“Where a corporation had been removed from the register of charities but had not been struck off and dissolved until after the death of the testatrix, a gift made in her will took effect notwithstanding that the corporation had ceased to exist.”
WLR Daily, 16th March 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
G v de Visser (Case C-292/10); [2012] WLR (D) 87
“Where it was impossible to locate the whereabouts of a defendant, European Union law did not preclude the issue of judgment by default in circumstances where the document instituting proceedings had been served by public notice under national law, provided that the court seised of the matter had first satisfied itself that all investigations required by the principles of diligence and good faith had been undertaken to trace the defendant.”
WLR Daily, 15th March 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Barr and others v Biffa Waste Services Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 312; [2012] WLR (D) 86
“Conventional principles of the law of nuisance were to be applied to a claim based on nuisance by smell from a waste tip operated pursuant to a waste management permit. The fact that the alleged interference did not breach the permit nor amounted to negligence did not mean that the user had to be deemed ‘reasonable’.”
WLR Daily, 19th March 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Supreme Court
Tesco Stores Ltd v Dundee City Council (Scotland) [2012] UKSC 13 (21 March 2012)
Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd [2012] UKSC 11 (21 March 2012)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Mohamed v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 331 (20 March 2012)
Kennedy v Charity Commission [2012] EWCA Civ 317 (20 March 2012)
Hutchinson & Anor v Neale & Anor [2012] EWCA Civ 345 (20 March 2012)
Al Sanea v Saad Investments Co Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 313 (20 March 2012)
Tasneem v Dudley Group of Hospitals NHS Trust [2012] EWCA Civ 329 (21 March 2012)
Crabtree v Ng [2012] EWCA Civ 333 (21 March 2012)
Burnett v Lynch [2012] EWCA Civ 347 (21 March 2012)
Fortune & Ors v Wiltshire Council & Anor [2012] EWCA Civ 334 (20 March 2012)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Gittins v Serco Home Affairs [2012] EWHC 651 (Ch) (20 March 2012)
Groveholt Ltd v Hughes & Anor [2012] EWHC 686 (Ch) (21 March 2012)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Wright v Argentina [2012] EWHC 669 (Admin) (20 March 2012)
Ujam v General Medical Council [2012] EWHC 683 (Admin) (20 March 2012)
Source: www.bailii.org
High Court (Administrative Court)
Long v Rodman & Ors [2012] EWHC 347 (Ch) (23 February 2012)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
Phaestos Ltd & Anor v Ho [2012] EWHC 668 (TCC) (16 March 2012)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Source: www.bailii.org
“Where a claimant who had succeeded before the First-tier Tribunal but failed in the Upper Tribunal sought permission to appeal from the Upper Tribunal, not on the ground of an important point of principle or practice, but for some other compelling reason within section 13(6)(b) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, the test to be applied was stringent but flexible, taking into account the particular circumstances of the case. The procedural history and extreme consequences for the claimant if he were refused permission to appeal were relevant factors to be taken into account by the court in deciding whether the threshold for a second-tier appeal had been reached.”
WLR Daily, 16th March 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
BESTrustees plc v Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander Ltd [2012] EWHC 629 (Ch); [2012] WLR (D) 84
“Where an insolvency event had occurred in relation to an employer, thereby triggering a calculation of the deficiencies in the assets of a pension fund under section 75 of the Pensions Act 1995, the time at which both the value of the pension scheme assets and the cost of the notional acquisition of annuities in the market to match its liabilities should be assessed was the ‘applicable time’ within the meaning of regulation 5 of the Occupational Pension Schemes (Employer Debt) Regulations 2005, which, in the form which the regulation 5 had taken as at 8 October 2008, was the date of the insolvency event.”
WLR Daily, 16th March 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
R. v SVS Solicitors [2012] EWCA Crim 319 (15 February 2012)
A v B & Anor [2012] EWCA Civ 285 (14 March 2012)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Maqsood v Mahmood & Anor [2012] EWCA Civ 251 (13 March 2012)
JD (Congo) & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 327 (16 March 2012)
Barr & Ors v Biffa Waste Services Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 312 (19 March 2012)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Travelers Insurance Company Ltd & Anor v Advani [2012] EWHC 623 (QB) (16 March 2012)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Coleridge v Sotheby’s [2012] EWHC 370 (Ch) (01 March 2012)
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
Phaestos Ltd & Anor v Ho [2012] EWHC 635 (TCC) (05 March 2012)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Standard Bank Plc v Via Mat International Ltd & Anor [2012] EWHC 574 (Comm) (16 March 2012)
High Court (Patents Court)
Merck Sharp Dohme Corp & Anor v Teva Pharma BV & Anor [2012] EWHC 627 (Pat) (15 March 2012)
Source: www.bailii.org
Regina v Feeley [2012] WLR (D) 83
“Where a defendant was being retried, following a successful appeal against conviction, there was no reason in principle why additional counts should not be added to the indictment.”
WLR Daily, 15th March 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v Chinn [2012] EWCA 501; [2012] WLR (D) 82
“Where a witness’s oral evidence in chief indicated that he had earlier made a witness statement and to the best of his belief he had made the statement concerned and that the statement stated the truth, and the statement identified or described a person, object or place connected with an alleged offence or other relevant event, those parts of the witness statement would be admissible under section 120(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. However, other parts of the witness statement, which went beyond identification or description of the person object or place, would not be admissible under section 120(4) and (5).”
WLR Daily, 15th March 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“‘Communication to the public’ for the purposes of article 8(2) of Directive 92/100/EEC did not cover the broadcasting, free of charge, of phonograms within private dental practices engaged in professional economic activity for the benefit of patients of those practices and enjoyed by them without any active choice on their part. Therefore such an act of transmission did not entitle the phonogram producers to the payment of remuneration.”
WLR Daily, 15th March 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Faidi & Anor v Elliot Corporation [2012] EWCA Civ 287 (16 March 2012)
Yafai v Muthana [2012] EWCA Civ 289 (16 March 2012)
McGuire v Rose [2012] EWCA Civ 288 (16 March 2012)
Welsh Ministers & Anor v RWE Npower Renewables Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 311 (15 March 2012)
Smith v Butler [2012] EWCA Civ 314 (15 March 2012)
Oliver & Anor v Symons & Anor [2012] EWCA Civ 267 (15 March 2012)
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Chinn, R. v [2012] EWCA Crim 501 (15 March 2012)
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Combined Insurance Company of America (CICA), Re [2012] EWHC 632 (Ch) (16 March 2012)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Bikam OOD Central Investment Group SA v Adria Cable SARL [2012] EWHC 621 (Comm) (15 March 2012)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Weston v Bates & Anor [2012] EWHC 590 (QB) (15 March 2012)
Tinkler & Anor v Elliott [2012] EWHC 600 (QB) (15 March 2012)
Citation Plc v Ellis Whittam Ltd [2012] EWHC 549 (QB) (14 March 2012)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
Murray Construction Ltd v Marino Family Trust Ltd [2012] EWHC 628 (TCC) (15 March 2012)
Walter Lilly & Company Ltd v Mackay & Anor [2012] EWHC 649 (TCC) (15 March 2012)
Source: www.bailii.org
“Where a child was conceived by a mother and a father by virtue of an agreement between them that the child would live with and be brought up in the care of the mother and her female partner as the primary care givers of the child, there could be no general rule in family proceedings that the biological father was to be regarded only as a ‘secondary’ parent or to have a limited relationship with the child. Each case was fact specific and the welfare of the child was paramount.”
WLR Daily, 14th March 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
AB and others v Ministry of Defence: [2012] UKSC 9; [2012] WLR (D) 79
“Reasonable belief that a claimant’s injury was attributable to an act or omission of the defendant was sufficient to satisfy the requirement of knowledge in sections 11 and 14 of the Limitation Act 1980 for the purpose of determining whether his claim was time-barred.”
WLR Daily, 14th March 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
In re S (A Child) (Abduction: Custody Appeal): [2012] UKSC 10; [2012] WLR (D) 78
“A child should not be returned to his country of habitual residence if the court considered that his mother who had to accompany him would on return suffer such anxieties that their effect on her mental health would create an intolerable situation for the child. It did not matter whether the mother’s anxieties were reasonable or not.”
WLR Daily, 14th March 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
RB (Somalia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: [2012] EWCA Civ 277; [2012] WLR (D) 77
“Analysis of an asylum seeker’s speech carried out by a private Swedish company was admissible in asylum proceedings although the analysts were allowed to remain anonymous and the presentation of the evidence did not comply in a number of respects with practice directions for the immigration and asylum chambers of the First-tier and Upper Tribunals. The Upper Tribunal had a broad discretion with regard to the control of the evidence before it and had, within its case management powers, the power to waive non-compliance with a practice direction or a rule. Its obligation was to ensure that any expert report represented a genuine, objective view by those qualified to express it with sufficient reasoning and clarity to enable it to be challenged and assessed.”
WLR Daily, 13th March 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v A (RJ): [2012] EWCA Crim 434; [2012] WLR (D) 76
“A prosecution which did not constitute an abuse of process at the date of conviction could not acquire that characteristic on the basis of new or amended prosecutorial guidance or policy subsequently issued.”
WLR Daily, 13th March 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Cornelius, R v [2012] EWCA Crim 500 (14 March 2012)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Reddy v The General Medical Council [2012] EWCA Civ 310 (14 March 2012)
Harripaul v London Borough of Lewisham [2012] EWCA Civ 266 (14 March 2012)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Danks & Ors v Qinetiq Holdings Ltd & Anor [2012] EWHC 570 (Ch) (14 March 2012)
Source: www.bailii.org
Supreme Court
S (A Child), Re [2012] UKSC 10 (14 March 2012)
Ministry of Defence v AB & Ors [2012] UKSC 9 (14 March 2012)
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Kapoor & Ors v R. [2012] EWCA Crim 435 (09 March 2012)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Murphy v Media Protection Services Ltd [2012] EWHC 466 (Admin) (24 February 2012)
Ujam v General Medical Council [2012] EWHC 580 (Admin) (13 March 2012)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
XVW & YZA v Gravesend Grammar Schools for Girls & Anor [2012] EWHC 575 (QB) (13 March 2012)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Rhinegold Publishing Ltd v Apex Business Development Ltd [2012] EWHC 587 (Ch) (13 March 2012)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Osmium Shipping Corp v Cargill International SA [2012] EWHC 571 (Comm) (13 March 2012)
Source: www.bailii.org
Souglides v Tweedie and another [2012] EWHC 561 (Ch); [2012] WLR (D) 74
“An interest carved out of a superior leasehold or freehold interest could constitute ‘an interest reversionary (whether directly or indirectly)’ on the term of a lease for the purpose of section 9(1) of the Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 1964. Accordingly, an option for a lease extension fell within section 9(1) and so was exempt from the rule against perpetuities.”
WLR Daily, 12th March 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025