law reports – Page 186 – Current Awareness

“If in the military courts a judge did not approve of a course that a military prosecutor intended to take the proper course for the judge was to ask for the matter to be referred either to the Director of Service Prosecutions or to the Attorney General, as might be appropriate.”

WLR Daily, 1st February 2012

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Regina (New London College Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Home Department – WLR Daily

Posted February 6th, 2012 in education, human rights, law reports, sponsored immigrants by sally

Regina (New London College Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 51; [2012] WLR (D) 21

“The suspension or withdrawal of a general (student) sponsor licence granted to a United Kingdom college to sponsor and enrol students from non-European Economic Area countries on point based immigration control, to study in the college, was not an infringement of the college’s Convention right to its possessions within the meaning of article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, so as to be protected under that article.”

WLR Daily, 2nd February 2012

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted February 3rd, 2012 in law reports by sally

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

Gurung v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 62 (02 February 2012)

Aksu v London Borough of Enfield [2012] EWCA Civ 60 (02 February 2012)

County Leasing Asset Management Ltd & Anor v Michael Green Plant Ltd & Ors [2012] EWCA Civ 53 (02 February 2012)

UG (Nepal) & Ors v Entry Clearance Officer [2012] EWCA Civ 58 (02 February 2012)

Leeds City Council v Price & Ors [2012] EWCA Civ 59 (02 February 2012)

High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)

QBE Management Services (UK) Ltd v Dymoke & Ors [2012] EWHC 116 (QB) (02 February 2012)

O’Farrell v O’Farrell [2012] EWHC 123 (QB) (01 February 2012)

High Court (Chancery Division)

McKillen v Misland (Cyprus) Investments Ltd & Ors [2012] EWHC 129 (Ch) (02 February 2012)

High Court (Administrative Court)

Crudace, R (on the application of) v Northumbria Police Authority [2012] EWHC 112 (Admin) (02 February 2012)

Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) (An unlimited company), R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Energy & Climate Change & Anor [2012] EWHC 46 (Admin) (31 January 2012)

High Court (Commercial Court)

Nomihold Securities Inc v Mobile Telesystems Finance SA [2012] EWHC 130 (Comm) (02 February 2012)

Source: www.bailii.org

Frisdranken Industrie Winters BV v Red Bull GmbH – WLR Daily

Posted February 3rd, 2012 in EC law, food, law reports, trade marks by sally

Frisdranken Industrie Winters BV v Red Bull GmbH (Case C-119/10); [2012] WLR (D) 20

“A service provider who, under an order from and on the instructions of another person, filled packaging which was supplied to it by the other person who, in advance, affixed to it a sign which was identical with, or similar to, a sign protected as a trade mark did not itself make use of the sign that was liable to be prohibited under that provision.”

WLR Daily, 15th December 2012

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Tiffin v Lester Aldridge LLP – WLR Daily

Posted February 3rd, 2012 in law firms, law reports, limited liability partnerships, unfair dismissal by sally

Tiffin v Lester Aldridge LLP [2012] EWCA Civ 35; [2012] WLR (D) 19

“Section 4(4) of the Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2000 required an assumption that the business of the limited liability partnership had been carried on by two or more of its members as partners and upon that assumption, required an inquiry as to whether or not the person whose status was in question would have been one of the partners. If the answer to that inquiry was that he would have been a partner then he could not have been an employee of the partnership; if the answer was that he would not have been a partner there would have to be further inquiry as to whether his relationship would have been that of an employee. It was implicit that the primary source material for the purpose of answering those questions would be the members’ agreement although that would not necessarily represent the totality of what might be looked at.”

WLR Daily, 1st February 2012

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Coogan v News Group Newspapers Ltd and another; Phillips v Same – WLR Daily

Posted February 3rd, 2012 in disclosure, interception, law reports, news, privilege, self-incrimination, telecommunications by sally

Coogan v News Group Newspapers Ltd and another; Phillips v Same [2011] EWCA Civ 48; [2012] WLR (D) 18

“The phrase ‘technical or commercial information or other intellectual property’ within the definition of ‘intellectual property’ in section 72 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 was apt to embrace telephone voice messages said to have been intercepted by a private investigator on the telephones of individuals; and the effect of that finding was that the privilege against self-incrimination on which the interceptor might otherwise have relied was removed.”

