United States of America v Nolan [2014] EWCA Civ 71; [2014] WLR (D) 46
‘Employers who were public administrative bodies or sovereign states were not exempt from the obligation to consult employees’ representatives about proposed collective redundancies imposed by section 188(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, as substituted.’
WLR Daily, 4th February 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Walker & Son (Hauliers) Ltd v Environment Agency [2014] EWCA Crim 100 (06 February 2014)
Onuigbo (aka Okoronkwo) v R [2014] EWCA Crim 65 (31 January 2014)
Harvey & Ors, R v [2014] EWCA Crim 54 (24 January 2014)
Cooke, & Ors, R. v [2014] EWCA Crim 53 (24 January 2014)
Virgin Media Ltd, R (on the application of) v Zinga [2014] EWCA Crim 52 (24 January 2014)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Taylor v Burton & Anor [2014] EWCA Civ 63 (06 February 2014)
SXH v Crown Prosecution Service [2014] EWCA Civ 90 (06 February 2014)
Banwaitt v Dewji [2014] EWCA Civ 67 (06 February 2014)
P (Findings of Fact), Re [2014] EWCA Civ 89 (06 February 2014)
Omv Supply And Trading AG v Kazmunaygaz Trading AG (Rev 1) [2014] EWCA Civ 75 (06 February 2014)
C (A Child), Re [2014] EWCA Civ 70 (06 February 2014)
Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (Rev 1) [2014] EWCA Civ 15 (05 February 2014)
Hazel & Anor v The Manchester College [2014] EWCA Civ 72 (05 February 2014)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Freedman, R (On the Application Of) v Wiltshire Council [2014] EWHC 211 (Admin) (06 February 2014)
Earl, R (On the Application Of) v Winchester City Council [2014] EWHC 195 (Admin) (05 February 2014)
High Court (Commercial Court)
SET Select Energy GmbH v F & M Bunkering Ltd [2014] EWHC 192 (Comm) (06 February 2014)
High Court (Family Division)
D (a Child), Re [2014] EWHC 121 (Fam) (29 January 2014)
Source: www.bailii.org
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Bishop v Golstein [2014] EWCA Civ 10 (05 February 2014)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Mount Eden Land Ltd v Speechly Bircham LLP [2014] EWHC 169 (QB) (05 February 2014)
Barons Finance Ltd & Ors v Numerous Defendants [2014] EWHC 138 (QB) (05 February 2014)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Brown v HM Coroner for the County of Norfolk & Anor [2014] EWHC 187 (Admin) (5 February 2014)
Fuglers LLP & Ors v Solicitors Regulatory Authority [2014] EWHC 179 (Admin) (05 February 2014)
Source: www.bailii.org
Richardson and another (Appellants) v Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent) [2014] UKSC 8 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 5th February 2014
Supreme Court, 5th February 2014
Supreme Court
Adamson & Ors v Paddico (267) Ltd [2014] UKSC 7 (5 February 2014))
Richardson & Anor v Director of Public Prosecutions [2014] UKSC 8 (5 February 2014)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Flynn v Warrior Square Recoveries Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 68 (04 February 2014)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Xenakis & Anor v Birkett Long LLP [2014] EWHC 171 (QB) (03 February 2014)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Maier & Anor v Asos Plc & Anor [2014] EWHC 123 (Ch) (04 February 2014)
Dass v Beggs & Anor [2014] EWHC 164 (Ch) (03 February 2014)
Kevern v Ayres & Anor [2014] EWHC 165 (Ch) (03 February 2014)
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
Courtwell Properties Ltd v Greencore PF (UK) Ltd [2014] EWHC 184 (TCC) (04 February 2014)
High Court (Commercial Court)
San Evans Maritime Inc & Ors v Aigaion Insurance Co SA [2014] EWHC 163 (Comm) (04 February 2014)
Source: www.bailii.org
‘Section 7 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, which provided for payments for services by a person who lacked capacity, was not and could not be engaged where the services in question were provided to the mentally incapacitated individual under an arrangement made by the service provider with a local authority exercising its statutory duty under Pt III of the National Assistance Act 1948.’
WLR Daily, 24th January 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
RC v CC and another [2014] EWHC 131 (COP); [2014] WLR (D) 43
‘The jurisdiction to refuse disclosure of materials to the parties in children cases was clearly established and the same fundamental principles applied in cases relating to incapacitated adults in the Court of Protection. The test to be applied was that of “strict necessity” and the question was whether it was necessary, in the interests of the incapacitated person, for the information not to be disclosed.’
