Category: law reports

Secretary of State for the Home Department v Khan – WLR Daily

Posted March 15th, 2016 in appeals, immigration, law reports, visas by sally

Secretary of State for the Home Department v Khan [2016] EWCA Civ 137

‘The applicant, a Pakistani national, entered the United Kingdom with leave to remain. On 20 February 2012, before the expiry of his leave, he applied under section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 for further leave to remain as a Tier 4 student, intending to study at a particular college which at that time was a registered licensed sponsor. However, by the time the United Kingdom Border Agency came to consider his application, the licence of his sponsoring college had been revoked. The agency suspended consideration of the application to enable the applicant to find a new sponsor and then submit an application to vary the grounds of his original application for further leave to remain, which the applicant did on 9 October 2012. Paragraph 34E of the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules provided that if a person wished to “vary the purpose” of an application for leave to remain, the variation had to comply with the requirements for making an application as if the variation were a new application, or the variation would be invalid. The agency refused the applicant’s application to vary the grounds of his original application since, on 9 October 2012, he did not satisfy the requirements of paragraph 1A(a) of Appendix C to the Immigration Rules, which provided that an applicant had to have a certain level of maintenance funds “at the date of the application”. The applicant’s appeal against that decision was allowed by the First-tier Tribunal. The Upper Tribunal dismissed the Secretary of State’s appeal, holding that paragraph 34E did not apply in the applicant’s case since the applicant had not sought to vary the “purpose” of his application, which throughout had remained the same, namely to remain as a Tier 4 student; and that, therefore, the applicant had not been obliged to meet the maintenance fund requirements on 9 October 2012.’

WLR Daily, 18th March 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Director of Public Prosecutions v Henderson – WLR Daily

Posted March 15th, 2016 in crime, harassment, law reports, racism by sally

Director of Public Prosecutions v Henderson [2016] EWHC 464 (Admin)

‘The defendant was charged with three offences of racially aggravated harassment, contrary to section 31(1)(b) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and, in the alternative, three offences of harassment, contrary to section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986. Both sets of offences were alleged to have been committed against the same victims and arose out of the same set of facts. Following the trial, the defendant was convicted of the three racially aggravated offences but, having heard submissions from the defendant’s representative, the district judge declined to announce a verdict on the section 4A offences (“the underlying offences”) and adjourned the case. The matter came before a different district judge who concluded that the facts of the underlying offences had been proved before the district judge at trial with the result that guilty verdicts should be returned in relation to the three underlying offences, with no separate penalty being imposed. In so doing, the district judge rejected the defendant’s submission that the correct course of action, the aggravated offences having been proved, was to adjourn the underlying offences sine die pursuant to the power in section 10 of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980. The defendant challenged his conviction on the underlying offences by way of an appeal by case stated.’

WLR Daily, 9th March 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Cocking and another v Eacott and another – WLR Daily

Posted March 15th, 2016 in appeals, families, landlord & tenant, law reports, nuisance by sally

Cocking and another v Eacott and another [2016] EWCA Civ 140

‘The second defendant owned but did not occupy a property. She granted the first defendant, her daughter, a bare licence to live there. The second defendant paid all the bills and maintained the property and her daughter did not pay any rent. The claimant owners of the next door property complained about the excessive barking of the daughter’s dog. The claimants wrote a letter before action to which the second defendant responded that a landlord was not liable for nuisance committed by a tenant, that she was not personally involved in the alleged incidents and that she was estranged from her daughter. The claimants issued proceedings against the second defendant and her daughter for nuisance. The second defendant served a notice to quit on her daughter and obtained a possession order which she did not enforce. The second defendant did not accept the claimants’ offer of a settlement if she permanently evicted her daughter from the property. The judge held that the second defendant was liable in nuisance to the claimants even though she did not occupy the property from which the nuisance emanated, concluding that liability attached once the owner knew or was deemed to know of the nuisance and had failed after a reasonable time to abate it and therefore if the owner chose to do nothing then she became liable for it with the actual creator of the nuisance.’

WLR Daily, 9th March 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Littlestone and others v Macleish – WLR Daily

Posted March 15th, 2016 in appeals, civil procedure rules, costs, law reports, part 36 offers by sally

Littlestone and others v Macleish [2016] EWCA Civ 127

‘An admitted payment on account of a claim following a Part 36 offer to settle a claim of a higher amount was, in the absence of contrary agreement, made as much on account of the Part 36 offer as on account of the full sum claimed. It would be an absurdity for a defendant to be bound to pay an aggregated total of a Part 36 offer and an admissions payment that was larger than the total sum claimed (paras 23–24).’

