Regina (Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd) v Wolverhampton City Council
Court of Appeal
“A planning authority considering exercising its compulsory purchase powers could have regard to wider benefits, which might include benefits deriving from the redevelopment of a site not within the proposed development itself.”
The Times, 21st August 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
O’Donnell v Shanahan and Another
Court of Appeal
“A director had a duty to inform his company of a relevant business opportunity and it was not for the director to make his own decision that the company would not be interested and appropriate the opportunity to himself.”
The Times, 21st August 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Booth v Oldham MBC [2009] EWCA Civ 880 (18 August 2009)
Source: www.bailii.org
Regina (F) v Secretary of State for Justice
Court of Appeal
“The absence of a right of review at any time of notification requirements imposed upon offenders who had been placed on the sex offenders register indefinitely was a disproportionate interference with the right to respect for private and family life. The case for granting a declaration of incompatability was even stronger in the case of young offenders than of adult offenders.”
The Times, 20th August 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Court of Appeal
“When a civil court was sentencing a contemnor for conduct which had already been the subject of sentencing for a criminal conviction, it was essential that the second court should be fully informed of the factors and circumstances reflected in the first sentence.”
The Times, 20th August 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Knight v Axa Assurances [2009] EWHC 1900 (QB) (24 July 2009)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Clarke, R (on the application of) v Cardiff University [2009] EWHC 2148 (Admin) (19 August 2009)
Source: www.bailii.org
Court Appeal (Civil Division)
Booth v Oldham MBC [2009] EWCA Civ 880 (18 August 2009)
High Court (Queen’s Bench)
Strydom v Vendside Ltd [2009] EWHC 2130 (QB) (18 August 2009)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Sabmiller Africa BV v Tanzania Breweries Ltd [2009] EWHC 2140 (Comm) (18 August 2009)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
City & General (Holborn) Ltd v Structure Tone Ltd & Ors [2009] EWHC 2139 (TCC) (18 August 2009)
Source: www.bailii.org
Regina v K (Matrimonial proceedings: Privilege against self-incrimination)
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
“While information disclosed under compulsion in matrimonial ancillary relief proceedings was not admissible in criminal proceedings, admissions made in withoutprejudice negotiations were not inadmissible.”
The Times, 19th August 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
I & Ors, R. v [2009] EWCA Crim (B1) (14 August 2009)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Deutsche Bank AG v Sebastian Holdings Inc [2009] EWHC 2132 (Comm) (14 August 2009)
Source: www.bailii.org
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
“A defendant who had pleaded guilty to an offence without any challenge to the facts presented by the prosecution was not, as a matter of law, thereby debarred from challenging the prosecution evidence for the purposes of a confiscation hearing.”
The Times, 17th August 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Transport for London (London Underground Ltd) v Spirerose Ltd (in Administration)
House of Lords
“Where the Lands Tribunal had found on the balance of probability that permission for development of the claimant’s land would have been granted as at the valuation date, its valuation on the basis that permission would actually have been granted was not sustainable.”
The Times, 17th August 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
Estor Ltd v Multifit (UK) Ltd [2009] EWHC 2108 (TCC) (12 August 2009)
Source: www.bailii.org
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
© Inner Temple Library 2025