Regina v Pooley (Jonathan); Regina v Lubemba [2014] WLR (D) 472
‘The court gave guidance as to what measures a trial judge might legitimately take to protect a vulnerable witness without impacting adversely on the right of a defendant to a fair trial.’
WLR Daily, 9th October 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Cartiera dell’Adda SpA v CEM Ambiente SpA (Case C-42/13) EU:C:2014:2345; [2014] WLR (D) 468
‘Article 45 of Parliament and Council Directive 2004/18/EC of 31 March 2004 on the co-ordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1177/2009 of 30 November 2009), read in conjunction with article 2 of the Directive, and the principle of equal treatment and the obligation of transparency did not preclude the exclusion of an economic operator from a procurement procedure on the ground that the operator had failed to comply with the requirement laid down in the contract documentation to annex to his bid, on pain of exclusion, a statement that the person designated as the operator’s technical director had not been the subject of criminal proceedings or a conviction, even where, at a date after the expiry of the deadline for submitting bids, such a statement had been provided to the contracting authority or it was shown that the person in question was identified as the technical director in error.’
WLR Daily, 6th November 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The principle pro rata temporis applied to the calculation of the amount of a dependent child allowance paid by an employer to a part-time worker pursuant to a collective agreement pursuant to clause 4.2 of the Framework Agreement on part-time work.’
WLR Daily, 5th November 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Sims (Appellant) v Dacorum Borough Council (Respondent) [2014] UKSC 63 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 12th November 2014
Supreme Court, 12th November 2014
Plevin (Respondent) v Paragon Personal Finance Limited (Appellant) [2014] UKSC 61 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 12th November 2014
Supreme Court, 12th November 2014
Regina (Kerman & Co LLP) v Legal OmbudsmanL: [2014] EWHC 3726 (Admin); [2014] WLR (D) 481
‘The reference to a “person” against whom a complaint had been made “ceasing to exist” in section 132(2) of the Legal Services Act 2007 and rule 2.10 of the Legal Ombudsman Scheme Rules 2013 made thereunder was a reference to the cessation of the firm or legal entity and/or, if different, the “authorised person” subject to the regulatory regime. It was not to be read as a narrow reference to an individual human being ceasing to exist.’
WLR Daily, 11th November 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Supreme Court
Sims v Dacorum Borough Council [2014] UKSC 63 (12 November 2014)
Plevin v Paragon Personal Finance Ltd [2014] UKSC 61 (12 November 2014)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Tchenguiz v Director of the Serious Fraud Office & Ors [2014] EWCA Civ 1471 (13 November 2014)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Pool v General Medical Council [2014] EWHC 3791 (Admin) (13 November 2014)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Prudential Annuities Ltd & Ors, Re [2014] EWHC 4770 (Ch) (13 November 2014)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Warren & Anor v Burns [2014] EWHC 3671 (QB) (13 November 2014)
Source: www.bailii.org
‘The Home Secretary’s decision to maintain an order excluding the entry into the United Kingdom of a dissident Iranian politician, invited by members of the Houses of Parliament to meet them in London to discuss human rights and democratic issues in Iran, was not a disproportionate interference with their right to freedom of expression under article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms: the Home Secretary was entitled to accept the recommendation of the Foreign Secretary that to permit such entry would risk jeopardising the United Kingdom’s diplomatic and economic interests and might provoke a violent reaction in Iran resulting in damage to British property and endangering the safety of British and local personnel.’
WLR Daily, 12th November 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The power of a local housing authority under section 160ZA(7) of the Housing Act 1996 to set the qualification criteria for registration on a housing allocation scheme under that Act was subject to the authority’s duty under section 166A(3) of the 1996 Act to secure that reasonable preference was given to specified classes of people, including those who were owed a housing duty under section 193(2) of that Act.’
WLR Daily, 6th November 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Hodges v Aegis Defence Services (BVI) Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 1449 (12 November 2014)
IPC Media Ltd v Media 10 Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 1439 (12 November 2014)
Laughton v Shalaby [2014] EWCA Civ 1450 (12 November 2014)
Interflora Inc & Ors v Marks and Spencer Plc [2014] EWCA Civ 1448 (12 November 2014)
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Sands v Layne & Anor [2014] EWHC 3665 (Ch) (12 November 2014)
High Court (Commercial Court)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
The National Crime Agency v Perry & Ors [2014] EWHC 3759 (QB) (12 November 2014)
Source: www.bailii.org
PricewaterhouseCoopers v Saad Investments Co Ltd: [2014] UKPC 35; [2014] WLR (D) 475
‘A court would not normally entertain submissions from strangers to a winding up to the effect that a winding up order should not have been made, but general rule should not be elevated into an immutable principle, applicable in every case irrespective of its facts.’
WLR Daily, 10th November 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Singularis Holdings Ltd v PricewaterhouseCoopers: [2014] UKPC 36; [2014] WLR (D) 476
‘There was a power at common law to assist a foreign court of insolvency jurisdiction by ordering the production of information in oral or documentary form which was necessary for the administration of a foreign winding up. However, that power was not exercisable where an equivalent order could not have been made by the court in which the foreign liquidation was proceeding.’
WLR Daily, 20th November 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Lie v Mohile [2014] EWHC 3709 (Ch) (11 November 2014)
Williams v Seals & Ors [2014] EWHC 3708 (Ch) (11 November 2014)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Cruz City 1 Mauritius Holdings v Unitech Ltd & Ors [2014] EWHC 3704 (Comm) (11 November 2014)
High Court (Family Division)
SB v MB (Costs) [2014] EWHC 3721 (Fam) (10 November 2014)
Source: www.bailii.org.
Regina v P (J); Regina v Lubemba: [2014] WLR (D) 472
‘The court gave guidance as to what measures a trial judge might legitimately take to protect a vulnerable witness without impacting adversely on the right of a defendant to a fair trial.’
WLR Daily, 9th October 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Interflora Inc and another v Marks and Spencer plc (No 5): [2014] EWCA Civ 1403; [2014] WLR (D) 473
‘On a claim for infringement of a trade mark under article 5(1)(a) of Council Directive 89/104/EEC through keyword advertising the onus of proof lay on the trade mark proprietor to establish that the advertisement complained of did not enable normally informed and reasonably attentive Internet users, or enabled them only with difficulty, to ascertain whether the goods or services referred to by the advertisement originated from the trade mark proprietor or an undertaking economically connected to it or, on the contrary, originated from a third party.’
WLR Daily, 5th November 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
S (Children) [2014] EWCA Civ 1447 (07 November 2014)
Hussain v General Medical Council [2014] EWCA Civ 2246 (07 November 2014)
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Clifford, R v [2014] EWCA Crim 2245 (07 November 2014)
High Court (Administrative Court)
BCZ v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors [2014] EWHC 3585 (Admin) (07 November 2014)
Woodman-Smith v Architects Registration Board [2014] EWHC 3639 (Admin) (07 November 2014)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Brudenell -Bruce v Moore & Ors [2014] EWHC 3679 (Ch) (07 November 2014)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Toyota Tsusho Sugar Trading Ltd v Prolat SRL [2014] EWHC 3649 (Comm) (07 November 2014)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Iraqi Civilians v Ministry of Defence [2014] EWHC 3686 (QB) (07 November 2014)
Cornick, R. v [2014] EWHC 3623 (QB) (03 November 2014)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
Eurocom Ltd v Siemens Plc [2014] EWHC 3710 (TCC) (07 November 2014)
Group M UK Ltd v Cabinet Office [2014] EWHC 3659 (TCC) (05 November 2014)
Source: www.bailii.org
‘A highway authority could lawfully enter into an agreement with a developer or other party under section 38 of the Highways Act 1980 for that other party to pay a sum for the expenses of highways maintenance after the date on which the highway became maintainable at public expense.’
WLR Daily, 31st October 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025