Category: News

Chambers welcomes Louise Mankau to its highly regarded Employment & Discrimination team.  Louise was previously Senior Counsel and Joint Head of Employment at Prolegal.

Defence Counsel for the late Mustafa Badreddine have successfully appealed a decision of the Trial Chamber of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) that insufficient evidence had been presented to prove Mr Badreddine’s death “to the requisite standard”. Iain Edwards and two other Counsel representing the rights and interests of Mr Badreddine persuaded the Appeals Chamber that the entirety of the available evidence pointed to the fact that he was dead.

Mr Badreddine was a senior military commander of Hezbollah, charged with being the mastermind behind the 2005 assassination of the former Prime Minister of Lebanon, Rafik Hariri, and the murder of 21 others in Beirut. The trial opened in January 2014. Together with four co-accused, he was being tried in his absence before the STL; it is the first international case to deal with terrorism as a distinct international crime, and the first to be held in the absence of the accused since Nuremberg.

Mr Badreddine was killed in Syria in May 2016 in unclear circumstances. After many weeks of litigation, the STL’s Appeals Chamber agreed with the Defence that the Trial Chamber had erred in law by reaching its decision on whether or not it was satisfied that the fact of Mr Badreddine’s death had been established without knowing which standard of proof it was to apply.  For the first time in international criminal law, the correct standard of proof to be applied in such circumstances was identified and applied by the Appeals Chamber to the facts that had been made available to the Trial Chamber.

The conclusion that Mr Badreddine’s death had been proved to the appropriate standard resulted in proceedings being terminated against him without prejudice and with his presumption of innocence remaining intact.

John Benson QC acted for the Respondent tenant in Edwards v Kumarasamy [2016] UKSC 40, in which the Supreme Court clarified landlords’ obligations to repair in relation to flats.

Mr Kumarasamy was the lessor of a second floor flat in a block of flats. He let his flat to Mr Edwards. On the 1st July 2010 Mr Edwards was taking rubbish from his rented flat to the communal dustbins, when he tripped over an uneven paving stone and was injured. He issued proceedings against his landlord, Mr Kumarasamy, contending that his injury was caused by Mr Kumarasamy’s failure to keep the paved area in repair, in breach of covenants implied into the tenancy by sections 11(1)(a) and 11(1A)(a) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The tenancy included a grant of the “right to use, in common with others, any shared rights of access, stairways, communal parts, paths and drives” of the building.

His claim was successful at first instance, with Mr Edwards being awarded £3,750 in damages. However, Her Honour Judge May QC allowed Mr Kumarasamy’s appeal on the basis that (i) the paved area was not within the ambit of the section 11 covenant and (ii) in any event, Mr Kumarasamy was not on notice of the disrepair and could not therefore be held liable. That decision was subsequently overturned by the Court of Appeal, which held that the path was part of the exterior of the demised property as it formed part of the exterior of the demised flat. Further, it was an area in which the landlord had an estate or interest as he had an implied easement to cross that area in order to reach his flat, regardless of whether he owned the path. Finally, the Court of Appeal rejected the argument that the landlord was liable only if he had notice of the defect, holding that this applied only to disrepair within the property expressly demised to the tenant – that is, within the flat itself.

Three questions were referred to the Supreme Court:

(i) whether, in the light of the wording of sections 11(1)(a) and 11(1A)(a) of the 1985 Act, the paved area could be described as part of the exterior of the front hall;

(ii) whether Mr Kumarasamy had an “estate or interest” in the front hall for the purposes of section 11(1A)(a); and

(iii) whether Mr Kumarasamy could be liable to Mr Edwards for the disrepair to the path notwithstanding that he had had no notice of it before Mr Edwards’ accident.

The first question was resolved squarely in the landlord’s favour, the Court declining to agree that a path which was far removed from the property could form part of its exterior: instead, it held that there was a distinction to be drawn between the actual outside surface of the property and a path which was removed from the property itself, even where that path was a key approach to the property.

It is the Supreme Court’s ruling on the third question, however, which has been most eagerly awaited by those acting for tenants and landlords alike. Having conducted a thorough review of the authorities in his area, the Court settled on a very qualified extension to the established rule that a landlord is not liable to repair premises which are in the possession of the tenant unless and until he or she has notice of the disrepair in question. Where a landlord agrees to repair the structure and exterior of a flat, the rule would apply only to the extent that the structure is included in the demise and the tenant is accordingly in possession of that part of the structure; where a landlord has a covenant to repair the structure and exterior but that structure and exterior is sublet to another tenant, the rule would not normally be applied, with the effect that notice of the defect to the landlord would not normally be required. In this case, the Court was concerned with a scenario whereby the area to be repaired was not demised to the landlord or the tenant, but was one over which both landlord and tenant had a right of way. The Supreme Court held that in such a scenario, the requirement of notice would apply. Not only was the tenant in a better position to be aware of the state of disrepair of the common areas, but in addition, the landlord’s right of access was effectively without value because he had no right of repair as against the superior landlord (Practitioners should note that if the landlord also owned the property, the notification requirement would not apply).

To read the judgment, click here.

The Respondent sought a quashing of the control order on the basis that the making of the order was flawed. A previous review by the High Court had found that the order was lawful, but reconsideration was required in accordance with the House of Lords’ ruling in SSHD v AF (No.3) [2010] 2 AC 269, which had held that increased disclosure was necessary in order for the controlled person’s rights under Article 6 of the ECHR to be respected.

The Court considered the basis on which the original decision was made, which was that the Respondent had encouraged another individual to engage in terrorism and assisted him in travelling to Pakistan to do so; it also considered evidence that some of the Respondent’s associates were extremists.

The Court analysed the evidence possessed by the Secretary of State, and concluded that she was reasonably entitled to suspect that the Respondent had actively encouraged another to travel for terrorism related purposes. The closed and open evidence led the Court to conclude that the Respondent had intended to travel abroad and that he had taken action to further this intent. None of the further disclosure or Respondent’s statements disturbed the finding that the order had been based on a reasonable suspicion and properly imposed.

Although the Court did find that the renewal of the order was incorrect, this was not the subject of the appeal, and the renewed order had not impacted the Respondent at this time, as he was in prison serving a sentence for criminal offences.

The full judgment is here.

Barnabas Lams acted for the Respondent, AL.

1MCB Chambers is pleased to welcome Barnabas Lams to its Immigration and Public Law teams.  Barnabas has acted in a number of reported cases, including two Country Guidance cases and a number of cases involving national security issues.

The UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has declared that the UK’s austerity policies are incompatible with human rights after hearing submissions from civil society organisations, including Just Fair.

Vyaj Lovejoy and Siobhan Lloyd are trustees of Just Fair and participated in a delegation to Geneva to raise concerns about the impact of austerity measures on the right to food, housing and social security.

1MCB is delighted to announce that four more barristers have accepted invitations to join Chambers.

Ariane Adam is a multidisciplinary civil practitioner, accepting instructions in employment and discrimination, regulatory, housing, and immigration matters.  Alongside her domestic practice, she undertakes human rights evaluations for a number of international governmental and non-governmental bodies.

James Cartwright is a highly regarded leading junior, bringing with him over forty years’ experience in crime and mental health law.  He joins 1MCB from Artesian Law.

Ishan Dave is an established practitioner in crime, immigration and asylum, property litigation and commercial and contractual disputes (with a focus on insurance matters).  He also brings with him a niche practice in Indian/Hindu customary law.

Catherine Picardo qualified as a solicitor within one of the UK’s top commercial firms, before gaining experience as a criminal duty solicitor, a Senior Crown Prosecutor and a Crown Advocate.  She is currently on secondment to the Serious Fraud Office.

1MCB will again be participating in the London Legal Walk, raising much needed funds to support law centres and legal advice agencies in London and the South East. 

To sponsor our team, please click here.

1MCB is pleased to announce that four new members have accepted invitations to join Chambers.

Raymond Ali, an experienced criminal practitioner, rejoins 1MCB following a period spent practising in Guyana.

Nick Bano joins 1MCB on the completion of a third six.  He is a multidisciplinary practitioner with a focus on housing, employment and discrimination, and criminal defence.

Rafaquat Hussain accepts instructions in immigration, housing, family and general civil litigation. He joins 1MCB from Bell Yard Chambers, and will continue to sit as a part-time Judge within the Immigration and Asylum, Asylum Support and Social Security Tribunals.

David Parvin is a criminal specialist, undertaking both defence and prosecution work. He joins 1MCB from Criminal Defence Solicitors.

Their profiles will be available shortly.  In the meantime, please contact the clerks for further information.

For further information about joining 1MCB, please see here.

Vyaj Lovejoy recently returned from a sabbatical with the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI), the only human rights organisation in Israel dealing with a spectrum of human rights and civil liberties issues facing people in the ‘Occupied Territories’ – Palestine – as well as people within Israel.  Vyaj benefited from a scholarship from Lincoln’s Inn which allowed her to help the team at ACRI undertake incredible work in a very difficult and complex climate.

1MCB was saddened to learn of the tragic death of John Jones QC of Doughty Street Chambers. John was a towering figure at both the English and international criminal Bars. His intellect, humanity, humour and sense of justice were a source of respect and inspiration for all who knew him. He will be greatly missed.

We send our sincerest condolences to his family, friends and colleagues, especially to John’s much loved wife Miša and their two sons, Zachary and Patrick.

Jose Olivares-Chandler secured unanimous not guilty verdicts in respect of counts of possessing firearms with intent, following a trial in which the Defendant’s ex-partner and children gave evidence against him.  His case was that he was set up and an extensive list of previous convictions (including convictions involving his former partner and children, as well as a drugs importation) went before the jury.

The Crown alleged that the Defendant attended his ex-partner’s address uninvited with a firearm, having earlier that day received threats from a male friend of hers.  On barging his way into the premises, he discovered that his former partner was not there.  However, his sixteen year old son and fifteen year old daughter were present.  His son alleged that the Defendant had brandished a gun and told him that he wanted to wait for his ex-partner so that he could “deal with” the male friend.  The son interpreted this as the Defendant wanting to kill the friend.  The son then kept the Defendant occupied whilst he discreetly texted his mum, who in turn called police.

Jose was instructed by Hodge Jones & Allen.