“Legal advice privilege would not be extended to communications in connection with advice given by professional people other than members of the legal profession, even where that advice was legal advice which the professional person was qualified to give.”
WLR Daily, 23rd January 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Supreme Court
Zakrzewski v The Regional Court in Lodz, Poland [2013] UKSC 2 (23 January 2013)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Omnipharm Ltd v Merial [2013] EWCA Civ 2 (23 January 2013)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Eckerle & Ors v Wickeder Westfalenstahl GmbH & Anor [2013] EWHC 68 (Ch) (23 January 2013)
Gorbunova v Berezovsky (aka Platon Elenin) & Ors [2013] EWHC 76 (Ch) (18 January 2013)
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Family Division)
S (findings of fact), Re [2013] EWHC 15 (Fam) (14 January 2013)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Source: www.bailii.org
Lloyds TSB Foundation for Scotland v Lloyds Banking Group plc [2013] UKSC 3; [2013] WLR (D) 19
“In construing a contractual provision, where there had been an unforeseeable and fundamental change in the legal context since the execution of the contract, the proper approach was to adopt a meaning which best gave effect to the parties’ original intentions and purposes. Where, therefore, a deed executed in 1997 provided for payment to be made by a banking group to a charitable foundation by reference to the group’s pre-tax profit or loss shown in the audited accounts, and a change in accounting practice subsequently required the group consolidated income statement to include, as a profit, a sum representing an unrealised gain on acquisition, the inclusion of such a sum was to be ignored for the purposes of calculating the amount payable to the foundation under the deed.”
WLR Daily, 23rd January 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Zakrzewski v District Court in Torun, Poland [2013] UKSC 2; [2013] WLR (D) 18
“Where the information set out by the requesting state in an European arrest warrant had correctly specified ‘the sentence . . . imposed’ on the convicted person whose extradition it sought, as required by section 2(6)(e) of the Extradition Act 2003, but the courts in that state had subsequently aggregated the sentences so that he was to serve a different, albeit lesser, sentence than that stated in the information, the warrant remained valid and the person could be extradited.”
WLR Daily, 23rd January 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
European Commission v Tomkins plc (Case C-286/11P); [2013] WLR (D) 17
“Where the liability of a parent company was derived exclusively from that of its subsidiary and where the parent and its subsidiary had brought parallel applications having the ‘same object’, the Court was entitled, without infringing the ne ultra petita principle—that European Union courts could not rule on aspects concerning addressees other than those covered by the applicant’s application—to take account of the outcome of the action brought by the subsidiary and to annul the action brought by the parent on that basis, despite the fact that the scope of the applications and arguments presented in each application were different.”
WLR Daily, 22nd January 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Supreme Court, 23rd January 2013
Supreme Court, 23rd January 2013
Supreme Court, 23rd January 2013
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
KC v MGN Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 3 (22 January 2013)
MS (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWCA Civ 7 (22 January 2013)
Bank of Scotland Plc v Watson [2013] EWCA Civ 6 (22 January 2013)
TG (A Child), Re [2013] EWCA Civ 5 (22 January 2013)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Piper v Hales [2013] EWHC B1 (QB) (18 January 2013)
Cummings & Ors v The Ministry of Justice [2013] EWHC 48 (QB) (22 January 2013)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Kenya Aid Programme v Sheffield City Council [2013] EWHC 54 (Admin) (22 January 2013)
Source: www.bailii.org
“In assessing whether an individual would be at risk on return to a member state, the fact that the receiving state was itself bound by the same Conventions and Community law as the sending state was to be regarded as obviating the risk unless there was a systemic failure in the receiving state. Unless there had been such a failure, the person was adequately protected: he had his rights against the receiving government and, if necessary, the possibility of recourse to the European Court of Human Rights from the receiving country.”
WLR Daily, 16th January 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Thames Water Utilities Ltd v Transport for London [2013] WLR (D) 15
“On the plain construction of regulation 19 of the Traffic Management Permit Scheme (England) Regulations 2007 a statutory undertaker could not avoid a criminal sanction where a person contracted to act on its behalf to undertake specified works in a specified street did so without a permit.”
WLR Daily, 17th January 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“A search warrant had to be sufficiently clear and precise in its terms so that those carrying out the search and those whose premises were being searched could understand the warrant without reference to any other extraneous documents.”
WLR Daily, 21st January 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Kingerlee Holdings Ltd v Dunelm (Soft Furnishings) Ltd [2013] EWHC 47 (Ch) (21 January 2013)
Francis v Solomon Taylor & Shaw (a firm) [2013] EWHC 9 (Ch) (11 January 2013)
Mahmood v Mitsubishi Electric Europe BV & Ors [2013] EWHC 44 (Ch) (18 January 2013)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Ayres v Odedra [2013] EWHC 40 (QB) (18 January 2013)
High Court (Family Division)
A City Council v DC & Ors [2013] EWHC 8 (Fam) (11 January 2013)
High Court (Administrative Court)
KA, R (on the application of) v Essex County Council [2013] EWHC 43 (Admin) (18 January 2013)
Powierza v District Court, Warszawa, Poland [2013] EWHC 36 (Admin) (17 January 2013)
Lanner Parish Council v The Cornwall Council & Anor [2013] EWHC 37 (Admin) (21 January 2013)
Source: www.bailii.org
Regina (Crown Prosecution Service) v Bolton Crown Court [2012] EWHC 3570 (Admin); [2013] WLR (D) 13
“The Crown Court had no power under regulation 3 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Regulations 1986, made under section 19(1) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, to make a costs order against a party to criminal proceedings in favour of another party’s counsel.”
WLR Daily, January 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
High Court (Administrative Court)
Powierza v District Court, Warszawa, Poland [2013] EWHC 36 (Admin) (17 January 2013)
Source: www.bailii.org
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: [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
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) [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
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
© Inner Temple Library 2025