In re P-J (Children) (Abduction: Consent) – WLR daily

Posted June 25th, 2009 in child abduction, consent, law reports by sally

In re P-J (Children) (Abduction: Consent) [2009] EWCA Civ 588; [2009] WLR (D) 207

“Effective ‘consent’ to the removal of a child from the jurisdiction of the state of its habitual residence could in principle be given in advance by an eligible person. However, for reliance to be placed on the terms of art 13(a) of the Hague Convention, whereby a requested state was not bound to order the return of such a child if the person having care of the person of the child had ‘consented to or subsequently acquiesced in’ the removal, the consent had to subsist at the time when the child was in fact removed.”

WLR Daily, 23rd June 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.

Regina v Twomey (John); Regina v Blake (Peter); Regina v Cameron (Glen); Regina v Hibberd (Barry) – Times Law Reports

Posted June 25th, 2009 in human rights, intimidation, juries, law reports, trial without jury by sally

Regina v Twomey (John); Regina v Blake (Peter); Regina v Cameron (Glen); Regina v Hibberd (Barry)

Court of Appeal

“A defendant’s right to a fair trial was not prejudiced by holding a criminal trial without a jury, where the danger of jury tampering was very significant and was not sufficiently addressed by proposed protective measures.”

The Times, 25th June 2009

Source; www.timesonline.co.uk

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted June 24th, 2009 in law reports by sally

Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

G(G) & Anor, R. v [2009] EWCA Crim 1207 (12 June 2009)

DT, R. v [2009] EWCA Crim 1213 (04 June 2009)

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

Central Bedfordshire Council v Taylor & Ors [2009] EWCA Civ 613 (23 June 2009)

High Court (Chancery Division)

Estafnous v London & Leeds Business Centres Ltd. [2009] EWHC 1308 (Ch) (15 June 2009)

MCP Pension Trustees Ltd v AON Pension Trustees Ltd [2009] EWHC 1351 (Ch) (18 June 2009)

Curtis & Ors v Pulbrook & Anor [2009] EWHC 1370 (Ch) (17 June 2009)

High Court (Administrative Court)

Mohammed, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWHC 1402 (Admin) (08 June 2009)

Onwuzulike v United States of America [2009] EWHC 1395 (Admin) (05 June 2009)

Boahen, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWHC 1407 (Admin) (05 June 2009)

Schwartz v Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court [2009] EWHC 1397 (Admin) (03 June 2009)

Ambassador Cars Ltd., R (on the application of) v Central Criminal Court [2009] EWHC 1325 (Admin) (03 June 2009)

Kallmi v Albania [2009] EWHC 1411 (Admin) (02 June 2009)

Tilson v New Zealand [2009] EWHC 1410 (Admin) (02 June 2009)

High Court (Technology and Construction Court)

Imperial Cancer Research Fund & Anor v OVE ARUP & Partners Ltd & Anor [2009] EWHC 1453 (TCC) (23 June 2009)

North Midland Construction Plc v A E & E Lentjes UK Ltd [2009] EWHC 1371 (TCC) (18 June 2009)

Farm Assist Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (No.2) [2009] EWHC 1102 (TCC) (19 May 2009)

Source: www.bailii.org

TRM Copy Centres Ltd v Lanwall Services Ltd – Times Law Reports

Posted June 24th, 2009 in bailment, consumer credit, contracts, law reports by sally

TRM Copy Centres Ltd v Lanwall Services Ltd

House of Lords

“The essence of hire was that the hirer acquired the use and possession of goods from the provider in return for a rent, whether payable in cash or kind.”

The Times, 24th June 2009

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Regina (Miller and another) v Independent Assessor – WLR Daily

Posted June 23rd, 2009 in compensation, law reports, miscarriage of justice by sally

Regina (Miller and another) v Independent Assessor [2009] EWCA Civ 609; [2009] WLR (D) 206

“In assessing the compensation payable to a victim of miscarriage of justice who in consequence had served a term of imprisonment, the independent assessor should apply principles of other civil awards in respect of similar wrongs in order to achieve legal consistency with earlier decisions, having regard to the gravity of the offence of which the victim had been wrongly convicted and the period of his incarceration.”

WLR Daily, 22nd June 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.

Andrew Brown v Innovatorone plc and others – WLR Daily

Posted June 23rd, 2009 in law reports, service, solicitors by sally

Andrew Brown v Innovatorone plc and others [2009] EWHC 1376 (Comm); [2009] WLR (D) 205

“A claim form was not effectively served on a solicitor where the solicitor had not notified the claimant in writing that the solicitor had been instructed by the defendant to accept service on behalf of the defendant, and, while it did not require exceptional circumstances for exercise of the court’s power to authorise service by an alternative method to those specifically permitted, a rigorous approach was to be taken to the issue whether there was good reason to exercise that power.”

WLR Daily, 22nd June 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.

Regina v McQuoid – Times Law Reports

Posted June 23rd, 2009 in fraud, insider dealing, law reports by sally

Regina v McQuoid

Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

“Deliberate insider dealing was a species of fraud for which prosecution, rather than regulatory proceedings, would often be more appropriate.”

The Times, 23rd June 2009

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

AS (Somalia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department – Times Law Reports

Posted June 23rd, 2009 in appeals, children, immigration, law reports by sally

AS (Somalia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

House of Lords

“The statutory provision that on hearing an appeal against a refusal of entry clearance the adjudicator or tribunal could have regard only to the circumstances appertaining at the time of the decision to refuse and could have no regard to any subsequent change in the applicant’s circumstances, was not incompatible with article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, even though its effect could lead to delay in bringing a family together in the United Kingdom.”

The Times, 22nd June 2009

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted June 22nd, 2009 in law reports by sally

High Court (Family Division)

McFarlane v McFarlane [2009] EWHC 891 (Fam) (18 June 2009)

High Court (Administrative Court)

Owens v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court [2009] EWHC 1343 (Admin) (08 June 2009)

Wilson & Anor v Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority [2009] EWHC 1425 (Admin) (19 June 2009)

High Court (Commercial Court)

Brown & Ors v Innovatorone Plc & Ors [2009] EWHC 1376 (Comm) (19 June 2009)

High Court (Technology and Construction Court)

Roundstone Nurseries Ltd v Stephenson Holdings Ltd [2009] EWHC 1431 (TCC) (10 June 2009)

Source: www.bailii.org

Owens v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court – WLR Daily

Posted June 22nd, 2009 in appeals, delay, extradition, law reports, time limits by sally

Owens v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court [2009] EWHC 1343 (Admin); [2009] WLR (D) 20

“When an appeal to the High Court under s 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against an order for extradition to a category 1 territory was unsuccessful, the decision of the High Court on the appeal did not become final within the meaning of s 36(5) of the Act and, accordingly, the 10-day period within which s 36(2) and (3)(a) stipulated that extradition should take place did not begin to run until the 14-day period permitted by s 32(5) for applying to the High Court for leave to appeal to the House of Lords had expired, notwithstanding that the High Court had on the same day as dismissing the appeal declined to certify for the purposes of s 32(4)(a) of the Act that a point of law of general public importance was involved. As regards the requirement in s 36(8) that ‘reasonable cause’ be shown for delay in effecting extradition, the expression could be construed as being sufficiently broad to cover a short delay arising from an error of law made by the Serious Organised Crime Agency (‘SOCA’), the body responsible for the surrender of individuals to requesting states at the conclusion of extradition proceedings under the 2003 Act, in calculating the period within which the person must be extradited as specified in s 36(3) of the Act.”

WLR Daily, 19th June 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.

