[{"pubDate":"Thu, 29 Oct 2026 08:01:50 +0100","titre":"LC v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (anonymity order)","url":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/lc-v-secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions-anonymity-order/","id":3248599,"description":"UT ref: UA-2026-000083-PIP In the Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber 28 October 2026 Before: Stewart Wright Judge of the Upper Tribunal Between: LC -v- Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Anonymity Order Appellant: LC Respondents: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Tribunal: First tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) Tribunal venue: Scarborough Tribunal Case Nos: SC231/24/00181 Tribunal decision date: 29 August 2025 NOTICE: Any breach of this order is liable to be treated as a contempt of court and may be punishable by imprisonment, fine or other sanctions under section 25 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. The maximum punishment that may be imposed is a sentence of two years’ imprisonment or an unlimited fine. It is ordered , under rule 14(1)(b) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal Rules) 2008, that, without the permission of this Tribunal, no one shall disclose or publish the name, or any part of the address, of the appellant in these proceedings or publish or reveal any other information that would be likely to lead to the identification of the appellant. The appellant shall be known as LC. Anyone who objects to this order may apply to the Upper Tribunal for it to be varied or set aside. A copy of this Order shall be published on the website of the Judiciary of England and Wales. REASONS This anonymity order is made on the application of the appellant. It is sought because “the appeal involves a disabled claimant and details of their disability are to reasonably be inferred from a prospectively publicised decision”. I have by a separate decision allowed the appellant’s appeal to the Upper Tribunal. That decision will be published on public facing websites and, if no anonymity order is made, the appellant would be named in that decision. The principle of open justice is of fundamental importance to the justice system. An aspect of open justice is that parties’ names are made public. Derogation from this principle requires justification. Particular regard must be given to the importance of the right to freedom of expression, including the right to publish reports of cases. In this case, I am satisfied that it is necessary to derogate from the open justice principle to the limited extent of not naming the appellant. The appellant has ADHD and anxiety and depression and those features of his health and conditions need to be referred to in the decision on the appeal. In that context, I am satisfied that an anonymity order should be made because I accept a risk of harm could arise for this vulnerable appellant if he was to be identified in these proceedings, because those health details would then be in the public domain. The public interest in open justice and freedom of expression will still be served by this order and the final decision in this appeal being published online. The letters LC are not the appellant’s initials. The post LC v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (anonymity order) appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary","source":"Judgement Courts Tribunals England Wales"},{"source":"Judgement Courts Tribunals England Wales","id":3243876,"description":"Claim number: M00LU691 In the County Court at Luton Luton Justice Centre 5 June 2026 Before: His Honour Judge Davies Between: Luton community housing limited (“squared”) -v- 1. Christopher Earl 2. David Earl 3. Charlotte Earl 4. Roger Litchfield MR VAUGHAN appeared on behalf of the Claimant THE FOURTH DEFENDANT appeared In Person (part) NO APPEARANCE by or on behalf of all other Defendants Judgement (approved) This Transcript is Crown Copyright. It may not be reproduced in whole or in part, other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority. All rights are reserved. WARNING: reporting restrictions may apply to the contents transcribed in this document, particularly if the case concerned a sexual offence or involved a child. Reporting restrictions prohibit the publication of the applicable information to the public or any section of the public, in writing, in a broadcast or by means of the internet, including social media. Anyone who receives a copy of this transcript is responsible in law for making sure that applicable restrictions are not breached. A person who breaches a reporting restriction is liable to a fine and/or imprisonment. For guidance on whether reporting restrictions apply, and to what information, ask at the court office or take legal advice. HHJ DAVIES: The first decision that I need to make now at 10.10 am is whether to proceed with this adjourned sentencing hearing in the absence of each of the defendants. I am satisfied that the defendants have been duly served with notice of today’s hearing in accordance with the Court’s previous orders. In so far as the fourth defendant was concerned, he was in court when I adjourned the matter on the last occasion and I fixed the date on that occasion. However, he has also been served with the Notice of Hearing, as have the other three defendants. There have been numerous previous hearings on this contempt application. At the substantive hearing at which I found proved a number of breaches of the injunction order made by His Honour Judge Murch, the second and fourth defendants attended court. The first defendant, Christopher Earl and the third defendant, Charlotte Earl have not attended court on any of the occasions on which the case has been listed. I adjourned the hearing on the last occasion to give the defendants one final opportunity to obtain advice or representation or to consider what material they want to put forward to the Court in relation to mitigation and no further