Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant) v Al-Jedda (Respondent) – Supreme Court
Supreme Court, 9th October 2013
Category: law reports
Osborn (FC) (Appellant) v The Parole Board (Respondent); Booth (FC) (Appellant) v The Parole Board (Respondent); In the matter of an application of James Clyde Reilly for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland) – Supreme Court
Supreme Court, 9th October 2013
KNN Colburn LLP v GD City Holdings Ltd – WLR Daily
KNN Colburn LLP v GD City Holdings Ltd [2013] EWHC 2879 (QB); [2013] WLR (D) 369
“A referral notice that was not accompanied by copies of relevant extracts from the contract and other such documents on which the referring party intended to rely was sufficient to start time running for the purposes of the time limit set out in paragraph 19(1) of the Scheme for Construction Contracts set out in the Schedule to the Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Regulations 1998.”
WLR Daily, 2nd October 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Genesis Housing Association Ltd v Liberty Syndicate Management Ltd for and on behalf of Liberty Syndicate 4472 at Lloyd’s – WLR Daily
“The inadvertent naming of the wrong builder in a proposal form for insurance against latent defects including cover for the insolvency of the builder during the construction of social housing units, constituted a breach of warranty entitling the insurers to avoid the policy.”
WLR Daily, 4th October 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
BAILII: Recent Decisions
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Criminal Practice Directions [2013] EWCA Crim 1631 (03 October 2013)
Practice Direction on Costs in Criminal Proceedings [2013] EWCA Crim 1632 (03 October 2013)
Speed, R. v [2013] EWCA Crim 1650 (07 October 2013)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Gelley & Ors v Shepherd & Anor [2013] EWCA Civ 1172 (07 October 2013)
M (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1170 (04 October 2013)
Société Des Produits Nestlé S.A. v Cadbury UK Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1174 (04 October 2013)
JW Spear & Son Ltd & Ors v Zynga Inc [2013] EWCA Civ 1175 (04 October 2013)
Ford v Malaysian Airline Systems Berhad [2013] EWCA Civ 1163 (27 September 2013)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
T & Ors, R (on the application of) v Sheffield City Council [2013] EWHC 2953 (QB) (04 October 2013)
Matthews v Collins (t/a Herbert Collins & Sons) & Ors [2013] EWHC 2952 (QB) (04 October 2013)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Conductive Inkjet Technology Ltd v Uni -Pixel Displays Inc [2013] EWHC 2968 (Ch) (07 October 2013)
High Court (Family Division)
Button v Salama [2013] EWHC 2972 (Fam) (27 September 2013)
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
Covanta Energy Ltd v Merseyside Waste Disposal Authority [2013] EWHC 2922 (TCC) (26 September 2013)
Willis v MRJ Rundell & Associates Ltd & Anor [2013] EWHC 2923 (TCC) (25 September 2013)
Pioneer Cladding Ltd v John Graham Construction Ltd [2013] EWHC 2954 (TCC) (04 October 2013)
CSG (Stratford) Ltd & Ors v London Borough Of Newham & Ors [2013] EWHC 2868 (TCC) (02 October 2013)
High Court (Commercial Court)
High Court (Patents Court)
Lonsdale Sports Ltd v Erol [2013] EWHC 2956 (Pat) (04 October 2013)
Source: www.bailii.org
Pinckney v KDG Mediatech AG – WLR Daily
Pinckney v KDG Mediatech AG (Case C-170/12); [2013] WLR (D) 367
“In the event of alleged infringement of copyrights protected by the member state of the court seised, the latter had jurisdiction to hear an action to establish liability brought by the author of a work against a company established in another member state and which had, in the latter state, reproduced that work on a material support which was subsequently sold by companies established in a third member state through an Internet site also accessible with the jurisdiction of the court seised. That court had jurisdiction only to determine the damage caused in the member state within which it was situated.”
WLR Daily, 3rd October 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Proceedings brought by Schneider – WLR Daily
Proceedings brought by Schneider (Case C-386/12); [2013] WLR (D) 366
“Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, and, in particular article 22(1) thereof in relation to jurisdiction in proceedings concerning rights in rem in immoveable property, did not apply to non-contentious proceedings by which a national of a member state who had been declared to be lacking full capacity and placed under guardianship in that member state had applied to a court in another member state for authorisation to sell his share of a property situated in that other member state.”
WLR Daily, 3rd October 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Polyelectrolyte Producers Group GEIE (PPG) and another v European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), Kingdom of Netherlands and another, intervening – WLR Daily
“Where the period of time allowed for commencing proceedings against a measure adopted by an European Union institution ran from the publication of that measure, the provisions of rule 102(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court whereby that period was to be calculated from the end of the 14th day after publication in the Official Journal of the European Union, applied to any published measure irrespective of the means of publication.”
WLR Daily, 26th September 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
French Republic v Commission of the European Union – WLR Daily
French Republic v Commission of the European Union (Case C-115/12P); [2013] WLR (D) 364
“The calculation of whether a member state had ‘subsided directly’ by more than 50% a works contract awarded by an entity other than themselves within the meaning of article 2(1) of Council Directive 93/37/EEC which triggered the public procurement procedures under that Directive, included sums arising from tax reductions to the members of commercial partnerships, who were natural persons, investing in a works contract.”