WLR Daily, 10th March 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

John v Central Manchester and Manchester Children’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust – WLR Daily

Posted March 7th, 2016 in causation, contribution, damages, delay, law reports, negligence, personal injuries by sally

John v Central Manchester and Manchester Children’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust: [2016] EWHC 407 (QB)

‘The claimant suffered a head injury and was taken to a hospital managed by the defendant. A CT scan was performed some six hours after his admission and he was transferred to another hospital where he underwent surgery. He was left with cognitive and neuropsychological deficits. He claimed damages in negligence against the defendant contending, inter alia, that the defendant’s negligent delay in undertaking the CT scan had resulted in a period of raised intra-cranial pressure which had caused or materially contributed to his brain damage. The defendant contended that only if the claimant could establish that damaging raised intra-cranial pressure caused by the defendant’s negligence had caused his brain injury that, applying the classic “but for” test of causation, he could recover as against the defendant, and that it was insufficient to establish “material contribution”.’

WLR Daily, 16th March 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Regina (Orbital Shopping Park Swindon Ltd) v Swindon Borough Council – WLR Daily

Posted March 7th, 2016 in interpretation, judicial review, law reports, local government, planning by sally

Regina (Orbital Shopping Park Swindon Ltd) v Swindon Borough Council: [2016] EWHC 448 (Admin)

‘The claimant submitted two separate planning applications to the defendant: one for the installation of a mezzanine floor at its property; and the other for external works to the property, which created no additional floor space. The defendant granted planning permission for both applications, informing the claimant that the mezzanine installation was development liable to a community infrastructure levy (“CIL”). The defendant’s view was that the development proposals fell within the scope of the meaning of development for CIL purposes due to the direct link between the two applications for the mezzanine and external alterations. The defendant, as the relevant CIL collecting authority, subsequently issued a CIL liability notice under regulation 65 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 in relation to the installation of a mezzanine floor and external alterations at the claimant’s property, and a demand notice under regulation 69 of the 2010 Regulations in respect of the same development. By a judicial review claim the claimant challenged the lawfulness of the defendant’s act in issuing the two notices on the grounds that the mezzanine planning permission fell within the exemption created by regulation 6(1)(c) and that the external planning permission created no floor space and so was not liable to a CIL.’

WLR daily, 3rd March 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

R v Jogee (Appellant) – Supreme Court

Posted February 18th, 2016 in appeals, joint enterprise, jury directions, law reports, murder, Supreme Court by sally

R v Jogee (Appellant) [2016] UKSC 8 (YouTube)

Supreme Court, 18th February 2016

Source: www.youtube.com/user/UKSupremeCourt

Shop Direct Group (Appellant) v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Respondent) – Supreme Court

Posted February 18th, 2016 in appeals, corporation tax, law reports, repayment, Supreme Court, VAT by sally

Shop Direct Group (Appellant) v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Respondent) [2016] UKSC 7 (YouTube)

Supreme Court, 17th February 2016

Source: www.youtube.com/user/UKSupremeCourt

Kennedy (Appellant) v Cordia (Services) LLP (Respondent) (Scotland) – Supreme Court

Posted February 18th, 2016 in admissibility, appeals, evidence, expert witnesses, law reports, negligence, Scotland, witnesses by sally

Kennedy (Appellant) v Cordia (Services) LLP (Respondent) (Scotland) [2016] UKSC 6 (YouTube)

Supreme Court, 10th February 2016

Source: www.youtube.com/user/UKSupremeCourt

R v Taylor (Appellant) – Supreme Court

Posted February 18th, 2016 in alcohol abuse, appeals, homicide, law reports, theft, uninsured drivers by sally

R v Taylor (Appellant) [2016] UKSC 5 (YouTube)

Supreme Court, 3rd February 2016

Source: www.youtube.com/user/UKSupremeCourt

In the matter of B (A child) – Supreme Court

Posted February 18th, 2016 in appeals, jurisdiction, law reports, residence orders, Supreme Court, wardship by sally

In the matter of B (A child) [2016] UKSC 4 (YouTube)

Supreme Court, 3rd February 2016

Source: www.youtube.com/user/UKSupremeCourt

PJV v Director of Adult Social Care Newcastle City Council and another – WLR Daily

Posted February 1st, 2016 in appeals, compensation, Court of Protection, criminal injuries compensation, law reports, trusts by sally

PJV v Director of Adult Social Care Newcastle City Council and another: [2015] EWCOP 87; [2015] WLR (D) 560

‘There was no need for an application to the Court of Protection to finalise an award to an incapacitated person that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority decided should be held on trust, since a deputy appointed by the Court of Protection could be authorised to negotiate and finalise the terms of such an award.’

WLR Daily, 18th December 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Regina (MM) v Secretary of State for the Home Department – WLR Daily

Posted February 1st, 2016 in citizenship, families, Islam, judicial review, law reports, public interest, terrorism by sally

Regina (MM) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: [2015] EWHC 3513 (Admin); [2015] WLR (D) 503

‘The Secretary of State for the Home Department had no discretion to refuse citizenship by naturalisation under section 6(1) of the British Nationality Act 1981 in order to deter potential extremists from their activities through knowing that family members would not be naturalised in consequence.’

WLR Daily, 3rd December 2015

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Regina (Roche Registration Ltd) v Secretary of State for Health – WLR Daily

Posted January 21st, 2016 in appeals, EC law, health, law reports, licensing, medicines, regulations by sally

Regina (Roche Registration Ltd) v Secretary of State for Health [2015] EWCA Civ 1311; [2015] WLR (D) 543

‘In accordance with its general obligation of co-operation pursuant to article 111 of Council Directive 2001/83/EC, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency was lawfully entitled and obliged to supply the European Medicines Agency, pursuant to formal requests under article 8 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 658/2007, with information it had obtained from a marketing authorisation holder.’

WLR Daily, 21st December 2015

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Regina v R and others – WLR Daily

Posted January 14th, 2016 in appeals, criminal procedure, disclosure, documents, evidence, law reports by sally

Regina v R and others [2015] EWCA Crim 1941; [2015] WLR (D) 552

‘The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) gave guidance on the proper approach to disclosure of unused material in criminal proceedings where large quantities of documents, in particular electronic documents, were involved, and also on the approach to an abuse of process application where proceedings were delayed because of the disclosure exercise.’

WLR Daily, 21st December 2015

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Regina (Seiont, Gwyrfai and Llyfni Anglers’ Society) v Natural Resources Wales – WLR Daily

Posted January 14th, 2016 in EC law, environmental health, law reports, pollution by sally

Regina (Seiont, Gwyrfai and Llyfni Anglers’ Society) v Natural Resources Wales [2015] EWHC 3578 (Admin); [2015] WLR (D) 554

‘“Damage” as defined in article 2(2) of Parliament and Council Directive 2004/35/EC on environmental liability was restricted to a deterioration in the environmental situation and did not, in addition, include the prevention of an existing, already damaged environmental state from achieving a level which was acceptable in environmental terms or a deceleration in such achievement.’

WLR Daily, 17th December 2015

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Moyo v Nursing and Midwifery Council – WLR Daily

Posted January 14th, 2016 in burden of proof, civil procedure rules, disciplinary procedures, law reports, nurses by sally

Moyo v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2015] EWHC 3547 (Admin); [2015] WLR (D) 555

‘In fitness to practise hearings there was no formal burden or standard of proof at the sanction stage of the proceedings; rather it was for the panel to use its own professional judgment to decide what sanction would be proportionate in order to protect the public interest, which included: (1) protection of patients and others; (2) maintenance of public confidence in the professions and the regulatory body; and (3) declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct and behaviour.’

WLR Daily, 10th December 2015

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Amber Services Europe Ltd and others v Director of Border Revenue – WLR Daily

Posted January 14th, 2016 in appeals, customs and excise, forfeiture, law reports by sally

Amber Services Europe Ltd and others v Director of Border Revenue [2015] EWHC 3665 (Admin); [2015] WLR (D) 557

‘A conviction for an offence contrary to section 170B(1) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 was not required in order for goods to be liable to forfeiture under section 170B(2).”

WLR Daily, 16th December 2015

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Flower v HM Coroner for Devon, Plymouth, Torbay and South Devon – WLR Daily

Posted January 14th, 2016 in coroners, inquests, law reports, regulations by sally

Flower v HM Coroner for Devon, Plymouth, Torbay and South Devon [2015] EWHC 3666 (Admin); [2015] WLR (D) 558

‘An inquest or an investigation had not been “held” for the purposes of section 13(1)(b) of the Coroners Act 1988 until an inquest had been conducted and completed.’

WLR Daily, 16th December 2015

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Regina (Cruelty Free International) v Secretary of State for the Home Department – WLR Daily

Posted January 13th, 2016 in animals, experiments, judicial review, law reports, licensing, ministers' powers and duties by sally

Regina (Cruelty Free International) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWHC 3631 (Admin); [2015] WLR (D) 556

‘Nothing in section 18(2) or (2A) of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 required the Secretary of State or someone acting under delegated authority to wait for an inspector’s report before taking any decision against the licence holder.’

WLR Daily, 14th December 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk