Category: law reports
Khaira and others (Respondents) v. Shergill and others (Appellants) – Supreme Court
Khaira and others (Respondents) v. Shergill and others (Appellants) [2014] UKSC 33 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 11th June 2014
Harb v Prince Fahd Bin Abdul Aziz – WLR Daily
Harb v Prince Fahd Bin Abdul Aziz [2014] EWHC 1807 (Ch); [2014] WLR (D) 248
‘A former head of state, regardless of how he ceased to hold office, only enjoyed immunity from suit in respect of official acts during his tenure in post. Therefore, where a sovereign ceased to be head of state on his death, the immunity enjoyed by his estate did not extend to matters of a private nature.’
WLR Daily, 9th June 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Delaney v Secretary of State for Transport – WLR Daily
Delaney v Secretary of State for Transport [2014] EWHC 1785 (QB); [2014] WLR (D) 253
‘Clause 6(1)(e)(iii) of the Motor Insurers’ Bureau (Compensation of Victims of Uninsured Drivers) Agreement 1999, made between the Motor Insurers’ Bureau and the Secretary of State for Transport and which provided an exclusion from liability for compensation for the Motor Insurers’ Bureau, was incompatible with Council Directive 72/166/EEC, Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC and Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC.’
WLR Daily, 3rd June 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Scotland and another v British Credit Trust Ltd – WLR Daily
Scotland and another v British Credit Trust Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 790; [2014] WLR (D) 252
‘When determining whether negotiations between a debtor and a supplier were “antecedent negotiations” within section 56(1)(c) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, so that the supplier was deemed to have been acting as an agent of the creditor, the court had to inquire whether all the negotiations formed part of one transaction as a matter of fact.’
WLR Daily, 10th June 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v Bina – WLR Daily
Regina v Bina [2014] WLR (D) 251
‘There was no limitation by which the offence of assisting unlawful immigration, contrary to section 25(1) of the Immigration Act 1971, was inapplicable in relation to asylum seekers. Further, section 25(3) of that Act was permissive only, so that a matter of foreign law might be proved by methods such as expert evidence or admission as well as by a government-issued certificate as set out in section 25(3).’
WLR Daily, 11th June 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina (Grace) v Secretary of State for the Home Department – WLR Daily
Regina (Grace) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] WLR (D) 249
‘The proper test to be applied by the Administrative Court under CPR r 54.12(7) when considering certifying an application for permission to proceed with judicial review as “totally without merit” was whether the claim was bound to fail. There was no requirement that the claim be shown to be abusive or vexatious.’
WLR Daily, 9th June 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Kruppa v Benedetti and another – WLR Daily
Kruppa v Benedetti and another [2014] EWHC 1887 (Comm); [2014] WLR (D) 250
‘A governing law and jurisdiction clause in an agreement which provided that “the parties will endeavour to first resolve the matter through Swiss arbitration” but where no resolution was forthcoming that the “courts of England shall have non-exclusive jurisdiction” did not constitute an arbitration agreement within the meaning of section 6(1) of the Arbitration Act 1996.’
WLR Daily, 11th June 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
BAILII: Recent Decisions
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Okedare, R v [2014] EWCA Crim 1173 (15 May 2014)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Clark v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor [2014] EWHC 1879 (Admin) (10 June 2014)
Parmer v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWHC 1204 (Admin) (27 January 2014)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Kruppa v Benedetti & Anor [2014] EWHC 1887 (Comm) (11 June 2014)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
Stagecoach South Western Trains Ltd v Hind & Anor [2014] EWHC 1891 (TCC) (11 June 2014)
Source: www.bailii.org
BAILII: Recent Decisions
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
W (A Child) [2014] EWCA Civ 772 (11 June 2014)
Jet2.com Ltd v Huzar [2014] EWCA Civ 791 (11 June 2014)
F (A Child), Re [2014] EWCA Civ 789 (12 June 2014)
Sub One Ltd (t/a Subway) v HM Revenue and Customs [2014] EWCA Civ 773 (10 June 2014)
Scotland & Anor v British Credit Trust Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 790 (10 June 2014)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2014] EWHC 1885 (QB) (11 June 2014)
AB v Ministry of Justice [2014] EWHC 1847 (QB) (11 June 2014)
Ministry of Defence v Blythe [2013] EWHC 1422 (QB) (02 May 2013)
Aziz v Ali & Ors [2014] EWHC 1846 (QB) (09 June 2014)
Dalton v Gough Cooper & Company Ltd [2014] EWHC 1556 (QB) (16 May 2014)
Page v Champion Financial Managementltd & Ors [2014] EWHC 1778 (QB) (06 June 2014)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Sanger & Anor v London Borough of Newham [2014] EWHC 1922 (Admin) (12 June 2014)
Clark v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor [2014] EWHC 1879 (Admin) (10 June 2014)
Gu v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWHC 1634 (Admin) (20 May 2014)
Source: www.bailii.org
Coty Germany GmbH (formerly Coty Prestige Lancaster Group GmbH) v First Note Perfumes NV – WLR Daily
‘The concept of “the member state in which the act of infringement has been committed” in article 93(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark meant that, in the event of a sale and delivery of a counterfeit product in one member state, followed by a resale by the purchaser in another member state, that provision did not allow jurisdiction to be established to hear an infringement action against the original seller who did not himself act in the member state where the court seised was situated.’
