Regina v Windsor and others [2011] EWCA Crim 143; [2011] WLR (D) 41
“On an appeal against the making of restraint and receivership orders under Part 2 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 the Court of Appeal has power to suspend the effect of its final order.”
WLR Daily, 9th February 2011
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.
“Bringing Rights Back Home is the latest policy document to address the tension between judges and politicians over public policy with human rights implications.”
The Guardian, 9th February 2011
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Barclays Bank plc v Guy [2010] EWCA Civ 1396; [2010] WLR (D) 321
“Where an application was made to reopen a refusal of permission to appeal by the Court of Appeal, the criteria to be applied should be the same as where application was made, pursuant to CPR r 52.17(1), to reopen a final judgment reached after a full trial.”
WLR Daily, 9th December 2010
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.
“For the purposes of s 103(9) of the Extradition Act 2003, the person whose extradition was sought was deemed to be informed of the extradition order against him when the solicitors acting on his behalf received a letter, whether by post, fax or e-mail, which informed him that the order had been made.”
WLR Daily, 2nd December 2010
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.
“A company is responsible for ‘making available’ internet-hosted material in the country where its host server is based, not in the country where the material is read or used, the High Court has said.”
Full story
OUT-LAW.com, 18th November 2010
Source: www.out-law.com
“The act of making available to the public all or a substantial part of the contents of a database by online transmission within the meaning of art 7(2)(b) of Parliament and Council Directive 96/9/EC on the Legal Protection of Databases was committed and committed only where the transmission took place.”
WLR Daily, 18th November 2010
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.
“An Indian solar panels manufacturer cannot continue legal action in India because to do so would undermine an earlier English court ruling, the High Court in London has ruled.”
OUT-LAW.com, 10th November 2010
Source: www.out-law.com
“The proviso in art 30.1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition of judgments in civil and commercial matters (the Judgments Regulation) disapplied the general rule that the court was deemed to be seised of proceedings when they were lodged. Its effect, in a case where there had been a continuing failure by the claimant, having lodged proceedings in the court of one member state, to take the further step of paying the court fee which was required before service could be effected, was to enable the court of another member state in which proceedings had later been issued nevertheless to be deemed to have been first seised of proceedings between the same parties.”
WLR Daily, 5th November 2010
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.
“When an English court was asked to enforce a foreign arbitration award made against a non-signatory to the contract containing the arbitration clause, whom the arbitral tribunal had determined had been a party to the contract, the court would, if the enforcement claim was challenged, determine anew the question as to whether or not the non-signatory had been a party.”
WLR Daily, 4th November 2010
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.
“A party who had been named in arbitration proceedings could simply ignore the arbitration proceedings if he considered that he had not entered into the agreement and come to court to challenge the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal; but if he had taken part in the proceedings disputing the jurisdiction of the court or the tribunal’s exercise of their asserted substantive jurisdiction, his right was limited to challenging the award under s 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996.”
WLR Daily, 13th October 2010
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.
Gard Marine and Energy Ltd v Tunnicliffe and others [2010] EWCA Civ 1052; [2010] WLR (D) 242
“Where, by reference to the Lugano Convention and art 6(1) of the Judgments Regulation, one was considering whether it was expedient to hear and determine claims within the jurisdiction order to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings, regard was to be had, inter alia, to the question whether the claims arose out of the same situation in law and fact.”
WLR Daily, 7th October 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“Once the Commission of the European Communities had found that an undertaking had participated in anti-competitive practices the undertaking to could not rely on the English domestic law concept of separate corporate entity to argue that the undertaking as a whole or a parent company in the group had not participated in those practices. Where it was alleged in a claim against the defendants that representatives of those alleged to have been party to the anti-competitive behaviour had had discussions to co-ordinate that behaviour and that those discussions had led to each of the defendants co-ordinating their anti-competitive behaviour, that was sufficient to allow the claim against the defendants to continue even if none of the defendants fined by the commission was domiciled in England.”
WLR Daily, 26th July 2010
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.
“The Government is proposing new rules about how courts in England and Wales deal with people accused of serious human rights violations.”
Ministry of Justice, 22nd July 2010
Source: www.justice.gov.uk
Regina v Ward (Barry) [2010] WLR (D) 191
“The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal against a refusal by a judge in the Crown Court, on an application under s 23 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, to vary a confiscation order.”
WLR Daily, 16th July 2010
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.
“British soldiers on active service abroad were not, as such, within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom within the meaning of art 1 of the Human Rights Convention and were accordingly not protected by the Convention rights scheduled to the Human Rights Act 1998. Assuming, however, that the Convention did protect servicemen abroad, a inquest that complied with the procedural obligation in art 2 was not automatically required whenever a member of the armed forces died on active service.”
WLR Daily, 1st July 2010
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.
“The government is moving swiftly to change the law on universal jurisdiction to abolish the ability to bring private prosecutions for international crimes in the UK.”
The Guardian, 30th May 2010
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Regina v T (N) [2010] EWCA Crim 711; [2010] WLR (D) 93
“The prosecution were not entitled to apply for leave to appeal against a terminating ruling made by a judge in a Crown Court on a trial on indictment, unless it had complied with the mandatory requirements of s 58(4) and (8) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, following the making of the ruling, of informing the court that it intended to appeal or requesting an adjournment to consider such an appeal and, before or at that time, informing the court that it agreed that the defendant should be acquitted if leave to appeal was not obtained or the appeal was abandoned before being determined.”
WLR Daily, 7th April 2010
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.
Wood Floor Solutions Andreas Domberger GmbH v Silva Trade SA (Case C-19/09); [2010] WLR (D) 77
“Where services were provided in several member states of the European Union, the court which had jurisdiction to hear and determine all the claims arising from the contract was the court in whose jurisdiction the place of the main provision of services was situated. For a commercial agency contract, that place was the place of the main provision of services by the agent, as it appeared from the provisions of the contract or, in the absence of such provisions, the actual performance of that contract or, where it could not be established on that basis, the place where the agent was domiciled.”
WLR Daily, 18th March 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been full reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Jayasinghe v Liyanage [2010] EWHC 265 (Ch); [2010] WLR (D) 44
“The adjudicator to the Land Registry had jurisdiction to conduct a trial of the question of beneficial entitlement to property where an objection to an application was made to the registrar and the matter referred to the adjudicator under s 73(7) of the Land Registration Act 2002.”
WLR Daily, 18th February 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
NML Capital Ltd v Republic of Argentina [2010] EWCA Civ 41; [2010] WLR (D) 28
“A court had no jurisdiction to permit a claimant to serve proceedings on a foreign state unless it was satisfied that there was, at the least, a good arguable case that the defendant state was not immune from suit. S 31 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 remained subject to the provisions of the State Immunity Act 1978 as regards the circumstances in which the courts could exercise jurisdiction over states when a claimant wished to implead them in those courts.”
WLR Daily, 5th February 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
© Inner Temple Library 2024