Suchergebnisse

Refugee family reunion is a mechanism whereby refugees residing in a safe host-country may apply to have their families, typically residing abroad, join them to live and restart their lives in safety. This system operates under international and domestic laws which, in relation to the United Kingdom (UK), suffers from frequent tensions between the two. The problems exist due to the nature of immigration laws and the political dimension to expansion of the rights of individuals to enter and live in the UK; the (often) limited cultural, linguistic and technological skills of the applicant; and the practical system of applying for family reunion which exposes the applicant to a Byzantine procedural and legal process. In sum, this is a particularly anti-therapeutic mechanism to provide an individual with their most basic human right-the right to a family life. This paper uses therapeutic jurisprudence as a philosophic approach considering the emotional effects of the law. It explores how a more humanitarian direction to judicial decision-making and the administration of justice, or alternatively the use of mediation as a dispute resolution technique, may provide tangible benefits to applicants and their refugee sponsor accessing the legal system in England and Wales.

Examines Motor Insurers' Bureau v Lewis (CA) on the compatibility of the duties imposed by EU law under the motor vehicle insurance regime and the national legislation transposing them into UK law. Reviews the facts of Lewis, involving injuries caused by an uninsured vehicle on private land, and the significance of the court's confirmation of the Motor Insurers' Bureau as an emanation of the state. Considers how Brexit will change the situation.

In 2014, in the wake of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruling in Case C-162/13 Damijan Vnuk v Zavarovalnica Triglav, the law relating to compulsory motor vehicle insurance began to undergo significant change. Nationally, the requirement for the owner of a motor vehicle to possess insurance cover applies where the vehicle is used on a road or other public place; yet, Vnuk extended the obligation to vehicles on private land. However, beyond disquiet from some sectors as to this extension, there remains uncertainty at statutory and jurisprudential levels. According to Case C-80/17 Fundo de Garantia Automóvel v Juliana, immobilised vehicles stored on private land but which are capable of being driven are subject to compulsory motor vehicle insurance. In Case C‑514/16 Andrade v Crédito Agrícola Seguros, the requirement for compulsory motor vehicle insurance applies only where the vehicle is used as a means of transport. Andrade appears overly restrictive and may operate to defeat the protection the Motor Vehicle Insurance Directives (MVID) have sought to achieve. The co-existence of Juliana and Andrade creates uncertainty. Clarification is needed, through a seventh MVID or direction from the CJEU, as to the continuation of Andrade as a source of authority and to when and in which circumstances motor vehicles must be insured.

Since 2016, a Refugee Family Reunion Law Clinic has operated from Sheffield Hallam University's Helena Kennedy Centre for International Justice (hereafter HKC Law Clinic). Given the austerity-driven political agenda of the UK government in cutting public funding to advisory services, the effects of LASPO and a continuing refugee crisis, refugees in many parts of the UK were in need of legal and non-legal assistance. To fill this gap in services university law clinics, including our own, began to offer specialised services to assist the refugee population. This has included family reunion and exceptional case funding applications, and expert legal advice for individuals who find themselves stateless, yet in many instances the formal assistance ends at this stage. The HKC Law Clinic and its staff have remained in contact with many of our refugee clients (some are now engaged as interpreters). Through this interaction we have observed a particular problem of the lack of post-arrival support for refugees and their families. Developing the Therapeutic Jurisprudence philosophy upon which the clinic is based, and thus ensuring a therapeutically positive experience for the Clinic's users, we have begun a process of creating a more holistic clinical experience. Following the refugee clients' successful family reunion application, and when building their new lives together in the local region, our clinic offers a range of support services to assist in the pragmatic issues facing the family. This aspect of the HKC Law Clinic is in its infancy, but this paper aims to demonstrate what university law clinics can achieve and provides examples of our experiences so far.

For many years a tension has existed between the law of the European Union governing motor vehicle insurance and the UK's transposition, interpretation and application of its national law. Cases including Delaney v Pickett & Tradewise [2011] EWCA Civ 1532 and EUI v Bristol Alliance Partnership[2012] EWCA Civ 1267 have demonstrated the UK's misunderstanding of its legal obligations in this area and has led to the award of damages to affected individuals against the UK. On 5 December 2016 the Court of Appeal issued its judgment in the case Sahin v Havard and Riverstone Insurance (UK) Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 1202. The Court was tasked to apply provisions of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to a victim of an unauthorised driver in a claim against the policyholder and the insurer. It is argued here that the Court has misunderstood and misapplied the EU parent law in its application of national law. The case may ultimately be determined by the Supreme Court but it is a ruling of sufficient significance in its lack of adherence to EU law and, given the notoriety of cases demonstrating the inconsistencies of the Court of Appeal's decisions in motor vehicle insurance law, it is worrying that these judgments seemingly have been ignored. The ruling also has important implications for the consequences that Brexit will have on motor vehicle insurance. This is particularly if, as is expected, the UK pursues a 'hard Brexit' without access to the single market and the need to comply with the free movement principles through which the motor vehicle insurance directives are based. The UK would therefore be freed of the compatibility issues demonstrated in Sahin, but this will likely leave third party victims in a weaker position.

The UK's referendum decision of 23 June 2016, where voters elected to leave the European Union (EU), will fundamentally change aspects of national law. Much debate has focused on the constitutional implications of the decision and the procedure by which the government seeks to facilitate the exit. Further, issues of substance including the part played by immigration and the control of the UK's borders have also dominated legal and political commentary. Yet there has been no critical examination of the effects it will have on motor vehicle insurance law. The statute governing much of the law (the Road Traffic Act 1988), along with the extra-statutory agreements providing protection for the third party victims of negligent uninsured drivers and untraced vehicles, are each profoundly influenced by EU directives. Given the Brexit decision and the resolution of the government to facilitate the UK's exit of the Union, we argue that the protective rights for such victims of motor accidents are likely to be reduced. Further, the advancement of the law, developed through the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice, will be lost.

This paper aims to highlight some of the key issues surrounding the development and application of immigration law as it applies in the United Kingdom (UK) to refugees attempting to be reunited with their families living abroad. The right for refugees to be reunited with their families is enshrined in international law, but this is frequently frustrated by the legal and administrative systems used in the UK. Using content analysis and doctrinal analysis techniques, the paper provides an examination of how a philosophy which considers the emotional effects of the law, therapeutic jurisprudence, could be used not only to inform interpretation of current domestic laws, but also influence the drafting of future legislation. This is an aspect of current refugee law in the United Kingdom which has yet to be examined. It provides, we argue, a humanitarian direction to statutory interpretation which may provide tangible benefits to current and proposed legal systems. Abstract This paper aims to highlight some of the key issues surrounding the development and application of immigration law as it applies in the United Kingdom (UK) to refugees attempting to be reunited with their families living abroad. The right for refugees to be reunited with their families is enshrined in international law, but this is frequently frustrated by the legal and administrative systems used in the UK. Using content analysis and doctrinal analysis techniques,the paper provides an examination of how a philosophy which considers the emotional effects of the law, therapeutic jurisprudence, could be used not only to inform interpretation of current domestic laws, but also influence the drafting of future legislation. This is an aspect of current refugee law in the United Kingdom which has yet to be examined. It provides, we argue, a humanitarian direction to statutory interpretation which may provide tangible benefits to current and proposed legal systems.

Against a backdrop of austerity, characterised by public-sector funding cuts and a devolutionary agenda, this paper explores how legislation might address two, inter-related challenges which face public urban green space ('greenspace') in England and Wales; namely, responsibility for provision, and identification of supporting funds. It focuses on two proposals; first, the introduction of legislative powers to enable local authorities to create user-charging schemes, and secondly, the imposition of a local authority statutory duty to provide greenspace.

On 19 July 2018 the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018 (AEVA) received Royal Assent. As motor vehicles are becoming increasingly technologically-based, with driving aids having taken over many of the more mundane (and possibly dangerous) aspects of driving from the driver, it is imperative that legislation keeps pace to determine the responsibilities of the parties. Motor insurance provides protection for those involved with vehicles and who may suffer harm, injury and loss due to the negligence of the actors. This is most frequently driver error, but may also include manufacturing defects which result in deaths and less serious injuries. It is also here where the intersection between torts and insurance laws needs careful management. It would be particularly unfair to ask drivers or third-party victims of motor vehicle accidents to seek redress from a manufacturer for losses incurred during the actions of an autonomous vehicle. Consumer law has historically removed this burden from affected consumers and it is entirely sensible for the law to protect individuals in an emerging field-and perhaps even more so given the trajectory of vehicles with driver-enabled qualities and the numbers of vehicles currently featuring such innovations. Yet, the AEVA consists of aspects which are troubling in respect of the motor insurance industry's dominance of this market, the application of compulsory insurance, and exclusions and limitations to responsibility which expose policy holders and victims to EU-breaching levels of risk.

This paper aims to highlight some of the key issues surrounding the development and application of immigration law as it applies in the United Kingdom (UK) to refugees attempting to be reunited with their families living abroad. The right for refugees to be reunited with their families is enshrined in international law, but this is frequently frustrated by the legal and administrative systems used in the UK. Using content analysis and doctrinal analysis techniques,the paper provides an examination of how a philosophy which considers the emotional effects of the law, therapeutic jurisprudence, could be used not only to inform interpretation of current domestic laws, but also influence the drafting of future legislation. This is an aspect of current refugee law in the United Kingdom which has yet to be examined. It provides, we argue, a humanitarian direction to statutory interpretation which may provide tangible benefits to current and proposed legal systems.