Log in
This case-study is based upon research by Prof Michael Dougan and Dr Michael Gordon (both members of the Liverpool European Law Unit) undertaken between 2008 and 2013. That work critically assesses a series of interlinked EU constitutional reforms, and their impact upon the EU's relationship to its Member States, with particular reference to the UK experience: first, the interpretation and implementation of the Lisbon Treaty 2007; secondly, the design and implications of the European Union Act 2011; thirdly, Britain's legal and political reception of the 2012 "Fiscal Compact" Treaty. The research's principal impacts have occurred within the period 1 January 2008 to 31 July 2013. They consist in providing a wide range of high-level institutional actors (including the European Court of Justice, the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the House of Commons) with an objective and thorough critical evaluation of those major constitutional developments, so as directly to inform and assist their policy deliberations (including specific recommendations based directly on the research) on issues of fundamental importance to the future interests of the EU and the UK.
Sheffield research on the role of Ombudsmen within the Administrative Justice (AJ) system has: (1) changed the approaches of Parliamentary and Local Government Ombudsmen in the UK with a view to improving their performance; (2) influenced government decision making on the reform of Ombudsman schemes in the UK and in Gibraltar; (3) contributed to forming opinions among parliamentary decision makers, via the Parliamentary Select Committee system; and (4) shaped debate and policy recommendations on administrative justice remedies within the Law Commission. The research has thereby addressed the challenges to the AJ system posed by the economic downturn and government austerity measures which carry the risk of deterioration in the quality of services available to citizens for the redress of grievances.
The European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC), led by Leach, has combined research and litigation over ten years, to achieve access to justice for individuals in the former Soviet Union. It has mentored and trained lawyers and non-governmental organisations; raised awareness about human rights violations; and improved the functioning of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Impact on public policy is evidenced by: (i) justice for individuals; (ii) compensation secured through the ECtHR; and (iii) consequential changes in national law and policy. To date, EHRAC's impact includes 98 ECtHR judgments against Russia, Georgia and Ukraine, on behalf of 1,100 victims.
The research:
1.1 was used in EU negotiations on EU Directives on procedural rights for suspects and defendants as the `leading study in the field' to address deficiencies in existing mechanisms;
1.2 informed the training of more than 250 judges, prosecutors and lawyers from at least 23 EU member states regarding respect for and implementation of procedural rights;
1.3 provided a template used by NGOs in other regions in their investigations of procedural rights in practice; these include a consortium of NGOs in six Latin America countries who are using it in order to produce positive changes in regulation and practice.
Professor John Finnis has been engaged in a programme of research in legal and constitutional theory. His work on the legal and political responsibilities of UK ministers when acting to affect the law of a British Overseas Territory played a pivotal role in the decision of the House of Lords to reverse the Court of Appeal`s interpretation of the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 (CVLA). The Court of Appeal had held that UK ministers could not properly legislate in the interests of the UK as a whole (including its dependent territories), but only in the interests of the particular territory itself. Relying on Finnis`s arguments, the House of Lords changed that precept. Finnis`s work also persuaded members of the House of Lords to express doubts about a central holding of an earlier decision, which concerned the capacity in which ministers acted in legislating in dependent territories. Finnis`s arguments have been relied on in legal argument in later cases, and have been recognised and reaffirmed in subsequent Court of Appeal and Supreme Court judgments. In this way, they have helped to change fundamental constitutional principles affecting not only all citizens in the UK, but also those in its Overseas Territories around the world.
The statutory definition of "insolvency" involves proving a debtor's "inability to pay debts." In corporate insolvency, this definition is found in s123 Insolvency Act 1986. Although s123 has existed for over a hundred years (in various forms), its meaning has not been fully understood. The historical explanation of this definition, found in the underpinning research, as to the true meaning of the definition, has been adopted by the Supreme Court (in May 2013) in BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited v Eurosail [2013] UKSC 28 in overruling the Court of Appeal's "point of no return" interpretation of s123.