Latest news with #Court of Appeal
BBC News
4 days ago
- General
- BBC News
Court rules law passed after Grenfell is retrospective
A court has said that building owners and developers cannot recoup costs from leaseholders for fire safety remediation work. The Court of Appeal ruling on two separate cases earlier this month could have far-reaching implications for who bears the costs of building safety-related costs in the the wake of the Grenfell Tower tragedy, safety issues were discovered in buildings constructed years or decades court's ruling means that building owners can't charge leaseholders for fire safety defects that were discovered before 2022. 'A retrospective approach' The judges ruled that parts of the Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA) can be applied retrospectively, favouring leaseholders and law came into force in June 2022 in response to the issues raised by the Grenfell Tower fire in 2017, according to the Local Democracy Reporting Service. The retrospective nature of the law was a key factor in its creation, and the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government Angela Rayner made written submissions to the court attesting to said: "A retrospective approach provides for effective routes to redress against those responsible for historical building safety defects that have only recently come to light, whatever level of the supply chain they operated at."The court decisions relate to disputes about Hippersley Point in Abbey Wood, south east London and five residential blocks in the East Village Estate in the Olympic Park in Stratford, east the Hippersley case, the tower block's owner Adriatic wanted to charge leaseholders the costs incurred during a tribunal process in which it asked to do away with certain regulations so it could charge residents more than £250 each to carry out remedial fire safety works. In the East Village case, judge looked at an application from the social housing provider and long leaseholder Triathlon which wanted to make the East Village developers pay for remedying fire safety defects via remediation contribution orders (RCO).The East Village RCOs were the first to be made under the BSA, with the developers appealing the First Tier Tribunal's original decision to allow the safety defects at Hippersley Point and in the East Village Estate were both discovered prior to when the BSA became both cases, the Court of Appeal ruled in favour of leaseholders over developers, deciding that parts of the BSA do have retrospective Nitej Davda, a partner at law firm Cripps, said it was "quite unusual" for such legislation to have retrospective effect. He said: "If you take a step back and you think about what happened with Grenfell, which is where all of this emanates from ultimately, and then you think about what is the intention behind the legislation and what is it intended to do."The BSA is intended to do two things fundamentally. "It is intended to give leaseholders protection and it is intended to make developers pay. "If it doesn't have retrospective effect then you are trying to make the act work with at least one hand tied behind your back."
RNZ News
5 days ago
- Sport
- RNZ News
Court rejects athlete union's bid to appeal employment ruling
Photo: © Steve McArthur / @RowingCelebration A year's-long battle over whether a group of elite athletes can collectively bargain has ended, after the Court of Appeal rejected an appeal bid from a union representing the country's top rowers and cyclists. The Athletes' Cooperative (TAC), spearheaded by double Olympic rowing champion Mahe Drysdale, was seeking to overturn a decision of the Employment Court in December last year over TAC's three-year dispute with High Performance Sport NZ. The Employment Court ruled that High Performance Sport NZ was not required to enter into collective bargaining with the union, as the two parties were not in an employment relationship. Leave to appeal a decision can only be granted in cases where the court is satisfied that the proposed appeal is of "general of public importance" and is "capable of being seriously argued". In a judgement released on Thursday, the Court of Appeal found TAC's case did not meet that threshold. "We are satisfied that the Employment Court's interpretation ... was correct and that the proposed questions of law are not capable of being seriously argued," the judgement, prepared by Justice David Collins read. "It would be inconsistent with the statutory context for there to be no requirement that the persons who are to benefit from a collective agreement be employees of the relevant employer or for there to be no employment relationship between the union and the employer." Former NZ Rugby boss Steve Tew is the director of high performance at the government sport agency. Photo: Andrew Cornaga / High Performance Sport NZ's director of high performance Steve Tew said his agency welcomed the court's decision. "This has been a long process that has taken several years to resolve. We now look forward to moving