BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted June 26th, 2017 in law reports by sally

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

High Court (Administrative Court)

High Court (Chancery Division)

High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)

High Court (Technology and Construction Court)

Source: www.bailii.org

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted June 23rd, 2017 in law reports by tracey

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

JK, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 433 (22 June 2017)

Hrabkova v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2017] EWCA Civ 794 (22 June 2017)

Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

Chuhan, R v [2017] EWCA Crim 776 (19 June 2017)

High Court (Administrative Court)

DA & Ors, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2017] EWHC 1446 (Admin) (22 June 2017)

Steer v Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government & Ors [2017] EWHC 1456 (Admin) (22 June 2017)

The Prudential Assurance Company Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v Revenue And Customs [2017] EWHC 1484 (Admin) (22 June 2017)

High Court (Chancery Division)

Interactive Technology Corporation Ltd v Ferster & Ors [2017] EWHC 1510 (Ch) (22 June 2017)

High Court (Commercial Court)

National Private Air Transport Company & Anor v Sheikh Abedlelah M Kaki [2017] EWHC 1496 (Comm) (22 June 2017)

Sheikh Abdulrahman Khalid Bin Mahfouz & Ors v El-Rashid & Ors [2017] EWHC 1460 (Comm) (22 June 2017)

High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)

Simpkin v The Berkeley Group Holdings Plc [2017] EWHC 1472 (QB) (22 June 2017)

Source: www.bailii.org

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted June 22nd, 2017 in law reports by tracey

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

Harrison v University Hospitals Coventry & Warwickshire NHS Trust [2017] EWCA Civ 792 (21 June 2017)

Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft v Technosport London Ltd & Anor [2017] EWCA Civ 779 (21 June 2017)

High Court (Administrative Court)

C, R (on the application of) v The London Borough of Islington [2017] EWHC 1441 (Admin) (21 June 2017)

Rahman, R (On the Application Of) v The Local Government Election Court [2017] EWHC 1413 (Admin) (21 June 2017)

High Court (Chancery Division)

Astex Therapeutics Ltd v Astrazeneca AB [2017] EWHC 1442 (Ch) (21 June 2017)

Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd v Fougera Sweden Holding 2 AB [2017] EWHC 1402 (Ch) (21 June 2017)

High Court (Family Division)

ND v SD & Ors [2017] EWHC 1507 (Fam) (21 June 2017)

Court (Queen’s Bench Division)

Hertfordshire County Council v Davies [2017] EWHC 1488 (QB) (21 June 2017)

High Court (Technology and Construction Court)

Mailbox (Birmingham) Ltd v Galliford Try Building Ltd [2017] EWHC 1405 (TCC) (21 June 2017)

Lobo v Corich & Anor [2017] EWHC 1438 (TCC) (21 June 2017)

Source: www.bailii.org

UKI (Kingsway) Ltd v Westminster City Council – WLR Daily

UKI (Kingsway) Ltd v Westminster City Council [2017] EWCA Civ 430

‘The freeholder of a building being redeveloped failed to agree with the local billing authority a date on which the building would be brought into the ratings list. The authority subsequently delivered to the manager of the building a completion notice addressed to “the owner” specifying a date. The manager, who was not authorised to accept legal documents on behalf of the freeholder, scanned the document and e-mailed a copy to the freeholder. When the building was entered onto the ratings list the freeholder appealed on the grounds that the completion notice was invalid and had not been validly served. Before the Court of Appeal the sole issue was the validity of service.’

WLR Daily, 15th June 2017

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

In re Nortel Networks UK Ltd and related companies (No 2) – WLR Daily

Posted June 21st, 2017 in administrators, courts, expenses, insolvency, jurisdiction, law reports by sally

In re Nortel Networks UK Ltd and related companies (No 2) [2017] EWHC 1429 (Ch)

‘The applicants, the administrators of companies in the same group, were aware of a number of potential claims, which might if established, qualify as administration expenses (“expense claims”), and thereby rank for payment in priority to the claims of unsecured creditors. Neither the Insolvency Act 1986, nor the Insolvency Rules 1986, nor the Insolvency Rules 2016 provided any express mechanism under which an administrator could require expense claims to be asserted by a specific date, or enable him to refuse to deal with claims asserted after that date in the context of a distribution to unsecured creditors. In the absence of any applicable statutory scheme, the administrators applied to the High Court for directions under paragraph 63 of Schedule B1 to the 1986 Act to implement a scheme informing potential claimants that any expense claims which had not yet been made had to be notified to the administrators on a prescribed form on or before a specified date.’

