The Barrister Bard

Another one of those ridiculous surveys has seen the light of day. This one tells us that when women yawn, it doesn’t necessarily mean they are tired.  On the contrary, it could mean they are sexually active!  However, we are given little guidance on how to spot the difference.  Is she up for it, or is she dog tired?

Presumably nobody saw fit to include my wife in the survey, let alone get a second opinion from me.  Had these surveyors done so, they would have discovered that when my wife yawns, it means she’s tired, and on the rare occasions I have suggested a roll in the hay, I have been told firmly to put the mouse back in the house.

Talking of yawns, the High Court is on vacation, with a skeleton staff and a ‘vacation’ judge to deal with emergencies, but I am reliably informed that the newly created Supreme Court is still at it, and an example to us all.  I know this because they have recently handed down their judgment in the case of Austin v Southwark LBC, and I know you would want me to share it with you.

The justices, as they are now called, decided that a former secure tenant, who was in breach of the terms of a conditional suspended possession order but was continuing to occupy the property as a tolerated trespasser, had the right to apply for postponement of the date for possession to enable him to remedy the default, and thus to revive the secure tenancy.  But if that were not excitement enough, where the former secure tenant, and now the tolerated trespasser, pops his clogs, his right survived his death and could be exercised by his estate.

You heard it here first.  As is so often the case, the devil is in the detail, namely section 85((2)(b) of the Housing Act 1985.  For the aficionados amongst you, the case of Knightley was wrongly decided, and has hit skid row, so that’s a load off!

Talking of our lords and masters, the controversy over the Human Rights Act rumbles on.  First up to the plate came Lord Hoffmann, criticising Strasbourg of aggrandising itself by seeking to impose Pan European law. Then we had Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, a lone voice crying in the wilderness, or at least I hope so, putting his considerable support behind the Act as the last bastion of a civilised society, and sounding wholly unconvincing.  Next came Lord Judge, the Lord Chief Justice, accusing Strasbourg of threatening to ‘assume an unspoken priority’ over English common law.  And finally, Lord Neuberger, the Master of the Rolls, warning foreign judges to show ‘a more acute appreciation’ of the independence of the English legal system. 

How many more times does it need to be said?  We don’t need Strasbourg, and we don’t need the European Court of Justice.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, June 30th, 2010 at 2:15 pm and is filed under General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.