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
Cusack (Respondent) v London Borough of Harrow (Appellant) [2013] UKSC 40 | UKSC 2012/0006 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 19th June 2013
Supreme Court, 19th June 2013
Supreme Court, 19th June 2013
“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) [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
“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 [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
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Lodge, R v [2013] EWCA Crim 987 (18 June 2013)
ZN, R v [2013] EWCA Crim 989 (18 June 2013)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Cronin v The Greyhound Board of Great Britain Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 668 (18 June 2013)
Emptage v Financial Services Compensation Scheme Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 729 (18 June 2013)
High Court (Family Division)
B v B [2013] EWHC 1232 (Fam) (21 May 2013)
A (A Child) (Vulnerable Witness), Re [2013] EWHC 1694 (Fam) (17 June 2013)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
White Digital Media Ltd v Weaver & Anor [2013] EWHC 1681 (QB) (18 June 2013)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Barden v Commodities Research Unit & Ors [2013] EWHC 1633 (Ch) (18 June 2013)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Mengesha v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2013] EWHC 1695 (Admin) (18 June 2013)
Source: www.bailii.org
Prest v Prest and others [2013] UKSC 34; [2013] WLR (D) 237
“If a person was under an existing legal obligation or liability, or subject to an existing legal restriction, which he deliberately evaded or the enforcement he deliberately frustrated by interposing a company under his control, the court could ‘pierce the corporate veil’ but only for the purpose of depriving the company or its controller of the advantage which they would otherwise have obtained by the company’s separate legal personality.”
WLR Daily, 12th June 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Kohli v Lit & Ors [2013] EWCA Civ 667 (17 June 2013)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Avon Estates Ltd v Evans & Anor [2013] EWHC 1635 (Ch) (13 June 2013)
Derek Hodd Ltd v Climate Change Capital Ltd [2013] EWHC 1665 (Ch) (14 June 2013)
High Court (Family Division)
L and M (Children), Re [2013] EWHC 1569 (Fam) (04 June 2013)
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Bate v Aviva Insurance UK Ltd [2013] EWHC 1687 (Comm) (17 June 2013)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
Hills Contractors & Construction Ltd v Struth & Anor [2013] EWHC 1693 (TCC) (17 June 2013)
Source: www.bailii.org
“The court had an inherent jurisdiction to give such directions as would enable the administrators of a regulated investment firm, holding client money under rules imposing a statutory trust, to put in place a client money distribution procedure for dealing with rejected claims and unknown claims which could provide a degree of certainty and protection and ensure a timely return of client money.”
WLR Daily, 14th June 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Superstrike Ltd v Rodrigues [2013] EWCA Civ 669; [2013] WLR (D) 235
“Where a tenant had paid a deposit under an assured shorthold tenancy for a fixed term which began before, but ended after, the commencement of section 213 of the Housing Act 2004, the landlord was obliged to deal with the deposit in accordance with an authorised scheme within 14 days of the coming into being of a new statutory periodic tenancy upon expiry of the fixed term; and by virtue of section 215(1) of the 2004 Act, non-compliance with that obligation precluded service by the landlord of a valid notice under section 21 of the Housing Act 1988.”
WLR Daily, 14th June 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The provision in section 15(4) of the Commons Act 2006, allowing an application for registration of land as a town or village green to be made up to five years after a cessation of qualifying user predating the commencement of section 15, was not incompatible with the landowner’s right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions under article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.”
WLR Daily, 14th June 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“A contract whereby (without establishing co-operation between the contracting public entities with a view to carrying out a public service task that both of them had to perform)—one public entity had assigned to another the task of cleaning certain public buildings, while reserving a supervisory power, in return for payment for the costs incurred, the second entity being authorised to use the services of third parties which might be capable of competing on the market for the accomplishment of that task—constituted a public service contract within the meaning of article 1(2)(d) of Parliament and Council Directive 2004/18/EC.”
WLR Daily, 13th June 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The English court had a long-standing and well-established jurisdiction to grant an injunction restraining the commencement or continuation of foreign proceedings brought in breach of an arbitration clause, even when neither party had commenced, nor intended to commence, arbitration proceedings in the agreed forum. The Arbitration Act 1996 did not affect the court’s power under that jurisdiction or under s 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981.”
