Zulhayir v JJ Food Service Ltd: [2013] EWCA Civ 1226; [2013] WLR (D) 396
“For an appeal to succeed on the ground of perversity an overwhelming case had to be made out that the court or tribunal below had reached a decision which no reasonable tribunal, on a proper appreciation of the evidence and the law, would have reached.”
WLR Daily, 16th October 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Service on the relevant interested parties of a direction by the Secretary State to recover jurisdiction over a planning appeal pursuant to paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 was not required before such a direction would be deemed effective, the making of the direction and its service being two separate and distinct actions under the scheme of the legislation.”
WLR Daily, 21st October 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Fagan, R (on the application of) v Times Newspapers Ltd & Ors [2013] EWCA Civ 1275 (21 October 2013)
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Montague, R v [2013] EWCA Crim 1781 (22 October 2013)
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Flame SA v Glory Wealth Shipping PTE Ltd [2013] EWHC 3153 (Comm) (22 October 2013)
High Court (Patents Court)
Resolution Chemicals Ltd v H Lundbeck A/S [2013] EWHC 3160 (Pat) (22 October 2013)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Fadallah v Pollak [2013] EWHC 3159 (QB) (22 October 2013)
Source: www.bailii.org
“The statutory blanket ban on convicted prisoners voting was incompatible with article 3 of the First Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. However, where a declaration of incompatibility had already been made in other proceedings and the matter was under active consideration by Parliament, a further declaration of incompatibility, being a discretionary remedy, was not appropriate.”
WLR Daily, 16th October 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Schwarz v Stadt Bochum: (Case C‑291/12); [2013] WLR (D) 386
“Article 1(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 of 13 December 2004 on standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by member states, as amended, which obliged national authorities to take fingerprints of persons applying for passports, was validly adopted and was proportionate to the aim of protecting against the fraudulent use of passports.”
WLR Daily, 17th October 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Emrek v Sabranovic: (Case C-218/12); [2013] WLR (D) 390
“Article 15(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters did not require the existence of a causal link between the means employed to direct the commercial or professional activity to the member state of the consumer’s domicile. However, the existence of such a causal link constituted evidence of the connection between the contract and such activity.”
WLR Daily, 17th October 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Mittal v Mittal: [2013] EWCA Civ ; [2013] WLR (D) 391
“Paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 to the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973 gave the courts of England and Wales jurisdiction to stay matrimonial proceedings in favour of competing prior proceedings in a non-member state.”
WLR Daily, 18th October 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Mittal v Mittal [2013] EWCA Civ 1255 (18 October 2013)
Sarjantson v Humberside Police [2013] EWCA Civ 1252 (18 October 2013)
C (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 1257 (18 October 2013)
High Court (Administrative Court)
SA v London Borough of Camden & Ors [2013] EWHC 3152 (Admin) (18 October 2013)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Bentine v Bentine [2013] EWHC 3098 (Ch) (17 October 2013)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Madoff Securities International Ltd v Raven & Ors [2013] EWHC 3147 (Comm) (18 October 2013)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Davison v Leitch [2013] EWHC 3092 (QB) (18 October 2013)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
Arroyo & Ors v Equion Energia Ltd [2013] EWHC 3173 (TCC) (18 October 2013)
Arroyo & Ors v Equion Energia Ltd [2013] EWHC 3150 (TCC) (18 October 2013)
Co-Operative Group Ltd v Birse Developments Ltd [2013] EWHC 3145 (TCC) (17 October 2013)
Source: www.bailii.org
Performing Right Society Ltd v B4U Network (Europe) Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1236; [2013] WLR (D) 385
“Where a composition fell within the terms of an agreement assigning copyright to the Performing Right Society the effect of section 2(1) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 was to vest copyright in the society as soon as the work was created, notwithstanding an agreement with those commissioning the work which purported to assign to them all rights in future works.”
WLR Daily, 16th October 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
In re W (A Child); In re H (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1177; [2013] WLR (D) 384
“Guidance on how the Court of Appeal should approach applications for permission to appeal and appeals arising from decisions of family judges refusing parents leave in accordance with section 47(5) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 to oppose the making of adoption orders in relation to their children where such decisions were delivered before the decision in In re B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146; [2013] WLR (D) 348.”
WLR Daily, 16th October 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The principle of equal treatment did not preclude a contracting authority from asking a candidate, after the deadline for applying to take part in the contracts award procedures pursuant to Parliament and Council Directive 2004/18/EC, to provide documents describing that candidate’s situation which could be objectively shown to pre-date that deadline.”
WLR Daily, 10th October 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Performing Right Society Ltd v B4U Network (Europe) Ltd: [2013] EWCA Civ 1236; [2013] WLR (D) 385
“Where a composition fell within the terms of an agreement assigning copyright to the Performing Right Society the effect of section 2(1) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 was to vest copyright in the society as soon as the work was created, notwithstanding an agreement with those commissioning the work which purported to assign to them all rights in future works.”