WLR Daily, 30th January 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Heibner, R. v (Rev 1) [2014] EWCA Crim 102 (23 January 2014)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Emmett v Sisson [2014] EWCA Civ 64 (02 March 2014)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Pullan v Wilson & Ors [2014] EWHC 126 (Ch) (28 January 2014)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Binder v Public Prosecutor’s Office, Memmingem, Germany [2014] EWHC 133 (Admin) (03 February 2014)
Mills v General Dental Council [2014] EWHC 89 (Admin) (24 January 2014)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Euroil Ltd v Cameroon Offshore Petroleum SARL [2014] EWHC 52 (Comm) (14 January 2014)
High Court (Patents Court)
Cooke v Watermist Ltd [2014] EWHC 125 (Pat) (03 February 2014)
Source: www.bailii.org
‘A person who was currently unfit to plead, and might remain unfit to plead, was an accused person for the purposes of section 70(4)(a) of the Extradition Act 2003. It might be unjust and oppressive to order such a person’s extradition without considering whether an undertaking should be required from the requesting state to permit his return to the United Kingdom in the event it was found, after a reasonable time for further treatment in the requesting state, that he was likely to remain unfit.’
WLR Daily, 31st January 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Where the Secretary of State for the Home Department intended to remove from the United Kingdom a person suffering from a mental illness, whether that illness fell within the definition in the Secretary of State’s immigration detention policy of a “serious mental illness” which could not be satisfactorily managed within detention, so that the person could not be detained absent very exceptional circumstances, did not depend on whether the mental illness was of a level of requiring in-patient medical attention or rendering the person liable to being sectioned under the Mental Health Act 1983, but on whether in all the circumstances the person was “suffering” from the illness and the illness was serious enough to mean that it could not be satisfactorily managed in detention.’
WLR Daily, 28th January 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v Lewis (Leroy): [2013] EWCA Crim 2596; [2014] WLR (D) 38
‘Once an indictment had been properly preferred and signed it remained the indictment in the case, so that the Crown Court had jurisdiction to try a case where no evidence had been offered on the single indictable offence and only summary offences were left to be tried.’
WLR Daily, 5th December 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Onuigbo (aka Okoronkwo) v R [2014] EWCA Crim 65 (31 January 2014)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Government of the Republic of South Africa v Dewani [2014] EWHC 153 (Admin) (31 January 2014)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Jack Wills Ltd v House of Fraser (Stores) Ltd [2014] EWHC 110 (Ch) (31 January 2014)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Georgian American Alloys, Inc & Or v White & Case LLP & Anor [2014] EWHC 94 (Comm) (31 January 2014)
Malhotra v Malhotra & Anor [2014] EWHC 113 (Comm) (31 January 2014)
High Court (Family Division)
Great Western Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v AA [2014] EWHC 1666 (Fam) (28 January 2014)
High Court (Patents Court)
Smith & Nephew Plc v Convatec Technologies Inc & Anor [2014] EWHC 146 (Pat) (31 January 2014)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Watson Farley & Williams (A Firm) v Ostrovizky [2014] EWHC 160 (QB) (31 January 2014)
Source: www.bailii.org
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Kanu, R. v [2014] EWCA Crim 67 (23 January 2014)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Barnes v Revenue And Customs [2014] EWCA Civ 31 (30 January 2014)
Innerspaces Self Storage Ltd v Harding & Ors [2014] EWCA Civ 46 (30 January 2014)
Murrills v Berlanda & Anor [2014] EWCA Civ 6 (30 January 2014)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Roadchef (Employee Benefits Trustees) Ltd v Hill & Anor [2014] EWHC 109 (Ch) (29 January 2014)
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Trafigura Beheer BV v Navigazione Montanari Spa [2014] EWHC 129 (Comm) (30 January 2014)
Deutsche Bank AG v Sebastian Holdings Inc & Anor [2014] EWHC 112 (Comm) (30 January 2014)
Source: www.bailii.org
Diakité v Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides (Case C-285/12); [2014] WLR (D) 37
‘An internal “armed conflict” existed, for the purposes of article 15(c) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC, if a state’s armed forces confronted one or more armed groups or if two or more armed groups confronted each other. It was not necessary for that conflict to be categorised as “armed conflict” not of an international character under international humanitarian law; nor was it necessary to carry out, in addition to an appraisal of the level of violence present in the territory concerned, a separate assessment of the intensity of the armed confrontations, the level of organisation of the armed forces involved or the duration of the conflict.’
WLR Daily, 30th January 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘National decision-makers had an independent and autonomous responsibility under the Convention and Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (1951) (Cmd 9171) and (1967) (Cmnd 3906) to determine the applications of those who had applied for asylum. An earlier decision of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (“UNHCR”) to grant refugee status was not binding on the national decision-maker, nor did it create any presumption or shift the burden of proof.’
WLR Daily, 29th January 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal is to consider the standard of proof to be applied in unqualified ‘follow the settlement’ clauses in deciding whether a claim falls within the risks covered by the reinsurance policy following a recent High Court judgment.’
OUT-LAW.com, 30th January 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
‘A clause in an agency agreement which dealt with an agent’s entitlement to compensation or an indemnity on termination of the agreement was neither consistent with nor permitted by regulation 17(2) of the Commercial Agents (Council Directive) Regulations 1993.’
WLR Daily, 22nd January 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025