law reports – Page 61 – Current Awareness

Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (UK) v Attorney General and others – WLR Daily

Posted June 15th, 2017 in charities, company law, law reports by sally

Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (UK) v Attorney General and others [2017] EWHC 1379 (Ch)

‘The claimant was a substantial English registered charity and a company limited by guarantee without a share capital. It was founded by the second and third defendants, who were two of its trustees and, along with L, its only members. As a result of the breakdown in the relationship between the second and third defendants it was agreed that the third defendant would resign as a member and trustee of the claimant and that she would found another registered charity, also a company limited by guarantee without a share capital. If the payment of the grant was a “payment for loss of office to a director” of the claimant for the purposes section 215 of the Companies Act 2006, it would, by section 217, prima facie require to be sanctioned by a resolution of the claimant’s members before it could be paid.’

WLR Daily, 9th June 2017

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted June 15th, 2017 in law reports by sally

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions

Hayes, R (on the application of) v City of York Council & Anor [2017] EWHC 1374 (Admin) (09 June 2017)

High Court (Chancery Division)

Source: www.bailii.org

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted June 14th, 2017 in law reports by sally

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

Sharp v Sharp [2017] EWCA Civ 408 (13 June 2017)

The Government of the Republic of France v The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea & Ors [2017] EWCA Civ 429 (12 June 2017)

The Secretary of State for the Home Department v Mosira [2017] EWCA Civ 407 (08 June 2017)

Khan v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 424 (08 June 2017)

Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

Markham & Anor v R [2017] EWCA Crim 739 (09 June 2017)

Mirchandani, R (on the prosecution by) v Somaia [2017] EWCA Crim 741 (09 June 2017)

Agera & Anor v R [2017] EWCA Crim 740 (09 June 2017)

High Court (Administrative Court)

Crompton, R (on the application of) v Police and Crime Commissioner for South Yorkshire & Ors [2017] EWHC 1349 (Admin) (09 June 2017)

Hayes, R (on the application of) v City of York Council & Anor [2017] EWHC 1374 (Admin) (09 June 2017)

High Court (Chancery Division)

ESO Capital Luxembourg Holdings II SARL v GSA Invest Management SA & Ors [2017] EWHC 1351 (Ch) (12 June 2017)

Capita Plc & Anor v Darch & Ors [2017] EWHC 1401 (Ch) (12 June 2017)

Makin v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2017] EWHC 1386 (Ch) (12 June 2017)

Lexlaw Ltd v Zuberi [2017] EWHC 1350 (Ch) (09 June 2017)

The Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (UK) v Attorney General & Ors [2017] EWHC 1379 (Ch) (09 June 2017)

BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA Antoine & Ors [2017] EWHC 1339 (Ch) (02 June 2017)

High Court (Commercial Court)

IPM Energy Trading Ltd v Carillion Energy Services Ltd [2017] EWHC 1399 (Comm) (13 June 2017)

High Court (Family Division)

F v L [2017] EWHC 1377 (Fam) (09 June 2017)

High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)

Gladwin v Bogescu [2017] EWHC 1287 (QB) (12 June 2017)

High Court (Technology and Construction Court)

Erith Holdings Ltd & Ors v Murphy [2017] EWHC 1364 (TCC) (08 June 2017)

Source: www.bailii.org

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted June 8th, 2017 in law reports by sally

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

Tata Steel UK Ltd, R v [2017] EWCA Crim 704 (07 June 2017)

High Court (Commercial Court)

Stati & Ors v The Republic of Kazakhstan [2017] EWHC 1348 (Comm) (06 June 2017)

High Court (Patents Court)

Unwired Planet International Ltd v Huawei Technologies Co Ltd & Anor [2017] EWHC 1304 (Pat) (07 June 2017)

High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)

Woodward v Grice [2017] EWHC 1292 (QB) (07 June 2017)

High Court (Technology and Construction Court)

NP Intergrated Technology Ltd v Graham and Kay Entwistle [2017] EWHC B21 (TCC) (07 June 2017)

