In the matter of J (Children) – Supreme Court
In the matter of J (Children) [2013] UKSC 9 | UKSC 2012/0128 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 20th February 2013
In the matter of J (Children) [2013] UKSC 9 | UKSC 2012/0128 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 20th February 2013
Supreme Court
L and B (Children), Re [2013] UKSC 8 (20 February 2013)
J (Children), Re [2013] UKSC 9 (20 February 2013)
Sharif v The London Borough of Camden [2013] UKSC 10 (20 February 2013)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Ricoh Europe Holdings BV & Ors v Spratt & Anor [2013] EWCA Civ 92 (19 February 2013)
DD v Durham County Council & Anor [2013] EWCA Civ 96 (19 February 2013)
Hawes v Burgess & Anor [2013] EWCA Civ 74 (19 February 2013)
Smeaton v Equifax Plc [2013] EWCA Civ 108 (20 February 2013)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Zeqaj v Government of Albania [2013] EWHC 261 (Admin) (20 February 2013)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Mahtani & Anor v Sippy & Ano [2013] EWHC 285 (Ch) (19 February 2013)
Source: www.bailii.org
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Wilson v Haden (t/a Clyne Farm Centre) [2013] EWHC 229 (QB) (15 February 2013)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Parker v The Republic of Argentina [2013] EWHC 226 (Admin) (15 February 2013)
Hunter v Newcastle Crown Court [2013] EWHC 191 (Admin) (29 January 2013)
Luthra v General Medical Council [2013] EWHC 240 (Admin) (18 February 2013)
High Court (Family Division)
AB v BB & Ors [2013] EWHC 227 (Fam) (13 February 2013)
A London Borough v A & Ors [2013] EWHC 96 (Fam) (15 February 2013)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Novoship (UK) Ltd & Ors v Mikhaylyuk & Ors [2013] EWHC 89 (Comm) (18 January 2013)
U&M Mining Zambia Ltd v Konkola Copper Mines Plc [2013] EWHC 260 (Comm) (15 February 2013)
Source: www.bailii.org
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Dizaei v R. [2013] EWCA Crim 88 (14 February 2013)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis v ZH [2013] EWCA Civ 69 (14 February 2013)
Tamiz v Google Inc [2013] EWCA Civ 68 (14 February 2013)
Niekrash v South London Healthcare NHS Trust [2013] EWCA Civ 64 (14 February 2013)
Moore v British Waterways Board [2013] EWCA Civ 73 (14 February 2013)
Weavering Capital (UK) Ltd & Ors v Dabhia & Anor [2013] EWCA Civ 71 (15 February 2013)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Sycamore Bidco Ltd v Breslin & Anor [2013] EWHC 174 (Ch) (14 February 2013)
Morshead Mansions Ltd v Mactra Properties Ltd [2013] EWHC 224 (Ch) (15 February 2013)
Source: www.bailii.org
Supreme Court
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
B v R. [2013] EWCA Crim 3 (31 January 2013)
Moore & Anor, R. v [2013] EWCA Crim 85 (13 February 2013)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
H (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 72 (13 February 2013)
Szpak v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2013] EWCA Civ 46 (13 February 2013)
KS (Burma) & Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWCA Civ 67 (13 February 2013)
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Global Torch Ltd v Apex Global Management Ltd [2013] EWHC 223 (Ch) (13 February 2013)
VLM Holdings Ltd v Ravensworth Digital Services Ltd [2013] EWHC 228 (Ch) (13 February 2013)
Nationwide Building Society v Christie & Anor [2013] EWHC 127 (Ch) (01 February 2013)
High Court (Family Division)
RCW v A Local Authority [2013] EWHC 235 (Fam) (12 February 2013)
Source: www.bailii.org
Regina v Love and another [2013] WLR (D) 56
“After a guilty plea had been entered an indictment could be amended otherwise than on an application by the defendant.”
WLR Daily, 13th February 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“‘The scheme’ named in the Jobseeker’s Allowance (Employment, Skills and Enterprise Scheme) Regulations 2011 did not comply with the requirements of section 17A of the Jobseekers Act 1995 and was unlawful.”
WLR Daily, 12th February 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Supreme Court, 13th February 2013
“Arrangements amounting to collective investment schemes within the meaning of section 235 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, or more generally, were not inchoate or imperfect contracts that were displaced if their parties entered into a form of understanding or contract.”
WLR Daily, 8th February 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Rummun v State of Mauritius [2013] UKPC 6; [2013] WLR (D) 53
“Where there had been substantial delay in a criminal trial it was the duty of the court, whether at sentence or on appeal and whether or not the matter had been raised by the defence, to examine the possibility of there having been a breach of the defendant’s right to a fair trial within a reasonable time, and if so whether that should influence the sentence to be imposed. The court should consider the factors which had caused the delay, including the responsibility of the defendant for any delay, but was to exercise caution in respect of any decision by him to contest the case on grounds which proved to be unfeasible, since a defendant to a criminal charge was entitled to put the prosecuting authorities to proof of his guilt.”
WLR Daily, 7th February 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
AIB Group (UK) Plc v Mark Redler & Co Solicitors [2013] EWCA Civ 45 (08 February 2013)
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Franklin & Ors, R. v [2013] EWCA Crim 84 (11 February 2013)
Hall v R [2013] EWCA Crim 82 (08 February 2013)
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp & Ors v Harris & Ors [2013] EWHC 159 (Ch) (05 February 2013)
High Court (Commercial Court)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
AMEC Group Ltd v Secretary of State for Defence [2013] EWHC 110 (TCC) (08 February 2013)
Source: www.bailii.org
“When assessing whether an agreement between several undertakings had the object of restricting competition within the meaning of article 101FEU of the FEU treaty, the fact that an institution, adversely affected by the agreement, had allegedly been operating illegally on the relevant market was of no relevance to that assessment.”
WLR Daily, 7th February 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Foulser v Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs [2013] UKUT 038 (TCC); [2013] WLR (D) 51
“The First-tier Tribunal had jurisdiction to deal with an allegation that a fair hearing of a tax appeal before it had been made impossible, but any contention that a party had acted unlawfully in public law had to be put forward by way of an application for judicial review in the High Court or the Upper Tribunal. In a case where the FTT considered that a debarring order was justified and no lesser order would meet the justice of the case but yet, the facts of the case did not come within Rules 7 and 8 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009, the FTT could produce the desired just result by using its power under Rule 5 to ‘regulate its procedure’, particularly to deal with the case fairly and justly.”
WLR Daily, 25th January 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The implied power of sewerage undertakers to discharge the contents of sewers via their outfalls onto third party property without the owner’s consent had not passed to their successor companies under the transfer scheme entered into as part of the privatisation process implemented under the Water Act 1989.”
WLR Daily, 7th February 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“An intimate sexual relationship instigated by an undercover police officer with a member of the public for the purposes of obtaining information fell within the scope of ‘personal or other relationship with a person’ for the purposes of section 26(8) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 so that, by section 65, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction to hear a claim brought against the police under the Human Rights Act 1998.”
WLR Daily, 18th January 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Pursuant to article 7 of Parliament and Council Directive 96/9/EC on the legal protection of databases, a sui generis database right subsisted in a database consisting of information gathered live at football matches as those matches proceeded. It was not the case that there could be no article 7 right unless there was investment in collecting together materials which had already been recorded.”
WLR Daily, 6th February 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“A part-time fee-paid judge was a worker under European Union law and had a right not to be treated in a less favourable manner than comparable full-time workers. The denial of retirement pensions to part-judges when full-time judges were granted pensions was less favourable treatment for which there was no objective justification. Accordingly, on the basic principle of remunerating part-time workers pro rata temporis, a recorder was entitled to a pension on terms equivalent to those applicable to a circuit judge.”
WLR Daily, 6th February 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Points of claim in insolvency proceedings should concisely set out every fact necessary to establish the legal basis for the relief sought but with a degree of particularity to enable those responding to understand the nature of the case.”
WLR Daily, 1st February 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Tayeh v Barchester Healthcare Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 29 (06 February 2013)
Situ Ventures Ltd v Bonham -Carter & Anor [2013] EWCA Civ 47 (07 February 2013)
A (A Child), Re [2013] EWCA Civ 43 (06 February 2013)
Knox D’arcy Operations Ltd & Anor v Manches LLP [2013] EWCA Civ 33 (07 February 2013)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Santander UK Plc v Harrison & Anor [2013] EWHC 199 (QB) (07 February 2013)
Duke v The University of Salford [2013] EWHC 196 (QB) (06 February 2013)
Barons Finance Ltd & Anor v Makanju [2013] EWHC 153 (QB) (06 February 2013)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Andre & Anor v Clydesdale Bank Plc [2013] EWHC 169 (Ch) (01 February 2013)
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Family Division)
VK v JV [2012] EWHC 4033 (Fam) (26 November 2012)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Emailgen Systems Corp v Exclaimer Ltd & Anor [2013] EWHC 167 (Comm) (07 February 2013)
High Court (Patents Court)
Dupont Nutrition Biosciences ApS v Novozymes A/S [2013] EWHC 155 (Pat) (07 February 2013)
Source: www.bailii.org
Regina (Gallastegui) v Westminster City Council and others [2013] EWCA Civ 28; [2013] WLR (D) 45
“Sections 143 and 145 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 were carefully targeted to prevent protesters camping with tents or sleeping equipment on Parliament Square Gardens, but did not generally impair freedom to protest at all. As a consequence they were not incompatible with the rights to freedom of expression and protest in articles 10 and 11 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Sincethe procedure set out in the 2011 Act allowed for access to a court, article 6 of the Convention was not engaged.”
WLR Daily, 30th January 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk