High court | Jotup

Migration has been in the news a lot lately. What’s going on?

Retrieved on:

星期日, 六月 2, 2024

Much of this reporting is fixated on the perceived threat posed by non-citizens to the safety or prosperity of the Australian community.

Key Points:

Much of this reporting is fixated on the perceived threat posed by non-citizens to the safety or prosperity of the Australian community.
Such framing misses the real “crisis” of Australia’s migration system and the real harms it enables and produces to non-citizens.

Australia’s long history of ‘migration panic’

Non-citizen migrants become scapegoats for perceived dangers to the wellbeing of the national population.
Australia has a long colonial history of racial exclusion through immigration law.
In fact, the Whitlam government commissioned Australia’s first purpose-built immigration detention centres, with Sydney’s Villawood centre opening in 1976.

Prolonged detention or precarity

The vast majority of these people remained in Australia, first in immigration detention and later on short-term bridging visas.
A small portion of 4,245 people were forcibly sent to Australian-run immigration detention in Nauru and Papua New Guinea between 2012 and 2014.
They now remain either in immigration detention or on short-term final departure bridging visas.
The recent High Court case of a bisexual Iranian man who has been in immigration detention for almost a decade is a well-known example of a person failed by this fast-track process.

Visa cancellations as double punishment

This includes people who have been convicted of a crime carrying a sentence of 12 months or more.
All visa cancellation decisions can be reviewed by independent tribunal decision-makers.
Between July 2018 and December 2023, immigration ministers cancelled the visas of 4,415 people on the basis of “character grounds”, with New Zealanders being the single largest most cancelled visa nationality group.
In response, Giles this week announced that he would revise Directive 99 to “ensure the protection of the community outweighs any other consideration” in reviews of visa cancellations.
People impacted by visa denials or cancellations have been stuck for many years in immigration detention pending deportation.

Genocide Determination Bill [HL]

Retrieved on:

星期日, 六月 2, 2024

High court, Punishment, Convention, Genocide, International law, Court of cassation

A Bill to provide for the High Court in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and the Court of Session in Scotland to make preliminary determinations concerning the undertakings made by the United Kingdom as a Contracting Party to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (“Genocide Convention”) under international law; for the referral of such determinations to relevant international courts or organisations; for response to reports on genocide; and for connected purposes.

Key Points:

A Bill to provide for the High Court in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and the Court of Session in Scotland to make preliminary determinations concerning the undertakings made by the United Kingdom as a Contracting Party to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (“Genocide Convention”) under international law; for the referral of such determinations to relevant international courts or organisations; for response to reports on genocide; and for connected purposes.

IC-264353-G1F2

Retrieved on:

星期日, 六月 2, 2024

Certification, HM Treasury, High court, COVID-19, Calendar, Contempt, Government, HMT, Constitution Act, 1982, Policy, Legislation, Commissioner, Court of cassation

The complainant has requested information about the temporary £20-per week benefit uplift put in place at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic. HM Treasury (“HMT”) refused to provide it citing section 35 (formulation/development of government policy) and section 40(2) (personal data). The complainant made it clear in their request for internal review that they did not seek access to any personal data. On internal review, HMT introduced reliance on section 42 (legal professional privilege). During the Commissioner’s investigation, HMT withdrew reliance on section 42 and introduced reliance on section 36 (effective conduct of public affairs). It maintained reliance on section 35 in respect of a small amount of the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMT is not entitled to rely on section 35 and section 36 as its basis for withholding the requested information. The Commissioner requires HMT to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the information it holds within the scope of the complainant’s request. The public authority must take these steps within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.

Key Points:

HM Treasury (“HMT”) refused to provide it citing section 35 (formulation/development of government policy) and section 40(2) (personal data).
The complainant made it clear in their request for internal review that they did not seek access to any personal data.
During the Commissioner’s investigation, HMT withdrew reliance on section 42 and introduced reliance on section 36 (effective conduct of public affairs).
It maintained reliance on section 35 in respect of a small amount of the requested information.

IC-270800-G8Q0

Retrieved on:

星期日, 六月 2, 2024

Certification, FOIA, High court, Calendar, Contempt, Legislation, Commissioner, Court of cassation

The complainant has requested information relating to the expansion of places at Magee University. The Department of Finance (DoF) refused to provide the information citing section 35(1) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 35(1) is engaged but the public interest lies in disclosing part of the withheld information. The Commissioner requires DoF to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the information listed in the confidential annex ensuring personal data is redacted where necessary. Details of the information to be disclosed is contained in a confidential annex made available to DoF only. The public authority must take these steps within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.

Key Points:

The Department of Finance (DoF) refused to provide the information citing section 35(1) FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that section 35(1) is engaged but the public interest lies in disclosing part of the withheld information.
Details of the information to be disclosed is contained in a confidential annex made available to DoF only.
The public authority must take these steps within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.

IC-301883-C9F9

Retrieved on:

星期日, 六月 2, 2024

Certification, FOIA, High court, Calendar, Legislation, Croydon College, Commissioner, Court of cassation

The complainant requested information from Croydon College (the public authority). By the date of this notice the public authority had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has breached section 10(1) of FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation. The public authority must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The public authority must take this step within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.

Key Points:

By the date of this notice the public authority had not issued a substantive response to this request.
The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation.
The public authority must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
The public authority must take this step within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.

Atlantica Enters into Agreement to be Acquired by Energy Capital Partners and Co-Investors

Retrieved on:

星期二, 五月 28, 2024

Bidco is controlled by Energy Capital Partners (“ECP”), a leading investor across energy transition, electrification and decarbonization infrastructure assets, and includes a large group of institutional co-investors.

Key Points:

Bidco is controlled by Energy Capital Partners (“ECP”), a leading investor across energy transition, electrification and decarbonization infrastructure assets, and includes a large group of institutional co-investors.
The transaction values Atlantica at an equity value of approximately $2,555 million.
The transaction is to be completed pursuant to a scheme of arrangement (the “Scheme”) under the U.K. Companies Act 2006.
Latham & Watkins LLP acted as legal advisor to Energy Capital Partners.

IC-300081-N6J0

Retrieved on:

星期二, 五月 28, 2024

Certification, FOIA, High court, Calendar, Foreign, Legislation, Commonwealth, Development, Commissioner, Court of cassation

1. The complainant requested information from the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (the public authority). By the date of this notice the public authority had not issued a substantive response to this request. 2. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has breached section 10(1) of FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. 3. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation. • The public authority must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. 4. The public authority must take this step within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.

Key Points:

The complainant requested information from the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (the public authority).
By the date of this notice the public authority had not issued a substantive response to this request.
• The public authority must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
The public authority must take this step within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.

Court Revokes Two Advanced Cell Diagnostics Patents, Dismisses Infringement Claims Against Molecular Instruments and Orders Advanced Cell Diagnostics to Make Payment of £1.35 Million to Molecular Instruments

Retrieved on:

星期二, 五月 21, 2024

Professional Services, Health, Technology, Legal, Nanotechnology, Health Technology, Biotechnology, High court, Judgement, Bio-Techne, European Patent Convention, Patents Court, Research

Molecular Instruments, Inc. announced that the Patents Court of the High Court of England and Wales has ordered: (1) that two patents owned by Advanced Cell Diagnostics, Inc. (a Bio-Techne group company; NASDAQ: TECH) both be revoked; (2) that Advanced Cell Diagnostics’ infringement claims against Molecular Instruments are dismissed; and (3) that Advanced Cell Diagnostics make a costs payment of £1.35 million (approximately $1.72 million at the current exchange rate) to Molecular Instruments.

Key Points:

Molecular Instruments, Inc. announced that the Patents Court of the High Court of England and Wales has ordered: (1) that two patents owned by Advanced Cell Diagnostics, Inc. (a Bio-Techne group company; NASDAQ: TECH) both be revoked; (2) that Advanced Cell Diagnostics’ infringement claims against Molecular Instruments are dismissed; and (3) that Advanced Cell Diagnostics make a costs payment of £1.35 million (approximately $1.72 million at the current exchange rate) to Molecular Instruments.
In a 2022 lawsuit filed at the High Court of England and Wales (proceedings no.
HP-2022-000026), Advanced Cell Diagnostics alleged that Molecular Instruments’ HCR™ RNA-ISH technology infringed European Patents (UK) 2,500,439 and 1,910,572.
“We are pleased that the UK matter is now concluded,” said Dr. Harry Choi, CEO of Molecular Instruments.

Praesidiad takes High Court action against competitor and ex-employees for alleged wrongdoing

Retrieved on:

星期二, 五月 7, 2024

High court, Patent, Court of cassation, Trust

The allegations of wrongdoing include the removal by the ex-employees, either alone or together, of commercially sensitive information, confidential to Hesco.

Key Points:

The allegations of wrongdoing include the removal by the ex-employees, either alone or together, of commercially sensitive information, confidential to Hesco.
Hesco is seeking orders from High Court for appropriate injunctions to restrain further infringing activity, an enquiry into damages or alternatively an account of Dirickx's profits as well as payment of its legal costs.
A High Court trial in London is expected within 12-18 months.
We have a duty to defend our innovation and our brand through this High Court action.

Calcutta High Court rules in favour of UpHealth Holdings, Inc., and vigorously reinforces the ICC International Court of Arbitration previous $110 million award against Glocal directors and other Respondents, calling their conduct “dishonest and fraudulen

Retrieved on:

星期二, 四月 16, 2024

Calcutta High Court, High court, International, Glocalization, SPA, Court of cassation, NCLT, OTC, International court, Public policy, Commerce, ICC, M. Damodaran

In an order dated 12 April 2024, the Calcutta High Court, in a post-award Section 9 Petition filed by Holdings, directed all Respondents (viz.

Key Points:

In an order dated 12 April 2024, the Calcutta High Court, in a post-award Section 9 Petition filed by Holdings, directed all Respondents (viz.
On 15 March 2024, the ICA had passed a Final Award to the tune of $110 million in favour of Holdings, out of which $29.5 million (along with arbitration costs) is immediately enforceable.
The petitioner is now armed with an award and that is now at least a prima facie case in its favour.
We are pleased that an Indian court has recognized the award passed by a reputed ICC Tribunal and that the High Court has recognized the “unscrupulous”, “dishonest and fraudulent” conduct of the Respondents.