Supreme Court
Peacock, Re [2012] UKSC 3 (22 February 2012)
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Gul, R v [2012] EWCA Crim 280 (22 February 2012)
Dowds v R [2012] EWCA Crim 281 (22 February 2012)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
D v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2012] EWHC 309 (QB) (22 February 2012)
Barber & Ors v Rasco International Ltd & Anor [2012] EWHC 269 (QB) (02 February 2012)
Source: www.bailii.org
Caterpillar Logistics Service (UK) Ltd v de Crean [2012] EWCA Civ 156; [2012] WLR (D) 40
“The court had power under section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 to grant barring-out relief, but if it could ever be granted to an employer against an employee it could only be in the most exceptional circumstances.”
WLR Daily, 21st February 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Cameron v Boggiano and another [2012] EWCA Civ 157; [2012] WLR (D) 39
“A court was entitled to seek assistance on the construction of a plan and title documents by taking account of the topographical features at the relevant date, provided the documents were ambiguous.”
WLR Daily, 21st February 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v N(A); Regina v Le [2012] EWCA Crim 189; [2012] WLR (D) 38
“The implementation of the United Kingdom’s obligation to comply with article 26 of the Council of Europe Convention on Action Against Trafficking in Human Beings 2005 would normally be achieved by the proper exercise of the long established prosecutorial discretion which enabled the Crown Prosecution Service, however strong the evidence might be, to decide that it would be inappropriate to proceed with the prosecution of a defendant suspected of being involved in unlawful activities if he/she might have been the victim of trafficking for labour exploitation and might be unable to advance duress as a defence but who fell within the protective ambit of article 26.”
WLR Daily, 20th February 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Torfaen County Borough Council v Douglas Willis Ltd [2012] EWHC 296 (Admin); [2012] WLR (D) 37
“In order to found a conviction for an offence under regulation 44(1)(d) of the Food Labelling Regulations 1996, a prosecuting authority was required to prove, to the criminal standard: (i) that the food, at the point that it was ready for delivery to the ultimate consumer or caterer, was ‘highly perishable’ and so required then and thereafter to be labelled with a ‘use by’ date; (ii) that the defendant was, at the time of the alleged offence, selling the food within the extended definition contained within regulation 2; and (iii) that, at the time of the alleged offence, the date on the ‘use by’ label had passed. The subsequent freezing of food requiring and given a ‘use by’ label would not cause that label to cease to have effect.”
WLR Daily, 20th February 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Supreme Court
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Cameron v Boggiano & Anor [2012] EWCA Civ 157 (21 February 2012)
SS (Sri Lanka) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 155 (21 February 2012)
Caterpillar Logistics Services (UK) Ltd v de Crean [2012] EWCA Civ 156 (21 February 2012)
Hobson v Magee (t/a Team Magee) [2012] EWCA Civ 116 (21 February 2012)
Kennerley v Beech & Anor [2012] EWCA Civ 158 (21 February 2012)
Newman v Framewood Manor Management Co Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 159 (21 February 2012)
Polestar Maritime Ltd v YHM Shipping Co Ltd & Anor (Rev 1) [2012] EWCA Civ 153 (17 February 2012)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Moore v British Waterways Board [2012] EWHC 182 (Ch) (10 February 2012)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Woolley, R (on the application of) v Ministry of Justice [2012] EWHC 295 (Admin) (21 February 2012)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
Berry Piling Systems Ltd v Sheer Projects Ltd [2012] EWHC 241 (TCC) (21 February 2012)
Source: www.bailii.org
High Court (Commercial Court)
Air Transworld Ltd v Bombardier Inc [2012] EWHC 243 (Comm) (20 February 2012)
Source: www.bailii.org
MM (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: [2012] EWCA Civ 135; [2012] WLR (D) 36
” ‘Conspicuous unfairness’ was not a free standing ground in an immigration case on which a court could act in the absence of unlawful action on the part of the Home Secretary.”
WLR Daily, 24th January 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
N, R v [2012] EWCA Crim 189 (20 February 2012)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Broadside Colours And Chemicals Ltd, Re (No 2) [2012] EWHC 195 (Ch) (20 February 2012)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Ibrahim v Swansea University [2012] EWHC 290 (QB) (20 February 2012)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Torfaen County Borough Council v Douglas Willis Ltd [2012] EWHC 296 (Admin) (20 February 2012)
High Court (Patents Court)
Nokia GmbH v Ipcom GmbH & Co KG [2012] EWHC 225 (Pat) (20 February 2012)
Source: www.bailii.org
Simcoe v Jacuzzi UK Group plc [2012] EWCA Civ 137; [2012] WLR (D) 35
“The date from which interest ran on an award of costs in the county court in favour of a successful litigant was, by reason of article 2 of the County Court (Interest on Judgment Debts) Order 1991, the date the order for costs was made, not the date on which costs were assessed or agreed. The discretion granted in making an award of costs by CPR r 40.8 did not apply and was ineffective in that court.”
