Masri v Consolidated Contractors International (UK) Ltd and Others (No 4)
House of Lords
“A judgment creditor who was owed a judgment debt by a foreign company could not obtain an order for examination of an officer of the company who was outside the jurisdiction.”
The Times, 13th August 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
High Court (Chancery Division)
Bluebrook Ltd, Re [2009] EWHC 2114 (Ch) (11 August 2009)
Wall v Collins & Jennifer Collins [2009] EWHC 2100 (Ch) (11 August 2009)
High Court (Family Division)
GC v LD & Ors [2009] EWHC 1942 (Fam) (24 July 2009)
High Court (Technology and Constructions Court)
Camillin Denny Architects Ltd v Adelaide Jones & Co Ltd [2009] EWHC 2110 (TCC) (11 August 2009)
Corby Group Litigation v Corby District Council (Costs) [2009] EWHC 2109 (TCC) (11 August 2009)
Source: www.bailii.org
House of Lords
“A delay of almost 40 years in claiming a share of the copyright in a musical work, could not be defeated by the equitable doctrines of estoppel or laches when the defendants had suffered no detriment from the claimant’s delay and, on the contrary, had derived a financial benefit which far outweighed any detriment which might have resulted from the delay.”
The Times, 12th August 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
High Court (Family Division)
N (A Child), Re [2009] EWHC 2096 (Fam) (6 August 2009)
M v M [2009] EWHC 1941 (Fam) (29 July 2009)
Source: www.bailii.org
“When considering the lawfulness of extradition by reference to the likely prison conditions which a person, if extradited, would face upon conviction in the requesting country, the question whether the high threshold under art 3 of the Convention on Human Rights for inhuman or degrading treatment would be crossed would depend on the facts of the particular case. There was no common standard for what did or did not amount to inhuman or degrading treatment throughout the many different countries in the world.”
WLR Daily, 10th August 2009
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.
Matalan Retail Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2009] EWHC 2046 (Ch); [2009] WLR (D) 283
“Where a classification for duty purposes had been allocated to imported swimwear but was then revised and corrected, the VAT & Duties Tribunal and Revenue and Customs were not precluded by the doctrines of estoppel or abuse of process from retaining the monetary difference between the correct higher rates paid and the sums which would have been due under the original classification.”
WLR Daily, 10th August 2009
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.
Stone and Rolls (in Liquidation) v Moore Stephens (a Firm)
House of Lords
“A company, exclusively controlled by a single director so as to be primarily liable for frauds committed against third parties, could not bring a claim for damages against its auditors on the basis that they had failed to detect the fraudulent activities, that they were engaged to prevent since any such claim would be based on the company’s own illegal conduct and was accordingly debarred by the defence of ex turpi causa non oritur actio.”
The Times, 11th August 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Roche, R. v [2009] EWCA Crim 1499 (07 July 2009)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Strand Transport Services Ltd v Whitworth [2009] EWCA Civ 858 (06 August 2009)
High Court (Queen’s Bench)
Corus UK Ltd v Cavendish (UK) Ltd & Ors [2009] EWHC 2058 (QB) (07 August 2009)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Wyndham v Egremont & Ors [2009] EWHC 2076 (Ch) (07 August 2009)
Swissair, Re [2009] EWHC 2099 (Ch) (06 August 2009)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Shell Egypt West Manzala GmbH & Anor v Dana Gas Egypt Ltd [2009] EWHC 2097 (Comm) (07 August 2009)
Rubin & Anor v Eurofinance SA & Ors [2009] EWHC B16 (Comm) (31 July 2009)
Source: www.bailii.org
Regina (E) v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust; Regina (N) v Secretary of State for Health
Court of Appeal
“A policy of prohibiting smoking in the premises of an NHS trust, which had the consequence of a ban on smoking for those detained in a high security psychiatric hospital, did not violate the patients’ human rights and was lawful.”
The Times, 10th August 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Rubin and another v Eurofinance SAand others [2009] WLR (D) 282
“The Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006, which gave effect to the UNCITRAL Model Law relating to cross-border insolvency, applied where the foreign bankruptcy proceedings related to a debtor which, according to English law, had no legal personality either as an individual or as a body corporate.”
WLR Daily, 6th August 2009
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 corresponding proceedings were in existence between the same parties in another jurisdiction, the court had no power to grant a stay, in favour of the courts of a non-EU country, of proceedings of which the court was properly seised under art 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.”
WLR Daily, 6th August 2009
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.
Kulkarni v Milton Keynes Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
Court of Appeal
“A hospital doctor who was subject to disciplinary proceedings brought by his employer was entitled under the contract of employment to be represented at the hearing by a lawyer instructed or employed by his medical defence organisation.”
The Times, 6th August 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Meachen v R [2009] EWCA Crim 1701 (05 August 2009)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd v Wolverhampton City Council [2009] EWCA Civ 835 (31 July 2009)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Matalan Retail Ltd v Revenue and Customs [2009] EWHC 2046 (Ch) (05 August 2009)
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
Adonis Construction v O’Keefe Soil Remediation [2009] EWHC 2047 (TCC) (05 August 2009)
Source: www.bailii.org
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
NR(Jamaica) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWCA Civ 856 (05 August 2009)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Rabone & Anor v Pennine Care NHS Trust [2009] EWHC 1827 (QB) (23 July 2009)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
Vision Homes Ltd v Lancsville Construction Ltd [2009] EWHC 2042 (TCC) (04 August 2009)
Source: www.bailii.org
“The principles set out by the House of Lords in Norwich Pharmacal Co v Customs and Excise Comrs [1974] AC 133 could be applied in novel circumstances to require the Foreign Secretary to disclose information, specific to the claimant and essential to his defence to serious charges which might carry the death penalty, in confidence to lawyers representing him in proceedings at Guantanamo Bay, given that the conduct of the security service of the United Kingdom had amounted to being involved in arguable wrongdoing by facilitating interviews of the claimant by or on behalf of the United States of America while the claimant had been held unlawfully in incommunicado detention and on his case had been subject to alleged torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment at the hands of the detaining authorities.”
WLR Daily, 3rd August 2009
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.
“In a claim by a public landlord for a possession order against its demoted tenant, the jurisdiction of the county court was limited to considering whether the procedure for bringing the possession claim had been complied with and to making or declining to make the possession order; it had no power to review the decision of the review panel of the public landlord as to whether the decision was proportionate or compatible with the tenant’s human rights.”
WLR Daily, 3rd August 2009
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.
Metrobus Ltd v Unite the Union [2009] EWCA Civ 829; [2009] WLR (D) 279
“Where an employer sought an injunction to restrain a strike, a union’s failure to comply with its obligation under s 231A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to inform the employer as soon as reasonably practicable of the result of the ballot could justify the grant of an injunction restraining the strike. S 231A, and also ss 226 and 234A, were not disproportionate restrictions on the rights of association conferred by art 11 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The obligations under those sections could not be regarded as onerous so that they could be said to constitute a serious impediment on a union’s ability to call a strike.”
WLR Daily, 3rd August 2009
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 226(1A) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 did not prevent a planning authority, when considering the exercise of its compulsory purchase powers, from having regard to wider benefits resulting from the development, redevelopment or improvement of or in relation to the land, which might include benefits deriving from the associated redevelopment of another site not within the proposed development itself.”
WLR Daily, 3rd August 2009
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.
© Inner Temple Library 2025