header-logo header-logo

16 June 2023
Issue: 8029 / Categories: Legal News , Public , Judicial review , National security
printer mail-detail

NLJ this week: Why the court said no to Prince Harry

126375
Prince Harry has been making Royal legal history recently by appearing in court, although some of his legal action has encountered obstacles. In this week’s NLJ, writer Nicholas Dobson looks into the decision to refuse judicial review of the Duke of Sussex’s security provisions.

As one of the most famous people in the world, and with some fanatical opponents as well as a devoted fan base, security is a major concern for the duke. He challenged the home secretary’s decision to delegate the ‘in principle’ decision on the provision of protective security after he stepped down from his role as a working Royal.

Dobson writes: ‘As a seasoned litigant running various current actions, the duke is definitely keeping some members of the legal profession actively busy on his behalf.’

Dobson covers the background to the action, the various arguments for and against, grounds of challenge, relevant caselaw and the decision—read more here.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll