Bagum v Hafiz and another – WLR Daily

Posted July 30th, 2015 in appeals, law reports, sale of land, trusts by sally

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 – WLR Daily

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 – WLR Daily

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

Lawrence and others v Fen Tigers Ltd and others (No 3) (Secretary of State for Justice and others intervening) – WLR Daily

Posted July 30th, 2015 in appeals, costs, fees, insurance, law reports, Supreme Court by sally

Lawrence and others v Fen Tigers Ltd and others (No 3) (Secretary of State for Justice and others intervening) [2015] UKSC 50; [2015] WLR (D) 332

‘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 – WLR Daily

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 – WLR Daily

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 – WLR Daily

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

Feest v South West Strategic Health Authority (Bay Island Voyages, third party) – WLR Daily

Feest v South West Strategic Health Authority (Bay Island Voyages, third party):[2015] EWCA Civ 708; [2015] WLR (D) 306

‘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 – WLR Daily

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

Regina (Cornwall Council and another) v Secretary of State for Health – WLR Daily

Regina (Cornwall Council and another) v Secretary of State for Health: [2015] UKSC 46; [2015] WLR (D) 298

‘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 – WLR Daily

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

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted July 9th, 2015 in law reports by sally

Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

 
Continue reading…

Szegfu v Court of Pecs, Hungary – WLR Daily

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

Swynson Ltd v Lowick Rose LLP (in liquidation) (formerly Hurst Morrison Thomson LLP) – WLR Daily

Posted June 30th, 2015 in accountants, appeals, contracts, damages, duty of care, law reports, loans, negligence by sally

Swynson Ltd v Lowick Rose LLP (in liquidation) (formerly Hurst Morrison Thomson LLP) [2015] EWCA Civ 629; [2015] WLR (D) 278

‘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

Regina (Lumsdon and others) v Legal Services Board – WLR Daily

Regina (Lumsdon and others) v Legal Services Board [2015] UKSC 41; [2015] WLR (D) 270

‘The decision of the Legal Services Board to approve the Quality Assurance Scheme for Advocates (“QASA”), introduced by the regulators to assess the performance of criminal advocates in England and Wales, complied with the requirements of article 9 of Parliament and Council Directive 2006/123/EC and regulation 14 of the Provision of Services Regulations 2009 (SI 2009/2999), and was proportionate and lawful.’

WLR Daily, 24th June 2015

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Regina (Detention Action) v First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) and others – WLR Daily

Regina (Detention Action) v First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) and others [2015] EWHC 1689 (Admin); [2015] WLR (D) 267

‘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) – WLR Daily

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 – WLR Daily

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 – WLR Daily

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

IMI plc and another v Delta Ltd (formerly Delta plc) and another – WLR Daily

Posted June 22nd, 2015 in civil justice, contribution, damages, law reports, limitations, time limits by sally

IMI plc and another v Delta Ltd (formerly Delta plc) and another: [2015] EWHC 1676 (Ch); [2015] WLR (D) 262

‘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