WLR Daily, 5th June 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd and others v Public Relations Consultants Association Ltd – WLR Daily
‘Article 5 of Parliament and Council Directive 2001/29/EC of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society meant that the copies on a user’s computer screen and the copies in the Internet “cache” of that computer’s hard disk, made by an end-user in the course of viewing a website, satisfied the conditions that those copies had to be temporary, that they had to be transient or incidental in nature and that they had to constitute an integral and essential part of a technological process, as well as the conditions laid down in article 5(5) of that Directive, and that they could therefore be made without the authorisation of the copyright holders.’
WLR Daily, 5th June 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Government of Ghana v Gambrah (Death Penalty Project intervening) – WLR Daily
‘The mere imposition of the death penalty in a requesting state, coupled with an acceptable assurance that it would not be carried out, was no bar to extradition.’
WLR Daily, 16th May 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
In re DE (A Child) (Care Order: Change of Care Plan) – WLR Daily
In re DE (A Child) (Care Order: Change of Care Plan) [2014] EWFC 6 ; [2014] WLR (D) 246
‘Any local authority and court making decisions about the long term future of children had to address all the options which were realistically possible before coming to a decision and, where a care order had been granted on the basis of a care plan providing that the child should remain at home, a local authority considering changing the plan and removing the child permanently from the family was obliged in law to follow the same approach and had to have regard to the fact that permanent placement outside the family was to be preferred only as a last resort where nothing else would do. While that process was being carried out, the child should remain at home under the care order unless his safety and welfare required that he be removed immediately.’
WLR Daily, 23rd May 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Coll v Floreat Merchant Banking Ltd and others (Eggesbo and others, Part 20 defendants) (Solicitors Regulatory Authority intervening) – WLR Daily
‘Whilst there was no specific test for granting permission to make an application for committal for breach of a solicitor’s undertaking, where there was no reasonable prospect of the applicant proving that the relevant solicitor had breached an undertaking, and there was no other good reason to allow the application to proceed, permission should not be granted.’
WLR Daily, 3rd June 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
BAILII: Recent Decisions
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Razzaq v Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) [2014] EWCA Civ 770 (22 May 2014)
H (Children) [2014] EWCA Civ 733 (05 June 2014)
Top Brands & Anor v Sharma [2014] EWCA Civ 761 (23 May 2014)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Harb v HRH Prince Abdul Aziz [2014] EWHC 1807 (Ch) (09 June 2014)
High Court (Family Division)
X (A Child) [2014] EWHC 1871 (Fam) (09 June 2014)
DH v CL & Ors [2014] EWHC 1836 (Fam) (06 June 2014)
High Court (Administrative Court)
St Matthews (West) Ltd & Ors, R (on the application of) v HM Treasury & Anor [2014] EWHC 1848 (Admin) (06 June 2014)
Family Court Decisions (other Judges)
L (A Child: Rehabilitation to Care of Mother) [2014] EWFC B70 (16 May 2014)
Q v Q [2014] EWFC 7 (21 May 2014)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Standard Bank Plc v EFAD Real Estate Company WLL & Ors [2014] EWHC 1834 (Comm) (06 June 2014)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
Lovell Partnerships Ltd & Anor v Merton Priory Homes [2014] EWHC 1800 (TCC) (06 June 2014)
Source: www.bailii.org
Burrell v Micheldever Tyre Services Ltd – WLR Daily
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
Shanks v Unilever plc and others (No 2) – WLR Daily
Shanks v Unilever plc and others (No 2) [2014] EWHC 1647 (Pat); [2014] WLR (D) 242
‘The time value of money received by an employer following the vesting of an invention by an employee was not a benefit derived by the employer for the purposes of section 41(1) of the Patents Act 1977.’
WLR Daily, 23rd May 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
BAILII: Recent Decisions
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Esporta Ltd v Revenue And Customs [2014] EWCA Civ 155 (25 February 2014)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Coakley v Rosie [2014] EWHC 1790 (QB) (04 June 2014)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Bank of India v Riat [2014] EWHC 1775 (Ch) (04 June 2014)
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Family Division)
B v B [2014] EWHC 1804 (Fam) (21 May 2014)
Lancashire CC v C, M & F (Children: Fact-finding) [2014] EWFC 3 (23 May 2014)
Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council v KP & Ors [2014] EWFC B69 (OJ) (27 May 2014)
LA v KH & Ors [2014] EWFC B68 (OJ) (4 June 2014)
H (Minors) [2014] EWFC B65 (OJ) (16 May 2014)
High Court (Commercial Court)
St.Maximus Shipping Co.Ltd. v A.P. Moller-Maersk A/S [2014] EWHC 1643 (Comm) (22 May 2014)
High Court (Patents Court)
Starsight Telecast, Inc & Ors v Virgin Media Ltd & Ors [2014] EWHC 1793 (Pat) (20 May 2014)
Source: www.bailii.org
Regina (Francis) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Bail for Immigration Detainees intervening) – WLR Daily
‘The statutory authority deriving from paragraph 2(1) and (3) of Schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 1971 for detention pending removal of a person against whom a deportation order had been made in pursuance of a recommendation by a court was not unlimited and did not continue when there was no longer any prospect of deportation within a reasonable time.’
WLR Daily, 23rd May 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
