R v Brown (Appellant) (Northern Ireland) – Supreme Court
R v Brown (Appellant) (Northern Ireland) [2013] UKSC 43 | UKSC 2011/0233 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 26th June 2013
Category: law reports
Abela and others (Appellants) v. Baadarani (Respondent) – Supreme Court
Abela and others (Appellants) v. Baadarani (Respondent) [2013] UKSC 44 | UKSC 2012/0023 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 26th June 2013
Cusack v Harrow London Borough Council – WLR Daily
Cusack v Harrow London Borough Council [2013] UKSC 40; [2013] WLR (D) 250
“A highway authority had power under section 80 of the Highways Act 1980 to erect barriers so as to prevent vehicular access to a frontager’s forecourt, without paying compensation, in order to safeguard users of the highway and the fact that section 66(2) of the same Act conferred an alternative power to achieve the same object, which was subject to compensation, was immaterial.”
WLR Daily, 19th June 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v L(C) (Children’s Commissioner for England and Equality and Human Rights Commission intervening); Same v N(HV) (Children’s Commissioner for England and Equality and Human Rights Commission intervening); Same v N(TH) (Children’s Commissioner for England and Equality and Human Rights Commission intervening); Same v T(HD) (Children’s Commissioner for England and Equality and Human Rights Commission intervening) – WLR Daily
“Where the question arose as to whether a defendant who had committed an offence was a victim of trafficking the prosecution was, and remained, responsible for deciding whether to prosecute or not. The court’s role was to protect the rights of a victim of trafficking by overseeing the decision of the prosecutor and refusing to countenance any prosecution which failed to acknowledge and address the victim’s subservient situation.”
WLR Daily, 21st June 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Trustees of the Lehman Brothers Pension Scheme and another v LB Re Financing No Ltd and another – WLR Daily
“When the Pensions Regulator, acting by the determinations panel, made a determination about a financial support direction in relation to a pension scheme, the trustees of that scheme, by virtue of their office, were persons “directly affected” by that determination for the purposes of section 96(3) of the Pensions Act 2004, and accordingly had standing as of right to refer that determination to the Upper Tribunal under that provision. Further, where any person referred such a determination of the Regulator to the Upper Tribunal under section 96(3) of the Act, the two-year time limit in section 43(9), which, prior to amendment by the Pensions Act 2011, required the Regulator to issue a financial support direction within two years of the time which he selected for determining whether the preconditions in section 43(2) for the issue of a direction had been fulfilled, did not apply to any directions which the Upper Tribunal might give regarding a financial support direction under section 103(5) and (6), or to any order made on appeal from those directions.”
WLR Daily, 21st June 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Riežniece v Zemkopības ministrija and another – WLR Daily
Riežniece v Zemkopības ministrija and another (Case C-7/12); [2013] WLR (D) 247
“In circumstances where a much higher number of women than men took parental leave, Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 (as amended) and the Framework Agreement on Parental Leave, contained in the Annex to Council Direction 96/34/EC precluded a situation where (1) as part of an assessment of workers in the context of abolishment of officials’ posts due to national economic difficulties, a worker who had taken parental leave was assessed in his or her absence on the basis of assessment principles and criteria which placed the worker who had taken leave in a less favourable position compared to workers who did not take parental leave; and (2) a female worker who had been transferred to another post at the end of her parental leave following that assessment was dismissed due to the abolishment of that new post, where it was not impossible for the employer to allow her to return to her former post or where the work assigned to her was not equivalent or similar and consistent with her employment contract or employment relationship because, at the time of the transfer, the employer was informed that the new post was due to be abolished.”
WLR Daily, 20th June 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Hills Contractors and Construction Ltd v Struth and another – WLR Daily
“A photocopy of a sealed claim form sent with a letter to the defendants’ solicitors for the purposes of document exchange was not proper service of the claim form for the purposes of CPR r 6.3(b).”
WLR Daily, 17th June 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde and another v Schenker & Co AG and others – WLR Daily
“An undertaking which had infringed article 101FEU of the FEU Treaty could not escape the imposition of a fine by a national competition authority on the ground that the infringement had resulted from that undertaking erring as to the lawfulness of its conduct on account of legal advice given by a lawyer or of the terms of a decision of a national competition authority.”
WLR Daily, 18th June 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (Liberty intervening) (Nos 1 and 2) – WLR Daily
“The Supreme Court had jurisdiction to entertain a closed material procedure on an appeal from decisions of the courts of England and Wales on applications brought under section 63 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008. On very rare occasions it would be appropriate for the court to go into closed session for that purpose and in the circumstances of the present appeal it would do so.”
