Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
MD (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 194 (28 February 2012)
Goldsmith v Patchcott [2012] EWCA Civ 183 (27 February 2012)
Coventry (t/a RDC Promotions & Anor v Lawrence & Ors [2012] EWCA Civ 26 (27 February 2012)
High Court (Chancery Division) Decisions
Various Claimants v News Group Newspapers Ltd & Anor [2012] EWHC 397 (Ch) (27 February 2012)
Source: www.bailii.org
Edgerton v Edgerton and another: [2012] EWCA Civ 181; [2012] WLR (D) 47
“Where the High Court had made a final decision which was binding on the parties and conclusively determined the ownership of assets, the parties were estopped from arguing in proceedings in another division of the High Court that the ownership of the disputed assets was different. If one party wished to argue that the earlier decision should not bind the parties because it had been obtained by fraud or collusion, the proper course was to apply to set aside the first judgment.”
WLR Daily, 24th February 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions
Williams, R v [2012] EWCA Crim 264 (24 February 2012)
High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
High Court (Family Division) Decisions
G v G [2012] EWHC 167 (Fam) (24 February 2012)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division) Decisions
EL v The Children’s Society [2012] EWHC 365 (QB) (24 February 2012)
MacLennan v Hartford Europe Ltd [2012] EWHC 346 (QB) (24 February 2012)
Gold & Anor v Cox & Anor [2012] EWHC 367 (QB) (24 February 2012)
Spelman v Express Newspapers [2012] EWHC 392 (QB) (24 February 2012)
Spelman v Express Newspapers [2012] EWHC 355 (QB) (24 February 2012)
AM v News Group Newspapers Ltd & Ors [2012] EWHC 308 (QB) (23 February 2012)
Source: www.bailii.org
Neave and others v Court of Rome, Italy: [2012] EWHC 358 (Admin); [2012] WLR (D) 46
“In the context of the Extradition Act 2003 a person who was no more than a suspect was not an accused person. The mere suspicion that an individual had committed offences was insufficient to place him in the category of ‘accused’ persons. The dividing line between a suspect wanted for questioning and an accused person was fact specific and was complicated by the fact of the different legal systems in Part 1 countries. A purposive interpretation of ‘accused’ was to be adopted in order to accommodate the differences between legal systems. Courts had to adopt a cosmopolitan approach to the question whether, as a matter of substance rather than form, the requirement of there being an ‘accused’ person was satisfied. Resolving the issue would require an intense focus on the particular facts of each case. The fact that under the criminal procedure of the requesting state a person might be asked further questions before a decision was made to charge him was not decisive, as also was the absence of a full file. A person could be accused of an offence even though the decision had not finally been taken to prosecute or charge.”
WLR Daily, 23rd February 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Flachglas Torgau GmbH v Federal Republic of Germany: (Case C-204/09); [2012] WLR (D) 45
“The option given to member states pursuant to the first sentence of the second sub-paragraph of article 2(2) of Parliament and Council Directive 2003/4/EC of not regarding ‘bodies or institutions acting in a … legislative capacity’ as ‘public authorities’ responsible for guaranteeing access to environmental information, could be applied to ministries to the extent that they participated in the legislative process, in particular by tabling draft laws or giving opinions.”
WLR Daily, 14th February 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v Gul: [2012] EWCA Crim 280; [2012] WLR (D) 44
“Acts by insurgents against the armed forces of a state anywhere in the world which sought to influence a government and were made for political purposes were acts of terrorism for the purposes of section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000. There was nothing in international law which required the clear terms of the 2000 Act to be read down to exempt those committing such acts from the definition of terrorist in that Act.”
WLR Daily, 22nd February 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
McKillen v Misland (Cyprus) Investments Ltd & Anor [2012] EWCA Civ 179 (24 February 2012)
MMI Research Ltd v Cellxion Ltd & Ors [2012] EWCA Civ 139 (23 February 2012)
Smith v Nottinghamshire Police [2012] EWCA Civ 161 (23 February 2012)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Neave & Ors v Court of Rome, Italy [2012] EWHC 358 (Admin) (23 February 2012)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Long v Rodman & Ors [2012] EWHC 342 (Ch) (23 February 2012)
Long v Rodman & Ors [2012] EWHC 347 (Ch) (23 February 2012)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
West Country Renovations Ltd v McDowell & Anor [2012] EWHC 307 (TCC) (23 February 2012)
Source: www.bailii.org
Regina v Dowds: [2012] EWCA Crim 281; [2012] WLR (D) 43
“The reformulation of the statutory conditions for diminished responsibility was not intended to reverse the well established rule that voluntary acute intoxication was incapable of being relied on to found diminished responsibility and the presence of a recognised medical condition, although necessary, was not always a sufficient condition to raise the issue of diminished responsibility.”
WLR Daily, 22nd February 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
In re Peacock (Secretary of State for the Home Dept intervening): [2012] UKSC 5; [2012] WLR (D) 42
“Where a compensation order had been made against a convicted drug trafficker under the Drug Trafficking Act 1994 (which applied where the relevant conviction was before 24 March 2003) to recover an amount equal to his benefit from that criminal activity, but the actual amount of the order was for a lesser sum as being his only realisable assets at the time of conviction, the court could later increase the amount of the order under section 16 of the Act to take account of assets he had legitimately acquired after release from prison.”
