Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Daventry District Council v Daventry & District Housing Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 1153 (13 October 2011)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Woodland v The Swimming Teachers’ Association & Ors [2011] EWHC 2631 (QB) (17 October 2011)
High Court (Commercial Court)
High Court (Patents Court)
Generics (UK) Ltd (t/a Mylan) v Novartis AG [2011] EWHC 2403 (Pat) (30 September 2011)
Source: www.bailii.org
Motto and others v Trafigura Ltd and another [2011] EWCA Civ 1150; [2011] WLR (D) 292
“Where a costs judge determined that base costs were disproportionate for the purposes of CPR r 44.4(2)(a), to render them proportionate the judge was required to satisfy himself that the work on each item on the bill of costs was necessary, and, if necessary, that the cost of the item was reasonable. That was the approach to be taken generally, including in group litigation.”
WLR Daily, 12th October 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Bloom & Ors v The Pensions Regulator & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 1124 (14 October 2011)
HM Revenue and Customs v Marks and Spencer Plc [2011] EWCA Civ 1156 (14 October 2011)
Estafnous v London & Leeds Business Centres Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 1157 (14 October 2011)
Williams & Anor v Hinton & Anor [2011] EWCA Civ 1123 (14 October 2011)
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Stewart & Ors, R v [2011] EWCA Crim 2296 (14 October 2011)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Cowderoy v Cranfield [2011] EWHC 2628 (Ch) (13 October 2011)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Rimpacific Navigation Inc v Daehan Shipbuilding CoLtd [2011] EWHC 2618 (Comm) (14 October 2011)
WMS Gaming Inc v B Plus Giocolegale Ltd [2011] EWHC 2620 (Comm) (13 October 2011)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
Omni Laboratories Inc v Eden Energy Ltd [2011] EWHC 2626 (TCC) (14 October 2011)
Source: www.bailii.org
Supreme Court
AXA General Insurance Ltd & Ors v Lord Advocate & Ors (Scotland) [2011] UKSC 46 (12 October 2011)
Ambrose v Harris, Procurator Fiscal, Oban (Scotland) [2011] UKSC 43 (6 October 2011)
Her Majesty’s Advocate v P (Scotland) [2011] UKSC 44 (6 October 2011)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Jones v Environcom Ltd & Anor [2011] EWCA Civ 1152 (13 October 2011)
Revenue and Customs v Rochdale Drinks Distributors Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 1116 (13 October 2011)
Christie Owen & Davies Plc v Raobgle Trust Corporation [2011] EWCA Civ 1151 (13 October 2011)
The Great Estates Group Ltd v Digby [2011] EWCA Civ 1120 (13 October 2011)
KM v Lambeth London Borough Council [2011] EWCA Civ 1125 (12 October 2011)
Motto & Ors v Trafigura Ltd & Anor (Rev 2) [2011] EWCA Civ 1150 (12 October 2011)
Barts and the London NHS Trust v Verma [2011] EWCA Civ 1129 (12 October 2011)
Roder UK Ltd v West & Anor [2011] EWCA Civ 1126 (12 October 2011)
Simpson v Norfolk & Norwich University Hospital NHS Trust [2011] EWCA Civ 1149 (12 October 2011)
Harrison & Anor v Black Horse Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 1128 (12 October 2011)
CF Capital Plc v Willoughby [2011] EWCA Civ 1115 (12 October 2011)
Gesner Investments Ltd v Bombardier Inc [2011] EWCA Civ 1118 (11 October 2011)
French v Groupama Insurance Company Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 1119 (11 October 2011)
Celtic Energy Ltd v The Welsh Ministers [2011] EWCA Civ 1122 (11 October 2011)
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Plentyoffish Media Inc. v Plenty More Llp [2011] EWHC 2568 (Ch) (11 October 2011)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Source: www.bailii.org
“An immigration rule designed to deter forced marriages, which prevented the granting of leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom as a spouse if either of the parties to the marriage was aged under 21, was an unjustified interference with the right to family life.”
WLR Daily, 12th October 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
HM Advocate v P [2011] UKSC 44; [2011] WLR (D) 290
“There was no absolute rule that evidence which had been obtained from an accused who had been questioned by police when he had not been given access to legal advice, but which existed independently of his answers, was inadmissible.”
WLR Daily, 6th October 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Williams, R v [2011] EWCA Crim 2126 (02 September 2011)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
H-K (Children) [2011] EWCA Civ 1100 (10 October 2011)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Zajaczkowski v Sad Rejonowy W Malborku Poland [2011] EWHC 2433 (Admin) (02 September 2011)
Nursing and Midwifery Council v Murray [2011] EWHC 2434 (Admin) (02 September 2011)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Stratford Coin & Bullion Inc v Henien & Ors [2011] EWHC 2552 (Comm) (10 October 2011)
Source: www.bailii.org
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Khan & Ors v R. [2011] EWCA Crim 2240 (07 October 2011)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Berezovsky v Hine & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 1089 (07 October 2011)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Adelson & Anor v Anderson & Anor [2011] EWHC 2497 (QB) (07 October 2011)
Charles Terence Estates Ltd v Cornwall Council & Anor [2011] EWHC 2542 (QB) (07 October 2011)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Quigley v Masterson [2011] EWHC 2529 (Ch) (07 October 2011)
Care Matters Partnership Ltd, Re [2011] EWHC 2543 (Ch) (07 October 2011)
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Family Division)
FG v MBW [2011] EWHC 1729 (Fam) (07 October 2011)
High Court (Commercial Court)
JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov & Ors [2011] EWHC 2545 (Comm) (07 October 2011)
Source: www.bailii.org
Northern Rock Applicants v Caldwell and another [2011] UKUT 408 (TCC); [2011] WLR (D) 289
“The statutory assumption in section 5(4)(a) of the Banking (Special Provisions) Act 2008 that all financial assistance provided by the Bank of England or the Treasury ‘has been withdrawn’ required the independent valuer to assume that the assistance had been terminated and repaid, following realisations of assets made just before the date of nationalisation.”
WLR Daily, 6th October 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“In principle the line as to when access to legal advice had to be provided before a person suspected of a criminal offence was questioned by police should be drawn as from the moment when he had been taken into police custody, or his freedom of action had been significantly curtailed.”
WLR Daily, 6th October 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Rossetti Marketing Ltd v Diamond Sofa Co Ltd [2011] EWHC 2482 (QB); [2011] WLR (D) 287
“Whether a party was a commercial agent within the meaning of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the member states relating to self-employed commercial agents or the Commercial Agents (Council Directive) Regulations 1993 was to be determined by reference to the terms and context of the agreement at the date it was concluded. The non-derogable obligations of a commercial agent under article 3(1) of the Directive and regulation 3(1) of the 1993 Regulations, to look after the interests of the principal and to act dutifully and in good faith, were not to be imported into the definition of ‘commercial agent’ so that an agent acting for multiple principles did not fall within it.”
WLR Daily, 3rd October 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The clauses of an exclusive licence agreement concluded between a holder of intellectual property rights and a broadcaster constituted a restriction on competition prohibited by article 101FEU of the FEU Treaty where they obliged the broadcaster not to supply decoding devices enabling access to that right holder’s protected subject matter with a view to their use outside the territory covered by that licence agreement.”
WLR Daily, 4th October 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings (OJ 2001 L82, p 1) did not prevent member states from making provision in their criminal law for the mandatory imposition of an injunction to stay away for a minimum period on persons who committed crimes of violence within the family. This was so even when the victims of those crimes opposed the application of such a penalty. Member states could also exclude recourse to mediation in all criminal proceedings relating to a particular category of offences committed within the family.”
WLR Daily, 15th September 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The takeover, within the same member state, by one public authority of staff employed by another public authority entrusted with the supply to schools of auxiliary maintenance and administrative assistance constituted a transfer of an undertaking within the meaning of article 1(1) of Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on the approximation of the laws of the member states relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses (OJ 1977 L 61, p 26). Where such a transfer led to the immediate application to the transferred workers of the collective agreement in force with the transferee, and where the conditions for remuneration were linked in particular to length of service, article 3 of the Directive precluded the transferred workers from suffering, in comparison with their situation immediately before the transfer, a substantial loss of salary by reason of the fact that their length of service with the transferor (equivalent to that completed by workers in the service of the transferee) was not taken into account when determining their starting salary position with the latter.”
WLR Daily, 6th September 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Kapoor v National Westminster Bank Plc & Anor [2011] EWCA Civ 1083 (05 October 2011)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Triplot & Anor v Whetter [2011] EWHC 931 (QB) (30 September 2011)
Cartlidge Morland (a firm) v Thomas [2011] EWHC 2086 (QB) (30 September 2011)
Butler- Creagh v AIDA Hersham [2011] EWHC 2525 (QB) (06 October 2011)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Whealing v Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors [2011] EWHC 2482 (Ch) (17 August 2011)
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Family Division)
Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council v Watson [2011] EWHC 2498 (Fam) (01 September 2011)
G v A (No 3) (Schedule 1 settlement of property) [2011] EWHC 2377 (Fam) (22 September 2011)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Paragon Mortgages Ltd v McEwan-Peters & Anor [2011] EWHC 2491 (Comm) (05 October 2011)
Societe Generale SA v Saad Trading & Anor [2011] EWHC 2424 (Comm) (05 October 2011)
High Court (Patents Court)
Re Halliburton Energy Services Inc [2011] EWHC 2508 (Pat) (05 October 2011)
Source: www.bailii.org
High Court (Administrative Court)
AM v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWHC 2486 (Admin) (03 October 2011)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Rossetti Marketing Ltd v Diamond Sofa Company Ltd & Anor [2011] EWHC 2482 (QB) (03 October 2011)
Source: www.bailii.org
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Farquharson v R [2011] EWHC Crim 2168 (30 September 2011)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Balevents Ltd v Sartori [2011] EWHC 2437 (Ch) (29 September 2011)
High Court (Commercial Court)
British Arab Commercial Bank Plc & Ors v Algosaibi & Ors [2011] EWHC 2444 (Comm) (29 September 2011)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Ferdinand v MGN Ltd [2011] EWHC 2454 (QB) (29 September 2011)
Source: www.bailii.org
W v M and others [2011] EWHC 2443 (Fam); [2011] WLR (D) 283
“Pursuant to section 4 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 it was not in the best interests of a patient diagnosed as being in a minimally conscious state to authorise the withdrawal of all life sustaining treatment including nutrition and hydration by artifical means (‘ANH’).”
WLR Daily, 28th September 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Mitchell, R v [2011] EWCA Crim 2030 (05 August 2011)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Cambridge, R v [2011] EWCA Crim 2009 (2 August 2011)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Egan v Basildon Borough Council [2011] EWHC 2416 (QB) (26 September 2011)
High Court (Family Division)
W v M & Ors [2011] EWHC 2443 (Fam) (28 September 2011)
Source: www.bailii.org
Williams and others v British Airways plc (Case C-155/10); [2011] WLR (D) 282
“An airline pilot was entitled, during his annual leave, not only to the maintenance of his basic salary, but also, first, to all the components intrinsically linked to the performance of the tasks which he was required to carry out under his contract of employment and in respect of which a monetary amount, included in the calculation of his total remuneration, was provided and, second, to all the elements relating to his personal and professional status as an airline pilot, pursuant to article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time and clause 3 of the Agreement annexed to Directive 2000/79/EC of 27 November 2000 concerning the European Agreement on the Organisation of Working Time of Mobile Workers in Civil Aviation, concluded by the Association of European Airlines, the European Transport Workers’ Federation, the European Cockpit Association, the European Regions Airline Association (ERA) and the International Air Carrier Association.”
WLR Daily, 15th September 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025