WLR Daily, 12th June 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
O’Neill v HM Advocate (No 2); Lauchlanv Same [2013] UKSC 36; [2013] WLR (D) 231
“The right to a trial within a reasonable time under article 6.1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms was a separate right from the right to a fair trial under that article. Consequently the time when a person was ‘charged’ with an offence for the purposes of time starting to run under the reasonable time guarantee might be different from the time when he should have had access to a lawyer for the purposes of ensuring a fair trial under article 6.1 read with article 6.3(c).”
WLR Daily, 13th June 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Goldbet Sportwetten GmbH v Sperindeo (Case C-144/12); [2013] WLR (D) 230
“Pursuant to article 6 of Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 creating a European order for payment procedure, read in conjunction with article 17, a statement of opposition to a European order for payment that did not contain any challenge to the jurisdiction of the court of the member state of origin did not constitute ‘the entering of an appearance’ within the meaning of article 24 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, and the fact that the defendant had, in the statement of opposition lodged, put forward arguments relating to the substance of the case was irrelevant.”
WLR Daily, 13th June 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Okotoks Ld & Anor v Fine & Country Ltd & Ors [2013] EWCA Civ 672 (14 June 2013)
Lumos Skincare Ltd v Sweet Squared Ltd. & Ors [2013] EWCA Civ 671 (14 June 2013)
Superstrike Ltd v Rodrigues [2013] EWCA Civ 669 (14 June 2013)
Birch v Ministry of Defence [2013] EWCA Civ 676 (14 June 2013)
Ireland v David Lloyd Leisure Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 665 (14 June 2013)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Tchenguiz & Ors v The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) [2013] EWHC 1578 (QB) (14 June 2013)
Roger Ward Associates Ltd & Ors v Britannia Assets (UK) Ltd [2013] EWHC 1653 (QB) (14 June 2013)
Mehjoo v Harben Barker (a firm) & Anor [2013] EWHC 1669 (QB) (14 June 2013)
Lombard North Central Plc v Nugent & Ors [2013] EWHC 1588 (QB) (06 June 2013)
High Court (Chancery Division)
MF Global UK Ltd (in special administration), Re [2013] EWHC 1655 (Ch) (14 June 2013)
Revenue & Customs v SED Essex Ltd [2013] EWHC 1583 (Ch) (14 June 2013)
High Court (Family Division)
CM v The Executor of the Estate of EJ & Ors [2013] EWHC 1680 (Fam) (14 June 2013)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Arranz v Spanish Judicial Authority [2013] EWHC 1662 (Admin) (14 June 2013)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Tullow Uganda Ltd v Heritage Oil and Gas Ltd & Anor [2013] EWHC 1656 (Comm) (14 June 2013)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
Source: www.bailii.org
Supreme Court
Apollo Engineering Ltd v James Scott Ltd (Scotland) [2013] UKSC 37 (13 June 2013)
O’Neill v Her Majesty’s Advocate No 2 (Scotland) [2013] UKSC 36 (13 June 2013)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
H-L (A Child), Re [2013] EWCA Civ 655 (13 June 2013)
Virk & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWCA Civ 652 (12 June 2013)
Howard v Howard -Lawson [2013] EWCA Civ 654 (12 June 2013)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Garner v Salford City Council & Anor [2013] EWHC 1573 (QB) (13 June 2013)
High Court (Chancery Division)
JW Spear & Sons Ltd & Ors v Zynga Inc [2013] EWHC 1640 (Ch) (13 June 2013)
High Court (Family Division)
LCG v RL [2013] EWHC 1383 (Fam) (23 May 2013)
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Dar Al Arkan Real Estate Development Com. v Al Refai & Ors [2013] EWHC 1630 (Comm) (12 June 2013)
High Court (Patents Court)
Destra Software Ltd v Comada (UK) LLP & Ors [2013] EWHC 1575 (Pat) (11 June 2013)
Source: www.bailii.org
“The tort of malicious prosecution extended to civil as well as criminal proceedings.”
WLR Daily, 13th June 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk