Davis and another v Price and another [2013] EWHC 323 (Ch); [2013] WLR (D) 78
“Statutory demands served in respect of the liability for a debt created by an order for costs were subject to the terms of individual voluntary arrangements (‘IVAs’) proposed by the debtors and approved by creditors and therefore they should be set aside.”
WLR Daily, 21st February 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“When deciding whether an environmental impact assessment (EIA) screening direction by the Secretary of State (SoS) was lawful, the appropriate test to apply is the Wednesbury unreasonableness test, the Court of Appeal has ruled.”
OUT-LAW.com, 25th February 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
“You can say what you like about local authorities – and people do, knowing that the authority itself (as opposed to any individual member or employee) cannot sue in defamation. This was first established back in 1891 in Manchester Corporation v Williams [1891] 1 Q.B. 94, where it was held that the council could not complain about a letter to a newspaper alleging that ‘bribery and corruption have existed and done their nefarious work’ in a number of its departments.”
Education Law Blog, 22nd February 2013
Source: www.education11kbw.com
In re J (Children) (Care Proceedings: Threshold Criteria) [2013] UKSC 9; [2013] WLR (D) 74
“A real possibility that a parent had harmed a child in the past was not, by itself, sufficient to establish that some other child that he or she now had care of was ‘likely to suffer significant harm’ within the meaning of section 31(2)(a) of the Children Act 1989 so as to meet the threshold for initiating care proceedings in respect of that other child.”
WLR Daily, 20th February 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Does accommodation available for occupation by a person and those reasonably expected to reside with them have to be in one unit of accommodation?”
NearlyLegal, 24th February 2013
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
“VAT incurred by a holding company on a takeover was not recoverable, according to a recent Court of Appeal decision in a case concerning UK airport operator BAA.”
OUT-LAW.com, 22nd February 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
Hooper and another v Oates [2013] EWCA Civ 91; [2013] WLR (D) 72
“The date for assessment of damages for breach of a contract for the sale of land where the purchaser had failed or refused to complete the purchase was not the date of the breach but the date when the vendors brought to an end their reasonable attempts to resell the property and took the property back for their own use.”
WLR Daily, 20th February 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Martha Gray, Pupil at 1 Garden Court, considers whether and in what circumstances a judge who has announced her decision is entitled to change her mind, particularly in the context of fact-finding hearings in care proceedings, in the light of the Supreme Court’s recent judgment.”
Family Law Week, 22nd February 2013
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
Ricoh Europe Holdings BV and others v Spratt and another [2013] EWCA Civ 92; [2013] WLR (D) 70
“A liquidator who had already valued a creditor’s contingent claims pursuant to rule 4.86 of the Insolvency Rules 1986 and so admitted them to proof in the amount of the valuation was not under a duty to provide for the contingency in full by making a reserve against any distribution to members.”
WLR Daily, 19th February 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Contrary to the practice previously adopted, a judge’s power to reverse his or her decision at any time before the court order had been sealed was not reserved for exceptional circumstances. A carefully considered change of mind by the judge was permisssible in the interests of the overriding objective of dealing with a case justly.”
WLR Daily, 20th February 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Tamiz v Google Inc and another [2013] EWCA Civ 68; [2013] WLR (D) 65
“An internet service provider which supplied a platform for blogs and various tools to assist the blogger, and which was able to remove or block access to blogs when alerted to the fact that they breached its own terms and conditions, could be potentially liable for defamatory comments posted on a blog once it had received notification and had had sufficient time to act. A defence might be available under section 1 of the Defamation Act 1996, but if the potential liability would be so trivial because of the short period of time between notification of the complaint and removal of the offending material, the maintenance of the proceedings could not be justified.”
WLR Daily, 14th February 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Moore v British Waterways Board [2013] EWCA Civ 73; [2013] WLR (D) 59
“At common law a riparian owner who did not own the river bed had no right to moor vessels there permanently. However, absence of a right to moor did not necessarily mean that a vessel was moored ‘without lawful authority’ within section 8 of the British Waterways Act 1983, which empowered the British Waterways Board to remove a vessel.”
WLR Daily, 14th Febraury 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Szpak v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2013] EWCA Civ 46; [2013] WLR (D) 58
“Where a foreign national working in the United Kingdom applied late to be registered under the Accession (Immigration and Worker Registration) Regulations 2004 and his worker registration certificate was issued three months after commencing employment and covering only nine months of employment the certificate did not have retrospective effect so as to qualify him, under regulation 2(4), to claim the benefit as ‘legally working’ in the United Kingdom for 12 months for an ‘authorised employer’.”
WLR Daily, 13th February 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
The constitutional right of access to the courts was properly to be understood as a duty owed by the state not to place obstacles in the way of access to justice, and did not entail a positive duty to seek out and notify individuals with potential claims against the state; nor was there anything in the Strasbourg jurisprudence on articles 3, 6 and 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms to justify the imposition of such a duty.
WLR Daily, 6th February 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Sharif (FC) (Respondent) v The London Borough of Camden (Appellant) [2013] UKSC 10 | UKSC 2011/0117 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 20th February 2013
In the matter of L and B (Children) [2013] UKSC 8 | UKSC 2012/0263 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 20th February 2013
In the matter of J (Children) [2013] UKSC 9 | UKSC 2012/0128 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 20th February 2013
“The fourth data protection principle requires that ‘personal data shall be accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date’. It does not, however ‘impose an absolute and unqualified obligation on [data controllers] to ensure the entire accuracy of the data they maintain. Questions of reasonableness arise in the application of the fourth principle, as paragraph 7 of Part II of Schedule I spells out.’ This statement by Davis LJ (at para. 80) encapsulates the case of Smeaton v Equifax plc [2013] EWCA Civ 108, in which the Court of Appeal handed down judgment today.”
Panopticon, 20th February 2013
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
“The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has found that the use of bad language was evidently merely an expression of bad temper and not intended to express hostility to the Pope or Catholicism and that it did not constitute harassment within the meaning of the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 20th February 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“Carina Trimingham, the partner of the former energy secretary Chris Huhne, has withdrawn her appeal against a high court ruling rejecting her privacy claim against the Daily Mail.”
The Guardian, 19th February 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025