“Prosecutors aim to decide by the end of this month whether they will bring phone-hacking charges against former News of the World journalists, the director of public prosecutions has told the Guardian.”
The Guardian, 8th July 2012
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“The Home Office has released its Statement of Intent on Family Migration, which, amongst other things, makes the position a little clearer on its plans for Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as discussed in my earlier post.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 13th June 2012
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“Tomorrow, the Home Secretary will announce to Parliament plans to give judges guidance on how to interpret Article 8 ECHR (the right to private and family life) in foreign criminal deportation cases. There has been already significant speculation as to whether the long-heralded changes will make much or even any difference.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 10th June 2012
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
Neave and others v Court of Rome, Italy: [2012] EWHC 358 (Admin); [2012] WLR (D) 46
“In the context of the Extradition Act 2003 a person who was no more than a suspect was not an accused person. The mere suspicion that an individual had committed offences was insufficient to place him in the category of ‘accused’ persons. The dividing line between a suspect wanted for questioning and an accused person was fact specific and was complicated by the fact of the different legal systems in Part 1 countries. A purposive interpretation of ‘accused’ was to be adopted in order to accommodate the differences between legal systems. Courts had to adopt a cosmopolitan approach to the question whether, as a matter of substance rather than form, the requirement of there being an ‘accused’ person was satisfied. Resolving the issue would require an intense focus on the particular facts of each case. The fact that under the criminal procedure of the requesting state a person might be asked further questions before a decision was made to charge him was not decisive, as also was the absence of a full file. A person could be accused of an offence even though the decision had not finally been taken to prosecute or charge.”
WLR Daily, 23rd February 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Contrary to press reports last week, there is no defence to murder in England and Wales that the killing was a crime of passion.”
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 23rd January 2012
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
Rodríguez and Others v Air France SA (Case C-83/10); [2011] WLR (D) 348
“‘Cancellation’, in article 2(1) of Parliament and Council Regulation 261/2004/EC was not limited to the situation in which an aeroplane failed to take off at all, but also covered the case in which it took off but, for whatever reason, was subsequently forced to return to the airport of departure where the passengers were transferred to other flights. ‘Further compensation’ in article 12 of the Regulation allowed the national court to award compensation under the Montreal Convention for damage arising from breach of the contract of carriage by air. However that meaning was not the legal basis for the national court to order an air carrier to reimburse to passengers whose flight had been delayed or cancelled the expenses the latter had incurred because of the failure of that carrier to fulfil its obligations to assist and provide care under articles 8 and 9 of the Regulation.”
WLR Daily, 13th October 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Courts should apply ‘business common sense’ when construing the meaning of disputed ambiguous contractual terms, the Supreme Court has ruled.”
OUT-LAW.com, 8th November 2011
Source: www.out-law.com
Rainy Sky SA and others v Kookmin Bank [2011] UKSC 50; [2011] WLR (D) 311
“When the term of a contract was capable of having two possible meanings which were both arguable, it was appropriate for the court to have regard to considerations of commercial common sense and to adopt the construction which was more, rather than less, commercial.”
WLR Daily, 2nd November 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe (BVG) v JP Morgan Chase Bank NA (Case C-144/10); [2011] WLR (D) 188
“The exclusive jurisdiction, conferred by article 22(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, on the courts of the member state in which a company had its seat, was confined to proceedings whose principal subject matter comprised the validity of the constitution, the nullity or the dissolution of the company, or the validity of the decisions of its organs. It did not apply to proceedings in which such an issue arose merely as a collateral question, for example where a company, sued by a bank to enforce a swap contract, sought to plead that the contract had been entered into invalidly in breach of the company’s own statutes.”
WLR Daily, 12th May 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“Evidence of negotiations that were conducted on a ‘without prejudice’ basis can be admitted in court proceedings to aid the interpretation of a settlement agreement, a High Court judge has ruled.”
OUT-LAW.com, 12th August 2009
Source: www.out-law.com
“A landmark House of Lords ruling will undermine the certainty of contracts and could make it more expensive to take cases over contract interpretation to court, according to a contract law expert.”
OUT-LAW.com, 2nd July 2009
Source: www.out-law.com
Chartbrook Ltd and another v Persimmon Homes Ltd and another [2009] UKHL 38; [2009] WLR (D) 223
“The admission of pre-contractual negotiations as an aid to the construction of a contract would create uncertainty of outcome in disputes over interpretation and would add to the cost of advice and litigation. The law of contract was designed to enforce promises with a high degree of predictability and if conventional meanings and syntax were to be displaced by inferences drawn from pre-contractual negotiations, the less predictable the outcome was likely to be. The availability of the remedies of rectification and estoppel by convention were safeguards which would in most cases prevent any injustice caused by the exclusion of that evidence.”
WLR Daily, 1st July 2009
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Chartbrook Ltd and Another v Persimmon Homes Ltd and Another
House of Lords
“There were no grounds for the House of Lords to depart from the long standing rule that excluded evidence of what was said or done during the course of negotiating a contract for the purpose of drawing inferences about what the contract meant.”
The Times, 2nd July 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
“One jurisdiction clause in one of hundreds of pages of documents cannot govern the whole agreement because no company acting in a normal commercial way would think that it would, the Court of Appeal has said.”
OUT-LAW.com, 30th June 2009
Source: www.out-law.com
“When a contract is poorly drafted and its effect unclear courts should interpret it in order to give it force rather than to render it void, the Court of Appeal has said.”
OUT-LAW.com, 24th March 2009
Source: www.out-law.com
“A mobile phone airtime reseller did not have a legal duty to take network O2 to court on behalf of a company which had sold it its subscriber base, the High Court has said. The Court said the claim was based on a mistaken interpretation of a contract.”
OUT-LAW.com, 4th March 2009
Source: www.out-law.com
Satyam Computer Services Ltd v Upaid Systems Ltd
Court of Appeal
“It would only be through the use of the clearest possible specific language that parties to a settlement would be taken to have excluded fraud-based claims.”
The Times, 27th May 2008
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
© Inner Temple Library 2024