Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Scott v Russell [2013] EWCA Civ 1432 (12 November 2013)
WH Newson Holding Ltd & Ors v IMI Plc & Ors [2013] EWCA Civ 1377 (12 November 2013)
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Leacock & Ors, R v [2013] EWCA Crim 1994 (12 November 2013)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Source: www.bailii.org
Marwaha and others v Singh and others: [2013] WLR (D) 429
“Where on the true construction of a trust, the trustees have a duty to exclude ineligible persons from membership and they breach that duty, the court is not prevented from intervening. The court has power to vary a scheme pursuant to the general supervisory power of the court in relation to charities.”
WLR Daily, 6th November 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
High Court (Commercial Court)
Deutsche Bank AG v Sebastian Holdings Inc (Rev 1) [2013] EWHC 3463 (Comm) (08 November 2013)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Krause v Newsquest Media Group Ltd & Anor [2013] EWHC 3400 (QB) (11 November 2013)
J M Finn & Co Ltd v Holliday [2013] EWHC 3450 (QB) (08 November 2013)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
Roe Brickwork Ltd v Wates Construction Ltd [2013] EWHC 3417 (TCC) (11 November 2013)
Source: www.bailii.org
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Graiseley Properties Ltd & Ors v Deutche Bank AG & Ors [2013] EWCA Civ 1372 (08 November 2013)
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Shirley, R v (Rev 1) [2013] EWCA Crim 1990 (08 November 2013)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Krebs v NHS Commissioning Board [2013] EWHC 3474 (Admin) (11 November 2013)
Bhatnagar v The General Medical Council [2013] EWHC 3412 (Admin) (11 November 2013)
Brodziak v Circuit Court In Warsaw, Poland [2013] EWHC 3394 (Admin) (11 November 2013)
Evans v Wimbledon & Putney Commons Conservators & Ors [2013] EWHC 3411 (Admin) (08 November 2013)
Source: www.bailii.org
“The existence of criminal laws which specifically targeted homosexuals, supported the finding that those persons had to be regarded as forming a ‘particular social group’ within the meaning of Council Directive 2004/83/EC. A term of imprisonment which sanctioned homosexual acts and which was actually applied in the country of origin which adopted such legislation had to be regarded as being a punishment which was disproportionate or discriminatory and thus constituted an act of persecution. When assessing an application for refugee status, the competent authorities could not reasonably expect, in order to avoid the risk of persecution, the applicant for asylum to conceal his homosexuality in his country of origin or to exercise reserve in the expression of his sexual orientation.”
WLR Daily, 7th November 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
UPC Nederland BV v Gemeente Hilversum (Case C-518/11); [2013] WLR (D) 428
“Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33, ‘the Framework Directive’), Directive 97/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the telecommunications sector (OJ 1998 L 24, p. 1), Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (Access Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 7), Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21), and Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51)”
WLR Daily, 7th November 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“An intimate sexual relationship instigated by an undercover police officer with a member of the public to obtain information was included in the phrase ‘personal or other relationship’ in section 26(8)(a) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, and as such was conduct of the type which could be authorised under section 27 of the Act. Human rights claims arising out of such conduct carried out in ‘challengeable circumstances’ came within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal under section 65 of the 2000 Act. Claims in tort arising out of substantially the same facts could proceed in the High Court.”
WLR Daily, 5th November 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“A person detained for examination under Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 had the right to consult a solicitor privately ‘in person, in writing or on the telephone’ before being interviewed.”
WLR Daily, 6th November 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Smith-Evans v Smailes: [2013] EWHC 3199 (Ch); [2013] WLR (D) 423
“Where the chairman of a creditors’ meeting summoned under section 257 of the Insolvency Act 1986 had reported the meeting’s approval of a proposed voluntary arrangement to the court, the only route of challenge was under section 262 of the 1986 Act. That was so even if the meeting itself had not approved the arrangement, because the chairman had exceeded the terms of proxies that he held so there had in fact not been a 75% majority in favour of approval.”
WLR Daily, 29th July 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The ‘benefit cap’ set in the Benefit Cap (Housing Benefit) Regulations 2012, amending the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006, did not unjustifiably discriminate against women and large families contrary to article 14 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.”
WLR Daily, 5th November 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Article 4(1) of Council Directive 87/344 on legal expenses insurance precluded a legal expenses insurer, which stipulated in its insurance contracts that legal assistance would in principle be provided in-house, from also providing that the costs of legal assistance provided by a legal representative chosen by the insured would be covered only if the insurer took the view that the handling of the case had to be subcontracted to an external lawyer.”
WLR Daily, 7th November 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Gulati & Ors v MGN Ltd [2013] EWHC 3392 (Ch) (06 November 2013)
High Court (Commercial Court)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Council v Bunning [2013] EWHC 3390 (QB) (07 November 2013)
Source: www.bailii.org
“When an application was made for an order that it would be lawful, as being in the patient’s best interests pursuant to section 1(5) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, for life sustaining medical treatment to be withheld, the focus had to be on whether it would be in the patient’s best interests to give the treatment, rather than on whether it would be in his best interests to withhold or withdraw it.”
WLR Daily, 30th October 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Supreme Court
The Alexandros T, Re [2013] UKSC 70 (6 November 2013)
Cotter v Revenue & Customs [2013] UKSC 69 (6 November 2013)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Japp v Virgin Holidays Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1371 (07 November 2013)
W (Fact Finding: Hearsay Evidence) [2013] EWCA Civ 1374 (06 November 2013)
Hunt, R (on the application of) v North Somerset Council [2013] EWCA Civ 1320 (06 November 2013)
Khakh v Independent Safeguarding Authority [2013] EWCA Civ 1341 (06 November 2013)
AJA & Ors v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis & Ors [2013] EWCA Civ 1342 (05 November 2013)
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Bor, R v [2013] EWCA Crim 1916 (06 November 2013)
Arthur v R [2013] EWCA Crim 1852 (29 October 2013)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Elosta v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis & Ors [2013] EWHC 3397 (Admin) (06 November 2013)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Source: www.bailii.org
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Alegro Capital Llp v Allproperty Media PTE Ltd [2013] EWHC 3376 (QB) (05 November 2013)
Mileform Ltd v Interserve Security Ltd [2013] EWHC 3386 (QB) (05 November 2013)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Dahabshiil Transfer Services Ltd. v Barclays Bank Plc [2013] EWHC 3379 (Ch) (05 November 2013)
ARM Asset Backed Securities SA, Re [2013] EWHC 3351 (Ch) (09 October 2013)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
Caucedo Investments Inc & Anor v Saipem SA & Anor [2013] EWHC 3375 (TCC) (04 November 2013)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Arts & Antiques Ltd v Richards & Ors [2013] EWHC 3361 (Comm) (05 November 2013)
Source: www.bailii.org
Sannie and another v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] WLR (D) 419
“A European Economic Area residence card did not exist in perpetuity once granted and the Secretary of State for the Home Department could revoke a residence card if a lack of entitlement was established.”
WLR Daily, 30th October 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Nageh v David Game College Ltd & Anor [2013] EWCA Civ 1340 (04 November 2013)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Shearer & Ors v Spring Capital Ltd & Ors [2013] EWHC 3373 (Ch) (04 November 2013)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Source: www.bailii.org
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Rufus v Elliott [2013] EWHC 3355 (QB) (01 November 2013)
High Court (Chancery Division)
J.W. Spear & Sons Ltd Mattel, Inc & Anor v Zynga Inc [2013] EWHC 3348 (Ch) (01 November 2013)
Straw & Anor v Jennings & Ors [2013] EWHC 3290 (Ch) (01 November 2013)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Fletcher v Leicestershire Constabulary [2013] EWHC 3357 (Admin) (01 November 2013)
Castletown Estates Ltd & Anor v Welsh Ministers [2013] EWHC 3293 (Admin) (01 November 2013)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Vitol Bahrain EC v Nasdec General Trading Llc & Ors [2013] EWHC 3359 (Comm) (01 November 2013)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
Squibb Group Ltd v London Pleasure Gardens Ltd & Anor [2013] EWHC 3275 (TCC) (01 November 2013)
Source: www.bailii.org
“A material change of use of Green Belt land was capable of falling within the scope of paragraph 81 of the National Planning Policy Framework (‘NPPF’), but would not by definition be appropriate development as a result. Rather, such a change of use would be a material consideration in determining whether there existed very special reasons for permitting otherwise inappropriate development falling outwith the terms of paragraphs 89 and 90 of the NPPF.”
WLR Daily, 26th October 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Where the English court had jurisdiction pursuant to article 31.1 of the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road (as scheduled to the Carriage of Goods by Road Act 1965) in respect of a claim by the cargo owner against the primary carrier under the contract of carriage, article 36 of the Convention permitted the cargo owner to bring proceedings in England not only against the primary carrier, but also against successive carriers, whether or not the English court would have had jurisdiction over the successive carriers individually applying the provisions of article 31.1.”
WLR Daily, 30th October 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025