Category: law reports
In re W (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Court’s Function) – WLR Daily
In re W (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Court’s Function) [2013] EWCA Civ 1227; [2013] WLR (D) 382
“Once a decision to institute care proceedings had been taken the court became the decision-maker until a full order was made. The local authority was required to provide the evidence to enable the judge to undertake the welfare and proportionality evaluations. That included a description of the services that were available and practicable for each placement option and each order being considered by the court. There should be no question of a local authority declining to file its evidence or proposed plans in response to the court’s evaluations. If a local authority made it clear that it would not implement a care plan option about which evidence had been given and which the judge preferred on welfare and proportionality grounds, then in a rare case it could be subjected to challenge in the High Court within the proceedings. In the unlikely event that a local authority declined to abide by a judge’s orders and directions in the future, the judge should inform the local authority’s monitoring officer to make a report to the authority with the intention that the authority was brought back into compliance.”
WLR Daily, 11th October 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Abercrombie and others v Aga Rangemaster Ltd – WLR Daily
Abercrombie and others v Aga Rangemaster Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1148; [2013] WLR (D) 381
“The question governing liability to make guarantee payments under section 28 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was whether the employee ‘would normally be required to work [on the day in question] in accordance with his contract of employment’. The fact that an agreement introducing changes to an employee’s working hours was temporary did not prevent the day in question remaining ‘normally’ a working day.”
WLR Daily, 11th October 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
MF (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department – WLR Daily
MF (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWCA Civ 1192; [2013] WLR (D) 380
“The new immigration rules, introduced by Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules (2012) (HC 194) into Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules (1994) (HC 395), which concerned the deportation of foreign criminals and the evaluation of their article 8 rights under the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, were a complete code. Where a foreign criminal came within the provisions of paragraph 399 or 399A of HC395, as amended,, he could be entitled to leave to remain on a limited or indefinite basis on article 8 grounds, but where those paragraphs did not apply very compelling reasons, described as ‘exceptional circumstances’, would be required to outweigh the public interest in deportation.”
WLR Daily, 8th October 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
BAILII: Recent Decisions
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Plantation Holdings (FZ) LLC v Dubai Islamic Bank PJSC [2013] EWCA Civ 1229 (15 October 2013)
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
Source: www.bailii.org
BAILII: Recent Decisions
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Walker & Anor v Burton & Anor [2013] EWCA Civ 1228 (14 October 2013)
Coppage & Anor v Safety Net Security Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1176 (11 October 2013)
W (A Child) v Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council & Ors [2013] EWCA Civ 1227 (11 October 2013)
Lockwood v Department of Work and Pensions & Anor [2013] EWCA Civ 1195 (11 October 2013)
Abercrombie & Ors v AGA Rangemaster Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1148 (11 October 2013)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Karpov v Browder & Ors [2013] EWHC 3071 (QB) (14 October 2013)
Subotic v Knezevic [2013] EWHC 3011 (QB) (14 October 2013)
High Court (Chancery Division)
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Deutsche Bank AG London Branch v Petromena ASA [2013] EWHC 3065 (Comm) (14 October 2013)
BNP Paribas S.A. v Anchorage Capital Europe LLP & Ors [2013] EWHC 3073 (Comm) (11 October 2013)
Source: www.bailii.org
Regina (Antoniou) v Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust and others – WLR Daily
“In order to fulfil its procedural obligations under article 2 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms the state was not obliged to conduct, prior to an inquest, an immediate and independent investigation into the circumstances of the death of a patient detained in hospital under section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983.”
WLR Daily, 10th October 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Finnigan v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police – WLR Daily
Finnigan v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police [2013] EWCA Civ 1191; [2013] WLR (D) 378
“When the issue arose of whether a public authority had discriminated against a disabled person in carrying out its functions, contrary to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 or the Equality Act 2010, by having in place a ‘practice, policy or procedure’ (under the 1995 Act) or a ‘provision, criterion or practice’ (under the 2010 Act) to which it had not made reasonable adjustments, the court should first identify what that practice, policy or procedure was as a question of fact, and then determine whether reasonable adjustments had been made to that policy to alleviate the detrimental effects to which a disabled person might be subjected by it. The duty to make reasonable adjustments could not be discharged on an ad hoc basis in relation to individuals but was anticipatory and owed to persons with particular kinds of disabilities as a class.”
WLR Daily, 8th October 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Collins v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and another – WLR Daily
“Where a planning decision engaged a child’s right to private and family life that child’s best interests would be a primary consideration for the decision-maker.”
WLR Daily, 9th October 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
van der Helder and another v College voor zorgverzekeringen (CVZ) (Healthcare Insurance Board) – WLR Daily
“On the proper interpretation of article 28(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, (as amended), ‘legislation’ to which a pensioner had been subject for the longest period of time, for the purpose of that provision, referred to legislation concerning pensions.”
WLR Daily, 10th October 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
BAILII: Recent Decisions
Supreme Court
Secretary of State for the Home Department v Al -Jedda [2013] UKSC 62 (9 October 2013)
Osborn v The Parole Board [2013] UKSC 61 (9 October 2013)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
ABC v Avtar Lit [2013] EWHC 3020 (QB) (10 October 2013)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Couper & Ors v Albion Properties Ltd & Ors [2013] EWHC 2993 (Ch) (08 October 2013)
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
CG Group Ltd v Breyer Group Plc [2013] EWHC 2959 (TCC) (03 October 2013)
KNN Coburn LLP v GD City Holdings Ltd [2013] EWHC 2879 (TCC) (02 October 2013)
Sabic UK Petrochemicals Ltd v Punj Lloyd Ltd [2013] EWHC 2916 (TCC) (10 October 2013)
Source: www.bailii.org
Regina (Osborn) v Parole Board; Regina (Booth) v Same; In re Reilly – WLR Daily
“The protection of rights under the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms was not a discrete area of the law, based on the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, but permeated the domestic legal system. Compliance with article 5.4 of the Convention required that there had, in the first place, to be compliance with the relevant procedural and substantive rules of domestic law.”
WLR Daily, 9th October 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Eclairs Group Ltd and another v JKX Oil & Gas plc and others – WLR Daily
“The ‘reasonable cause to believe’ provision in section 793 of the Companies Act 2006 operated for the purposes of all its subsections, but operated only in relation to the addressee of a notice. Questions directed to a person who had or was believed to have an interest in the company’s shares about the interests of another person had to be questions about interests in the addressee’s shares, not other shares. It was permissible to ask and receive an answer to the direct question ‘Does [the third party] have an interest?’.”
WLR Daily, 30th August 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina (Uddin) v Crown Court at Leeds – WLR Daily
Regina (Uddin) v Crown Court at Leeds [2013] EWHC 2752 (Admin); [2013] WLR (D) 372
“Pursuant to section 29(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, as amended, a decision to revoke the bail of a defendant during the course of a trial on indictment before the Crown Court was not amenable to judicial review by the High Court, such a decision ‘relating to trial on indictment’ within the meaning of the subsection.”
WLR Daily, 11th July 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for the Home Department – WLR Daily
Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for the Home Department: [2013] UKSC 62; [2013] WLR (D) 371
“In considering whether an order depriving a person of British citizenship would make him stateless, as required by s 40(4) of the British Nationality Act 1981, as amended, the Home Secretary, and on appeal the court, had simply to identify whether the person held another nationality at the date the order was made. The section did not permit, or require, the Home Secretary to assert that the person’s failure to apply for restoration of another nationality which he would be bound to obtain, rather than the making of the deprivation order itself, made him stateless.”
WLR Daily, 9th October 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
BAILII: Recent Decisions
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Ali v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWCA Civ 1198 (09 October 2013)
Green & Anor v The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc [2013] EWCA Civ 1197 (09 October 2013)
Troutbeck SA v White & Anor [2013] EWCA Civ 1171 (09 October 2013)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Mathew v HM Attorney General [2013] EWHC 3009 (Admin) (09 October 2013)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Vivendi SA Centenary Holdings Iii Ltd v Richards & Ors [2013] EWHC 3006 (Ch) (09 October 2013)
Source: www.bailii.org
BAILII: Recent Decisions
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Finnigan v Northumbria Police [2013] EWCA Civ 1191 (08 October 2013)
MF (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWCA Civ 1192 (08 October 2013)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Sargespace Ltd v Eustace [2013] EWHC 2944 (QB) (03 October 2013)
Cuccolini S.R.L v Elcan Industries Inc [2013] EWHC 2994 (QB) (08 October 2013)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Walton Homes Ltd v Staffordshire County Council [2013] EWHC 2554 (Ch) (08 October 2013)
Source: www.bailii.org
Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and others v European Parliament, Commission of the European Union and another intervening – WLR Daily
“An action for annulment of a ‘regulatory act’ within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of article 263FEU of the FEU Treaty was available to an individual with a direct concern in an act of general application which was not a legislative act.”
WLR Daily, 3rd October 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant) v Al-Jedda (Respondent) – Supreme Court
Supreme Court, 9th October 2013
