Balintulo v. Ford Motor Co., 796 F.3d 160 (2d Cir. 2015)The US Court of Appeal held that it did not have jurisdiction under the Alien Tort Statute to hear the plaintiffs’ claim that Ford and IBM aided and abetted crimes committed against them during South African apartheid. The decision confirmed that the presumption against extraterritoriality will only be displaced where the relevant conduct touches and concerns the US and constitutes a violation (or aiding or abetting a violation) of customary international law. In order to demonstrate that a defendant has aided or abetted a violation the plaintiff must show that the defendant engaged in the conduct for that purpose.

Djime v Kearnes (Human Rights) [2015] VCAT 941 (26 June 2015)To be covered by the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic) (the Act), members of the public alleging discrimination by police need to prove that the discrimination occurred in the provision of ‘goods and services’. A recent Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) decision clarifies the definition of ‘services’ in the Act as it relates to policing.

Obergefell v Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015) (26 June 2015)The recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Obergefell v Hodges is a landmark victory that activists have been working towards for over a decade. In a 5-4 judgment the Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution requires States of the United States to licence marriage equality.

The Urgenda Foundation v The State of the Netherlands (Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment), C/09/456689/ HA ZA 13-1396 (English translation) (24 June 2015)In a landmark decision The Hague District Court, partly relying on human rights law, has ordered the Dutch Government to take more action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the Netherlands.

Oliari and Others v Italy (European Court of Human Rights, Chamber, Applications Nos. 18766/11 and 36030/11, 21 July 2015)The European Court of Human Rights has concluded that Italy must provide legal recognition of same-sex couples. The ruling confirmed that Italy, by denying recognition to same-sex couples, was in violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides for the right to respect for privacy and family life.

Secretary, New South Wales Department of Family and Community Services by his delegate Principal Officer, Adoptions, Barnardos Australia; Re JLR [2015] NSWSC 926Justice Bergin, the Chief Judge in Equity in the NSW Supreme Court, found that a person not party to an adoption (in this case, a paternal grandmother) may have standing to enforce an adoption plan if the plan is registered under the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW) (Adoption Act), but not to review or amend it.

Khoroshenko v Russia (European Court of Human Rights, Grand Chamber, Application No. 41418/04, 30 June 2015)The European Court of Human Rights found that serious restrictions on a life prisoner’s family visits violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The restriction was non-rehabilitative in nature and its undifferentiated application to all life-sentence prisoners were disproportionate.

The Commissioner of Police v Alio Korau [2015] EWCA Civ 646The Court of Appeal held that Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights (Convention) imposes a positive obligation on police to conduct a proper investigation into credible or arguable allegations of criminal conduct.

Ferguson v. JONAH  (Sup Ct of NJ, Docket No. HUD-L-5473-12, 25 June 2015)In June 2015, a jury unanimously found in favour of five plaintiffs who filed a suit claiming that counselling and therapy provided by JONAH (Jews Offering New Alternatives for Healing) contravened New Jersey consumer fraud legislation. The plaintiffs claimed that JONAH engaged in misrepresentations and unconscionable commercial practices by claiming that homosexuality was a mental disorder and that JONAH’s services could reduce or eliminate this disorder. A jury found unanimously in favour of the plaintiffs and awarded a total of US $72,400 in damages.

Re: Jamie [2015] FamCA 455 (16 June 2015)The Family Court of Australia has found that 15 year old “Jamie”, the subject of the often-cited decision of the Full Court of the Family Court in Re: Jamie [2013] FamCAFC 110 (Re Jamie 2013), was competent to consent to the stage two treatment for gender dysphoria and authorised her to make her own decision in relation to that treatment. This case is one of many being heard by the Family Court following the decision in Re Jamie 2013 that whilst court authorisation is unnecessary for stage one treatment for gender dysphoria, the nature of stage two treatment requires the Court to determine the child’s “Gillick competence” to make the decision.

Detention Action v First-Tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) & Ors [2015] EWCH 1689 (Admin)The High Court of England and Wales has found that the “Fast Track” appeal process, which imposed extremely short timelines for hearing appeals against asylum seeker application decisions, was ultra vires, or beyond power, as a result of structural unfairness.

Bournemouth Borough Council v PS & Anor [2015] EWCOP 39The UK Court of Protection was recently asked to rule whether the care regime of a 28-year-old man with severe autism ('Ben') amounted to a deprivation of liberty. Justice Mostyn ultimately concluded that the arrangements were in Ben's best interests, and did not amount to deprivation of liberty under Article 5 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). The Court declined to provide a test for 'deprivation of liberty' noting simply that the Court would 'know it when we see it'.