Non-gendered campaigner Christie Elan-Cane has fought for social and legal recognition for 30 years.
A long-running legal fight for ‘X’ gender markers on passports will be heard by the UK Supreme Court in July.
The case, which was first heard by the High Court in 2018, is brought by campaigner Christie Elan-Cane, who has fought for legal and social recognition as a person of non-gendered identity for almost three decades.
Applicants for a UK passport must indicate whether they are male or female in a signed declaration. Elan-Cane argues that it is discriminatory for the UK Home Office to refuse to offer passports with an ‘X’ gender marker for people who are not male or female, such as non-binary people.
To read this article in PDF format, please click here.
On 15 January 2021 the UK Supreme Court handed down its highly anticipated judgment in the FCA Test Case. The COVID-19 pandemic has forced the UK Government to introduce public health measures which have resulted in significant losses for many businesses. Many businesses have turned to their business interruption insurance policies to indemnify them for their losses. Insurers have often declined cover, insisting that the policies do not respond to the economic impact of the pandemic. The Financial Conduct Authority (“the FCA”), as the UK’s insurance regulator, stepped in to represent the interests of the policyholders and was the named claimant in the Test Case.
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
Since the novel coronavirus landed in America, the insurance industry has worked hard to create the impression that there is no coverage for business interruption losses resulting from the pandemic. For the most part, insurers have discussed the “intent” of the policies and avoided specific policy analysis. The insurer disinformation effort recently started including citations to lists of court decisions obtained to date as if insurance coverage should be decided not on the terms of the contracts at issue but instead on the basis of an early win/loss record. A review of court statistics, along with two recent court decisions, expose the fallacy of the insurers’ argument.
Section 346 of the Companies Act 2016 provides the courts with broad powers to grant remedies as they deem necessary to bring an end to the complaints raised in an oppression action. In
Lee Kai Wuen v Lee Yee Wuen,(1) the Federal Court refused leave to appeal the Court of Appeal s decision which had found that the courts powers in an oppression action are broad and unfettered. This includes the power to order restitution to a company, a remedy traditionally seen as belonging to companies.
Facts
The subject company had two shareholders. The plaintiff (the majority shareholder) filed an oppression action against the other shareholder and a third party (the oppressors), anchored on, among other things, an allegation of misappropriation of company funds. According to the plaintiff, upon the hospitalisation and eventual death of the previous majority shareholder, the oppressors had conspired to have the creditors pay them monies which were supposed to be paid to the company. The plai