Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
S (A Child), Re [2012] EWCA Civ 1031 (24 July 2012)
Itochu Corporation v Johann M.K. Blumenthal GmbH & Co Kg & Anor [2012] EWCA Civ 996 (24 July 2012)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Red Bull GmbH v Sun Mark Ltd & Anor [2012] EWHC 2046 (Ch) (24 July 2012)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Source: www.bailii. org
Maidment v Attwood and others: [2012] EWCA Civ 998; [2012] WLR (D) 220
“Where a minority shareholder had brought a petition under section 994 of the Companies Act alleging that remuneration paid to a director of a now insolvent company in liquidation was excessive and therefore unfairly prejudicial, there was no basis in the statutory provisions or in principle or in authority to impose a requirement for diligence on shareholders in regards to the company’s filed accounts.”
WLR Daily, 19th July 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
The Trademark Licensing Co Ltd & Anor v Leofelis SA [2012] EWCA Civ 985 (23 July 2012)
Faraday Reinsurance Co Ltd v Howden North America Inc & Anor [2012] EWCA Civ 980 (20 July 2012)
O’Cathail v Transport for London [2012] EWCA Civ 1004 (20 July 2012)
Michael & Ors v South Wales Police & Anor [2012] EWCA Civ 981 (20 July 2012)
Konodyba v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea [2012] EWCA Civ 982 (20 July 2012)
Backhouse v HM Revenue & Customs Prosecution Office [2012] EWCA Civ 1000 (20 July 2012)
High Court (Administrative Court)
AA, R (on the application of) v The Upper Tribunal & Anor [2012] EWHC 1784 (Admin) (19 July 2012)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Revenue and Customs & Anor v Ben Nevis (Holdings) Ltd & Ors [2012] EWHC 1807 (Ch) (20 July 2012)
High Court (Commercial Court)
MRI Trading AG v Erdenet Mining Corporation LLC [2012] EWHC 1988 (Comm) (20 July 2012)
SNCB Holding v UBS AG [2012] EWHC 2044 (Comm) (20 July 2012)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Desmond v Foreman & Ors [2012] EWHC 1900 (QB) (23 July 2012)
KMT & Ors (Chidren) v Kent County Council [2012] EWHC 2088 (QB) (23 July 2012)
Mengi v Hermitage [2012] EWHC 2045 (QB) (20 July 2012)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
DPM Property Services Ltd & Ors v Kiani & Ors [2012] EWHC 2056 (TCC) (23 July 2012)
Source: www.bailii.org
Pie Optiek SPRL v Bureau Gevers SA and others: Case C-376/11; [2012] WLR (D) 219
“The third sub-paragraph of article 12(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 874/2004 of 28 April 2004 laying down public policy rules concerning the implementation and functions of the .eu Top Level Domain and the principles governing registration meant that, in a situation where the prior right concerned was a trade mark right, the words ‘licensees of prior rights’ did not refer to a person who had been authorised by the proprietor of the trade mark concerned solely to register, in his own name but on behalf of that proprietor, a domain name identical or similar to that trade mark, but without that person being authorised to use the trade mark commercially in a manner consistent with its functions.”
WLR Daily, 19th July 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Mahamdia v People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria: (Case C-154/11); [2012] WLR (D) 218
“An embassy situated in a member state of the European Union was an ‘establishment’ within the meaning of article 18(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, in the context of a dispute concerning a contract of employment concluded by the embassy on behalf of the sending state, where the functions carried out by the employee did not fall within the exercise of public powers. Article 21(2) of the Regulation meant that an agreement on jurisdiction, concluded before a dispute arose, fell within that provision in so far as it gave the employee the possibility of bringing proceedings not only before the courts ordinarily having jurisdiction under the special rules in articles 18 and 19 of the Regulation, but also before other courts, which could include courts outside the European Union.”
WLR Daily, 19th July 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The concept of ‘optional price supplements’, referred to in the last sentence of article 23(1) of Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community, covered costs connected with the air travel, arising from services, such as flight cancellation insurance, supplied by a party other than the air carrier and charged to the customer by the person selling that travel, together with the air fare, as part of a total price.”
WLR Daily, 19th July 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“References to ‘proceedings’ in section 29 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 should be interpreted so as to reflect the legislative purpose, namely to improve access to the courts for members of the public with meritorious claims. Where a claimant took out ATE insurance after having succeeded at trial he would be entitled if successful in the appeal to recover in costs that part of the ATE premium relating to the costs of the appeal, but it would be unfair to allow him to recover in costs that part of the premium which related to the costs of the trial.”
WLR Daily, 19th July 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
High Court (Chancery Division)
Wedgwood Museum Trust Ltd, Re [2012] EWHC 1974 (Ch) (19 July 2012)
Ludsin Overseas Ltd v Eco3 Capital Ltd & Ors [2012] EWHC 1980 (Ch) (19 July 2012)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
Phaestos Ltd. & Anor v Ho [2012] EWHC 1996 (TCC) (19 July 2012)
Source: www.bailii.org
“The Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) was empowered under section 4(3) of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 to determine whether a decision by the Independent Safeguarding Authority that it was appropriate to include an individual on a barred list was proportionate and rational. In assessing proportionality the tribunal was required to give appropriate weight to the decision of a body charged by statute with a task of expert evaluation. The tribunal also had to address as a material consideration the issue of public confidence in the statutory scheme and in the list.”
WLR Daily, 18th July 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Supreme Court
The Health and Safety Executive v Wolverhampton City Council [2012] UKSC 34 (18 July 2012)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Horn & Ors v Commercial Acceptances Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 958 (19 July 2012)
Maidment v Attwood & Ors [2012] EWCA Civ 998 (19 July 2012)
L-B (Children) [2012] EWCA Civ 984 (18 July 2012)
Arif v Zar & Anor [2012] EWCA Civ 986 (18 July 2012)
Berent v Family Mosaic Housing & Anor [2012] EWCA Civ 961 (18 July 2012)
Independent Safeguarding Authority v SB & Anor [2012] EWCA Civ 977 (18 July 2012)
Selwood v Durham County Council & Ors [2012] EWCA Civ 979 (18th July 2012)
Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead v Smith [2012] EWCA Civ 997 (18 July 2012)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Hakemi & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 1967 (Admin) (19 July 2012)
Secretary of State for the Home Department v AY [2012] EWHC 2054 (Admin) (19 July 2012)
Preston City Council v Oyston Angel Charity [2012] EWHC 2005 (Admin) (19 July 2012)
Bass & Anor v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2012] EWHC 2012 (Admin) (18 July 2012)
Hunt v North Somerset Council [2012] EWHC 1928 (Admin) (18 July 2012)
HM Attorney General v Associated Newspapers Ltd & Anor [2012] EWHC 2029 (Admin) (18 July 2012)
High Court (Commercial Court)
DGM Commodities Corp v Sea Metropolitan SA [2012] EWHC 1984 (Comm) (18 July 2012)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
Walter Lilly & Company Ltd v MacKay & Anor [2012] EWHC 1972 (TCC) (17 July 2012)
Source: www.bailii.org
Shergill and others v Khaira and others: [2012] EWCA Civ 983; [2012] WLR (D) 214
“The courts will abstain from adjudicating on the truth, merits or sincerity of differences in religious doctrine or belief and on the correctness or accuracy of religious practice, custom or tradition.”
WLR daily, 17th July 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“If a statement of an immigration policy was flexible and stated that an immigration rule relating to leave to enter and remain in the United Kingdom might, depending on the circumstances of each case, be relaxed if certain conditions were satisfied, the statement itself was not an immigration rule and therefore the Secretary of State was not required to lay it before Parliament in accordance with section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971.”
WLR Daily, 18th July 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“A local planning authority, when considering under section 97 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 whether to revoke a planning permission it had previously granted, was entitled to have regard to the cost of the compensation it would have to pay to the developer out of public funds should it decide to revoke.”
WLR Daily, 18th July 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Where the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal against sentence at a time by which, subsequent to the original passing of sentence, the law had changed in relation to release on licence, it was not the case that reliance could be placed on the particularities of such date in order to claim that it was the later provisions which governed matters relating to release.”
WLR Daily, 17th July 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Any requirement which, if not satisfied, would lead to an application for leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom being refused, was a rule ‘as to the practice to be followed’ in the administration of the Immigration Act 1971 and therefore had to be laid before Parliament in accordance with section 3(2) of the Act.”
WLR Daily, 18th July 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Swift v Secretary of State for Justice [2012] EWHC 2000 (QB) (18 July 2012)
Vava & Ors v Anglo American South Africa Ltd [2012] EWHC 1969 (QB) (16 July 2012)
Source: www.bailii.org
“The rule against reflective loss and the extent to which a shareholder could sue for loss primarily suffered by and primarily belonging to a company did not extend to loss suffered by holders of a debenture.”
WLR Daily, 16th July 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“A claimant affected by, but not party to, a country guidance determination which was under appeal to the Court of Appeal was not entitled to an automatic stay of removal pending the outcome of the appeal. It was in the court’s discretion to grant a stay, but the court should not stay removal pending the decision of the Court of Appeal unless the claimant had adduced a clear and coherent body of evidence that the findings of the tribunal were in error.”
WLR Daily, 13th July 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Adedoyin v Secretary of State for the Home Department: [2012] EWCA civ 939; [2012] WLR (D) 206
“Where the Upper Tribunal had properly directed itself as to its approach on an appeal from a determination of the First–tier Tribunal and had arrived at a conclusion which was open to it, the decision of the Upper Tribunal contained no material error of law and so the Court of Appeal should not allow an appeal from that decision, even if the court might have been more (or less) generous in its approach to the determination of the First-tier Tribunal.”
WLR Daily, 13th July 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Leach v Office of Communications: [2012] EWCA Civ 959; [2012] WLR (D) 205
“The trust placed by an employer in an employee was at the core of their relationship. The employment tribunal had been entitled to find that, where the employer had received an unproved and untested allegation of an overseas child sex offence against the employee, who had not disclosed it to the employer prior to his appointment, the resulting breakdown of trust had constituted ‘some other substantial reason’ within the meaning of section 98(1)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 summarily to dismiss the employee in order to prevent the employer’s reputation being damaged.”
WLR Daily, 13th July 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025