WLR Daily, 16th February 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Crawford & Anor v Suffolk Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust [2012] EWCA Civ 138 (17 February 2012)
Oxford City Council v Basey [2012] EWCA Civ 115 (15 February 2012)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
AB & Anor v Home Office [2012] EWHC 226 (QB) (16 February 2012)
Gold & Anor v Cox & Anor [2012] EWHC 272 (QB) (17 February 2012)
Independent Police Complaints Commission v Warner & Ors [2012] EWHC 271 (QB) (17 February 2012)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Polestar Maritime Ltd v YHM Shipping Co Ltd & Anor [2012] EWHC 153 (Admin) (17 February 2012)
Jenkins v Gloucestershire County Council [2012] EWHC 292 (Admin) (17 February 2012)
High Court (Family Division)
Z (A Child), Re [2012] EWHC 139 (Fam) (02 February 2012)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Progress Bulk Carriers Ltd v Tube City IMS LLC [2012] EWHC 273 (Comm) (17 February 2012)
Source: www.bailii.org
Basey and others v Oxford City Council [2012] EWCA Civ 115; [2012] WLR (D) 34
“Since the social security and housing legislation had not defined what ‘sheltered accommodation’ was, it was not legitimate for a housing authority to claim that a sheltered accommodation should have a warden or resident caretaking manager and emergency alarm to qualify as such to impose an obligation on the housing authority to pay the costs of fuel and cleaning of the rooms and windows of the housing benefit tenants living in the accommodation. Therefore, a special needs adult living in a four-bedroom property with three other special needs tenants each occupying a bedroom and sharing a kitchen, bath room, two toilets and two sitting rooms, provided with 24-hour care and support supervision staff to meet the tenants’ needs, was a sheltered accommodation such as to oblige the housing authority to pay the costs of fuel and cleaning expenses as part of the rent out of the housing benefit.”
WLR Daily, 15th February 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
British Broadcasting Corporation and another v Sugar (No 2) [2011] UKSC 4; [2012] WLR (D) 33
“Once it was established that information requested under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 was held by the BBC as a public authority for the purposes of journalism, it was effectively exempt from production under the Act, even if it was also held by the authority for other, possibly more important, purposes.”
WLR Daily, 15th February 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Sherdley & Anor v Nordea Life and Pension SA (Societe Anonyme) [2012] EWCA Civ 88 (16 February 2012)
Simcoe v Jacuzzi UK Group Plc [2012] EWCA Civ 137 (16 February 2012)
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Ford & Anor v Alexander [2012] EWHC 266 (Ch) (16 February 2012)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Balfour Beatty Engineering Services Ltd v Unite the Union [2012] EWHC 267 (QB) (16 February 2012)
High Court (Commercial Court)
JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov [2012] EWHC 237 (Comm) (16 February 2012)
Source: www.bailii.org
Supreme Court
Sugar v British Broadcasting Corporation & Anor [2012] UKSC 4 (15 February 2012)
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Chattoo & Ors v R [2012] EWCA Crim 190 (15 February 2012)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Spelman v Express Newspapers [2012] EWHC 239 (QB) (15 February 2012)
High Court (Family Division)
El Gamal v Al Maktoum [2011] EWHC B27 (Fam) (22 December 2011)
Source: www.bailii.org
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Brook, R. v [2012] EWCA Crim 136 (14 February 2012)
Hussain v R. [2012] EWCA Crim 188 (14 February 2012)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Burke v The College of Law & Anor [2012] EWCA Civ 87 (14 February 2012)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Towry EJ Ltd v Bennett & Ors [2012] EWHC 224 (QB) (14 February 2012)
High Court (Chancery Division)
High Court (Administrative Court)
A v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 117 (Admin) (08 February 2012)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Eitzen Bulk A/S v TTMI Sarl [2012] EWHC 202 (Comm) (14 February 2012)
High Court (Patents Court)
Source: www.bailii.org
“A landlord had a right of appeal under paragraph 6(3) of Schedule 7 to the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000 as a ‘person affected’ by a housing benefit decision in respect of its tenant only in the distinct cases provided for in subordinate legislation.”
WLR Daily, 9th February 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Preddy and another v Bull and another [2012] EWCA Civ 83; [2012] WLR (D) 30
“By operating a policy of restricting occupancy of double-bedded rooms in their hotel to married couples, the defendants had discriminated directly against the claimant, a homosexual couple. The defendants’ policy, dictated by their religious belief that it was sinful for heterosexual or homosexual couples to have sexual relations outside marriage, was not protected under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007 because the former could be married but the latter could not. The restriction was therefore absolute in relation to homosexuals but not in relation to heterosexuals, and constituted discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. No individual was entitled to manifest his religious belief when and where he chose so as to obtain exemption in all circumstances from some legislative provisions of general application. Furthermore, by virtue of article 9(2 ) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the right to manifest one’s own religious belief, as opposed to the right to hold it, was qualified by such ‘limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society … for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others’ such as the claimants’ rights which were protected under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007.”
WLR Daily, 10th February 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Thompson, Re Attorney-General’s Reference No 103 of 2011 [2012] EWCA Crim 135 (10 February 2012)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Costello & Anor v Macdonald & Ors [2012] EWCA Civ 86 (10 February 2012)
YF (China) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 77 (10 February 2012)
Bull & Bull v Hall & Preddy [2012] EWCA Civ 83 (10 February 2012)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Valmoria & Anor v Hynes [2012] EWHC 193 (QB) (10 February 2012)
Ball v Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change [2012] EWHC 145 (QB) (10 February 2012)
Rothschild v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2012] EWHC 177 (QB) (10 February 2012)
High Court (Chancery Division)
El-Tawil v The Comptroller General of Patents [2012] EWHC 185 (Ch) (10 February 2012)
High Court (Patents Court)
Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd v Medimmune Ltd & Anor [2012] EWHC 181 (Pat) (10 February 2012)
Source: www.bailii.org
Lloyds TSB Bank plc v Markandan & Uddin (a firm) [2012] EWCA Civ 65a; [2012] WLR (D) 29
“The completion of sale of land and mortgage did not become effective until all executed title documents including mortgage loan agreement and deed in the name of the purchasers or an effective undertaking from the purchaser’s real solicitor or agent to exchange the documents were received by the vendor or his agent. Therefore, a solicitor who had parted with the money entrusted to him by the lender to a purchaser’s fictitious solicitor in exchange for a purported undertaking from the bogus solicitor to exchange and forward those documents committed a breach of trust.”
WLR Daily, 9th February 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025