Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Oboh & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWCA Civ 1525 (25 November 2013)
Resolution Chemicals Ltd v H Lundbeck A/S [2013] EWCA Civ 1515 (25 November 2013)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Croesus Financial Services Ltd v Bradshaw & Anor [2013] EWHC 3685 (QB) (25 November 2013)
Source: www.bailii.org
Dixons Retail plc v Revenue and Customs Commissioners: (Case C-494/12); [2013] WLR (D) 448
‘Pursuant to articles 2(1), 5(1) and 11A(1)(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC and articles 2(1)(a), 14(1) and 73 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC, the physical transfer of goods to a purchaser who had fraudulently used a bank card as a means of payment constituted a “supply of goods” within the meaning of articles 2(1) and 5(1) of Directive 77/388 and articles 2(1)(a) and 14(1) of Directive 2006/112 and, in the context of such a transfer, the payment made by a third party, under an agreement concluded between it and the supplier of those goods by which the third party undertook to pay the supplier for the goods sold by the latter to purchasers using such a card as a means of payment, constituted “consideration” within the meaning of article 11A(1)(a) of Directive 77/388 and article 73 of Directive 2006/112.’
WLR Daily, 21st November 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The words “an advertisement which is directed towards a political end”, in section 321(2)(b) of the Communications Act 2003, invited attention to the subject-matter of the advertisement, and not the motives and intentions of the advertiser unless those intentions were expressed or were implicit in the language of the advertisement itself. An objective examination of the text of the advertisement alone was required, and the word “political” should not be given a narrow and artificially restrictive interpretation given the wide scope of the examples provided in section 321(3).’
WLR Daily, 19th November 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
In re C (A Child): [2013] EWCA Civ 1412; [2013] WLR (D) 449
‘The Court of Appeal gave guidance as to the proper approach to be adopted in family proceedings when considering a without notice application for a prohibited steps order and the making of a contact order.’
WLR Daily, 21st November 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Supreme Court
Patel & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] UKSC 72 (20 November 2013)
Bucnys v Ministry of Justice [2013] UKSC 71 (20 November 2013)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Cruz City 1 Mauritius Holdings v Unitech Ltd & Ors [2013] EWCA Civ 1512 (22 November 2013)
Gabriel v Little & Ors [2013] EWCA Civ 1513 (22 November 2013)
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Family Division)
Young v Young [2013] EWHC 3637 (Fam) (22 November 2013)
Tchenquiz -Imerman v Imerman [2013] EWHC 3627 (Fam) (22 November 2013)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
X Y Z v Various companies (PIP Breast Implant Litigation) [2013] EWHC 3643 (QB) (22 November 2013)
Wicks v Parkin & Ors [2013] EWHC 3671 (QB) (22 November 2013)
Source: www.bailii.org
‘A European arrest warrant issued by a government ministry in respect of a convicted person with a view to his or her arrest and extradition could be regarded as issued by a judicial authority for the purposes of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA— and Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003 which gave effect to it in the United Kingdom— if the ministry had only issued the warrant at the request of and by way of endorsement of a decision that the issue of such a warrant was appropriate made by the court responsible for the sentence or some other person or body properly regarded as a judicial authority responsible for its execution. A ministry which had power to issue an European arrest warrant of its own motion and had done so, or which had issued a warrant at the request of a non-judicial authority, including an executive agency such as a prison department, could not be regarded as a judicial authority for those purposes.’
WLR Daily, 20th November 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The words “an advertisement which is directed towards a political end”, in section 321(2)(b) of the Communications Act 2003, invited attention to the subject-matter of the advertisement, and not the motives and intentions of the advertiser unless those intentions were expressed or were implicit in the language of the advertisement itself. An objective examination of the text of the advertisement alone was required, and the word “political” should not be given a narrow and artificially restrictive interpretation given the wide scope of the examples provided in section 321(3).’
WLR Daily, 19th November 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
General Dental Council v Fajemisin: [2013] EWHC 3501 (Admin); [2013] WLR (D) 447
“In addition to cases in which a previous decision could be revisited under the equivalent of the slip rule, a public body had jurisdiction to revisit a decision which had been made in ignorance of the true facts when the factual basis on which it had proceeded had amounted to a fundamental mistake of fact. That power existed irrespective of whether the decision fell to be classified as judicial or administrative in nature.”
WLR Daily, 19th November 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
C (A Child), Re [2013] EWCA Civ 1412 (21 November 2013)
SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1482 (21 November 2013)
L, Re (Leave To Oppose Making of Adoption Order) (Rev 1) [2013] EWCA Civ 1481 (21 November 2013)
D, Re (Leave To Oppose Making of Adoption Order) (Rev 1) [2013] EWCA Civ 1480 (21 November 2013)
Hunt, R (on the application of) v North Somerset Council [2013] EWCA Civ 1483 (21 November 2013)
IPCom GmbH & Co Kg v HTC Europe Co Ltd & Ors [2013] EWCA Civ 1496 (21 November 2013)
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Wells v R [2013] EWCA Crim 2043 (19 November 2013)
High Court (Commercial Court)
LNOC Ltd v Watford Association Football Club Ltd [2013] EWHC 3615 (Comm) (21 November 2013)
BAT Industries Plc v Windward Prospects Ltd [2013] EWHC 3612 (Comm) (21 November 2013)
Credit Suisse AG v Up Energy Group Ltd [2013] EWHC 3611 (Comm) (21 November 2013)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
New Century Media Ltd v Makhlay [2013] EWHC 3556 (QB) (21 November 2013)
Douglas v The Ministry of Justice [2013] EWHC 3640 (QB) (21 November 2013)
Source: www.bailii.org
Supreme Court
Bucnys v Ministry of Justice [2013] UKSC 71 (20 November 2013)
Patel & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] UKSC 72 (20 November 2013)
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Fields & Ors v R. [2013] EWCA Crim 2042 (14 November 2013)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Lanfear v Chandler [2013] EWCA Civ 1497 (20 November 2013)
Salat v Barutis [2013] EWCA Civ 1499 (20 November 2013)
Deutsche Bahn AG & Ors v Morgan Advanced Materials Plc & Ors [2013] EWCA Civ 1484 (20 November 2013)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
GH Cornish LLP & Ors v Smith [2013] EWHC 3563 (QB) (20 November 2013)
High Court (Chancery Division)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Obi v The Solicitors Regulation Authority [2013] EWHC 3578 (Admin) (20 November 2013)
Arshad v Court of Magistrates Malta [2013] EWHC 3619 (Admin) (20 November 2013)
High Court (Family Division)
G v B (Rev 1) [2013] EWHC 3414 (Fam) (07 November 2013)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
Westshield Ltd v Whitehoue & Anor [2013] 3576 EWHC (TCC) (18 November 2013)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Kazakhstan Kagazy Plc & Ors v Zhunus & Ors [2013] EWHC 3618 (Comm) (20 November 2013)
Transition Feeds LLP v Itochu Europe Plc [2013] EWHC 3629 (Comm) (15 November 2013)
Source: www.bailii.org
Maletic and another v lastminute.com and another (Case C-478/12); [2013] WLR (D) 444
“The concept of ‘other party to the contract’ laid down in article 16(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L12, p 1)also covered the contracting partner of the operator with which the consumer concluded that contract and which had its registered office in the member state in which the consumer was domiciled.”
WLR Daily, 14th November 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Pursuant to the freedom of establishment under article 49FEU and the freedom to provide services under 56FEU of the FEU Treaty, an economic operator in a member state could, before the courts of that member state, allege an infringement of the obligation of transparency under those articles occurring at the time of conclusion of an agreement whereby one or more public entities of that member state had either granted to an economic operator of that same member state a licence for services of certain cross-border interest or granted an economic operator the exclusive right to engage in an economic activity of cross-border interest.”
WLR Daily, 14th November 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Supreme Court, 20th November 2013
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Wells v R [2013] EWCA Crim 2043 (19 November 2013)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Ryanair Ltd v Esso Italiana Srl [2013] EWCA Civ 1450 (19 November 2013)
Leicester City Council v Shearer [2013] EWCA Civ 1467 (19 November 2013)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Mireskandari v Centaur Media Plc [2013] EWHC 3551 (QB) (19 November 2013)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Cody v Murray & Ors [2013] EWHC 3448 (Ch) (19 November 2013)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Fajemisin v The General Dental Council [2013] EWHC 3501 (Admin) (19 November 2013)
High Court (Family Division)
Surrey County Council v Al-Hilli & Anor [2013] EWHC 3404 (Fam) (04 November 2013)
Source: www.bailii.org
Regina v Sakalauskas [2013] WLR (D) 442
“‘Any article’ in section 6(1) of the Fraud Act 2006 meant any article the defendant had with him for the purpose or intention of using in the course of or in connection with any fraud and use necessarily related to use in the future and not articles which had been used in the past.”
WLR Daily, 15th November 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Aspinalls Club Ltd v Revenue and Customs Comrs 2013 EWCA Civ 1464; [2013] WLR (D) 441
“For the purposes of section 11 of the Finance Act 1997, when calculating the ‘gross gaming yield’ from gaming taking place on a gaming club’s premises, commissions and rebates paid and allowed by the gambling club to its customers under incentive schemes there were not to be taken into account as reducing the amount of ‘banker’s profits’ from dutiable gaming.”
WLR Daily, 15th November 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v Fields and others [2013] EWCA Crim 2042; [2013] WLR (D) 440
“In a joint benefit case, where each defendant was found to have obtained the joint benefit, he was not required by a confiscation order under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to disgorge benefit he had not obtained and a confiscation order made in the amount matching the correctly assessed benefit, was not disproportionate.”
WLR Daily, 14th November 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“A court could make a declaration under section 6 of the Justice and Security Act 2013 permitting a closed material application to be made to the court before a public interest immunity claim had been made or determined.”
WLR Daily, 7th November 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
PBD & Anor v Greater Manchester Police [2013] EWHC 3559 (QB) (18 November 2013)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Barratt & Ors v Treatt Plc [2013] EWHC 3561 (Ch) (15 November 2013)
High Court (Family Division)
A v A [2013] EWHC 3554 (Fam) (07 November 2013)
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Gestmin SGPS SA v Credit Suisse (UK) Ltd & Anor [2013] EWHC 3560 (Comm) (15 November 2013)
Source: www.bailii.org
© Inner Temple Library 2025