The Manchester Ship Canal Company Ltd and another (Respondents) v United Utilities Water Plc (Appellant) – Supreme Court
Supreme Court, 2nd July 2014
Category: law reports
BAILII: Recent Decisions
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Walker v The Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis [2014] EWCA Civ 897 (01 July 2014)
High Court (Family Division)
London Borough of Ealing v AR & Ors [2014] EWHC 2172 (Fam) (1 July 2014)
Family Court Decisions (other Judges)
Stoke-on-Trent CC v S [2014] EWFC B82 (29 May 2014)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Parkin & Anor v Dartford County Court & Ors [2014] EWHC 2174 (Admin) (01 July 2014)
Neteczca v Governor of Holloway Prison [2014] EWHC 2098 (Admin) (27 June 2014)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Renaissance Capital Ltd v African Minerals Ltd [2014] EWHC 2004 (Comm) (27 June 2014)
Open Joint Stock Company Alfa-Bank v Georgy Trefilov [2014] EWHC 1806 (Comm) (04 June 2014)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
High Court (Patents Court)
Farrow Holdings Group Inc v Secretary of State for Defence [2014] EWHC 2047 (Pat) (27 June 2014)
Source: www.bailii.org
BAILII: Recent Decisions
Supreme Court
Nicklinson & Anor R (on the application of) [2014] UKSC 38 (25 June 2014)
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Ashford & Ors v Southampton City Council [2014] EWCA Crim 1244 (25 June 2014)
Langley, R v [2014] EWCA Crim 1284 (12 June 2014)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
CF Asset Finance Ltd v Okonji [2014] EWCA Civ 870 (24 June 2014)
Akhtar v Boland [2014] EWCA Civ 872 (25 June 2014)
J (A Child) [2014] EWCA Civ 875 (27 June 2014)
Interfish Ltd v Revenue And Customs [2014] EWCA Civ 876 (27 June 2014)
A (A Child) [2014] EWCA Civ 871 (26 June 2014)
Temur v London Borough of Hackney [2014] EWCA Civ 877 (26 June 2014)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Barclay Pharmaceuticals Ltd v OPD Laboratories Ltd & Ors [2014] EWHC 1977 (QB) (18 June 2014)
Baker v The British Boxing Board of Control [2014] EWHC 2074 (QB) (25 June 2014)
RMJ v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWHC 2048 (QB) (24 June 2014)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Swynson Ltd & Anor v Lowick Rose Llp [2014] EWHC 2085 (Ch) (30 June 2014)
American Leisure Group Ltd v Garrard & Ors [2014] EWHC 2101 (Ch) (26 June 2014)
Fibria Celulose S/A v Pan Ocean Co. Ltd & Anor [2014] EWHC 2124 (Ch) (30 June 2014)
Source: www.bailii.org
In re B (A Child) (Wrongful Removal: Order to Secure Return of Child) – WLR Daily
‘Although there was no doubt that there were circumstances in which the High Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, could properly make an order requiring someone to lodge their passport with the court or with some suitable custodian it was not permissible to make such an order to compel a third party without parental responsibility, or any other form of power or control over the child, to take steps to secure the return of an abducted child. Furthermore, where the subject of the order was not yet 17 it was simply wrong as a matter of principle to attach a penal notice to the order since a child could not be imprisoned or detained for contempt.’
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Agbenowossi-Koffi v Donvand Ltd (t/a Gullivers Travel Associates) – WLR Daily
‘Where a claim of race discrimination had been dismissed on limitation grounds those allegations could not be repeated in a second claim together with additional allegations which could have been included in the first claim but had not been, in order to avoid the limitation defence by founding a claim based on conduct extending over a period of time. The second claim was an abuse of process.’
WLR Daily, 24th June 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina (Baradaran and another) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sikh Council Hampshire intervening); [2014] EWCA Civ 854; [2014] WLR (D) 281 – WLR Daily
‘The removal of a female Muslim claimant of school age to France, where she had first claimed asylum and which had accepted responsibility for that claim, did not breach her Convention rights to a private and family life and freedom of religion by reason of a French law prohibiting the wearing of religious symbols and clothing in state schools.’
WLR Daily, 24th June 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
BAILII: Recent Decisions
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
A (A Child) [2014] EWCA Civ 871 (26 June 2014)
Temur v London Borough of Hackney [2014] EWCA Civ 877 (26 June 2014)
Akhtar v Boland [2014] EWCA Civ 872 (25 June 2014)
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Ashford & Ors v Southampton City Council [2014] EWCA Crim 1244 (25 June 2014)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Sweeney v Westminster Magistrates Court & Anor [2014] EWHC 2068 (Admin) (25 June 2014)
High Court (Chancery Division)
American Leisure Group Ltd v Garrard & Ors [2014] EWHC 2101 (Ch) (26 June 2014)
High Court (Patents Court)
Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v Nintendo of Europe GmbH [2014] EWHC 1959 (Pat) (20 June 2014)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Baker v The British Boxing Board of Control [2014] EWHC 2074 (QB) (25 June 2014)
RMJ v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWHC 2048 (QB) (24 June 2014)
Source: www.bailii.org
BAILII: Recent Decisions
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Ferdinand & Ors v R [2014] EWCA Crim 1243 (20 June 2014)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Nelson v Wood [2014] EWCA Civ 869 (24 June 2014)
Pike v HM Revenue and Customs [2014] EWCA Civ 824 (20 June 2014)
Agbenowossi-Koffi v Donvand Ltd (t/a Gullivers Travel Associates) [2014] EWCA Civ 855 (24 June 2014)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Goodwin v Health and Care Professions Council [2014] EWHC 1897 (Admin) (20 June 2014)
Source: www.bailii.org
Loose v Lynn Shellfish Ltd and others (Le Strange Meakin, Part 20 defendant) – WLR Daily
‘A presumed lost grant from the Crown prior to 1189 of a right of private fishery was to be understood as extending to all such part of the seabed as might from time to time be exposed at low water.’
