‘The Court of Appeal gave guidance as to the procedure for the appointment of assessors in discrimination cases under the Equality Act 2010.’
WLR Daily, 17th July 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v Mehmedov [2014] EWCA Crim 1523; [2014] WLR (D) 325
‘A certificate of a conviction in a member state of the European Union was admissible in evidence under section 73(1) of the Police and Criminal Act 1984 even where the conviction preceded the accession of the member state concerned to the European Union.’
WLR Daily, 18th July 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The conditions in article 7(1) of Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC, as implemented by the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006, were to be strictly interpreted on the basis that the right to a permanent residence card was a privilege which was not conferred unless there was strict and literal compliance with the conditions therein. They were not to be interpreted under European Union law in a dynamic way such that it was enough if they were substantially or functionally fulfilled.’
WLR Daily, 16th July 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Article 2(a) of Parliament and Council Directive 95/46/EC meant that data relating to an applicant for a residence permit contained in an administrative document amounted to “personal data”. Article 12(a) of Directive 95/46 and article 8(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union meant that an applicant for a residence permit had a right of access to all personal data concerning him which were processed by the national administrative authorities within the meaning of article 2(b). For that right to be complied with, it was sufficient that the applicant was in possession of a full summary of those data in an intelligible form, which allowed the applicant to become aware of those data and to check that they were accurate and processed in compliance with that Directive, so that he could, where relevant, exercise the rights conferred on him by that Directive. Article 41(2)(b) of the Charter meant that the applicant for a residence permit could not rely on that provision against the national authorities.’
WLR Daily, 17th July 2014
‘Immigration rules, made pursuant to section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971, specified the conditions to be attached in the case of a student clearance visa and no further administrative action to impose a condition was required. The description of the relevant entry clearance as a tier 4 general student clearance followed by the reference number of the sponsor body, and its repetition in conjunction with the other obligatory conditions, was sufficient endorsement of the condition for the purposes of the Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) Order 2000.’
WLR Daily, 9th July 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Supreme Court
FHR European Ventures LLP & Ors v Cedar Capital Partners LLC [2014] UKSC 45 (16 July 2014)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Mercer Ltd & Anor v Ballinger & Anor [2014] EWCA Civ 996 (17 July 2014)
H, Re [2014] EWCA Civ 989 (17 July 2014)
O v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 990 (17 July 2014)
Bank Leumi (UK) Plc v Akrill [2014] EWCA Civ 907 (17 July 2014)
NA v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor [2014] EWCA Civ 995 (17 July 2014)
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
West, Re [2014] EWCA Crim 1480 (17 July 2014)
JG & Ors, R v [2014] EWCA Crim 1521 (17 July 2014)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Draper v Lincolnshire County Council [2014] EWHC 2388 (Admin) (17 July 2014)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Westbrook Dolphin Square Ltd v Friends Life Ltd [2014] EWHC 2433 (Ch) (17 July 2014)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Tchenguiz & Ors v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2014] EWHC 2379 (Comm) (16 July 2014)
Central Trading & Exports Ltd v Fioralba Shipping Company [2014] EWHC 2397 (Comm) (16 July 2014)
Source: www.bailii.org
‘In Wrotham Park v Parkside Homes [1974] 1 WLR 798, the Court declined to order a land-owner to destroy a property he had built on his land in breach of a covenant in favour of his neighbour. Instead, it awarded the neighbour damages in lieu of an injunction under Lord Cairns’ Act, in such sum “as might reasonably have been demanded by the [covenantee] … as the quid pro quo for relaxing the covenant” (815). The Court assessed the damages as a modest percentage of the profit anticipated (“with the benefit of foresight”) by the contract breaker. Employment lawyers have sought to exploit Wrotham Park for some time now, particularly following the seminal judgments of the House of Lords in AG v Blake [2001] 1 AC 268, where it was held that in exceptional circumstances (where conventional remedies had no value) the contract breacher could be required to account for the fruits of his breach of contract.’
Employment Law Blog, 15th July 2014
Source: www.employment11kbw.com
‘The proposed statutory instrument, the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Amendment of Schedule 1) Order 2014, amending Schedule 1 to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 by introducing a residence test, was unlawful as it was ultra vires and discriminatory.’
