Regina v Goldsborough [2015] EWCA Crim 1278; [2015] WLR (D) 324
‘Failure to obtain a firearm certificate for an air pistol which had become prohibited was an offence under section 1 of the Firearms Act 1968 rather than section 5(1)(af).’
WLR Daily, 23rd June 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Changes of substance could be made to a local plan following recommendations by an inspector pursuant to section 20(7)–(7C) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.’
WLR Daily, 20th July 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Flanagan v Liontrust Investment Partners LLP and others [2015] EWHC 2171 (Ch); [2015] WLR (D) 338
‘The doctrine of repudiatory breach was excluded from multi-party agreements falling within the scope of section 5 of Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2000.’
WLR Daily, 24th July 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘It was entirely logical for the Secretary of State for Health in the exercise of his duty under section 3 of the National Health Service Act 2006 to provide a range of NHS services including abortion services throughout the United Kingdom on the basis of local residence. The Secretary of State was not obliged to exercise his discretion so as to extend free abortion services to women from Northern Ireland and failure to supply such a service was not a breach of rights under the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.’
WLR Daily, 22nd July 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
NRAM plc v McAdam and another [2015] EWCA Civ 751; [2015] WLR (D) 334
‘In a specific loan agreement, which was the template for agreements between a bank and numerous customers, the protections under section 77A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 had not been incorporated, and no estoppel arose from the existence of the statutory wording in the agreement. Nor was it possible to treat the borrowers “as if” they had been under the protection provided by the 1974 Act. However, there had been a representation (and contractual warranty) arising from the statement that the loan agreement was a regulated agreement, when it was not, which would have entitled the borrowers to sue for misrepresentation or breach of contractual warranty.’
WLR Daily, 23rd July 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The provisions in Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 conferring powers to stop, question, and detain a person at a port or border for up to nine hours— without any requirement for prior “reasonable suspecion”— for the purpose of determining whether he appeared to be a person concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism were not incompatible with articles 5, 6 or 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.’
WLR Daily, 22nd July 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina (Hunt) v North Somerset Council [2015] UKSC 51; [2015] WLR (D) 331
‘Where a claimant for judicial review had sought a quashing order but not declaratory relief and the court, having found the defendant to have acted unlawfully, refused the quashing order due to the passage of time, it was not obliged of its own initiative to grant a declaration.’
WLR Daily, 22nd July 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Bagum v Hafiz and another [2015] EWCA Civ 801; [2015] WLR (D) 329
‘Sections 14 and 15 of the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 conferred on the court a substantially wider discretion, exercised on the basis of wider considerations, than the trustees themselves enjoyed acting without either the beneficiaries’ consent or a court order. The court’s powers were there to enable the property to be dealt with justly when the beneficiaries could not agree and direct the trustees how to deal with the property.’
WLR Daily, 22nd July 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina (Champion) v North Norfolk District Council and another [2015] UKSC 52; [2015] WLR (D) 333
‘The formal procedures prescribed in the Environmental Impact Assessment (“EIA”) legislation, including screening, preparation of an environmental statement and mandatory public consultation, had no counterpart in the habitats legislation. The decision whether an EIA was required had to be taken early in the planning process, although a negative decision might be reviewed subsequently. Mitigation measures might properly be considered at the screening stage and, where appropriate, included in the environmental statement.’
WLR Daily, 22nd July 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v Ali (Yasir) and another [2015] EWCA Crim 1279; [2015] WLR (D) 327
‘A car journey of a few miles constituted “travel”, within section 58(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, for the purposes of the offence of trafficking within the United Kingdom for sexual exploitation.’
WLR Daily, 17th July 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The costs regime in place between 1999 and 2013, which could require losing defendants to pay not only the claimants’ base costs but any success fee and after the event (“ATE”) insurance premium which they had paid as part of their conditional fee arrangement— even though the total costs were far in excess of the value of the claim— was not contrary to defendants’ rights to a fair trial and to the protection of their property under article 6 of, and article 1 of the First Protocol (“A1P1”) to, the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.’
WLR Daily, 22nd July 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Kiani v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 776; [2015] WLR (D) 325
‘The requirements of the right to a fair trial in article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms depended on the context and all the circumstances of the case. In a security case an individual was not entitled to full article 6 rights if to accord him such rights would jeopardise the efficacy of the vetting regime itself. The same approach was taken under European Union law.’
WLR Daily, 21st July 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina (Sanjari) v Crown Court at Birmingham: [2015] EWHC 2037 (Admin); [2015] WLR (D) 307
‘Judges of the Crown Court should subject applications to transfer representation under regulation 14 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Determinations by a Court and Choice of Representative) Regulations 2013 to rigorous and searching scrutiny.’
WLR Daily, 15th July 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Banque Cantonale de Geneve v Polevent Ltd and others: [2015] EWHC 1968 (Comm); [2015] WLR (D) 304
‘The law governing a claim in restitution was the law of the country in which the unjust enrichment took place pursuant to article 10(3) of Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 864/2007.’
WLR Daily, 10th July 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The time bar prescribed by article 16 of the Convention relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea, scheduled to the Merchant Shipping Act 1979, for the bringing of claims against a carrier did not apply to claims against a carrier for contribution in respect of the liability of others to the passenger.’
WLR Daily, 15th July 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Rank Group plc v Revenue and Customs Comrs: [2015] UKSC 48; [2015] WLR (D) 299
‘Slot machines operating through multi-terminal systems in which random number generators (“RNGs”) were housed separately from the terminals were to be treated as composite machines providing players with an element of chance in the game within the meaning of section 26 of the Gaming Act 1968 and Group 4, item 1, note (3) of Schedule 9 to the Value Added Tax Act 1994. The takings from such machines were, accordingly, not exempt but liable to value added tax.’
WLR Daily, 8th July 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘In determining the ordinary residence of an adult, who lacked mental capacity to choose where to live, it was incorrect to apply a test that by reason of such incapacity he was in the same position as a small child and that his ordinary residence was that of his parents because that was his base.’
WLR Daily, 8th July 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Mathieson v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: [2015] UKSC 47; [2015] WLR (D) 296
‘The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions violated the Convention rights of a severely disabled child when he suspended payment to him of disability living allowance once he had been an in-patient in an NHS hospital for more than 84 weeks.’
WLR Daily, 8th July 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Szegfu v Court of Pecs, Hungary [2015] EWHC 1764 (Admin); [2015] WLR (D) 273
‘Guidance on the application of section 26(5) of the Extradition Act 2003 relaxing the application of the strict time limit for bringing an extradition appeal in section 26(4).’
WLR Daily, 24th June 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025