Regina v Kenny: [2013] EWCA Crim 1; [2013] WLR (D) 37
“Neither authority nor principle required that the offence of perverting the course of justice was confined to acts which gave rise to some other independent criminal wrong-doing.”
WLR Daily, 30th January 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Ibrahim v Wandsworth London Borough Council: [2013] EWCA Civ 20; [2013] WLR (D) 38
“A local authority reviewer’s duty under regulation 8(2) of the Allocation of Housing and Homelessness (Review Procedures) Regulations 1999, to invite representations from the applicant where the reviewer was minded to make a decision against the interests of the applicant despite there being a deficiency in the local authority’s original decision, was not engaged where the deficiency was not the subject of any complaint by the applicant on the review and had been neither upheld nor decided upon by the reviewer.”
WLR Daily, 30th January 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Supreme Court
B (Algeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] UKSC 4 (30 January 2013)
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Dlugosz, R. v [2013] EWCA Crim 2 (30 January 2013)
Kenny v R. [2013] EWCA Crim 1 (30 January 2013)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Ibrahim v London Borough of Wandsworth [2013] EWCA Civ 20 (30 January 2013)
FHR European Ventures LLP & Ors v Mankarious & Ors [2013] EWCA Civ 17 (29 January 2013)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Isis Investments Ltd v Oscatello Investments Ltd & Ors [2013] EWHC 7 (Ch) (30 January 2013)
Ridgewood Properties Group Ltd & Ors v Valero Energy Ltd [2013] EWHC 98 (Ch) (30 January 2013)
MF Global UK Ltd, Re [2013] EWHC 92 (Ch) (29 January 2013)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Polish Judicial Authority v Wolkowicz [2013] EWHC 102 (Admin) (30 January 2013)
Cakani v Secretary of State for Home Department [2013] EWHC 16 (Admin) (31 January 2013)
High Court (Family Division)
AI v MT [2013] EWHC 100 (Fam) (30 January 2013)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
Arcadis UK Ltd v May and Baker Ltd (t/a Sanofi) [2013] EWHC 87 (TCC) (29 January 2013)
Source: www.bailii.org
“TV cameras will be allowed into the court of appeal for the first time from October and senior judges will be offered training before appearing on camera, the lord chief justice has revealed.”
The Guardian, 30th January 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“The statutory regime requiring the blanket disclosure of all convictions and cautions relating to recordable offences against an individual was disproportionate to (i) the general aim of protecting employers and, in particular, children and vulnerable adults who were in their care, and (ii) the particular aim of enabling employers to make an assessment as to whether the individual was suitable for a particular kind of work.”
WLR Daily, 29th Janaury 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
O’Cathail v Transport for London [2013] EWCA Civ 21; [2013] WLR (D) 31
“An employment tribunal’s decision to refuse a claimant’s application to adjourn a hearing could not be set aside by the Employment Appeal Tribunal unless the tribunal had erred in law.”
WLR Daily, 29th January 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The hindsight principle was not applicable to the determination of claims to client money for the purposes of a distribution under Chapter 7A of the Client Assets Sourcebook (‘CASS 7A’) issued by the Financial Services Authority in accordance with its powers under Part X of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.”
WLR Daily, 29th January 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
B (Algeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] UKSC 4; [2013] WLR (D) 29
“Where a person held by a civil court or tribunal to be in contempt of court appealed against a sentence of imprisonment imposed for the contempt and the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) found that the lower court’s factual findings had been flawed but that nevertheless, on the basis of the true facts, there had still been contempt requiring imprisonment, it could decide for itself what the appropriate sentence should be by asking whether the lower court’s sentence had been manifestly excessive, provided that the lower court’s decision had not been influenced by its flawed findings of fact.”
WLR Daily, 30th January 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Radu (Case C-396/11); [2013] WLR (D) 28
“According to the provisions 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, the executing judicial authorities of a member state could not avoid their duty pursuant to article 1(2) of the Framework Decision to execute a European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution, on the ground that the requested person had not been heard in the issuing member state before that arrest warrant was issued.”
