‘The scope of regulation 5A of the Civil Legal Aid (Remuneration) (Amendment) (No 3) Regulations 2014 extended beyond the circumstances which could be seen as rationally connected to the stated purpose given for its introduction, making it inconsistent with the purposes of the statutory scheme contained in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.’
WLR Daily, 3rd March 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
In re St John the Baptist, Penshurst [2015] WLR (D) 115
‘Since the decision to grant a faculty for the removal of a chancel screen of artistic merit from a Grade 1 listed church had been based on an erroneous evaluation of the facts, applying the test in In re St Edburga’s, Abberton [1962] P 10, the appeal had to be allowed and the grant set aside; but, considering the matter anew, the faculty would nevertheless issue.’
WLR Daily, 9th March 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Delaney v Secretary of State for Transport [2015] EWCA Civ 172; [2015] WLR (D) 112
‘Clause 6(1)(e)(iii) of the Motor Insurers’ Bureau (Compensation of Victims of Uninsured Drivers) Agreement 1999, made between the Motor Insurers’ Bureau and the Secretary of State for Transport, which provided an exclusion from liability for compensation for the Motor Insurers’ Bureau where the vehicle involved was being used in the course or furtherance of a crime, was incompatible with Council Directive 72/166/EEC, Council Directive 84/5/EEC and Council Directive 90/232/EEC.’
WLR Daily, 9th March 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘An area of foreshore which lay within the operational land of a harbour was not registrable as a town or village green pursuant to section 15 of the Commons Act 2006 because the byelaws applicable to the harbour had impliedly authorised it use for bathing and associated recreational activities, and so such use had not been “as of right”, and in any event section 15 did not apply where the statutory purposes for which such land was held were incompatible with such registration.’
WLR Daily, 25th February 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Kololo v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2015] EWHC 600 (QB); [2015] WLR (D) 111
‘A data subject access request made pursuant to section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998 for the purpose of verifying the accuracy of the data held about the subject with a view to employing such data in foreign criminal appeal proceedings was not an abuse of process. In such circumstances, there was nothing to indicate that the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003 was the sole procedure by which evidence for use in foreign criminal proceedings could be obtained.’
WLR Daily, 9th March 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Regina (Hourhope Ltd) v Shropshire Council: [2015] EWHC 518 (Admin); [2015] WLR (D) 100
‘The relevant question for determining whether the demolition deduction applied for the purposes of regulation 40 of the Community Infrastructure Regulations 2010 was whether the building was in actual lawful use at the material time and not whether there was a lawful use to which it could have been put.’
WLR Daily, 2nd March 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘In the particular circumstances of the case limited disclosures made by a Revenue and Customs official in an “off the record” briefing with journalists concerning tax avoidance schemes had been made “for the purposes” of a function of the Revenue and Customs, within section 18(2)(a)(i). Therefore there had been no breach of article 18(1) of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005, which required the commissioners to maintain confidentiality of information about a taxpayer’s affairs.’
WLR Daily, 4th March 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina (Black) v Secretary of State for Justice: [2015] EWHC 528 (Admin); [2015] WLR (D) 105
‘The provisions of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the Health Act 2006 were, by necessary implication, binding on the Crown and so applied to all public places and workplaces within its scope for which the Crown was responsible, including state run prisons.’
WLR Daily, 5th March 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Integral Petroleum SA v SCU-Finanz AG [2015] EWCA Civ 144; [2015] WLR (D) 97
‘Where a contract had been signed by only one of a company’s two joint signatories, the question of whether the company was bound by the contract was properly characterised as a question of the company’s capacity, to be governed by the law of the company’s constitution, rather than a question of the formal validity of the contract, to be governed by the law which governed the contract, pursuant to article 11 of Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 593/2008.’
WLR Daily, 26th February 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Blakesley v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2015] EWCA Civ 141; [2015] WLR (D) 96
‘The Government was not obliged to make lump sum payments to successful applicants for asylum representing the difference between the support they received while their application was being processed and mainstream benefits.’
WLR Daily, 26th February 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A tortious claim for inducement of breach of a contractual term providing for exclusive jurisdiction of the English Court brought against a defendant domiciled in Germany where the harmful event did not occur in England could not be brought in the English court since article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 did not apply.’
WLR Daily, 26th February 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank and another v Pugachev [2015] EWCA Civ 139; [2015] WLR (D) 94
‘Under the terms of a freezing order the court had jurisdiction to order a member of a class of beneficiaries under a discretionary trust to make disclosure of the details of the trust and the trust assets.’
WLR Daily, 27th February 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The Lord Chancellor’s Exceptional Funding Guidance (Inquests) (promulgated under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012) was unlawful in that it provided a misleading impression of the law for caseworkers considering an application from relatives of a deceased for legal aid to cover representation at an inquest into a death which arose in circumstances which might have engaged article 2 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.’
WLR Daily, 20th February 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v Akhtar (Itzaz) [2015] EWCA Crim 176; [2015] WLR (D) 91
‘Where a jury brought in a guilty verdict on one count but were unable to agree on another count, a retrial on that other count was not an abuse of process unless the two counts were true alternatives in that they were mutually exclusive alternatives.’
WLR Daily, 26th February 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v Boardman [2015] EWCA Crim 175; [2015] WLR (D) 92
‘A judge was fully entitled to refuse to allow the prosecution to adduce evidence of telephone data records where they had failed to progress the case properly or in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Rules or other direction even though such refusal effectively brought the prosecution to an end. The Court of Appeal would support trial judges in the exercise of their discretion in discharging their case management responsibilities.’
WLR Daily, 26th February 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘It was implicit in the terms of sections 73 and 73A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended, that in an appropriate case a planning authority considering an application under section 73 for planning permission to proceed with a development without complying with conditions attached to an existing permission might grant, under section 73A, retrospective planning permission for a development already carried out, subject to conditions imposed under section 70. There might be some unusual circumstance that would require the inspector to forewarn the applicant that he was minded to act under section 73A.’
WLR Daily, 25th February 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Supreme Court, 25th February 2015
© Inner Temple Library 2025