WLR Daily, 1st February 2012

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Barrett v Bem; In re Lavin, decd – WLR Daily

Posted February 3rd, 2012 in law reports by sally

Barrett v Bem; In re Lavin, decd [2012] EWCA Civ 52; [2012] WLR (D) 17

“A court should not find that a will had been signed by a third party at the direction of the testator unless there was positive and discernible communication (which might be verbal or non-verbal) by the testator that he wished the will to be signed on his behalf by the third party.”

WLR Daily, 31st January 2012

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted February 2nd, 2012 in law reports by sally

Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

Armstrong, R v [2012] EWCA Crim 83 (01 February 2012)

OB v The Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2012] EWCA Crim 67 (01 February 2012)

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

Hawksford Trustees Jersey Ltd v Stella Global UK Ltd & Anor [2012] EWCA Civ 55 (01 February 2012)

Coogan v News Group Newspapers Ltd & Anor [2012] EWCA Civ 48 (01 February 2012)

Tiffin v Lester Aldridge LLP [2012] EWCA Civ 35 (01 February 2012)

High Court (Chancery Division)

IBM United Kingdom Pensions Trust Ltd v Metcalfe & Ors [2012] EWHC 125 (Ch) (01 February 2012)

High Court (Commercial Court)

Standard Life Assurance Ltd v Ace European Group & Ors [2012] EWHC 104 (Comm) (01 February 2012)

Source: www.bailii.org

Regina (Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster)) v Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change – WLR Daily

Posted February 2nd, 2012 in electricity lines, energy, judicial review, law reports by sally

Regina (Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster)) v Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change [2012] EWHC 46 (Admin); [2012] WLR (D) 16

“Following the grant of a consent under section 37 of the Electricity Act 1989 (as amended) in respect of any operation or change of use that constituted development, a direction made by the Secretary of State under section 90(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 that planning permission for that and any ancillary development should be deemed to be granted was not a ‘determination under the planning Acts’ for the purposes of engaging the duty to act in accordance with the applicable development plan under section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.”

WLR Daily, 31st January 2012

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Revenue and Customs Commissioners v GKN Group – WLR Daily

Posted February 2nd, 2012 in appeals, civil procedure rules, corporation tax, law reports by sally

Revenue and Customs Commissioners v GKN Group [2012] EWCA Civ 57; [2012] WLR (D) 15

“On an application for an interim payment under CPR r 25.7(1)(c) a claimant had to satisfy the court on a balance of probabilities that, on the material available to the court, he would succeed at trial in obtaining judgment from the defendant for a substantial amount of money. It was not sufficient to show that it was likely that he would succeed.”

WLR Daily, 31st January 2012

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted February 1st, 2012 in law reports by sally

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

Hutchings-Whelan v Hutchings [2012] EWCA Civ 38 (26 January 2012)

D v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 39 (31 January 2012)

Annison v Nolan [2012] EWCA Civ 54 (31 January 2012)

Revenue and Customs v The GKN Group [2012] EWCA Civ 57 (31 January 2012)

Specsavers International Healthcare Ltd & Ors v Asda Stores Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 24 (31 January 2012)

Barrett v Bem & Ors [2012] EWCA Civ 52 (31 January 2012)

High Court (Administrative Court)

Deputy Chief Ombudsman, R (on the application of) v French [2012] EWHC 113 (Admin) (18 January 2012)

High Court (Commercial Court)

Integrated Power Technologies -Powertech SAL v Hits Telecom Holding Co KSC [2012] EWHC 97 (Comm) (31 January 2012)

Source: www.bailii.org

Regina (Elam) v Secretary of State for Justice – WLR Daily

Posted February 1st, 2012 in law reports, legislation, release on licence, sentencing by sally

Regina (Elam) v Secretary of State for Justice [2012] EWCA Civ 29; [2012] WLR (D) 14

“The licence expiry date applicable to a prisoner serving consecutive terms of imprisonment including at least one term of 12 months or more was to be determined by the provisions of section 264(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 unless all the offences for which the sentences were imposed had been committed before section 264 came into force on 4 April 2005; in such a case, section 37(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 continued to govern the licence expiry date by virtue of the saving provision in paragraph 19 of Schedule 2 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Commencement No 8 and Transitional and Saving Provisions) Order 2005.”

