Tom Bell

Barrister at Gatehouse Chambers specialising in commercial, insurance and professional negligence disputes

[Tom Bell @Tom_Bell1]

@Se_Railway Presumably you’ll reimburse the cost of a taxi from Tonbridge to Wadhurst?

[Tom Bell @Tom_Bell1]

@Se_Railway How do I get to Wadhurst from Tonbridge?

[Tom Bell @Tom_Bell1]

@kirby_pj @Barristerblog We had a swarm last year and contacted a local beekeeper. I said he could come and collect them on condition of being given a jar of honey. Still waiting for one!

[Gatehouse Chambers @gatehouse_law]

We're pleased to announce that Dr Victoria McCloud has been appointed as Associate Member following her retirement as a senior Judge sitting in the High Court of England & Wales https://t.co/Qu0v92Bmju

[Tom Bell @Tom_Bell1]

@kirby_pj Think we got rather lucky in Sölden

[Tom Bell @Tom_Bell1]

@kirby_pj Here’s the before shot. I can attest to PJ being fine - and safely back at hotel

[Tom Bell @Tom_Bell1]

https://t.co/F7qA1afQ37

Learning points from this judgment

i) Central London CC has room for improvement

ii) The duty on advocates to ensure that litigants in person have a fair hearing is v important

iii) The litigant in person who never gives up may actually be in the right

[David Anderson @bricksilk]

@d_a_t_green @GreenJennyJones @SarahLudford Some of them might also like to see the bill come into force and fail, rather than block it and be blamed for stopping an immigration silver bullet.

[Gatehouse Chambers @gatehouse_law]

We're delighted to announce that Michael Wheater has been recommended for silk (KC) in the 2023 competition. Congratulations, Michael! Thoroughly deserved. Learn more about his expertise here... https://t.co/ipKFWOcrzh

[Tom Bell @Tom_Bell1]

@cjr1968 https://t.co/ZQUMzGPcqe

[Tom Bell @Tom_Bell1]

@FaiselSadiq @michaelpforan My suspicion is that the questioner was reading a script that she didn’t fully understand. Hence not knowing that ‘disease’ referred to ‘epidemic’.

[Tom Bell @Tom_Bell1]

@SpinningHugo @MWHoyle19 @LordThurlow What’s the difference, epistemologically speaking, between a fact that a statute deems to be true, and a fact that a court finds is true so as to create res judicata? Neither constitutes objective truth about the world. Both are legal constructs.

[Tom Bell @Tom_Bell1]

@MWHoyle19 @LordThurlow @SpinningHugo Surely you can see the difference between the two? One is changing a legal rule (X is liable for mesothelioma if Y) the other is changing a finding of fact made by the Court (or to be precise requiring the courts to deem X, despite the courts finding ‘not-X’).

[Tom Bell @Tom_Bell1]

@SirJJKC How does this argument get off the ground, given clause 2(3):

"...a court...must not consider a review of...a decision...to the extent that the review...is brought on the grounds that the Republic of Rwanda is not a safe country. "

[Tom Bell @Tom_Bell1]

@Dr_W_E_Bulmer @GrahamSmith_ What about when s.1 of the Constutional Statutes (Amendment) Act says, "The manner-and-form entrenchment rules within the Constitutional Statutes Act are hereby revoked." Would the Courts have to say that it is 'ultra vires' primary legislation?

[Tom Bell @Tom_Bell1]

@SpinningHugo @carlgardner @JoshuaRozenberg @Barristerblog @AdamWagner1 @Prof_Phillipson @StevePeers @syrpis @SeethingMead @colmocinneide @GeorgePeretzKC @michaelpforan @philipmurraylaw If Law X was directed at agents and Law Y their principals, then it creates a ‘problem’ - at least in my sense though not yours it seems - for the agents because their act results in either them personally, or their principal by operation of the rules of agency, breaching a law.

[Tom Bell @Tom_Bell1]

@SpinningHugo @carlgardner @JoshuaRozenberg @Barristerblog @AdamWagner1 @Prof_Phillipson @StevePeers @syrpis @SeethingMead @colmocinneide @GeorgePeretzKC @michaelpforan @philipmurraylaw That analogy doesn’t work because actions within Monopoly have no relevance to international law. But domestic acts can be relevant to international law - eg the treatment of refugees. Just because they’re different sets of laws doesn’t mean they can’t be in conflict.

[Tom Bell @Tom_Bell1]

@SpinningHugo @carlgardner @JoshuaRozenberg @Barristerblog @AdamWagner1 @Prof_Phillipson @StevePeers @syrpis @SeethingMead @colmocinneide @GeorgePeretzKC @michaelpforan @philipmurraylaw There’s a problem because the ‘rule of law’ doesn’t have to be ring-fenced between different categories of law. Your argument says it does, but that’s not an a priori truth. It’s a function of your chosen definition.