WLR Daily, 19th June 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Dawson v Thomson Airways Ltd – WLR Daily
Dawson v Thomson Airways Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 845; [2014] WLR (D) 279
‘The limitation period applicable to a claim brought in England for compensation for cancellation or delay under articles 5 and 7 of Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 was the six-year period prescribed by section 9 of the Limitation Act 1980.’
WLR Daily, 19th June 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina (Tabbakh) v Staffordshire and West Midlands Probation Trust and another – WLR Daily
‘In respect of a prisoner due to be released on licence who was subject to multi-agency public protection arrangements, the policy guidance governing the imposition by the Secretary of State for Justice of additional conditions on the prisoner’s licence did not breach the requirements of procedural fairness or article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and was not inherently unlawful.’
WLR Daily, 19th June 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina (Tracey) v Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and another (Equality and Human Rights Commission and another, intervening) – WLR Daily
‘Placing a do not attempt cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (“DNACPR”) notice on a patient’s hospital notes engaged her rights under article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and there was a presumption in favour of the patient’s involvement through consultation in such a decision, since it would potentially deprive the patient of life-saving treatment. Such a duty to consult also arose at common law.’
WLR Daily, 17th June 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
BAILII: Recent Decisions
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Loose v Lynn Shellfish Ltd & Ors [2014] EWCA Civ 846 (19 June 2014)
Dawson v Thomson Airways Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 845 (19 June 2014)
Beech & Anor v Birmingham City Council [2014] EWCA Civ 830 (17 June 2014)
Monfared v Chartered Society of Physiotherapy [2014] EWCA Civ 828 (19 June 2014)
B (A Child) [2014] EWCA Civ 843 (20 June 2014)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Durrheim & Ors v Ministry of Defence [2014] EWHC 1960 (QB) (13 June 2014)
Wamala v The Home Office & Anor [2014] EWHC 2039 (QB) (20 June 2014)
Family Court Decisions (other Judges)
P (A Child: Assessment of Kinship Carers) [2014] EWFC B73 (16 June 2014)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd v Condek Holdings Ltd & Ors [2014] EWHC 2016 (TCC) (24 June 2014)
High Court (Commercial Court)
JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov & 16 Ors [2014] EWHC 2019 (Comm) (24 June 2014)
A Ltd v B Ltd [2014] EWHC 1870 (Comm) (11 June 2014)
Source: www.bailii.org
Centro Hospitalar de Setúbal EPE and another v Eurest (Portugal)—Sociedade Europeia de Restaurantes Lda – WLR Daily
‘Where a contractor under a public contract was a non-profit association which, at the time of the award of the contract, had as partners not only public sector entities but also private social solidarity institutions carrying out non-profit activities, the requirement for “similar control”, established by the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union in order that the award of a public contract could be regarded as an in-house operation, was not met, so that Parliament and Council Directive 2004/18/EC of 31 March 2004 on the co-ordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts applied.’
WLR Daily, 19th June 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
St Prix v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (AIRE Centre intervening) – WLR Daily
‘A woman who gave up work, or looking for work, because of the physical constraints of the late stages of pregnancy and the aftermath of childbirth retained the status of “worker”, within the meaning of article 45FEU of the FEU Treaty, provided she returned to work or found another job within a reasonable period after the birth of her child.’
WLR Daily, 19th June 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Karen Millen Fashions Ltd v Dunnes Stores and others – WLR Daily
‘Article 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs meant that, in order for a design to be considered to have individual character, the overall impression which that design produced on the informed user had to be different from that produced on such a user, not by a combination of features taken in isolation and drawn from a number of earlier designs, but by one or more earlier designs, taken individually. Article 85(2) meant that, in order for a Community design court to treat an unregistered Community design as valid, the right holder of that design was not required to prove that it had individual character within the meaning of article 6, but need only indicate what constituted the individual character of that design, ie, indicated what, in his view, were the element or elements of the design concerned which gave it its individual character.’
WLR Daily, 19th June 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Sanger and another v Newham London Borough Council – WLR Daily
Sanger and another v Newham London Borough Council [2014] EWHC 1922 (Admin); [2014] WLR (D) 269
‘Criminal liability for an offence of failing to comply with an enforcement notice, contrary to section 179(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, only crystallised once the period for compliance set out in the notice had expired whereupon it became a continuing offence.’
WLR Daily, 12th June 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina (T) v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police and others (Liberty and others intervening); Regina (B) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and another (Same intervening) – WLR Daily
‘The provisions in Part V of the Police Act for the automatic release of a person’s convictions, cautions and warnings— regardless of their relevance or the length of time that had elapsed— when that person was required, by reason of articles 3 or 4 of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975, to obtain and disclose an enhanced criminal record certificate for the purpose of obtaining employment or some other position which involved working with children or other vulnerable groups of persons, did not meet the requirement of legality for the purposes of article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and so was incompatible with the person’s right to respect for their private life guaranteed by that article. Moreover, the provisions contravened article 8 in that they were not “necessary in a democratic society”, as required by article 8.2.’
WLR Daily, 18th June 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Oberbank AG v Deutscher Sparkassen-und Giroverband eV; Banco Santander SA and another v Same – WLR Daily
‘Article 3(1) and (3) of Parliament and Council Directive 2008/95/EC of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the member states relating to trade marks precluded an interpretation of national law according to which, in the context of proceedings raising the question whether a contourless colour mark had acquired a distinctive character through use, it was necessary in every case that a consumer survey indicated a degree of recognition of at least 70%.’
WLR Daily, 19th June 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
