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
R (on the app. of Rotherham Borough Council & others) v Secretary of State for B.I.S. [2015] UKSC 6 (YouTube
Supreme Court, 25th February 2015
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
‘Domestic workers employed as members of the service staff of foreign diplomatic missions in the United Kingdom were entitled to bring proceedings asserting their employment rights against the employer state, in claims including unfair dismissal and breach of working time provisions, and such claims were not barred by the doctrine of state immunity pursuant to provisions in the State Immunity Act 1978.’
WLR Daily, 5th February 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v McDowell; Regina v Singh [2015] EWCA Crim 173; [2015] WLR (D) 84
‘Where trading receipts were obtained as a result of lawful trading activity rather than a failure to register particulars with the local authority under the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964 before carrying on business as a scrap metal dealer, the trading activity was not criminal conduct from which benefit accrued, and the trading receipts were excluded from the criminal lifestyle provisions under section 75(2) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.’
WLR Daily, 19th February 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
JSC Bank of Moscow v Kekhman and others [2015] EWHC 396 (Ch); [2015] WLR (D) 82
‘When considering whether to exercise its discretion to make a bankruptcy order on a debtor’s petition, the court was to have regard to whether the petitioner could show (1) that he had a sufficiently close connection with England and Wales; (2) that there was a reasonable possibility of benefit resulting from the making of a bankruptcy order; and (3) that one or more persons interested in the distribution of assets were persons over whom the English court could exercise jurisdiction.’
WLR Daily, 20th February 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v Gurpinar; Regina v Kojo-Smith and another [2015] EWCA Crim 178; [2015] WLR (D) 80
Where a defendant was charged with murder and the issue arose as to whether the partial defence of loss of self-control should be left to the jury the trial judge had to undertake a much more rigorous evaluation of the evidence before that defence could be left to the jury than had been required under the former law of provocation.
WLR Daily, 20th February 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2026