Category: law reports
Regina ( WGGS Ltd trading as Western Governors Graduate School) v Secretary of State for the Home Department – WLR Daily
“The UK Border Agency required colleges seeking highly trusted sponsor status to report all students who failed to enrol including those refused entry clearance or leave to remain. A refusal rate of 20% made proper allowance for unsuitable applicants who could not reasonably be weeded out by a college’s admissions staff.”
WLR Daily, 8th March 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
BAILII: Recent Decisions
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Christou & Anor v London Borough of Haringey [2013] EWCA Civ 178 (12 March 2013)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
AJ Building and Plastering Ltd v Turner & Ors [2013] EWHC 484 (QB) (11 March 2013)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Schrader v Schrader [2013] EWHC 466 (Ch) (11 March 2013)
Kloosman v Aylen & Ors [2013] EWHC 435 (Ch) (08 March 2013)
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Patents Court)
Nokia Oyj (Nokia Corporation) v Ipcom GmbH & Co Kg & Anor [2013] EWHC 407 (Pat) (14 February 2013)
Source: www.bailii.org
Leeds United Football Club Ltd v Chief Constable of the West Yorkshire Police – WLR Daily
“The provision of public order policing and crowd control, both before and after football matches, on land not owned, possessed or controlled by a football club did not constitute ‘special police services’ within the meaning of section 25(1) of the Police Act 1996, and therefore the police were not entitled to charge the football club for the cost of doing so.”
WLR Daily, 7th March 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Daejan Investments Ltd v Benson and others – WLR Daily
Daejan Investments Ltd v Benson and others [2013] UKSC 14; [2013] WLR (D) 94
“Where a landlord’s failure to consult fully with tenants before carrying out major repairs to a block of flats would preclude recovery from the tenants of the full cost of the works unless a leasehold valuation tribunal granted a dispensation under section 20ZA(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 from the relevant consultation requirement, dispensation was not to be refused as a punitive measure solely because a landlord had breached the consultation requirements in the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations (SI 2003/1987)) but rather the tribunal could grant the dispensation on terms which reflected the actual prejudice which the tenants had suffered.”
WLR Daily, 6th March 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Westfields Construction Ltd v Lewis – WLR Daily
Westfields Construction Ltd v Lewis [2013] EWHC 376 (TCC); [2013] WLR (D) 93
“Occupation of a property was an ongoing process and could not be tested by reference to a single snapshot in time in determining whether a property owner was a ‘residential occupier’ for the purposes of section 106 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996.”
WLR Daily, 27th March 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Daejan Investments Limited (Appellant) v Benson and others (Respondents) – Supreme Court
Supreme Court, 6th March 2013
ITV Broadcasting Ltd and others v TVCatchup Ltd – WLR Daily
ITV Broadcasting Ltd and others v TVCatchup Ltd (Case C-607/11); [2013] WLR (D) 92
“The concept of ‘communication to the public’, within the meaning of article 3(1) of Parliament and Council Directive 2001/29/EC covered a re-transmission of the works included in a terrestrial television broadcast where the re-transmission was made by an organisation other than the original broadcaster, by means of an Internet stream made available to subscribers of that other organisation who could receive that re-transmission by logging on to its server, even though those subscribers were within the area of reception of that terrestrial television broadcast and could lawfully receive the broadcast on a television receiver. It was irrelevant that a re-transmission was funded by advertising and was therefore of a profit-making nature and was by an organisation which was acting in direct competition with the original broadcaster.”
WLR Daily, 7th March 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
BAILII: Recent Decisions
Supreme Court
Daejan Investments Ltd v Benson & Ors [2013] UKSC 14 (6 March 2013)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
MRI Trading AG v Erdenet Mining Corporation LLC [2013] EWCA Civ 156 (08 March 2013)
Citation Plc v Ellis Whittam Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 155 (08 March 2013)
Leeds United Football Club v West Yorkshire Police [2013] EWCA Civ 115 (07 March 2013)
Wallace v Follett [2013] EWCA Civ 146 (07 March 2013)
London Borough of Brent v Tudor [2013] EWCA Civ 157 (06 March 2013)
Everything Everywhere Ltd v Competition Commission & Ors [2013] EWCA Civ 154 (06 March 2013)
Fareham Borough Council v Miller [2013] EWCA Civ 159 (06 March 2013)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Mikolajczak v District Court In Kalisz, Poland [2013] EWHC 432 (Admin) (07 March 2013)
Zawadzki v Regional Court In Warsaw, Poland [2013] EWHC 433 (Admin) (07 March 2013)
High Court (Commercial Court)
High Court (Patents Court)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
VIS Trading Co. Ltd v Nazarov & Ors [2013] EWHC 491 (QB) (08 March 2013)
Redcar v Dady & Ors [2013] EWHC 475 (QB) (08 March 2013)
IG Index Plc v Colley & Ors [2013] EWHC 478 (QB) (07 March 2013)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
Source: www.bailii.org
VFS Financial Services Ltd v JF Plant Tyres Ltd – WLR Daily
VFS Financial Services Ltd v JF Plant Tyres Ltd: [2013] EWHC 346 (QB); [2013] WLR (D) 91
“A ‘disposition’ of goods for the purposes of section 29(1) of the Hire-Purchase Act 1964 was limited to a transaction where the goods had been transferred for money.”
WLR Daily, 26th February 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
BAILII: Recent Decisions
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Goodman v Faber Prest Steel [2013] EWCA Civ 153 (05 March 2013)
Tesla Motors Ltd & Anor v British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) [2013] EWCA Civ 152 (05 March 2013)
Iqbal v Dean Manson Solicitors & Ors (No 2) [2013] EWCA Civ 149 (05 March 2013)
Petroleo Brasileiro SA (Petrobras) v Petromec Inc [2013] EWCA Civ 150 (05 March 2013)
Chilab v King’s College London [2013] EWCA Civ 147 (28 February 2013)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Garwood v Bank of Scotland Plc [2012] EWHC 415 (Ch) (04 March 2013)
Stichting BDO & Ors v BDO Unibank, Inc & Ors [2013] EWHC 418 (Ch) (04 March 2013)
High Court (Family Division)
GB v RNB [2013] EWHC 414 (Fam) (27 February 2013)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Al Sulaiman v Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) Ltd & Anor [2013] EWHC 400 (Comm) (01 March 2013)
Source: www.bailii.org
Financial Services Authority v Sinaloa Gold plc and others (Barclays Bank plc intervening) – WLR Daily
“There was no general rule that the Financial Services Authority acting pursuant to a public duty should be required to give to the court a cross-undertaking in damages in favour of third parties affected by the obtaining of a freezing injunction under section 380(3) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and/or section 37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981.”
WLR Daily, 27th February 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Hunt v Hosking and ors – WLR Daily
Hunt v Hosking and ors [2013] EWHC 311 (Ch); [2013] WLR (D) 89
“When bringing an application under section 238 of the Insolvency Act 1986 there needed to be a transaction to which the company was a party and that involved mutuality. It did not extend to unilateral actions taken by somebody who had acted without authority.”
WLR Daily, 22nd February 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
BAILII: Recent Decisions
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Aladeselu & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWCA Civ 144 (01 March 2013)
Aintree University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v James & Ors [2013] EWCA Civ 65 (01 March 2013)
Perry v The Nursing and Midwifery Council [2013] EWCA Civ 145 (28 February 2013)
Waterson v Lloyd MP & Anor [2013] EWCA Civ 136 (28 February 2013)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
VFS Financial Services Ltd v JF Plant Tyres Ltd [2013] EWHC 346 (QB) (26 February 2013)
Boyle v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2013] EWHC 395 (QB) (28 February 2013)
Furnell v Flaherty (t/a Godstone Farm) [2013] EWHC 377 (QB) (27 February 2013)
High Court (Chancery Division)
89 Holland Park (Management) Ltd & Ors v Hicks [2013] EWHC 391 (Ch) (27 February 2013)
EMI Records Ltd & Ors v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd & Ors [2013] EWHC 379 (Ch) (28 February 2013)
High Court (Administrative Court)
EAT, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Newham [2013] EWHC 344 (Admin) (28 February 2013)
Caetano v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2013] EWHC 375 (Admin) (28 February 2013)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
Westfields Construction Ltd v Lewis [2013] EWHC 376 (TCC) (27 February 2013)
Geophysical Service Centre Co v Dowell Schlumberger (ME) Inc [2013] EWHC 147 (TCC) (18 January 2013)
Berry Piling Systems Ltd v Sheer Projects Ltd [2013] EWHC 347 (TCC) (28 February 2013)
Source: www.bailii.org
Perry v Nursing and Midwifery Council – WLR Daily
Perry v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2013] EWCA Civ 145; [2013] WLR (D) 88
“Fairness did not require that a respondent to an allegation of unfitness to practise his profession had to be given an opportunity to give evidence as to the substance of that allegation before a tribunal considering whether to make an interim suspension order or other interim order under a legislative scheme, such as that contained in the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001, since that was not what the statutory scheme envisaged or what fairness required at the interim stage. Guidance was given as to the procedure to be followed by a committee, considering whether to make an interim order pending the substantive hearing of a complaint against a member of the profession, in order to satisfy the fairness requirement.”
WLR Daily, 28th February 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Kenny v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform – WLR Daily
Kenny v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Case C-427/11); [2013] WLR (D) 87
“In the light of article 141 EC and Council Directive 75/117/EEC (relating to the application of the principle of equal pay for men and women meant, in relation to indirect pay discrimination), it was for the employer to establish objective justification for the difference in pay between workers who considered that they had been indirectly discriminated against and the comparators. The employer’s justification for the difference in pay had to relate to the comparators. The interests of good industrial relations might be taken into consideration by the national court as one factor among others in its assessment of whether differences between the pay of two groups of workers were due to objective factors unrelated to any discrimination on grounds of sex and are compatible with the principle of proportionality.”
WLR Daily, 28th February 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
EMI Records Ltd and others v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd and others – WLR Daily
“The act of communication to the public for the purposes of article 3(1) of Parliament and Council Directive 2001/29/EC and section 20 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 occurred both where the communication originated and where it was received.”
WLR Daily, 28th February 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Joint Administrators of Heritable Bank plc v Winding Up Board of Landsbanki Islands Hf – WLR Daily
“The decision of a court in another member state of the European Economic Area in relation to the insolvency of a credit institution in that state had effect in the United Kingdom in relation to any of that institution’s branches in the United Kingdom as if it were part of the general insolvency law of the United Kingdom. However the decision of that court did not have any effect on proceedings in an United Kingdom court dealing with the insolvency of an United Kingdom credit institution so that all the defences available under United Kingdom insolvency law could be invoked.”
WLR Daily, 27th February 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina (Omar and others) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs – WLR Daily
“The court had no power to make an order requiring the disclosure of evidence to be used in overseas criminal proceedings except pursuant to the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003.”
WLR Daily, 27th February 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
BAILII: Recent Decisions
Supreme Court
The Financial Services Authority (FSA) v Sinaloa Gold plc & Ors [2013] UKSC 11 (27 February 2013)
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Clarke & Anor, R v [2013] EWCA Crim 162 (26 February 2013)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Davies v Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council [2013] EWCA Civ 135 (26 February 2013)
Attwood & Ors v Maidment [2013] EWCA Civ 119 (26 February 2013)
Thomas v Curley [2013] EWCA Civ 117 (26 February 2013)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Uren v Corporate Leisure (UK) Ltd & Anor [2013] EWHC 353 (QB) (26 February 2013)
High Court (Chancery Division)
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Novasen SA v Alimenta SA [2013] EWHC 345 (Comm) (27 February 2013)
Source: www.bailii.org
