header-logo header-logo

01 September 2011 / Hle Blog
Issue: 7479 / Categories: Blogs
printer mail-detail

Learning curve

Halsbury's Law Exchange blogger Geoffrey Bindman wades into the row over Scottish university fees

"It has been reported that a firm of solicitors, Public Interest Lawyers, is launching a challenge to the decision of the Scottish government to impose tuition charges on students in Scottish universities who are ordinarily domiciled in England.

The basis of the challenge appears to be that the imposition of charges amounts to unlawful discrimination against those students by comparison with students of Scottish domicile for whom tuition is free of charge.

No details of the legal arguments supporting the claim have been published but the firm has already been given leave by the High Court in England to seek judicial review of the increase in English tuition fees on the ground that the scheme discriminates against poor and ethnic minority students.

Our law has been developing and extending the principle of equal treatment in the distribution of social benefits at least since the Race Relations Act 1965. Some argue that equality is becoming a constitutional principle. In the intervening years the prohibition of discrimination has been extended beyond race to other grounds, partly as a result of the issue of European Directives and the impact of the European Human Rights Convention and the Human Rights Act. Even conduct which is not directly discriminatory on these grounds may be unlawful if it has a discriminatory impact which cannot be independently justified.

Two sources of authority seem likely to govern the initiative now being taken. One is the Race Relations Act 1976, which continues to prohibit discrimination on the grounds of ‘colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins’ within the UK by those in charge of educational establishments in—among other  matters—the ‘terms of admission’...’”

Continue reading at www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk

Issue: 7479 / Categories: Blogs
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll