‘The Government’s decision, announced by way of written ministerial statement and effected by amending National Planning Practice Guidance, to make alterations to the national policy for the provision of affordable housing, was unlawful.’
WLR Daily, 3rd July 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Wandsworth London Borough Council v Tompkins and another [2015] EWCA Civ 846; [2015] WLR (D) 357
‘Where a local housing authority provided accommodation under a tenancy pursuant to its duty under Part VII (Homelessness) of the Housing Act 1996, the requirement in paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to the Housing Act 1985 which had to be satisfied in order for the tenancy to qualify as a secure tenancy (that the housing authority had to give notification that the tenancy “is to be regarded” as a secure tenancy), meant that the notification had to state that the tenancy was regarded as a secure tenancy at the date of grant and not at some unspecified date in the future.’
WLR Daily, 31st August 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Arcadia Group Brands Ltd and others v Visa Inc and others [2015] EWCA Civ 883; [2015] WLR (D) 359
‘Competition cases were not to be treated differently to other claims for the purposes of the application of the “statement of claim” test in the context of section 32(1)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, which provided for the postponement of the limitation period in the case of concealment of any fact relevant to the plaintiff’s right of action.’
WLR Daily, 5th August 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Dawson-Damer and others v Taylor Wessing LLP and others [2015] EWHC 2366 (Ch); [2015] WLR (D) 361
‘The purpose of section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998 entitling an individual to have access to information in the form of his “personal data” was to enable him to check whether the data controller’s processing of it unlawfully infringed his privacy and, if so, to take such steps as the Act provided, to protect it. It was no part of its purpose to enable the individual to obtain discovery of documents that might assist him in litigation or complaints against third parties.’
WLR Daily, 6th August 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina (Giri) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 784; [2015] WLR (D) 341
‘On a claim for judicial review of a decision by the Secretary of State refusing to vary a foreign national’s leave to remain on the grounds of deception, the question of whether deception had been used was not a “precedent fact” to be determined by the court. Rather, the Secretary of State’s finding that deception had been used would be subject to review by the court on Wednesbury public law principles.’
WLR Daily, 28th July 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The settlement criterion, which precluded persons with discretionary leave to remain in the United Kingdom from eligibility to receive student loans within the meaning of the Education (Student Support) Regulations 2011, discriminated unlawfully against a person with such leave who had lived and been educated in England for most of her life and was integrated into United Kingdom society.’
WLR Daily, 29th July 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v Brown (Edward) [2015] EWCA Crim 1328; [2015] WLR (D) 344
‘By way of an additional common law qualification or exception to the inviolable nature of legal professional privilege, and in what was likely to be an extremely narrow band of cases, it was appropriate to impose a requirement that particular individuals could be present at discussions between an individual and his lawyers if there was a real possibility that the meeting would be misused for a purpose, or in a manner, that involved impropriety amounting to an abuse of the privilege that justified interference.’
WLR Daily, 29th July 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v Bhatti [2015] EWCA Crim 1305; [2015] WLR (D) 346
‘Where the police obtained financial information from a credit ratings agency in reliance on section 29(1) of the Data Protection Act 1998, such information having been obtained by the agency from customers who had expressly agreed in their credit applications and agreements that their data might be shared for the purpose of crime detection, prevention and prosecution, the procedural requirements of Schedule 1 to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 were not bypassed and the information was lawfully obtained, so that it was not precluded from admissibility in criminal proceedings.’
WLR Daily, 30th July 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The effect of section 1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013 was that a statement was not defamatory of a person unless it had caused or would probably cause serious harm to that person’s reputation, those being matters to be proved by the claimant on the balance of probabilities.’
WLR Daily, 30th July 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Article 3(4) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation gave member states an unqualified and unrestricted power not to apply the Directive to the armed forces, so that the terms of the Army Terms of Service Regulations 2007 were not incompatible with equal treatment under the Directive.’
WLR Daily, 24th July 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Littlewood v Powys County Council [2015] EWHC 2125 (Admin); [2015] WLR (D) 336
‘For the purposes of Schedule 2 to the Estate Agents Act 1979, where the making of an order under section 3 of the Act prohibiting an unfit person from acting as an estate agent had been delegated to an adjudicator, it was that adjudicator who personally had to hear oral representations from the person affected. The local authority’s proposed procedure whereby the adjudicator, who was the actual decision-maker, only received an audio recording and verbatim transcript of the proceedings before an investigator did not comply with the requirements of the 1979 Act and was unlawful.’
WLR Daily, 23rd July 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
R v R [2015] EWCA Civ 796; [2015] WLR (D) 337
‘Neither article 9 of Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 nor regulation 10(2)(a) of the Ukraine (European Union Financial Sanctions) (No 2) Regulations 2014 were contravened by an order requiring a husband, who lived in Russia and who was subject to sanctions imposed by the EU Regulation, to pay interim maintenance into his former wife’s Russian bank account.’
WLR Daily, 24th July 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
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
© Inner Temple Library 2025