law reports – Page 169 – Current Awareness

MA v JA (Attorney General intervening) – WLR Daily

Posted August 7th, 2012 in law reports, marriage by sally

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

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted August 7th, 2012 in law reports by sally

High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)

Lord Chancellor v McCarthy [2012] EWHC 2325 (QB) (06 August 2012)

High Court (Administrative Court)

Reilly & Anor, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Rev 1) [2012] EWHC 2292 (Admin) (06 August 2012)

Source: www.bailii.org

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted August 6th, 2012 in law reports by sally

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

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted August 3rd, 2012 in law reports by sally

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

SG v Hewitt [2012] EWCA Civ 1053 (02 August 2012)

Source: www.bailii.org

Regina v Gul (Hamesh) – WLR Daily

Posted August 3rd, 2012 in criminal procedure, drug offences, indictments, law reports, trials by sally

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 – WLR Daily

Posted August 3rd, 2012 in appeals, competition, EC law, law reports, limitations, statutory interpretation by sally

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

Assénagon Asset Management SA v Irish Bank Resolution Corpn Ltd – WLR Daily

Posted August 3rd, 2012 in company law, law reports, shareholders, ultra vires by sally

Assénagon Asset Management SA v Irish Bank Resolution Corpn Ltd: [2012] EWHC 2090 (Ch); [2012] WLR (D) 243

“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 – WLR Daily

Posted August 2nd, 2012 in appropriation, law reports, trusts, wills by sally

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

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted August 2nd, 2012 in law reports by sally

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)

Rawlinson & Hunter Trustee & Ors, R (on the application of) v Central Criminal Court & Anor [2012] EWHC 2254 (Admin) (31 July 2012)

Derbyshire Constabulary, R (on the application of) v The Police Appeals Tribunal & Ors [2012] EWHC 2280 (Admin) (01 August 2012)

C, R (on the application of) v North Tyneside Council [2012] EWHC 2222 (Admin) (01 August 2012)

High Court (Commercial Court)

Parker & Anorr v The National Farmers Union Mutual Insurance Society Ltd [2012] EWHC 2156 (Comm) (31 July 2012)

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

Regina (Foley) v Parole Board for England and Wales and another – WLR Daily

Posted August 1st, 2012 in early release, law reports, parole, prisons, release on licence, sentencing by sally

Regina (Foley) v Parole Board for England and Wales and another [2012] EWHC 2184 (Admin); [2012] WLR (D) 241

“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 reL and another (Children) (Preliminary fact finding hearing: Judge’s power to reverse conclusions on findings of fact) – WLR Daily

Posted August 1st, 2012 in care orders, families, judgments, law reports, split hearings by sally

In reL and another (Children) (Preliminary fact finding hearing: Judge’s power to reverse conclusions on findings of fact) [2012] EWCA Civ 984; [2012] WLR (D) 240

“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 – WLR Daily

Posted August 1st, 2012 in appeals, bankruptcy, civil procedure rules, disclosure, divorce, law reports, transfer of proceedings by sally

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

Serious Organised Crime Agency v Perry and others; Serious Organised Crime Agency v Perry and others (No 2) – WLR Daily

Posted August 1st, 2012 in assets recovery, confiscation, disclosure, extraterritoriality, international law, law reports, proceeds of crime, Supreme Court by sally

Serious Organised Crime Agency v Perry and others; Serious Organised Crime Agency v Perry and others (No 2) [2012] UKSC 35; [2012] WLR (D) 238

“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

Regina (YZ (China)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department – WLR Daily

Posted August 1st, 2012 in appeals, deportation, families, immigration, judicial review, law reports by sally

Regina (YZ (China)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 1022; [2012] WLR (D) 237

“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

Bilta (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) and others v Nazir and others – WLR Daily

Posted August 1st, 2012 in extraterritoriality, fraudulent trading, insolvency, law reports, winding up by sally

Bilta (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) and others v Nazir and others [2012] EWHC 2163 (Ch); [2012] WLR (D) 236

“Section 213 of the Insolvency Act 1986 had extraterritorial effect. Sir Andrew Morritt C so held in the Chancery Division when dismissing the application by the sixth defendant Jetivia SA (‘Jetivia’), a company incorporated in Switzerland, and the seventh defendant, its sole director Urs Brunschweiler (‘B’), seeking orders that the claim by the second and third claimants, Kevin John Hellard and David Anthony Ingram, the liquidators of the first claimant, Bilta (UK) Ltd (‘Bilta’), alleging that the defendants had conspired to injure and defraud Bilta and were knowingly parties to the carrying on of the business of Bilta with intent to defraud the creditors of Bilta and other fraudulent purposes, should be summarily dismissed. Save for the ninth defendant, only Jetivia and B were now participating in the proceedings.”

WLR Daily, 30th July 2012

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Hewage v Grampian Health Board – WLR Daily

Posted August 1st, 2012 in burden of proof, employment tribunals, law reports, race discrimination, sex discrimination, Supreme Court by sally

Hewage v Grampian Health Board [2012] UKSC 37; [2012] WLR (D) 235

“In considering a claim for discrimination in the employment tribunal, the statutory burden of proof provisions only required careful attention where there was room for doubt as to the facts necessary to establish discrimination.”

WLR Daily, 25th July 2012

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Chambers v Director of Public Prosecutions – WLR Daily

Posted August 1st, 2012 in appeals, bomb hoaxing, freedom of expression, internet, law reports, threatening to destroy or damage property by sally

Chambers v Director of Public Prosecutions [2012] EWHC 2157 (Admin); [2012] WLR (D) 234
“A message which did not create fear or apprehension in those to whom it was communicated, or who may reasonably have been expected to see it, was not of a ‘menacing character’ within the meaning section 127(1)(a) of the Communications Act 2003. That provision created an offence of basic intent and, accordingly, the mental element of the offence was satisfied if the accused were proved to have intended that the message should have been of menacing character or alternatively, to have been aware of or to have recognised the risk at the time of sending the message that it might have created fear or apprehension in any reasonable member of the public who had read or seen it. Moreover, a ‘tweet’ sent via the social networking site Twitter, was ‘a message’ sent by an electronic communications service for the purposes of section 127(1) of the 2003 Act regardless of whether the tweet was read as a ‘message’ or as content on the website.”

WLR Daily, 27th July 2012

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Regina (NB (Algeria)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department – WLR Daily

Posted August 1st, 2012 in appeals, asylum, judicial review, jurisdiction, law reports, stay of execution by sally

Regina (NB (Algeria)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 1050; [2012] WLR (D) 233

“The Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to grant an claimant, whose claim for judicial review of a removal order had been rejected by Upper Tribunal, a stay of his removal until his application for permission to appeal had been considered by the Court of Appeal.”

WLR Daily, 27th July 2012

Source: www.iclr.co.uk