WLR Daily, 15th July 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
FHR European Ventures LLP and others v Cedar Capital Partners LLC; [2014] UKSC ; [2014] WLR (D) 317
‘Where an agent obtained a benefit, including a bribe or a secret commission, which was, or resulted from, a breach of his fiduciary duty to his principal, he held the benefit on trust for his principal.’
WLR Daily, 16th July 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Yiacoub v The Queen; [2014] UKPC 22; [2014] WLR (D) 314
‘Justice was not seen to be done when a judge who had sat on the original trial was responsible for overseeing the constitution of the panel of judges which formed the court which heard the appeal.’
WLR Daily, 10th July 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Premier Telecom Communications Group Ltd & Anor v Webb [2014] EWCA Civ 994 (16 July 2014)
Ahmad v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 988 (16 July 2014)
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Lilley v Euromoney Institutional Investor Plc & Anor [2014] EWHC 2364 (Ch) (16 July 2014)
High Court (Patents Court)
Rovi Solutions Corporation & Anor v Virgin Media Ltd & Ors [2014] EWHC 2301 (Pat) (14 July 2014)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Yates v Revenue and Customs & Anor [2014] EWHC 2311 (QB) (17 July 2014)
Kadir & Anor v Channel S Television Ltd [2014] EWHC 2305 (QB) (15 July 2014)
Source: www.bailii.org
‘The Detained Fast Track policy, operated by the Secretary of State, for the detention of some asylum seekers while their asylum claims were being determined was not unlawful in its terms.’
WLR Daily, 9th July 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The function of the minister following a referral by a community health council under regulation 27(9) of the Community Health Councils (Constitution, Membership and Procedures) (Wales) Regulations 2010 was to reach a final decision on a proposal put forward by a local health board. That function was directed at the outcome, there was no requirement for the minister to review the process, including any consultation, leading to the proposal, although the minister had a discretion to consider the circumstances of the process in reaching a decision on the proposal overall.’
WLR Daily, 10th July 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
KS v Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council & Ors [2014] EWCA Civ 941 (15 July 2014)
M & Ors v Suffolk County Council [2014] EWCA Civ 942 (15 July 2014)
K, Re [2014] EWCA Civ 905 (15 July 2014)
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Konkola Copper Mines v U&M Mining Zambia Ltd [2014] EWHC 2374 (Comm) (15 July 2014)
Source: www.bailii.org
‘The owner of a non-domestic hereditament which was unoccupied in consequence of its own failure to carry out necessary maintenance and repair, was not entitled to exemption from unoccupied rates pursuant to regulation 4(c) of the Non-Domestic Rating (Unoccupied Property) (England) Regulations 2008 unless occupation was prohibited by law either expressly or by necessary implication.’
WLR Daily, 8th July 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Smithton Ltd v Naggar; [2014] EWCA Civ 939; [2014] WLR (D) 306
‘The Court of Appeal set out points of general practical importance in determining whether a person was a de facto director.’
WLR Dail, 10th July 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘When applied to either recognised refugees or British citizens, Appendix FM of the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules (HC 395), as inserted, which prevented entry clearance being granted to a party to a marriage where the income of the sponsor did meet the minimum threshold, was not a disproportionate interference with the right to respect for family life under article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.’
WLR Daily 11th July 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A contractor (the respondent) to which building work had been subcontracted which it had in turn subcontracted to another contractor (the appellant) which undertook to indemnify the respondent against liability for the appellant’s negligence was not prevented by its own negligence from enforcing the indemnity clause.’
WLR Daily, 11th July 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
High Court (Administrative Court)
Ilia v Appeal Court In Athens (Greece) & Anor [2014] EWHC 2372 (Admin) (14 July 2014)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Thandi v Sands & Ors [2014] EWHC 2378 (Ch) (14 July 2014)
High Court (Patents Court)
Rovi Solutions Corporation & Anor v Virgin Media Ltd & Ors [2014] EWHC 2301 (Pat) (14 July 2014)
Source: www.bailii.org
© Inner Temple Library 2025