Queen's Bench Division Research Articles

The outcome of transferring patients positive for COVID-19 from hospitals to care homes

On 27 April 2022 the Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court ruled that the Government committed an unlawful act in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic when it directed that thousands of hospital patients should be transferred to care homes without being checked for infection. This direction was a response to the massive pressure on hospital beds caused by the unexpected onset and rapid spread of the virus. John Finch examines the circumstances which led to this decision being made and the reasons why the courts ruled it as unlawful.

Keeping accurate records

British Journal of MidwiferyVol. 24, No. 8 LegalKeeping accurate recordsRichard GriffithRichard GriffithSearch for more papers by this authorRichard GriffithPublished Online:4 Aug 2016https://doi.org/10.12968/bjom.2016.24.8.594AboutSectionsView articleView Full TextPDF/EPUB ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail View article References Hall v North Hertfordshire NHS Trust 2016 (Queens Bench Division; 26th May) Google ScholarNursing and Midwifery Council (2015) The Code: Professional standards of practice and behaviour for nurses and midwives. NMC, London Google ScholarS (A Child) v Newcastle & North Tyneside HA [2001] EWCA Civ 1868 Google Scholar FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byRecords: What to include7 October 2016 | British Journal of Midwifery, Vol. 24, No. 10 2 August 2016Volume 24Issue 8ISSN (print): 0969-4900ISSN (online): 2052-4307 Metrics History Published online 4 August 2016 Published in print 2 August 2016 Information© MA Healthcare LimitedPDF download

R (Core Issues Trust Ltd) v Transport for London: [2014] EWHC 2628 (Admin): Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court): Lang J: 30 July 2014

R (Core Issues Trust Ltd) v Transport for London: [2014] EWHC 2628 (Admin): Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court): Lang J: 30 July 2014

Community Care and the Care Programme Approach: Confusion between two distinct assessment processes

<strong><strong><em></em></strong></strong><p align="LEFT"><em>R (on the application of HP and KP) v London Borough of Islington [2004] EWHC 7 (Admin).</em></p><p><em>Queens Bench Division, Administrative Court (8th January 2004) Mr. Justice Munby.</em></p><p align="LEFT"> </p><strong><em></em></strong><em></em>

In the Matter of an Application by Robert James Shaw Rodgers for Judicial Review: [2014] NIQB 79: Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland): Stephens J, 18 June 2014

In the Matter of an Application by Robert James Shaw Rodgers for Judicial Review: [2014] NIQB 79: Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland): Stephens J, 18 June 2014

Application by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission for Judicial Review (Compatibilty of the Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 with the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms): [2012] NIQB 77: High Court of Justice (Northern Ireland), Queen's Bench Division: Treacy J: 18 October 2012

Application by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission for Judicial Review (Compatibilty of the Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 with the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms): [2012] NIQB 77: High Court of Justice (Northern Ireland), Queen's Bench Division: Treacy J: 18 October 2012

R (National Secular Society) v Bideford Town Council: [2012] EWHC 175 (Admin): High Court of Justice of England and Wales (Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court): Ouseley J: 10 February 2012

Local Government – Powers – Public prayers – Freedom of Religion or belief – Parish council empowered to do anything calculated to facilitate or which was conducive or incidental to discharge of any of their functions – That power could not result in provision or practice being applied equally to person’s of different religious beliefs but which put some of those persons at a disadvantage compared to others – Parish council placing prayers as first item on agenda for monthly public meetings of council – Not obliging members to attend or participate – Secularist councillor arguing interference with right not to hold or to have to manifest religious beliefs – Majority of councillors rejecting secularist councillor’s motions to stop prayers being said – Whether saying of prayers ‘conducive or incidental to’ discharge by council of functions – Whether saying of prayers as part of council business lawful – Whether indirect religious discrimination against secularist councillors – Whether interference with freedom of belief – Local Government Act 1972, s 99, 111, Pt II of Sch 12 – Human Rights Act 1998, Sch 1, Pt 1, arts 9, 14 – Equality Act 2006, ss 45(3), 52 (now Equality Act 2010, ss 19, 149)

R (Bashir) v Independent Adjudicator: [2011] EWHC 1108: High Court of Justice (England and Wales) (Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court): HHJ Pelling QC sitting as a judge of the High Court: 25 May 2011

R (Bashir) v Independent Adjudicator: [2011] EWHC 1108: High Court of Justice (England and Wales) (Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court): HHJ Pelling QC sitting as a judge of the High Court: 25 May 2011

Legality of payment protection insurance compensation arrangements examined on judicial review

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to discuss R (on the application of British Bankers Association) v. Financial Services Authority and another (Queens Bench Division: Administrative Court: Mr Justice Ouseley). Date of Judgment: 20 April 2011.Design/methodology/approachThe paper outlines the facts surrounding the case and comments on the decision.FindingsThis is a lengthy judgment that is dense in closely reasoned interpretative analysis of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 schema for regulation of the conduct of retail financial business and attendant redress mechanisms.Originality/valueThis keenly awaited decision raises several issues of wider public interest about the design and operation of the regulatory environment for retail finance in the UK. In the context of the FSA's emphasis over the past few years of its “Treating Customers Fairly” programme of work the legality of the action taken by both FSA and the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) to effect a broad measure and depth of consumer redress in respect of what they judged to be widespread incidence of inappropriate sales of payment protection insurance (PPI) by banks in particular came under intensive scrutiny from the Court in what is a fascinating judgment for regulatory lawyers.

Legal commentary

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to discuss the High Court's rejection of claims made against a UK bank by a US‐based customer in relation to foreign exchange dealing it carried out as agent for its US affiliate based on common law and breaches of COBS Rules (BankLeumi (UK) plc v. Wachner, Queens Bench Division, Commercial Court; Mr Justice Faux).Design/methodology/approachThe paper discusses this action and counterclaim by the defendant.FindingsThe Judge did not find any of the three causes of action underlying the counterclaim to have any foundation, and he found the defendant liable for the full amount of the claim.Originality/valueThis paper draws attention to investors' attempts to shift trading losses onto the counterparties with or through whom they dealt through the use of common law, fiduciary principles or statutory tort claims. Such claims have no chance of succeeding unless the claimants can establish that they were incorrectly classified as an expert customer. Another point of interest to draw from this decision is to recall that product design and pre‐emptive restrictions on product innovation are once again a prominent feature of current debates on regulatory reform.

Hillside v. Bjarte Baasland and OthersAll ER (D) 262 (Dec.); [2010] EWHC 3336 (Comm) (Queen's Bench Division, Commercial Court, 20 December 2010)

Hillside v. Bjarte Baasland and OthersAll ER (D) 262 (Dec.); [2010] EWHC 3336 (Comm) (Queen's Bench Division, Commercial Court, 20 December 2010)

Judicial review of Financial Services Compensation Scheme's exercise of power to impose compensation costs levy

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to discuss the judicial review of Financial Services Compensation Scheme's (FSCS) exercise of power to impose compensation costs levy (R v. Financial Services Compensation Scheme Ltd and Financial Services Authority ex parte ABS Financial Planning and others; Queens Bench Division of High Court; Administrative Court (Birmingham); Mr Justice Beatson).Design/methodology/approachThe paper describes the judicial review action. It arose out of the FSCS imposition of an interim levy of some £32 million to defray compensation costs arising from the default of Keydata Investment Services Ltd (Keydata) and the claimants impugned, as wrong in law and procedurally incorrect, its decision in March 2010 to allocate the costs of that levy to be borne by those firms that the FSCS classified as “investment intermediaries”. The paper gives details of the decision.FindingsThe claimants argued that the error in law or irrationality were constituted by the FSCS's determination that: first, the costs of the Keydata claims arose or could be expected to arise out of one or more of the four regulated activities in the D2 sub‐class to which FSCS referred in its reasoning behind its decision. Rather, the claimants argued, the true position was that the claims did not arise out of any of these activities but arose out of Keydata's marketing of its plans; and second, the costs did not arise and could not be expected to arise out of any D1 sub‐class activity of “managing investments”.Originality/valueThis decision illustrates the increasing difficulty of drawing a clear line between discretionary management and agency broking, for the claimants made a strong argument that Keydata should be considered to have been much more than a passive distribution conduit or channel.

Accountability for genocide and other gross human rights violations: the need for an integrated and victim-based transitional justice

The Nuremberg tribunal was the expression and the beginning of states' recognition of their duty to prosecute genocide and other gross human rights violations. It was a first step towards fulfillin...

Protecting abused children

In his judgment in the UK High Court, after evidence was given by a paediatrician who diagnosed sexual abuse in many children, Mr Justice Eady stated: “it is asking a great deal of any paediatrician, however dedicated or experienced, to be a psychologist, a detective, and a social worker as well as struggling to identify the significance of genital findings (especially in the elusive anatomy of the infant hymen). It is necessary for a judge placed in my position to recognise that no one expert can embrace all these disciplines.” 1 England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) DecisionsNeutral citation number [2002] EWHC 1600 QB. Case no: HQ9903605, HQ9903606. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2002/1600.htmlDate: July 30, 2002 Google Scholar Physical abuse and neglect of childrenChild maltreatment includes physical abuse and neglect, and happens in all countries and cultures. Child maltreatment usually results from interactions between several risk factors (such as parental depression, stress, and social isolation). Physicians can incorporate methods to screen for risk factors into their usual appointments with the family. Detection of physical abuse is dependent on the doctor's ability to recognise suspicious injuries, such as bruising, bite marks, burns, bone fractures, or trauma to the head or abdomen. Full-Text PDF

An Islamic Perspective on IVF and PGD, with Particular Reference to Zain Hashmi, and Other Similar Cases

On 20 December 2002, the British High Court blocked a couple's bid to have a 'designer baby5 to save the life of their three-year old son, who has a potentially fatal genetic disorder. Although they had been given the go-ahead by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) earlier,1 Raj and Shahana Hashmi would have to stop their attempts to use genetic screening PGD (Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis) in select ing an embryo that would have the exact type of cells to help in curing their son, Zain. The Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) judge Mr. Justice Maurice Kay said the HFEA had no legal power to license the technique.2 The judge's decision seemed to agree with a pro-life cam paigner who claimed that the screening of test-tube embryos to provide 'donor siblings' for sick children was 'ethically objectionable'.3 However,

A Landmark Judgment of 23 January 2004 by the England and Wales Court of Appeal

1. Shamil Bank of Bahrain EC (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) requested from the Queen's Bench Division, The Commercial Court (Mr. Justice Morison), a summary judgment against: (1) Beximco Pharmaceuticals Ltd., (2) Bangladesh Export Import Co. Ltd. as the principal debtors, (3) Mr. Ahmed Sohail Fasiuhar Rahman, (4) Mr. Ahmed Salman Fazlur Rahman, and (5) Beximco Holdings Ltd., as guarantors. (Defendants 1 and 2 shall be referred as the Principal Debtors; defendants 3, 4 and 5 shall be referred to as the Guarantors and all the defendants shall be referred to collectively as the Defendants). 2. The Bank claimed that it had advanced monies to the Defendants to

High Court of Justice, Queens Bench Division: Kimberley Davies and the National Bingo Game Association Limited v. Mecca Bingo Limited

High Court of Justice, Queens Bench Division: <i>Kimberley Davies and the National Bingo Game Association Limited v. Mecca Bingo Limited</i>

United Kingdom (U.K.) House of Lords: In Re Al-Fawwaz (Appellant) (Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus) (on Appeal from a Divisional Court of the Queens's Bench Division)

United Kingdom (U.K.) House of Lords: In Re Al-Fawwaz (Appellant) (Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus) (on Appeal from a Divisional Court of the Queens's Bench Division)

The Right to Know in Tax Law

In Regina v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte Bishopp and Another, Mr Justice Dyson sitting in the Queens Bench Division held that the High Court should not review informal, unfavourable, pre transaction Revenue tax advice, or the refusal to offer advice, by granting declaratory relief in advance of a transaction. The application for judicial review was made by the accountancy partnerships Price Waterhouse Coopers and Ernst and Young, who had been exploring techniques for minimising their legal liability as partners in respect of unforeseen lawsuits brought against the partnership. The applicants had looked inter alia at Jersey, whose laws are recognised in England, and had asked the English Revenue to provide assurance that a Jersey limited liability partnership is for tax purposes a partnership in the United Kingdom (as opposed to a company). The Revenue refused to provide any such assurance, and the accountancy partnerships applied to the courts for a declaration that United Kingdom partnerships would remain partnerships for the purposes of English tax law in spite of their concurrent status as Jersey limited liability partnerships.

United Kingdom High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division (Divisional Court): In Re Augusto Pinochet Ugarte

United Kingdom High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division (Divisional Court): In Re Augusto Pinochet Ugarte