High Court (Chancery Division)
Tadros & Anor v Barratt & Ors [2014] EWHC 2860 (Ch) (21 August 2014)
The Co-Operative Bank Plc v Phillips [2014] EWHC 2862 (Ch) (21 August 2014)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Yeo MP v Times Newspapers Ltd [2014] EWHC 2853 (QB) (20 August 2014)
Source: www.bailii.org
High Court (Administrative Court)
Source: www.bailii.org
Cooke and another v MGN Ltd and another: [2014] EWHC 2831 (QB); [2014] WLR (D) 379
‘By not defining the term “serious harm” in section 1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013, Parliament had left it to the courts to decide whether the serious harm test had been satisfied on the individual facts of contested claims. In cases where the statements complained of were so obviously likely to cause serious harm to a person’s reputation, that likelihood could be inferred from the words used without the need for further evidence.’
WLR Daily, 13th August 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
The Ritz Hotel Casino Ltd v Al Daher [2014] EWHC 2847 (QB) (15 August 2014)
Source: www.bailii.org
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
P (A Child) [2014] EWCA Civ 1174 (15 August 2014)
G (A Child) [2014] EWCA Civ 1173 (15 August 2014)
Source: www.bailii.org
High Court (Administrative Court)
Roope v District Court for Prague 1, Czech Republic [2014] EWHC 2801 (Admin) (13 August 2014)
High Court (Family Division)
MD v AA & Anor [2014] EWHC 2756 (Fam) (31 July 2014)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Cooke & Anor v MGN Ltd & Anor [2014] EWHC 2831 (QB) (13 August 2014)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
Harrison & Ors v Shepherd Homes Ltd & Ors [2014] EWHC 2786 (TCC) (06 August 2014)
Source: www.bailii.org
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Dowdall v William Kenyon & Sons Ltd & Ors [2014] EWHC 2822 (QB) (12 August 2014)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Adams, In the matter of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 [2014] EWHC 2639 (Admin) (11 August 2014)
Source: www.bailii.org
‘The Service Confidence Procedure (“SCP”), which was the statutory misconduct regime for police officers, was amenable to judicial review, but in circumstances where reasons for it were subject to a decision that they could not be disclosed due to public interest immunity, then the threshold for judicial interference was very high.’
WLR Daily, 7th August 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina (Hamill) v Chelmsford Magistrates’ Court [2014] EWHC 2799 (Admin); [2014] WLR (D) 377
‘The statutory power to make a determination pursuant to section 91C of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, on an application under section 91B of that Act, could be delegated by the “chief officer of police” to a subordinate police officer of the rank of superintendent or higher.’
WLR Daily, 8th August 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A reinsurance contract containing an express warranty clause, which provided that the carrying vessel should not sail out of port when there was a typhoon warning at that port or where the vessel’s destination or intended route might be within the possible path of the typhoon, was breached when a vessel did sail into a typhoon and the cargo was lost, and the reinsurers were not liable for the loss of cargo claimed under the contract.’
WLR Daily, 7th August 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Guidance given on the approach to a “streamlined” process to deal with all deprivation of liberty (“DoL”) cases in a timely but just and fair way which was compliant with article 5 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.’
WLR Daily, 7th August 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Erlam and others v Rahman and another [2014] EWHC 2766 (Admin); [2014] WLR (D) 374
‘Non-compliance with the requirement in rule 4(1) of the Election Petition Rules 1960 for “setting out with sufficient particularity the facts relied on” did not render the petition a nullity, or compel its dismissal; the court had power under the CPR or its inherent jurisdiction to order the provision of further particulars to remedy the default.’
WLR Daily, 7th August 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Q v Q; In re B (A Child); In re C (A Child) [2014] EWFC 31; [2014] WLR (D) 372
‘Since public funding was not in general available for private law children cases, in some circumstances the court could properly direct that the cost of certain activities should be borne by Her Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service (“HMCTS” ), although it was to be emphasised that, the provision of interpreters and translators apart, that was an order of last resort. No such order should be made except by, or having first consulted, a High Court judge or a designated family judge.’
WLR Daily, 6th August 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
M v Times Newspapers Ltd and others [2014] EWCA Civ 1132; [2014] WLR (D) 371
‘The decision of a court to allow publication of a report which might lead to the identification of a person who had been arrested but not charged with any offence and was not a party to criminal proceedings would not be interfered with unless the court, in carrying out the evaluative exercise of balancing the competing public interest of freedom of expression in a report of court proceedings against the person’s right to private and family life, had erred in principle or reached a conclusion which was plainly wrong.’
WLR Daily, 1st August 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Tidal Energy Ltd v Bank of Scotland plc [2014] EWCA Civ 1107; [2014] WLR (D) 369
‘Rapid electronic payment between accounts using the CHAPS transfer system was made by reference to the sort code, bank name and account number, not the customer name, in order to process the payment within the maximum time of 1.5 hours. The CHAPS transfer form was to be construed in accordance with that banking practice to give it commercial sense and accordingly a bank was not liable to a customer for a payment made into an account at a different bank by reference to the sort code and account number on the transfer form completed by the customer, but with a different customer name from that on the form.’
WLR Daily, 31st July 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Young v Anglo American South Africa Ltd and others (No 2) [2014] EWCA Civ 1130; [2014] WLR (D) 370
‘Where a company had its statutory seat and principal place of business outside England, to determine whether a claim against it could be brought in England for the purposes of article 60(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, the claimant had to show a good arguable case that England was the jurisdiction where the company had its “central administration”, which was the place where, through its relevant organs according to its own constitutional provisions, it took the decisions essential for that its operations.’
WLR Daily, 31st July 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v Ali (Salah) [2014] EWCA Crim 1658; [2014] WLR (D) 366
‘It was permissible for the statutory assumptions in section 10 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to be applied in a case where a defendant was either voluntarily or involuntarily absent through illness.’
WLR Daily, 31st August 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Seakom Ltd & Anor v Knowledgepool Group Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 1164 (08 August 2014)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Garcha & Ors v The Charity Commission for England and Wales [2014] EWHC 2754 (Ch) (05 August 2014)
Thomas Pink Limited v Victoria’s Secret UK Ltd [2014] EWHC 2631 (Ch) (31 July 2014)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Hamill v The Chelmsford Magistrates’ Court & Anor [2014] EWHC 2799 (Admin) (08 August 2014)
High Court (Family Division)
R (A Child) [2014] EWHC 2802 (Fam) (22 July 2014)
High Court (Commercial Court)
JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov & Ors [2014] EWHC 2788 (Comm) (08 August 2014)
Source: www.bailii.org
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Palmer & Ors v R [2014] EWCA Crim 1681 (07 August 2014)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Erlam & Ors v Rahman & Anor [2014] EWHC 2766 (QB) (07 August 2014)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Sadushi v The Government of Albania [2014] EWHC 2756 (Admin) (07 August 2014)
Source: www.bailii.org
© Inner Temple Library 2025