Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Maswaku v Westminster City Council [2012] EWCA Civ 669 (18 May 2012)
El Goure v The Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea [2012] EWCA Civ 670 (18 May 2012)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Wolman v Weller [2012] EWHC 1292 (QB) (18 May 2012)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Source: www.bailii.org
“Where a commercial contract contained a choice of law clause exclusively in favour of one country and a jurisdiction clause giving the courts of the same country exclusive jurisdiction, but an arbitration clause by which the seat of the arbitration was to be in a different country, the issue of the proper law of the arbitration clause was a matter of contractual interpretation. The proper law depended on all the terms of the particular contract, when read in the light of the surrounding circumstances and commercial common sense.”
WLR Daily, 16th May 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Arrears of rent due during the provisional liquidation period were to be treated as an expense of the liquidation and payable in priority to most other liquidation expenses.”
WLR Daily, 16th May 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Ghaith v Indesit Company UK Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 642 (17 May 2012)
High Court (Chancery Division)
McKillen v Misland (Cyprus) Investments Ltd & Ors [2012] EWHC 1158 (Ch) (26 April 2012)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Source: www.bailii.org
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Doyle & Ors v R [2012] EWCA Crim 995 (16 May 2012)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Rehill v Rider Holdings Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 628 (16 May 2012)
Sucafina SA v Rotenberg [2012] EWCA Civ 637 (16 May 2012)
JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov [2012] EWCA Civ 639 (16 May 2012)
Durden v Aston [2012] EWCA Civ 636 (16 May 2012)
Ibrahim v Barclays Bank Plc & Anor [2012] EWCA Civ 640 (16 May 2012)
Telchadder v Wickland (Holdings) Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 635 (16 May 2012)
Supreme Court
Humphreys v Revenue and Customs [2012] UKSC 18 (16 May 2012)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Shah & Anor v HSBC Private Bank (UK) Ltd [2012] EWHC 1283 (QB) (16 May 2012)
Secretary of State for Justice v LSM Professional Ltd & Anor [2012] EWHC 1280 (QB) (16 May 2012)
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Source: www.bailii.org
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Source: www.bailii.org
“In determining which local authority was to be the designated authority in care order proceedings governing a child, where the mother was herself a child in care, the ‘disregard provision’ contained within section 105(6) of the Children Act 1989 did not apply to the mother. It applied only to the child who was the subject of the care order proceedings.”
WLR Daily, 14th May 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Alecu v R. [2012] EWCA Crim 994 (15 May 2012)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Hounga v Allen & Anor [2012] EWCA Civ 609 (15 May 2012)
Blair v The Chief Constable of Sussex Police [2012] EWCA Civ 633 (15 May 2012)
Yeates v AVIVA Insurance UK Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 634 (15 May 2012)
Burnip v Birmingham City Council & Anor [2012] EWCA Civ 629 (15 May 2012)
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Commercial Court)
JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov & Ors [2012] EWHC 1252 (Comm) (15 May 2012)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
R and C Electrical Engineers Ltd v Shaylor Construction Ltd [2012] EWHC 1254 (TCC) (15 May 2012)
Source: www.bailii.org
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
D (A Child) [2012] EWCA Civ 627 (14 May 2012)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Kudos Catering (UK) Ltd v Manchester Central Convention [2012] EWHC 1192 (QB) (19 April 2012)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Edenwest Ltd v CMS Cameron McKenna (A Firm) [2012] EWHC 1258 (Ch) (14 May 2012)
Stupples v Stupples & Co (High Wycombe) Ltd [2012] EWHC 1226 (Ch) (09 May 2012)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Fish v The General Medical Council [2012] EWHC 1269 (Admin) (14 May 2012)
Source: www.bailii.org
Sullivan (aka Soloman) v Bristol Film Studios Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 570; [2012] WLR (D) 145
“In deciding whether a small claim ought to be struck out as an abuse of process it was relevant to consider whether there was a proportionate procedure available by which the claim could be adjudicated.”
WLR Daily, 3rd May 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Neilly v The Queen [2012] UKPC 12; [2012] WLR (D) 144
“When a defendant in a criminal trial had not been put on an identification parade, the decision as to whether to allow a dock identification was a matter for the trial judge in the light of all the relevant circumstances. However where a dock identification was admitted in evidence the trial judge was required to give the jury careful directions as to the dangers of relying on that evidence, and to warn the jury of the disadvantages to the defendant of having been denied the opportunity of participating in an identification parade.”
WLR Daily, 10th May 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Balgobin v South West Regional Health Authority [2012] UKPC 11; [2012] WLR (D) 143
“The entry of a default judgment against one of two defendants to a personal injury claim did not operate as a bar to a subsequent finding of liability against the other defendant when the claimant had not made an unequivocal election to only pursue her claim against one defendant.”
WLR Daily, 10th May 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
High Court (Chancery Division)
Price & Anor v Nunn [2012] EWHC 1251 (Ch) (11 May 2012)
Paton & Anor v Todd [2012] EWHC 1248 (Ch) (11 May 2012)
Hughmans Solicitors v Central Stream Services Ltd & Anor [2012] EWHC 1222 (Ch) (11 May 2012)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Deutsche Bank Ag v Total Global Steel Ltd [2012] EWHC 1201 (Comm) (11 May 2012)
European Group Ltd & Ors v Chartis Insurance UK Ltd. [2012] EWHC 1245 (Comm) (11 May 2012)
Source: www.bailii.org
Court of Appeal (Civil Divsion)
Nokia OYJ (Nokia Corporation) v IPCom GmbH & Co Kg [2012] EWCA Civ 567 (10 May 2012)
Humber Oil Terminals Trustee Ltd v Associated British Ports [2012] EWCA Civ 596 (10 May 2012)
PHI Group Ltd v Robert West Consulting Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 588 (10 May 2012)
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Singla v Stockler & Anor [2012] EWHC 1176 (Ch) (10 May 2012)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Hunt v Times Newspapers Ltd [2012] EWHC 1220 (QB) (10 May 2012)
Source: www.bailii.org
“The provision of housing accommodation was, and could only be, a charitable purpose if it was justified as charitable in respect of the direct benefit provided. It could only be so justified if it was provided to meet a relevant need of the class eligible to occupy it so as to fall within the spirit and intendment of the preamble to the Statute of Charitable Uses 1601 (‘the Statute of Elizabeth’) either directly or by analogy.”
WLR Daily, 9th May 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina (M) v Croydon London Borough Council [2012] EWCA Civ 595; [2012] WLR (D) 141
“A claimant in the Administrative Court whose public law claim resulted in a settlement of the claim, whether before a hearing of the case or after a full hearing so that the claimant obtained all the relief sought, was entitled, just as a claimant in general civil litigation, to all of his costs unless there was good reason to the contrary.”
WLR Daily, 8th May 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Harrow Borough Council v Ayiku [2012] EWHC 1200 (Admin); [2012] WLR (D) 140
“The non-British spouse of a student (residing in a relevant dwelling) who was prevented by the terms of her leave to enter from claiming benefits, but was not prevented by those terms from taking paid employment, was exempt from having to pay council tax by virtue of the operation of class N in article 3 of the Council Tax (Exempt Dwellings) Order 1992, as substituted.”
WLR Daily, 9th May 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Helena Partnerships Ltd v HM Revenue and Customs [2012] EWCA Civ 569 (09 May 2012)
Barker v Hambleton District Council [2012] EWCA Civ 610 (09 May 2012)
London Borough of Enfield v Outdoor Plus Ltd & Anor [2012] EWCA Civ 608 (09 May 2012)
Slater v Stephen Mark St Patrick Condappa [2012] EWCA Civ 598 (09 May 2012)
Owen Ernest Wood & Ors v Hudson Industrial Services Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 599 (09 May 2012)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Zhang v Homerton University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2012] EWHC 1208 (QB) (09 May 2012)
Cornish v General Medical Council [2012] EWHC 1196 (QB) (09 May 2012)
Attrill & Ors v Dresdner Kleinwort Ltd & Anor [2012] EWHC 1189 (QB) (09 May 2012)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Workman & Anor v Tag Capital Ventures Ltd (Rev 1) [2012] EWHC 1171 (Ch) (08 May 2012)
Trillium (Nelson) Properties Ltd v Office Metro Ltd [2012] EWHC 1191 (Ch) (09 May 2012)
High Court (Administrative Court)
London Borough of Harrow v Ayiku [2012] EWHC 1200 (Admin) (09 May 2012)
Source: www.bailii.org
Migrationsverket v Kastrati and Others (Case C-620/10); [2012] WLR (D) 139
“The withdrawal of an asylum application which occurred before the requested member state had agreed to take charge of the asylum seeker, had the effect that Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 which established the criteria and mechanisms for determining the member state responsible for examining an asylum application would no longer be applicable. In such circumstances, it was for the member state within the territory of which the application was lodged to take the decisions required as a result of that withdrawal and to discontinue the examination of the application, with a record of the information relating to it being placed in the applicant’s file.”
WLR Daily, 3rd May 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Les Laboratoires Servier and another v Apotex Inc and others [2012] EWCA Civ 593; [2012] WLR (D) 138
“The court was able to take into account a wide range of considerations in order to ensure that the ex turpi causa defence only applied where it was a just and proportionate response to the illegality in question. Although a party claiming compensation on a cross-undertaking in damages for lost sales of products the manufacture of which infringed a foreign patent was relying on an unlawful act sufficiently causative of its claim to engage the defence in principle, the defence did not apply where the party had believed reasonably and in good faith that the patent was invalid, and the illegality was recognised by making a deduction in the assessment of damages for the amount which the foreign court would have awarded in patent infringement proceedings.”
WLR Daily, 3rd May 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025