Category: law reports
BAILII: Recent Decisions
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Wells v R [2013] EWCA Crim 2043 (19 November 2013)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Ryanair Ltd v Esso Italiana Srl [2013] EWCA Civ 1450 (19 November 2013)
Leicester City Council v Shearer [2013] EWCA Civ 1467 (19 November 2013)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Mireskandari v Centaur Media Plc [2013] EWHC 3551 (QB) (19 November 2013)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Cody v Murray & Ors [2013] EWHC 3448 (Ch) (19 November 2013)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Fajemisin v The General Dental Council [2013] EWHC 3501 (Admin) (19 November 2013)
High Court (Family Division)
Surrey County Council v Al-Hilli & Anor [2013] EWHC 3404 (Fam) (04 November 2013)
Source: www.bailii.org
Regina v Sakalauskas – WLR Daily
Regina v Sakalauskas [2013] WLR (D) 442
“‘Any article’ in section 6(1) of the Fraud Act 2006 meant any article the defendant had with him for the purpose or intention of using in the course of or in connection with any fraud and use necessarily related to use in the future and not articles which had been used in the past.”
WLR Daily, 15th November 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Aspinalls Club Ltd v Revenue and Customs Comrs – WLR Daily
Aspinalls Club Ltd v Revenue and Customs Comrs 2013 EWCA Civ 1464; [2013] WLR (D) 441
“For the purposes of section 11 of the Finance Act 1997, when calculating the ‘gross gaming yield’ from gaming taking place on a gaming club’s premises, commissions and rebates paid and allowed by the gambling club to its customers under incentive schemes there were not to be taken into account as reducing the amount of ‘banker’s profits’ from dutiable gaming.”
WLR Daily, 15th November 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v Fields and others – WLR Daily
Regina v Fields and others [2013] EWCA Crim 2042; [2013] WLR (D) 440
“In a joint benefit case, where each defendant was found to have obtained the joint benefit, he was not required by a confiscation order under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to disgorge benefit he had not obtained and a confiscation order made in the amount matching the correctly assessed benefit, was not disproportionate.”
WLR Daily, 14th November 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
CF v Security Service and others; Mohamed v Foreign and Commonwealth Office and others – WLR Daily
“A court could make a declaration under section 6 of the Justice and Security Act 2013 permitting a closed material application to be made to the court before a public interest immunity claim had been made or determined.”
WLR Daily, 7th November 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
BAILII: Recent Decisions
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
PBD & Anor v Greater Manchester Police [2013] EWHC 3559 (QB) (18 November 2013)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Barratt & Ors v Treatt Plc [2013] EWHC 3561 (Ch) (15 November 2013)
High Court (Family Division)
A v A [2013] EWHC 3554 (Fam) (07 November 2013)
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Gestmin SGPS SA v Credit Suisse (UK) Ltd & Anor [2013] EWHC 3560 (Comm) (15 November 2013)
Source: www.bailii.org
Regina v Leacock; Regina v Blacker; Regina v Trevis; Regina v Nutting; Regina v Morin – WLR Daily
“When sentencing a defendant to a term of imprisonment, section 240(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 provided that the court must direct that, subject to section 240(4), time served in custody on remand should count as time served by him as part of the sentence. Section 240(4)(a) provided that section 240(3) did not apply if while on remand the defendant was a serving prisoner, but there was no separate order under section 240(4). That subsection merely restricted the discretion of the court; the only order a court could make was one under section 240(3).”
WLR Daily, 12th November 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
In the matter of “The Alexandros T”; In the matter of “The Alexandros T” (No 2); In the matter of “The Alexandros T” (No 3) – Supreme Court
Supreme Court, 6th November 2013
Cotter (Respondent) v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (Appellant) – Supreme Court
Supreme Court, 6th November 2013
TFL Management Services Ltd v Lloyds Bank plc – WLR Daily
TFL Management Services Ltd v Lloyds Bank plc [2013] EWCA Civ 1415; [2013] WLR (D) 437
“In determining whether a party had a claim for restitution based on unjust enrichment, the court ought to consider the following four questions: (i) has the defendant benefited or been enriched?; (ii) was the enrichment at the expense of the claimant?; (iii) was the enrichment unjust?; and (iv) was there any specific defence available to the defendant. The issue of whether any benefit was incidental and therefore amounted to a defence to an unjust enrichment claim was to be determined by reference to consideration of those four questions, rather than a formulation of a general exception based on characterisation of the nature of the benefit alone.”
WLR Daily, 14th November 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Kavanagh and others v Crystal Palace FC Ltd and another – WLR Daily
Kavanagh and others v Crystal Palace FC Ltd and another [2013] EWCA Civ 1410; [2013] WLR (D) 436
“Where, because of the unique features pertaining to the financial affairs of a failing football club, there were even stronger reasons than usual for averting liquidation, an administrator who needed to reduce the wage bill in order to continue running the business and to avoid liquidation had a permissible economic reason for dismissing employees where the ultimate objective remained the early sale of the club.”
WLR Daily, 13th November 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Moss v The Queen – WLR Daily
Moss v The Queen: [2013] UKPC 32; [2013] WLR (D) 434
“A criminal court normally had a duty to give a convicted defendant the opportunity to make representations before sentence upon him was passed, however little there might appear to be available to be said on his behalf, and an omission to do so was a serious breach of procedural fairness. The Privy Council so held in allowing an appeal by the defendant, Dominique Moss, against a sentence of 25 years’ imprisonment imposed by the Court of Appeal of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas (Hall CJ, Ganpatsingh and Osadebay JJA) on 28 October 2004 when it had allowed his appeal against his conviction for murder on 6 April 2004 (Isaacs J and a jury) and substituted a conviction for manslaughter.”
WLR Daily, 13th November 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Federal Republic of Germany v Puid – WLR Daily
Federal Republic of Germany v Puid: Case C-4/11; [2013] WLR (D) 435
“Where member states could not be unaware that systemic deficiencies in the asylum procedure and in the conditions for the reception of asylum seekers existed in the member state initially identified as responsible for examining an asylum application, the member state which was determining the member state responsible was required not to transfer the asylum seeker to the initial member state and, subject to the exercise of the right itself to examine the application, to establish whether another member state could be identified as responsible in accordance with one of the criteria set out in Chapter III of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003.”
WLR Daily, 14th November 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
BAILII: Recent Decisions
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Lemas & Anor v Williams [2013] EWCA Civ 1433 (14 November 2013)
Ansari v Knowles & Ors [2013] EWCA Civ 1448 (14 November 2013)
TFL Management Services Ltd v Lloyds Bank Plc [2013] EWCA Civ 1415 (14 November 2013)
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Hollier & Anor, R. v [2013] EWCA Crim 2041 (14 November 2013)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Hayden, R (on the application of) v Kelly [2013] EWHC 3527 (Admin) (14 November 2013)
Hussein v The General Medical Council [2013] EWHC 3535 (Admin) (14 November 2013)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Bank St Petersburg & Anor v Savelyev & Anor [2013] EWHC 3529 (Ch) (14 November 2013)
High Court (Family Division)
K (A Child: Wardship: Publicity), Re (No 2) [2013 EWHC B21 (Fam) (08 November 2013)
Source: www.bailii.org
W H Newson Holding Ltd and others v IMI plc and others – WLR Daily
W H Newson Holding Ltd and others v IMI plc and others [2013] EWCA Civ 1377: [2013] WLR (D) 432
“On its true interpretation, section 47A of the Competition Act 1998, which permitted a claimant to bring a follow-on claim to recover damages based on a finding of an infringement of competition law by the Commission of the European Union, permitted a claimant to bring a conspiracy claim provided that all the ingredients of the cause of action could be established by infringement findings in the Commission’s decision.”
WLR Daily, 12th November 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
McDonald v Department for Communities and Local Government and another – WLR Daily
“A person who in the course of his employment visited the premises of another employer where a process was carried on giving off dust or fumes likely to be injurious through inhalation was not a person employed, within the meaning of section 47(1) of the Factories Act 1937, in connection with the process carried on in those premises so as to come within the protection afforded by the section.”
WLR Daily, 6th November 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Snelling and another v Burstow Parish Council – WLR Daily
Snelling and another v Burstow Parish Council [2013] EWCA Civ 1411: [2013] WLR (D) 433
“A parish council was entitled to use its power under either section 32 of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act 1908 or section 27 of the Commons Act 1876 to sell land containing garden allotments which had come under its management by virtue of section 33 of the 1908 Act. Where the land had been acquired but not purchased for use as allotments, section 8 of the Allotments Act 1925 did not apply and the consent of the Secretary of State was not required for the sale.”
WLR Daily, 12th November 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
BAILII: Recent Decisions
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
B (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 1434 (13 November 2013)
Crystal Palace FC Ltd & Anor v Kavanagh & Ors [2013] EWCA Civ 1410 (13 November 2013)
CSC Computer Sciences Ltd v McAlinden & Ors [2013] EWCA Civ 1435 (13 November 2013)
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Stocker, R v [2013] EWCA Crim 1993 (13 November 2013)
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Family Division)
Shield v Shield [2013] EWHC 3525 (Fam) (01 November 2013)
Brown v Davies [2013] EWHC 3523 (Fam) (30 October 2013)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
GSMA Ltd v Europa Technologies Ltd [2013] EWHC 3451 (TCC) (12 November 2013)
Source: www.bailii.org
Regina (Lewisham London Borough Council) v Secretary of State for Health and another; Regina (Save Lewisham Hospital Campaign Ltd) v Same and another – WLR Daily
“The words ‘in relation to … the trust’ in sections 65(F)(1), 65I(1), 65K(1) of the National Health Service Act 2006, as amended and inserted, meant the failing trust to which the trust special administrator had been appointed under Chapter 5A of the 2006 Act, and no other trust. It followed that the administrator appointed to a neighbouring trust had no power to make recommendations in relation to any other trust, and the Secretary of State had no power to make a decision based on such recommendations.”
WLR Daily, 8th November 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
