BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted May 3rd, 2016 in law reports by tracey

Supreme Court

O, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] UKSC 19 (27 April 2016)

The Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime v Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co (Europe) Ltd & Ors [2016] UKSC 18 (20 April 2016)

Nouazli, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] UKSC 16 (20 April 2016)

Asset Land Investment Plc & Anor v The Financial Conduct Authority [2016] UKSC 17 (20 April 2016)

Lynn Shellfish Ltd & Ors v Loose & Anor (rev 1) [2016] UKSC 14 (13 April 2016)

N (Children), Re [2016] UKSC 15 (13 April 2016)

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

Oxted Residential Ltd v Tandridge District Council [2016] EWCA Civ 414 (29 April 2016)

Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

AD, R v [2016] EWCA Crim 454 (29 April 2016)

High Court (Administrative Court)

Lensbury Ltd & Anor, R (on the application of) v Richmond-Upon-Thames London Borough Council & Ors [2016] EWHC 980 (Admin) (29 April 2016)

Cunliffe, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice [2016] EWHC 984 (Admin) (29 April 2016)

High Court (Chancery Division)

Chachani Misti y Pichu Pichu SRL v Hostplanet Ltd & Anor [2016] EWHC 983 (Ch) (29 April 2016)

High Court (Patents Court)

Unwired Planet International Ltd v Huawei Technologies Co Ltd & Ors [2016] EWHC 958 (Pat) (29 April 2016)

High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)

Mendes v Hochtief (UK) Construction Ltd [2016] EWHC 976 (QB) (29 April 2016)

High Court (Technology and Construction Court)

Carillion Construction Ltd v Woods Bagot Europe Ltd & Ors [2016] EWHC 905 (TCC) (28 April 2016)

Source: www.bailii.org

Comments Off on BAILII: Recent Decisions

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted April 29th, 2016 in law reports by tracey

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

Greenway & Ors v Johnson Matthey Plc [2016] EWCA Civ 408 (28 April 2016)

Elliston v Glencore Services (UK) Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 407 (28 April 2016)

Edgeworth Capital (Luxembourg) SARL & Anor v Ramblas Investments BV [2016] EWCA Civ 412 (28 April 2016)

Standard Chartered Bank (Hong Kong) Ltd & Anor v Independent Power Tanzania Ltd & Ors [2016] EWCA Civ 411 (28 April 2016)

Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions

Hussain, R v [2016] EWCA Crim 548 (28 April 2016)

Hussain, R v [2016] EWCA Crim 547 (28 April 2016)

Needham & Ors, R v [2016] EWCA Crim 455 (28 April 2016)

Fanning & Ors, R v [2016] EWCA Crim 550 (28 April 2016)

High Court (Administrative Court)

Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty of Animals (RSPCA) v McCormick & Ors [2016] EWHC 928 (Admin) (29 April 2016)

Bashir & Ors, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWHC 954 (Admin) (28 April 2016)

St Modwen Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2016] EWHC 968 (Admin) (28 April 2016)

Shindler & Anor v Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster & Anor [2016] EWHC 957 (Admin) (28 April 2016)

Mulholland v Conduct and Competence Committee of the Nursing and Midwifery Council [2016] EWHC 952 (Admin) (28 April 2016)

O, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Lambeth [2016] EWHC 937 (Admin) (28 April 2016)

Court (Chancery Division)

Various Claimants v News Group Newspapers [2016] EWHC 961 (Ch) (28 April 2016)

Credit Suisse Asset Management LLC v Titan Europe 2006-1 Plc & Ors [2016] EWHC 969 (Ch) (28 April 2016)

High Court (Family Division)

Z v Z & Ors [2016] EWHC 911 (Fam) (22 April 2016)

High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)

Gibbs v Leeds United Football Club Ltd [2016] EWHC 960 (QB) (28 April 2016)

Blacker (The Lord Harley) v The Law Society [2016] EWHC 947 (QB) (27 April 2016)

Vilca & 21 Ors v Xstrata Ltd & Anor [2016] EWHC 946 (QB) (27 April 2016)

Undre & Anor v The London Borough of Harrow [2016] EWHC 931 (QB) (26 April 2016)

Cox v The Secretary of State for Health [2016] EWHC 924 (QB) (26 April 2016)

VN & Anor v London Borough of Brent & Ors [2016] EWHC 936 (QB) (26 April 2016)

Kupeli & Ors V Kibris Turk Hava Yollari Sirketi (t/a Cyprus Turkish Airlines) & Ors [2016] EWHC 930 (QB) (25 April 2016)

Source: www.bailii.org

Comments Off on BAILII: Recent Decisions

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted April 28th, 2016 in law reports by tracey

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

HM Revenue and Customs v Bristol and West Plc [2016] EWCA Civ 397 (27 April 2016)

Richter Gedeon Vegyeszeti Gyar RT v Generics (UK) Ltd (t/a Mylan) [2016] EWCA Civ 410 (26 April 2016)

London Borough of Croydon v Y [2016] EWCA Civ 398 (26 April 2016)

Cruz v Lancashire Police & Anor [2016] EWCA Civ 402 (26 April 2016)

TBO Investments Ltd v Mohun-Smith & Anor [2016] EWCA Civ 403 (26 April 2016)

Lee Valley Regional Park Authority, R (on the application of) v Epping Forest District Council & Anor (Rev 1) [2016] EWCA Civ 404 (22 April 2016)

Quantrell v TWA Logistics Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 399 (22 April 2016)

SB (Jamaica) and ABD (A Minor), R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 400 (22 April 2016)

Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

Mittal v R [2016] EWCA Crim 451 (26 April 2016)

High Court (Administrative Court)

Ben-Dor & Ors, R (on the application of) v University of Southampton [2016] EWHC 953 (Admin) (27 April 2016)

Dillner, R (On the Application Of) v Sheffield City Council [2016] EWHC 945 (Admin) (27 April 2016)

Galdikas & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors (Rev 1) [2016] EWHC 942 (Admin) (26 April 2016)

Cyrus, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWHC 918 (Admin) (26 April 2016)

Cato v The Republic of Peru & Ors [2016] EWHC 914 (Admin) (26 April 2016)

Charman, R (on the application of) v HM Revenue & Customs [2016] EWHC 854 (Admin) (25 April 2016)

National Crime Agency v Davies & Ors (rev 1) [2016] EWHC 899 (Admin) (25 April 2016)

Haralambous v St Albans Crown Court & Anor [2016] EWHC 916 (Admin) (22 April 2016)

High Court (Chancery Division)

Levett-Dunn & Ors v NHS Property Services Ltd [2016] EWHC 943 (Ch) (26 April 2016)

The Creative Foundation v Dreamland Leisure Ltd & Ors [2016] EWHC 859 (Ch) (25 April 2016)

Hockin & Ors v The Royal Bank of Scotland & Anor [2016] EWHC 925 (Ch) (25 April 2016)

Bainbridge & Anor v Bainbridge [2016] EWHC 898 (Ch) (22 April 2016)

Van Der Merwe v Goldman & Anor [2016] EWHC 926 (Ch) (22 April 2016)

Source: www.bailii.org

Comments Off on BAILII: Recent Decisions

Regina (Al-Saadoon and others) v Secretary of State for Defence (No 2) – WLR Daily

Regina (Al-Saadoon and others) v Secretary of State for Defence (No 2) [2016] EWHC 773 (Admin)

‘The claimants brought public law claims in the courts of the United Kingdom arising out of the British military involvement in Iraq between 2003 and 2009. The claims involved allegations of ill-treatment and in some cases unlawful killing, of Iraqi civilians by British soldiers. By their claims for judicial review the claimants sought court orders requiring the Secretary of State to investigate alleged human rights violations. Issues arose relating to the UK’s obligations under articles 2 and 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, including (i) the nature and scope of the state’s substantive obligation under article 2 of the Convention in relation to the use of lethal force while seeking to quell riots and uphold law and order during the occupation of Iraq, (ii) when the investigative duty under article 2 arose in such circumstances and (iii) the effect of delay on the investigative duties under articles 2 and 3 where the allegations of breach of the substantive rights were made many years after the incidents in question.’