WLR Daily, 16th June 2017

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Regina (Williams) v Powys County Council – WLR Daily

Regina (Williams) v Powys County Council [2017] EWCA Civ 427

‘The defendant local planning authority granted planning permission for the erection of a wind turbine on the farm of the interested party. The wind turbine was erected on the side of a hill the other side of which, about 1·5 km from the wind turbine, was a Grade II* listed building. Several scheduled monuments were also in the surrounding area, two of which were within two km of the site. The claimant, a local resident, applied for judicial review of the council’s decision to grant planning permission. The judge dismissed the claim, determining that (i) the planning authority was not required to consult the Welsh ministers under article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Wales) Order 2012 as the requirement to consult on development “likely to affect the site of a scheduled monument” in paragraph k of Schedule 4 to the Order applied only to development likely to have some direct physical effect on the monument, not also to development likely to have visual effects on the setting of the monument, and (ii) the planning authority had not erred in failing to perform the duty in section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, which required it to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the setting of a listed building when deciding whether to grant planning permission for development which affected a listed building or its setting.’

WLR Daily, 9th June 2017

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Regina (Khan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department – WLR Daily

Regina (Khan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 424

‘The claimant, a national of Pakistan, had limited leave to remain in the United Kingdom. A few days before the expiry of his leave he applied for an extension of his period of leave. The Secretary of State rejected that application on the grounds that it had not been accompanied by the required fee. Since the claimant had no right of appeal against this rejection, he submitted a renewed application accompanied by the required fee. The Secretary of State refused that application on the merits, informing the claimant that he had no right of appeal against her refusal since his renewed application had been made at a time when he had no leave to remain. The claimant sought judicial review of the Secretary of State’s determination that he had no right of appeal, contending that he had had leave to remain at the time of making his renewed application since his leave had been automatically extended pursuant to section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 when he made his original application for an extension, and was still continuing. The claimant was granted permission to proceed with his claim, but at the full hearing the Upper Tribunal dismissed the claim on the basis that the claimant had an alternative remedy in the form of an appeal to the First-tier Tribunal.’

WLR Daily, 8th June 2017

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted June 21st, 2017 in law reports by sally

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

High Court (Administrative Court)

High Court (Chancery Division)

High Court (Commercial Court)

High Court (Family Division)

High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)

Source: www.bailii.org

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted June 20th, 2017 in law reports by sally

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

High Court (Administrative Court)

High Court (Chancery Division)

High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)

High Court (Technology and Construction Court)

Source: www.bailii.org

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted June 16th, 2017 in law reports by tracey

Supreme Court

Kiarie and Byndloss, R (on the applications of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] UKSC 42 (14 June 2017)

A and B, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Health [2017] UKSC 41 (14 June 2017)

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

UKI (Kingsway) Ltd v Westminster City Council [2017] EWCA Civ 430 (15 June 2017)

Dexia Crediop SPA v Comune Di Prato [2017] EWCA Civ 428 (15 June 2017)

High Court (Administrative Court)

Alexander v The Public Prosecutor’s Office, Marseille District Court of First Instance, France [2017] EWHC 1392 (Admin) (15 June 2017)

Anugha, R (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWHC 1391 (Admin) (15 June 2017)

Nduka v General Medical Council [2017] EWHC 1396 (Admin) (15 June 2017)

Khaled & Anor v The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs & Ors [2017] EWHC 1422 (Admin) (15 June 2017)

MK (A Child By Her Litigation Friend CAE), R (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWHC 1365 (Admin) (14 June 2017)

Court (Chancery Division)

Byrne v Mullan [2017] EWHC 1387 (Ch) (15 June 2017)

High Court (Commercial Court)

Micula & Ors v Romania [2017] EWHC 1430 (Comm) (15 June 2017)

High Court (Technology and Construction Court)

Alstom Transport UK Ltd v London Underground Ltd & Anor [2017] EWHC 1406 (TCC) (15 June 2017)

Source: www.bailii.org

F v L (Child Arrangements Order: Relocation) – WLR Daily

Posted June 15th, 2017 in appeals, children, custody, domestic violence, law reports by sally

F v L (Child Arrangements Order: Relocation)[2017] EWHC 1377 (Fam)

‘The mother, an Italian national, sought a child arrangements order (“CAO”) under section 8 of the Children Act 1989, as amended, in respect of the child, aged five, and permission to relocate with him to Italy, alleging serious domestic abuse by the father. The Italian father opposed the application for relocation and cross-applied for a shared care CAO. Despite the recommendation in the report prepared by the CAFCASS officer that the child’s main carer be his mother and that she should be given permission to relocate to Italy, the trial judge decided not to consider or make any finding in respect of the abuse allegations, refused the mother’s application to relocate and ordered the continuance of the shared care regime. The mother appealed on the grounds, inter alia, that the trial judge had made a fundamental procedural error in failing to resolve the issue of the future care of the child prior to considering the application for relocation and had failed to make findings on the abuse allegations.’

WLR Daily, 9th June 2017

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Chugai Pharmaceutical Co Ltd v UCB Pharma SA and another; Chugai Pharmaceutical Co Ltd v UCB Biopharma SPRL – WLR Daily

Posted June 15th, 2017 in conflict of laws, jurisdiction, law reports, licensing, patents by sally

Chugai Pharmaceutical Co Ltd v UCB Pharma SA and another; Chugai Pharmaceutical Co Ltd v UCB Biopharma SPRL [2017] EWHC 1216 (Pat)

‘The first defendant in the first of two claims entered into a licence with the claimant in respect of a portfolio of patents, including a US patent, concerning tocilizumab, an immunosuppressive drug. The claimant sought, inter alia, a declaration that it was not obliged to continue to pay royalties under the licence in respect of its tocilizumab products. The defendants alleged that, although framed as a claim for a declaration relating to a contract, a part of the proceedings, in substance, concerned not only the scope but also the validity of the US patent. Accordingly, consideration of the claim would infringe the territorial limits of the courts jurisdictional powers and constitute an affront to comity (“the Moçambique rule”) and/or the foreign act of state doctrine, which militated against the English court determining issues relating to sovereign acts of a foreign state.’

WLR Daily, 26th May 2017

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

In re Gard (A Child) (Child on Life Support: Withdrawal of Treatment) – WLR Daily

Posted June 15th, 2017 in appeals, children, law reports, medical treatment by sally

In re Gard (A Child) (Child on Life Support: Withdrawal of Treatment)[2017] EWCA Civ 410

‘C, a child aged nine months, suffered from a rare inherited mitochondrial disease which led to dysfunction of several of his organ systems. His condition had progressed since his birth resulting in irreversible brain damage and an inability to move his arms or legs or to breathe unaided. His life expectancy was measured in months. His parents sought to obtain an alternative treatment, known as nucleoside therapy, that was available in the United States of America. The NHS trust which ran the hospital where C was treated applied pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the court for declarations that it was lawful and in C’s best interests for his artificial ventilation to be withdrawn, for his treating clinicians to provide him with palliative care only, and for him not to undergo nucleoside therapy. The judge granted the application and made the declarations sought, finding that the body of experienced medical opinion available to him, save for the doctor offering the nucleoside therapy, was unanimous to the effect that the prospect of nucleoside therapy having any benefit was effectively zero and would be futile. C’s parents sought permission to appeal on the grounds that (i) where parents put forward a viable treatment option for their child, that option could only be overriden by the court if it was established that the pursuit of that option was likely to cause the child to suffer “significant harm”, and the usual “best interests” test did not apply; and (ii) the judge had no jurisdiction to grant an order on the application of one clinical team preventing a second clinical team from carrying out a treatment that the latter had offered in the reasonable exercise of its professional judgment.’

WLR Daily, 24th May 2017

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (UK) v Attorney General and others – WLR Daily

Posted June 15th, 2017 in charities, company law, law reports by sally

Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (UK) v Attorney General and others [2017] EWHC 1379 (Ch)

‘The claimant was a substantial English registered charity and a company limited by guarantee without a share capital. It was founded by the second and third defendants, who were two of its trustees and, along with L, its only members. As a result of the breakdown in the relationship between the second and third defendants it was agreed that the third defendant would resign as a member and trustee of the claimant and that she would found another registered charity, also a company limited by guarantee without a share capital. If the payment of the grant was a “payment for loss of office to a director” of the claimant for the purposes section 215 of the Companies Act 2006, it would, by section 217, prima facie require to be sanctioned by a resolution of the claimant’s members before it could be paid.’

WLR Daily, 9th June 2017

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted June 15th, 2017 in law reports by sally

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions

High Court (Chancery Division)

Source: www.bailii.org

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted June 14th, 2017 in law reports by tracey

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

Sharp v Sharp [2017] EWCA Civ 408 (13 June 2017)

The Government of the Republic of France v The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea & Ors [2017] EWCA Civ 429 (12 June 2017)

The Secretary of State for the Home Department v Mosira [2017] EWCA Civ 407 (08 June 2017)

Khan v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 424 (08 June 2017)

Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

Markham & Anor v R [2017] EWCA Crim 739 (09 June 2017)

Mirchandani, R (on the prosecution by) v Somaia [2017] EWCA Crim 741 (09 June 2017)

Agera & Anor v R [2017] EWCA Crim 740 (09 June 2017)

High Court (Administrative Court)

Crompton, R (on the application of) v Police and Crime Commissioner for South Yorkshire & Ors [2017] EWHC 1349 (Admin) (09 June 2017)

Hayes, R (on the application of) v City of York Council & Anor [2017] EWHC 1374 (Admin) (09 June 2017)

High Court (Chancery Division)

ESO Capital Luxembourg Holdings II SARL v GSA Invest Management SA & Ors [2017] EWHC 1351 (Ch) (12 June 2017)

