Newhaven Port: Why UK Supreme Court ruled beach cannot be village green

Thinking legally

There was bad news and worse news for village green campaigners in the long UK Supreme Court judgment inR (Newhaven Port & Properties Ltd) v East Sussex County Council. The council and locals have lost the use of West Beach on the Sussex coast as the local port authority seeks to develop the port. The worse news is that the court has sought to close off all hope of turning beaches into village greens to protect them from development. The reasons for rejecting the Newhaven village green claim are complex and rather narrow – though they will stymie many village green claims against public authorities or companies acting on their behalf with statutory duties and powers.

But the Supreme Court justices also allowed themselves free rein to preempt any wider bathing beach claims that fall outside the limited Newhaven definitions. Consideration of the wider points will require another…

View original post 3,176 more words


The Future (of Banking) Is Now! Number26 – The Online Bank

I admit it, from the title, and most likely from my excited writing style in the rest of this post, it will very much seem like I’ve been paid to write this by the bank. But the truth of the matter is much more mundane: I’m simply childishly excited by new toys, and my newest toy at the moment is the bank account I just opened with the new completely-online bank NUMBER26. At the moment, the service is only available to customers in Germany and Austria, but there are plans to roll out to other countries relatively soon.

View original post 1,539 more words

Gary Glitter sentenced to 16 years


Gadd in custody. Gadd in custody.

Former glam rock musician Gary Glitter, real name Paul Gadd, has been sentenced to sixteen years in prison for six offences of sexual assault.

The offences date between 1975 and 1980 and were committed against three underage girls.

They included indecent assault, attempted rape and one count of unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 13 years of age.

The 70 year old from Marylebone was convicted of these offences earlier this month at Southwark Crown Court after a three week trial.

Gadd arriving at Southwark Crown Court on February 5th.

Judge Alistair McCreath said:

I have read the victim impact statements of all three victims. It is clear, in their different ways, they were all profoundly affected by your abuse of them.

You did all of them real and lasting damage and you did so for no other reason than to obtain sexual gratification for yourself…

View original post 202 more words

The importance of writing a court opinion well

Joshua Preston

Joshua Preston Supreme Court The author outside the Supreme Court (c. January 2009)

This month Texas Monthly published an interview with retiring Texas criminal court judge Cathy Cochran, and in it she discusses the top judiciary reforms of the last twenty years. These include the increased use of DNA evidence, compensation for the wrongfully incarcerated, and policies to curtail false eyewitness identifications. All of these are surprisingly progressive reforms in a state that (often deserved) is criticized for its conservatism.

Yet, legal reforms aside, something in the interview stood out. When Cochran was asked how important a judge’s writing abilities are, Cochran answered:

Oh, very important—if you want to motivate people, if you want to make people pay attention, if you want people to do something, you need to say it well. A good politician rouses the crowd with language that people can understand and appreciate. If you want to be a good writer…

View original post 594 more words

SCOTX rules on limitations period against partners: American Star Energy and Minerals Corp. v. Stowers

Stew's Soapbox

Today, the Texas Supreme Court issued its opinion in American Star Energy and Minerals Corp. v. Stowers (no, not that Stowers) and held a limitations period against a partner generally does not commence until after a party obtains a final judgment against a partnership.

At first blush, this opinion strikes me as reaching something of an odd result. A party has the option under the Texas Revised Partnership Act of suing a partnership’s individual partners along with the partnership, but after this case, is there any practical reason to do so? The party can’t seek satisfaction of the partnership debt until the party obtains a judgment against the partnership. Plus, the party generally must give a partnership ninety days to satisfy a judgment before it can go after the partners and their assets. If that’s the case, why would the party sue the individual partners on the front end? I don’t see any real benefit unless the partner assumed…

View original post 136 more words