WLR Daily, 7th April 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off on Regina (Al-Saadoon and others) v Secretary of State for Defence (No 2) – WLR Daily

Regina (Sino) v Secretary of State for the Home Department – WLR Daily

Regina (Sino) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWHC 803 (Admin)

‘Claiming that he had been unlawfully detained, the claimant sought, through the route of judicial review, immediate release from detention, determination of the defendant’s liability for his false imprisonment and resolution as to whether, if false imprisonment was established, damages should be compensatory or nominal. The defendant had detained the claimant under immigration powers for periods totalling seven years and two months. The judge held that the claimant had been unlawfully detained between 13 July and 10 December 2013 and was entitled to more than nominal damages for false imprisonment, to be assessed on a compensatory basis. The claimant failed in his public law claim in relation to accommodation, deportation and removal. An issue arose as to costs. The defendant contended, inter alia, that as the claimant had succeeded on only one issue out of four he was entitled to only 25% of his costs.’

WLR Daily, 12th April 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off on Regina (Sino) v Secretary of State for the Home Department – WLR Daily

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted April 22nd, 2016 in law reports by tracey

High Court (Administrative Court)

Rushport Advisory Llp, R (on the application of) v National Health Service Litigation Authority & Ors [2016] EWHC EWHC 907 (Admin) (20 April 2016)

High Court (Chancery Division)

Phonographic Performance Ltd v Nightclub (London) Ltd [2016] EWHC 892 (Ch) (21 April 2016)

The Charity Commission for England and Wales v Mountstar (PTC) Ltd [2016] EWHC 876 (Ch) (21 April 2016)

High Court (Commercial Court)

AXA Corporate Solutions Assurance SA v Weir Services Australia Pty Ltd [2016] EWHC 904 (Comm) (21 April 2016)

High Court (Family Division)

I (A Child), Re [2016] EWHC 910 (Fam) (18 April 2016)

High Court (Patents Court)

Koninklijke Philips NV v Asustek Computer Incorporation & Ors [2016] EWHC 867 (Pat) (21 April 2016)

High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)

University of Wales v London College of Business Ltd [2016] EWHC 888 (QB) (21 April 2016)

Source: www.bailii.org

Comments Off on BAILII: Recent Decisions

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted April 21st, 2016 in law reports by sally

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

High Court (Administrative Court)

High Court (Chancery Division)

Source: www.bailii.org

Comments Off on BAILII: Recent Decisions

BAILII: Recent Decision

Posted April 21st, 2016 in law reports by sally

High Court (Commercial Court)

High Court (Family Division)

High Court (Patents Court)

High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)

High Court (Technology and Construction Court) Decisions

Source: www.bailii.org

Comments Off on BAILII: Recent Decision

Sparks and others v Department for Transport – WLR Daily

Posted April 20th, 2016 in contract of employment, employment, law reports, sick leave by sally

Sparks and others v Department for Transport [2016] EWCA Civ 360

‘A provision in the employer’s staff handbook stated that where in any 12 month period the employee had taken a number of short term absences which together exceeded 21 working days, the employee’s line manager would discuss his attendance record with him, and only if those “trigger points” had been exceeded and the line manager had consequently acknowledged that there was a problem with the employee’s attendance would the line manager take the matter forward in accordance with the relevant attendance procedures. The handbook provided that all it provisions which applied to the particular employee and were apt for incorporation should be incorporated into the employee’s contract of employment. The provision in question was in a part of the handbook on ill health, which contained the following introductory words: “This chapter sets out your terms and conditions of employment relating to sick leave … [and] the management of poor attendance….” Seven employees, all of whom were employed by different agencies within the same government department and were subject to somewhat different but materially similar provisions, brought claims contending that those provisions were terms of the contracts of employment between them and their employer. The employer maintained that the provisions were not legally enforceable contractual terms but mere notes of guidance or good practice of no legal force. The provision in respect of cumulative short-term absences in the first employee’s documents was taken to determine the question between the employer and all the employees. The judge held that the provisions were terms of the employees’ contracts of employment, and made declarations to that effect. As a result the judge declared that a new policy of attendance management introduced by the employer in July 2012 had not been effective to vary the contractual terms of the employment contracts and was not contractually binding on the employees.’