L’Oréal SA and others v Bellure NV and others – WLR Daily

Posted June 22nd, 2009 in advertising, EC law, law reports, trade marks by sally

L’Oréal SA and others v Bellure NV and others (Case C-487/07); [2009] WLR (D) 203

“The claimants, producers and marketers of luxury perfumes, were the proprietors in the United Kingdom of well-known trade marks, some in the form of word marks alone, and others being word and figurative marks including a representation of the bottle or packaging for the particular perfume. The defendants, the producer of and two companies which marketed imitations of fine fragrances, offered a range of products some of whose bottles and packaging were generally similar to those of products of the claimants’, although it was common ground that the similarity was unlikely to mislead professionals or the public. The defendant marketing companies provided to their retailers lists which compared the smell of a product of the defendants’ with a product of the claimants’ which was being imitated, in each case identified by reference to the word mark by which the product was known. In trade mark infringement proceedings brought by the claimants, a number of issues arose relating to the interpretation of (i) Council Directive 89/104/EEC on trade marks and (ii) article 3a(1) of Council Directive 84/450/EEC on misleading and comparative advertising as amended by European Parliament and Council Directive 97/55/EC (‘Directive 84/450’), and the Chancery Division of the High Court referred questions thereon to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.”

WLR Daily, 19th June 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.

R (Weaver) v London & Quadrant Housing Trust (Equality & Human Rights Commission intervening) – WLR Daily

Posted June 22nd, 2009 in housing, judicial review, law reports by sally

R (Weaver) v London & Quadrant Housing Trust (Equality & Human Rights Commission intervening) [2009] EWCA Civ 587; [2009] WLR (D) 202

“On the facts of the particular case, a registered social landlord was a hybrid public authority and the act of terminating the tenancy of its assured tenant was not a private act and was susceptible to judicial review.”

WLR Daily, 19th June 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 re Dairy Farmers of Britain Ltd – WLR Daily

In re Dairy Farmers of Britain Ltd [2009] EWHC 1389 (Ch); [2009] WLR (D) 201

“Parliament intended that Parts I and II of the Insolvency Act 1986 should not apply to an industrial and provident society (‘IPS’), and there was no reason for adopting a different approach to Part III of the Act, either generally or with specific reference to s 72A of the Act. Further, section 37 in Part III of the Act could have no specific application to receivers of an IPS.”

WLR Daily, 19th June 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.

Copley v Lawn; Maden v Haller – WLR Daily

Posted June 22nd, 2009 in accidents, damages, insurance, law reports, negligence by sally

Copley v Lawn; Maden v Haller [2009] EWCA Civ 580; [2009] WLR (D) 200

“Where, following a road accident caused by a defendant’s negligence, the defendant’s insurers offered to provide a ‘free’ replacement car to the claimant while his own car was being repaired, the claimant could reasonably reject or ignore the offer if it did not make clear the cost of hire to the defendant for the purpose of enabling the claimant to make a realistic comparison with the cost to him of making his own hire car arrangements. If a claimant did unreasonably reject or ignore the offer, he did not forfeit his damages claim altogether but was entitled to recover at least the cost which the defendant could show he would reasonably have incurred. The general rule that the claimant could recover the market rate of hire for his loss of use prevailed, unless, and to the extent that, the defendant could show that, on the facts of a particular case, a car could have been provided more cheaply than at the market rate.”

WLR Daily, 19th June 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.

R v T; R v B; R v C; R v H – WLR Daily

R v T; R v B; R v C; R v H [2009] EWCA Crim 1035; [2009] WLR (D) 19

“A criminal trial without a jury did not contravene a defendant’s right to a fair trial where there was a real danger of jury tampering and proposed measures to prevent such interference did not sufficiently address the extent of the risk. On an application by the prosecution for a trial to be conducted without a jury in such circumstances the evidence should be disclosed to the fullest extent possible, but there would be cases where the evidence to demonstrate the risk of jury tampering would be so sensitive that it could only be addressed under public immunity interest principles and it would be contrary to the legislative purpose to make an order for disclosure which would, in effect, bring the prosecution to an end and enable those who had been involved in jury tampering to derail the trial.”

WLR Daily, 19th June 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.

