Sheffield City Council v Wall and others; [2010] EWCA Civ 922; [2010] WLR (D) 221
“The foster son of a late council tenant was not entitled to succeed to the tenancy under the Housing Act 1985.”
WLR Daily, 2nd August 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
R v Rochford; [2010] WLR (D) 220
“A failure by a defendant to comply with the requirements of ss 5(5) and 6A of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 to provide a defence statement containing the general nature of his defence, did not constitute a contempt of court and was only punishable with sanctions specified in s 11 of the 1996 Act, of a court or other party being permitted to make comment on that failure, or the court or jury being permitted to drawing inferences as to guilt. A defendant was not required by s 6A of the 1996 Act to disclose confidential discussions with his lawyer or to incriminate himself.”
WLR Daily, 2nd August 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“The act of procuring the miscarriage of a woman’s child did not, by itself, amount to an offence known to English law. Where a defendant was charged with an offence of supplying or procuring any instrument or thing, knowing that it was intended to be unlawfully used or employed with intent to procure the miscarriage of a woman, the ‘thing’ supplied or procured had to be some sort of article or object and could not include a medical procedure. ‘Procure’ of the instrument or thing did not include the taking of possession of or use of an instrument or thing by a third person.”
WLR Daily, 2nd August 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Regina v Chaytor and others; 2010] EWCA Crim 1910; [2010] WLR (D) 218
“Parliamentary privilege or immunity from criminal prosecution did not attach, and never had attached, to ordinary criminal activities by members of Parliament.”
WLR Daily, 2nd August 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Hoist UK Ltd v Reid Lifting Ltd; [2010] EWHC 1922 (Ch); [2010] WLR (D) 215
“CPR r 38.5(3) should be construed as meaning that discontinuance did not affect any proceedings to deal with any question of costs, whether or not such proceedings had already been commenced at the date of discontinuance.”
WLR Daily, 30th July 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Leo Pharma A/S and another v Sandoz Ltd; [2010] EWHC 1911 (Pat); [2010] WLR (D) 214
“A sealed court order which had been drawn up and agreed by the parties at the request of the court could not be corrected under the slip rule contained in CPR 40.12(1) unless it had an unintended effect which was inconsistent with the intention of the court.”
WLR Daily, 30th July 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Stockton on Tees Borough Council v Aylott [2010] EWCA Civ 910; [2010] WLR (D) 216
“In determining pursuant to section 3A(1) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 whether, for a reason which related to the claimant’s disability, he had been treated less favourably than a person to whom that reason did not apply, the appropriate comparator was someone who had acted in the same way as the claimant but did not suffer from his disability, and not someone to whom the reason for the treatment complained of did not apply.”
WLR Daily, 30th July 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
High Court (Chancery Division)
Daventry District Council v Daventry & District Housing Ltd [2010] EWHC 1935 (Ch) (30 July 2010)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
XA v YA [2010] EWHC 1983 (QB) (30 July 2010)
Source: www.bailii.org
Regina v B (F); Same v P (A); Same v C (J) [2010] EWCA Crim 1857; [2010] WLR (D) 21
“A judge sitting in the Crown Court had no power to quash an indictment simply because he did not believe that the proceedings were appropriately brought or were not in the public interest when compared with his assessment of the needs of other cases and that had not changed as a result of the introduction of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2010.”
WLR Daily, 30th July 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“Where the Electoral Commission brought forfeiture proceedings under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 against a registered political party in respect of its acceptance of an impermissible donation the court had a discretionary power under s 58(2) to order partial forfeiture of the value of the donation if, in the particular circumstances, it was proportionate to do so.”
WLR Daily, 30th July 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Regina v Rollins [2010] UKSC 39; [2010] WLR (D) 210
“The power of the Financial Services Authority to institute criminal proceedings was not limited to the offences referred to in ss 401 and 402 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000; in particular the FSA had power to prosecute offences of money laundering under ss 327 and 328 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.”
WLR Daily, 30th July 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Serious Organised Crime Agency v Perry [2010] EWCA Civ 907; [2010] WLR (D) 213
“An information notice served on the London address of persons not in the United Kingdom at the time of service was validly served for the purposes of recovery proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.”
WLR Daily, 30th July 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Tchenguiz & Ors v Imerman [2010] EWCA Civ 908 (29 July 2010)
Aylott v Stockton- On- Tees Borough Council [2010] EWCA Civ 910 (29 July 2010)
GR & Ors (Children), Re [2010] EWCA Civ 871 (29 July 2010)
W (Algeria) & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWCA Civ 898 (29 July 2010)
City & General (Holborn) Ltd v Royal & Sun Alliance Plc [2010] EWCA Civ 911 (29 July 2010)
John- Charles v Weir & Anor [2010] EWCA Civ 872 (29 July 2010)
Harvey v Plymouth City Council (Rev 1) [2010] EWCA Civ 860 (29 July 2010)
New Star Asset Management Holdings Ltd v Evershed [2010] EWCA Civ 870 (29 July 2010)
Serious Organised Crime Agency v Perry & Ors [2010] EWCA Civ 907 (29 July 2010)
Batista v Secretary of State for the Home Dept [2010] EWCA Civ 896 (29 July 2010)
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Patel & Ors v R. [2010] EWCA Crim 1858 (29 July 2010)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Conex Banninger Ltd v The European Commission [2010] EWHC 1978 (Ch) (29 July 2010)
Hay v Szterbin & Ors [2010] EWHC 1967 (Ch) (29 July 2010)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Axa Corporate Solutions SA v National Westminster Bank Plc [2010] EWHC 1915 (Comm) (29 July 2010)
High Court (Family Division)
RT v LT & Anor [2010] EWHC 1910 (Fam) (27 July 2010)
Butt v Butt [2010] EWHC 1989 (Fam) (27 July 2010)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Khan, Re Setting the Applicant’s Minimum Term [2010] EWHC 1880 (QB) (28 July 2010)
Green, Re Setting the Applicant’s Minimum Term [2010] EWHC 1881 (QB) (28 July 2010)
HA & Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWHC 1940 (QB) (28 July 2010)
Crookshank, Re Setting the Applicant’s Minimum Term [2010] EWHC 1879 (QB) (28 July 2010)
Homawoo v GMF Assurance SA & Ors [2010] EWHC 1941 (QB) (27 July 2010)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
PGF II SA & Anor v Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Plc & Anor [2010] EWHC 1981 (TCC) (29 July 2010)
Source: www.bailii.org
Mageean v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and others [2010] WLR (D) 209
“The validity of a screening direction made by the Secretary of State under reg 6 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 is not limited to two years but a planning inspector should refer the matter back to the Secretary of State where there has been a change of circumstance which could affect the decision.”
WLR Daily, 28th July 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“An applicant for accommodation could establish a priority need under the Housing Act 1996 because a dependent child was residing with her, where the dependent child was an European Economic Area national from abroad, even though the child did not have a permanent right to reside but was subject to immigration control, but the housing authority’s duty was then the restricted duty provided for under s 193(7AA) of the 1996 Act as amended. Under either the amended or unamended provisions the duty would have been the full duty had the dependent child had a right of permanent residence in the United Kingdom. Moreover, a failure by the host member state to enforce the removal of the dependent child after three months did not graduate by waiver to her acquiring a permanent right to residence.”
WLR Daily, 28th July 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Regina v Dunn [2010] EWCA Crim 1823; [2010] WLR (D) 207
“The fact that an appeal from the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division only lay to the Supreme Court if the Court of Appeal certified that a point of law of general public importance was involved in its decision did not amount to a denial of the essence of an appellant’s right of access to the Supreme Court and was not incompatible with articles 6 and 14 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.”
WLR Daily, 28th July 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“A rule providing for the compulsory retirement at 65 of partners in a firm of solicitors was a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims relating to recruitment and promotions within the firm.”
WLR Daily, 28th July 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“Control orders which the Secretary of State for the Home Department revoked rather than disclose the evidence on which they were made should have been quashed with effect from the dates they were made, because they were made in violation of the right to a fair trial under art 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.”
WLR Daily, 28th July 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Seldon v Clarkson Wright & Jakes (A Partnership) [2010] EWCA Civ 899 (28 July 2010)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Kang v Eau [2010] EWHC 1837 (QB) (27 July 2010)
Sternlight v Barclays Bank Plc [2010] EWHC 1865 (QB) (22 July 2010)
Black Horse Ltd v Speak & Anor [2010] EWHC 1866 (QB) (21 July 2010)
High Court (Family Division)
Butt v Butt [2010] EWHC 1989 (Fam) (27 July 2010)
Source: www.bailii.org
© Inner Temple Library 2025