WLR Daily, 29th January 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Supreme Court, 30th January 2013
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Singh v Yaqubi [2013] EWCA Civ 23 (29 January 2013)
London Borough of Hackney v Sivanandan & Ors [2013] EWCA Civ 22 (29 January 2013)
Transport for London v O’Cathail [2013] EWCA Civ 21 (29 January 2013)
Omnipharm Ltd v Merial [2013] EWCA Civ 10 (29 January 2013)
Grange v Quinn [2013] EWCA Civ 24 (29 January 2013)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Barnett & Ors v Nigel Hall Menswear Ltd [2013] EWHC 91 (QB) (29 January 2013)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Hotel Cipriani Srl & Ors v Fred 250 Ltd & Ors (Rev 1) [2013] EWHC 70 (Ch) (29 January 2013)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Source: www.bailii.org
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Coull, R. v [2012] EWCA Crim 2893 (12 December 2012)
Friel, R. v [2012] EWCA Crim 2871 (11 December 2012)
Mba, R. v [2012] EWCA Crim 2773 (04 December 2012)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Khalil v Barakat & Anor [2013] EWHC 85 (QB) (28 January 2013)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Fitzwilliam v Richall Holdings Services Ltd [2013] EWHC 86 (Ch) (28 January 2013)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Gregory v Welsh Ministers & Ors [2013] EWHC 63 (Admin) (25 January 2013)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Source: www.bailii.org
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
West London Mental Health NHS Trust v Chhabra [2013] EWCA Civ 11 (25 January 2013)
Henry v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 19 (28 January 2013)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Saleh v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWHC 61 (Admin) (25 January 2013)
TWS, R (on the application of) v Manchester City Council [2013] EWHC 55 (Admin) (25 January 2013)
High Court (Chancery Division)
RVB Investments Ltd v Bibby [2013] EWHC 65 (Ch) (25 January 2013)
SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd [2013] EWHC 69 (Ch) (25 January 2013)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Ambrosiadou v Coward [2013] EWHC 58 (QB) (25 January 2013)
Wall v Mutuelle De Poitiers Assurances [2013] EWHC 53 (QB) (25 January 2013)
High Court (Family Division)
Cambra v Jones & Ors [2013] EWHC 88 (Fam) (25 January 2013)
BP v KP and NI (Financial Remedy Proceedings: Res Judicata) [2012] EWHC 2995 (Fam) (26 October 2012)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Navig8 PTE Limited v Al -Riyadh Co [2012] EWHC 3925 (Comm) (17 December 2012)
Source: www.bailii.org
Snelling and another v Burstow Parish Council [2013] EWHC 46 (Ch); [2013] WLR (D) 27
Garden allotments which came under the management of the parish council by virtue of section 33(4) of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act 1908 were intended to be governed exclusively by the powers set out in section 26 and onwards of that Act. Accordingly, the parish council’s power to sell the allotments was the power conferred by section 32 of the 1908 Act, subject to obtaining the consent of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government pursuant to section 8 of the Allotments Act 1925, and not the power under section 27 of the Commons Act 1876.
WLR Daily, 24th January 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Hamilton v Hamilton [2013] EWCA Civ 13; [2013] WLR (D) 26
“An order in ancillary relief proceedings for the payment of a series of lump sums over time was not necessarily an order for a lump sum by instalments, within section 23(3)(c) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, and therefore variable under section 31 of the 1973 Act.”
WLR Daily, 24th January 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Milton Keynes Borough Council v Nulty, decd and others [2013] EWCA Civ 15; [2013] WLR (D) 25
“There was no rule of law that if the only other possible causes of an event were very much less likely than one suggested means of causation, that became the probable cause; the court had to be satisfied on rational and objective grounds that the case for believing that the suggested means of causation occurred was stronger than the case for not so believing.”
WLR Daily, 24th January 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Nulty & Ors v Milton Keynes Borough Council [2013] EWCA Civ 15 (24 January 2013)
Sims v Dacorum Borough Council [2013] EWCA Civ 12 (24 January 2013)
Hamilton v Hamilton [2013] EWCA Civ 13 (24 January 2013)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Snelling & Anor v Burstow Parish Council [2013] EWHC 46 (Ch) (24 January 2013)
High Court (Commercial Court)
High Court (Family Division)
Young v Young [2013] EWHC 34 (Fam) (16
January 2013)
High Court (Patents Court)
IPCom GmbH & Co Kg v HTC
Europe Co Ltd & Ors [2013] EWHC 52 (Pat) (24 January 2013)
Source: www.bailii.org.uk
“The holders of dematerialised shares in a public company were not entitled to the same protection under section 98 of the Companies Act 2006 as registered minority shareholders.”
WLR Daily, 23rd January 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Kenya Aid Programme v Sheffield City Council: [2013] EWHC 54 (Admin); [2013] WLR (D) 23
“In determining whether a charity was entitled to mandatory charitable relief from non-domestic rates because the premises were ‘wholly or mainly used for charitable purposes’, the question was whether the use which the charity made of the premises was directly to facilitate the carrying out of its main charitable purposes.”
WLR Daily, 22nd January 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v Evans (Fabian): [2013] WLR (D) 22
“Migrants of Jamaican origin who had returned to Jamaica after having been resident in the USA, Canada or the United Kingdom, or persons who had been removed or deported back to Jamaica from those countries, did not constitute a ‘particular social group’ for the purposes of article 1A(2) of the Convention and Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees.”
WLR Daily, 23rd January 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025