‘Britain’s finest legal minds have been asked to make sense of some of life’s thorniest problems, but few compare to that posed by the followers of Sant Baba Jeet Singh Ji Maharaj – specifically whether he is a Sikh saint, the Third Holy Saint in fact.’
The Independent, 8th June 2014
Source: www.independent.co.uk
Burrell v Micheldever Tyre Services Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 716; [2014] WLR (D) 241
‘The Employment Appeal Tribunal could contain the application of the conventional approach to remittal in a number of ways, namely by (i) being robust when applying that approach, (ii) encouraging parties to consent to the Appeal Tribunal disposing of the case itself and (iii) limiting the scope of any remittal made.’
WLR Daily, 23rd May 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The role of the UK’s Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) is generally limited to ruling on the lawfulness of an employment tribunal’s decisions rather than making its own assessment of a case, the Court of Appeal has confirmed.’
OUT-LAW.com, 4th June 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
‘A British grandmother facing execution by firing squad in Indonesia for drug smuggling has no funds to mount a legal challenge against her sentence, the UK’s highest court has been told.’
The Guardian, 4th June 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘CPR r 81.4(3), which gave the court power to order that a company director or officer be imprisoned for a company’s contempt, applied to a director who was outside the jurisdiction.’
WLR Daily, 23rd May 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Windermere Marina Village v Wild [2014] UKUT 163 (LC) is an important decision about the vexed question of apportionment that arises in many residential service charge disputes.’
NearlyLegal, 2nd June 2014
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
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
Bone v North Essex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust [2014] EWCA Civ 652; [2014] WLR (D) 214
‘It was not necessary in a claim for detriment under section 146(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 for the independence of the relevant trade union to be established in order for an employment tribunal to have jurisdiction.’
WLR Daily, 15th May 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Although exceptional, the power existed to grant a world-wide anti-enforcement injunction as opposed to an anti-suit injunction.’
WLR Daily, 14th May 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Although exceptional, the power existed to grant a world-wide anti-enforcement injunction as opposed to an anti-suit injunction. The Court of Appeal so held when, inter alia, allowing the appeal of the defendants in the first case, Vitaly Arkhangelsky and Julia Arkhangelskaya, and the Part 20 claimant, Oslo Marine Group Ports LLC, against the refusal by Hildyard J, sitting in the Chancery Division on 14 November 2013 [2013] EWHC 3529 (Ch); [2013] CN 1773, to grant a world-wide anti-enforcement injunction, leaving the first claimant in the first case, Bank St Petersburg OJSC, free to execute on certain judgments it had obtained in Russia wherever assets could be found. The judge held, inter alia, that any such injunction would appear to be an infringement of the sovereignty of the states where enforcement was taking place.’
WLR Daily, 14th May 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Why were drug courts set up?
The introduction of drug courts in the UK has followed a slightly different trajectory to other jurisdictions, where drug courts filled an important gap in the range of community-based sanctions available to the courts to deal with drug-related crime.’
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 13th May 2014
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
‘Given the continued attention commanded by the stream of relief from sanctions decisions and the implementation of the Jackson reforms, it is unsurprising that the secondary legislation that brought into force section 17 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, and which made related changes to the CPR (see Legal update, The Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2014 published), passed by relatively unnoticed. It would, however, be a mistake not to note the significant changes to the County Court and its jurisdiction. These will throw up significant practical issues for the courts themselves and, in some regions more than others, will create a number of tactical dilemmas for litigators.’
Full story (PDF)
Littleton Chambers, 7th May 2014
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
Regina (O Twelve Baytree Ltd) v Rent Assessment Panel: [2014] EWHC 1229 (Admin); [2014] WLR (D) 185
‘Notwithstanding that an applicant had given notice of its intention to withdraw an application under section 84(3) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 for determination of its right to manage premises, the Rent Assessment Panel retained jurisdiction and could either decide to dismiss the application or proceed to determine the application.’
WLR Daily, 16th April 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘An exclusive jurisdiction clause was a contractual benefit, the deprivation of which constituted harm suffered in that jurisdiction for the purposes of article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.’
WLR Daily, 11th April 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘For the purposes of determining whether the Competition Commission had power under section 86(1) of the Enterprise Act 2002 to make an enforcement order against a person in order to prevent the anti-competitive outcome of a transaction, a person who exercised the strategic and operational management and control of a manufacturing and sales business, a substantial part of which was carried on within the UK, was to be regarded as “carrying on” that business in the UK, even where he or she never established a presence in the UK and his or her management and control took place entirely outside the UK.’
WLR Daily, 14th April 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Weber v Weber: (Case C-438/12); [2014] WLR (D) 165
‘There fell within the category of proceedings which had as their object “rights in rem in immovable property”, within the meaning of article 22(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, an action brought before the courts of another member state, seeking a declaration of invalidity of the exercise of a right of pre-emption attaching to that property and which produced effects with respect to all the parties. Before staying its proceedings in accordance with article 27(1) of Regulation No 44/2001, the court second seised was required to examine whether, by reason of a failure to take into consideration the exclusive jurisdiction laid down in article 22(1) thereof, the decision of the court first seised would be recognised in the other member states in accordance with article 35(1) of that Regulation.’
WLR Daily, 3rd April 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Deutsche Bahn AG and others (Respondents) v Morgan Advanced Materials Plc (Appellant) [2014] UKSC 24 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 9th April 2014
‘Husband who put to death wife’s pet ram is ordered to pay her £170,000 a year.’
Daily Telegraph, 8th April 2014
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
Ramdeen v State of Trinidad and Tobago: [2014] UKPC 7; [2014] WLR (D) 149
‘Once the Privy Council was seised of a death sentence case, whether by way of an appeal against conviction and/or an appeal against sentence, it had jurisdiction to deal with commutation of sentence, at least where the ground for commutation arose out of court procedures or decisions.’
WLR Daily, 27th March 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025