This case of HM Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills v The Interim Executive Board of Al-Hijrah School was the unfortunate outcome of an Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted) inspection which resulted in a cataclysmic breakdown in trust between the government agency and the Birmingham city based Al-Hijrah school. Following an Ofsted inspection carried out under section 5 of the Education Act 2005, the subsequent Report stated that the full segregation of female and male pupils in a mixed-sex school amounted to sex discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. Al-Hijrah School applied to the High Court for a judicial review of the report prior to its official publication. The High Court Justice considered a range of evidences including facts related to Ofsted procedure, and ruled that the segregation did not amount to a breach of the 2010 Act, as when taken as a group, the treatment of the boys and the girls was the same and so there was an absence of “less favourable treatment”.
{"title":"OFSTED V AL-HIJRAH, THE CASE OF SEGREGATED SCHOOLS AND SEX DISCRIMINATION","authors":"Rajnaara C. Akhtar","doi":"10.5750/DLJ.V30I1.1656","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5750/DLJ.V30I1.1656","url":null,"abstract":"This case of HM Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills v The Interim Executive Board of Al-Hijrah School was the unfortunate outcome of an Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted) inspection which resulted in a cataclysmic breakdown in trust between the government agency and the Birmingham city based Al-Hijrah school. Following an Ofsted inspection carried out under section 5 of the Education Act 2005, the subsequent Report stated that the full segregation of female and male pupils in a mixed-sex school amounted to sex discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. Al-Hijrah School applied to the High Court for a judicial review of the report prior to its official publication. The High Court Justice considered a range of evidences including facts related to Ofsted procedure, and ruled that the segregation did not amount to a breach of the 2010 Act, as when taken as a group, the treatment of the boys and the girls was the same and so there was an absence of “less favourable treatment”. ","PeriodicalId":382436,"journal":{"name":"The Denning Law Journal","volume":"31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123877049","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"COMMUNITY PROPERTY CLAIMS IN THE PERSONHOOD PERSPECTIVE: PART 2","authors":"Natalie Pratt","doi":"10.5750/DLJ.V30I1.1218","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5750/DLJ.V30I1.1218","url":null,"abstract":"As submitted with part I","PeriodicalId":382436,"journal":{"name":"The Denning Law Journal","volume":"50 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122150785","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
CORRUPTION AND MISUSE OF PUBLIC OFFICEColin Nicholls QC, Tim Daniel, Alan Bacarese, James Maton and Professor John Hatchard, (3rd edn, OUP 2017) lxxviii and 934.
《腐败与公职滥用》colin Nicholls QC, Tim Daniel, Alan Bacarese, James Maton和John Hatchard教授，(第三版，OUP 2017) lxxviii和934。
{"title":"CORRUPTION AND MISUSE OF PUBLIC OFFICE","authors":"P. Slinn","doi":"10.5750/DLJ.V30I1.1654","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5750/DLJ.V30I1.1654","url":null,"abstract":"CORRUPTION AND MISUSE OF PUBLIC OFFICEColin Nicholls QC, Tim Daniel, Alan Bacarese, James Maton and Professor John Hatchard, (3rd edn, OUP 2017) lxxviii and 934.","PeriodicalId":382436,"journal":{"name":"The Denning Law Journal","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131253757","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper focuses on the common law doctrine of the penalty rule and the recent Supreme Court decision in Cavendish Square Holding v Makdessi and ParkingEye v Beavis . The state of the penalty rule prior to the judgment was unsatisfactory and criticized by both commentators and practitioners alike. Its indiscriminate application and unclear criteria was a needless source of uncertainty for both contracting parties and lawyers. Nevertheless, their Lordships in Cavendish refused to abolish the penalty rule but acknowledged its limited application in the modern commercial context. This paper accordingly aims to justify the continued existence of the doctrine on theoretical grounds within the English private law framework despite its practical obsolescence.
{"title":"THE PENALTY RULE: A MODERN INTERPRETATION","authors":"K. K. Leung","doi":"10.5750/dlj.v29i1.1257","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5750/dlj.v29i1.1257","url":null,"abstract":"This paper focuses on the common law doctrine of the penalty rule and the recent Supreme Court decision in Cavendish Square Holding v Makdessi and ParkingEye v Beavis . The state of the penalty rule prior to the judgment was unsatisfactory and criticized by both commentators and practitioners alike. Its indiscriminate application and unclear criteria was a needless source of uncertainty for both contracting parties and lawyers. Nevertheless, their Lordships in Cavendish refused to abolish the penalty rule but acknowledged its limited application in the modern commercial context. This paper accordingly aims to justify the continued existence of the doctrine on theoretical grounds within the English private law framework despite its practical obsolescence.","PeriodicalId":382436,"journal":{"name":"The Denning Law Journal","volume":"34 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115521266","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions (the OECD Convention) entered into force on 15 February 1999. As at 31 May 2017, there were 41 State Parties (the Parties) comprising the thirty-five OECD member countries and six non-member countries. The United Kingdom (UK) ratified the Convention in 1998. The OECD Convention is supplemented by the Revised Recommendations of the Council of the OECD on Combating Bribery in International Business Transactions (the 2009 Recommendations), Annex I of which contains “Good Practice Guidance on Implementing Specific Articles of the Convention.” In March 2017, the OECD Working Group on Bribery in International Business Transactions (the WGB) published its Phase 4 Report on the United Kingdom’s implementation of the OECD Convention (Phase 4 Report). Having provided a short background section on the scope of the OECD Convention and the role of the WGB, the following section will review some of the key recommendations contained in the Phase 4 Report. In the final section, an assessment is made as to how well the UK is doing with regard to the implementation of its OECD Convention obligations.
{"title":"‘HOW WELL ARE WE DOING?’ THE UNITED KINGDOM AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION OF THE OECD ANTI-BRIBERY CONVENTION","authors":"J. Hatchard","doi":"10.5750/DLJ.V29I1.1420","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5750/DLJ.V29I1.1420","url":null,"abstract":"The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions (the OECD Convention) entered into force on 15 February 1999. As at 31 May 2017, there were 41 State Parties (the Parties) comprising the thirty-five OECD member countries and six non-member countries. The United Kingdom (UK) ratified the Convention in 1998. The OECD Convention is supplemented by the Revised Recommendations of the Council of the OECD on Combating Bribery in International Business Transactions (the 2009 Recommendations), Annex I of which contains “Good Practice Guidance on Implementing Specific Articles of the Convention.” In March 2017, the OECD Working Group on Bribery in International Business Transactions (the WGB) published its Phase 4 Report on the United Kingdom’s implementation of the OECD Convention (Phase 4 Report). Having provided a short background section on the scope of the OECD Convention and the role of the WGB, the following section will review some of the key recommendations contained in the Phase 4 Report. In the final section, an assessment is made as to how well the UK is doing with regard to the implementation of its OECD Convention obligations.","PeriodicalId":382436,"journal":{"name":"The Denning Law Journal","volume":"42 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114825336","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Enshrined within the Bill of Rights of 1689, parliamentary privilege continues to act as a guarantor of democracy and parliamentary supremacy, by providing a shield from unwarranted interference from the executive, the courts and others. Central to the constitutional arrangement of the United Kingdom, the functions and works of Parliament is of paramount importance. Parliamentarians, including Members of the House of Commons and the House of Lords, when conducting public duties must be safeguarded to ensure the discharge of such parliamentary business is conducted to the highest possible standard without fear or favour but with professional integrity.
{"title":"PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE IN R V WHITE (LORD HANNINGFIELD) 2016 ALL EQUAL BEFORE THE LAW","authors":"M. Thomson","doi":"10.5750/DLJ.V29I1.1406","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5750/DLJ.V29I1.1406","url":null,"abstract":"Enshrined within the Bill of Rights of 1689, parliamentary privilege continues to act as a guarantor of democracy and parliamentary supremacy, by providing a shield from unwarranted interference from the executive, the courts and others. Central to the constitutional arrangement of the United Kingdom, the functions and works of Parliament is of paramount importance. Parliamentarians, including Members of the House of Commons and the House of Lords, when conducting public duties must be safeguarded to ensure the discharge of such parliamentary business is conducted to the highest possible standard without fear or favour but with professional integrity.","PeriodicalId":382436,"journal":{"name":"The Denning Law Journal","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132928578","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The short paper is a reply to bob Watt, who takes issue in an interesting way with the moral psychology implicit in my old paper 'The Wrongness of Rape' (co-authored with Stephen Shute). Watt says that Shute and I make a sideshow of the emotions by holding them answerable to reasons. I show that this charge is false. I show that it is actually Watt who makes a sideshow of the emotions by presenting them as unresponsive to reasons. I also respond to Watt's criticism of the concrete proposal that Shute and I make, namely that rape is sheer use of a person.
{"title":"Reasonable Reactions to the Wrongness of Rape","authors":"John Gardner","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2727709","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2727709","url":null,"abstract":"The short paper is a reply to bob Watt, who takes issue in an interesting way with the moral psychology implicit in my old paper 'The Wrongness of Rape' (co-authored with Stephen Shute). Watt says that Shute and I make a sideshow of the emotions by holding them answerable to reasons. I show that this charge is false. I show that it is actually Watt who makes a sideshow of the emotions by presenting them as unresponsive to reasons. I also respond to Watt's criticism of the concrete proposal that Shute and I make, namely that rape is sheer use of a person.","PeriodicalId":382436,"journal":{"name":"The Denning Law Journal","volume":"84 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131489472","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Though published more than ten years apart, it is timely to review these volumes together. Both books adopt an historical perspective on women under men ’ s laws, with a strong message for the contemporary world. Because of Sex traces developments constituting, and bringing about, advances in how the law addresses women ’ s work and roles, and consequent change in society. A Law of Her Own proposes how the law should adopt a revised approach, substituting the ‘reasonable woman’ standard for the existing - generally ubiquitous – ‘reasonable man’ or ‘reasonable person’ standard – which Because of Sex indicates has at least to some degree, in some instances, occurred.
{"title":"BECAUSE OF SEX and A LAW OF HER OWN","authors":"J. Scutt","doi":"10.5750/DLJ.V29I1.1425","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5750/DLJ.V29I1.1425","url":null,"abstract":"Though published more than ten years apart, it is timely to review these volumes together. Both books adopt an historical perspective on women under men ’ s laws, with a strong message for the contemporary world. Because of Sex traces developments constituting, and bringing about, advances in how the law addresses women ’ s work and roles, and consequent change in society. A Law of Her Own proposes how the law should adopt a revised approach, substituting the ‘reasonable woman’ standard for the existing - generally ubiquitous – ‘reasonable man’ or ‘reasonable person’ standard – which Because of Sex indicates has at least to some degree, in some instances, occurred.","PeriodicalId":382436,"journal":{"name":"The Denning Law Journal","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124400819","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
As the editors observe at the start of this book, the law on succession is a “neglected field” in England whilst Continental and comparative lawyers have rediscovered it to be of immense practical importance which deserves greater academic attention. The rules of succession are of great significance to all; as pointed out by Penelope Reed in Chapter Seven there is no shortage of probate disputes that end up in the Chancery Division as a result of “… an ageing population, the increase in the incidence of dementia and the rise of house prices making estates worth fighting over…” Since death is inevitable and everyone will die either testate, having made a valid will or intestate, without a valid will the law of succession affects us all. In order to address this gap in the law a conference took place in July 2015 at All Souls College Oxford attended by Chancery Judges, a member of the Court of Appeal as well as a number of leading academics and practitioners. This book comprises eleven of the conference papers. The result is an excellent book both as a reference work for students and practitioners and also of interest to the wider public who may be drawn in by the subject matter and possibly the picture on the loose leaf cover showing David Wilkie ’ s well-known painting Reading of the Will. In many ways the most engaging feature of this collection is the breadth of subjects covered. They range from the more traditional succession issues such as the reform of the rules of intestacy in Chapter One and Mutual Wills in Chapter Five to the more challenging issues of Testamentary dispositions in favour of informal carers in Chapter Eight and Proprietary Estoppel in Chapter Four. Much credit should be given to the conference organisers and book editors for ensuring that the conference and later the book had sufficient breadth and did not dwell overly on the minutiae of the rules of drawing up a valid will although that said Chapter Four shows how this in itself embraces many wider legal issues.
{"title":"CURRENT ISSUES IN SUCCESSION LAW","authors":"Judith Bray","doi":"10.5750/DLJ.V29I1.1424","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5750/DLJ.V29I1.1424","url":null,"abstract":"As the editors observe at the start of this book, the law on succession is a “neglected field” in England whilst Continental and comparative lawyers have rediscovered it to be of immense practical importance which deserves greater academic attention. The rules of succession are of great significance to all; as pointed out by Penelope Reed in Chapter Seven there is no shortage of probate disputes that end up in the Chancery Division as a result of “… an ageing population, the increase in the incidence of dementia and the rise of house prices making estates worth fighting over…” Since death is inevitable and everyone will die either testate, having made a valid will or intestate, without a valid will the law of succession affects us all. In order to address this gap in the law a conference took place in July 2015 at All Souls College Oxford attended by Chancery Judges, a member of the Court of Appeal as well as a number of leading academics and practitioners. This book comprises eleven of the conference papers. The result is an excellent book both as a reference work for students and practitioners and also of interest to the wider public who may be drawn in by the subject matter and possibly the picture on the loose leaf cover showing David Wilkie ’ s well-known painting Reading of the Will. In many ways the most engaging feature of this collection is the breadth of subjects covered. They range from the more traditional succession issues such as the reform of the rules of intestacy in Chapter One and Mutual Wills in Chapter Five to the more challenging issues of Testamentary dispositions in favour of informal carers in Chapter Eight and Proprietary Estoppel in Chapter Four. Much credit should be given to the conference organisers and book editors for ensuring that the conference and later the book had sufficient breadth and did not dwell overly on the minutiae of the rules of drawing up a valid will although that said Chapter Four shows how this in itself embraces many wider legal issues.","PeriodicalId":382436,"journal":{"name":"The Denning Law Journal","volume":"76 12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130604715","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
It is something of a modern cliche to cite the Daily Mail as an example of the more hysterical fringe of the mainstream press, but even by its own standards the newspaper reached new heights in the wake of the High Court ’ s decision in R (on the application of Miller and Dos Santos) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union . Despite the rather dry constitutional point that was actually in issue (whether the executive possessed a prerogative power to leave a treaty without Parliamentary approval) the Mail left no doubt as to its view of the case: ‘Enemies of the people’ screamed the headline, with the article going on to suggest that the claimants “had formed an 'unholy alliance' with the judiciary.” Clearly the position of even the most senior members of the judiciary is far from the distinguished isolation of previous centuries.
{"title":"BEING A JUDGE IN THE MODERN WORLD","authors":"Fred Motson","doi":"10.5750/DLJ.V29I1.1426","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5750/DLJ.V29I1.1426","url":null,"abstract":"It is something of a modern cliche to cite the Daily Mail as an example of the more hysterical fringe of the mainstream press, but even by its own standards the newspaper reached new heights in the wake of the High Court ’ s decision in R (on the application of Miller and Dos Santos) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union . Despite the rather dry constitutional point that was actually in issue (whether the executive possessed a prerogative power to leave a treaty without Parliamentary approval) the Mail left no doubt as to its view of the case: ‘Enemies of the people’ screamed the headline, with the article going on to suggest that the claimants “had formed an 'unholy alliance' with the judiciary.” Clearly the position of even the most senior members of the judiciary is far from the distinguished isolation of previous centuries.","PeriodicalId":382436,"journal":{"name":"The Denning Law Journal","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125621183","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：