High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Cornish Glennroy Blair-Ford v CRS Adventures Ltd [2012] EWHC 2360 (QB) (13 August 2012)
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
Robbins v London Borough of Bexley [2012] EWHC 2257 (TCC) (16 August 2012)
Source: www.bailii.org
“As their papers go weekly or move online, court reporters are embracing Twitter.”
The Guardian, 14th August 2012
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Sumal & Sons (Properties) Ltd v London Borough of Newham [2012] EWCA Crim 1840 (08 August 2012)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
BAA Ltd v Competition Commission [2012] EWCA Civ 1077 (26 July 2012)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
FBME Bank Ltd v Elwes & Anor [2012] EWHC 2209 (QB) (25 July 2012)
RAR v GGC [2012] EWHC 2338 (QB) (10 August 2012)
High Court (Chancery Division)
McKillen v Misland (Cyprus) Investments Ltd & Ors [2012] EWHC 2343 (Ch) (10 August 2012)
Re Euromaster Ltd [2012] EWHC 2356 (Ch) (10 August 2012)
Source: www.bailii.org
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Sohal v Suri & Anor [2012] EWCA Civ 1064 (03 August 2012)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Source: www.bailii.org
Regina v Sumal & Sons (Properties) Ltd: [2012] EWCA Crim 1840; [2012] WLR (D) 247
“A landlord who committed an offence of managing an unlicensed house, contrary to section 95(1) of the Housing Act 2004, did not ‘obtain’ property ‘as a result of or in connection with’ his criminal conduct, for the purposes of section 76(4) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, by the receipt of rent. Therefore a court sentencing a landlord for such an offence could not impose a confiscation order in the sum of the rent received.”
WLR Daily, 8th August 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Global Maritime Investments Ltd v STX Pan Ocean Co Ltd [2012] EWHC 2339 (Comm) (08 August 2012)
Source: www.bailii.org
MA v JA (Attorney General intervening) [2012] EWHC 2219 (Fam); [2012] WLR (D) 246
“A ceremony of marriage conducted in England which did not comply with the requirements of the Marriage Act 1949 because the parties had failed to give notice to the registrar with the result that the marriage was solemnised without any certificate being issued, created a marriage which was entitled to be recognised as valid under English law.”
WLR Daily, 27th July 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Lord Chancellor v McCarthy [2012] EWHC 2325 (QB) (06 August 2012)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Source: www.bailii.org
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Middleton v Allianz Iard SA [2012] EWHC 2287 (QB) (01 August 2012)
Petrou v Bertoncello & Ors [2012] EWHC 2286 (QB) (01 August 2012)
High Court (Patents Court)
Lilly & Company v Human Genome Sciences Inc [2012] EWHC 2290 (Pat) (03 August 2012)
Source: www.bailii.org
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
SG v Hewitt [2012] EWCA Civ 1053 (02 August 2012)
Source: www.bailii.org
Regina v Gul (Hamesh): [2012] EWCA Crim 1761; [2012] WLR (D) 245
“Where a defendant was sent for trial to the Crown Court on an indictable only offence but no such offence was included in the indictment when it was signed and the procedure to determine mode of trial was not followed such non-compliance with those procedural requirements would not result in the proceedings being a nullity where the defendant was able to cure any defect in the process by making an appropriate application to the judge at the time.”
WLR Daily, 31st July 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Deutsche Bahn AG and others v Morgan Crucible and others: [2012] EWCA Civ 1055; [2012] WLR (D) 244
“Where an addressee of a decision of the European Commission that there had been an infringement of competition law appealed to the General Court of the European Union against that decision, the two-year limitation period for the bringing of ‘follow-on’ proceedings in the Competition Appeal Tribunal would not begin to run against any other addressees of the decision until the appeal had been determined.”
WLR Daily, 31st July 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“A challenge to the legality of a technique used by the issuers of corporate bonds which had acquired the label ‘exit consent’ succeeded on the ground that it was not lawful for the majority bondholders to lend its aid to the coercion of a minority by voting for a resolution which expropriated the minority’s rights under their bonds for a nominal consideration.”
