1COR Resources 


Human Rights & Public Law Update 
Search Resources:
Advanced search



Our privacy policy explains how we use cookies. By using this site, we have assumed your agreement to their use.



(1) MS Jenny Paton (2) C2 (3) C3 (4) C4 (5) C5 and Pool Borough Council, Investigatory Powers Tribunal

The Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) has ruled that a local council acted unlawfully in spying repeatedly on parents suspected of lying about where they lived in order to get their child into a sought after school. The ruling may not, however, prevent local authorities from spying on families for similar reasons in the future.

AD and OD v United Kingdom

(Application No 28680/06), 2 April 2010

The removal of a child based on faulty evidence breached the mother's and child's rights to family life under Article 8


The law did not permit a declaration that a marriage between a man and a transsexual born male but who had had irreversible surgery was valid and subsisting. This was a matter for Parliament and not for the courts

Camp and Bourimi v the Netherlands

The lack of recognition of a relationship between a child and his father whose death had predated the child's birth did not breach the child's right to family life but did discriminate against him contrary to Article 14

Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council v Watson [2011] EWHC 2376 (Fam)

Judge lays down law on family court privacy

Haas v Netherlands

An inheritance dispute was question of evidence going to the issue of whether family-law ties between the applicant and the deceased should be recognized by the local courts and did not involve central questions under the right to family life for the Court to determine.


The rule of forensic immunity which protected barristers and solicitor advocates from negligence actions taken in respect of their courtroom conduct was no longer justified in the modern legal environment

Kolarides v Cyprus

An order in ancillary relief proceeding to disclose assets does not amount to an interference with a property right under Article 1 Protocol 1, and any interference with the parties' privacy rights is justified in the interests of the rights of the other party


The rule in the Divorce and Matrimonial Proceedings Act that a petitioner is not entitled to rely on their unlawful residence in the UK in order to invoke the court's jurisdiction is a rule of public policy which must be set aside if ancillary relief or divorce proceedings are already under way, otherwise it would breach the parties' implied right of access to court under Article 6 of the Convention.


Proceedings for judgment summons to enforce ancillary relief orders breached Article 6 since the defendant was not afforded sufficient due process safegards


An applicant contesting court costs could not invoke Article 1 Protocol 1 where the proceedings in question involved a civil law dispute between private individuals

Re W (Children) [2010] UKSC 12

Supreme Court rules that presumption against children giving evidence is not compatible with Human Rights Convention


For the purposes of the requirement that local remedies be exhausted, an applicant is not expected to apply for judicial review of any step taken by the administrative authorities


The claimant, classified as inter sex at birth, was not entitled under Article 12 to a degree of nullity of marriage on the basis that he was not truly female at the date of marriage


Copyright © 1998-2014  One Crown Office Row, Temple, London EC4Y 7HH
Web: www.1cor.com Tel: 020 7797 7500, Fax: 020 7797 7550
Information on this site is published subject to this disclaimer and privacy policy.

Website internet development system,
technical design and hosting by Enstar
Visual design by The Helm Creative