‘In a claim resulting from negligent advice the damages were not to be reduced to reflect a repayment to the claimant of debt made pursuant to a refinancing where such transaction, while arising because of the relevant breach of duty, did not arise in the ordinary course of business.’
WLR Daily, 25th June 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The fast track rule regime in the Schedule to the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014 was ultra vires.’
WLR Daily, 12th June 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Essop and others v Home Office (UK Border Agency) [2015] EWCA Civ 609; [2015] WLR (D) 269
‘In order to succeed in claims of indirect discrimination under section 19 of the Equality Act 2010 based upon the protected characteristics of race and/or age the claimants had to prove the nature of the group disadvantage for the purposes of surmounting the section 19(2)(b) hurdle and each claimant had also to prove that he had suffered the same disadvantage for the purposes of surmounting the section 19(2)(c) hurdle.’
WLR Daily, 22nd June 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Aspect Contracts (Asbestos) Ltd v Higgins Construction plc: [2015] UKSC 38; [2015] WLR (D) 261
‘An unsuccessful party in a construction contract adjudication was entitled to be repaid any money paid pursuant to the adjudication if the underlying dispute was finally determined in his favour, and the cause of action for the recovery of such money accrued on the date on which the money was paid. However, the cause of action of a party who wished to bring proceedings for more than the amount which he had been awarded under an adjudication accrued on the date of the relevant breach of contract or duty.’
WLR Daily, 17th June 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Ronayne v Liverpool Women’s Hospital NHS Foundation Trust: [2015] EWCA Civ 588; [2015] WLR (D) 263
‘Where a claimant alleged that he suffered psychiatric injury as a secondary party caused by observing in a hospital setting the consequences of clinical negligence, the court was to take into account the fact that a visitor to a hospital would expect to see patients connected to machines and drips and things they would not like to see, was necessarily to a certain degree conditioned as to what to expect and was likely to be warned by medical staff of an impending encounter likely to prove more than ordinarily distressing. Whether an event was “horrifying” for the purposes of such a claim was to be judged by objective standards and by reference to ordinary susceptibility.’
WLR Daily, 17th June 0215
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘On the true construction of the final proviso in section 1(4) of the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 Part 20 the defendants in contribution proceedings were precluded from relying on a limitation defence pleaded against the claimants in the main proceedings.’
WLR Daily, 17th June 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Marie Crawford, barrister of Becket Chambers, considers one of the most significant developments in relation to child abduction cases in the last thirty years.’
Family Law Week, 11th June 2015
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
King v The Chiltern Dog Rescue and another [2015] EWCA Civ 581; [2015] WLR (D) 245
‘The words and acts of a deceased concerning the transfer of her property at a time when she was not contemplating her impending death did not give rise to a donatio mortis causa.’
WLR Daily, 9th June 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Southward Housing Co-operative Ltd v Walker and others [2015] EWHC 1615 (Ch); [2015] WLR (D) 246
‘The rule that it was beyond the power of the landlord and the tenant to create a term which was uncertain did not depend for its application on the parties’ intentions; but might be disapplied where those intentions and fundamental aspects of their agreement would be confounded by it.’
WLR Daily, 8th June 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
In re Hartmann Capital Ltd (in special administration); [2015] EWHC 1514 (Ch); [2015] WLR (D) 241
‘As a matter of construction of article 4 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Commencement No 5 and Saving Provisions) Order 2013, which spoke in specific terms of an administrator “appointed pursuant to the provisions of Part II of the [Insolvency] 1986 Act” and a company which had “entered into administration under Part II of the 1986 Act”, administrators appointed pursuant to the Investment Bank Special Administration Regulations 2011 (SI 2011/245) were denied the funding possibilities available to other administrators.’
WLR Daily, 13th May 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
BESTrustees plc v Corbett: [2014] EWHC 3038 (Ch); [2015] WLR (D) 242
‘The trustee or manager of a qualifying occupational pension scheme was entitled to assign a debt arising pursuant to section 75 of the Pensions Act 1995.’
WLR DAily, 16th October 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Johnston v Westminster City Council: [2015] EWCA Civ 554; [2015] WLR (D) 238
‘For the purposes of section 175 of the Housing Act 1996, the fact that an applicant for homeless assistance in one local housing authority might be offered accommodation by another authority which might satisfy section 175(3) of the Act did not entitle the decision-maker to find that the applicant was not homeless.’
WLR Daily, 3rd June 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
In re K (Children): [2015] EWCA Civ 543; [2015] WLR (D) 237
‘The Family Court had no power to order the Lord Chancellor to provide public funding for legal representation outside the legal aid scheme in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.’
WLR Daily, 22nd May 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘At common law, an employer who had compensated an employee for exposing him to mesothelioma was only entitled to an indemnity under his liability insurance to the extent of the proportion which the policy period bore to the whole period of the employee’s exposure by the employer but could recover 100% per cent of the defence costs incurred in defending the employee’s claim.
WLR Daily, 20th May 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Gulati v MGN Ltd [2015] EWHC 1482 (Ch); [2015] WLR (D) 232
‘Damages for infringement of privacy rights should compensate not merely for distress but also, if appropriate, for a loss of privacy or autonomy arising out of the infringement as such, which might include, if appropriate, a sum to compensate for damage to dignity or standing so far as that was meaningful and not already compensated under the distress element.’
WLR Daily, 21st May 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Personal rights against a trustee, which were rights that any beneficiary, under any trust, would have to compel the trustee to administer that trust properly, did not fall within the definition of a “non-cash asset” under section 739 of the Companies Act 1985. Section 320(1)(a) of the 1985 Act was not intended by Parliament to apply to the rights or interests of the director himself, whatever they might be, when the non-cash asset was held in trust for him by someone other than the company itself.’
WLR Daily, 22nd May 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘When considering whether a homeless person had priority need for housing as a “vulnerable” person under section 189(1)(c) of the Housing Act 1996 the correct comparator for assessing vulnerability was an ordinary person if made homeless rather than an ordinary actual homeless person and, in making that assessment, account could be taken of third party support, including support from family members.’
WLR Daily, 13th May 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Paragraph 83 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF”) ((27 March 2012) did not lay down a presumption or create a requirement that the boundaries of the Green Belt had to first be altered via the process for changing a local plan before development might take place on the area in question. Paragraphs 87–88 of the NPPF plainly contemplated that development might be permitted on land within the Green Belt, without the need to change its boundaries in the local plan, provided “very special circumstances” existed.’
WLR Daily, 20th May 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025