Act of spite : Lord Reed decries proposals to change Supreme Court s name | News lawgazette.co.uk - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from lawgazette.co.uk Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
The UK Supreme Court s much-anticipated judgment in
Halliburton Company (Appellant) v Chubb Bermuda Insurance Ltd (formerly known as Ace Bermuda Insurance Ltd) (Respondent) [2020] UKSC 48 (on appeal from [2018] EWCA Civ 817) opens with the recognition of an axiom which goes to the heart of justice: it is axiomatic that a judge or an arbitrator must be impartial; he or she must not be biased in favour of or against any party in a litigation or reference.
After restating the law on the extent to which an arbitrator can, without disclosure and without giving rise to an appearance of bias, accept appointments in multiple references concerning the same or overlapping subject matter with only one common party, the judgment concludes that the arbitrator in question was in breach of a legal duty of disclosure but that, on the facts, he did not need to be removed. With that conclusion, many in the international arbitration community may well wonder whether the axiomatic duty has been g
Supreme CourtPublished March 8, 2021Regina (Begum) v Special Immigration Appeals Commission Regina (Begum) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Begum v Secretary of State for the Home
Oil Pollution: UK Supreme Court Upholds Niger Delta Communities’ Case Against Shell Company
The court stated that the appeal was allowed, which means that the case was legal and could be resolved by a competent High Court.
by Saharareporters, New York
Mar 07, 2021
The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom Parliament Square in London has upheld the appeal of Okpabi and others, representatives of the Niger Delta communities in Nigeria, against the Royal Dutch Shell PLC over oil pollution and spillage in the region.
The court stated that the appeal was allowed, which means that the case was legal and could be resolved by a competent High Court.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department had made a decision depriving the appellant (SB) of British citizenship after she had travelled to Syria to join ISIL. The Supreme Court considered appeals against three decisions relating to SB. The court held that, among other things, the Court of Appeal had mistakenly believed that, when an individual’s right to have a fair hearing of an appeal came into conflict with the requirements of national security, her right to a fair hearing had to prevail. If a vital public interest - in the present case, the safety of the public - made it impossible for a case to be fairly heard, then the courts could not ordinarily hear it. The appropriate response to the problem in the present case was for the appeal to be stayed until SB was in a position to play an effective part in it without the safety of the public being compromised. The Secretary of State’s appeals in each of the proceedings before the court would be allowed, and SB’s cross-ap