BAILII: Recent Decisions
High Court (Administrative Court)
Powierza v District Court, Warszawa, Poland [2013] EWHC 36 (Admin) (17 January 2013)
Source: www.bailii.org
Category: law reports
Patel v General Medical Council – WLR Daily
Patel v General Medical Council: [2012] EWHC 3688 (Admin); [2013] WLR (D) 12
“When considering an application under section 41(A) of the Medical Act 1983 to terminate an 18 months’ suspension order imposed by an Interim Orders Panel, the court was required to give the panel’s decision such weight as in the circumstances of the case it thought fit but was entitled to examine the panel’s reasons with some rigour.”
WLR Daily, 20th December 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Swift (trading as A Swift Move) v Robertson – WLR Daily
Swift (trading as A Swift Move) v Robertson: [2012] EWCA Civ 1794; [2013] WLR (D) 11
“Where a contract between a consumer and a trader for the supply of goods or services was made during a visit to the consumer’s home the Cancellation of Contracts made in a Consumer’s Home or Place of Work etc Regulations 2008 applied, irrespective of whether there had been earlier negotiations between the parties at the consumer’s home.”
WLR Daily, 15th January 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
BAILII: Recent Decisions
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Linuzs & Ors v Latmar Holdings Corporation [2013] EWCA Civ 4 (17 January 2013)
Kennaugh v Jones (t/a Cheshire Tree Surgeons) [2013] EWCA Civ 1 (16 January 2013)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Cummings & Ors v The Ministry of Justice [2013] EWHC 33 (QB) (17 January 2013)
AKJ & Ors v Commissioner of Police for the Metroplis & Ors [2013] EWHC 32 (QB) (17 January 2013)
One World (GB) Ltd v Elite Mobile Ltd. [2012] EWHC 3706 (QB) (19 December 2012)
Gatt v Barclays Bank Plc & Anor [2013] EWHC 2 (QB) (14 January 2013)
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Sarjeant & Ors v Rigid Group Ltd [2012] EWHC 3757 (Ch) (20 December 2012)
Paynter & Anor v Hinch [2013] EWHC 13 (Ch) (17 January 2013)
Rocknroll v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2013] EWHC 24 (Ch) (17 January 2013)
Sycamore Bidco Ltd v Breslin & Anor [2013] EWHC 38 (Ch) (17 January 2013)
National Union of Mineworkers v Scargill [2012] EWHC 3750 (Ch) (21 December 2012)
HFI Farnborough LLP & Ors v Park Garage Group Plc [2013] EWHC 6 (Ch) (11 January 2013)
Ellison v Cleghorn [2013] EWHC 5 (Ch) (14 January 2013)
High Court (Family Division)
Young v Young [2013] EWHC 34 (Fam) (16 January 2013)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
Mears Ltd v Shoreline Housing Partnership Ltd [2013] EWHC 27 (TCC) (17 January 2013)
Sear v Kingfisher Builders (a firm) (No 3) [2013] EWHC 21 (TCC) (15 January 2013)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Source: www.bailii.org
Regina v Nelson (Gary) – WLR Daily
Regina v Nelson (Gary) [2013] WLR (D) 10
“An allegation of assault by beating did not amount to or include, whether expressly or by implication, an allegation of common assault. It would not, therefore, be open to a jury to acquit a defendant of assault by beating but to convict him of common assault, unless the offence of common assault was charged as a separate count in the indictment.”
WLR Daily, 15th January 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
BAILII: Recent Decisions
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
BAILII: Recent Decisions
High Court (Administrative Court)
Shadwell Estates Ltd v Breckland District Council & Anor [2013] EWHC 12 (Admin) (11 January 2013)
High Court (Family Division)
Bristol City Council v C & Ors [2012] EWHC 3748 (Fam) (21 December 2012)
Source: www.bailii.org
BAILII: Recent Decisions
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
B ( A Child), Re [2012] EWCA Civ 1742 (21 December 2012)
Ryder Plc v Beever [2012] EWCA Civ 1737 (21st December 2012)
Daniel v Revenue and Customs [2012] EWCA Civ 1741 (21 December 2012)
Stringfellow Restaurants Ltd v Quashie [2012] EWCA Civ 1735 (21 December 2012)
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Mehta v R. [2012] EWCA Crim 2824 (31 December 2012)
Faraz v R. [2012] EWCA Crim 2820 (21 December 2012)
Griffiths & Ors v R. [2012] EWCA Crim 2822 (21 December 2012)
Murray & Ors, R v [2012] EWCA Crim 2823 (21 December 2012)
Caley & Ors (Guilty Pleas) v R. [2012] EWCA Crim 2821 (21 December 2012)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Van Der Pijl & Anor v The Crown Court At Kingston [2012] EWHC 3745 (Admin) (21 December 2012)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Konica Minolta Business Solutions (UK) v Applegate & Ors [2012] EWHC 3741 (Ch) (21 December 2012)
Thursfield v Thursfield [2012] EWHC 3742 (Ch) (21 December 2012)
Phillips & Ors v Francis & Anor [2012] EWHC 3650 (Ch) (21 December 2012)
Ardagh Group SA v Pillar Property Group Ltd [2012] EWHC 3649 (Ch) (21 December 2012)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Barclays Bank Plc v Unicredit Bank AG & Anor [2012] EWHC 3655 (Comm) (21 December 2012)
Falkonera Shipping Co v Arcadia Energy Pte Ltd [2012] EWHC 3678 (Comm) (20 December 2012)
High Court (Family Division)
Bhura v Bhura [2012] EWHC 3633 (Fam)
(17 December 2012)
High Court (Patents Court)
Microsoft Corp v Motorola Mobility LLC [2012] EWHC 3677 (Pat) (21 December 2012)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Miller v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2012] EWHC 3721 (QB) (21 December 2012)
FCL (London) Ltd v Voice [2012] EWHC 3684 (QB) (21 December 2012)
Raggett v The Governors of Preston Catholic College [2012] EWHC 3641 (QB) (21 December 2012)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
Webb Resolutions Ltd v E.Surv Ltd [2012] EWHC 3653 (TCC) (20 December 2012)
Blemain Finance Ltd v E.Surv Ltd [2012] EWHC 3654 (TCC) (20 December 2012)
Source: www.bailii.org
Konica Minolta Business Solutions (UK) Ltd v Applegate – WLR Daily
Konica Minolta Business Solutions (UK) Ltd v Applegate: [2012] EWHC 3741 (Ch); [2013] WLR (D) 9
“When applying uniform accrual to ‘so much of any benefit’ by virtue of section 74(3) of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 one was being directed not merely to what one might call the top slice, the benefit which actually accrued at the higher rate, but that element of a benefit package which was the subject of the higher rate. In section 74(3) the ‘benefit’ referred to was the composite of the various benefits which made up long service benefit and if the exception applied it did with regard to the entirety of such a component.”
WLR Daily, 21st December 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Dr Reddy’s Laboratories (UK) Ltd v Warner-Lambert Company LLC – WLR Daily
“Article 16(1) of Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 gave a discretion to the national body (in the United Kingdom, the court) to revoke an extension to a supplementary protection certificate on the basis set out therein, but not an obligation to do so. The fact that the results of a particular study would not be available by the completion date of a paediatric investigation plan made pursuant to Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 did not render the plan unlawful and did not deprive the applicant of its right to the ‘reward’ of a paediatric extension under article 36 of that Regulation. article 45(3) of Regulation (EC) 1901/2006 was not of general application and did not apply when all the studies included in a paediatric investigation plan were initiated after that Regulation came into force.”
WLR Daily, 20th December 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Phillips and another v Francis and another – WLR Daily
Phillips and another v Francis and another: [2012] EWHC 3650 (Ch); [2013] WLR (D) 7
“On the true construction of the meaning and effect of the scheme relating to service charges imposed by sections 20 and 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, as amended by the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, section 151 identification of one or more sets of qualifying works was not required. The emphasis in the current legislation had shifted from identifying and costing the works before they started to notifying an intention to carry out the works and limiting the amount of the individual contributions sought to pay for them after their completion.”
WLR Daily 21st December 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Industry-Wide Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme Co-ordinator Ltd v Industry-Wide Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme Trustees Ltd – WLR Daily
“For the purposes of paragraph 3(7)(c) of schedule 5 to the Coal Industry Act 1994 the requirement that the rules of a new pension scheme be ‘no less advantageous’ than the previous scheme was not the same as a requirement that the rules of the new scheme be the same as the rules of the pre-existing scheme. The omission of a pro-rating provision from draft rule 33 of the Schedule to the Industry-Wide Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/2973) was not a mistake in drafting and the rule fell to be construed in accordance with its express terms.”
