‘A purchaser of a property could not grant equitable rights of a proprietary character prior to acquisition of the legal estate.’
WLR Daily, 22nd October 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A “change of circumstances” for the purposes of an application for permission to apply to revoke a placement order under section 24 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 had to be a change which had occurred since the making of the placement order and whichwas relevant to the circumstances of the case. It would be unacceptable to exclude any change in circumstances to the children who were the subject of the orders.’
WLR Daily, 21st October 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Although the courts of the United Kingdom had jurisdiction judicially to review an Order in Council made on the advice of the Government of the United Kingdom acting in whole or in part in the interests of the United Kingdom, there were circumstances in which the court should nevertheless decline to entertain a claim for judicial review. The Queen’s Bench Divisional Court ought to have declined to entertain a human rights-compatibility challenge to legislation enacted in respect of the Island of Sark— a Crown dependency which was part of the Bailiwick of Guernsey but not of the United Kingdom— since it ought properly to have been brought before the bailiwick courts for determination under the island’s own human rights legislation.’
WLR Daily, 22nd October 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
K v Kingswood Centre and another [2014] EWCA Civ 1332; [2014] WLR (D) 443
‘The notice period of a discharge order made for the purposes of section 25 of the Mental Health Act 1983 and served in accordance with regulation 3(3)(b)(i) of the Mental Health (Hospital, Guardianship and Treatment) (England) Regulations 2008 started to run from the time when it was received by the officer authorised by the hospital managers and not from the time when it was received at the hospital’s fax machine.’
WLR Daily, 23rd October 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Sunrise Brokers LLP v Rodgers [2014] EWCA Civ 1373; [2014] WLR (D) 442
‘In considering whether to grant injunctive relief preventing an employee from working for another employer it was critical whether the grant of such relief would be tantamount to compelling the employee to return to work; and the question whether an employee in such a case who refused to return to work was entitled to continuing emoluments was an issue that essentially turned on the facts of the case. There was no rule requiring the employer to give some form of undertaking as to remuneration which went beyond the employer’s obligations under the contract, in order that the employer should be entitled to obtain an injunction.’
WLR Daily, 23rd October 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
McDonald v National Grid Electricity Transmission plc [2014] UKSC 53; [2014] WLR (D) 439
‘The Asbestos Industry Regulations 1931, made under section 79 of the Factory and Workshop Act 1901, were capable of applying where a person who, in the course of employment with a different employer, attended the defendant’s premises, and as a visitor viewed workers carrying on a process of mixing asbestos dust with water to form a paste for lagging work which exposed him to asbestos dust, even though the main business of the premises was not the processing of asbestos or the making of asbestos products.’
WLR Daily, 22nd October 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A recent case provides clarification and guidance on the issue of service by the courts in contravention of the claimant’s instructions.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 27th October 2014
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The facts in Nzolameso v Westminster CC are pretty unremarkable, but the effects of the Court of Appeal’s judgement are likely to reverberate through every new homelessness application, especially in the London area.’
NearlyLegal, 26th October 2014
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘Shelter, the housing charity, is calling for a ban on “revenge evictions”, which it says are being carried out by bad landlords on tenants who dare to complain about inadequate conditions or ask for repairs to be made.’
Full story
The Guardian, 25th October 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Nzolameso v Westminster City Council [2014] EWCA Civ 1383; [2014] WLR (D) 437
‘For the purposes of section 208 of the Housing Act 1996, when deciding whether it was “reasonably practicable” to accommodate a particular homeless person within its own district, bearing in mind that the accommodation might be of no more than a temporary nature, a local housing authority was entitled to have regard to all the factors that had a bearing on its ability to provide accommodation to that person, including the demands made on its resources, whether of a financial or administrative nature.’
WLR Daily, 22nd October 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Where an applicant applied to the Secretary of State only for definite leave to remain, pursuant to section 3(1)(b) of the Immigration Act 1971, but made no request for indefinite leave to remain, and provided no material in support of the application specifically directed at an application for indefinite leave to remain, or which pointed to any disadvantage associated with the grant of discretionary leave to remain as opposed to indefinite leave to remain, the Secretary of State had no positive duty to consider what might support the granting of indefinite leave to remain.’
WLR Daily, 16th October 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Companies hoping to have a default judgment against them set aside must be sure to act quickly, an expert has said, after a recent court decision confirmed what courts must consider when considering an application.’
OUT-LAW.com, 22nd October 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
‘A Colwyn Bay woman who teamed up with others to kill her own father in a knife attack must accept her murder conviction, top judges have ruled.’
BBC News, 22nd October 2014
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court has extended protection for victims of asbestos-related diseases, by ruling that the Asbestos Industry Regulations 1931 applied to all workers in factories where asbestos was being processed.’
Litigation Futures, 23rd October 2014
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
UZ (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 1319; [2014] WLR (D) 429
‘The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) did not have jurisdiction to determine an application for permission to proceed with a claim for judicial review where the application had been advanced by reference to the Secretary of State’s decisions to reject the application under the Legacy Programme.’
WLR Daily, 15th October 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Once a district judge’s decision to order a person’s extradition had been successfully appealed under Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003, the High Court enjoyed a supervisory jurisdiction to quash or vary any costs order made against the appellant, since the basis on which the costs order had been made no longer existed. However, the High Court did not have jurisdiction to determine an appeal from a costs order made by a district judge who had ordered extradition, in circumstances where the costs order was challenged as a part of unsuccessfully pursuing an appeal against the extradition order.’
WLR Daily, 10th October 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The rule that a fraudulent insurance claim deprived the insured of any right to recover anything applied also to fraudulent devices, namely, the making of statements which were known by the insured to be untrue or which were made recklessly, not caring whether they were true or false, in support of a claim honestly believed by him to be good both as to liability and amount.’
WLR Daily, 16th October 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Scott (Appellant) v Southern Pacific Mortgages Limited (Respondents) [2014] UKSC 52 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 22nd October 2014
Supreme Court, 22nd October 2014
‘In Community Trade Marks: Specsavers v ASDA 7 Feb 2012 NIPC Law I analysed the litigation that had taken place between two well known retailers in which the Court of Appeal considered how far an aggressive marketing campaign can go without infringing trade mark law. As I said in my case note Specsavers International Healthcare Ltd and others (“Specsavers”) had brought an action for trade mark infringement and passing off against the supermarket chain Asda Stores Ltd. (“ASDA”) for using the marketing materials that I identified in my note and Asda counterclaimed for revocation of Community trade mark 1358589 depicted above (“the wordless mark”) for non-use.’
NIPC Law, 16th October 2014
Source: www.nipclaw.blogspot.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025