Regina (Coombes) v Waltham Forest London Borough Council
Queen’s Bench Division
“Section 3 of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 was not incompatible with article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.”
The Times, 11th May 2010
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Muuse v Secretary of State for the Home Department
Court of Appeal
“In awarding exemplary damages in respect of oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional conduct by government officials, there was no need to consider further whether such outrageous conduct disclosed malice.”
The Times, 10th May 2010
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Huntley & Anor v Armes [2010] EWCA Civ 396 (11 May 2010)
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Crown Prosecution Service v Neish [2010] EWCA Crim 1011 (06 May 2010)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Ahmed & Ors v Murphy [2010] EWHC 453 (Admin) (10 May 2010)
High Court (Family Division)
PM v KH & Anor [2010] EWHC 870 (Fam) (30 April 2010)
Source: www.bailii.org
In re Frankice (Golders Green) Ltd and others; [2010] WLR (D) 118
“The words ‘legal process’ in para 43(6) of Sch B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 meant something with a defined beginning and an ascertainable outcome, involving the compulsive power of the law, which, in the interim, was governed by a recognisable procedure which was legal or quasi-legal in nature.”
WLR Daily, 10th May 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.
“S 2(3) of the Superannuation Act 1972 as amended conferred protection in relation to all entitlements in the principal civil service pension scheme (‘PCSPS’) and the civil service compensation scheme (‘CSCS’) referable to length of service and contributions paid, whether they constituted legal entitlements in the full sense or entitlements as a matter of established and declared administrative practice as set out in any relevant scheme under s 1 of the 1972 Act.”
WLR Daily, 10th May 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.
High Court (Administrative Court)
BX v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWHC 990 (Admin) (10 May 2010)
S v Northampton Crown Court & Anor [2010] EWHC 723 (Admin) (07 May 2010)
High Court (Commercial Court)
IRB Brasil Resseguros SA v CX Reinsurance Company Ltd [2010] EWHC 974 (Comm) (07 May 2010)
Source: www.bailii.org
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Tullett Prebon Plc & Ors v BGC Brokers LP & Ors [2010] EWHC 989 (QB) (06 May 2010)
Source: www.bailii.org
Al Rawi and Others v Security Service and Others
Court of Appeal
“The principle that a litigant should be able to see and hear all the evidence, seen and heard by a court determining his case, was so fundamental and so embedded in the common law, that, in the absence of parliamentary authority, it should not be overridden by a judge in an ordinary civil claim.”
The Times, 7th May 2010
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Court of Justice of the European Union
“European Union law did not prevent national health authorities from introducing financial incentive schemes aimed at replacing the prescription of certain medicines by other and cheaper named medicines in the same therapeutic class, provided certain conditions were satisfied.”
The Times, 7th May 2010
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
NML Capital Ltd v Republic of Argentina
Court of Appeal
“An English Court had no jurisdiction to enforce a United States court judgment since there was no treaty between the two countries for the mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments; the appropriate way was to bring an action on the judgment in England to enforce it.”
The Times, 7th May 2010
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
“The damages recoverable by a claimant whose investment fund had been depleted by fraud included not only the loss to the original amount invested during the period of the fraud and the profits that would have been made on it, but also the loss of those profits that would have would have been made from investment of the lost money in the period after the discovery of the fraud until the date of trial.”
WLR daily, 6th May 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.
Farstad Supply AS v Enviroco Ltd [2010] UKSC 18; [2010] WLR (D) 113
“A requirement in a charterparty for the owner to indemnify the charterer against claims resulting from loss or damage in relation to the vessel was not limited to a requirement for the owner to reimburse claims against the charterer by third parties but precluded the owner from recovering damages from the charterer in respect of the charterer’s own negligence. It followed that where it was alleged that the charterer and a third party had jointly caused damage to the vessel whilst it was berthed in Scotland and, because of the indemnity agreement, the owner sued only the third party in the Scots courts, the third party would not be able to claim a contribution under s 3(2) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1940 from the charterer as a ‘person who, if sued, might also have been held liable’.”
WLR Daily, 6th May 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 Y (A) [2010] EWCA Crim 762; [2010] WLR (D) 112
“Where a person possessed information likely to be useful to a terrorist within the meaning of s 58(1) of the Terrorism Act 2000, the fact that the possession was for the purpose of lawful self-defence which was solely defensive was capable of amounting to the statutory defence of reasonable excuse under s 58(3) of the 2000 Act, to an offence of possession under s 58(1).”
WLR Daily, 6th May 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.
Al Rawi and others v Security Service and others [2010] EWCA Civ 482; [2010] WLR (D) 111
“It was not open to a court in England and Wales, in the absence of statutory power to do so or, arguably, agreement between the parties that the case should proceed on such a basis, to order a closed material procedure in respect of the trial of an ordinary civil claim such as a claim for damages for tort or breach of statutory duty.”
WLR Daily, 5th May 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 (Criminal Division)
Crown Prosecution Service v Neish [2010] EWCA Crim 1011 (06 May 2010)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Trademark Licensing Company Ltd & Anor v Leofelis SA [2010] EWHC 969 (Ch) (06 May 2010)
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Family Division)
N v N [2010] EWHC 717 (Fam) (28 April 2010)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
Kingsway Hall Hotel Ltd. v Red Sky IT (Hounslow) Ltd. [2010] EWHC 965 (TCC) (06 May 2010)
High Court (Patents Court)
Source: www.bailii.org
Supreme Court
Inveresk plc v Papermakers Ltd [2010] UKSC 19 (05 May 2010)
Farstad Supply AS v Enviroco Ltd [2010] UKSC 18 (05 May 2010)
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
White & Ors v The Crown [2010] EWCA Crim 978 (05 May 2010)
Cooper, R v [2010] EWCA Crim 979 (05 May 2010)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Brookes v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions & Anor [2010] EWCA Civ 420 (29 April 2010)
Durham Tees Valley Airport Ltd v Bmibaby Ltd & Anor [2010] EWCA Civ 485 (05 May 2010)
Parabola Investments Ltd & Ors v Browallia Cal Ltd & Ors [2010] EWCA Civ 486 (05 May 2010)
High Court (Chancery Division)
White & Ors v Williams & Ors [2010] EWHC 940 (Ch) (05 April 2010)
Azam & Co v Legal Services Commission [2010] EWHC 960 (Ch) (05 May 2010)
HM Revenue and Customs v The Atrium Club Ltd [2010] EWHC 970 (Ch) (05 May 2010)
Source: www.bailii.org
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
BX v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWCA Civ 481 (04 May 2010)
Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (Rev 1) [2010] EWCA Civ 483 (04 May 2010)
Al Rawi & Ors v Security Service & Ors [2010] EWCA Civ 482 (04 May 2010)
Home Office v Tariq [2010] EWCA Civ 462 (04 May 2010)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Source: www.bailii.org
Regina v Hancox; Regina v Duffy
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
“The imposition of a serious crime prevention order had to be justified by the public benefit in preventing, restricting or disrupting involvement by the defendant in serious crime; it was not enough that the order might have some benefit.”
The Times, 5th May 2010
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025