Geys v Société Générale, London Branch [2012] UKSC 63; [2012] WLR (D) 394
“An immediate and express repudiation of a contract of employment only terminated the contract if and when the other party elected to accept the repudiation.”
WLR Daily, 19th December 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“When considering whether the Secretary of State’s decision to deport an EU national convicted of a serious crime who had resided in the United Kingdom for ten years was proportionate the First-tier Tribunal should consider both the domestic and the European dimension.”
WLR Daily, 21st December 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Section 72(1)(c) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, as amended, which provided, inter alia, that the showing or playing in public of a broadcast to an audience who had not paid for admission to the place where the broadcast was to be seen or heard did not infringe any copyright in any film included in it, provided a defence to the act of communicating a film included in a broadcast to the public, which would otherwise be an act restricted by copyright under section 20 of the Act.”
WLR Daily, 20th December 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Dalmare SpA v Union Maritime Ltd and another [2012] EWHC 3537 (Comm); [2012] WLR (D) 391
“Section 14(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 implied a term into a memorandum of agreement for the sale of a vessel sold ‘as she was’ that the goods would be of satisfactory quality.”
WLR Daily, 13th December 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“On its proper interpretation, article 12(1)(a) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise needed international protection, and the content of the protection granted, the cessation of protection or assistance from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than the High Commission for Refugees ‘for any reason’ included the situation in which a person who, after actually availing himself of such protection or assistance, had ceased to receive it for a reason beyond his control and independent of his volition. Where the competent authorities of the member state responsible for examining the application for asylum established that the condition relating to the cessation of the protection or assistance provided by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) was satisfied, the fact that that person was ipso facto ‘entitled to the benefits of [the] Directive’ meant that that member state must recognise him as a refugee within the meaning of article 2(c) of the Directive and that person must automatically be granted refugee status, provided always that he was not caught by article 12(1)(b) or (2) and (3) of the Directive.”
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Sayers v Lord Chelwood and another: [2012] EWCA Civ 1715; [2012] WLR (D) 389
“The burden on a claimant who wished the court to exercise its discretion under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 to override the time limit for bringing an action in respect of personal injuries was not necessarily a heavy one. How difficult or easy it would be for the claimant to discharge the burden would depend on the facts of the particular case.”
WLR Daily, 19th December 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Leno Merken BV v Hageldruis Beheer BV: (Case C-149/11); [2012] WLR (D) 388
“The territorial borders of the member states should be disregarded in the assessment of whether a trade mark had been put to ‘genuine use in the Community’ within the meaning of article 15(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community Trade Mark (OJ 2009 L78, p 1).”
WLR Daily, 19th December 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v Clift; Regina v Harrison: [2012] EWCA Crim 2750; [2012] WLR (D) 387
“Where a defendant had been convicted of causing grievous bodily harm with intent and the victim subsequently died as a result of that harm, the defendant could not automatically be convicted of the victim’s murder. However, pursuant to section 74(3) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the earlier conviction would be admissible of the fact that the defendant had committed the offence, and if the conviction was proved the burden would then shift to the defendant to prove on the balance of probabilities that he was not guilty of murder.”
WLR Daily, 18th December 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The obligation on a local authority to invite proposals to establish academies under section 6A of the Education Act 2006, as amended, was triggered if a local authority thought there was a need to establish a new school in their area. It was implicit in the scheme of Part 2 of the 2006 Act that there was a distinction between the concept of a “need”, which imported a sense of compelling requirement to establish a new school under section 6A, and a more general assessment by a local authority whether it might be beneficial for a new school to be established.”
WLR Daily, 14th December 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Supreme Court
Societe Generale, London Branch v Geys [2012] UKSC 63 (19 December 2012)
Kinloch v Her Majesty’s Advocate (Scotland) [2012] UKSC 62 (19 December 2012)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Football Association Premier League Ltd v QC Leisure & Ors [2012] EWCA Civ 1708 (20 December 2012)
Miah v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 1719 (20 December 2012)
M (Children), Re [2012] EWCA Civ 1710 (20 December 2012)
Crossland v University of Glamorgan [2012] EWCA Civ 1709 (20 December 2012)
Aviva Insurance Ltd v Hackney Empire Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1716 (19 December 2012)
Royds LLP v Pine [2012] EWCA Civ 1734 (19 December 2012)
Sayers v Chelwood & Anor [2012] EWCA Civ 1715 (19 December 2012)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Patel v General Medical Council [2012] EWHC 3688 (Admin) (20 December 2012)
Nastase v Office of the State Prosecutor, Trento, Italy [2012] EWHC 3671 (Admin) (20 December 2012)
ST v Secretary of State for Home Department [2012] EWHC 988 (Admin) (20 December 2012)
Tinkler v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2012] EWHC 3645 (Admin) (19 December 2012)
High Court (Chancery Division)
WH Newson Holding Ltd & Ors v IMI Plc & Ors [2012] EWHC 3680 (Ch) (19 December 2012)
High Court (Patents Court)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
City of Westminster v Addbins Ltd
& Ors [2012] EWHC 3716 (QB) (20 December 2012)
Source: www.bailii.org
Kinloch v HM Advocate: [2012] UKSC 62; [2012] WLR (D) 385
“Since unauthorised police surveillance of a person engaged in criminal activity in public places did not infringe that person’s right to respect for his private life under article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the Lord Advocate, in adducing evidence obtained by means of such unauthorised surveillance at the trial of that person, had not acted incompatibly with his right to a fair trial under article 6(1) of the Convention, and had accordingly acted within his powers under section 57(2) of the Scotland Act 1998, as amended. However, the question whether the police had acted incompatibly with a Convention right was not a devolution issue within paragraph 1(d) of Schedule 6 to the Scotland Act 1998 and therefore could not be determined under the Supreme Court’s devolution jurisdiction.”
WLR Daily, 19th December 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Space Airconditiong plc v Guy and another: [2012] EWCA Civ 1664; [2012] WLR (D) 384
“Where a judge had been informed by counsel that he had reached his decision by an obvious mistake of fact in his handed down judgment and had admitted it to be so, then, unless there was a very good reason not to do so, the judge had a duty to correct his judgment to put the record right.”
WLR Daily, 14th December 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Mastafa v Her Majesty’s Treasury: [2012] EWHC 3578 (Admin); [2012] WLR (D) 383
“An appeal brought under section 26 of the Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc Act 2010 involved the determination of the appellant’s ‘civil rights’ for the purposes of article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as scheduled to the Human Rights Act 1998.”
WLR Daily, 13th December 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Pensions Ombudsman v EMC Europe Ltd and others: [2012] EWHC 3508 (Ch); [2012] WLR (D) 382
“The Pensions Ombudsman had no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint by a scheme member to set aside a compromise agreement where successful determination of the complaint would adversely affect the rights of the parent company in circumstances where it was a necessary party to any claim to set aside the agreement but was not subject to the ombudsman’s jurisdiction.”
WLR Daily, 14th December 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Freetown Ltd v Assethold Ltd: [2012] EWCA Civ 1657; [2012] WLR (D) 379
“Service of a party wall award pursuant to section 15(1) of the Party Wall etc Act 1996 was effective from the date the award was received or deemed to have been received by a party.”
WLR Daily, 14th December 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Donovan & Anor v R. [2012] EWCA Crim 2749 (18 December 2012)
Clift v R. [2012] EWCA Crim 2750 (18 December 2012)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Ace European Group & Ors v Standard Life Assurance Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1713 (18 December 2012)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
The Insight Group Ltd & Anor v Kingston Smith (a firm) [2012] EWHC 3644 (QB) (18 December 2012)
Bulic v Harwoods & Ors [2012] EWHC 3657 (QB) (18 December 2012)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Ansa Logistics Ltd v Towerbeg Ltd & Ors [2012] EWHC 3651 (Ch) (18 December 2012)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Moss & Son Ltd v Crown Prosecution Service (Rev 1) [2012] EWHC 3658 (Admin) (18 December 2012)
Source: www.bailii.org
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Olympic Airlines SA v ACG Acquisition XX LLC [2012] EWCA Civ 1659 (17 December 2012)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Entrust Pension Ltd v Prospect Hospice Ltd [2012] EWHC 3640 (Ch) (17 December 2012)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Threlfall v ECD Insight Ltd & Anor [2012] EWHC 3543 (QB) (17 December 2012)
Dar v Vonsak & Anor [2012] EWHC 3632 (QB) (17 December 2012)
Horner v Allison & Anor [2012] EWHC 3626 (QB) (17 December 2012)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Source: www.bailii.org
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
MH v R [2012] EWCA Crim 2725 (14 December 2012)
Merlin Attractions Operations Ltd R. [2012] EWCA Crim 2670 (13 December 2012)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Charles v Tesco Stores Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1663 (14 December 2012)
Space Airconditioning Plc v Guy & Anor [2012] EWCA Civ 1664 (14 December 2012)
Freetown v Assethold Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1657 (14 December 2012)
Smith & Nephew Plc v Convatec Technologies Inc [2012] EWCA Civ 1638 (14 December 2012)
Bramston v Haut [2012] EWCA Civ 1637 (14 December 2012)
High Court (Chancery Division)
The Pensions Ombudsman v EMC Europe Ltd & Ors [2012] EWHC 3508 (Ch) (14 December 2012)
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Family Division)
R (a Child), Re [2012] EWHC 2956 (Fam) (24 October 2012)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Cavendish Square Holdings BV & Anor v El Makdessi [2012] EWHC 3582 (Comm) (14 December 2012)
Novoship (UK) Ltd & Ors v Mikhaylyuk & Ors [2012] EWHC 3586 (Comm) (14 December 2012)
Source: www.bailii.org
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Devanney v London Borough of Hounslow [2012] EWCA Civ 1660 (13 December 2012)
Bank of Scotland v Qutb [2012] EWCA Civ 1661 (13 December 2012)
Durham County Council v Dunn [2012] EWCA Civ 1654 (13 December 2012)
Mirador International LLC v MF Global UK Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1662 (13 December 2012)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Mastafa v HM Treasury [2012] EWHC 3578 (Admin) (13 December 2012)
High Court (Chancery Division)
HFI Farnborough Llp & Ors v Park Garage Group Plc [2012] EWHC 3577 (Ch) (13 December 2012)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Minerva Navigation Inc v Oceana Shipping AG [2012] EWHC 3608 (Comm) (13 December 2012)
Dalmare SpA v Union Maritime Ltd & Anor [2012] EWHC 3537 (Comm) (13 December 2012)
Source: www.bailii.org
“The identity of a third party and the allegations of sexual abuse which she made in confidence against the father of a child who was the subject of contact proceedings would be disclosed in those proceedings since to do so would not violate her right to protection from inhuman or degrading treatment under article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and would be a proportionate interference with her right to respect for her private life under article 8, since it was justified by the need to protect the parents’ and child’s rights to a fair trial and respect for their family life, guaranteed by articles 6 and 8 of the Convention.”
WLR Daily, 12th December 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025