WLR Daily, 14th April 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off on Sparks and others v Department for Transport – WLR Daily

Webb (by her litigation friend) v Liverpool Women’s NHS Foundation Trust – WLR Daily

Posted April 20th, 2016 in costs, indemnities, law reports, negligence, personal injuries by sally

Webb (by her litigation friend) v Liverpool Women’s NHS Foundation Trust [2016] EWCA Civ 365

‘The claimant succeeded in her claim against the defendant for medical negligence in the management of her birth, during which she suffered a Brachial Plexus Injury as a result of shoulder dystocia. The claimant had earlier made a CPR Pt 36 offer to settle liability on the basis that she received 65% of the damages that would accrue on a 100% basis, which had been rejected by the defendant. The judge upheld the first allegation under the claim, namely that the defendant had been negligent in not performing a caesarean section during the claimant’s delivery and held that as she had succeeded in establishing that her injury was caused by the defendant’s negligence, she was accordingly entitled to 100% of her claimed damages even though she had been unsuccessful in other specific allegations, including a freestanding second limb of the claim that the delivery itself was negligently managed. On the issue of costs, the claimant contended that because of the defendant’s refusal to accept the Part 36 offer of settlement which had been bettered by the claimant, the consequences of what was then CPR r 36.14(3) (now CPR r 36.17, as amended by The Civil Procedure (Amendment No 8) Rules (SI 2014/3299), reg 7, Sch 1) applied and as a result the court was unable to make an issues-based order, Part 36 comprising as it did an all or nothing self-contained regime; and that she should have all her costs on an indemnity basis from the expiry of the relevant period plus interest thereon at the enhanced “Part 36 rate” plus the enhancements specified in Part 36.14(3)(a) and (d). The defendant submitted that the normal cost consequences of CPR r 36.14(3) should be disapplied because, by reference to CPR r 36.14(4), in the circumstances, it would be unjust to apply them; that CPR Part 36 did not prevent the court from making an issues-based or proportionate costs order to reflect the fact that the claimant failed in respect of the second allegation, which was a discrete and independent allegation and that such an order was appropriate; and that therefore the claimant’s costs referable to the first allegation should be awarded with the CPR Part 36 enhancements but not those in respect of the unsuccessful second allegation. The judge held that (a) the engagement of the CPR Pt 36 cost consequences did not preclude the court from making an issues-based or proportionate costs order and the court had a discretion to make such an order, notwithstanding that the claimant was a successful claimant; and (b) that, in the circumstances of the case, it was just to make an issues-based proportionate costs order, under which the claimant would not recover her costs of the second allegation. He ordered that the claimant should recover her damages to be assessed with the 10% addition required by CPR r 36.14(3)(d), plus her costs, excluding those referable to the second allegation and that those costs, incurred after 22 October 2014, were to be assessed on an indemnity basis pursuant to CPR r 36.14(3)(d). The claimant appealed on the grounds that (a) on the true construction of Part 36, the discretion of the court under CPR r 36.14(3) was restricted to the enhancements to which a successful claimant was normally entitled in respect of damages, costs and interest, that the court did not have power under Part 36 to deprive a party of part of its costs on the basis that it had failed to establish part of its claim and that Part 36 excluded the normal discretion of the court to make an issues-based or proportionate costs order; (b) alternatively, that a successful claimant could only be deprived of her costs if it was shown that it would be unjust for her to recover all her costs; and (c) that the judge had erred in law in deciding that he could and should deprive the claimant of her costs attributable to the second allegation.’

