cases that involve Matrix members. 

Risks to privacy rights did not outweigh open justice in courts-martial

R v Marine A & Ors [2013] EWCA Crim 2367

An order had been made preventing the publication of the names of marines who had been involved in the death of an Afghan insurgent. Held: the name of Marine A should be made public as there was a greater public interest in knowing who he was. The same arguments applied to Marines B & C. The risks to ECHR, art 8 did not outweigh the importance of open justice. The matter was remitted with relation to Marines D & C.

Application of CJEU guidance relating to Aarhus Convention duty to ensure environmental cases “not prohibitively expensive”

R (Edwards & Anor) v Environment Agency & Ors (No 2) [2013] UKSC 78

A reference to the CJEU had been made relating to the obligation under the Aarhus Convention to ensure that environmental cases are “not prohibitively expensive”. The following could be extracted from the CJEU’s ruling, inter alia: the cost must not be objectively unreasonable; the court could consider whether the claimant had a reasonable prospect of success; that a claimant was not deterred from carrying on the proceedings was not determinative.

Employer not required to know employee “disabled” for the purposes of the 1995 Act

Gallop v Newport City Council [2013] EWCA Civ 1583

When seeking guidance from outside clinicians to establish whether an employee was disabled within the meaning of legislation, an employer should pose specific questions directed to the particular circumstances of the putative disability. Where the opinion given was that the employee was not disabled, the employer must not forget that it was he who had to make the factual judgement; he could not simply rubber stamp that opinion.

Appeal to UKSC granted where conflict between HoL & Strasbourg authority

R (Kaiyam) & Anor v Secretary of State for Justice [2013] EWCA Civ 1587

There was a conflict between House of Lords and ECtHR jurisprudence. The Court was bound to follow the House of Lords. However, the conflict should be resolved and therefore an appeal to the Supreme Court would be allowed. The judge had been correct to dismiss the common law claim as the system was not an unreasonable one.

No general requirement under EU for Member States to provide parents with particular levels of support

R (HC) v Secretary of State for Work & Pensions & Ors [2013] EWHC 3874 (Admin)

Whether three amending regulations were discriminatory and/or compatible with EU law. Held: the regulations did not discriminate against the claimant, nor did they breach the ECHR. There was no breach of the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The defendants were fully aware of the equality implications of the proposed regulations.