on and ensuring we are supporting National Sports Organisations to create high performance environments where athletes not only thrive but are also heard and involved in decisions that impact them and help them to be the best they can be," Tew said in a statement. "HPSNZ remains available to liaise with TAC, and any other organisation representing athletes in the high performance environment, to consider any issues that they are unable to be dealt with in their direct relationship with their NSO. "Athlete well-being is a priority for our NSO partners and HPSNZ and we are working hard to demonstrate that through our strategy, system change initiatives, and day-to-day mahi." A spokesperson for TAC could not be immediately reached for comment. The highly political battle stems from mid-2022, when athletes from the country's two most successful Olympic sports formed a union and issued a notice to High Performance Sport NZ that it wished to initiate collective bargaining. Among the co-operative's goals is to push for a system where "our remuneration matches the expectation of our roles and responsibilities, and we have genuine financial stability"; "the well-being and identity of all people are paramount"; and a "strong and respectful staff-athlete performance culture exists, founded on mutual respect, equality and trust". The move came in the wake of a damning review into the culture of New Zealand's elite sporting environments following the suspected suicide of Olympic cyclist Olivia Podmore in August 2021 . That review, headed by former solicitor general Mike Heron KC and leading academic Sarah Leberman, raised concerns about the "chilling effects" of the power imbalance between athletes and sports leaders, noting that current athlete agreements imposed far more onerous demands on the athletes than they did on the government agency and national sporting bodies. The review panel recommended that High Performance Sport NZ consult with athletes on the contractor versus employees model "in recognition of the fact they are under [Cycling NZ's] effective control and train/compete at [Cycling NZ's] direction". Double Olympic gold medallist Mahe Drysdale is co-chair of The Athletes' Co-operative. Photo: © NZ ROWING 2018 The report also recommended that an independent athlete representative body be established, which proved the impetus for Drysdale and several high profile cyclists and rowers to form TAC. But the government agency rebuffed attempts by the group to initiate collective bargaining, arguing it did not directly employ athletes - leading to the athlete union lodging a claim with the Employment Relations Authority (ERA). The ERA found in favour of the athletes , determining that High Performance Sport NZ was obligated to engage in good faith collective bargaining. The government agency then appealed that decision to the Employment Court, which overturned the ERA's decision in December last year. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Free Malaysia Today
14-07-2025
- Politics
- Free Malaysia Today
Manufactured outrage over judicial appointments: a case of selective memory
From Apandi Ali It is laughable, if not deeply ironic, that a group of MPs, the Malaysian Bar, and civil society figures are now calling for a royal commission of inquiry, petitioning the prime minister and organising walks for justice and public forums all because they fear the prime minister may appoint senior judges without strictly following the names recommended by the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC). Even more amusing is their insistence that the top judicial vacancies must be urgently filled despite the fact that no legal or constitutional deadline mandates immediate appointment. Let's be clear: this hysteria is entirely based on a hypothetical scenario, one that has not even materialised. According to Section 27 of the JAC Act, the prime minister is perfectly entitled to request two more names for any judicial vacancy, including the offices of the chief justice, president of the Court of Appeal, and other top positions. The law allows room for executive discretion in such appointments. Section 27, titled 'Request for further selection by the prime minister', says the 'prime minister may, after receiving the report under Section 26, request for two more names to be selected and recommended for his consideration'. Even former Court of Appeal judges – the late Gopal Sri Ram, Hishamudin Yunus, and Mah Weng Kwai – publicly stated that the prime minister is not bound to accept the JAC's recommendations. In 2018, they noted that the Federal Constitution, being the supreme law, overrides the JAC Act. Mah, for example, plainly said: 'The JAC makes recommendations to the prime minister, who may decide not to agree with the proposals.' Where are these same voices now, when the media circus rages over a potential decision that has not even been made? The deafening silence over real violations What makes this sudden outrage even more disingenuous is the utter silence over actual, proven breaches of the JAC Act and the Federal Constitution. These are not speculative concerns, but documented in the government-declassified special task force (STF) report on allegations made by former attorney-general Tommy Thomas in his book 'My Story: Justice in the Wilderness'. This STF was approved by the Cabinet on Dec 22, 2021 and comprised respected legal experts, including Fong Joo Chung as the chair besides members Hashim Paijan, Junaidah Kamarruddin, Jagjit Singh, Shaharudin Ali, Balaguru Karuppiah, Farah Adura Hamidi, and Najib Surip. The report uncovered staggering facts. In July 2018, the names appointed to the highest judicial offices – Richard Malanjum as chief justice, Ahmad Maarop and Zaharah Ibrahim as Court of Appeal president and David Wong Dak Wah as chief judge of Sabah and Sarawak — were not those selected by the JAC in its meeting on May 24, 2018. Instead, they were names privately agreed upon between then prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad and attorney-general Tommy Thomas, bypassing the mandatory processes. The JAC's recommended names on May 24, 2018 were Azahar Mohamed for chief justice, Rohana Yusuf for Court of Appeal president, and Abdul Rahman Sebli for chief judge of Sabah and Sarawak. Yet, these names were discarded, and there was no evidence that Mahathir ever requested additional names under Section 27 of the JAC Act as required. According to the STF report: 'If the prime minister disagreed with the above selection and recommendation of the JAC, pursuant to Section 27 of the JAC Act, he should have requested for more names for each of the vacant judicial positions. There is no evidence before the STF that he had made such a request. 'Instead, from the report of Bahagian Kabinet, Perlembagaan dan Perhubungan Antara Kerajaan, the names submitted by the prime minister when he tendered his advice to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong under Article 122B were the names discussed and agreed upon between the prime minister and attorney-general.' Worse, the STF found that no consultation was held with the chief ministers of Sabah and Sarawak before appointing Wong as chief judge of Sabah and Sarawak – a direct violation of Article 122B(3) of the Federal Constitution. This wasn't merely an administrative oversight, but a constitutional breach. The same pattern emerged in 2019, when the JAC in its meeting on Jan 17, 2019 initially selected Ahmad for chief justice, Wong for Court of Appeal president and Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat for chief judge of the High Court in Malaya. After the prime minister requested two additional names, the JAC in its meeting on April 5, 2019 revised its list and put forward these names: Tengku Maimun and Azahar for chief justice Azahar and Rohana for Court of Appeal president Rohana and Azahar for chief judge of the High Court in Malaya The final names eventually accepted were Tengku Maimun as chief justice (despite being junior), Rohana as Court of Appeal president, and Azahar as chief judge of Malaya. Again, the irony is thick. Those who now cry foul over possible junior appointments were silent – if not supportive – when Tengku Maimun, a comparatively junior judge at the time, was appointed chief justice. Where was the outrage then? A convenient crusade for 'judicial integrity'? It is even more comical that Mahathir – the very person who subverted the JAC process in 2018 and 2019 – is now positioning himself and his allies as the guardians of judicial independence. Even some lawyers today are openly rooting for a specific candidate to be appointed chief justice, undermining their own calls for neutrality and due process. This hypocrisy recalls the cautionary words of former chief justice Abdul Hamid Mohamad, who once criticised proposals by Zaid Ibrahim in 2008 (then minister in the Prime Minister's Department) to create a JAC dominated by practising lawyers. He warned that it would 'give these lawyers an unfair advantage besides damaging the integrity of the court. Judges will kneel to the lawyers!' And now, that prophecy seems to be unfolding before our eyes with segments of the legal fraternity actively lobbying for appointments while masquerading as defenders of institutional integrity. Enough with the double standards The selective outrage over potential breaches, while real violations are ignored, exposes a deeper rot in Malaysia's legal-political culture. This isn't about upholding the law. It's about political convenience, power struggles and self-interest, all disguised under the banner of judicial independence. If the Malaysian Bar, civil society, and opposition leaders are truly serious about reform, they must first reckon with the past violations which they so conveniently ignored. Until then, their cries ring hollow. Let the law be applied consistently, not only when it suits political narratives. Apandi Ali is a former attorney-general and Federal Court judge. The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.