WLR Daily, 14th April 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off on Webb (by her litigation friend) v Liverpool Women’s NHS Foundation Trust – WLR Daily

In re N (Children) (Adoption: Jurisdiction) (AIRE Centre and others intervening) – WLR Daily

Posted April 20th, 2016 in adoption, EC law, jurisdiction, law reports, transfer of proceedings by sally

In re N (Children) (Adoption: Jurisdiction) (AIRE Centre and others intervening) [2016] UKSC 15

‘Two children, who like their parents were Hungarian nationals, were born in England and habitually resident in the United Kingdom, having lived with the same English foster carers for most of their lives, initially with the consent of their parents. The local authority sought a care order under section 31 of the Children Act 1989 and, subsequently, an order for placement of the children with the foster carers with a view to their adoption pursuant to section 21 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. The mother, who had returned to Hungary and had a third child with the father, opposed the orders and applied under article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 for the proceedings to be transferred to Hungary. The Hungarian authorities supported her application, maintaining that only the Hungarian authorities could order the adoption of a Hungarian national minor. They proposed that upon return to Hungary the children would be placed with English speaking foster parents but maintain contact with their parents. The judge directed that both the care and placement order proceedings be transferred in accordance with article 15 on the ground that the Hungarian courts would be better placed to determine the welfare issues. The Court of Appeal decided, inter alia, that the placement order proceedings were outside the scope of article 15 by virtue of article 1(3)(b) of the Regulation and could not, therefore, be transferred to Hungary, but that, since the judge had not erred in ordering the transfer of the care proceedings, the placement order proceedings would be stayed even though they could not be transferred. ‘

WLR Daily, 13th April 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off on In re N (Children) (Adoption: Jurisdiction) (AIRE Centre and others intervening) – WLR Daily

Auzins v Prosecutor General’s Office of the Republic of Latvia – WLR Daily

Posted April 20th, 2016 in abuse of process, estoppel, law reports, res judicata by sally

Auzins v Prosecutor General’s Office of the Republic of Latvia [2016] EWHC 802 (Admin)

‘The appellant was arrested in Latvia in connection with four offences of theft. He admitted guilt in relation to some of the offences and was released subject to certain conditions. In breach of those conditions he left Latvia and subsequently came to live in England. He was arrested in Scotland pursuant to a European arrest warrant (“EAW”) issued by the Latvian judicial authority, and extradition proceedings followed in the Sheriff Court. He resisted extradition on health grounds. A letter from the Latvian authorities accepted that the medical treatment available within the Latvian prison system for the treatment of the appellant’s medical problems would be insufficient and incompatible with European guidelines. The court concluded that, while there were no bars to extradition under the section 11(1) of the Extradition Act 2003, the appellant’s physical condition was such that it would be oppressive to extradite him. Three years later, a replacement, second, EAW was issued, reflecting the fact that one of the offences for which extradition had originally been sought had become time barred. The appellant was arrested pursuant to the second EAW in England. Updated evidence from the Latvian authorities showed that the position as to the availability of treatment for the appellant’s conditions had improved in the intervening period. Following a contested hearing, the district judge ordered the appellant’s extradition. The appellant challenged that decision on grounds, inter alia, that the district judge should have discharged him because: (i) the issue of his surrender was res judicata or subject to an issue estoppel on account of his discharge in the earlier Scottish proceedings for substantially the same matters; alternatively, (ii) in seeking his surrender the Latvian authorities were abusing the process of the court.’

WLR Daily, 14th April 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off on Auzins v Prosecutor General’s Office of the Republic of Latvia – WLR Daily

Marussia Communications Ireland Ltd v Manor Grand Prix Racing Ltd and another – WLR Daily

Posted April 20th, 2016 in EC law, law reports, licensing, time limits, trade marks by sally

Marussia Communications Ireland Ltd v Manor Grand Prix Racing Ltd and another [2016] EWHC 809 (Ch)

‘The claimant was the proprietor of a Community registered trade mark for the “Marussia” name and logo, which it licensed to the defendant to use for a certain period. The claimant brought a claim for trade mark infringement, claiming that the defendant had continued to use the trade mark after the licence period had ended and that the use of the “Marussia” name contravened article 9(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark. The defendants relied upon five defences, including consent of the claimant within the meaning of Council Regulation 207/2009. On the claimant’s application for summary judgment am issue arose as to whether, if it failed to prove the claimant had given consent, the defendant could none the less rely on English law principles of estoppel to achieve either the same or a similar result.’

WLR Daily, 13th April 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off on Marussia Communications Ireland Ltd v Manor Grand Prix Racing Ltd and another – WLR Daily

Regina (Hussain) v Parole Board of England and Wales – WLR Daily

Posted April 20th, 2016 in delay, human rights, law reports, parole, transfer of proceedings by sally

Regina (Hussain) v Parole Board of England and Wales [2016] EWHC 288 (Admin)

‘The claimant, an indeterminate sentence prisoner, was referred by the Secretary of State to the Parole Board for consideration of his suitability for transfer to open prison conditions for the remaining three years of his minimum custodial term (in accordance with the relevant National Offender Management Service guidance). The purpose of such a transfer was to enable the claimant to demonstrate during that period, and in those conditions, that he no longer posed a level of risk to the public that warranted further detention and could therefore be considered for release at, or shortly after, the expiry of his fixed tariff in 2017. The Board was obliged under the Parole Board Rules 2011 to consider the claimant’s suitability at an oral hearing within 26 weeks of receiving the referral and, although the case was made ready for listing in September 2014, it was only set down in the following February and subsequently heard in May 2015. The defendant accepted that the listing of oral hearings had been subject to substantial delays at the time due to a lack of resources but contended that the claimant had still been moved to open conditions some two years prior to the expiry of his tariff and therefore he had not lost the opportunity to show his suitability for release at the time of his tariff expiry date. The claimant brought a claim for judicial review, contending that the delay in listing the oral hearing was unlawful under common law and in breach of article 5.4 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as it had delayed his transfer to open prison conditions and consequently deprived him of the opportunity to demonstrate his suitability for release at, or shortly after, the expiry of his tariff.’

WLR Daily, 24th February 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off on Regina (Hussain) v Parole Board of England and Wales – WLR Daily

Regina v Pacurar – WLR Daily

Posted April 20th, 2016 in appeals, law reports, sexual offences, trespass by sally

Regina v Pacurar

‘The defendant was charged with trespass with intent to commit a sexual offence contrary to section 63(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The prosecution case was that the defendant had entered a family’s home as a trespasser, and had been naked and touching his penis in the presence of family members: further, that while being ejected from the house by the father of the family, he had made an unseemly sexual suggestion. In interview with the police the defendant had denied ever having entered the house. On closure of the prosecution case the defendant submitted that there was no case to answer because the prosecution had not particularised the sexual offence which it was asserted that he had intended to commit. The prosecution submitted that it was sufficient that their case was that the intent relied on was to commit one or more of the offences set out in sections 1 to 3 and 5 to 7 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The trial judge rejected the submission of no case to answer and the defendant was convicted. The defendant appealed against conviction on the ground, among others, that the prosecution had been obliged to specify the sexual offence which it was asserted that the defendant had intended to commit.’

WLR Daily, 13th April 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off on Regina v Pacurar – WLR Daily

Regina (Hallam) v Secretary of State for Justice; Regina (Nealon) v Same – WLR Daily

Posted April 20th, 2016 in compensation, judicial review, law reports, miscarriage of justice by sally

Regina (Hallam) v Secretary of State for Justice; Regina (Nealon) v Same [2016] EWCA Civ 355

‘Both claimants were convicted of serious criminal offences and had their initial appeals against conviction dismissed. In the first case the Criminal Cases Review Commission referred the claimant’s conviction for murder to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), which quashed it on the basis the safety of the conviction was undermined by the unsatisfactory nature of identification evidence and doubts as to whether the claimant’s alibi had been falsely made. In the second case the commission referred the claimant’s conviction for attempted rape to the Court of Appeal, which quashed it on the basis that the weakness of identification evidence and fresh DNA evidence taken from the victim’s clothing had had a substantial effect on the safety of the conviction. In both cases the Secretary of State refused the claimant compensation, under section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, as amended, on the basis that he had failed to show beyond reasonable doubt that the claimant had not committed the offence. The claimants’ claims for judicial review of the Secretary of State’s decisions, on the grounds that section 133(1ZA) of the 1988 Act (inserted by section 175 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 and providing that there has been a miscarriage of justice in relation to a person convicted of a criminal offence “if and only if the new or newly discovered fact shows beyond reasonable doubt that the person did not commit the offence”) was incompatible with article 6.2 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in that it infringed the presumption of innocence, were dismissed by the Divisional Court of the Queen’s Bench Division which held that (i) the court was bound by authority of the Supreme Court (and also of the Court of Appeal) to hold that article 6.2 of the Convention was not applicable to compensation decisions made under section 133 of the 1988 Act; and (ii) the statutory scheme under section 133 maintained the presumption of innocence, did not require the applicant for compensation to prove his innocence and that only if the Secretary of State was satisfied that the new fact conclusively showed his innocence was compensation to be paid. The court also refused the claimant in the second case permission to proceed with a claim for judicial review on the basis that the Secretary of State was obliged to carry out a full review of the material before him in a particular case to determine whether the claimant was innocent.’

WLR Daily, 11th April 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off on Regina (Hallam) v Secretary of State for Justice; Regina (Nealon) v Same – WLR Daily

Van der Merwe v Goldman and another – WLR Daily

Posted April 20th, 2016 in contracts, law reports, mistake, rescission, setting aside by sally

Van der Merwe v Goldman and another [2016] EWHC 790 (Ch)

‘The claimant and the first defendant were husband and wife and the joint freehold owners of a house, where they lived. On 24 March the claimant and the first defendant executed a transfer of the title to the house to the claimant alone, for no stated consideration. On 27 March the claimant executed a deed of settlement whereby he settled the house on the terms of that deed and appointed himself and the first defendant as trustees of the settlement. The claimant also executed a transfer of the title to the house to himself and the first defendant as the trustees of the settlement. The principal beneficiaries of the settlement were the claimant, the first defendant, their children and remoter issue. Although the transactions were entered into in order to obtain certain tax advantages, in fact, as a consequence of a change in the law, they gave rise to a substantial tax liability. The claimant and first defendant brought a claim for an order setting aside the transfer of 24 March and the settlement and transfer of 27 March. In issue in the proceedings, to which the revenue was joined as a second defendant, was whether the transactions were governed by common law rules for declaring a contract to be void by reason of mistake or the equitable rules for setting aside a gift for mistake.’

WLR Daily, 11th April 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off on Van der Merwe v Goldman and another – WLR Daily

Loose v Lynn Shell Fish Ltd and others (Le Strange Meakin, Part 20 defendant) (Crown Estate Comrs intervening) – WLR Daily

Posted April 20th, 2016 in Crown, fisheries, law reports, prescription by sally

Loose v Lynn Shell Fish Ltd and others (Le Strange Meakin, Part 20 defendant) (Crown Estate Comrs intervening) [2016] UKSC 14

‘An estate adjoining the foreshore on the east side of the Wash owned a private fishery with an exclusive right to take shellfish over part of the foreshore. In 1970 the estate granted a lease of that exclusive right to the claimant. The claimant brought proceedings against the defendants alleging that they had been fishing for cockles in areas of foreshore which were part of the private fishery of which he was the lessee. The defendants accepted that a private fishery had been established by prescription but disputed its extent. In particular, they contended that it did not extend to large sandbanks which had been detached from the foreshore until the channels separating them had silted up; that such sandbanks were not subject to the doctrine of accretion, properly understood; and that, even if they were, it would not follow that the fishery rights had increased commensurately since that would have required a Crown grant and the power of the Crown to make such a grant had been removed by Magna Carta. The judge, however, held that the terms of the grant presumed as a result of the past prescriptive activities was a grant before 1189 of a fishery extending over the whole of the foreshore as it varied from time to time, and accordingly included the sandbanks; that on that basis, the defendants were liable in damages; and that the most practical of the various alternative lines put forward as the defined seaward boundary of the fishery was the mean low water mark of spring tides, rather than extreme low water as contended for by the claimant. The defendants appealed and the claimant cross-appealed. The Court of Appeal dismissed the defendants’ appeal and held that as conditions changed and more or less of the seabed was exposed at low water, the area of the private fishery would expand or shrink, and held, allowing the claimant’s cross-appeal in part, that the fishery extended in law as far as lowest astronomical tide, which was the lowest point to which the tide fell as a result of normal astronomical forces.’

WLR Daily, 13th April 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off on Loose v Lynn Shell Fish Ltd and others (Le Strange Meakin, Part 20 defendant) (Crown Estate Comrs intervening) – WLR Daily

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted April 15th, 2016 in law reports by tracey

High Court (Family Division)

I, Re (Human Fertilisation And Embryology Act 2008) [2016] EWHC 791 (Fam) (12 April 2016)

E-R (Child Arrangements) [2016] EWHC 805 (Fam) (08 April 2016)

Z, Re (Recognition of Foreign Order) (rev 1) [2016] EWHC 784 (Fam) (08 April 2016)

High Court (Patents Court)

American Science & Engineering Inc v Rapiscan Systems Ltd [2016] EWHC 756 (Pat) (11 April 2016)

High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)

Bolt Burdon Solicitors v Tariq & Ors [2016] EWHC 811 (QB) (13 April 2016)

High Court (Technology and Construction Court)

Stellite Construction Ltd v Vascroft Contractors Ltd [2016] EWHC 792 (TCC) (14 April 2016)

Source: www.bailii.org

Comments Off on BAILII: Recent Decisions

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted April 15th, 2016 in law reports by tracey

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

Gainford Care Homes Ltd v Tipple & Anor [2016] EWCA Civ 382 (15 April 2016)

Webb v Liverpool Women’s NHS Foundation Trust [2016] EWCA Civ 365 (14 April 2016)AIG

AIG Europe Ltd v Oc320301 LLP & Ors [2016] EWCA Civ 367 (14 April 2016)

Khawaja v Popat & Anor [2016] EWCA Civ 362 (14 April 2016)

C (Children) [2016] EWCA Civ 374 (14 April 2016)

Yousif v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2016] EWCA Civ 364 (14 April 2016)

Department for Transport v Sparks & Ors [2016] EWCA Civ 360 (14 April 2016)

Goldtrail Travel Ltd v Aydin & Ors [2016] EWCA Civ 371 (13 April 2016)

BL (Jamaica) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 357 (13 April 2016)

Mutch v Mutch [2016] EWCA Civ 370 (13 April 2016)

Transocean Drilling UK Ltd v Providence Resources Plc [2016] EWCA Civ 372 (13 April 2016)

LSREF III Wight Ltd v Gateley LLP [2016] EWCA Civ 359 (13 April 2016)

Gomes, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 373 (13 April 2016)

Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

Heddell, R v [2016] EWCA Crim 443 (14 April 2016)

High Court (Administrative Court)

Auzins v Prosecutor General’s Office of the Republic of Latvia [2016] EWHC 802 (Admin) (14 April 2016)

Onykwere v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWHC 758 (Admin) (13 April 2016)

Sino, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWHC 803 (Admin) (12 April 2016)

Harris & Anor, R (on the application of) v Broads Authority [2016] EWHC 799 (Admin) (12 April 2016)

B, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWHC 786 (Admin) (12 April 2016)

Source: www.bailii/org/uk

Comments Off on BAILII: Recent Decisions