Regina v S (G) [2012] WLR (D) 28
“The transmission of electronically stored data to only one recipient is sufficient publication with section 1(3) of the Obscene Publications Act 1959 for the purposes of a prosecution under that Act.”
WLR Daily, 9th February 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Lloyds Tsb Bank Plc v Markandan & Uddin (a firm) [2012] EWCA Civ 65 (09 February 2012)
Foss v Secretary of State for Work & Pensions [2012] EWCA Civ 80 (09 February 2012)
Cambridge v Makin [2012] EWCA Civ 85 (09 February 2012)
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Court, R. v [2012] EWCA Crim 133 (09 February 2012)
MJ, R v [2012] EWCA Crim 132 (09 February 2012)
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Bieber & Ors v Teathers Ltd [2012] EWHC 190 (Ch) (09 February 2012)
Wright Hassall Llp v Morris [2012] EWHC 188 (Ch) (09 February 2012)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Navios International Inc v Sangamon Transportation Group [2012] EWHC 166 (Comm) (08 February 2012)
Source: www.bailii.org
Regina v Court and another: [2012] EWCA Crim 133; [2012] WLR (D) 27
“The ingredients of the common law offence of keeping a disorderly house required that the services provided were open to members of the public and were of such a character and conducted in such a manner that their provision amounted to an outrage to public decency. The provision of straightforward sexual intercourse was not sufficient to constitute the offence.”
WLR Daily, 9th February 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Blight and others v Brewster: [2012] EWHC 165 (Ch); [2012] WLR (D) 26
“Bankrupts who were subject to an order for enforcement of a judgment had to take both the benefits and burdens of their bankruptcy and should not be allowed to hide their assets in pension funds when they had a right to withdraw monies needed to pay their creditors.”
WLR Daily, 9th February 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Cotter: [2012] EWCA Civ 81; [2012] WLR (D) 25
“Where the revenue decided to challenge matters contained in a self assessment tax return in response to the particulars sought by the return, it should use either the procedure in section 9A of the Taxes Management Act 1970 or seek to make a correction to the return under section 9ZB, if applicable, therefore entitling the taxpayer to a right of appeal to the First Tier Tribunal. The court did not have jurisdiction to determine in collection proceedings whether a taxpayer was entitled to include in his tax return a claim for relief and so rely on it as a defence to the claim for immediate payment.”
WLR Daily, 8th February 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Supreme Court
Rabone & Anor v Pennine Care NHS Foundation [2012] UKSC 2 (8 February 2012)
Ravat v Halliburton Manufacturing and Services Ltd [2012] UKSC 1 (8 February 2012)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
K v LBX & Ors [2012] EWCA Civ 79 (08 February 2012)
HM Revenue & Customs v Cotter [2012] EWCA Civ 81 (08 February 2012)
Carlsberg UK Ltd & Anor v HM Revenue & Customs [2012] EWCA Civ 82 (08 February 2012)
Lloyds Tsb Bank Plc v Markandan & Uddin (a firm) [2012] EWCA Civ 65 (09 February 2012)
Cambridge v Makin [2012] EWCA Civ 85 (09 February 2012)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Source: www.bailii.org
Ravat v Halliburton Manufacturing and Services Ltd [2011] UKSC 1; [2012] WLR (D) 24
“An employment tribunal could consider a claim for unfair dismissal by an employee who worked overseas if the connection between the employment relationship and Great Britain was sufficiently strong to show that that could be justified.”
WLR Daily, 8th February 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Trust [2012] UKSC 2; [2012] WLR (D) 23
“A psychiatric in-patient who was known to be at real and immediate risk of suicide was owed a positive operational duty under article 2 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by the NHS trust to take preventative measures to safeguard her life even though she was a voluntary patient who was not detained under the Mental Health Act 1983.”
WLR Daily, 8th February 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Stott v Thomas Cook Tour Operators Ltd & Anor [2012] EWCA Civ 66 (07 February 2012)
AT v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 42 (07 February 2012)
Martin v JRC Commercial Mortgages Plc [2012] EWCA Civ 63 (07 February 2012)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Zakrzewski v District Court In Torun, Poland & Anor [2012] EWHC 173 (Admin) (07 February 2012)
Levinge v Health Professions Council [2012] EWHC 135 (Admin) (07 February 2012)
Source: www.bailii.org
High Court (Chancery Division)
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Senex Holdings Ltd v National Westminster Bank Plc [2012] EWHC 131 (Comm) (06 February 2012)
Source: www.bailii.org
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Brereton, R v [2012] EWCA Crim 85 (03 February 2012)
Rollings, R v [2012] EWCA Crim 86 (03 February 2012)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Marley v Rawlings & Anr [2012] EWCA Civ 61 (02 February 2012)
Inframatrix Investments Ltd v Dean Construction Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 64 (03 February 2012)
Burke v The College of Law & Anor [2012] EWCA Civ 37 (03 February 2012)
High Court (Chancery Division)
High Court (Family Division)
Young v Young [2012] EWHC 138 (Fam) (03 February 2012)
Source: www.bailii.org
Regina v Armstrong [2012] EWCA Crim 83; [2012] WLR (D) 22
“If in the military courts a judge did not approve of a course that a military prosecutor intended to take the proper course for the judge was to ask for the matter to be referred either to the Director of Service Prosecutions or to the Attorney General, as might be appropriate.”
