“The end users of a commercial online media monitoring service who did not hold a web end-user licence from the publishers committed infringement of the publishers’ copyright in receiving and using the service.”
WLR Daily, 27th July 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Belmont Park Investments Pty v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd [2011] UKSC 38; [2011] WLR (D) 260
“The policy behind the anti-deprivation rule in insolvency law, that parties could not, on bankruptcy, deprive the bankrupt of property which would otherwise be available for creditors, was to be given a commonsense application which prevented its application to bona fide commercial transactions which did not have as their predominant purpose the deprivation of the property of one of the parties on bankruptcy.”
WLR Daily, 27th July 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol, signed on 23 November 1970 at Brussels and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2760/72 (OJ 1973 C 113 p17), had to be interpreted as meaning that it could be relied on by a Turkish national who, having leave to remain in a member state on condition that he did not engage in any business or profession, nevertheless entered into self-employment in breach of that condition and later applied to the national authorities for further leave to remain on the basis of the business which he had meanwhile established.”
WLR Daily, 21st July 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Supreme Court
Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher & Ors [2011] UKSC 41 (27 July 2011)
Jivraj v Hashwani [2011] UKSC 40 (27 July 2011)
Houldsworth & Anor v Bridge Trustees Ltd & Anor [2011] UKSC 42 (27 July 2011)
Lucasfilm Ltd & Ors v Ainsworth & Anor [2011] UKSC 39 (27 July 2011)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Grand v Gill [2011] EWCA Civ 902 (27 July 2011)
Addis & Ors v Campbell & Anor [2011] EWCA Civ 906 (27 July 2011)
XX v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 860 (27 July 2011)
Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Company SAL & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 898 (27 July 2011)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Windsor v Bristol Crown Court & Anor [2011] EWHC 1899 (Admin) (27 July 2011)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Shah v Shah & Ors [2011] EWHC 1902 (Ch) (26 July 2011)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Dowans Holding SA & Anor v Tanzania Electric Supply Co Ltd [2011] EWHC 1957 (Comm) (27 July 2011)
High Court (Patents Court)
Convatec Ltd. & Ors v Smith & Nephew Healthcare Ltd & Ors [2011] EWHC 2039 (Pat) (27 July 2011)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Suurpere v Nice & Anor [2011] EWHC 2003 (QB) (27 July 2011)
Bowen (A Child) & Ors v The National Trust [2011] EWHC 1992 (QB) (27 July 2011)
W v Veolia Environmental Services (UK) Plc [2011] EWHC 2020 (QB) (27 July 2011)
Wright v Caan [2011] EWHC 1978 (QB) (27 July 2011)
BGC Capital Markets (Switzerland) LLC v Rees & Ors [2011] EWHC 2009 (QB) (27 July 2011)
Source: www.bailii.org
“The Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) is set to redraft pensions legislation after defeat in a key pensions case in the Supreme Court this morning.”
The Lawyer, 27th July 2011
Source: www.thelawyer.com
“A company found in contempt of court could not appeal the findings of contempt as of right but required the permission of the judge or the Court of Appeal.”
WLR Daily, 27th July 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Lucasfilm Ltd and others v Ainsworth and another [2011] UKSC 39; [2011] WLR (D) 257
“A judge was entitled to conclude that a helmet worn by a fictional character in a film was not a ‘sculpture’ for the purposes of copyright protection. A claim against a defendant domiciled in England for infringement of a foreign copyright could be justiciable in England.”
WLR Daily, 27th July 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina (Condliff) v North Staffordshire Primary Care Trust [2011] EWCA Civ 910; [2011] WLR (D) 256
“It was not unlawful for a primary care trust to adopt a policy by which all individual funding requests were to be considered and determined exclusively by reference to clinical factors.”
WLR Daily, 27th July 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher and others [2011] UKSC 41; [2011] WLR (D) 255
“In the employment context, the courts should focus on the reality of the relationship between the parties, which might not be accurately reflected by the written documentation. In deciding whether the terms of any written agreement in truth represented what was agreed, the relative bargaining power of the parties had to be taken into account.”
WLR Daily, 27th July 2011
Source; www.iclr.co.uk
Thomas and others v Bridgend County Borough Council [2011] EWCA Civ 862; [2011] WLR (D) 254
“For article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms to be engaged, it was enough to show interference with peaceful enjoyment possessions combined with evidence of loss of value.”
WLR Daily, 26th July 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Thomas & Ors v Bridgend County Borough Council [2011] EWCA Civ 862 (26 July 2011)
Rust Consulting Ltd v PB Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 899 (26 July 2011)
Destiny 1 Ltd v Lloyds TSB Bank Plc [2011] EWCA Civ 831 (26 July 2011)
DRL Ltd v Wincanton Group Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 839 (26 July 2011)
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Cooper, R. v [2011] EWCA Crim 1872 (26 July 2011)
Kapotra v R. [2011] EWCA Crim 1843 (26 July 2011)
Haque v R [2011] EWCA Crim 1871 (26 July 2011)
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Rayford Homes Ltd v Bank of Scotland Plc & Anor [2011] EWHC 1948 (Ch) (23 July 2011)
High Court Queen’s Bench Division)
Sheikh v Beaumont [2011] EWHC 1946 (QB) (26 July 2011)
Thornton v Telegraph Media Group Ltd [2011] EWHC 1884 (QB) (26 July 2011)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
Arqiva Ltd & Ors v Everything Everywhere Ltd & Ors [2011] EWHC 2016 (TCC) (26 July 2011)
Source: www.bailii.org
Regina (Huitson) v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2011] EWCA Civ 893 ; [2011] WLR (D) 248
“Section 58 of the Finance Act 2008 which amended fiscal legislation regarding double taxation relief with retrospective effect, thereby removing tax relief from tax avoidance schemes to United Kingdom residents, was neither disproportionate nor incompatible with article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as scheduled to the Human Rights Act 1998.”
WLR Daily, 25th July 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Huitson, R (on the application of) v Revenue and Customs [2011] EWCA Civ 893 (25 July 2011)
Shiner & Anor, R (on the application of) v Revenue & Customs [2011] EWCA Civ 892 (25 July 2011)
High Court (Patents Court)
ITV Broadcasting Ltd & Ors v TV Catchup Ltd [2011] EWHC 1874 (Pat) (18 July 2011)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Bank of Scotland v Hussain [2011] EWHC 1934 (QB) (25 July 2011)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
Inframatrix Investments Ltd. v Dean Construction Ltd. [2011] EWHC 1947 (TCC) (25 July 2011)
Source: www.bailii.org
“Teachers who had been employed by the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families and seconded to work at European Schools throughout the European Union were entitled to bring unfair dismissal claims before an employment tribunal under section 94(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.”
WLR Daily, 15th July 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The administrators of an insolvent company were the officers of the court with statutory powers to exercise their discretion to act for the interests of the creditors as a whole. The court had statutory power to removal and replace the administrators, but it had first to be established by the evidence that there was a good or sufficient ground or cause for the removal and replacement. Only then could the court properly proceed to consider the exercise of its discretion by having regard to all the relevant factors for and against an order for removal, such as the beneficial consequences of success in possible legal proceedings.”
WLR Daily, 21st July 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
AAO v Entry Clearance Officer [2011] EWCA Civ 840 (22 July 2011)
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Jackson v R. [2011] EWCA Crim 1870 (22 July 2011)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office v Johnson [2011] EWHC 1950 (Admin) (25 July 2011)
High Court (Chancery Division)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Robins v Kordowski & Anor [2011] EWHC 1912 (QB) (22 July 2011)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
Trebor Bassett Holdings Ltd & Anor v ADT Fire and Security Plc [2011] EWHC 1936 (TCC) (22 July 2011)
Jerram Falkus Construction Ltd v Fenice Investments Inc [2011] EWHC 1935 (TCC) (21 July 2011)
Source: www.bailii.org
“In the circumstances which arose the Serious Organised Crime Agency (‘SOCA’) was entitled to invoke the equitable doctrine of marshalling and in effect to be subrogated to a second charge over a property as security for the shortfall left unsatisfied following the sale of other properties.”
WLR Daily, 21st July 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Drake v Harvey and others [2011] EWCA Civ 838; [2011] WLR (D) 244
“There was no general default rule or presumption that the basis on which an outgoing partner’s share of partnership assets was to be determined was a fair value unless the partnership deed expressly stated otherwise; the correct approach was to derive the basis of valuation from the terms of the deed itself applying normal principles of contractual interpretation.”
WLR Daily, 20th July 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
B v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 828; [2011] WLR (D) 243
“The question for the Court of Appeal exercising its appellate jurisdiction under section 13 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 in respect of a sentence imposed for contempt of court was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.”
WLR Daily, 21st July 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v F(S) [2011] EWCA Crim 1844; [2011] WLR (D) 242
“An application to stay criminal proceedings for abuse of process on grounds of delay and a submission of ‘no case to answer’ were two distinct matters which had to receive distinct and separate consideration. An application to stay for abuse of process on the grounds of delay could not succeed unless, exceptionally, a fair trial was no longer possible owing to prejudice to the defendant caused by the delay which could not fairly be addressed in the normal trial process, whereas on a submission of ‘no case’ the question was whether the evidence, viewed overall, was such that the jury could properly convict.”
WLR Daily, 21st July 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025