“The court would refuse to enforce the right of a director to inspect a company’s accounts pursuant to s 222 of the Companies Act 1985 where the purpose of the proposed inspection was to injure the company or was improper.”
WLR Daily, 21st April 2008
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.
JHP Ltd v BBC Worldwide Ltd and another [2008] EWHC 757 (Ch); [2008] WLR (D) 120
“In order to succeed in a claim for copying an original work, the claimant had to establish on the balance of probabilities that the defendant had copied a substantial part of that work.”
WLR Daily, 21st April 2008
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 (Edwards) v Environment Agency; [2008] WLR (D) 119
“When copies of draft speeches which the Law Lords proposed to deliver were provided in confidence, prior to the delivery of judgment, to the legal representatives of the parties to an appeal which had been heard, the purpose was to obtain help in correcting misprints, inadvertent errors of fact or ambiguities of expression. It was not intended to enable the case to be reargued, and any attempt to do so amounted to an abuse of the procedure of the House of Lords.”
WLR Daily, 21st April 2008
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.
Midlands Co-Operative Society Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners
Court of Appeal
“A taxable person was entitled to assign to another any benefit of repayment he enjoyed from the overpayment of value-added tax.”
The Times, 22nd April 2008
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online fro 21 days from the date of publication.
Court of Appeal
“Where a charterparty provided that the vessel should load at a single named safe port, the charterers thereby warranted the safety of that port.”
The Times, 22nd April 2008
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online fro 21 days from the date of publication.
Masri v Consolidated Contractors International UK Ltd and Others (No 2)
Court of Appeal
“The court had the power to appoint a receiver by way of equitable execution over future receipts from a defined asset.”
The Times, 22nd April 2008
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online fro 21 days from the date of publication.
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
R v T [2008] EWCA Crim 815 (16 April 2008)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Oxford Legal Group Ltd v Sibbasbridge Services Plc & Anor [2008] EWCA Civ 387 (18 April 2008)
High Court (Family Division)
M v H [2008] EWHC 324 (Fam) (21 February 2008)
SW v RC [2008] EWHC 73 (Fam) (24 January 2008)
P v P [2007] EWHC 2877 (Fam) (11 December 2007)
B County Council v R & Anor [2007] EWHC 2742 (Fam) (22 November 2007)
Source: www.bailii.org
Legal Services Commission v Rasool
Court of Appeal
“Where the Legal Services Commission sought to recover sums following the revocation of a legal aid certificate, the quantum of costs paid or payable need not first be established before a cause of action accrued.”
The Times, 21st April 2008
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
“Where a summary offence was tried with an indictable offence in the crown court but there was no case to answer on the indictable offence, the summary offence did not have to be withdrawn from the jury and retried before justices.”
The Times, 21st April 2008
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
MY (Turkey) v Secretary of State for Home Department
Court of Appeal
“Where an immigration judge found a witness to be reliable and accepted his evidence, it was inappropriate and an error of law for another immigration judge at a second hearing to attack the credibility of the same witness.”
The Times, 21st April 2008
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Newman, R v [2008] EWCA Crim 816 (18 April 2008)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Mills v Birchall & Anor [2008] EWCA Civ 385 (18 April 2008)
Oxford Legal Group Ltd v Sibbasbridge Services Plc & Anor [2008] EWCA Civ 387 (18 April 2008)
Morgan v UPS Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 375 (17 April 2008)
Strachey v Ramage [2008] EWCA Civ 384 (18 April 2008)
Bonham & Anor v Fishwick & Anor [2008] EWCA Civ 373 (16 April 2008)
Abbey Mine Ltd v Coal Authority & Anor [2008] EWCA Civ 353 (16 April 2008)
Dunn v Parole Board [2008] EWCA Civ 374 (16 April 2008)
A v Essex County Council [2008] EWCA Civ 364 (16 April 2008)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Supperstone v Hurst & Anor [2008] EWHC 735 (Ch) (16 April 2008)
Frost v Clarke [2008] EWHC 742 (Ch) (14 April 2008)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Goodall v Peak District National Park Authority [2008] EWHC 734 (Admin) (04 April 2008)
B, Re [2008] EWHC 690 (Admin) (11 April 2008)
Varma v General Medical Council [2008] EWHC 753 (Admin) (16 April 2008)
High Court (Commercial Court)
IPCO (Nigeria) Ltd. v Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation [2008] EWHC 797 (Comm) (17 April 2008)
High Court (Patents Court)
Kapur v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks [2008] EWHC 649 (Pat) (10 April 2008)
Source: www.bailii.org
R (Black) v Secretary of State for Justice [2008] EWCA Civ 359; [2008] WLR (D) 114
“S 35(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, giving the Secretary of State power to override a Parole Board recommendation for the release on parole of a prisoner serving a sentence of more than 15 years, was not compatible with art 5(4) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.”
WLR Daily, 17th April 2008
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 ors v Lanwall Services Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 382; [2008] WLR (D) 113
“The practice of placing machines on premises mainly for the use of persons other than the owner of the premises, who was paid a commission on its use, would not generally be a form of bailment by way of hire; it was necessary to look at the essential nature and commercial purpose of the agreement.”
WLR Daily, 17th April 2008
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.
“A women’s refuge was accommodation which, having regard to various factors, it could be reasonable for women to continue to occupy.”
WLR Daily, 17th April 2008
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.
“For the purposes of para 3A(7) of Sch 10 to the Value Added Tax Act 1994 a party was “in occupation” of land if it had the right to occupy the land as if it were the owner and to exclude any other person from enjoyment of such a right.”
WLR Daily, 17th April 2008
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.
Dunn v Parole Board [2008] EWCA Civ 374; [2008] WLR (D) 110
“In the context of CPR Pt 11, the limitation provisions within s 7(5) of the Human Rights Act 1998 provided a defence to a claim rather than going to jurisdiction, so that a failure to apply to strike out within 14 days of acknowledging service did not preclude a defendant from applying to strike out a claim on the basis of limitation.
The Court of Appeal so stated when dismissing the appeal of the claimant, Peter Dunn, from a decision of Judge Darroch, sitting in the Norwich County Court on 29 March 2007, striking out his claims against the defendant, The Parole Board, under the Human Rights Act 1998 and for false imprisonment arising out of his detention after recall to prison from that part of his sentence he was serving on licence in the community. There had been delay in the management of the case by the defendant. The grounds of appeal were that: (i) the court should have determined under CPR Pt 11 that the filing of an acknowledgment of service by the defendant precluded it from arguing the issue of limitation under s7(5) of the 1998 Act; (ii) the judge erred in finding that the claim for false imprisonment had no real prospect of success; (iii) the case was appropriate for the court to extend the period for bringing the claim under s7(5) of the 1998 Act.”
WLR Daily, 17th April 2008
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.
Lichter & Schwarz (a Partnership) v Rubin
Chancery Division
“When applying for an interim order directing a party to provide information about relevant property or assets which were, or could be the subject of an application for a freezing injunction, it was necessary to show only that there was a reasonable possibility, based on credible evidence, that a freezing injunction would be applied for.”
The Times, 18th April 2008
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21days from the date of publication.
Regina (Black) v Secretary of State for Justice
Court of Appeal
“Section 35 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, giving the Secretary of State for Justice power to block the release on licence of prisoners sentenced between 1991 and 2003 to prison terms of more than 15 years, was not compatible with article 5.4 of the European Convention on Human Rights, providing that anyone deprived of his liberty had the right to have the lawfulness of his detention decided speedily by a court.”
The Times, 18th April 2008
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21days from the date of publication.
Sisters of the Sacred Heart of Mary Ltd and Others v Kingston upon Thames Borough Council
Chancery Division
“The introduction by Kingston upon Thames Borough Council of an unmanned code-operated barrier to control entry to Warren Road, a private road that provided access from a public road to the Coombe Estate, would amount to a substantial interference with the statutory rights of the Sisters of the Sacred Heart of Mary Ltd, Holy Cross Sisters Trustees Inc, Rokeby Educational Trust Ltd, who run three schools, and Unilever plc, who run a training centre, to use the relevant roads for going to or leaving their premises.”
The Times, 18th April 2008
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21days from the date of publication.
© Inner Temple Library 2025