WLR Daily, 1st February 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The suspension or withdrawal of a general (student) sponsor licence granted to a United Kingdom college to sponsor and enrol students from non-European Economic Area countries on point based immigration control, to study in the college, was not an infringement of the college’s Convention right to its possessions within the meaning of article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, so as to be protected under that article.”
WLR Daily, 2nd February 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Gurung v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 62 (02 February 2012)
Aksu v London Borough of Enfield [2012] EWCA Civ 60 (02 February 2012)
UG (Nepal) & Ors v Entry Clearance Officer [2012] EWCA Civ 58 (02 February 2012)
Leeds City Council v Price & Ors [2012] EWCA Civ 59 (02 February 2012)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
QBE Management Services (UK) Ltd v Dymoke & Ors [2012] EWHC 116 (QB) (02 February 2012)
O’Farrell v O’Farrell [2012] EWHC 123 (QB) (01 February 2012)
High Court (Chancery Division)
McKillen v Misland (Cyprus) Investments Ltd & Ors [2012] EWHC 129 (Ch) (02 February 2012)
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Nomihold Securities Inc v Mobile Telesystems Finance SA [2012] EWHC 130 (Comm) (02 February 2012)
Source: www.bailii.org
Frisdranken Industrie Winters BV v Red Bull GmbH (Case C-119/10); [2012] WLR (D) 20
“A service provider who, under an order from and on the instructions of another person, filled packaging which was supplied to it by the other person who, in advance, affixed to it a sign which was identical with, or similar to, a sign protected as a trade mark did not itself make use of the sign that was liable to be prohibited under that provision.”
WLR Daily, 15th December 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Tiffin v Lester Aldridge LLP [2012] EWCA Civ 35; [2012] WLR (D) 19
“Section 4(4) of the Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2000 required an assumption that the business of the limited liability partnership had been carried on by two or more of its members as partners and upon that assumption, required an inquiry as to whether or not the person whose status was in question would have been one of the partners. If the answer to that inquiry was that he would have been a partner then he could not have been an employee of the partnership; if the answer was that he would not have been a partner there would have to be further inquiry as to whether his relationship would have been that of an employee. It was implicit that the primary source material for the purpose of answering those questions would be the members’ agreement although that would not necessarily represent the totality of what might be looked at.”
WLR Daily, 1st February 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The phrase ‘technical or commercial information or other intellectual property’ within the definition of ‘intellectual property’ in section 72 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 was apt to embrace telephone voice messages said to have been intercepted by a private investigator on the telephones of individuals; and the effect of that finding was that the privilege against self-incrimination on which the interceptor might otherwise have relied was removed.”
WLR Daily, 1st February 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Barrett v Bem; In re Lavin, decd [2012] EWCA Civ 52; [2012] WLR (D) 17
“A court should not find that a will had been signed by a third party at the direction of the testator unless there was positive and discernible communication (which might be verbal or non-verbal) by the testator that he wished the will to be signed on his behalf by the third party.”
WLR Daily, 31st January 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Armstrong, R v [2012] EWCA Crim 83 (01 February 2012)
OB v The Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2012] EWCA Crim 67 (01 February 2012)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Hawksford Trustees Jersey Ltd v Stella Global UK Ltd & Anor [2012] EWCA Civ 55 (01 February 2012)
Coogan v News Group Newspapers Ltd & Anor [2012] EWCA Civ 48 (01 February 2012)
Tiffin v Lester Aldridge LLP [2012] EWCA Civ 35 (01 February 2012)
High Court (Chancery Division)
IBM United Kingdom Pensions Trust Ltd v Metcalfe & Ors [2012] EWHC 125 (Ch) (01 February 2012)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Standard Life Assurance Ltd v Ace European Group & Ors [2012] EWHC 104 (Comm) (01 February 2012)
Source: www.bailii.org
“Following the grant of a consent under section 37 of the Electricity Act 1989 (as amended) in respect of any operation or change of use that constituted development, a direction made by the Secretary of State under section 90(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 that planning permission for that and any ancillary development should be deemed to be granted was not a ‘determination under the planning Acts’ for the purposes of engaging the duty to act in accordance with the applicable development plan under section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.”
WLR Daily, 31st January 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025