Shop Direct Group (Appellant) v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Respondent) – Supreme Court
Supreme Court, 17th February 2016
Supreme Court, 17th February 2016
Kennedy (Appellant) v Cordia (Services) LLP (Respondent) (Scotland) [2016] UKSC 6 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 10th February 2016
R v Taylor (Appellant) [2016] UKSC 5 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 3rd February 2016
In the matter of B (A child) [2016] UKSC 4 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 3rd February 2016
‘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
‘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
‘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 [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
‘“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 [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
‘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
‘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
‘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
Cook v Virgin Media Ltd; McNeil v Tesco plc [2015] EWCA Civ 1287; [2015] WLR (D) 538
‘The English court had power to apply the doctrine of forum non conveniens in a purely domestic context, exercising the court’s wide general case management powers in CPR rr 3.1(2)(m) and 3.3, and therefore could strike out or stay proceedings brought in England where Scotland was the natural and more appropriate forum.’
WLR Daily, 14th December 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The place, manner and form of a protest may be important in determining whether there has been an infringement of a protester’s rights to freedom of expression and assembly, but were not necessarily so.’
WLR Daily, 18th December 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘In so far as article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union embodied a general principle of good administration that had to be followed by member states, member states likewise had to be permitted to withhold disclosure of material which would harm national security before reaching a decision on an application by a claimant refugee for a travel document.’
WLR Daily, 18th December 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Lewis and others v Ward Hadaway (a firm) [2015] EWHC 3503 (Ch); [2015] WLR (D) 551
‘In determining whether a party had properly brought a claim before the court so as to stop the clock for limitation purposes, the requirement that the form be accompanied by the “appropriate fee” was not satisfied in circumstances where the act of payment of the fee was in itself an abuse of process. In such circumstances, the claim had not properly been brought and time continued to run for limitation purposes.’
WLR Daily, 21st December 2015
Source: www..iclr.co.uk
Government of the United States of America v Giese [2015] EWHC 3658 (Admin); [2015] WLR (D) 550
‘An issue raised on appeal “that was not raised at the extradition hearing” referred to a new issue that was raised in argument on appeal as a ground for allowing the appeal and which was not the subject of concluded argument below for the purposes of meeting the condition for allowing an appeal set out in section 106(5)(a) of the Extradition Act 2003.’
WLR Daily, 21st December 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina (Sienkiewicz) v South Somerset District Council [2015] EWHC 3704 (Admin); [2015] WLR (D) 553
‘The defendant local planning authority did not have a duty to give reasons for distinguishing other relevant planning decisions which were said to be inconsistent with its present decision to grant planning permission for a development.’
WLR Daily, 17th December 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Iraqi Civilians v Ministry of Defence (No 2) [2015] EWCA Civ 1241; [2015] WLR (D) 515
‘The primary limitation period of three years under Iraqi limitation law applied to claims in tort brought in the English High Court by Iraqi civilians in respect of alleged unlawful detention and ill-treatment by British armed forces while those forces were in Iraq between March 2003 and the end of 2008.’
WLR Daily, 9th December 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk