Regina (NE) v Birmingham Magistrates’ Court; Regina (NM) v Birmingham Magistrates’ Court – WLR Daily

Regina (NE) v Birmingham Magistrates’ Court; Regina (NM) v Birmingham Magistrates’ Court [2015] EWHC 688 (Admin); [2015] WLR (D) 135

‘An appeal by way of case stated to the High Court pursuant to section 111 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, rather than a challenge by way of judicial review, was generally the appropriate way in which to challenge a decision of a magistrates’ court dismissing an appeal under section 91E of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 against an unsuccessful review of an order requiring a sexual offender to comply with the notification requirements under the Act indefinitely.’

WLR Daily, 20th March 2015

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off

Regina (Littlejohns and another) v Devon County Council – WLR Daily

Regina (Littlejohns and another) v Devon County Council [2015] EWHC 730 (Admin); [2015] WLR (D) 136

‘The transitional provisions in Schedule 3 to the Commons Act 2006 provided a brief window within which the commons register could be updated and corrected by incorporating any registrations which could have been, but were not, made under the Commons Registration Act 1965. Thereafter, any unregistered rights would be extinguished under paragraph 3 to the Schedule, repeating the legislative approach adopted in section 1(2)(b) of the 1965 Act.’

WLR Daily, 24th March 2015

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off

Heron Bros Ltd v Central Bedfordshire Council – WLR Daily

Heron Bros Ltd v Central Bedfordshire Council [2015] EWHC 604 (TCC); [2015] WLR (D) 137

‘The term “service in accordance with rules of court” in regulation 47F(5) of the Public Contracts Regulations 2006, as amended, meant that valid service was achieved when the relevant step for service of a claim form, set out in CPR r 7.5(1), was completed within the seven-day time limit prescribed by regulation 47F(1).’

WLR Daily, 20th March 2015

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off

R (on the application of Trail Riders Fellowship and another (Respondents) v Dorset County Council (Appellant) – Supreme Court

R (on the application of Trail Riders Fellowship and another (Respondents) v Dorset County Council (Appellant) [2015] UKSC 18 (YouTube)

Supreme Court, 18th March 2015

Source: www.youtube.com/user/UKSupremeCourt

Comments Off

R (on the application of SG and others (previously JS and others)) (Appellants) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Respondent) – Supreme Court

R (on the application of SG and others (previously JS and others)) (Appellants) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Respondent) [2015] UKSC 16 (YouTube)

Supreme Court, 18th March 2015

Source: www.youtube.com/user/UKSupremeCourt

Comments Off

Montgomery (Appellant) v Lanarkshire Health Board (Respondent) – Supreme Court

Montgomery (Appellant) v Lanarkshire Health Board (Respondent) [2015] UKSC 11 (YouTube)

Supreme Court, 11th March 2015

Source: www.youtube.com/user/UKSupremeCourt

Comments Off

Carlyle (Appellant) v Royal Bank of Scotland (Respondent) (Scotland) – Supreme Court

Carlyle (Appellant) v Royal Bank of Scotland (Respondent) (Scotland) [2015] UKSC 13 (YouTube)

Supreme Court, 11th March 2015

Source: www.youtube.com/user/UKSupremeCourt

Comments Off

Tael One Partners Limited (Appellant) v Morgan Stanley & Co International PLC (Respondent) – Supreme Court

Posted March 25th, 2015 in appeals, interest, law reports, loans, Supreme Court by sally

Tael One Partners Limited (Appellant) v Morgan Stanley & Co International PLC (Respondent) [2015] UKSC 12 (YouTube)

Supreme Court, 11th March 2015

Source: www.youtube.com/user/UKSupremeCourt

Comments Off

Wyatt (Appellant) v Vince (Respondent) – Supreme Court

Wyatt (Appellant) v Vince (Respondent) [2015] UKSC 14 (YouTube)

Supreme Court, 11th March 2015

Source: www.youtube.com/user/UKSupremeCourt

Comments Off

R (on the application of Catt) (AP) (Respondent) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and another (Appellants); R (on the application of T) (AP) (Respondent) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (Appellant) – Supreme Court

R (on the application of Catt) (AP) (Respondent) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and another (Appellants); R (on the application of T) (AP) (Respondent) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (Appellant) [2015] UKSC 9 (YouTube)

Supreme Court, 4th March 2015

Source: www.youtube.com/user/UKSupremeCourt

Comments Off

R (on the application of Jamar Brown (Jamaica) (Respondent) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant) – Supreme Court

R (on the application of Jamar Brown (Jamaica) (Respondent) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant) [2015] UKSC 8 (YouTube)

Supreme Court, 4th March 2015

Source: www.youtube.com/user/UKSupremeCourt

Comments Off

Kandola v Generalstaatwaltschaft Frankfurt, Germany; Droma v State Prosecutor Nurnburg-Furth, Bavaria, Germany; Ijaz v The Court of Milan (An Italian Judicial Authority) – WLR Daily

Posted March 24th, 2015 in appeals, extradition, law reports by sally

Kandola v Generalstaatwaltschaft Frankfurt, Germany; Droma v State Prosecutor Nurnburg-Furth, Bavaria, Germany; Ijaz v The Court of Milan (An Italian Judicial Authority) [2015] EWHC 619 (Admin); [2015] WLR (D) 126

‘In the context of an extradition appeal the court set out the approach to be taken in applying section 12A of the Extradition Act 2003.’

WLR Daily, 13th March 2015

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off

Barco De Vapor BV and others v Thanet District Council – WLR Daily

Barco De Vapor BV and others v Thanet District Council [2014] EWHC 490 (Ch); [2015] WLR (D) 127

‘Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 harmonised the law on the protection, welfare and health of animals during transport. Accordingly, the imposition of an animal welfare measure not in accordance with the Regulation which had the effect of restricting the free movement of goods was an unjustified breach of article 35FEU of the FEU Treaty.’

WLR Daily, 27th February 2015

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off

FAS v Bradford Metropolitan District Council and another – WLR Daily

Posted March 23rd, 2015 in adoption, children, citizenship, family courts, immigration, law reports by sally

FAS v Bradford Metropolitan District Council and another [2015] EWHC 622 (Fam); [2015] WLR (D) 128

‘It remained the case that the court would rarely make an adoption order when it would confer no benefits upon the child during its childhood but gave it a right of abode for the rest of its life. The proposition to that effect in In re B (A Minor) (Adoption Order: Nationality) [1999] 2 AC 136, 141–142, decided in the context of section 6 of the Adoption Act 1976 and the need to promote and safeguard the welfare of the child “throughout his childhood”, still applied despite the change in the welfare test effected by the Adoption and Children Act 2002, which now provided that the paramount (as opposed to the first) consideration was the child’s welfare “throughout his life”. Thus, where the court was in effect being asked to use adoption to confer citizenship prospectively upon an adult the courts were reluctant to trespass upon the area of the Home Secretary’s authority entrusted to him by Parliament.’

WLR Daily, 13th March 2015

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off

Deutsche Bank AG London Branch v Petromena ASA (in bankruptcy) – WLR Daily

Deutsche Bank AG London Branch v Petromena ASA (in bankruptcy) [2015] EWCA Civ 226; [2015] WLR (D) 133

‘Where a party, which entered an acknowledgment of service to proceedings and made an unsuccessful challenge against the jurisdiction of the English court to hear the proceedings, had entered a further acknowledgment of service in its application for permission to appeal against the court’s decision to refuse its challenge, that party would have submitted to the jurisdiction of the English court, within article 24 of the Lugano Convention on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (2007), because of the provisions of CPR r 11(8), unless it had first applied to the court for an extension of time to file the further acknowledgment of service sufficient to enable the application for permission to appeal, or the appeal if permission was granted, to be determined.’

WLR Daily, 18th March 2015

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off

Regina (Chaudhary) v Crown Court at Bristol and another – WLR Daily

Posted March 23rd, 2015 in costs, criminal procedure, judicial review, law reports by sally

Regina (Chaudhary) v Crown Court at Bristol and another [2015] EWHC 723 (Admin); [2015] WLR (D) 131

‘The legislative changes effected by the introduction of the Criminal Procedure Rules revoked the Crown Court Rules 1982 in so far as they related to an award of costs in criminal cases in the Crown Court. Accordingly, there was no power under rule 12 of the Crown Court Rules enabling the Crown Court to make an order for costs in relation to an application under section 59 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 for the return of items seized pursuant to a search warrant.’

WLR Daily, 18th March 2015

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off

Regina v Doran and another – WLR Daily

Regina v Doran and another [2015] EWCA Crim 384; [2015] WLR (D) 129

‘A surveillance operation mounted by Revenue and Customs because they suspected that a consignment of cigarettes were being imported with the purpose of evading the duty payable did not result in a disconnection between the goods and the importers. Revenue and Customs were thereby monitoring the import, not controlling it, so that a judge was entitled to find that the importers were “holding” the goods within the meaning of regulation 13(1) of the Tobacco Products Regulations 2001 and, by that means, were retaining their connection with the goods at the excise duty point.’

WLR Daily, 17th March 2015

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off

Regina v Kakkad – WLR Daily

Regina v Kakkad [2015] EWCA Crim 385; [2015] WLR (D) 130

‘In confiscation proceedings, in relation to the benefit to be assessed, the market value of cocaine, to the extent that it was matched by an available cutting agent, was that which would have been obtained by cutting it with that available agent. However, the value of cocaine which was not matched by an equivalent amount of cutting agent in the defendant’s control could not properly be valued on any basis other than its undiluted wholesale form.’

WLR Daily, 17th March 2015

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off

Regina (Secretary of State for the Home Department) v Special Immigration Appeals Commission – WLR Daily

Posted March 23rd, 2015 in appeals, disclosure, human rights, immigration, judicial review, law reports by sally

Regina (Secretary of State for the Home Department) v Special Immigration Appeals Commission [2015] EWHC 681 (Admin); [2015] WLR (D) 132

‘In review proceedings under sections 2C and 2D of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997, challenging specified decisions of the Home Secretary to exclude an individual from the United Kingdom or refuse applications for naturalisation, the Home Secretary was required to disclose to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission and to the special advocates acting in the closed proceedings such material as had been used by the author of any relevant assessment, relied on by the Home Secretary in reaching the decision, to found or justify the facts or conclusions expressed therein; or if subsequently re-analysed, to disclose such material as was considered sufficient to justify those facts and conclusions and which was in existence at the date of decision.’

WLR Daily, 18th March 2015

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off

Aster Communities Ltd (formerly Flourish Homes Ltd) v Akerman-Livingstone (Equality and Human Rights Commission intervening) – WLR Daily

Aster Communities Ltd (formerly Flourish Homes Ltd) v Akerman-Livingstone (Equality and Human Rights Commission intervening); [2015] UKSC 15; [2015] WLR (D) 121

‘The approach to be taken to a defence to a claim for possession of residential premises which alleged unlawful discrimination against a disabled person, contrary to the Equality Act 2010, was different from that which applied to a defence which alleged a breach of an individual’s rights under article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. In particular, summary judgment would not normally be an appropriate procedure for dealing with a possession claim where a disability discrimination defence was raised.’

WLR Daily, 11th March 2015

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off