WLR Daily, 19th June 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
BAILII: Recent Decisions
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Clarke Investments Ltd v Pacific Technologies [2013] EWCA Civ 750 (21 June 2013)
Cruddas v Calvert & Ors [2013] EWCA Civ 748 (21 June 2013)
Kyla Shipping Company Ltd v Bunge SA [2013] EWCA Civ 734 (20 June 2013)
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
L & Ors v The Children’s Commissioner for England & Anor [2013] EWCA Crim 991 (21 June 2013)
Hoggard, R. v [2013] EWCA Crim 1024 (20 June 2013)
ZN, R v [2013] EWCA Crim 989 (18 June 2013)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Tuba v County Regional Court of Gyor-Monson-Sopron, Hungary [2013] EWHC 1767 (Admin) (21 June 2013)
Mohammed v The Court of Appeal, Paris [2013] EWHC 1768 (Admin) (21 June 2013)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Apex Global Management Ltd v (Fi Call Ltd & Ors [2013] EWHC 1652 (Ch) (20 June 2013)
Barden v Commodities Research Unit & Ors [2013] EWHC 1633 (Ch) (18 June 2013)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Bedford v Bedfordshire County Council [2013] EWHC 1717 (QB) (21 June 2013)
Source: www.bailii.org
Emptage v Financial Services Compensation Scheme Ltd – WLR Daily
Emptage v Financial Services Compensation Scheme Ltd: [2013] EWCA Civ 729; [2013] WLR (D) 242
“Where a broker had negligently advised a client to take out an interest-only mortgage and make an investment in foreign property in the expectation that the investment would pay off the entirety of the mortgage, the Financial Services Compensation Scheme Ltd was required to take into account both elements of the advice when assessing the client’s compensation for the broker’s breach of duty as a mortgage adviser under the scheme’s rules.”
WLR Daily, 18th June 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Cravecrest Ltd v Trustees of the Will of the Second Duke of Westminster and another – WLR Daily
“Where there were intermediate leases which subsisted between the freehold and the leases of the participating tenants and which were to be acquired by the nominee purchaser on the collective enfranchisement, and a single owner of those leases or of those leases and the freehold could realise development value by developing the property for use other than as a building containing separate flats, the hope of realising such development value had to be taken into account in fixing the price to be paid for the intermediate leases.”
WLR Daily, 19th June 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
BAILII: Recent Decisions
Supreme Court
Cusack v London Borough of Harrow [2013] UKSC 40 (19 June 2013)
Smith & Ors v The Ministry of Defence [2013] UKSC 41 (19 June 2013)
Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No. 1) [2013] UKSC 38 (19 June 2013)
Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No. 2) [2013] UKSC 39 (19 June 2013)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Walsh v Shanahan & Ors [2013] EWCA Civ 675 (19 June 2013)
Antonio Gramsci Shipping Corporation & Ors v Lembergs [2013] EWCA Civ 730 (19 June 2013)
Frost v Wake Smith and Tofields Solicitors [2013] EWCA Civ 1960 (19 June 2013)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Loughlin v Singh & Ors [2013] EWHC 1641 (QB) (19 June 2013)
High Court (Chancery Division)
McNally, In the matter of the Insolvency Act 1986 [2013] EWHC 1685 (Ch) (17 June 2013)
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Telfer v Sakellarios [2013] EWHC 1556 (Comm) (19 June 2013)
Source: www.bailii.org
Cusack (Respondent) v London Borough of Harrow (Appellant) – Supreme Court
Cusack (Respondent) v London Borough of Harrow (Appellant) [2013] UKSC 40 | UKSC 2012/0006 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 19th June 2013
Smith and Others (Appellants) v The Ministry of Defence (Respondent); Ellis and another (FC) (Respondents) v Ministry of Defence (Appellant); Allbutt and others (FC) (Respondents) v The Ministry of Defence (Appellant) – Supreme Court
Supreme Court, 19th June 2013
Bank Mellat (Appellant) v Her Majesty’s Treasury (Respondent) (1); Bank Mellat (Appellant) v Her Majesty’s Treasury (Respondent) (2) – Supreme Court
Supreme Court, 19th June 2013
French v Public Prosecutor of the Central Department of Investigation and Prosecution in Lisbon, Portugal – WLR Daily
“Although, as a matter of international obligation, a member state (and any European territory for which it was responsible) was required to legislate in such a way as to achieve the aims of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA , including that a formal decision on the execution of an European arrest warrant should be taken within 60 days of the requested person’s arrest, the law derived from the consequential domestic legislation rather than from the Decision, so that where a territory’s legislation provided that the consequence of a failure to meet such deadline was no more than a requirement to notify the issuing judicial authority of the delay and the reasons therefor, the failure did not entitle the arrested person to be released, save where the delay was so excessive that it could no longer be said to be a deprivation of liberty in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law for the lawful detention of a person against whom action was being taken with a view to extradition, within article 5.1(f) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.”
WLR Daily, 13th June 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v N (Z) – WLR Daily
Regina v N (Z) [2013] EWCA Crim 989 ; [2013] WLR (D) 240
“For the offence of intimidation contrary to section 51(1) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to be established, it had to be proved by the prosecution that the person whom the defendant intended to intimidate was in fact intimidated.”
WLR Daily, 18th June 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Smith and others v Ministry of Defence (JUSTICE and another intervening); Ellis and another v Same; Allbutt and others v Same – WLR Daily
“Members of the United Kingdom’s armed forces serving in Iraq were within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom for the purposes of article 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Whether claims alleging breaches of the right to life protected by article 2 could be sustained would depend on the particular circumstances.”
WLR Daily, 19th June 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Derek Hodd Ltd v Climate Change Capital Ltd – WLR Daily
Derek Hodd Ltd v Climate Change Capital Ltd [2013] EWHC 1665 (Ch); [2013] WLR (D) 238
“Where there had been a misnomer of a party to an agreement the court was able to take into account the same evidence of the background as would be admissible for the purpose of interpreting the contract, including any relevant course of dealing between the parties.”
WLR Daily, 14th June 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
