VFS Financial Services Ltd v JF Plant Tyres Ltd: [2013] EWHC 346 (QB); [2013] WLR (D) 91
“A ‘disposition’ of goods for the purposes of section 29(1) of the Hire-Purchase Act 1964 was limited to a transaction where the goods had been transferred for money.”
WLR Daily, 26th February 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Goodman v Faber Prest Steel [2013] EWCA Civ 153 (05 March 2013)
Tesla Motors Ltd & Anor v British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) [2013] EWCA Civ 152 (05 March 2013)
Iqbal v Dean Manson Solicitors & Ors (No 2) [2013] EWCA Civ 149 (05 March 2013)
Petroleo Brasileiro SA (Petrobras) v Petromec Inc [2013] EWCA Civ 150 (05 March 2013)
Chilab v King’s College London [2013] EWCA Civ 147 (28 February 2013)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Garwood v Bank of Scotland Plc [2012] EWHC 415 (Ch) (04 March 2013)
Stichting BDO & Ors v BDO Unibank, Inc & Ors [2013] EWHC 418 (Ch) (04 March 2013)
High Court (Family Division)
GB v RNB [2013] EWHC 414 (Fam) (27 February 2013)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Al Sulaiman v Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) Ltd & Anor [2013] EWHC 400 (Comm) (01 March 2013)
Source: www.bailii.org
“There was no general rule that the Financial Services Authority acting pursuant to a public duty should be required to give to the court a cross-undertaking in damages in favour of third parties affected by the obtaining of a freezing injunction under section 380(3) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and/or section 37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981.”
WLR Daily, 27th February 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Hunt v Hosking and ors [2013] EWHC 311 (Ch); [2013] WLR (D) 89
“When bringing an application under section 238 of the Insolvency Act 1986 there needed to be a transaction to which the company was a party and that involved mutuality. It did not extend to unilateral actions taken by somebody who had acted without authority.”
WLR Daily, 22nd February 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Aladeselu & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWCA Civ 144 (01 March 2013)
Aintree University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v James & Ors [2013] EWCA Civ 65 (01 March 2013)
Perry v The Nursing and Midwifery Council [2013] EWCA Civ 145 (28 February 2013)
Waterson v Lloyd MP & Anor [2013] EWCA Civ 136 (28 February 2013)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
VFS Financial Services Ltd v JF Plant Tyres Ltd [2013] EWHC 346 (QB) (26 February 2013)
Boyle v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2013] EWHC 395 (QB) (28 February 2013)
Furnell v Flaherty (t/a Godstone Farm) [2013] EWHC 377 (QB) (27 February 2013)
High Court (Chancery Division)
89 Holland Park (Management) Ltd & Ors v Hicks [2013] EWHC 391 (Ch) (27 February 2013)
EMI Records Ltd & Ors v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd & Ors [2013] EWHC 379 (Ch) (28 February 2013)
High Court (Administrative Court)
EAT, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Newham [2013] EWHC 344 (Admin) (28 February 2013)
Caetano v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2013] EWHC 375 (Admin) (28 February 2013)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
Westfields Construction Ltd v Lewis [2013] EWHC 376 (TCC) (27 February 2013)
Geophysical Service Centre Co v Dowell Schlumberger (ME) Inc [2013] EWHC 147 (TCC) (18 January 2013)
Berry Piling Systems Ltd v Sheer Projects Ltd [2013] EWHC 347 (TCC) (28 February 2013)
Source: www.bailii.org
Perry v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2013] EWCA Civ 145; [2013] WLR (D) 88
“Fairness did not require that a respondent to an allegation of unfitness to practise his profession had to be given an opportunity to give evidence as to the substance of that allegation before a tribunal considering whether to make an interim suspension order or other interim order under a legislative scheme, such as that contained in the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001, since that was not what the statutory scheme envisaged or what fairness required at the interim stage. Guidance was given as to the procedure to be followed by a committee, considering whether to make an interim order pending the substantive hearing of a complaint against a member of the profession, in order to satisfy the fairness requirement.”
WLR Daily, 28th February 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Kenny v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Case C-427/11); [2013] WLR (D) 87
“In the light of article 141 EC and Council Directive 75/117/EEC (relating to the application of the principle of equal pay for men and women meant, in relation to indirect pay discrimination), it was for the employer to establish objective justification for the difference in pay between workers who considered that they had been indirectly discriminated against and the comparators. The employer’s justification for the difference in pay had to relate to the comparators. The interests of good industrial relations might be taken into consideration by the national court as one factor among others in its assessment of whether differences between the pay of two groups of workers were due to objective factors unrelated to any discrimination on grounds of sex and are compatible with the principle of proportionality.”
WLR Daily, 28th February 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The act of communication to the public for the purposes of article 3(1) of Parliament and Council Directive 2001/29/EC and section 20 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 occurred both where the communication originated and where it was received.”
WLR Daily, 28th February 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The decision of a court in another member state of the European Economic Area in relation to the insolvency of a credit institution in that state had effect in the United Kingdom in relation to any of that institution’s branches in the United Kingdom as if it were part of the general insolvency law of the United Kingdom. However the decision of that court did not have any effect on proceedings in an United Kingdom court dealing with the insolvency of an United Kingdom credit institution so that all the defences available under United Kingdom insolvency law could be invoked.”
WLR Daily, 27th February 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The court had no power to make an order requiring the disclosure of evidence to be used in overseas criminal proceedings except pursuant to the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003.”
WLR Daily, 27th February 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Supreme Court
The Financial Services Authority (FSA) v Sinaloa Gold plc & Ors [2013] UKSC 11 (27 February 2013)
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Clarke & Anor, R v [2013] EWCA Crim 162 (26 February 2013)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Davies v Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council [2013] EWCA Civ 135 (26 February 2013)
Attwood & Ors v Maidment [2013] EWCA Civ 119 (26 February 2013)
Thomas v Curley [2013] EWCA Civ 117 (26 February 2013)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Uren v Corporate Leisure (UK) Ltd & Anor [2013] EWHC 353 (QB) (26 February 2013)
High Court (Chancery Division)
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Novasen SA v Alimenta SA [2013] EWHC 345 (Comm) (27 February 2013)
Source: www.bailii.org
Melloni v Ministerio Fiscal (Case C-399/11); [2013] WLR (D) 83
“Article 4a(1) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between member states (as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009) precluded the executing judicial authorities, in the circumstances specified in that provision, from making the execution of a European arrest warrant, issued for the purposes of executing a sentence, conditional upon the conviction rendered in absentia being open to review in the issuing member state. Article 4a(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584 was compatible with the requirements under articles 47 and 48(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Article 53 of the Charter did not allow a member state to make the surrender of a person convicted in absentia conditional upon the conviction being open to review in the issuing member state, in order to avoid an adverse effect on the right to a fair trial and the rights of the defence guaranteed by its constitution.”
WLR Daily, 26th February 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“English common law recognised multiple derivative actions before the coming into force of the Companies Act 2006 and they had survived the coming into force of that Act.”
WLR Daily, 26th February 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Supreme Court, 27th February 2013
Supreme Court, 27th February 2013
“When carrying out the hypothetical valuation of a property with development potential, pursuant to paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 to the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, the Upper Tribunal ought to have decided the legal position in respect of the legal rights and liabilities arising under various leases, rather than allow for uncertainty on those legal points, insofar as leaving them undetermined, by a discount for the risk.”
WLR Daily, 20th February 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
KL, R. v [2013] EWCA Crim 98 (22 January 2013)
Ahmed, R. v [2012] EWCA Crim 99 (24 January 2013)
Rabheru, R. v [2013] EWCA Crim 137 (25 January 2013)
Evans, R. v [2013] EWCA Crim 125 (23 January 2013)
Pouladian-Kari v R [2013] EWCA Crim 158 (22 February 2013)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
IG Index Ltd v Ehrentreu [2013] EWCA Civ 95 (22 February 2013)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Chemistree Homecare Ltd v Abbvie Ltd [2013] EWHC 264 (Ch) (11 February 2013)
Hunt v Hosking & Ors [2013] EWHC 311 (Ch) (22 February 2013)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
New Forest District Council v Owen & Ors [2013] EWHC 265 (QB) (22 February 2013)
High Court (Family Division)
TC and JC (Children: Relocation) [2013] EWHC 292 (Fam) (21 February 2013)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Navig8 PTE Ltd v Al-Riyadh Co for Vegetable Oil Industry [2013] EWHC 328 (Comm) (22 February 2013)
Source: www.bailii.org
“Article 48FEU of the FEU Treaty and articles 3, 46(2)(a) and 47(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (as amended), precluded legislation of a member state under which the theoretical amount of the retirement pension of a self-employed worker, migrant or non-migrant, was invariably calculated on contribution bases paid by that worker over a fixed reference period preceding the payment of his last contribution in that member state, to which a fixed divisor was applied, when it was impossible for either the duration of that period or the divisor to be adapted so as to take account of the fact that the worker concerned had exercised his right to freedom of movement.”
WLR Daily, 21st February 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v Asmelash [2013] EWCA Crim 157; [2013] WLR (D) 79
“There was nothing in the new statutory provisions relating to the partial defence to murder of loss of self control to suggest that Parliament intended that the normal rules which applied to voluntary intoxication should not apply. That did not mean that a defendant who had been drinking was deprived of the loss of control defence, it just meant that the defence had to be approached without reference to the defendant’s voluntary intoxication.”
WLR Daily, 22nd February 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025