WLR Daily, 22nd February 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
City of London v Samede and others: [2012] EWCA Civ 160; [2012] WLR (D) 41
“While it could be appropriate for the court to take into account the general character of the views whose expression the Convention on Human Rights was being invoked to protect, namely the article 10 (freedom of expression) and article 11 (freedom of assembly) rights of demonstrators on the public highway, it was very difficult to see how those rights could ever prevail against the will of the landowner when the demonstrators were continuously and exclusively occupying public land, breaching not just the owner’s property rights and certain statutory provisions, but significantly interfering with the public and Convention rights of others, and causing other problems connected with health, nuisance and the like, especially in circumstances where the occupation had already continued for months and was likely to continue indefinitely.”
WLR Daily, 22nd February 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Supreme Court
Peacock, Re [2012] UKSC 3 (22 February 2012)
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Gul, R v [2012] EWCA Crim 280 (22 February 2012)
Dowds v R [2012] EWCA Crim 281 (22 February 2012)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
D v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2012] EWHC 309 (QB) (22 February 2012)
Barber & Ors v Rasco International Ltd & Anor [2012] EWHC 269 (QB) (02 February 2012)
Source: www.bailii.org
Caterpillar Logistics Service (UK) Ltd v de Crean [2012] EWCA Civ 156; [2012] WLR (D) 40
“The court had power under section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 to grant barring-out relief, but if it could ever be granted to an employer against an employee it could only be in the most exceptional circumstances.”
WLR Daily, 21st February 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Cameron v Boggiano and another [2012] EWCA Civ 157; [2012] WLR (D) 39
“A court was entitled to seek assistance on the construction of a plan and title documents by taking account of the topographical features at the relevant date, provided the documents were ambiguous.”
WLR Daily, 21st February 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v N(A); Regina v Le [2012] EWCA Crim 189; [2012] WLR (D) 38
“The implementation of the United Kingdom’s obligation to comply with article 26 of the Council of Europe Convention on Action Against Trafficking in Human Beings 2005 would normally be achieved by the proper exercise of the long established prosecutorial discretion which enabled the Crown Prosecution Service, however strong the evidence might be, to decide that it would be inappropriate to proceed with the prosecution of a defendant suspected of being involved in unlawful activities if he/she might have been the victim of trafficking for labour exploitation and might be unable to advance duress as a defence but who fell within the protective ambit of article 26.”
WLR Daily, 20th February 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Torfaen County Borough Council v Douglas Willis Ltd [2012] EWHC 296 (Admin); [2012] WLR (D) 37
“In order to found a conviction for an offence under regulation 44(1)(d) of the Food Labelling Regulations 1996, a prosecuting authority was required to prove, to the criminal standard: (i) that the food, at the point that it was ready for delivery to the ultimate consumer or caterer, was ‘highly perishable’ and so required then and thereafter to be labelled with a ‘use by’ date; (ii) that the defendant was, at the time of the alleged offence, selling the food within the extended definition contained within regulation 2; and (iii) that, at the time of the alleged offence, the date on the ‘use by’ label had passed. The subsequent freezing of food requiring and given a ‘use by’ label would not cause that label to cease to have effect.”
WLR Daily, 20th February 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Supreme Court
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Cameron v Boggiano & Anor [2012] EWCA Civ 157 (21 February 2012)
SS (Sri Lanka) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 155 (21 February 2012)
Caterpillar Logistics Services (UK) Ltd v de Crean [2012] EWCA Civ 156 (21 February 2012)
Hobson v Magee (t/a Team Magee) [2012] EWCA Civ 116 (21 February 2012)
Kennerley v Beech & Anor [2012] EWCA Civ 158 (21 February 2012)
Newman v Framewood Manor Management Co Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 159 (21 February 2012)
Polestar Maritime Ltd v YHM Shipping Co Ltd & Anor (Rev 1) [2012] EWCA Civ 153 (17 February 2012)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Moore v British Waterways Board [2012] EWHC 182 (Ch) (10 February 2012)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Woolley, R (on the application of) v Ministry of Justice [2012] EWHC 295 (Admin) (21 February 2012)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
Berry Piling Systems Ltd v Sheer Projects Ltd [2012] EWHC 241 (TCC) (21 February 2012)
Source: www.bailii.org
High Court (Commercial Court)
Air Transworld Ltd v Bombardier Inc [2012] EWHC 243 (Comm) (20 February 2012)
Source: www.bailii.org
MM (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: [2012] EWCA Civ 135; [2012] WLR (D) 36
” ‘Conspicuous unfairness’ was not a free standing ground in an immigration case on which a court could act in the absence of unlawful action on the part of the Home Secretary.”
WLR Daily, 24th January 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
N, R v [2012] EWCA Crim 189 (20 February 2012)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Broadside Colours And Chemicals Ltd, Re (No 2) [2012] EWHC 195 (Ch) (20 February 2012)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Ibrahim v Swansea University [2012] EWHC 290 (QB) (20 February 2012)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Torfaen County Borough Council v Douglas Willis Ltd [2012] EWHC 296 (Admin) (20 February 2012)
High Court (Patents Court)
Nokia GmbH v Ipcom GmbH & Co KG [2012] EWHC 225 (Pat) (20 February 2012)
Source: www.bailii.org
Simcoe v Jacuzzi UK Group plc [2012] EWCA Civ 137; [2012] WLR (D) 35
“The date from which interest ran on an award of costs in the county court in favour of a successful litigant was, by reason of article 2 of the County Court (Interest on Judgment Debts) Order 1991, the date the order for costs was made, not the date on which costs were assessed or agreed. The discretion granted in making an award of costs by CPR r 40.8 did not apply and was ineffective in that court.”
WLR Daily, 16th February 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025