WLR Daily, 26th September 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
The Dow Chemical Co v Commission of the European Union – WLR Daily
The Dow Chemical Co v Commission of the European Union (Case C-179/12P); [2013] WLR (D) 363
“For the purposes of establishing liability for participation in an infringement of article 101FEU of the FEU Treaty, where two parent companies each had a 50% shareholding in a joint venture company which had committed an infringement, and only in so far as the commission had demonstrated that both parent companies did in fact exercise decisive influence over the joint venture, those three entities could be considered to form a single economic unit and therefore form a single undertaking for the purposes of article 101FEU.”
WLR Daily, 26th September 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
BAILII: Recent Decisions
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
RD, R. v [2013] EWCA Crim 1592 (10 September 2013)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
KNN Colburn LLP v GD City Holdings Ltd [2013] EWHC 2879 (QB) (02 October 2013)
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Family Division)
H (Father) v B (Mother) [2013] EWHC 2950 (Fam) (23 September 2013)
Source: www.bailii.org
BAILII: Recent Decisions
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Dhall v R [2013] EWCA Crim 1610 (27 September 2013)
Farooqi & Ors, R. v [2013] EWCA Crim 1649 (30 September 2013)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Smailes & Anor v McNally & Ors [2013] EWHC 2882 (Ch) (27 September 2013)
Ipcom GmbH & Co Kg v HTC Europe Co Ltd & Ors [2013] EWHC 2880 (Ch) (26 September 2013)
Nomura International Plc, Re [2013] EWHC 2789 (Ch) (06 September 2013)
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Patents Court)
Nestec S.A. & Ors v Dualit Ltd & Ors [2013] EWHC 2737 (Pat) (05 September 2013)
Source: www.bailii.org
Salzgitter Mannesmann Handel GmbH v SC Laminorul SA – WLR Daily
Salzgitter Mannesmann Handel GmbH v SC Laminorul SA (Case C-157/12); [2013] WLR (D) 362
“Article 34(4) 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 (OJ 2001 L12, p 1) was of no application to irreconcilable judgments given by courts of the same member states.”
WLR Daily, 26th September 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Binns and another v Firstplus Financial Group plc – WLR Daily
Binns and another v Firstplus Financial Group plc [2013] EWHC 2436 (QB); [2013] WLR (D) 361
“Where a claimant had obtained an award pursuant to alternative dispute resolution (‘ADR’) and subsequently brought a civil claim where the only potential advantage in bringing that litigation was the possibility of an additional award in respect of legal costs, the claim was to be struck out under CPR r 3.4(2).”
WLR Daily, 24th July 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Dansk Jurist-og Økonomforbund (acting on behalf of Toftgaard) v Indenrigs-og Sundhedsministeriet (Centralorganisationernes Fællesudvalg and others intervening) – WLR Daily
“Article 6(2) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment applied only to retirement or invalidity benefits under an occupational social security scheme.”
WLR Daily, 26th September 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
HK Danmark (acting on behalf of Kristensen) v Experian A/S (Beskæftigelsesministeriet intervening) – WLR Daily
“The principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age, enshrined in article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and given specific expression by Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, and, in particular, articles 2 and 6(1) of that Directive, did not preclude an occupational pension scheme under which an employer paid, as part of pay, pension contributions which increased with age, provided that the difference in treatment on grounds of age that arose therefrom was appropriate and necessary to achieve a legitimate aim.”
WLR Daily, 26th September 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Proceedings concerning Texdata Software GmbH – WLR Daily
Proceedings concerning Texdata Software GmbH (Case C-418/11); [2013] WLR (D) 358
“National legislation prescribing the immediate imposition of a periodic penalty upon a branch of a capital company governed by the laws of another member state in consequence of the failure of that branch, within the statutory nine-month period, to disclose to the authorities of the member state concerned the documents and particulars required by articles 1 and 2 of the Eleventh Council Directive 89/666/EEC of 21 December 1989 concerning disclosure requirements in respect of branches opened in a member state by certain types of company governed by the law of another member state (OJ 1989 L395, p 36) without prior notice and without the company first having been given an opportunity to state its views on the alleged breach was not precluded by European law, provided that the domestic courts were satisfied that the system of penalties was effective, proportionate and dissuasive.”
WLR Daily, 26th September 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
United Kingdom v Council of the European Union – WLR Daily
United Kingdom v Council of the European Union (Case C-431/11); [2013] WLR (D) 357
“By adopting Council Decision 2011/407/EU, on the position to be taken by the European Union within the EEA Joint Committee concerning an amendment to Annex VI (social security) and Protocol 37 to the EEA Agreement, the Council of the European Union had ensured that free movement of persons was exercisable within the EEA under the same social conditions as within the Union, thereby supporting the development of the association established by the EEA Agreement between the European Union and the EFTA states and the realisation of the objectives pursued by the Agreement.”
WLR Daily, 26th September 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
