Rainy Sky SA and others v Kookmin Bank [2011] UKSC 50; [2011] WLR (D) 311
“When the term of a contract was capable of having two possible meanings which were both arguable, it was appropriate for the court to have regard to considerations of commercial common sense and to adopt the construction which was more, rather than less, commercial.”
WLR Daily, 2nd November 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Mitu v Camden London Borough Council [2011] EWCA Civ 1249; [2011] WLR (D) 310
“Where a local authority, having decided that an applicant was intentionally homeless and not in priority need, decided on review of the application that the applicant’s homelessness was not intentional, it had a duty by section 192(2) of the Housing Act 1996 to provide or arrange for the provision of advice and assistance, and a discretion by section 192(3) of the 1996 Act to provide accommodation. Failure to consider the exercise of that discretionary power, if it affected the fairness of the decision, was a procedural deficiency requiring the local authority to give the applicant notice of its intended decision and allow him to make further representations either orally or in writing.”
WLR Daily, 1st November 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to hear a proposed appeal from a decision of a court conducting extradition proceedings (which were criminal in nature), where that decision related to a matter which was wholly collateral to the extradition proceedings themselves, which was instigated by someone not a party to the proceedings and did not involve the lower court invoking its criminal jurisdiction or making an order which had any bearing on those proceedings.”
WLR Daily, 25th October 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“A worker had been subjected to a detriment “on the ground that” he had made a protected disclosure, for the purposes of section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996, if the protected disclosure was a material factor in the employer’s decision to subject the employee to a detrimental act.”
WLR Daily, 25th October 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Supreme Court
Rainy Sky SA & Orsd v Kookmin Bank [2011] UKSC 50 (2 November 2011)
Human Genome Sciences Inc v Eli Lilly and Company [2011] UKSC 51 (2 November 2011)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Mitu v London Borough of Camden [2011] EWCA civ 1249 (01 November 2011)
Williams v University of Birmingham & Anor [2011] EWCA Civ 1242 (28 October 2011)
JSC BTA Bank v Solodchenko & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 1241 (28 October 2011)
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Dika & Anor v R. [2011] EWCA Crim 2459 (28 October 2011)
SW, R. v [2011] EWCA Crim 2463 (28 October 2011)
Gilmour v R. [2011] EWCA Crim 2458 (28 October 2011)
Burdfield & Anor v R. [2011] EWCA Crim 2464 (28 October 2011)
High Court (Chancery Division)
House of Fraser Ltd v Scottish Widows Plc [2011] EWHC 2800 (Ch) (28 October 2011)
Morley v Reiter Engineering GmbH & Co.KG [2011] EWHC 2798 (Ch) (28 October 2011)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Cattles Ltd & Anor v Pricewaterhousecoopers LLP [2011] EWHC 2714 (Comm) (01 November 2011)
Source: www.bailii.org
Judgment approved by the Court for handing down.
Julian Assange v. Swedish Prosecution Authority (pdf)
Judiciary of England and Wales, 2nd November 2011
Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Trott, R. v [2011] EWCA Crim 2395 (07 October 2011)
Williams, R v [2011] EWCA Crim 2198 (23 September 2011)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Tesla Motors Ltd & Anor v British Broadcasting Corporation [2011] EWHC 2760 (QB) (28 October 2011)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Soeximex SAS v Agrocorp International PTE Ltd [2011] EWHC 2743 (Comm) (31 October 2011)
Source: www.bailii.org
“Although a complaint of disability discrimination was an eligible complaint to be made to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education (“OIA”) under the Higher Education Act 2004, the task and duty of the OIA on a complaint of disability discrimination against a higher education institution was confined to whether the conduct of the university was reasonable or not and what recommendation should be made in response to the complaint and the office was not obliged to rule whether there had been a disability discrimination.”
WLR Daily, 27th October 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Lovat v Hertsmere Borough Council [2011] EWCA Civ 1185; [2011] WLR (D) 306
“In the definition of ‘an excluded tenancy’ for the purposes of the additional right to enfranchisement applicable to tenancies not at a low rent under section 1AA of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, the phrase ‘the house which the tenant occupies under the tenancy’ in section 1AA(3)(a) was to be construed as referring solely to the ‘house’ as defined in section 2(1) of the 1967 Act (that is, excluding any grounds); and the term ‘adjoining land’ in section 1AA(3)(b) meant neighbouring land that might, but did not necessarily, touch or physically adjoin the house.”
WLR Daily, 27th October 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Brüstle v Greenpeace eV (Case C-34/10); [2011] WLR (D) 305
“Any human ovum after fertilisation, any non-fertilised human ovum into which the cell nucleus from a mature human cell had been transplanted, and any non-fertilised human ovum whose division and further development had been stimulated by parthenogenesis constituted a ‘human embryo’ within the meaning of article 6(2)(c) of Parliament and Council Directive 98/44/EC of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions (OJ 1998 L 213, p 13) and could not therefore be patented.”
WLR Daily, 18th October 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Supreme Court
Gale & Anor v Serious Organised Crime Agency [2011] UKSC 49 (26 October 2011)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Dyson Ltd v Vax Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 1206 (27 October 2011)
Hunt v Harb & Anor [2011] EWCA Civ 1239 (27 October 2011)
Hertsmere Borough Council v Lovat [2011] EWCA Civ 1185 (27 October 2011)
Dawkins v Carnival Plc (t/a P & O Cruises) [2011] EWCA Civ 1237 (27 October 2011)
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Global Marine Drillships Ltd v Landmark Solicitors LLP & Ors [2011] EWHC 2685 (Ch) (24 October 2011)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
Systech International Ltd v PC Harrington Contractors Ltd [2011] EWHC 2722 (TCC) (27 October 2011)
Source: www.bailii.org
Nokia Oyj (Nokia Corpn) v IPCom GmbH & Co KG: [2011] EWHC 2719 (Pat); [2011] WLR (D) 303
“Section 63(2) of the Patents Act 1977 was not intended to act as a sanction against careless drafting or lack of good faith when those matters had no bearing on the damages or other remedy sought by the patentee.”
WLR Daily, 26th October 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Construction Industry Training Board v Beacon Roofing Ltd: [2011] EWCA Civ 1203; [2011] WLR (D) 302
“The issue as to whether the purpose of an agreement or arrangement between an employer and another person was wholly or mainly the provision of that or any other person’s services to the employer in his trade or business within the definition of a ‘labour-only agreement’ in article 2(1)(h) of the Industrial Training Levy (Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2009 was to be determined objectively by reference to the terms of the contract and the relevant background, and not by reference to the reasons of either or both of the parties for entering into the contract.”
WLR Daily, 26th October 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Rheines v R. [2011] EWCA Crim 2397 (26 October 2011)
R. v E [2011] EWCA Crim 2393 (06 October 2011)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Morrissey v McNicholas & Anor [2011] EWHC 2738 (QB) (26 October 2011)
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Glencore Energy (UK) Ltd v Sonol Israel Ltd [2011] EWHC 2756 (Comm) (26 October 2011)
High Court (Admiralty Division)
MIOM 1 Ltd & Anor v Sea Echo ENE (No 2) [2011] EWHC 2715 (Admlty) (26 October 2011)
High Court (Patents Court)
Nokia OYJ (Nokia Corporation) v IPCom GmbH & Co Kg [2011] EWHC 2719 (Pat) (26 October 2011)
Protecting Kids the World Over (PKTWO) Ltd, Re [2011] EWHC 2720 (Pat) (26 October 2011)
Source: www.bailii.org
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Heys, R. v [2011] EWCA Crim 2112 (09 August 2011)
Reid, R. v [2011] EWCA Crim 2162 (20 September 2011)
Archer, R. v [2011] EWCA Crim 2252 (27 September 2011)
Source: www.bailii.org
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Shields, R. v [2011] EWCA Crim 2343 (25 October 2011)
H, R. v [2011] EWCA Crim 2344 (25 October 2011)
T, R. v [2011] EWCA Crim 2345 (16 September 2011)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Brandon v American Express Services Europe Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 1187 (25 October 2011)
NHS Manchester v Fecitt & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 1190 (25 October 2011)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Alexander v Alexander & Ors [2011] EWHC 2721 (Ch) (21 October 2011)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Source: www.bailii.org
In February of this year the Inner Temple Library produced a revised edition of Transcripts of Judicial Proceedings in England and Wales: a guide to sources.
Since that edition was published a number of changes caused by the creation of Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, and of the new government web portal, Justice, have affected the currency of some of the content. The information in the Guide has been updated, and is now, as far as possible, correct as at 1 July 2011.
More information can be found here.
“Guidance issued by the Charity Commission for England and Wales included errors of law in respect of the public benefit requirement contained in the Charities Act 2006 on independent schools which charged fees. Whether the public benefit requirement was satisfied depended on the facts of each case. The correct approach was to look at what a trustee, acting in the interests of the community as a whole, would do in all the circumstances of the particular school under consideration and to ask what provision ought to be made once the threshold of benefit going beyond the de minimis or token level had been met. There was no reason why the provision of scholarships or bursaries to students who could pay some, but not all, of the fees should not be seen as for the public benefit. Provided that the operation of the school was seen as being for the public benefit, with an appropriate level of benefit for the poor, a subsidy to the not so well off was to be taken account of in the public benefit.”
WLR Daily, 13th October 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
ABB & Ors v Milton Keynes Council [2011] EWHC 2745 (QB) (21 October 2011)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Fresenius Kabi Deutschland GmbH & Ors v Carefusion 303, Inc [2011] EWHC 2663 (Ch) (12 October 2011)
High Court (Patents Court)
ZTE (UK) Ltd v Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ) [2011] EWHC 2709 (Pat) (19 October 2011)
Source: www.bailii.org
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Tindle v R [2011] EWCA Crim 2341 (20 October 2011)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
SSL International Plc & Anor v TTK LIG Ltd & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 1170 (19 October 2011)
Ahmed v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2011] EWCA Civ 1186 (21 October 2011)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Kordowski v Hudson [2011] EWHC 2667 (QB) (21 October 2011)
Smith v Kempson [2011] EWHC 2680 (QB) (21 October 2011)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
Mears Ltd v Leeds City Council [2011] EWHC 2694 (TCC) (20 October 2011)
Thameside Construction Company Ltd v Arthenella Ltd [2011] EWHC 2695 (TCC) (20 October 2011)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Source: www.bailii.org
© Inner Temple Library 2025