McGraddie (Appellant) v McGraddie (AP) and another (AP) (Respondents) (Scotland) – Supreme Court
Supreme Court, 31st July 2013
Category: appeals
Teal Assurance Company Limited (Appellant) v W R Berkley Insurance (Europe) Limited and another (Respondents) – Supreme Court
Supreme Court, 31st July 2013
R v Hughes (Appellant) – Supreme Court
R v Hughes (Appellant) [2013] UKSC 56 UKSC 2011/0240 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 31st July 2013
Vernon Knight Associates v Cornwall County Council – WLR Daily
Vernon Knight Associates v Cornwall County Council [2013] EWCA Civ 950; [2013] WLR (D) 329
“A landowner owed a measured duty in both negligence and nuisance to take reasonable steps to prevent natural occurrences on his land from causing damage to neighbouring properties. In determining the content of that duty, the court had to consider what was fair, just and reasonable as between the neighbouring parties, having regard to all the circumstances including the extent of the foreseeable risk, the available preventive measures, the costs of such measures and the parties’ resources.”
WLR Daily, 30th July 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Hobbs v Financial Conduct Authority (formerly Financial Services Authority) – WLR Daily
“A decision by the Financial Services Authority to take no further action against the addressee of a warning notice or decision notice did not become irrevocable or take effect as a discontinuance of proceedings unless it had been communicated to that individual by a notice in accordance with section 389 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.”
WLR Daily, 29th July 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Serious Organised Crime Agency v Azam – WLR Daily
Serious Organised Crime Agency v Azam [2013] EWCA Civ 970; [2013] WLR (D) 327
“Where a person who was the subject of a property freezing order made under Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 applied for the order to be varied so as to permit him to apply some of his assets which were the subject of the order in paying for his legal expenses, he was under no specific burden of proof requiring him to prove that there were no other available assets which could be used for the relevant purpose, such that if he did not discharge the burden his application must fail.”
WLR Daily, 31st July 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Urgent appeals in warrant suspension cases – NearlyLegal
“We’ve all been there. Perhaps more frequently, litigants in person have been there (although hopefully not the same LiP over and over again). A warrant for possession is due to be executed the next day. It may even be the same day. The occupier has applied to a District Judge to suspend the warrant. The District Judge has, rightly or wrongly, dismissed that application. The occupier, understandably (even more so if the DJ fell into the ‘wrongly’ category), wants to appeal that decision.”
NearlyLegal, 1st August 2013
Source: www.nearlylegal.org.uk
McGraddie v McGraddie and another – WLR Daily
McGraddie v McGraddie and another [2013] UKSC 58; [2013] WLR (D) 323
“An appellate court should not interfere with the trial judge’s conclusions on primary facts unless it was satisfied that he was plainly wrong.”
WLR Daily, 31st July 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina (Kebede and another) v Newcastle City Council – WLR Daily
Regina (Kebede and another) v Newcastle City Council [2013] EWCA Civ 960; [2013] WLR (D) 322
“A local authority had a duty to a former relevant child going on to higher education to make a grant to meet expenses connected with his education, including the major expense of tuition fees.”
WLR Daily, 31st July 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Torfaen County Borough Council v Douglas Willis Ltd – WLR Daily
Torfaen County Borough Council v Douglas Willis Ltd [2013] UKSC 59; [2013] WLR (D) 321
“For the purposes of a prosecution under regulation 44(1)(d) of the Food Labelling Regulations 1996 (SI 1996/1499) it was sufficient for the prosecutor to prove that a defendant had food in its possession for the purposes of sale which was the subject of a label showing a “use by” date which had passed.”
WLR Daily, 31st July 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Sud v Ealing London Borough Council – WLR Daily
Sud v Ealing London Borough Council [2013] EWCA Civ 949; [2013] WLR (D) 320
“Although an award of costs against a paying party in the employment tribunal was an exceptional event, the tribunal should focus principally on the criteria established in rule 40 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004. Where the tribunal concluded that the party’s conduct of the proceedings had been unreasonable it was necessary for the court to identify the particular unreasonable conduct, along with its effect. That was not a process that entailed a detailed or minute assessment, but instead the court should adopt a broad brush approach, against the background of the totality of the relevant circumstances.”
WLR Daily, 30th July 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v Chapman – WLR Daily
Regina v Chapman [2013] EWCA Crim 1370; [2013] WLR (D) 318
“Once an appeal had been constituted by filing a notice of appeal in time or by obtaining an extension of time from the court, the order of the court below was subject to review and not final and the court could not justify refusing to allow the defendant to take advantage of a change in the law which occurred between the filing of the notice of appeal and the hearing itself.”
WLR Daily, 29th July 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Lloyd v Lewisham London Borough Council and another – WLR Daily
Lloyd v Lewisham London Borough Council and another [2013] EWCA Civ 923; [2013] WLR (D) 317
“Paragraph 14(1)(e) of Schedule 5 to the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006 and paragraph 15(1)(e) of Schedule 4 to the Council Tax Benefit Regulations 2006, both of which set out the items of income to be disregarded when calculating a claimant’s income and capital for the purposes of determining entitlement to the relevant benefit, only excluded sums paid under agreements which were made after the injury occurred, not an income loss award paid exclusively for loss of income pursuant to a pre-injury agreement.”
WLR Daily, 29th July 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Generics (UK) Ltd (trading as Mylan) v Yeda Research and Development Co Ltd and another (No 2) – WLR Daily
“Where a patent specification made a technical effect “plausible” it was open to a party to mount a challenge to the existence of that effect by the use of later evidence. There was no principled objection to the admission of evidence as to the true nature of the advance made by the invention in connection with an objection of lack of inventive step.”
WLR Daily, 29th July 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
In re Tulane Education Fund; Tulane Education Fund v Comptroller General of Patents – WLR DAily
“Paragraph 5 of Schedule 4A of the Patents Act 1977, rule 116 of the Patents Rules 2007 and rule 6 of the Patents (Fees) Rules 2007 imposed a regime for the payment of annual fees in accordance with article 12 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 and Council Regulation (EC) No 469/2009. The reference to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 in section 128B of the 1977 Act could be construed as a reference to the Council Regulation (EC) No 469/2009.”
WLR Daily, 24th July 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Right-to-die battle: court of appeal rejects paralysed man’s case – The Guardian
“The court of appeal has rejected a request by a paralysed man that doctors should be allowed to help him die.”
The Guardian, 31st July 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Appeal court shies away from right to die issue – UK Human Rights Blog
“The Court of Appeal has today unanimously dismissed appeals by Jane Nicklinson and Paul Lamb challenging the legal ban on voluntary euthanasia.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 31st July 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
Disabled challenge to bedroom tax fails – UK Human Rights Blog
“The High Court has unanimously dismissed an application for a declaration that the so-called ‘bedroom tax’ discriminates unlawfully against disabled claimants.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 31st July 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
Bedroom tax JR – NearlyLegal
“The headline here, as has been widely tweeted/flashed etc, is that the challenge to the bedroom tax contained in Regulation B13, Housing Benefit Regulations (both generically and specifically in relation to households with a disabled person) was unsuccessful in the Divisional Court (R(MA) Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2013] EWHC 2213 – not on Baili yet, but available to download from Adam Wagner’s site); but the Court came close to granting injunctive relief against the Secretary of State to make regulations bringing Burnip/Gorry into effect, as opposed to relying simply on a Circular. The DWP had argued that they were entitled to rely on guidance by way of Circular ‘pending a decision on whether and at what point in time to introduce regulations’ (Laws LJ’s emphasis). On that point, rarely have I read such strong words as appear in Laws LJ’s judgment at [91]-[92]. That is an ouch moment for the DWP which, I bet, will not be widely reported, so let me headline the quote here: ‘The Secretary of State has no business considering whether to introduce regulations to conform HB provision with the judgment in Gorry. He is obliged to do so.’ The only thing which stopped injunctive relief was that their drafting was ‘under consideration’ after 14 months (!).”
NearlyLegal, 3oth July 2013
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
Court of Appeal overturns tax tribunals’ findings in favour of SDLT avoidance scheme – OUT-LAW.com
“The Court of Appeal has ruled against a stamp duty land tax (SDLT) avoidance scheme involving the interaction of the sub-sale and partnership rules, overturning earlier decisions by the First Tier and Upper Tax Tribunals.”
OUT-LAW.com, 30th July 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
