George Peretz KC
@georgeperetzkc.bsky.social
KC (E&W) BL (Irl): public/constitutional law, competition, subsidies, tax, trade. Chair of the Society of Labour Lawyers. Views mine and not those of Monckton Chambers.
Thanks. I did wonder whether @joshuarozenberg.bsky.social was right in his assumption that he would have a plausible case for significant damages in Florida.
November 11, 2025 at 7:58 AM
Thanks. I did wonder whether @joshuarozenberg.bsky.social was right in his assumption that he would have a plausible case for significant damages in Florida.
There is, after all, the risk of a dangerous precedent here. The BBC will often offend foreign leaders - some worse than Trump. Sometimes it will make factual mistakes in reporting on them. Yield to Trump now, and who next?
November 11, 2025 at 7:45 AM
There is, after all, the risk of a dangerous precedent here. The BBC will often offend foreign leaders - some worse than Trump. Sometimes it will make factual mistakes in reporting on them. Yield to Trump now, and who next?
(At least to the extent he’s seeking more than a formal apology limited to the obvious mistake and a very modest offer of compensation.)
November 11, 2025 at 7:40 AM
(At least to the extent he’s seeking more than a formal apology limited to the obvious mistake and a very modest offer of compensation.)
So at the moment, despite @joshuarozenberg.bsky.social’s piece, I wonder whether a better BBC response would be the Arkell v Pressdram one. proftomcrick.com/2014/04/29/a...
Arkell v Pressdram [1971]
In April 1971, Private Eye carried the story of how James Arkell, a retail credit manager, had dispensed with the services of two bailiffs who were on bail on charges of conspiracy to create a publ…
proftomcrick.com
November 11, 2025 at 7:31 AM
So at the moment, despite @joshuarozenberg.bsky.social’s piece, I wonder whether a better BBC response would be the Arkell v Pressdram one. proftomcrick.com/2014/04/29/a...
Or presumably even a nominal award if a judge - plausibly - decided that any falsity didn’t actually damage his reputation (given that his role in the 6 January events is pretty well established eg by the Congressional inquiry).
November 11, 2025 at 7:27 AM
Or presumably even a nominal award if a judge - plausibly - decided that any falsity didn’t actually damage his reputation (given that his role in the 6 January events is pretty well established eg by the Congressional inquiry).
(I’m not a defamation lawyer, but it seems pretty obvious that any case brought here would result in at best a modest award.)
November 11, 2025 at 7:20 AM
(I’m not a defamation lawyer, but it seems pretty obvious that any case brought here would result in at best a modest award.)
See also ⬇️ bsky.app/profile/geor...
Important too to note that Northern Ireland is still governed, in this respect, by EU law (Article 8 of, and Annex 3 to, the Windsor Framework, the latter of which lists the excise duty directives). So any GB tax on airline fuel couldn’t extend to NI.
November 8, 2025 at 1:43 PM
See also ⬇️ bsky.app/profile/geor...
But also note the fact that various UK/3rd country air services agreements also prevent the UK from taxing fuel supplied to that country’s aircraft (and vice versa). See eg Article 9 of the UK/US Air Transport Agreement. assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/60ae4a...
November 8, 2025 at 1:42 PM
But also note the fact that various UK/3rd country air services agreements also prevent the UK from taxing fuel supplied to that country’s aircraft (and vice versa). See eg Article 9 of the UK/US Air Transport Agreement. assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/60ae4a...
The Chicago Convention doesn’t though preclude taxation in country A of fuel supplied to passenger aircraft in country A: it’s other bilateral treaties that do that (and in the EU and Northern Ireland, EU law).
November 8, 2025 at 1:38 PM
The Chicago Convention doesn’t though preclude taxation in country A of fuel supplied to passenger aircraft in country A: it’s other bilateral treaties that do that (and in the EU and Northern Ireland, EU law).
(It is not often appreciated how much UK indirect tax policy is in practice constrained by the fact that NI is still, with limited exceptions, governed by the excise duty directives and, in goods, by the VAT Directives.)
November 8, 2025 at 1:35 PM
(It is not often appreciated how much UK indirect tax policy is in practice constrained by the fact that NI is still, with limited exceptions, governed by the excise duty directives and, in goods, by the VAT Directives.)
Important too to note that Northern Ireland is still governed, in this respect, by EU law (Article 8 of, and Annex 3 to, the Windsor Framework, the latter of which lists the excise duty directives). So any GB tax on airline fuel couldn’t extend to NI.
November 8, 2025 at 1:35 PM
Important too to note that Northern Ireland is still governed, in this respect, by EU law (Article 8 of, and Annex 3 to, the Windsor Framework, the latter of which lists the excise duty directives). So any GB tax on airline fuel couldn’t extend to NI.
Reposted by George Peretz KC
I wrote a short piece on their '50 problematic cases' (publiclawforeveryone.com/2016/05/09/a...) and also a response to John Finnis's lecture that (I think) launched the JPP (publiclawforeveryone.com/2015/11/05/j...)
Judicial Power’s 50 “problematic” cases and the limits of the judicial role
The Judicial Power Project has published a list of 50 “problematic” cases. It makes for interesting reading. The aim of the Judicial Power Project is to address the “problem” of “judicial overreach…
publiclawforeveryone.com
November 3, 2025 at 9:31 AM
I wrote a short piece on their '50 problematic cases' (publiclawforeveryone.com/2016/05/09/a...) and also a response to John Finnis's lecture that (I think) launched the JPP (publiclawforeveryone.com/2015/11/05/j...)
I agree about that, on the trade union cases. And they do to be fair find the actual decision in Liversidge to be “problematic” rather than Atkin’s dissent. But the comments on the early public law cases (Anisminic; Tameside) are rather indicative.
October 31, 2025 at 8:07 AM
I agree about that, on the trade union cases. And they do to be fair find the actual decision in Liversidge to be “problematic” rather than Atkin’s dissent. But the comments on the early public law cases (Anisminic; Tameside) are rather indicative.
I don’t *think* that the Case on Proclamations is one of the “problematic cases” but I suspect the JPP would like to have a go at it if it could. www.lawteacher.net/cases/the-ca...
The Case of Proclamations
In what turned out to be a landmark case concerning the Royal Prerogative, Sir Edward Coke (the Chief Justice of Common Pleas) was asked to express his opinion as to whether the monarch could prohibit...
www.lawteacher.net
October 30, 2025 at 11:20 PM
I don’t *think* that the Case on Proclamations is one of the “problematic cases” but I suspect the JPP would like to have a go at it if it could. www.lawteacher.net/cases/the-ca...
I think lots of people have had a go. @profmarkelliott.bsky.social might know a good one. What is extraordinary is how far back the “problematic cases” go: the JPP is hostile to cases that are on any view *common law* developments on enforcing legal norms on the executive.
October 30, 2025 at 11:20 PM
I think lots of people have had a go. @profmarkelliott.bsky.social might know a good one. What is extraordinary is how far back the “problematic cases” go: the JPP is hostile to cases that are on any view *common law* developments on enforcing legal norms on the executive.
Link to the full judgment here. www.judiciary.uk/judgments/ar...
Arc Time Freehold Income Authorised Fund and others -v- Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government - Courts and Tribunals Judiciary
[2025] EWHC 2751 (Admin) Case numbers: AC-2024-LON-002817AC-2024-LON-002830AC-2024-LON-002865AC-2024-LON-002875AC-2024-LON-002904AC-2024-LON-002913 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICEKING’S BENCH DIVISIONDIV...
www.judiciary.uk
October 29, 2025 at 9:40 AM
Link to the full judgment here. www.judiciary.uk/judgments/ar...
Right wing ECHR sceptics might though want to consider whether they really want to scrap a protection against populist (left or right) moves to confiscate, or take with obviously inadequate compensation, the property of unpopular minorities.
October 29, 2025 at 9:39 AM
Right wing ECHR sceptics might though want to consider whether they really want to scrap a protection against populist (left or right) moves to confiscate, or take with obviously inadequate compensation, the property of unpopular minorities.
Another judgment confirming that the ECHR is no barrier to interference with property rights that strike a fair balance, with a wide margin of discretion. As I argued here, attempts to claim that the ECHR is incompatible with democratic socialism are hapless. ukconstitutionallaw.org/2025/07/10/g...
October 29, 2025 at 9:39 AM
Another judgment confirming that the ECHR is no barrier to interference with property rights that strike a fair balance, with a wide margin of discretion. As I argued here, attempts to claim that the ECHR is incompatible with democratic socialism are hapless. ukconstitutionallaw.org/2025/07/10/g...