High Court (Commercial Court)
Petromec Inc & Anor v Petroleo Brasileiro SA & Ors [2011] EWHC 2997 (Comm) (17 November 2011)
JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov & Ors [2011] EWHC 2988 (Comm) (17 November 2011)
Polymer Vision R & D Ltd & Ors v Van Dooren [2011] EWHC 2951 (Comm) (17 November 2011)
Source: www.bailii.org
“The General Dental Council was under no obligation to obtain an order of the court for permission to use and disclose dental records of patients for the purposes of investigating allegations of professional misconduct against a registered dentist even where the patients in question objected to the disclosure or did not consent to it.”
WLR Daily, 16th November 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Zarb and another v Parry and another: [2011] EWCA Civ 1306; [2011] WLR (D) 331
“To defeat a claim to title to land by adverse possession under the Land Registration Act 2002 on the basis of an interruption which stopped time running, the paper title owner was required to show possession to the exclusion of the person claiming adverse possession.”
WLR Daily, 15th November 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Under article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 a person who considered that his privacy rights had been infringed by content placed online on an internet website had the option of bringing an action either before the courts of the member state in which the publisher of that content was established or before the courts of the member state in which the centre of his interests was based. Under article 3 of Directive 2000/31/EC (‘the E-Commerce Directive’) member states had to ensure that, subject to the derogations authorised in accordance with the conditions set out in article 3(4), the provider of an electronic commerce service was not made subject to stricter requirements than those provided for by the substantive law applicable in the member state in which that service provider was established.”
WLR Daily, 25th October 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Dean & Dean Solicitors v Dionissiou -Moussaoui [2011] EWCA Civ 1331 (17 November 2011)
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Vinall & Anor v R [2011] EWCA Crim 6252 (16 November 2011)
Carpenter, R v [2011] EWCA Crim 2568 (11 November 2011)
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Commercial Court)
JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov & Ors [2011] EWHC 2988 (Comm) (17 November 2011)
A.K.Kablo Imalat SAN VE TIC A.S. v Intamex S.A. [2011] EWHC 2970 (Comm) (16 November 2011)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Al Baho & Ors v Meerza [2011] EWHC 2984 (QB) (16 November 2011)
Source: www.bailii.org
Williams v Essex County Council: [2011] EWCA Civ 1315; [2011] WLR (D) 329
“A statement of special educational needs automatically lapsed when a person ceased to be a child, which was at 19 years. The Court of Appeal so stated when allowing the appeal of Essex County Council against a decision of Judge Jacobs in the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) on 8 March 2010 setting aside a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Health, Education and Social Care Chamber) of 8 September 2009 that it was no longer necessary to maintain the statement of special educational needs of MW (now aged 22 years), the daughter of the claimant, Antony John Williams.”
WLR Daily, 15th November 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Zarb & Anor v Parry & Anor [2011] EWCA Civ 1306 (15 November 2011)
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Chancery Division)
FHR European Ventures Llp & Ors v Mankarious & Ors [2011] EWHC 2999 (Ch) (15 November 2011)
Source: www.bailii.org
R v Carpenter [2011] EWCA Crim 2568; [2011] WLR (D) 328
“In cases of joint enterprise where the use of a particular weapon was foreseen but the secondary party did not share or foresee the intention with which it was used, the availablity of manslaughter remained as a possible alternative verdict to murder.”
WLR Daily, 11th November 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Berry v Star Autos Ltd and others [2011] EWCA Civ 1304; [2011] WLR (D) 327
“On a claim to which there were two or more defendants the court had power to order an interim payment under CPR r 25.7(1)(e) if it were satisfied that at least one of the defendants against whom the application for interim payment was being made would be held liable and each of those defendants was insured; the fact that there might be another defendant who was not insured was immaterial.”
WLR Daily, 10th November 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Essex County Council v Williams [2011] EWCA Civ 1315 (15 November 2011)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Muqtaar v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWHC 2707 (Admin) (14 November 2011)
High Court (Family Division)
Z v Z [2011] EWHC 2878 (Fam) (03 November 2011)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Stornoway 2011 Ltd v SIV Portfolio Plc (In Receivership) [2011] EWHC 2952 (Comm) (14 November 2011)
Source: www.bailii.org
“The obligations imposed on a local authority in certain circumstances pursuant to section 23(2) and (6) of the Children Act 1989, relating to the provision of accommodation and/or maintenance for certain children in need and being looked after by the authority, were to be considered as alternatives, rather than as parallel means by which to achieve a single statutory purpose.”