information has been forthcoming and, nor am I told, have they been in contact with the claimant and they have not been in contact with the court. I consider the various matters, as identified in the well-known decision in Sanchez v Oboz [2015] EWHC 235 (Fam) dealing with proceeding in absence on a contempt application. I bear in mind that that is a decision that should not be taken lightly but, in my judgment, in this case, the defendants have demonstrated that adjourning the matter yet again is most unlikely to secure their attendance. In the circumstances, I conclude that they voluntarily absented themselves from this adjourned sentencing hearing and that the appropriate thing to do is to proceed in their absence. It does not seem to me that there is anything to be gained by putting the matter back for a few minutes on the occasions when, in particular, the fourth defendant has attended, he has attended promptly and it seems to me most unlikely that this is a case in which he is simply late. I have also considered whether the appropriate thing to do is to issue a bench warrant to secure the attendance of the defendants at the sentencing hearing but, in my judgment, it is more appropriate to deal with the sentencing hearing in their absence rather than issuing a warrant now and putting it back until that warrant is executed. Adjourned hearing (after the Fourth Defendant attended court) I am now dealing with the adjourned hearing of two applications to commit the defendants for breach of an injunction order made by His","pubDate":"Tue, 27 Oct 2026 08:03:22 +0100","titre":"Committal for contempt of court: Luton Community Housing Limited -v- Earl and others","url":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/committal-for-contempt-of-court-luton-community-housing-limited-v-earl-and-others/"},{"titre":"CALL Member Article: Thoughts on the New Lexis+ Brief Analysis Tool: For Law Students and Novice Researchers","url":"https://www.callacbd.ca/CALL-Blog/12957419","pubDate":"Mon, 26 Oct 2026 07:55:49 +0100","description":"CALL member Erica Friesen, Research and Instruction Librarian & Online Learning Specialist at the Lederman Law Library at Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario recently wrote an article on \" Thoughts on the New Lexis+ Brief Analysis Tool: For Law Students and Novice Researchers \". It originally appeared on Slaw.ca on September 28, 2022. It is republished here with permission of the author. New academic year; new legal research tools. Something new always comes out right as another cohort of students is gearing up to begin their law degree. And, as with many new product launches these days, “artificial intelligence” is often a prominently displayed term with accompanying materials. As legal publishers continue to launch AI-driven research tools in Canada, what do students and other novice researchers need to know to be prepared for their first forays into legal research? Lexis recently launched the latest version of their legal research platform, Lexis+ Canada, for Canadian law schools. It features significant updates that employ artificial intelligence, including a “Brief Analysis” tool in line with similar products offered by Westlaw Edge (on the US platform) and vLex (already available in Canada). According to Lexis+, this tool helps researchers “expedite completion of briefs and other legal documents.” Once your document is uploaded, it spits out a report including the following categories: 1) recommended cases, 2) cases and legislation cited in your document, 3) jurisdiction, and 4) extracted and recommended concepts. While I do not intend to comment on the utility of this tool for practitioners, I have no doubt that students beginning law school or working in summer or articling positions are bound to encounter this new feature sooner or later. When you do, you may have questions: should I be using this tool? How or how not? The landing page for this tool in Lexis+ contains no information on how this tool works and the Lexis+ Canada “Help” database so far contains minimal documentation. Confusion or uncertainty is understandable with such opacity. To gain some insight, let’s run an experiment: take two case comments written by different authors on the same Supreme Court case from 2004. [1] An older decision means that we should retrieve an abundance of recommendations from the intervening 18 years. Both comments include an overview of the area of law at the time of this decision as well as an analysis of how this particular decision would change the area of law. Once Lexis analyzed these documents, I exported the resulting report and compared the results for each comment. Here are the two documents, in case you’d like to run the experiment yourself: Comment A: Teresa Scassa, “Recalibrating Copyright Law?: A Comment on the Supreme Court of Canada’s Decision in CCH Canadian Limited et al. v. Law Society of Upper Canada ”, Case Comment, (2004) 3:2 CJLT 89. Comment B: WL Hayhurst, “The Canadian Supreme Court on Copyright: CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada ”, Case Comment, (2004-2005) 41 Can Bus LJ 134. Recommended Cases “Recommendations” is the section of the Brief Analysis report that lists additional case law for you to consider adding to your legal document. Brief Analysis recommended 58 unique cases in total between Comment A and Comment B. However, only 10 of those cases were the same between the two documents (after adjusting for “recommended” cases that were actually cited in the other document). See Figure 1 . Key takeaway: Legal research and writing is an art, not a science. AI-driven tools like these run on the material that you upload, so you can expect substantially different results depending on the quality of analysis and the decisions you made in producing the original document. This does not mean that there is no value in using the tool, but you cannot expect it to help you build something from nothing. Recommendations are based on the content in the document,","id":3241473,"source":"Canadian Association of Law Libraries / L'Association canadienne des bibliothèques de droit CALL/ACBD Blog"},{"pubDate":"Tue, 06 Oct 2026 07:57:37 +0200","titre":"The Court of Appeal’s Consideration of Sault Dock: A New Test, Refinement or More of the Same?","url":"https://www.slaw.ca/2026/10/05/the-court-of-appeals-consideration-of-sault-dock-a-new-test-refinement-or-more-of-the-same/","id":3198959,"description":"INTRODUCTION The Ontario Court of Appeal’s (“CA”) recent decision in Knauff v. Ontario (Human Rights Tribunal) (“ Knauff ”) sought to resolve two CA panels’ disagreement about the continuing relevance of the test for leave to appeal in Sault Dock Co. Ltd. and City of Sault Ste. Marie (Ont. CA) (“Sault Dock”). (I considered the two CA decisions, West Whitby Landowners Group Inc. v. Elexicon Inc. [“ West Whitby ”] and Davis v. Aviva General Insurance Company [“ Davis ”] in my January 7, 2025 Slaw post, “ Tension on the Ontario CA: Thwarting a Judicial Coup? ”.) My focus . . . [more] The post The Court of Appeal’s Consideration of Sault Dock: A New Test, Refinement or More of the Same? appeared first on Slaw","source":"Slaw"},{"titre":"Summaries Sunday: Supreme One-Liners","url":"https://www.slaw.ca/2026/08/09/summaries-sunday-supreme-one-liners-45/","pubDate":"Mon, 10 Aug 2026 07:58:42 +0200","source":"Slaw","description":"As a supplement to our Sunday Summary each month, Supreme Advocacy LLP in Ottawa presents Supreme One-Liners, a super-short descriptive guide to the most recent decisions at the Supreme Court of Canada. Supreme Advocacy LLP offers its more comprehensive weekly electronic newsletter, Supreme Advocacy Letter , summarizing all Appeals, Oral Judgments and Leaves to Appeal granted. Leaves to Appeal Granted Professions: Mandatory New Lawyer Oath His Majesty the King in Right of Alberta v. Wirring, 2025 ABCA 413 (42224) Constitutionality of new lawyer oath.   . . . [more] The post Summaries Sunday: Supreme One-Liners appeared first on Slaw","id":3086044},{"source":"Slaw","description":"As a supplement to our Sunday Summary each month, Supreme Advocacy LLP in Ottawa presents Supreme One-Liners, a super-short descriptive guide to the most recent decisions at the Supreme Court of Canada. Supreme Advocacy LLP offers its more comprehensive weekly electronic newsletter, Supreme Advocacy Letter , summarizing all Appeals, Oral Judgments and Leaves to Appeal granted. Appeals Real Property: Riparian Rights Zardev Inc. v. Dydzak, 2026 SCC 27 (41291) Clarifications re riparian rights, submerged lots, accessories. Leave to Appeal Granted Administrative Law/Police: Mandamus Royal Canadian Mounted Police External Review Committee, et al. v. Benison, et al ., 2026 FCA 53 . . . [more] The post Summaries Sunday: Supreme One-Liners appeared first on Slaw","id":3055462,"titre":"Summaries Sunday: Supreme One-Liners","url":"https://www.slaw.ca/2026/07/26/summaries-sunday-supreme-one-liners-43/","pubDate":"Mon, 27 Jul 2026 07:57:56 +0200"},{"titre":"Habeas Class Actions","url":"https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-139/habeas-class-actions/","pubDate":"Mon, 11 May 2026 14:25:59 +0200","source":"Harvard Law Review","description":"Can habeas corpus cases proceed as class actions? The Supreme Court has never squarely answered that question, even in cases where lower courts certified habeas classes. But the Trump Administration’s wholesale push to expel noncitizens has forced the question to the center of modern civil rights litigation. The post Habeas Class Actions appeared first on Harvard Law Review","id":2877110},{"description":"“[W]here there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy . . . .” Although Blackstone’s maxim has led to efforts to redress constitutional violations, courts... The post Fulton v. Fulton County Board of Commissioners appeared first on Harvard Law Review","id":2750221,"source":"Harvard Law Review","url":"https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-139/fulton-v-fulton-county-board-of-commissioners/","titre":"Fulton v. Fulton County Board of Commissioners","pubDate":"Wed, 11 Mar 2026 08:26:07 +0100"},{"source":"Harvard Law Review","description":"Prison law is characterized by judicial deference to penal administrators. Despite the well-documented horrors that occur behind prison walls, federal and state courts often decline to intervene, asserting, among other things, that prisoners’ rights are limited and that the judicial branch lacks the power and expertise to get involved in the inner workings of detention facilities. Moreover, jurists often assume that the nation’s first courts largely stayed out of prisons and jails, and contemporary judicial deference is therefore historically rooted. The post The Forgotten History of Prison Law: Judicial Oversight of Detention Facilities in the Nation’s Early Years appeared first on Harvard Law Review","id":2117263,"titre":"The Forgotten History of Prison Law: Judicial Oversight of Detention Facilities in the Nation’s Early Years","url":"https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-138/the-forgotten-history-of-prison-law-judicial-oversight-of-detention-facilities-in-the-nations-early-years/","pubDate":"Thu, 15 May 2025 15:55:45 +0200"},{"source":"Harvard Law Review","description":"It has become increasingly difficult for civil rights plaintiffs to vindicate their rights in federal court. Barriers to successful lawsuits are plentiful. Qualified immunity... The post Without Remedies: The Effect of Cummings and the Contract Law Analogy on Antidiscrimination Spending Clause Plaintiffs appeared first on Harvard Law Review","id":1996119,"url":"https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-138/without-remedies-the-destructive-effect-of-cummings-and-the-contract-law-analogy-on-antidiscrimination-spending-clause-plaintiffs/","titre":"Without Remedies: The Effect of Cummings and the Contract Law Analogy on Antidiscrimination Spending Clause Plaintiffs","pubDate":"Thu, 20 Mar 2025 16:34:19 +0100"}]