BAILII: Recent Decisions
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Chancery Division)
High Court (Commercial Court)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
Source: www.bailii.org
Category: law reports
Freetown Ltd v Assethold Ltd – WLR Daily
Freetown Ltd v Assethold Ltd [2012] EWHC 1351 (QB); [2012] WLR (D) 162
“Service of a surveyor’s award sent by post, pursuant to section 15(1) of the Party Wall etc Act 1996, was effected when the award was consigned to the post.”
WLR Daily, 21st May 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
BAILII: Recent Decisions
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
O’Connell v Viridian Housing [2012] EWHC 1389 (QB) (25 May 2012)
Lewis v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis & Ors [2012] EWHC 1391 (QB) (25 May 2012)
High Court (Chancery Division)
HM Revenue and Customs v The Football League Ltd & Anor [2012] EWHC 1372 (Ch) (25 May 2012)
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Ted Baker Plc & Anor v AXA Insurance UK Plc & Ors [2012] EWHC 1406 (Comm) (25 May 2012)
Source: www.bailii.org
BAILII: Recent Decisions
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Greene King Plc v Quisine Restaurants Ltd & Anor [2012] EWCA Civ 698 (24 May 2012)
Hinchcliffe & Anor v Smith & Ors [2012] EWCA Civ 696 (24 May 2012)
Ingosstrakh -Investments v BNP Paribas SA [2012] EWCA Civ 644 (24 May 2012)
Cavenagh v William Evans Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 697 (24 May 2012)
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Maloney v Filtons Ltd & Anor [2012] EWHC 1395 (Ch) (24 May 2012)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Trimingham v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2012] EWHC 1296 (QB) (24 May 2012)
Source: www.bailii.org
Test Claimants in the Franked Investment Income Group Litigation v Customs and Excise Comrs (formerly Inland Revenue Comrs) – WLR Daily
“Claims for recovery of unlawfully exacted tax under the principle in Woolwich Equitable Building Society v Inland Revenue Comrs [1993] AC 70 (‘the Woolwich principle’) were not limited to those cases where there had been an actual demand by the revenue for payment, but applied generally in all cases where there had been a payment in response to an apparent statutory requirement to pay tax, which was not lawfully due.”
WLR Daily, 23rd May 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Attorney General’s Reference (Nos 11 and 12 of 2012) – WLR daily
Attorney General’s Reference (Nos 11 and 12 of 2012): [2012] EWCA Crim 1119; [2012] WLR (D) 160
“When sentencing for rape of a person under 13, under section 5 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, the judge in assessing seriousness had to analyse the circumstances of the offence and consider the deterrent element in sentencing for sexual offences committed against young children, taking into account the fact that exploitative behaviour might be as serious as submission obtained by force, the ages of the offender and victim, and the starting point for such consideration was on page 25 of the Sentencing Guidelines Council guideline Sexual Offences Act 2003 (2007).”
WLR Daily, 23rd May 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
BAILII: Recent Decisions
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Bank of Ireland & Anor v Jaffery & Anor [2012] EWHC 1377 (Ch) (23 May 2012)
Aspden v Elvy [2012] EWHC 1387 (Ch) (23 May 2012)
High Court (Patents Court)
Fabio Perini SPA v LPC Group Plc & Ors [2012] EWHC 1393 (Pat) (04 April 2012)
Source: www.bailii.org
Regina (Eastenders Cash & Carry plc and another) v Revenue and Customs Commissioners (No 2) – WLR Daily
“The protection against costs provided to HM Revenue and Customs by section 144(2) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979, in respect of proceedings brought against them on account of the seizure or detention of any thing on reasonable grounds, applied to claims for judicial review.”
WLR Daily, 22nd May 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Pomiechowski v District Court of Legunica, Poland; Lukaszewski v District Court in Torun, Poland; Rozanski v Regional Court 3 Penal Department, Poland; Regina (Halligen) v Secretary of State for the Home Department – WLR Daily
“When a notice of appeal against an extradition decision had an irregularity which could be cured by amendment and the circumstances merited that, the court had jurisdiction to permit the amendment and hear the appeal. A British citizen against whom an extradition order was made was entitled to a fair determination of his common law right to remain within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom. A statutory provision which impaired his right of appeal against an extradition decision had to be read with the qualification that the court had a discretion in exceptional circumstances to extend the time for the filing of a notice of appeal.”
WLR Daily, 23rd May 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
I v Oberbürgermeisterin der Stadt Remscheid – WLR Daily
I v Oberbürgermeisterin der Stadt Remscheid (Case C-348/09); [2012] WLR (D) 157
“An individual who had committed an offence, including those referred to in article 83(1)FEU of the FEU Treaty, such as the sexual exploitation of children, could be regarded as constituting a particularly serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society and therefore could be excluded from a host member state on ‘imperative ground[s] of public security’ pursuant to article 28(3)(a) of Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC.”
WLR Daily, 22nd May 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina (Horne and another) v Central Criminal Court – WLR Daily
Regina (Horne and another) v Central Criminal Court [2012] EWHC 1350 (Admin); [2012] WLR (D) 156
“A ‘confiscation investigation’ within Part 8 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 could take place after a confiscation order had been made. Therefore a judge could have jurisdiction to issue a search warrant or disclosure order, pursuant to sections 352 and 357 respectively of the 2002 Act, provided they were limited to investigating the extent or whereabouts of property obtained as a result of or in connection with the commission of an offence.”
WLR Daily, 22nd May 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
BAILII: Recent Decisions
Supreme Court
Lukaszewski v The District Court in Torun, Poland [2012] UKSC 20 (23 May 2012)
NJDB v JEG & Anor (Scotland) [2012] UKSC 21 (23 May 2012)
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Channer & Anor, Re [2012] EWCA Crim 1119 (23 May 2012)
Sule v R [2012] EWCA Crim 1130 (23 May 2012)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Eastenders Cash & Carry Plc & Anor v HM Revenue & Customs [2012] EWCA Civ 689 (22 May 2012)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Bradbury v British Broadcasting Corporation [2012] EWHC 1369 (Ch) (23 May 2012)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
Phaestos Ltd & Anor v Ho & Ors [2012] EWHC 1375 (TCC) (23 May 2012)
Source: www.bailii.org
BAILII: Recent Decisions
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Hall v Harris & Ors [2012] EWCA Civ 671 (22 May 2012)
Ryanair Holdings Plc v The Office of Fair Trading & Anor [2012] EWCA Civ 643 (22 May 2012)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Smeaton v Equifax Plc [2012] EWHC 2088 (QB) (11 May 2012)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Aerostar Maintenance International Ltd & Anor v Wilson & Ors [2012] EWHC 1353 (Ch) (04 May 2012)
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Family Division)
JS (a minor), Re [2012] EWHC 1370 (Fam) (29 March 2012)
Source: www.bailii.org
BAILII: Recent Decisions
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Freetown Ltd v Assethold Ltd [2012] EWHC 1351 (QB) (21 May 2012)
Montpellier Estates Ltd v Leeds City Council [2012] EWHC 1343 (QB) (21 May 2012)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Bramston v Haut [2012] EWHC 1279 (Ch) (21 May 2012)
Source: www.bailii.org
El Goure v Kensington and Chelsea Royal London Borough Council – WLR Daily
“Although the legislation did not lay down the criteria of special circumstances in relation to priority need for housing homeless persons, a separated parent’s reasonable expectation that his children, who were living with their other parent, would move to live with him did not impose an obligation on the local housing authority to consider the parent’s case as special circumstances case for priority needs. Where an applicant for housing was represented by solicitors the failure of the authority expressly to notify the solicitor so that they could make representations in connection with the review did not invalidate the decision of the review officer to uphold the authority’s decision rejecting an application for priority need housing.”
WLR Daily, 18th May 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Humphreys v Revenue and Customs Commissioners – WLR Daily
Humphreys v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2012 UKSC 18; [2012] WLR (D) 154
“The indirect sex discrimination against fathers arising from the refusal to split child tax credit between separated parents who shared care of a child was objectively justified.”
WLR Daily, 16th May 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Maswaku v Westminster City Council – WLR Daily
Maswaku v Westminster City Council [2012] EWCA Civ 669; [2012] WLR (D) 153
“Section 193(5) of the Housing Act 1996 did not impose any statutory obligation on the local housing authority to spell out each and every possible consequence if an eligible homeless applicant refused temporary alternative accommodation offered which the authority considered to be suitable for him.”
WLR Daily, 18th May 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Mattu v University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust – WLR Daily
“The disciplinary proceedings of a public employer as to the dismissal of an employee under a contract of employment did not determine a “civil right” of the employee for the purposes of the right to a fair hearing pursuant to article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.”
WLR Daily, 18th May 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Westbrook Dolphin Square Ltd v Friends Life Ltd – WLR Daily
Westbrook Dolphin Square Ltd v Friends Life Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 666; [2012] WLR (D) 151
“Since the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 gave a tenant of a flat the right to acquire the freehold of his premises following service on the landlord of a notice of claim under section 13, and the tenant also had the statutory right to serve a second notice of claim at any time after a year had expired following the withdrawal of the first notice of claim, the general provision in CPR r 38.7, requiring the permission of the court to bring a second claim, did not apply to a second claim based on such a second notice.”
WLR Daily, 18th May 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Burnip v Birmingham City Council and another (Equality and Human Rights Commission intervening); Trengove v Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council and another (Same intervening); Gorry v Wiltshire County Council and another (Same intervening) – WLR Daily
“The statutory criteria for calculating housing benefit for tenants in the private rented sector based on an entitlement to a one bedroom rate discriminated against the severely disabled and there was no justification in their case for continuation of the single bedroom rules.”
WLR Daily, 15th May 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
