Bite-size human rights case law update

14 December 2010 by

You may have noticed that we have started to provide a bit more detail in the “Latest news” and “Case law” sections on the right sidebar.

This is so we can provide quicker news updates, and can notify readers of cases before we have had a chance to post on them in more detail. You can access the full list (RSS – for those who know what that means) of news updates here, or case law here.

The recent cases are:

  • Agnes OFULUE v the United Kingdom – 52512/09 [2010] ECHR 2014 (23 November 2010) December 13, 2010
    Couple who lost £550,000 property to adverse possessors fail in Euro human rights court: letter claiming ownership headed “without prejudice” could not be relied upon. The Nearly Legal blog has already posted on this.
  • PF and EF v the United Kingdom – 28326/09 [2010] ECHR 2015 (23 November 2010) December 13, 2010
    European Court of Human Rights rejects claim that 2001 failure of police in Belfast to protect parents walking children to school was breach of human rights. Another case showing that it is almost impossible to sue the police for negligence, as the courts are of the view (following the principle in Osman v UK) that the police should be able to get on with their jobs without fear of civil litigation.
  • Secretary of State for the Home Department v DD (Afghanistan) [2010] EWCA Civ 1407 (10 December 2010) December 10, 2010
    Asylum seeker not protected from deportation as he had carried out acts contrary to the principles of the United Nations. It is a standard feature of the Refugee Convention that asylum seekers are no protected if they were part of the problem in their home country, for example if they were a willing part of a persecutory regime. The interesting aspect is that he was carrying out actions he said (and the court basically agreed) were approved by the UN in the first place.
  • Ministry of Defence v AB & Ors [2010] EWCA Civ 1405 (09 December 2010)December 9, 2010
    Nuclear test veterans refused permission to appeal to Supreme Court in compensation case. The original decision is here: The Court of Appeal overturned the High Court’s support of the veterans’ case that they should be able to bring the claims well outside of the usual limitation period for personal injury claims.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: