Regina (Wiltshire Council) v Hertfordshire County Council – WLR Daily

Regina (Wiltshire Council) v Hertfordshire County Council [2014] EWCA Civ 712;  [2014] WLR (D)  229

‘Where a person had been made subject to a hospital order with restrictions, then conditionally discharged, then recalled to hospital, and then conditionally discharged for a second time, for the purposes of section 117(3) of the Mental Health Act 1983 he was still to be treated as “resident in the area” of the same local authority as that in which he lived before the original hospital order was made.’

WLR Daily, 22nd May 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Regina v Clayton – WLR Daily

Posted May 29th, 2014 in abuse of process, appeals, enforcement, law reports, planning by michael

Regina v Clayton [2014] EWCA Crim 1030;  [2014] WLR (D)  231

‘Where there was information suggesting that an enforcement notice should not have been issued, a prosecution for breach of the notice was not open to challenge as an abuse of process because that would involve a challenge to the validity of the enforcement notice and such a challenge could be mounted only on appeal or by way of judicial review.’

WLR Daily, 23rd May 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

MN (Somalia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; KY (Somalia) v Same – WLR Daily

MN (Somalia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; KY (Somalia) v Same [2014] UKSC 30;  [2014] WLR (D)  227

‘A tribunal conducting asylum proceedings could admit, as expert evidence, a report by an organisation based on a telephone interview with an asylum claimant in which its analysts commented on the likelihood of that person originating from his claimed place of origin, based on the person’s dialect and answers to questions about the area in question, even though the report was in the name of the organisation rather than an individual and those contributing to it were identified only by serial numbers. However it was necessary for the tribunal in each particular case to be satisfied that the anonymity was necessary, with safeguards for the claimant in place, and that the authors of the report had demonstrated that they had relevant expertise for each matter on which they had commented.’

WLR Daily, 21st May 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co (Europe) Ltd and another v Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime – WLR Daily

Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co (Europe) Ltd and another v Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime; Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance plc v Same; Lace International Ltd and others v Same [2014] EWCA Civ 682;  [2014] WLR (D)  230

‘In order for persons to have been “riotously and tumultuously assembled together” for the purposes of a claim under section 2(1) of the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 there had to have been a riot within the meaning of section 1 of the Public Order Act 1986. The trial judge had to conduct an inquiry, focusing on whether property had been damaged or destroyed as a result of mob violence, and carrying out an evaluative exercise to determine whether the assembly was riotous and tumultuous in the light of the primary facts as found.’

WLR Daily, 20th May 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Regina (Barkas) v North Yorkshire County Council – WLR Daily

Regina (Barkas) v North Yorkshire County Council [2014] UKSC 31;  [2014] WLR (D)  228

‘Local inhabitants indulged “by right” in lawful sports and pastimes on a recreation ground which had been provided for that purpose by a local authority in the exercise of its statutory powers, not “as of right” as was necessary pursuant to section 15(2) of the Commons Act 2006 in order to register the land as a town or village green.’

WLR Daily, 21st May 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Birmingham Hippodrome Theatre Trust Ltd v Revenue and Customs Comrs – WLR Daily

Posted May 29th, 2014 in appeals, HM Revenue & Customs, law reports, repayment, set-off, theatre, VAT by michael

Birmingham Hippodrome Theatre Trust Ltd v Revenue and Customs Comrs [2014] EWCA Civ 684;  [2014] WLR (D)  232

‘Where the taxpayer made a claim for repayment of VAT which had been paid owing to a mistake, all the consequences of the mistake were to be taken into account in assessing the quantum of his claim. The revenue was, therefore, entitled under section 81(3A) of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 to take into account both credits and debits and to set off amounts of input tax it had wrongly paid to the taxpayer against the amount the taxpayer now claimed to be repaid in respect of output tax it wrongly paid to the revenue.’

WLR Daily, 22nd May 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov and others (No 11) – WLR Daily

JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov and others (No 11) [2014] EWCA Civ 602;  [2014] WLR (D)  221

‘Where non-parties resident outside the jurisdiction applied for removal of an asset from the scope of freezing and associated orders, the court had jurisdiction to order the trial of an issue as to whether they owned the asset as claimed, but not as to whether they had colluded in breach of the orders, without steps being taken to establish extra-territorial jurisdiction in reliance on paragraph 3.1 of CPR Practice Direction 6B.’

WLR Daily, 14th May 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Newham London Borough Council v Ali and others – WLR Daily

Posted May 29th, 2014 in appeals, injunctions, law reports, local government, planning by michael

Newham London Borough Council v Ali and others [2014] EWCA Civ 676;  [2014] WLR (D)  223

‘A substantial breach of a planning obligation under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 would normally justify the grant of an injunction sought pursuant to section 106(5) unless relief ought to be withheld on equitable principles because of the local planning authority’s actions. The existence of an outstanding planning appeal would generally be irrelevant to whether an injunction should be granted, but the judge nevertheless had the power to suspend the injunction where it was fair, just and reasonable to do so.’

WLR Daily, 19th May 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Bates van Winkelhof v Clyde & Co LLP (Public Concern at Work intervening) – WLR Daily

Bates van Winkelhof v Clyde & Co LLP (Public Concern at Work intervening) [2014] UKSC 32;  [2014] WLR (D)  222

‘An equity member of a limited liability partnership was a “worker” within the meaning of section 230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and therefore the employment tribunal had jurisdiction to hear a claim brought by the equity member against the partnership under section 47B of the Act, as inserted.’

WLR Daily, 21st May 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Couple who kept 19 dogs lose fight to have children returned from foster care – The Guardian

Posted May 29th, 2014 in appeals, care orders, dogs, news, parental rights by michael

‘A couple who kept 19 dogs have lost a family court fight for the return of their two children.’

Full story

The Guardian, 29th May 2014

Source: www.guardian.co.uk

UK Supreme Court decision “opens door” for certain employment-related claims by members of partnerships, says expert – OUT-LAW.com

‘Professional services firms that operate as limited liability partnerships (LLPs) could be open to certain employment-related claims from aggrieved former members of the LLP following a recent UK Supreme Court decision, an expert has said.’

Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 23rd May 2014

Source: www.out-law.com

Couple jailed for labelling innocent woman a prostitute on fake sex profile – Daily Telegraph

Posted May 27th, 2014 in appeals, harassment, news, sentencing by sally

‘Rachel Lyne suffered the seven-year hate campaign from couple and was forced to move 350 miles away to escape the constant stream of men knocking on her door expecting sex.’

Full story

Daily Telegraph, 27th May 2014

Source: www.telegraph.co.uk

Solicitor denied judicial appointment because of points on driving licence loses JR – Litigation Futures

‘A solicitor who was denied appointment at a district judge because he had seven points on his driving licence has failed in his challenge to the decision of the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC).’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 27th May 2014

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Unlawful detention overseas: is it time to review operations? – Halsbury’s Law Exchange

‘Mohammed v Ministry of Defence and other claims raised the question of whether the UK Government had any right in law to imprison people in Afghanistan; and, if so, what was the scope of that right. The claimant was captured by UK armed forces during a military operation in Afghanistan. He was imprisoned on British military bases in Afghanistan for some time when he was transferred into the custody of the Afghan authorities. The claimant claimed that his detention by UK armed forces was unlawful (a) under the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) and (b) under the law of Afghanistan. The Queen’s Bench Division held that his extended detention for a total of 106 days beyond the 96 hours permitted by policy was not authorised and was contrary to both Afghan law and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).’

Full story

Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 27th May 2014

Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk

Richard III and Chagossian judicial review claims all dismissed – UK Human Rights Blog

‘The facts of this application for judicial review were set out in David Hart QC’s post on the original permission hearing. To recap briefly, the Plantagenet Alliance, a campaigning organisation representing a group of collateral descendants of Richard III were given the go ahead to seek judicial review of the decision taken by the respondents – the Secretary of State, Leicester Council and Leicester University, regarding his re-interment at Leicester Cathedral without consulting them. More specifically, the claimant’s main case was that there was an obligation, principally on the part of the Ministry of Justice, to revisit or reconsider the licence once the remains had been conclusively identified as those of Richard III.’

Full story

UK Human Rights Blog, 23rd May 2014

Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com

An interim measure – NearlyLegal

Posted May 27th, 2014 in appeals, news, tribunals by sally

‘Fisher v Howard De Walden Estate Ltd RAP/19/2013 is that rare thing – a citeable permission to appeal decision from the UT(LC) (remembering that in Re Bradmoss [2012] UKUT 3 (LC), the UT(LC) had disapproved of reliance on permission decisions.’

Full story

NearlyLegal, 25th May 2014

Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk

Marine loses appeal against murder conviction – The Guardian

Posted May 23rd, 2014 in Afghanistan, appeals, armed forces, courts martial, murder, news by sally

‘A Royal Marine found guilty of murdering a badly injured Taliban insurgent has lost his fight to clear his name.’

Full story

The Guardian, 22nd May 2014

Source: www.guardian.co.uk

Court of Appeal confirms principle on responsibility for s. 117 after-care funding – Local Government Lawyer

Posted May 23rd, 2014 in appeals, community care, local government, mental health, news by sally

‘The Court of Appeal has confirmed the principle that the placing authority remains liable for funding s. 117 Mental Health Act 1983 after-care.’

Full story

Local Government Lawyer, 22nd May 2014

Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk

In re S (Children) (Care Proceedings: Fact-finding Hearings) – WLR Daily

Posted May 22nd, 2014 in appeals, care orders, case management, children, law reports by sally

In re S (Children) (Care Proceedings: Fact-finding Hearings) [2014] EWCA Civ 638; [2014] WLR (D) 217

‘Reiterating the inappropriateness of separate fact-finding hearings in most care proceedings, it was essential that if there was to be a separate fact-finding hearing, the ambit of the hearing should be clearly defined and understood by all and, if the ambit altered as the case proceeded, that the adjustment was promptly reflected in the schedule of findings sought and that there was an authentic, definitive record of precisely what findings the judge had made.’

WLR Daily, 14th May 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Lakatamia Shipping Co Ltd v Su and others – WLR Daily

Lakatamia Shipping Co Ltd v Su and others [2014] EWCA Civ 636; [2014] WLR (D) 216

‘The assets of a company whose shares were entirely owned by a defendant to a standard form freezing order were not assets of the defendant, for the purposes of the order. However, since such a freezing order restrained the defendant from diminishing the value of any of his assets, which included his shareholding in such a company, it would restrain him from procuring the company to make a disposition of its assets likely to result in such a diminution.’

WLR Daily, 14th May 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk