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
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
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 [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 (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.
“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 [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 [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 [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.
“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.
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
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)
Source: www.bailii.org
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 [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 [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.
AS (Somalia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] UKHL 32; [2009] WLR (D) 194
“The provisions of s 85(5) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, which provided that an immigration judge hearing an appeal against a refusal of entry clearance could only have regard to the circumstances appertaining at the time the decision to refuse was made, were not in themselves incompatible with art 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, even though their effect could be to cause unreasonable delay in bringing a family together in the United Kingdom.”
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.
Atkinson v Supreme Court of Cyprus; Binnington v Supreme Court of Cyprus [2009] WLR (D) 193
“A trial was the legal process whereby guilt or innocence was to be decided and which resulted in a final determination. A fugitive’s state of mind was not material in deciding whether he ‘absented himself from his trial’ within the meaning of s 20(3) of the Extradition Act 2003. It was a matter of fact as to whether or not the fugitive had attended the trial. A fugitive’s state of mind was relevant in considering whether he ‘deliberately’ absented himself from his trial and he ‘deliberately’ absented himself where he made a conscious decision not to attend.”
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.
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
T & Ors R v [2009] EWCA Crim 1035 (05 June 2009)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Adler v Ananhall Advisory & Consultancy Services Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 586 (18 June 2009)
UBS AG & Anor v HSH Nordbank AG [2009] EWCA Civ 585 (18 June 2009)
Greenstein & Anor v Broome and Wellington LP [2009] EWCA Civ 589 (18 June 2009)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Homeserve Membership Ltd v Revenue and Customs [2009] EWHC 1311 (Ch) (18 June 2009)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Bray v Deutsche Bank AG (Rev. 1) [2009] EWHC 1356 (QB) (18 June 2009)
High Court (Family Division)
Hudson v Leigh [2009] EWHC 1306 (Fam) (05 June 2009)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Source: www.bailii.org
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Clarke v R. [2009] EWCA Crim 1074 (12 June 2009)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Remblance v Octagon Assets Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 581 (17 June 2009)
Sonmez v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors [2009] EWCA Civ 582 (17 June 2009)
Mehra v Mehra & Aras [2009] EWCA Civ 584 (17 June 2009)
Copley v Lawn & Ors [2009] EWCA Civ 580 (17 June 2009)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Cobden Investments Ltd v RWM Langport Ltd & Ors [2009] EWHC 1362 (Ch) (17 June 2009)
Polo Woods Foundation v Shelton-Agar & Anor [2009] EWHC 1361 (Ch) (17 June 2009)
Tanks and Vessels Industries Ltd v Devon Cider Company Ltd [2009] EWHC 1360 (Ch) (17 June 2009)
High Court (Queen’s Bench)
Alexis v London Borough of Newham [2009] EWHC 1323 (QB) (15 June 2009)
High Court (Family Division)
Bath & North East Somerset Council v A Mother & Ors [2008] EWHC B10 (Fam) (22 December 2008)
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
Bovis Homes Ltd v Kendrick Construction Ltd [2009] EWHC 1359 (TCC) (09 June 2009)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Toprise Fashions Ltd v Nik Nak Clothing Co Ltd & Ors [2009] EWHC 1333 (Comm) (17 June 2009)
Source: www.bailii.org
In re Attorney General’s Reference (No 3 of 1999) [2009] UKHL 34; [2009] WLR (D) 192
“An order made by the House of Lords on an Attorney General’s reference in October 2000 prohibiting identification of the defendant, D, should now, on a balance of the defendant’s right to privacy under art 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the right of the media to freedom of expression and communication under art 10, be discharged.”
WLR Daily, 17th 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.
TRM Copy Centres (UK) Ltd and others v Lanwall Services Ltd [2009] UKHL35; [2009] WLR (D) 190
“An agreement between the provider of photocopiers and the retailer in whose premises the photocopiers were located was not a consumer hire agreement within the meaning of s 15 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 if there was no obligation on the part of the retailer to make any payment in cash or kind for the hire of the photocopiers.”
Source: www.lawreport.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