WLR Daily, 16th October 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Caterpillar (NI) Ltd v John Holt & Company (Liverpool) Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1232 (17 October 2013)
Robbins v London Borough of Bexley [2013] EWHC 1233 (Civ) (17 October 2013)
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Speed, R. v [2013] EWCA Crim 1650 (07 October 2013)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Trail Riders Fellowship & Ors v Powys County Council [2013] EWHC 3144 (Admin) (17 October 2013)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Shearer & Ors v Spring Capital Ltd & Ors [2013] EWHC 3148 (Ch) (17 October 2013)
High Court (Family Division)
M-T v T [2013] EWHC 2061 (Fam) (15 October 2013)
AK and MK (Fact Finding : Physical Injuries), Re [2013] EWHC 3158 (Fam) (15 October 2013)
Source: www.bailii.org
Supreme Court
Chester, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice [2013] UKSC 63 (16 October 2013)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Beverley Winchester & Anor v Farmer [2013] EWCA Civ 1235 (16 October 2013)
B4U Network (Europe) Ltd v Performing Right Society Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1236 (16 October 2013)
West Sussex County Council v Pierce (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 1230 (16 October 2013)
JJ Food Service Ltd v Zulhayir [2013] EWCA Civ 1226 (16 October 2013)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Flogas Britain Ltd v Calor Gas Ltd [2013] EWHC 3060 (Ch) (16 October 2013)
SC Johnson & Son Inc v Hillshire Brands Company & Anor [2013] EWHC 3080 (Ch) (16 October 2013)
Maresca v Brookfield Development & Construction & Anor [2013] EWHC 3151 (Ch) (16 October 2013)
Invideous Ltd & Ors v Thorogood & Ors [2013] EWHC 3015 (Ch) (11 October 2013)
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Al Nasr CO for Coke and Chemicals v Fairdeal Supplies Ltd [2013] EWHC 3131 (Comm) (16 October 2013)
AP-Fonden v Bank of New York Mellon SA/NV & Ors [2013] EWHC 3127 (Comm) (16 October 2013)
Source: www.bailii.org
In re W (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Court’s Function) [2013] EWCA Civ 1227; [2013] WLR (D) 382
“Once a decision to institute care proceedings had been taken the court became the decision-maker until a full order was made. The local authority was required to provide the evidence to enable the judge to undertake the welfare and proportionality evaluations. That included a description of the services that were available and practicable for each placement option and each order being considered by the court. There should be no question of a local authority declining to file its evidence or proposed plans in response to the court’s evaluations. If a local authority made it clear that it would not implement a care plan option about which evidence had been given and which the judge preferred on welfare and proportionality grounds, then in a rare case it could be subjected to challenge in the High Court within the proceedings. In the unlikely event that a local authority declined to abide by a judge’s orders and directions in the future, the judge should inform the local authority’s monitoring officer to make a report to the authority with the intention that the authority was brought back into compliance.”
WLR Daily, 11th October 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Abercrombie and others v Aga Rangemaster Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1148; [2013] WLR (D) 381
“The question governing liability to make guarantee payments under section 28 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was whether the employee ‘would normally be required to work [on the day in question] in accordance with his contract of employment’. The fact that an agreement introducing changes to an employee’s working hours was temporary did not prevent the day in question remaining ‘normally’ a working day.”
WLR Daily, 11th October 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
MF (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWCA Civ 1192; [2013] WLR (D) 380
“The new immigration rules, introduced by Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules (2012) (HC 194) into Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules (1994) (HC 395), which concerned the deportation of foreign criminals and the evaluation of their article 8 rights under the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, were a complete code. Where a foreign criminal came within the provisions of paragraph 399 or 399A of HC395, as amended,, he could be entitled to leave to remain on a limited or indefinite basis on article 8 grounds, but where those paragraphs did not apply very compelling reasons, described as ‘exceptional circumstances’, would be required to outweigh the public interest in deportation.”
WLR Daily, 8th October 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Plantation Holdings (FZ) LLC v Dubai Islamic Bank PJSC [2013] EWCA Civ 1229 (15 October 2013)
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
Source: www.bailii.org
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Walker & Anor v Burton & Anor [2013] EWCA Civ 1228 (14 October 2013)
Coppage & Anor v Safety Net Security Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1176 (11 October 2013)
W (A Child) v Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council & Ors [2013] EWCA Civ 1227 (11 October 2013)
Lockwood v Department of Work and Pensions & Anor [2013] EWCA Civ 1195 (11 October 2013)
Abercrombie & Ors v AGA Rangemaster Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1148 (11 October 2013)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Karpov v Browder & Ors [2013] EWHC 3071 (QB) (14 October 2013)
Subotic v Knezevic [2013] EWHC 3011 (QB) (14 October 2013)
High Court (Chancery Division)
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Deutsche Bank AG London Branch v Petromena ASA [2013] EWHC 3065 (Comm) (14 October 2013)
BNP Paribas S.A. v Anchorage Capital Europe LLP & Ors [2013] EWHC 3073 (Comm) (11 October 2013)
Source: www.bailii.org
© Inner Temple Library 2025