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
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
CPS v F [2011] EWCA Crim 1844 (21 July 2011)
McDonald v R. [2011] EWCA Crim 1776 (21 July 2011)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Rees & Anor v Peters [2011] EWCA Civ 836 (21 July 2011)
Finnerty & Anor v Clark & Anor [2011] EWCA Civ 858 (21 July 2011)
Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council v Norton & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 834 (21 July 2011)
Fulham Football Club (1987) Ltd v Richards & Anor [2011] EWCA Civ 855 (21 July 2011)
Szepietowski v The Serious Organised Crime Agency [2011] EWCA Civ 856 (21 July 2011)
B v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 828 (21 July 2011)
Meritz Fire & Marine Insurance Co Ltd v Jan De Nul NV & Anor [2011] EWCA Civ 827 (21 July 2011)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Mutua & Ors v The Foreign & Commonwealth Office [2011] EWHC 1913 (QB) (21 July 2011)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Pioneer Freight Futures Company Ltd v TMT Asia Ltd [2011] EWHC 1888 (Comm) (21 July 2011)
Source: www.bailii.org
Fulham Football Club (1987) v Richards and another [2011] EWCA Civ 855; [2011] WLR (D) 241
“A dispute between a premier league football club and the first and second defendants, the chairman of the Football Association Premier League Ltd and the company itself, was covered by arbitration clauses in the rules of the company and the Football Association. Neither the Companies Act 2006 nor considerations of public policy prohibited the submission to arbitration of matters relating to an unfair prejudice petition under section 994 of the 2006 Act.”
WLR Daily, 21st July 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Barnsley Metroplitan Borough Councl v Norton and others [2011] EWCA Civ 834; [2011] WLR (D) 240
“The duty in section 49A(1) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 was intended to apply whenever an authority was taking decisions such as a decision to seek possession of a disabled person’s home.”
WLR Daily, 21st July 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v Smith (Nicholas) [2011] UKSC 37; [2011] WLR (D) 239
“A sentence of imprisonment for public protection could be imposed upon a defendant who was already serving a sentence of life imprisonment.”
WLR Daily, 20th July 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v Maxwell [2010] UKSC 48; [2011] WLR (D) 238
“When the Court of Appeal quashed a conviction and then exercised its discretion under section 7 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 to order a retrial of the defendant, that decision should not be upset on appeal unless it could be shown that it was plainly wrong in that it was one which no reasonable court could have made or that it took into account immaterial factors or failed to consider material factors.”
WLR Daily, 20th July 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v Boggild and others [2011] WLR (D) 237
“An appeal by the prosecution under section 14A(5A) of the Football Spectators Act 1989 against a failure by a court to make a football banning order fell to be considered by the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) because no provision in that Act or elsewhere allocated the jurisdiction to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division).”
WLR Daily, 19th July 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025