BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted November 9th, 2011 in law reports by sally

Supreme Court

Berrisford v Mexfield Housing Co-operative Ltd [2011] UKSC 32 (9 November 2011)

Jones v Kernott [2011] UKSC 53 (9 November 2011)

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

Cheshire West and Chester Council v P [2011] EWCA Civ 1257 (09 November 2011)

Fresenius Kabi Deutschland GMBH & Ors v Carefusion 303 Inc [2011] EWCA Civ 1288 (08 November 2011)

SH (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 1284 (08 November 2011)

69 Marina, St Leonards-On-Sea, Freeholders of v Oram & Anor [2011] EWCA Civ 1258 (08 November 2011)

Copple & Ors v Littlewoods Plc & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 1281 (08 November 2011)

Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

Hutchings v R. [2011] EWCA Crim 2535 (08 November 2011)

St Regis Paper Company Ltd v R. [2011] EWCA Crim 2527 (04 November 2011)

High Court (Administrative Court)

Cairns, R (on the application of) v HM Deputy Coroner for Inner West London & Ors [2011] EWHC 2890 (Admin) (07 November 2011)

Royal Brompton & Harefield NHS Foundation Trust v Joint Committee of Primary Care Trusts & Anor [2011] EWHC 2986 (Admin) (07 November 2011)

High Court (Chancery Division)

Revenue & Customs v Cozens & Ors [2011] EWHC 2782 (Ch) (08 November 2011)

Wright & Anor v Gater & Ors [2011] EWHC 2881 (Ch) (07 November 2011)

High Court (Commercial Court)

Pacific Basin IHX Ltd v Bulkhandling Handymax AS [2011] EWHC 2862 (Comm) (08 November 2011)

Standard Bank Plc v Al Jaber [2011] EWHC 2866 (Comm) (08 November 2011)

Parbulk Ii A/S v Heritage Maritime Ltd SA [2011] EWHC 2917 (Comm) (08 November 2011)

Porton Capital Technology Funds & Ors v 3M UK Holdings Ltd & Anor [2011] EWHC 2895 (Comm) (07 November 2011)

High Court (Family Division)

A v B [2011] EWHC 2752 (Fam) (01 November 2011)

BJ v MJ (Financial Remedy: Overseas Trusts) [2011] EWHC 2708 (Fam) (27 October 2011)

G v M [2011] EWHC 2651 (Fam) (17 October 2011)

High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)

JGE v The English Province of Our Lady of Charity & Anor [2011] EWHC 2871 (QB) (08 November 2011)

Asiansky Television Plc & Anor v Khanzada & Ors [2011] EWHC 2831 (QB) (04 November 2011)

Crossland v University of Glamorgan [2011] EWHC 2809 (QB) (04 November 2011)

Holmes v Westminster City Council [2011] EWHC 2857 (QB) (03 November 2011)

Howarth v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2011] EWHC 2818 (QB) (03 November 2011)

Source: www.bailii.org

Wright and another v Gater and another – WLR Daily

Posted November 9th, 2011 in children, executors, intestacy, law reports, trusts by sally

Wright and another v Gater and another; [2011] EWHC 2881 (Ch);  [2011] WLR (D)  318

“The court should not in principle regard the postponement of the vesting of an estate as ‘beneficial’.”

WLR Daily,7th November 2011

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Regina v St Regis Paper Company Ltd – WLR daily

Regina v St Regis Paper Company Ltd; [2011] EWCA Crim 2527;  [2011] WLR (D)  317

“Criminal liability could not be imposed on a company for intentionally making a false entry to an environmental control record contrary to regulation 32(1)(g) of the Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) Regulations 2000, by virtue of the intentions of the employee who committed the offence, if he was not the directing mind and will of the company.”

WLR Daily, 4th November 2011

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Fenland District Council v Sheppard and others – WLR Daily

Posted November 8th, 2011 in insolvency, law reports, mortgages by sally

Fenland District Council v Sheppard and others [2011] EWHC 2829 (Ch); [2011] WLR (D) 316

“In making a vesting order, pursuant to section 320 of the Insolvency Act 1986, in favour of a statutory chargee whose charge ranked in priority to the mortgagees’ charge over the property, the court was not bound to set aside the mortgagees’ charge where the mortgagees did not themselves apply for a vesting order. Such an order would not effectively benefit only the mortgagees by extinguishing the statutory charge if it could be shown that the statutory chargee intended to preserve the benefit of its charge, or that the extinguishment of its charge would be against the statutory chargee’s interests, in which case there would be a presumption against extinguishment.”

WLR Daily, 3rd November 2011

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority – WLR Daily

Posted November 8th, 2011 in appeals, extradition, law reports by sally

Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority [2011] EWHC 2849 (Admin); [2011] WLR (D) 315

“In the context of the Extradition Act 2003, through interpretation of article 6 of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between member states (‘the Framework Decision’) and recognising differences of terminology used among member states, a ‘judicial authority’ was not confined to a judge who adjudicated, but could extend to a body that prosecuted.”

WLR Daily, 2nd November 2011

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted November 4th, 2011 in law reports by sally

Court of Appeal Civil Division)

Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council v Yerrakalva [2011] EWCA Civ 1255 (03 November 2011)

Smithurst v Sealant Construction Services Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 1277 (03 November 2011)

Dance v Savery & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 1250 (03 November 2011)

BVM Management Ltd v Yeomans (t/a the Great Hall At Mains) & Anor [2011] EWCA Civ 1254 (03 November 2011)

Drake & Anor v Fripp [2011] EWCA Civ 1279 (03 November 2011)

High Court (Administrative Court)

Shamsian v General Medical Council [2011] EWHC 2885 (Admin) (04 November 2011)

Belal v General Medical Council [2011] EWHC 2859 (Admin) (03 November 2011)

High Court (Chancery Division)

Fenland District Council v Sheppard & Ors [2011] EWHC 2829 (Ch) (03 November 2011)

High Court Queen’s Bench Division)

Howarth v Gwent Constabulary & Anor [2011] EWHC 2836 (QB) (01 November 2011)

Cox v Ergo Versicherung AG (Formerly Known As Victoria) [2011] EWHC 2806 (QB) (28 October 2011)

High Court (Technology and Construction Court)

Edmonds v Lawson & Anor (t/a Lawson Developments) [2011] EWHC 2867 (TCC) (03 November 2011)

NAP Anglia Ltd v Sun -Land Development Co Ltd [2011] EWHC 2846 (TCC) (03 November 2011)

Source: www.bailii.org.uk

Smith and another v Jafton Properties Ltd – WLR Daily

Posted November 4th, 2011 in assignment, enfranchisement, law reports, leases by sally

Smith and another v Jafton Properties Ltd; [2011] EWCA Civ 1251;  [2011] WLR (D)  314

“At common law an assignment of part of a leased property by which the leased property was physically severed had the effect that the holder of each severed part had privity of estate with the landlord only in respect of that severed part. In short, as a holder only of part of the land, he was the tenant of that severed part only.”

WLR Daily, 2nd November 2011

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Yerrakalva v Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council and another – WLR Daily

Posted November 4th, 2011 in costs, employment tribunals, law reports by sally

 Yerrakalva v Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council and another; [2011] EWCA civ 1255;  [2011] WLR (D)  313

“When exercising its discretion under rule 40 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004 to order costs against a party who had acted unreasonably in bringing or conducting proceedings, it was vital that the employment tribual looked at the whole picture of what happened in the case.”

WLR Daily, 3rd November 2011

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Eli Lilly & Co v Human Genome Sciences Inc – WLR Daily

Posted November 4th, 2011 in law reports, patents by sally

Eli Lilly & Co v Human Genome Sciences Inc [2011] UKSC 51;  [2011] WLR (D)  312

“Since the Technical Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office had adopted a consistent approach to patents for biological material, the English courts should follow the principles of law set out in its decisions. Accordingly, in deciding whether a patent disclosing a new protein and its encoding gene was susceptible to industrial application the question was whether, taking the common general knowledge into account, it had been plausibly shown that it was usable.”

WLR Daily, 2nd November 2011

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted November 3rd, 2011 in law reports by sally

Supreme Court

Rainy Sky SA & Orsd v Kookmin Bank [2011] UKSC 50 (2 November 2011)

Human Genome Sciences Inc v Eli Lilly and Company [2011] UKSC 51 (2 November 2011)

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

Smith & Anor v Jafton Properties Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 1251 (02 November 2011)

Shiva Ltd v Transport for London [2011] EWCA Civ 1189 (02 November 2011)

High Court (Chancery Division)

Business Dream Ltd, Re Insolvency Act 1986 [2011] EWHC 2860 (Ch) (02 November 2011)

High Court (Administrative Court)

Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority [2011] EWHC 2849 (Admin) (02 November 2011)

Ahmed, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWHC 2855 (Admin) (02 November 2011)

Source: www.bailii.org

Rainy Sky SA and others v Kookmin Bank – WLR Daily

Rainy Sky SA and others v Kookmin Bank [2011] UKSC 50; [2011] WLR (D) 311

“When the term of a contract was capable of having two possible meanings which were both arguable, it was appropriate for the court to have regard to considerations of commercial common sense and to adopt the construction which was more, rather than less, commercial.”

WLR Daily, 2nd November 2011

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Mitu v Camden London Borough Council – WLR Daily

Posted November 3rd, 2011 in appeals, homelessness, housing, law reports, local government by sally

Mitu v Camden London Borough Council [2011] EWCA Civ 1249; [2011] WLR (D) 310

“Where a local authority, having decided that an applicant was intentionally homeless and not in priority need, decided on review of the application that the applicant’s homelessness was not intentional, it had a duty by section 192(2) of the Housing Act 1996 to provide or arrange for the provision of advice and assistance, and a discretion by section 192(3) of the 1996 Act to provide accommodation. Failure to consider the exercise of that discretionary power, if it affected the fairness of the decision, was a procedural deficiency requiring the local authority to give the applicant notice of its intended decision and allow him to make further representations either orally or in writing.”

WLR Daily, 1st November 2011

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Regina (Guardian News and Media Ltd) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court; Guardian News and Media Ltd v Government of the United States of America and another – WLR Daily

Posted November 3rd, 2011 in appeals, disclosure, documents, jurisdiction, law reports by sally

Regina (Guardian News and Media Ltd) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court; Guardian News and Media Ltd v Government of the United States of America and another [2011] EWCA Civ 1188; [2011] WLR (D) 309

“The Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to hear a proposed appeal from a decision of a court conducting extradition proceedings (which were criminal in nature), where that decision related to a matter which was wholly collateral to the extradition proceedings themselves, which was instigated by someone not a party to the proceedings and did not involve the lower court invoking its criminal jurisdiction or making an order which had any bearing on those proceedings.”

WLR Daily, 25th October 2011

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Fecitt and others v NHS Manchester (Public Concern at Work intervening) – WLR Daily

Posted November 3rd, 2011 in appeals, burden of proof, employment, law reports, vicarious liability by sally

Fecitt and others v NHS Manchester (Public Concern at Work intervening) [2011] EWCA Civ 1190; [2011] WLR (D) 308

“A worker had been subjected to a detriment “on the ground that” he had made a protected disclosure, for the purposes of section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996, if the protected disclosure was a material factor in the employer’s decision to subject the employee to a detrimental act.”

WLR Daily, 25th October 2011

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted November 2nd, 2011 in law reports by sally

Supreme Court

Rainy Sky SA & Orsd v Kookmin Bank [2011] UKSC 50 (2 November 2011)

Human Genome Sciences Inc v Eli Lilly and Company [2011] UKSC 51 (2 November 2011)

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

MD (Angola) & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor [2011] EWCA Civ 1238 (01 November 2011)

Mitu v London Borough of Camden [2011] EWCA civ 1249 (01 November 2011)

Williams v University of Birmingham & Anor [2011] EWCA Civ 1242 (28 October 2011)

JSC BTA Bank v Solodchenko & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 1241 (28 October 2011)

Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

Dika & Anor v R. [2011] EWCA Crim 2459 (28 October 2011)

SW, R. v [2011] EWCA Crim 2463 (28 October 2011)

Gilmour v R. [2011] EWCA Crim 2458 (28 October 2011)

Burdfield & Anor v R. [2011] EWCA Crim 2464 (28 October 2011)

High Court (Chancery Division)

House of Fraser Ltd v Scottish Widows Plc [2011] EWHC 2800 (Ch) (28 October 2011)

Morley v Reiter Engineering GmbH & Co.KG [2011] EWHC 2798 (Ch) (28 October 2011)

F&C Alternative Investments (Holdings) Ltd v Barthelemy & Anor [2011] EWHC 2807 (Ch) (28 October 2011)

High Court (Commercial Court)

The Seashell of Lisson Grove Ltd & Ors v Aviva Insurance Ltd & Ors [2011] EWHC 1761 (Comm) (01 November 2011)

Faraday Reinsurance Co Ltd v Howden North America Inc & Anor [2011] EWHC 2837 (Comm) (01 November 2011)

Cattles Ltd & Anor v Pricewaterhousecoopers LLP [2011] EWHC 2714 (Comm) (01 November 2011)

Source: www.bailii.org

Julian Assange v. Swedish Prosecution Authority – Judiciary of England and Wales

Posted November 2nd, 2011 in appeals, extradition, law reports, rape, warrants by michael

Judgment approved by the Court for handing down.

Julian Assange v. Swedish Prosecution Authority (pdf)

Judiciary of England and Wales, 2nd November 2011

Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted November 1st, 2011 in law reports by sally

Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

Trott, R. v [2011] EWCA Crim 2395 (07 October 2011)

Williams, R v [2011] EWCA Crim 2198 (23 September 2011)

High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)

Tesla Motors Ltd & Anor v British Broadcasting Corporation [2011] EWHC 2760 (QB) (28 October 2011)

High Court (Commercial Court)

Soeximex SAS v Agrocorp International PTE Ltd [2011] EWHC 2743 (Comm) (31 October 2011)

Source: www.bailii.org

Regina (Maxwell) v Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education – WLR Daily

Regina (Maxwell) v Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education [2011] EWCA Civ 1236; [2011] WLR (D) 307

“Although a complaint of disability discrimination was an eligible complaint to be made to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education (“OIA”) under the Higher Education Act 2004, the task and duty of the OIA on a complaint of disability discrimination against a higher education institution was confined to whether the conduct of the university was reasonable or not and what recommendation should be made in response to the complaint and the office was not obliged to rule whether there had been a disability discrimination.”

WLR Daily, 27th October 2011

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Lovat v Hertsmere Borough Council – WLR Daily

Posted October 31st, 2011 in enfranchisement, law reports, leases by sally

Lovat v Hertsmere Borough Council [2011] EWCA Civ 1185; [2011] WLR (D) 306

“In the definition of ‘an excluded tenancy’ for the purposes of the additional right to enfranchisement applicable to tenancies not at a low rent under section 1AA of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, the phrase ‘the house which the tenant occupies under the tenancy’ in section 1AA(3)(a) was to be construed as referring solely to the ‘house’ as defined in section 2(1) of the 1967 Act (that is, excluding any grounds); and the term ‘adjoining land’ in section 1AA(3)(b) meant neighbouring land that might, but did not necessarily, touch or physically adjoin the house.”

WLR Daily, 27th October 2011

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Brüstle v Greenpeace eV – WLR Daily

Posted October 31st, 2011 in embryology, human tissue, law reports, patents by sally

Brüstle v Greenpeace eV (Case C-34/10); [2011] WLR (D) 305

“Any human ovum after fertilisation, any non-fertilised human ovum into which the cell nucleus from a mature human cell had been transplanted, and any non-fertilised human ovum whose division and further development had been stimulated by parthenogenesis constituted a ‘human embryo’ within the meaning of article 6(2)(c) of Parliament and Council Directive 98/44/EC of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions (OJ 1998 L 213, p 13) and could not therefore be patented.”

WLR Daily, 18th October 2011

Source: www.iclr.co.uk