R (on the application of Prudential plc and another) (Appellants) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax and another (Respondents) – Supreme Court
Supreme Court, 23rd January 2013
Category: law reports
Zakrzewski (Respondent) v The Regional Court in Lodz, Poland (Appellant) – Supreme Court
Supreme Court, 23rd January 2013
Lloyds TSB Foundation for Scotland (Respondent) v. Lloyds Banking Group Plc (Appellant) (Scotland) – Supreme Court
Supreme Court, 23rd January 2013
BAILII: Recent Decisions
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
Regina (Bushara) v Secretary of State for the Home Department – WLR Daily
“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 – WLR Daily
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
Regina (Van der Pijl) v Crown Court at Kingston upon Thames – WLR Daily
“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
BAILII: Recent Decisions
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 – WLR Daily
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
BAILII: Recent Decisions
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 – 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