R (AK (Sri Lanka)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department – WLR Daily

Posted June 22nd, 2009 in appeals, asylum, law reports, tribunals by sally

R (AK (Sri Lanka)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWCA Civ 447; [2009] WLR (D) 198

“The phrase ‘further submissions’, in the context of the Secretary of State’s obligation under r 353 of the Immigration Rules to consider whether any such submissions amounted to a fresh claim for asylum, merely meant representations, whether new or not, and those representations could be short or long, advanced on either asylum or human rights grounds, and reasoned or unreasoned. Where further submissions had in fact been found to have been made, and the question of whether they had already been considered was being asked for the purposes of ascertaining whether they were ‘significantly different’, within the meaning of r 353, and therefore might amount to a fresh claim, it was clear that no particular form was required in which new material to be put before the Secretary of State had to be cast, and that such new material might assert a human rights or asylum claim in a different category from what had been claimed the first time and that, alternatively, the same category of claim may be persisted in, but new facts asserted to support it. Where such previously unconsidered further submissions were found to have been made and the question was being asked whether, taken together with previously considered material, they enjoyed a realistic prospect of success within the meaning of r 353, and amounted thereby to a fresh claim, ‘realistic prospect of success’ meant ‘more than a fanciful such prospect’ and was not the same as a case which was clearly unfounded, the latter being a case with no prospect of success.”

WLR Daily, 19th June 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.

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted June 19th, 2009 in law reports by sally

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

London & Quadrant Housing Trust v Weaver, R. (On the application of) [2009] EWCA Civ 587 (18 June 2009)

Ryan v London Borough of Islington [2009] EWCA Civ 578 (19 June 2009)

Miller, R (on the application of) v The Independent Assessor [2009] EWCA Civ 609 (19 June 2009)

High Court (Chancery Division)

Dairy Farmers of Britain Ltd, Re [2009] EWHC 1389 (Ch) (18 June 2009)

HM Revenue & Customs v Banerjee [2009] EWHC 62 (Ch) (19 June 2009)

HM Revenue & Customs v Banerjee [2009] EWHC 1229 (Ch) (19 June 2009)

High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)

AB & Ors v Ministry of Defence [2009] EWHC 1421 (QB) (19 June 2009)

High Court (Administrative Division)

JK, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Waltham Haringey [2009] EWHC 1393 (Admin) (18 June 2009)

Tariq (aka Tariq Mehmood), R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWHC 1390 (Admin) (19 June 2009)

Source: www.bailii.org

Ul-Haq and others v Shah – WLR Daily

Posted June 19th, 2009 in fraud, law reports, personal injuries, striking out by sally

Ul-Haq and others v Shah [2009] EWCA Civ 542; [2009] WLR (D) 197

“There was no general rule of law which permitted a court to strike out a genuine claim on the grounds that the claimant had been involved in a fraud upon the court in respect of an associated claim.”

WLR Daily, 18th June 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.

Octagon v Remblance and another – WLR Daily

Posted June 19th, 2009 in bankruptcy, debts, law reports, rent, statutory demands by sally

Octagon v Remblance and another [2009] EWCA Civ 581; [2009] WLR (D) 196

“In a case in which a corporate tenant and a guarantor were pursued for rent arrears, it was difficult to see how it could be just not to set aside a statutory demand obtained against the guarantor where the principal debtor satisfied one of the conditions in r 6.5(4)(a) of the Insolvency Rules 1986, merely because the guarantor could afford to pay the debt. Moreover, where the tenant’s and guarantor’s liability were co-extensive and there were no good reasons for distinguishing between the position of the guarantor and that which would obtain if the tenant applied under r 6.5(4)(a) to set aside a statutory demand, justice and r 6.5(4)(d) of the 1986 Rules demanded that a statutory demand obtained against the guarantor should be set aside.”

WLR Daily, 18th June 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.

Gray v Thames Trains Ltd – WLR Daily

Gray v Thames Trains Ltd [2009] UKHL 33; [2009] WLR (D) 195

“A person who, as a result of a railway accident, suffered post-traumatic stress disorder which led him to kill someone, could not, as part of his claim for damages in negligence against the train operators responsible for the accident, recover damages for loss of earnings following his detention after the killing in prison, and subsequently in hospital under ss 37 and 41 of the Mental Health Act 1983.”

WLR Daily, 18th June 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.