WLR Daily, 27th January 2012

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Wokuri v Kassam – WLR Daily

Posted February 1st, 2012 in conflict of laws, diplomats, employment, immunity, law reports, news by sally

Wokuri v Kassam [2012] EWHC 105 (Ch); [2012] WLR (D) 13

“A diplomatic agent who had left a mission continued to enjoy immunity in respect of acts performed by him or her in the exercise of his or her functions as a member of that mission within the meaning of article 39(2) of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961) as scheduled to the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964. The residual immunity under article 39(2) was, however, less extensive than that enjoyed by a serving diplomat. The former diplomat would not necessarily have immunity in relation to claims by employees carrying out domestic duties.”

WLR Daily, 30th January 2012

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted January 31st, 2012 in law reports by sally

High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)

Hunt v Times Newspapers Ltd [2012] EWHC 110 (QB) (30 January 2012)

Wiemer v Zone & Ors [2012] EWHC 107 (QB) (30 January 2012)

High Court (Chancery Division)

Wokuri v Kassam [2012] EWHC 105 (Ch) (30 January 2012)

Wharton v Bancroft & Ors [2012] EWHC 91 (Ch) (30 January 2012)

Source: www.bailii.org

Regina v H (J); Same v Ferris; Same v W (A); Same v Walker; Same v Dan; Same v S (C); Same v Robertson; Same v P (M) – WLR Daily

Posted January 31st, 2012 in appeals, law reports, sentencing, sexual offences by sally

Regina v H (J); Same v Ferris; Same v W (A); Same v Walker; Same v Dan; Same v S (C); Same v Robertson; Same v P (M) [2011] EWCA Crim 2753; [2012] WLR (D) 12

“In principle, in historic or cold cases, a defendant had to be sentenced in accordance with the sentencing regime applicable at the date of sentence. Nevertheless, as the offence which he had committed years earlier contravened the criminal law in force at the date when it was committed a defendant was liable to be convicted of that offence and no other and therefore the sentence was limited to the maximum sentence then available for the offence of which he had been convicted.”

WLR Daily, 24th November 2011

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted January 30th, 2012 in law reports by sally

Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

PD, R. v [2012] EWCA Crim 19 (26 January 2012)

High Court (Queen’s Bench)

QBE Management Services (UK) Ltd v Dymoke & Ors [2012] EWHC 80 (QB) (27 January 2012)

High Court (Chancery Division)

Concept Elite Inc v (Thames Enterprises Ltd & Ors [2012] EWHC 94 (Ch) (27 January 2012)

High Court (Technology and Construction Court)

ACD (Landscape Architects) Ltd v Overall & Anor [2012] EWHC 100 (TCC) (27 January 2012)

Source: www.bailii.org

Kücük v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen – WLR Daily

Posted January 30th, 2012 in contract of employment, EC law, fixed-term contracts, law reports by sally

Kücük v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen Case C-586/10; [2012] WLR (D) 11

“Clause 5(1)(a) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work, in the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, meant that a temporary need for replacement staff, provided for by national legislation could, in principle, constitute an objective reason under that clause for the renewal of successive fixed-term contracts. The mere fact that an employer had to employ temporary replacements on a recurring, or even permanent, basis and that those replacements might also be covered by the hiring of employees under employment contracts of indefinite duration did not mean that there was no objective reason under clause 5(1)(a) or that there was abuse within the meaning of that clause.”

WLR Daily, 26th January 2012

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Regina v D (P) – WLR Daily

Posted January 30th, 2012 in domestic violence, good character, jury directions, law reports, rape by sally

Regina v D (P) [2012] EWCA Crim 19; [2012] WLR (D) 10

“The fact that the effect of a good character direction might be undermined by the facts of a particular case provided no justification for a judge to decline to give any such direction.”

WLR Daily, 26th January 2012

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

West Tankers Inc v Allianz SpA and another – WLR Daily

Posted January 27th, 2012 in law reports by sally

West Tankers Inc v Allianz SpA and another: [2012] EWCA Civ 27; [2012] WLR (D) 9

“In an appropriate case, the court had jurisdiction under section 66 of the Arbitration Act 1996 to order judgment to be entered in the terms of an arbitral award where the award was declaratory in form and, more particularly, where it took the form of a negative declaration.”

WLR Daily, 24th January 2012

Source: www.iclr.co.uk