Source: www.bailii.org

General Medical Council v Jagjivan and another – WLR Daily

Posted June 7th, 2017 in doctors, jurisdiction, law reports, tribunals by sally

General Medical Council v Jagjivan and another [2017] EWHC 1247 (Admin)

‘Where, at the conclusion of a hearing by the Medical Practitioners Tribunal, a direction under section 35D of the Medical Act 1983 has not been given, on the ordinary wording of section 40A(1)(d) of the Act the tribunal has made a decision not to give a direction under section 35D. Accordingly, where the tribunal has made such a decision, the General Medical Council has jurisdiction to appeal, pursuant to section 40A, against that decision. The words “after determining that the person’s fitness to practise is impaired” are not present at the end of section 40A(1)(d) and do not require to be read into that subsection. Moreover, it would be anomalous if the General Medical Council’s right of appeal were confined to cases where the tribunal had made a finding of impairment or imposed some sanction, and no regard could be had to an erroneous failure by the tribunal to find an impairment of fitness to practise (paras 27, 32).’

WLR Daily, 26th May 2017

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Regina (ZX) v Secretary of State for Justice – WLR Daily

Posted June 7th, 2017 in children, families, law reports, probation, release on licence by sally

Regina (ZX) v Secretary of State for Justice [2017] EWCA Civ 155

‘The claimant, a married British citizen of Bangladeshi origin with three children, was convicted on his guilty plea of two terrorism related offences and sentenced in the Crown Court to a term of three years’ imprisonment. Following his release on licence, conditions were imposed on his licence precluding him, inter alia, from having contact with his children save as directed by the National Probation Service (“the NPS”) and local children’s services. He sought to challenge the imposition of those conditions on the basis that the NPS had no lawful entitlement to give a direction separating him from his children, that there was no properly identified risk and that no separation could properly be directed without due compliance with the provisions of the Children Act 1989 and the Children Act 2004 and, if need be, without an order of the Family Court. Permission to proceed with the claim for judicial review was refused on the basis that the grounds raised were not arguable. The claimant appealed on the grounds, inter alia, that the judge had misdirected himself as to the scope and effect of the NPS’s duties under section 11 of the 2004 Act (to make arrangements for ensuring that its functions were discharged having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children).’

WLR Daily, 17th March 2017

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

In re RBS rights issue litigation (No 2) – WLR Daily

Posted June 7th, 2017 in civil procedure rules, costs, insurance, law reports, third parties by sally

In re RBS rights issue litigation (No 2) [2017] EWHC 1217 (Ch)

‘Subsequent to the defendant bank and its directors having learnt of the identity of the third party funders of the claimants following a successful application made under CPR r 25.14, the defendants sought security for costs pursuant to CPR r 25.14(2)(b) against those funders. That application was prompted by settlements with some of the original claimants, as a result of which the remaining claimants’ exposure to adverse costs increased, and by the defendants learning that the claimants did not have adequate after-the-event (“ATE”) insurance cover in place. The first respondent, a commercial funder and British Virgin Islands entity, opposed the application on the grounds that: (a) its financial position was such that it would be well able to meet any award for costs and in any event the defendants had not demonstrated that the claimants would fail to meet a costs award against them; and (b) the application was made extremely late and therefore caused it and the claimants real prejudice. The second respondent, an Isle of Man entity that was not in the business of litigation funding and provided funding close to the eve of trial, opposed the application on the grounds that: (a) it was unlikely that a section 51 order would be made against it in due course; and (b) no security was justified or necessary on the evidence and the timing was oppressive. Both respondents also argued that: (c) the quantum of security sought was excessive.’

WLR Daily, 23rd May 2017

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

In re Y (A Child) (Wardship: Assistance on Transition to Adulthood) – WLR Daily

Posted June 7th, 2017 in children, family courts, law reports, terrorism prevention & investigation measures, wardship by sally

In re Y (A Child) (Wardship: Assistance on Transition to Adulthood) [2017] EWHC 968 (Fam)

Approving a package of support suggested by the local authority, the court identified the range and scope of support available for a radicalised child approaching the end of their wardship, compared with that available to a child who was instead leaving care, before observing that this may be one of many factors to be bourne in mind when considering which legal framework is most appropriate to protect a young person in danger of radicalisation (paras 12–64, 65–68).

WLR Daily, 27th April 2017

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted June 5th, 2017 in law reports by sally

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

Newby Foods Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v Food Standards Agency [2017] EWCA Civ 400 (25 May 2017)

Hancock & Anor v Revenue & Customs [2017] EWCA Civ 198 (25 May 2017)

Persimmon Homes Ltd v Ove Arup & Partners Ltd & Anor [2017] EWCA Civ 373 (25 May 2017)

Bashir & Ors, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 397 (25 May 2017)

Greene King Brewing And Retailing Ltd & Anor v The Gambling Commission [2017] EWCA Civ 372 (25 May 2017)

Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

Martin, R, v [2017] EWCA Crim 648 (25 May 2017)

Morfitt, R v [2017] EWCA Crim 669 (25 May 2017)

High Court (Administrative Court)

C, R (on the application of) v The London Borough of Islington [2017] EWHC 1288 (Admin) (31 May 2017)

General Medical Council v Jagjivan & Anor [2017] EWHC 1247 (Admin) (26 May 2017)

SS, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor [2017] EWHC 1295 (Admin) (26 May 2017)

Heathrow Airport Ltd v Office of Rail And Road [2017] EWHC 1290 (Admin) (26 May 2017)

RM v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWHC 1262 (Admin) (26 May 2017)

High Court (Chancery Division)

The Co-Operative Bank Plc v Desmond Victor John Phillips [2017] EWHC 1320 (Ch) (02 June 2017)

Capita Plc & Anor v Darch & Ors [2017] EWHC 1248 (Ch) (26 May 2017)

Richard v British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) & Anor [2017] EWHC 1291 (Ch) (26 May 2017)

Egon Zehnder Ltd v Tillman [2017] EWHC 1278 (Ch) (23 May 2017)

High Court (Commercial Court)

Dalecroft Properties Ltd v Underwriters Subscribing To Certificate Number… [2017] EWHC 1263 (Comm) (26 May 2017)
Latin American Investments Ltd v Maroil Trading Inc & Anor [2017] EWHC 1254 (Comm) (26 May 2017)

Watson & Ors v watchfinder.co.uk Ltd [2017] EWHC 1275 (Comm) (25 May 2017)

Deutsche Bank AG, London Branch v CIMB Bank Berhad [2017] EWHC 1264 (Comm) (25 May 2017)

Ahmed & Anor v Ali Khalifa [2017] EWHC 1198 (Comm) (23 May 2017)

High Court (Family Division)

A and O (Children : Scotland), Re [2017] EWHC 1293 (Fam) (26 May 2017)

High Court (Patents Court)

Chugai Pharmaceutical Co Ltd v UCB Pharma SA [2017] EWHC 1216 (Pat) (26 May 2017)

High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)

Stewart & Anor v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2017] EWHC 1307 (QB) (30 May 2017)

Velarde v Guy’s & St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust [2017] EWHC 1250 (QB) (26 May 2017)

Anglia Research Services Ltd & Ors v Finders Genealogists Ltd & Anor [2017] EWHC 1277 (QB) (26 May 2017)

JR v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2017] EWHC 1245 (QB) (25 May 2017)

High Court (Technology and Construction Court)

GB Building Solutions Ltd v SFS Fire Services Ltd (t/a Central Fire Protection) [2017] EWHC 1289 (TCC) (25 May 2017)

Redbourn Group Ltd v Fairgate Development Ltd [2017] EWHC 1223 (TCC) (Hearing 19 May 2017)

Hyde v Milton Keynes NHS Foundation Trust – WLR Daily

Posted June 1st, 2017 in appeals, costs, fees, hospitals, law reports, legal aid by sally

Hyde v Milton Keynes NHS Foundation Trust [2017] EWCA Civ 399

‘The claimant brought a personal injury claim against the defendant under a Community Legal Service funding certificate which was subject to costs limitations. Although the defendant had admitted liability, quantum remained in issue. With the funding certificate nearing exhaustion and the Legal Services Commission refusing further funding, the claimant’s solicitors concluded that the case could not be completed on a funded basis. Accordingly, the claimant entered into a conditional fee agreement (“CFA”) with her solicitors. The solicitors served on the defendant notice of a change in funding arrangements but took no steps to apply for or obtain a formal discharge of the funding certificate. The claim later settled, the defendant having made an increased offer which the claimant accepted. On the assessment of costs, the costs judge concluded that the claimant was entitled to recover from the defendant her costs arising under the CFA, rejecting the defendant’s contention that the CFA was unenforceable by virtue of sections 10(1) and 22(2) of the Access to Justice Act 1999 because it had been entered into at a time when the claimant was “funded” by the commission as part of the Community Legal Service. The judge dismissed the defendant’s appeal, holding that the claimant was not “funded” by the commission, for the purposes of sections 10(1) and 22(2), once the funding certificate had been exhausted, even though the certificate had not been discharged.’

WLR Daily, 23rd May 2017

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Regina v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust – WLR Daily

Posted June 1st, 2017 in birth, damages, law reports, pensions, personal injuries, valuation by sally

Regina v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2017] EWHC 1245 (QB)

‘The claimant, a 24-year-old man, suffered from physical impairments caused by injuries suffered during his birth at the defendant’s hospital. He was expected to live to about 70 years old, which represented a reduction, as a result of his injuries, from the normal life expectancy for a male of his age. His mother, acting as his litigation friend, brought a claim for damages on his behalf against the defendant. The defendant admitted negligence in relation to the claimant’s birth. On the assessment of damages, issues arose including: (i) whether the claimant was entitled to recover a sum in respect of the pension that, but for his injuries, he would have received during the “lost years” of his life beyond his actual life expectancy; and (ii) how any award for special accommodation needs was to be assessed.’

WLR Daily, 25th May 2017

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

S v Director of Public Prosecutions – WLR Daily

Posted June 1st, 2017 in appeals, burden of proof, law reports, road traffic, standard of proof, young offenders, youth courts by sally

S v Director of Public Prosecutions [2017] EWHC 1162 (Admin)

‘The defendant was charged with an offence of tampering with a motor vehicle contrary to section 25 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and tried before justices in the Youth Court. The justices dismissed a submission by the defendant that there was no case to answer and, having heard evidence from the defendant and considered the burden and standard of proof, the justices convicted him. A contemporaneuos note of the justices’ reasons read, inter alia: “We listened to the [defendant’s] evidence which did not persuade us that there was no intention to tamper with the [motor vehicle]. We are therefore sure you are guilty.”’

WLR Daily, 18th May 2017

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Watson and others v Watchfinder.co.uk Ltd – WLR Daily

Posted June 1st, 2017 in agreements, company directors, consent, contracts, law reports, shareholders by sally

Watson and others v Watchfinder.co.uk Ltd [2017] EWHC 1275 (Comm)

‘The claimants were directors and shareholders of a business development consultancy whose services the defendant company retained to assist it in attracting investors. At the same time, the defendant entered into a share option agreement with the claimants on terms which, as later amended, provided for the claimants to purchase a certain percentage of the defendant’s issued share capital at a given price, but also provided that the option could not be exercised without the consent of a majority of the defendant’s board of directors. The claimants later sought to exercise the option but consent was refused. The claimants brought proceedings for specific performance of the share option agreement, contending that, as a matter of construction of that agreement or by way of an implied term, the defendant could not exercise its discretion over the grant of consent in a way that was arbitrary, capricious or irrational.’

WLR Daily, 25th May 2017

Source: www.iclr.co.uk