WLR Daily, 27th July 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Hughes and others v Bourne and others [2012] EWHC 2232 (Ch); [2012] WLR (D) 242
“The personal representatives’ power of appropriation under section 41(1) of the Administration of Estates Act 1925 was not confined to transactions of a contractual or quasi-contractual nature.”
WLR Daily, 27th July 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Woodward v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust [2012] EWHC 2167 (QB) (01 August 2012)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander Ltd, Re: the Insolvency Act 1986 [2012] EWHC 2235 (Ch) (31 July 2012)
E.ON UK Plc v Gilesports Ltd [2012] EWHC 2172 (Ch) (31 July 2012)
Fine & Country Ltd & Ors v Okotoks Ltd & Anor [2012] EWHC 2230 (Ch) (31 July 2012)
Quick Draw LP v Global Live Events LLP & Ors [2012] EWHC 2105 (Ch) (30 July 2012)
Lloyds TSB Bank Plc v Crowborough Properties Ltd & Ors [2012] EWHC 2234 (Ch) (23 July 2012)
Lloyds TSB Bank Plc v Crowborough Properties Ltd & Ors [2012] EWHC 2233 (Ch) (23 July 2012)
High Court (Family Division)
CA (A Baby), Re [2012] EWHC 2190 (Fam) (30 July 2012)
NHS Trust v Baby X & Ors [2012] EWHC 2188 (Fam) (30 July 2012)
High Court (Administrative Court)
C, R (on the application of) v North Tyneside Council [2012] EWHC 2222 (Admin) (01 August 2012)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Access Bank Plc v Akingbola & Ors [2012] EWHC 2148 (Comm) (31 July 2012)
Aston Hill Financial Inc & Ors v African Minerals Finance Ltd [2012] EWHC 2173 (Comm) (31 July 2012)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
Brit Inns Ltd & Ors v BDW Trading Ltd [2012] EWHC 2143 (TCC) (31 July 2012)
Whessoe Oil & Gas Ltd & Anor v Dale [2012] EWHC 2270 (TCC) (26 July 2012)
Eagle Ltd v Falcon Ltd [2012] EWHC 2261 (TCC) (Hearing 17 July 2012)
Source: www.bailii.org
“There could no longer be any objective justification for the different tests governing early release applied by the Parole Board to those serving indeterminate sentences and those serving determinate sentences under the Criminal Justice Act 1991.”
WLR Daily, 27th July 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“In respect of split hearings in family proceedings, the judge did not have a general licence to amend his judgment as to past fact at any time before he had pronounced his judgment as to the future. In the interim period between judgment on a preliminary issue trial and the hearing of the second trial, a judge was precluded from taking account of developments relating to the findings on the preliminary issue trial unless they were substantial, if not fundamental. Where a judge was invited to expand his findings or reasons in further support of the stated conclusions in his judgment, he could not reverse his previously stated conclusion.”
WLR Daily, 18th July 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Arif v Zar and another [2012] EWCA Civ 986; [2012] WLR (D) 239
“In relation to a bankruptcy order, the court sitting in bankruptcy had to give consideration to the possibility that a person might attempt to use the protection of the order as a shield against the claims of their spouse for ancillary relief. Where there was credible evidence of that the court ought not to be afraid to use its powers to order full disclosure and to require the attendance and cross-examination of witnesses where necessary in order properly and fairly to determine an annulment application. The question of whether it was right to transfer an annulment application to be heard alongside an ancillary relief application in the Family Division depended upon the facts and was a matter of discretion for the registrar or judge asked to transfer it.”
WLR Daily, 18th July 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“A disclosure order obtained in civil recovery proceedings did not authorise sending information notices to persons who were outside the United Kingdom.”
WLR Daily, 25th July 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Where a foreign national was removed from the United Kingdom in consequence of the unlawful issue of a certificate under section 96(2) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 following refusal by the Secretary of State of his application for revocation of a deportation order, there was no presumption that the court should order his return to pursue an in-country appeal.”
WLR Daily, 26th July 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025