Tweet you in court – The Lawyer
“Last month, the Lord Chief Justice delivered guidance clearing the way for Tweeting from Court.”
The Lawyer, 16th January 2012
Source: www.thelawyer.com
Category: law reports
BAILII: Recent Decisions
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
M, R. v [2011] EWCA Crim 2998 (24 November 2011)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Alliance Bank JSC v Aquanta Corporation & Ors [2011] EWHC 3281 (Comm) (14 December 2011)
High Court (Patents Court)
Omnipharm Ltd v Merial [2011] EWHC 3393 (Pat) (21 December 2011)
Nokia Oyj (Nokia Corporation) v Ipcom GmbH & Co KG [2011] EWHC 3460 (Pat) (21 December 2011)
Source: www.bailii.org
Recent Statutory Instruments – legislation.gov.uk
The Value Added Tax (Land Exemption) Order 2012
The Libya (Asset-Freezing) (Amendment) Regulations 2012
The Non-Domestic Rating (Electronic Communications) (England) Order 2012
The Non-Domestic Rating (Collection and Enforcement) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2012
The Education (Head Teachers’ Qualifications) (England) (Revocation) Regulations 2012
Source: www.legislation.gov.uk
BAILII: Recent Decisions
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Thomas Brown Estates Ltd v Hunters Partners Ltd [2012] EWHC 21 (QB) (12 January 2012)
High Court (Chancery Division)
SB Corporate Solutions Ltd v Prescott & Anor [2011] EWHC B25 (Ch) (22 December 2011)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Source: www.bailii.org
BAILII: Recent Decisions
High Court (Chancery Division)
Avocet Industrial Estates LLP v Merol Ltd & Anor [2011] EWHC 3422 (Ch) (19 December 2011)
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Ener-G Holdings Plc v Hormell [2011] EWHC 3290 (Comm) (14 December 2011)
Source: www.bailii.org
BAILII: Recent Decisions
High Court (Family Division)
A v L [2011] EWHC 3150 (Fam) (07 December 2011)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
AMP v Persons Unknown [2011] EWHC 3454 (TCC) (20 December 2011)
Source: www.bailii.org
BAILII: Recent Decisions
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Dell’olio v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2011] EWHC 3472 (QB) (20 December 2011)
Source: www.bailii.org
Ackerman v Ackerman and others – WLR Daily
Ackerman v Ackerman and others; [2011] EWHC 3428 (Ch); [2011] WLR (D) 399
“The test for materiality in cases where an expert, appointed to make a determination, was alleged to have departed from his express or implied procedural instructions including an obligation of fairness was that: (a) if the decision was inevitable, it would not be material; (b) whether a determination was otherwise invalidated depended upon all the circumstances of the case, the nature of the omission or departure, and the effect it had on the expert in reaching his decision.”
WLR Daily, 21st December 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v James and another – WLR Daily
Regina v James and another; [2011] EWCA Crim 2991; [2011] WLR (D) 389
“Expenditure on scales, machinery parts, rent and wages for casual workers were not sums obtained as a result of or in connection with criminal conduct, in this case the evasion of excise duty on tobacco products, and therefore did not amount to a benefit from criminal conduct for the purposes of section 76(4) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.”
WLR Daily, 21st December 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Delaney v Pickett and another – WLR Daily
Delaney v Pickett and another; [2011] EWCA Civ 1532; [2011] WLR (D) 390
“In looking to the possible application of the defence of ‘ex turpi’ in a claim of negligence arising out of a road traffic accident it could be crucial to ask whether the injury in issue was truly a consequence of the claimant’s unlawful act or whether it was a consequence of the unlawful act only in the sense that it would not have happened if the claimant had not been committing an unlawful act. In other words, could one say that, although the damage would not have happened but for the tortious conduct of the defendant, it was caused by the criminal act of the claimant; or was the position, rather, that, although the damage would not have happened without the criminal act of the claimant, it was caused by the tortious act of the defendant ?.”
WLR Daily, 21st December 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Tim Martin Interiors Ltd v Akin Gump LLP – WLR Daily
Tim Martin Interiors Ltd v Akin Gump LLP; [2011] EWCA Civ 1574; [2011] WLR (D) 39
“As regards quantification and repayment, a third party assessment under section 71 of the Solicitors Act 1974 was of limited use to a third party, since, after payment, it was not possible to require solicitors to pay to the third party money which they had received from their client and which the client was bound to pay them, merely because the third party was not liable to pay the same amount to the client.”
WLR Daily, 21st December 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Ryanair Holdings Ltd v Office of Fair Trading and another – WLR Daily
Ryanair Holdings Ltd v Office of Fair Trading and another; [2011] EWCA Civ 1579; [2011] WLR (D) 392
“The Competition Appeal Tribunal Rules granted a power to suspend the running of time, with regard to an investigation by the OFT, as a matter of urgency and in order to protect the public interest.”
WLR Daily, 21st December 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Padden v Bevan Ashford (a firm) – WLR Daily
Padden v Bevan Ashford (a firm); [2011] EWCA Civ 1616; [2011] WLR (D) 393
“A solicitor who certified in a mortgage that a client had been given appropriate legal advice about the mortgage and, to the best of his knowledge, had understood the effect of the mortgage and was not acting under undue influence or a misrepresentation, was under an obligation to have advised that client or to have taken steps to satisfy himself that she had been properly advised on those matters. His obligation went well beyond simply advising her not to sign documents disadvantageous to her.”
WLR Daily, 21st December 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
BAILII: Recent Decisions
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Tim Martin Interiors Ltd v Akin Gump LLP [2011] EWCA Civ 1574 (21 December 2011)
Padden v Bevan Ashford Solicitors [2011] EWCA Civ 1616 (21 December 2011)
Kinnear v Whittaker [2011] EWCA Civ 1609 (21 December 2011)
Q (A Child) [2011] EWCA Civ 1610 (21 December 2011)
Delaney v Pickett & Anor [2011] EWCA Civ 1532 (21 December 2011)
Maioriello & Ors v Ashdale Land and Property Company Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 1618 (21 December 2011)
Brumwell v Powys County Council [2011] EWCA Civ 1613 (21 December 2011)
Ryanair Holdings Plc v Office of Fair Trading & Anor [2011] EWCA Civ 1579 (21 December 2011)
Liberty Insurance PTE Ltd & Anor v Argo Systems FZE [2011] EWCA Civ 1615 (21 December 2011)
Crossco No.4 UnLtd & Ors v Jolan Ltd & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 1619 (21 December 2011)
Petrodel Resources Ltd v Le Breton [2011] EWCA Civ 1605 (21st December 2011)
Pearson & Ors v Lehman Brothers Finance S.A. [2011] EWCA Civ 1544 (21 December 2011)
A and L (Children) [2011] EWCA Civ 1611 (21 December 2011)
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Singh v R [2011] EWCA Crim 2992 (21 December 2011)
James & Anor v R [2011] EWCA Crim 2991 (21 December 2011)
Barnett, R v [2011] EWCA Crim 2936 (21 December 2011)
Phillips v R. [2011] EWCA Crim 2935 (21 December 2011)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Whiteside v The Director of Public Prosecutions [2011] EWHC 3471 (Admin) (21 December 2011)
High Court (Chancery Division)
McKillen v Misland (Cyprus) Investments Ltd & Ors [2011] EWHC 3466 (Ch) (21 December 2011)
Atkinson v Corcoran & Ors [2011] EWHC 3484 (Ch) (21 December 2011)
Virtualpurple Professional Services Ltd, Re [2011] EWHC 3487 (Ch) (21 December 2011)
Ackerman v Ackerman & Ors [2011] EWHC 3428 (Ch) (21 December 2011)
Mulcaire v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2011] EWHC 3469 (Ch) (21 December 2011)
National Westminster Bank Plc v Msaada Group (a firm) & Ors [2011] EWHC 3423 (Ch) (21 December 2011)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Glen Dimplex Home Applicances Ltd v Smith & Ors [2011] EWHC 3392 (Comm) (20 December 2011)
High Court (Family Division)
V v V [2011] EWHC 3230 (Fam) (21 December 2011)
High Court (Patents Court
Convatec Ltd & Ors v Smith & Nephew Healthcare Ltd & Ors [2011] EWHC 3461 (Pat) (21 December 2011)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Rothschild v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2011] EWHC 3462 (QB) (21 December 2011)
Coulson v Newsgroup Newspapers Ltd [2011] EWHC 3482 (QB) (21 December 2011)
Neocleous v Jones [2011] EWHC 3459 (QB) (21 December 2011)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
Natas Group Ltd. (In Administration) v Styles & Wood Ltd. [2011] EWHC 3464 (TCC) (22 December 2011)
Alstom Power Ltd v Somi Impianti SRL [2011] EWHC 3941 (TCC) (21 December 2011)
Leander Construction Ltd v Mulalley & Company Ltd [2011] EWHC 3449 (TCC) (21 December 2011)
Source: www.bailii.org
Regina v Barnett – WLR Daily
Regina v Barnett; [2011] EWCA Crim 2936; [2011] WLR (D) 385
“In relation to proceedings in which a defendant’s benefit from general criminal conduct was assessed the court was ‘entitled’ to make the assumptions provided for in section 10 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 even if the prosecution had not given the written preliminary notice provided for in section 71(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) so held in allowing an appeal by the defendant, Ian Stanley Barnett, against a confiscation order made by Judge Hernandez in the Crown Court at Manchester on 2 February 2011 on the basis of an assessment that the defendant’s financial benefit from his general criminal conduct was £5,085,22·70 and substituting the figure of £873,010.”
WLR Daily, 21st December 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Air Transport Association of America v Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (International Air Transport Association and others, intervening – WLR Daily
“Certain principles and provisions of international law could be relied upon to assess the validity of Parliament and Council Directive 2008/101/EC amending Directive 2003/87/EC so as to include aviation activities in the scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community. Examination of Directive 2008/101 in the light of those principles and provisions disclosed no factor affecting the Directive’s validity.”
WLR Daily, 21st December 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Ziolkowski and others v Land Berlin (Vertreter des Bundesinteresses beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht intervening) – WLR Daily
“A Union citizen who had been resident for more than five years in the territory of the host member state on the sole basis of the national law of that member state could not be regarded as having acquired the right of permanent residence pursuant to article 16(1) of Directive 2004/38 if, during that period of residence, he did not satisfy the conditions laid down in article 7(1) of the Directive concerning the need to be a worker or to be self-supporting. Periods of residence completed by a national of a non‑member state in the territory of a member state before the accession of the non‑member state to the European Union, in the absence of specific provisions in the Act of Accession, had to be taken into account for the purpose of the acquisition of the right of permanent residence pursuant to article 16(1) of the Directive, provided those periods were completed in compliance with the conditions laid down in article 7(1).”
WLR Daily, 21st December 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
NS v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Amnesty International Ltd and others intervening); ME and others v Refugee Applications Comr and another (Amnesty International Ltd and others intervening – WLR Daily
“European Union law precluded the application of a conclusive presumption that the member state responsible for examining an asylum claim pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 observed the fundamental rights of the European Union. Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union meant that the member states, including the national courts, could not transfer an asylum seeker to the ‘member state responsible’ within the meaning of the Regulation where they could not be unaware that systemic deficiencies in the asylum procedure and in the reception conditions of asylum seekers in that member state amounted to substantial grounds for believing that the asylum seeker would face a real risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of that provision.”
WLR Daily, 21st December 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