Capita Plc & Anor v Darch & Ors [2017] EWHC 1401 (Ch) (12 June 2017)

Makin v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2017] EWHC 1386 (Ch) (12 June 2017)

Lexlaw Ltd v Zuberi [2017] EWHC 1350 (Ch) (09 June 2017)

The Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (UK) v Attorney General & Ors [2017] EWHC 1379 (Ch) (09 June 2017)

BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA Antoine & Ors [2017] EWHC 1339 (Ch) (02 June 2017)

High Court (Commercial Court)

IPM Energy Trading Ltd v Carillion Energy Services Ltd [2017] EWHC 1399 (Comm) (13 June 2017)

High Court (Family Division)

F v L [2017] EWHC 1377 (Fam) (09 June 2017)

High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)

Gladwin v Bogescu [2017] EWHC 1287 (QB) (12 June 2017)

High Court (Technology and Construction Court)

Erith Holdings Ltd & Ors v Murphy [2017] EWHC 1364 (TCC) (08 June 2017)

Source: www.bailii.org

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted June 8th, 2017 in law reports by sally

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

High Court (Commercial Court)

High Court (Patents Court)

High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)

High Court (Technology and Construction Court)

Source: www.bailii.org

General Medical Council v Jagjivan and another – WLR Daily

Posted June 7th, 2017 in doctors, jurisdiction, law reports, tribunals by sally

General Medical Council v Jagjivan and another [2017] EWHC 1247 (Admin)

‘Where, at the conclusion of a hearing by the Medical Practitioners Tribunal, a direction under section 35D of the Medical Act 1983 has not been given, on the ordinary wording of section 40A(1)(d) of the Act the tribunal has made a decision not to give a direction under section 35D. Accordingly, where the tribunal has made such a decision, the General Medical Council has jurisdiction to appeal, pursuant to section 40A, against that decision. The words “after determining that the person’s fitness to practise is impaired” are not present at the end of section 40A(1)(d) and do not require to be read into that subsection. Moreover, it would be anomalous if the General Medical Council’s right of appeal were confined to cases where the tribunal had made a finding of impairment or imposed some sanction, and no regard could be had to an erroneous failure by the tribunal to find an impairment of fitness to practise (paras 27, 32).’

WLR Daily, 26th May 2017

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Regina (ZX) v Secretary of State for Justice – WLR Daily

Posted June 7th, 2017 in children, families, law reports, probation, release on licence by sally

Regina (ZX) v Secretary of State for Justice [2017] EWCA Civ 155

‘The claimant, a married British citizen of Bangladeshi origin with three children, was convicted on his guilty plea of two terrorism related offences and sentenced in the Crown Court to a term of three years’ imprisonment. Following his release on licence, conditions were imposed on his licence precluding him, inter alia, from having contact with his children save as directed by the National Probation Service (“the NPS”) and local children’s services. He sought to challenge the imposition of those conditions on the basis that the NPS had no lawful entitlement to give a direction separating him from his children, that there was no properly identified risk and that no separation could properly be directed without due compliance with the provisions of the Children Act 1989 and the Children Act 2004 and, if need be, without an order of the Family Court. Permission to proceed with the claim for judicial review was refused on the basis that the grounds raised were not arguable. The claimant appealed on the grounds, inter alia, that the judge had misdirected himself as to the scope and effect of the NPS’s duties under section 11 of the 2004 Act (to make arrangements for ensuring that its functions were discharged having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children).’

WLR Daily, 17th March 2017

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

In re RBS rights issue litigation (No 2) – WLR Daily

Posted June 7th, 2017 in civil procedure rules, costs, insurance, law reports, third parties by sally

In re RBS rights issue litigation (No 2) [2017] EWHC 1217 (Ch)

‘Subsequent to the defendant bank and its directors having learnt of the identity of the third party funders of the claimants following a successful application made under CPR r 25.14, the defendants sought security for costs pursuant to CPR r 25.14(2)(b) against those funders. That application was prompted by settlements with some of the original claimants, as a result of which the remaining claimants’ exposure to adverse costs increased, and by the defendants learning that the claimants did not have adequate after-the-event (“ATE”) insurance cover in place. The first respondent, a commercial funder and British Virgin Islands entity, opposed the application on the grounds that: (a) its financial position was such that it would be well able to meet any award for costs and in any event the defendants had not demonstrated that the claimants would fail to meet a costs award against them; and (b) the application was made extremely late and therefore caused it and the claimants real prejudice. The second respondent, an Isle of Man entity that was not in the business of litigation funding and provided funding close to the eve of trial, opposed the application on the grounds that: (a) it was unlikely that a section 51 order would be made against it in due course; and (b) no security was justified or necessary on the evidence and the timing was oppressive. Both respondents also argued that: (c) the quantum of security sought was excessive.’

WLR Daily, 23rd May 2017

Source: www.iclr.co.uk