WLR Daily, 10th November 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“In determining whether or not there was a deprivation of liberty, it was legitimate to have regard both the objective ‘reason’ why someone was placed and treated as they were and also the objective ‘purpose’ or ‘aim’ of the placement. For adults with disabilities, whose lives were dictated by their own cognitive and other limitations, the question whether they had been deprived of liberty fell to be determined by comparing their situation with that of an adult of similar age with the same capabilities, affected by the same condition or suffering the same inherent mental and physical disabilities and limitations.”
WLR Daily, 9th November 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
McGuinness v Norwich and Peterborough Building Society [2011] EWCA Civ 1286; [2011] WLR (D) 324
“A petition in bankruptcy against a guarantor could be founded, in certain circumstances, upon a guarantee which had contained a ‘see to it’ clause.”
WLR Daily, 9th November 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
SA, R (on the application of) v Kent County Council [2011] EWCA Civ 1303 (10 November 2011)
Berry v Ashtead Plant Hire Co Ltd & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 1304 (10 November 2011)
Bubb v London Borough of Wandsworth [2011] EWCA Civ 1285 (09 November 2011)
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Mears & Anor, R. v [2011] EWCA Crim 2651 (10 November 2011)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Cherwell District Council v Anwar [2011] EWHC 2943 (Admin) (10 November 2011)
High Court (Chancery Division)
JSC BTA Bank v Shalabayev & Anor [2011] EWHC 2915 (Ch) (10 November 2011)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Germany v Flatman [2011] EWHC 2945 (QB) (10 November 2011)
Fortune v Roe [2011] EWHC 2953 (QB) (10 November 2011)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
Carillion Construction Ltd. v Stephen Andrew Smith [2011] EWHC 2910 (TCC) (10 November 2011)
Source: www.bailii.org
Bubb v Wandsworth London Borough Council: [2011] EWCA Civ 1285; [2011] WLR (D) 323
“A county court judge hearing an appeal on a point of law under section 204 of the Housing Act 1996, against a review of whether a local housing authority owed a duty to a homeless person under the 1996 Act, had no jurisdiction to find the relevant primary facts for himself. The judge’s function was to consider whether the reviewing officer’s decision should be quashed on judicial review grounds.”
WLR Daily, 9th November 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Drake & Anor v Fripp [2011] EWCA Civ 1282 (03 November 2011)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Pykett v Ebony Clement & Anor [2011] EWHC 2925 (QB) (09 November 2011)
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Chancery Division)
High Court (Family Division)
ML & Anor v RW & Anor [2011] EWHC 2455 (Fam) (29 July 2011)
AR v AR [2011] EWHC 2717 (Fam) (11 August 2011)
London Borough of Tower Hamlets v BB & Ors [2011] EWHC 2853 (Fam) (31 August 2011)
Source: www.bailii.org
Mexfield Housing Co-operative Ltd v Berrisford [2011] UKSC 52; [2011] WLR (D) 322
“An agreement for a term of uncertain duration could not give rise to a tenancy in accordance with its terms but, pursuant to section 149(6) of the Law of Property Act 1925, it could take effect as a lease for 90 years, determinable on the death of the tenant.”
WLR Daily, 9th November 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Jones v Kernott [2011] UKSC 53; [2011] WLR (D) 321
“When a cohabiting couple bought a family home in their joint names and were both responsible for the mortgage, but without any express declaration as to their beneficial interests, the starting point was that equity followed the law so that the presumption was that they were joint tenants both in law and in equity. That presumption could be displaced by showing that the parties had a different common intention at the time when they acquired the home or that they later formed a common intention that their respective shares would change. Their common intention was to be deduced objectively from their conduct. If it was clear that the parties did not intend joint tenancy at the outset or had changed their original intention, but it was not possible to ascertain, whether by direct evidence or by inference, what their actual intention was as to the shares in which they owned the property, each was entitled to that share which the court considered fair, having regard to the whole course of the dealing between them in relation to the property.”
WLR Daily, 9th November 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The practice in the Patents Court whereby a patentee could discontinue his claim for infringement and consent to the revocation of his patent on terms that he paid the costs of the action up to the date of service of the original defence, with the alleged infringer paying the costs of the action thereafter to the date of discontinuance, was no longer to be followed. It was to be replaced by the general rule in CPR r 38.6 that, unless the court otherwise ordered, a claimant who discontinued was liable to pay the defendant’s costs.”
WLR Daily, 8th November 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Copple and others v Littlewoods plc and others [2011] EWCA Civ 1281; [2011] WLR (D) 319
“Where an employer’s pension scheme indirectly discriminated against part-timers on the ground of sex by denying them access to the scheme, a female part-time worker was not entitled to any remedy arising from her exclusion from the scheme if she would not in fact have chosen to join the scheme even if she had been eligible to do so.”
WLR Daily, 8th November 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025