Temple Garden Chambers

We’re thrilled to announce that Nancy Rice, Joint First Junior Clerk, will be speaking at the Inaugural Her Bar Conference taking place on 17th May 2025 at The View in The Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, for a full day dedicated to empowering women barristers. This conference is designed to inspire and provide valuable insights from seasoned practitioners and members of the Bench. Plus, enjoy a delicious catered lunch by Searcy’s. Whether you’re starting your career, developing your practice, or looking to advance, there’s something for everyone. Early Bird tickets are now available, but hurry—prices will increase on March 17th! Grab your tickets today via Eventbrite. https://lnkd.in/e7AyDqGy

“What is the #AutomatedVehiclesAct2024 and what does it mean for the future?” My webinar for LexisNexis, launched today. #automatedvehiclelaw #selfdriving #driverless #autonomous #CPDtraining #technologylaw #transport #regulatory #litigation #insurance #consumerlaw #personalinjury #BritishLaw

Sian Reeves (alongside Rajkiran Arhestey and led by Alan Payne KC) acted for the Home Secretary in R (ABW) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWHC 3205 (Admin). This is one of a number of claims for judicial review brought by a potential victim of modern slavery, challenging the Home Secretary’s decision to apply the Public Order Disqualification (“POD”) in s. 63 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. Dove J had to determine, as a preliminary issue, whether, on either a mandatory or discretionary basis, an application for judicial review challenging a decision to apply the POD should be transferred from the High Court to the Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber pursuant to s. 31A of the Senior Courts Act 1981. This required Dove J to interpret the Lord Chief Justice’s Direction made on 21 August 2013 and amended on 17 October 2014, which is entitled "Jurisdiction of the Upper Tribunal under section 18 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and Mandatory Transfer of Judicial Review applications to UTIAC under section 31A (2) of the Senior Courts Act 1981” (“the Direction”). The key question which arose for determination by Dove J was whether or not a claim for judicial review challenging a POD decision falls within a class specified under §1(i) of the Direction, and therefore Condition 3 from s. 31A of the Senior Courts Act 1981 was also satisfied, leading to the requirement that the case must be transferred to the Upper Tribunal. Dove J held that questions in relation to POD decisions do not fall within the scope of §1(i) of the Direction and as such, it was not a case which, pursuant to the Direction, was required to be mandatorily transferred to the Upper Tribunal (see §§19-22). Dove J also concluded that it was not appropriate to transfer to that case to the Upper Tribunal as an exercise of case management discretion. Dove J’s judgment provides helpful clarification on the meaning and scope of the Direction. The Home Secretary provided submissions to the Court acting as in effect, a “devil’s advocate”, to assist the Court on the difficult issues of interpretation that arose. A substantive hearing in respect of the Claimant’s challenge to the lawfulness of the POD decision and decision-making framework is listed next month. A link to the judgment can be found below: https://lnkd.in/eFsGfbrU   

Significant judgment handed down on judicial anonymity by Court of Appeal On 24 January 2025, the Court of Appeal (Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls and Warby and King LJJ) allowed the appeal against a reporting restrictions order made by Williams J in December 2024. The reporting restrictions order prevented the media reporting the names of three judges who had been involved in the historical family proceedings that related to Sara Sharif (and her siblings), who was later brutally murdered by her father and stepmother. In granting permission to appeal, the Master of the Rolls stated that “the appeal raises questions that are of considerable public importance”.  The appeal was heard on an expedited basis on 14 and 15 January 2025. The appeal was allowed primarily on the basis that Williams J did not have jurisdiction to prevent publication of the judges’ names when he made the anonymity order. The potential jurisdictional foundation for the order had been section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and s. 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981. The Court of Appeal held that Williams J had no evidential basis on which to think that the threshold for the application of Articles 2, 3 or 8 ECHR had been reached. Sian Reeves, led by Mathew Purchase KC, and instructed by the Government Legal Department, acted for the judges in the historic proceedings relating to Sara Sharif. This case has been widely reported in the media. https://lnkd.in/eQGyzBhQ

Leicester City King Power Stadium Helicopter Crash Inquest concludes today The inquests into the deaths of Leicester City Football Club owner Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha, along with two of his staff, Nursara Suknamai and Kaveporn Punpare, pilots Eric Swaffer and Izabela Roza Lechowicz, concluded today. The helicopter crashed shortly after take-off from the Stadium. A duplex bearing associated with the tail rotor seized depriving the pilot of the ability to control the aircraft. The jury returned a conclusion of Accident and a narrative. Keith Morton KC was instructed on behalf of the Civil Aviation Authority. https://lnkd.in/erpP49_k

TGC Collective Redress, Business and Human Rights newsletter - Second Edition, January 2025:   Chambers is delighted to have published the second edition of our newsletter. It comprises five articles across a number of issues that will be of interest to practitioners in the group action and human rights space.

Temple Garden Chambers is pleased to invite any prospective pupillage applicants to a Pupillage Q&A session via Microsoft Teams on January 15, 2025, at 6:30 PM (tonight). This is your opportunity to hear from our barristers about life at Temple Garden Chambers and to ask any questions you may have about pupillage, life in Chambers, and a career at the Bar. Rochelle Powell, Robert Riddell, Andrew Ratomski and Philip Matthews will be providing their time to answer questions about Chambers and pupillage. We currently offer two fully-funded 12-month pupillages each year. Join the meeting via the link below: https://lnkd.in/e76TEVVm

Leicester City King Power Stadium Helicopter Crash Inquest Begins The inquests into the deaths of Leicester City owner Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha, along with two of his staff, Nursara Suknamai and Kaveporn Punpare, pilot Eric Swaffer, and Mr Swaffer’s girlfriend Izabela Roza Lechowicz, have commenced. Keith Morton KC is instructed on behalf of the Civil Aviation Authority. The Inquest is expected to last 2-3 weeks. https://lnkd.in/eWkDdEwn

Paul Erdunast successful in the High Court in defending immigration judicial review On 19 December 2024, the High Court dismissed this judicial review. The Appellant was an Indian national, whose brother and parents had pre-settled status under Appendix EU through his brother’s wife, an EEA national. He arrived in the UK on 18 August 2021 as a visitor with leave valid for six months. This was after the cut-off point for an application to be made to the EU Settled Status scheme (“EUSS”), and after the deadline for applying for a document “facilitating” his residence, an essential prerequisite for leave under EUSS. Following his becoming an overstayer, he was served a s.120 notice. In his response he sought, among other things, leave under the EUSS and leave arising from Article 8 ECHR. These submissions were refused in May 2023 on the basis that there was no EUSS claim as the correct application process had not been followed, but that he could make an application should he wish and be eligible. In respect of Article 8, his submissions were refused because he only had limited ties to the UK. He was detained and received a notice of intended removal. The Appellant submitted as part of his judicial review claim that the proportionality assessment was unlawful because it failed to consider at all whether he satisfied the requirements of the Immigration Rules in respect of the EUSS claim. The SSHD submitted that regardless of whether the Appellant’s submissions on that point were correct, the decision would be highly likely not to have been substantially different, because the underlying EUSS claim would have been hopeless. Therefore the judge was required by s.31 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 to dismiss the claim and did not need to go into the above question. Simon Tinkler sitting as Deputy High Court Judge agreed, and dismissed the claim. There were a number of other arguments, for example an assertion that there was a breach of the SSHD’s obligations under the Withdrawal Agreement, made by the Appellants, which were dismissed on their merits.