law reports – Page 110 – Current Awareness

‘Postal service of a claim form by the court in disregard of the claimant’s request to return the claim form to him so that he could serve it personally, in breach of CPR r 6.4(1)(b), was an “error of procedure”, within rule 3.10, and so did not invalidate service.’

WLR Daily, 15th May 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

In re S (Children) (Care Proceedings: Fact-finding Hearings) – WLR Daily

Posted May 22nd, 2014 in appeals, care orders, case management, children, law reports by sally

In re S (Children) (Care Proceedings: Fact-finding Hearings) [2014] EWCA Civ 638; [2014] WLR (D) 217

‘Reiterating the inappropriateness of separate fact-finding hearings in most care proceedings, it was essential that if there was to be a separate fact-finding hearing, the ambit of the hearing should be clearly defined and understood by all and, if the ambit altered as the case proceeded, that the adjustment was promptly reflected in the schedule of findings sought and that there was an authentic, definitive record of precisely what findings the judge had made.’

WLR Daily, 14th May 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Lakatamia Shipping Co Ltd v Su and others – WLR Daily

Posted May 22nd, 2014 in appeals, assets recovery, freezing injunctions, injunctions, law reports by sally

Lakatamia Shipping Co Ltd v Su and others [2014] EWCA Civ 636; [2014] WLR (D) 216

‘The assets of a company whose shares were entirely owned by a defendant to a standard form freezing order were not assets of the defendant, for the purposes of the order. However, since such a freezing order restrained the defendant from diminishing the value of any of his assets, which included his shareholding in such a company, it would restrain him from procuring the company to make a disposition of its assets likely to result in such a diminution.’

WLR Daily, 14th May 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Bone v North Essex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust – WLR Daily

Posted May 22nd, 2014 in appeals, employment tribunals, jurisdiction, law reports, trade unions by sally

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

Bank St Petersburg OJSC and another v Arkhangelsky and another; Arkhangelsky and others v Bank St Petersburg OJSC and another – WLR Daily

Posted May 22nd, 2014 in appeals, banking, injunctions, jurisdiction, law reports by sally

Bank St Petersburg OJSC and another v Arkhangelsky and another; Arkhangelsky and others v Bank St Petersburg OJSC and another [2014] EWCA Civ 593; [2014] WLR (D) 215

‘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

Regina (Best) v Chief Land Registrar – WLR Daily

Posted May 22nd, 2014 in adverse possession, crime, land registration, law reports, squatting by sally

Regina (Best) v Chief Land Registrar [2014] EWHC 1370 (Admin); [2014] WLR (D) 211

‘The criminalisation of people who were trespassers through living in a relevant residential building by pursuant to section 144(1) of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 had not prevented time running for applications for registration of title by adverse possession.’

WLR Daily, 7th May 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Church Comrs for England v Hampshire County Council – WLR Daily

Posted May 22nd, 2014 in appeals, commons, land registration, law reports, local government, rectification, regulations by sally

Church Comrs for England v Hampshire County Council [2014] EWCA Civ 634; [2014] WLR (D) 207

‘Regulation 5(4) of the Commons (Registration of Town or Village Greens) (Interim Arrangements) (England) Regulations 2007 provided a means for curing deficiencies in an application to register land as a town or village green under section 15 of the Commons Act 2006 and once that application was so cured it was treated as duly made on the date on which the original defective application was lodged. Whether an applicant had been afforded a “reasonable opportunity” by the registration authority to put a defective application in order, for the purposes of regulation 5(4), was a question of law for the court and was not reviewable only on Wednesbury grounds.’

WLR Daily, 14th May 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

In re K (A Child) (Reunite International Child Abduction Centre intervening) – WLR Daily

Posted May 21st, 2014 in care orders, child abduction, children, custody, EC law, interpretation, law reports, Northern Ireland, Supreme Court by sally

In re K (A Child) (Reunite International Child Abduction Centre intervening): [2014] UKSC 29; [2014] WLR (D) 218

‘The phrase “rights of custody,” within the meaning of articles 3 and 5(a) of the 1980 Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and article 2(9)(11) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003, was not limited to rights which were already legally recognised and enforceable but was to be interpreted purposively as including a reference to a wider category, termed “inchoate rights”, the existence of which would have been legally recognised if the matter had arisen before the particular act of removal or retention in question.’

WLR Daily, 15th May 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Bank St Petersburg OJSC and another v Arkhangelsky and another; Arkhangelsky and others v Bank St Petersburg OJSC and another – WLR Daily

Posted May 21st, 2014 in appeals, enforcement, injunctions, jurisdiction, law reports by sally

Bank St Petersburg OJSC and another v Arkhangelsky and another: Arkhangelsky and others v Bank St Petersburg OJSC and another: [2014] EWCA Civ 593; [2014] WLR (D) 215

‘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

Lindum Construction Co Ltd and others v Office of Fair Trading – WLR Daily

Posted May 21st, 2014 in appeals, competition, law reports, penalties, restitution, time limits, tribunals by sally

Lindum Construction Co Ltd and others v Office of Fair Trading: [2014] EWHC 1613 (Ch); [2014] WLR (D) 219

‘Where the statutory requirements for the imposition of a penalty under the Competition Act 1998 had been complied with, the statutory appeal process provided for by the Act was the exclusive route by which such penalty so imposed could be challenged. A party who failed to appeal against a penalty remained bound by it, irrespective of the outcome of any appeals brought by other parties against whom penalties had been imposed under the same decision.’

WLR Daily, 19th May 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

In re G (A Child) (Custody Rights: Stay of Proceedings) – WLR Daily

Posted May 21st, 2014 in appeals, children, consent, custody, EC law, families, jurisdiction, law reports, stay of proceedings by sally

In re G (A Child) (Custody Rights: Stay of Proceedings): [2014] EWCA Civ 680; [2014] WLR (D) 220

‘As a matter of the domestic law of England and Wales, it was rare for an order relating to a child to be truly final if “final” meant ruling out further applications to the court. An order settling contact, or residence could subsequently be varied or discharged and new arrangements for the child substituted. That did not mean that the order for residence or contact was not final any more than would the fact that proceedings might be taken to enforce the order. Whether particular proceedings had come to an end was a fact specific question which had to be determined by careful examination of the circumstances in which the order which brought the proceedings to an end was made and its precise terms.’

WLR Daily, 19th May 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk