law reports – Page 193 – Current Awareness

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

Posted November 3rd, 2011 in construction industry, contracts, interpretation, law reports, ships, Supreme Court by sally

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

Posted November 1st, 2011 in appeals, disability discrimination, education, judicial review, law reports, universities by sally

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

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted October 28th, 2011 in law reports by sally

Supreme Court

Gale & Anor v Serious Organised Crime Agency [2011] UKSC 49 (26 October 2011)

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

Dyson Ltd v Vax Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 1206 (27 October 2011)

Hunt v Harb & Anor [2011] EWCA Civ 1239 (27 October 2011)

Hertsmere Borough Council v Lovat [2011] EWCA Civ 1185 (27 October 2011)

Maxwell, R (on the application of) v The Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education [2011] EWCA Civ 1236 (27 October 2011)

Dawkins v Carnival Plc (t/a P & O Cruises) [2011] EWCA Civ 1237 (27 October 2011)

High Court (Administrative Court)

Hossacks (A Firm of Solicitors) v The Legal Services Commission [2011] EWHC 2700 (Admin) (27 October 2011)

High Court (Chancery Division)

British Sky Broadcasting Group Plc & Ors v Digital Satellite Warranty Cover Ltd & Ors [2011] EWHC 2662 (Ch) (27 October 2011)

Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation & Ors v British Telecommunications Plc [2011] EWHC 2714 (Ch) (26 October 2011)

Global Marine Drillships Ltd v Landmark Solicitors LLP & Ors [2011] EWHC 2685 (Ch) (24 October 2011)

High Court (Technology and Construction Court)

Systech International Ltd v PC Harrington Contractors Ltd [2011] EWHC 2722 (TCC) (27 October 2011)

Source: www.bailii.org

Nokia Oyj (Nokia Corpn) v IPCom GmbH & Co KG – WLR Daily

Posted October 28th, 2011 in law reports, patents by sally

Nokia Oyj (Nokia Corpn) v IPCom GmbH & Co KG: [2011] EWHC 2719 (Pat); [2011] WLR (D) 303

“Section 63(2) of the Patents Act 1977 was not intended to act as a sanction against careless drafting or lack of good faith when those matters had no bearing on the damages or other remedy sought by the patentee.”

WLR Daily, 26th October 2011

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Construction Industry Training Board v Beacon Roofing Ltd – WLR Daily

Posted October 28th, 2011 in construction industry, employment, law reports by sally

Construction Industry Training Board v Beacon Roofing Ltd: [2011] EWCA Civ 1203; [2011] WLR (D) 302

“The issue as to whether the purpose of an agreement or arrangement between an employer and another person was wholly or mainly the provision of that or any other person’s services to the employer in his trade or business within the definition of a ‘labour-only agreement’ in article 2(1)(h) of the Industrial Training Levy (Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2009 was to be determined objectively by reference to the terms of the contract and the relevant background, and not by reference to the reasons of either or both of the parties for entering into the contract.”

WLR Daily, 26th October 2011

Source: www.iclr.co.uk