WLR Daily, 20th December 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
WH Newson Holding Ltd and others v IMI plc and others – WLR Daily
WH Newson Holding Ltd and others v IMI plc and others: [2012] EWHC 3680 (Ch); [2013] WLR (D) 5
“There was nothing to suggest that section 47A of the Competition Act 1998 was limited to the particular cause of action of a claim for breach of statutory duty. A claim brought under section 47A had to be in respect of the loss or damage suffered as a result of the infringement of competition law. The section would not generally permit claims to be brought in the Competition Appeal Tribunal for conduct that was distinct from the infringement, even when the infringement was an element that had to be established to complete the cause of action. The determining criterion was the factual nature of the claim, not the cause of action with which it was clothed.”
WLR Daily, 19th December 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
BAILII: Recent Decisions
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Nightingale, R. v [2012] EWCA Crim 2734 (29 November 2012)
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Boxing Brands Ltd v Sports Direct International Plc & Ors [2012] EWHC 3588 (Ch) (10 December 2012)
Source: www.bailii.org
Regina v Sadighpour – WLR Daily
Regina v Sadighpour [2012] EWCA Crim 2669; [2013] WLR (D) 4
“Section 31(7) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 did not reiterate a requirement to satisfy an evidential burden, initially imposed by section 31(1) on a defendant in relation to refugee status, even when the Secretary of State had refused an asylum claim, and was apt to cover a situation where there had already been due consideration of the defendant’s claim to refugee status on the merits.”
WLR Daily, 11th December 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina (Hodkin and another) v Registrar General of Births, Deaths and Marriages – WLR Daily
“A Scientologist chapel was not a place of meeting for religious worship for the purposes of section 2 of the Places of Worship Registration Act 1855.”
WLR Daily, 19th December 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Hackney Empire Ltd v Aviva Insurance Ltd – WLR Daily
Hackney Empire Ltd v Aviva Insurance Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1716; [2013] WLR (D) 2
“The rule in Holme v Brunskill (1878) 3 QBD 495, permitting the discharge of a surety’s liability under a guarantee, only applied where the parties to the principal contract guaranteed had varied the terms of that contract without the surety’s consent.”
WLR Daily, 19th December 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v Faraz – WLR Daily
Regina v Faraz [2012] EWCA Crim 2820; [2013] WLR (D) 1
“Where a defendant was charged with disseminating terrorist publications via a bookshop and associated website which he managed, evidence that named terrorist offenders had possessed similar material was only admissible, if at all, for the very limited purpose of demonstrating that among the readership of the bookshop and website’s publications were people who were prepared to commit terrorist acts. But if the evidence was admitted for that purpose, it was relevant only to the question whether such people were likely to regard the contents of the publication as encouragement to commit terrorist acts. It was not admissible in proof of the fact that people had been so encouraged. It was essential that the judge direct the jury as to the limitations and pitfalls of such evidence.”
WLR Daily, 21st December 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Golden Eye (International) Ltd and others v Telefόnica UK Ltd (Open Rights Group, intervening) – WLR Daily
“Where a court had found that arrangements entered into by copyright owners with a claimant copyright owner to sue intended defendants in its own name and on behalf of the other owners for alleged breach of copyright were not champertous and that it was proportionate to make an order for disclosure to enable the other owners to have their infringement claims brought, since their interests in enforcing their copyrights outweighed the interests of intended defendants in protecting their privacy and data protection rights, there was no justification for the court to grant relief to the claimant alone and not the other owners without identifying some factor as affecting the balance of the competing interests identified.”
WLR Daily, 21st December 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Royds LLP v Pine – WLR Daily
Royds LLP v Pine [2012] EWCA Civ 1734; [2012] WLR (D) 395
“Where a litigant was entitled to a hearing of a renewed application for permission to appeal to the High Court but for good reason was unable to attend court, listing the application for consideration on the papers before another judge was a proper course to take. In an appropriate case the court had power to dispense with an oral hearing and to determine the matter on the papers, or to proceed with an oral hearing and give judgment in the applicant’s absence.”
WLR Daily, 19th December 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
