law reports – Page 156 – Current Awareness

Garden allotments which came under the management of the parish council by virtue of section 33(4) of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act 1908 were intended to be governed exclusively by the powers set out in section 26 and onwards of that Act. Accordingly, the parish council’s power to sell the allotments was the power conferred by section 32 of the 1908 Act, subject to obtaining the consent of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government pursuant to section 8 of the Allotments Act 1925, and not the power under section 27 of the Commons Act 1876.

WLR Daily, 24th January 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Hamilton v Hamilton – WLR Daily

Posted January 28th, 2013 in appeals, dispute resolution, divorce, financial provision, jurisdiction, law reports by sally

Hamilton v Hamilton [2013] EWCA Civ 13; [2013] WLR (D) 26

“An order in ancillary relief proceedings for the payment of a series of lump sums over time was not necessarily an order for a lump sum by instalments, within section 23(3)(c) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, and therefore variable under section 31 of the 1973 Act.”

WLR Daily, 24th January 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Milton Keynes Borough Council v Nulty, decd and others – WLR Daily

Posted January 28th, 2013 in appeals, burden of proof, causation, fire, insurance, law reports, negligence by sally

Milton Keynes Borough Council v Nulty, decd and others [2013] EWCA Civ 15; [2013] WLR (D) 25

“There was no rule of law that if the only other possible causes of an event were very much less likely than one suggested means of causation, that became the probable cause; the court had to be satisfied on rational and objective grounds that the case for believing that the suggested means of causation occurred was stronger than the case for not so believing.”

WLR Daily, 24th January 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted January 25th, 2013 in law reports by sally

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

TW Logistics, R (on the application of) v Tendring District Council [2013] EWCA Civ 9 (24 January 2013)

Nulty & Ors v Milton Keynes Borough Council [2013] EWCA Civ 15 (24 January 2013)

Sims v Dacorum Borough Council [2013] EWCA Civ 12 (24 January 2013)

Hamilton v Hamilton [2013] EWCA Civ 13 (24 January 2013)

High Court (Chancery Division)

Muck Truck UK Ltd & Ors v Helps (t/a Paul Helps Muck Truck Sales) & Anor [2013] EWHC 74 (Ch) (24 January 2013)

Snelling & Anor v Burstow Parish Council [2013] EWHC 46 (Ch) (24 January 2013)

High Court (Commercial Court)

Phoenix Life Assurance Ltd v The Financial Services Authority (FSA) [2013] EWHC 60 (Comm) (24 January 2013)

Graiseley Properties Ltd & Ors v Barclays Bank Plc & Ors (Rev 1) [2013] EWHC 67 (Comm) (24 January 2013)

High Court (Family Division)

Young v Young [2013] EWHC 34 (Fam) (16
January 2013)

High Court (Patents Court)

IPCom GmbH & Co Kg v HTC
Europe Co Ltd & Ors [2013] EWHC 52 (Pat) (24 January 2013)

Source: www.bailii.org.uk

Eckerle and others v Wickeder Westfalenstahl GmbH and another – WLR Daily

Posted January 25th, 2013 in company law, law reports, locus standi, shareholders by sally

Eckerle and others v Wickeder Westfalenstahl GmbH and another: [2013] EWHC 68 (Ch); [2013] WLR (D) 24

“The holders of dematerialised shares in a public company were not entitled to the same protection under section 98 of the Companies Act 2006 as registered minority shareholders.”

WLR Daily, 23rd January 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Kenya Aid Programme v Sheffield City Council – WLR Daily

Posted January 25th, 2013 in law reports by sally

Kenya Aid Programme v Sheffield City Council: [2013] EWHC 54 (Admin); [2013] WLR (D) 23

“In determining whether a charity was entitled to mandatory charitable relief from non-domestic rates because the premises were ‘wholly or mainly used for charitable purposes’, the question was whether the use which the charity made of the premises was directly to facilitate the carrying out of its main charitable purposes.”

WLR Daily, 22nd January 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Regina v Evans (Fabian) – WLR Daily

Posted January 25th, 2013 in law reports by sally

Regina v Evans (Fabian): [2013] WLR (D) 22

“Migrants of Jamaican origin who had returned to Jamaica after having been resident in the USA, Canada or the United Kingdom, or persons who had been removed or deported back to Jamaica from those countries, did not constitute a ‘particular social group’ for the purposes of article 1A(2) of the Convention and Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees.”

WLR Daily, 23rd January 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Regina (Prudential plc and another) v Special Comr of Income Tax and another (Institute of Chartered Accountants and others intervening) – WLR Daily

Posted January 25th, 2013 in accountants, financial advice, law reports, legal profession, privilege, taxation by sally

Regina (Prudential plc and another) v Special Comr of Income Tax and another (Institute of Chartered Accountants and others intervening): [2013] UKSC 1; [2013] WLR (D) 20

“Legal advice privilege would not be extended to communications in connection with advice given by professional people other than members of the legal profession, even where that advice was legal advice which the professional person was qualified to give.”

WLR Daily, 23rd January 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted January 24th, 2013 in law reports by sally

Supreme Court

Zakrzewski v The Regional Court in Lodz, Poland [2013] UKSC 2 (23 January 2013)

Lloyds TSB Foundation for Scotland v Lloyds Banking Group Plc (Scotland) [2013] UKSC 3 (23 January 2013)

Prudential plc & Anor, R (on the application of) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax & Anor [2013] UKSC 1 (23 January 2013)

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

Omnipharm Ltd v Merial [2013] EWCA Civ 2 (23 January 2013)

High Court (Chancery Division)

Eckerle & Ors v Wickeder Westfalenstahl GmbH & Anor [2013] EWHC 68 (Ch) (23 January 2013)

Gorbunova v Berezovsky (aka Platon Elenin) & Ors [2013] EWHC 76 (Ch) (18 January 2013)

High Court (Administrative Court)

Purnell, R (on the application of) v South Western Magistrates’ Court [2013] EWHC 64 (Admin) (23 January 2013)

High Court (Family Division)

S (findings of fact), Re [2013] EWHC 15 (Fam) (14 January 2013)

High Court (Commercial Court)

Camerata Property Inc v Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) Ltd [2013] EWHC 29 (Comm) (23 January 2013)

Source: www.bailii.org

Lloyds TSB Foundation for Scotland v Lloyds Banking Group plc – WLR Daily

Posted January 24th, 2013 in banking, charities, contracts, covenants, law reports, Supreme Court, taxation by sally

Lloyds TSB Foundation for Scotland v Lloyds Banking Group plc [2013] UKSC 3; [2013] WLR (D) 19

“In construing a contractual provision, where there had been an unforeseeable and fundamental change in the legal context since the execution of the contract, the proper approach was to adopt a meaning which best gave effect to the parties’ original intentions and purposes. Where, therefore, a deed executed in 1997 provided for payment to be made by a banking group to a charitable foundation by reference to the group’s pre-tax profit or loss shown in the audited accounts, and a change in accounting practice subsequently required the group consolidated income statement to include, as a profit, a sum representing an unrealised gain on acquisition, the inclusion of such a sum was to be ignored for the purposes of calculating the amount payable to the foundation under the deed.”

WLR Daily, 23rd January 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Zakrzewski v District Court in Torun, Poland – WLR Daily

Posted January 24th, 2013 in extradition, law reports, Supreme Court, warrants by sally

Zakrzewski v District Court in Torun, Poland [2013] UKSC 2; [2013] WLR (D) 18

“Where the information set out by the requesting state in an European arrest warrant had correctly specified ‘the sentence . . . imposed’ on the convicted person whose extradition it sought, as required by section 2(6)(e) of the Extradition Act 2003, but the courts in that state had subsequently aggregated the sentences so that he was to serve a different, albeit lesser, sentence than that stated in the information, the warrant remained valid and the person could be extradited.”

WLR Daily, 23rd January 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

European Commission v Tomkins plc – WLR Daily

Posted January 24th, 2013 in company law, competition, EC law, law reports, subsidiary companies by sally

European Commission v Tomkins plc (Case C-286/11P); [2013] WLR (D) 17

“Where the liability of a parent company was derived exclusively from that of its subsidiary and where the parent and its subsidiary had brought parallel applications having the ‘same object’, the Court was entitled, without infringing the ne ultra petita principle—that European Union courts could not rule on aspects concerning addressees other than those covered by the applicant’s application—to take account of the outcome of the action brought by the subsidiary and to annul the action brought by the parent on that basis, despite the fact that the scope of the applications and arguments presented in each application were different.”

WLR Daily, 22nd January 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk