Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
YT v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 736 (28 June 2011)
High Court (Queen’s Bench)
Cook v Cook & Anor [2011] EWHC 1638 (QB) (28 June 2011)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Excalibur Ventures LLC v Texas Keystone Inc & Ors [2011] EWHC 1624 (Comm) (28 June 2011)
Source: www.bailii.org
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Joujou & Ors v Masri [2011] EWCA Civ 746 (28 June 2011)
MG & Anor v A Local Authority & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 745 (28 June 2011)
White v Davenham Trust Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 747 (28 June 2011)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Broxbourne Borough Council v Robb & Ors [2011] EWHC 1626 (QB) (27 June 2011)
AAH Pharmaceuticals Ltd v Birdi & Ors [2011] EWHC 1625 (QB) (20 June 2011)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Source: www.bailii.org
“The first sub-paragraph of article 6(1) of the EEC-Turkey Association Council Decision 3/80 of 19 September 1980 on the application of the social security schemes of the member states of the European Communities to Turkish workers and members of their families (OJ 1983 C 110, p 60), which provided for the export of certain specified benefits, was directly effective. That provision precluded national legislation which withdrew the award of a benefit, such as the supplement to invalidity benefit, from former Turkish migrant workers when they had returned to Turkey after losing their right to remain in the host member state after becoming incapacitated in the that member state.”
WLR Daily, 26th May 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Bank of Scotland plc v Zinda [2011 EWCA Civ 706; [2011] WLR (D) 208
“An agreement between the mortgagor and mortgagee consolidating the unpaid instalments leading up to a suspended possession order and the future mortgage instalments thereby enlarging the total amount of loan did not have the effect of creating a new contract of loan displacing the original contract of loan. Nor did the agreement affect the survival of the suspended possession order entitling the mortgagee to take immediate possession of the mortgaged property without any further order based on the new contract.”
WLR Daily, 23rd June 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v McKenzie [2011] EWCA Crim 1550; [2011] WLR (D) 207
“Where the counts in an indictment referred to offences contrary to a specific statutory provision but the particulars referred to acts which would be contrary to a different statutory provision, findings of a jury could not be upheld on the basis that the requirements of section 4A(2)(b) of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 were met, or that the defects could be cured by application of section 3 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968.”
WLR Daily, 23rd June 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Manchester Police, R (On the Application Of) v Hookway & Anor [2011] EWHC 1578 (Admin) (19 May 2011)
Attorney General v Fraill & Anor [2011] EWCA Crim 1570 (16 June 2011)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Zinda v Bank of Scotland Plc [2011] EWCA Civ 706 (23 June 2011)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Chemistree Homecare Ltd & Ors v Roche Products Ltd [2011] EWHC 1579 (Ch) (16 June 2011)
Cowderoy v Cranfield [2011] EWHC 1616 (Ch) (24 June 2011)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
David Wyld & Co, Solicitors v Dadourian & Anor [2011] EWHC 1517 (QB) (20 June 2011)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
Rust Consulting Ltd v PB Ltd [2011] EWHC 1622 (TCC) (24 June 2011)
Carillion JM Ltd v Phi Group Ltd [2011] EWHC 1581 (TCC) (23 June 2011)
High Court (Commercial Court)
High Court (Patents Court)
Cephalon Inc & Ors v Orchid Europe Ltd & Ors [2011] EWHC 1591 (Pat) (24 June 2011)
Source: www.bailii.org
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
McKenzie v R. [2011] EWCA Crim 1550 (23 June 2011)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
County Leasing Ltd v Quotepool Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 705 (23 June 2011)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Paddico (267) Ltd v Kirklees Metropolitan Council & Ors [2011] EWHC 1606 (Ch) (23 June 2011)
High Court (Admiralty Division)
Source: www.bailii.org
“In national security deportation and exclusion cases before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission foreign nationals were entitled to the standard of procedural fairness contained in the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Procedure) Rules 2003, neither more nor less.”
WLR Daily, 21st June 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Coventry City Council v O and others [2011] EWCA Civ 729; [2011] WLR (D) 205
“Where foster parents issued a notice of intention to adopt a child they were fostering, the local authority retained the power to remove the child from the foster parents’ home to the home either of other foster parents or of prospective adopters, under section 38 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002.”
WLR Daily, 22nd June 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Supreme Court
Cart v The Upper Tribunal (Rev 1) [2011] UKSC 28 (21 June 2011)
Eba v Advocate General for Scotland (Scotland) [2011] UKSC 29 (21 June 2011)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Coventry City Council v PGO & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 729 (22 June 2011)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Kent County Council v Lawrence [2011] EWHC 1590 (QB) (22 June 2011)
High Court (Family Division)
A Local Authority v DL & Ors [2011] EWHC 1022 (Fam) (19 April 2011)
A v P [2011] EWHC 1530 (Fam) (21 June 2011)
Source: www.bailii.org
Eba v Advocate General for Scotland [2011] UKSC 29; [2011] WLR (D) 204
“The approach to judicial review of unappealable decisions of the Upper Tribunal in Scotland should be to align itself with what had been decided by the Supreme Court to be the approach to be taken in England and Wales. Accordingly, as in England and Wales, the same criteria which had to be satisfied when making a second-tier appeal to the Court of Appeal applied when deciding whether a refusal of permission by the Upper Tribunal to appeal to itself was open to judicial review in Scotland.”
WLR Daily, 22nd June 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“Judicial review of a refusal by the Upper Tribunal of permission to appeal to itself was limited to the grounds upon which permission to make a second-tier appeal to the Court of Appeal would be granted.”
WLR Daily, 22nd June 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Atrium Medical Corpn and another v DSB Invest Holding SA [2011] EWHC 74 (Pat); [2011] WLR (D) 202
“High Court proceedings for declarations as to whether a product incorporated technical information, thus ultimately resulting in the determination of whether royalties were due, fell within the definition of ‘intellectual property litigation’ in regulation 3 of the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents Higher Courts Qualification Regulations 2007 and therefore a patent attorney litigator was an ‘authorised person’ entitled to conduct the litigation and to exercise rights of audience in relation thereto.”
WLR Daily, 21st June 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Widdows, R. v [2011] EWCA Crim 1500 (21 June 2011)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
EH v Kent County Council [2011] EWCA Civ 709 (21 June 2011)
AM v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 710 (21 June 2011)
IR (Sri Lanka) & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 704 (21 June 2011)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Woodham v Turner (t/a Turners of Great Barton) [2011] EWHC 1588 (QB) (21 June 2011)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Soutzos v Asombang & Ors [2011] EWHC 1582 (Ch) (21 June 2011)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Halligen v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWHC 1584 (Admin) (21 June 2011)
G v St Gregory’s Catholic Science College (Rev 1) [2011] EWHC 1452 (Admin) (17 June 2011)
High Court (Commercial Court)
JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov [2011] EWHC 1522 (Comm) (21 June 2011)
High Court (Patents Court)
Atrium Medical Corp & Anor v DSB Invest Holding SA [2011] EWHC 74 (Pat) (21 January 2011)
Source: www.bailii.org
“The prohibition on the sale of tobacco from automatic vending machines was justified on the ground of the protection of public health, was proportionate and therefore did not violate EU law by its adverse effect on the business of the operators of vending machines and suppliers in other EU states.”
WLR Daily, 17th June 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
HM Attorney General v Joanne Fraill and Jamie Sewart [2011] EWCA Crim B2 (16 June 2011)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
SW v CW [2011] EWCA Civ 703 (17 June 2011)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Derfshaw Ltd. & Ors, Re [2011] EWHC 1565 (Ch) (02 June 2011)
Sunwing Vacation Inc & Ors v E-Clear (UK) Plc & Ors [2011] EWHC 1544 (Ch) (03 June 2011)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Caplin v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2011] EWHC 1567 (QB) (20 June 2011)
BB & Ors v The Home Office [2011] EWHC 1446 (QB) (08 June 2011)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Yukos Capital SARL v OJSC Rosneft Oil Company [2011] EWHC 1461 (Comm) (14 June 2011)
Astrazeneca UK Ltd v Albemarle International Corp & Anor [2011] EWHC 1574 (Comm) (21 June 2011)
Source: www.bailii.org
“The provisions of the Ofcom Broadcasting Code had to be interpreted, as well as being applied in a particular case, so as to comply with the requirements of the right to freedom of expression in article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The question whether the publication of a finding by the statutory regulator constituted a permissible interference with a claimed right to freedom of expression under the article demanded rigorous scrutiny.”
WLR Daily, 17th June 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Zinda v The Governing Body of Barn Hill Community High & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 690 (17 June 2011)
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Barbudev v Eurocom Cable Management Bulgaria EOOD & Ors [2011] EWHC 1560 (Comm) (17 June 2011)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
Mouchel Ltd v Van Oord (UK) Ltd (No 2) [2011] EWHC 1516 (TCC) (15 June 2011)
Source: www.bailii.org
Tido v The Queen [2011] UKPC 16; [2011] WLR (D) 199
“A dock identification of a defendant was not inadmissible evidence per se. Nor was the admission of such evidence to be regarded as permissible in only the most exceptional circumstances.”
WLR Daily, 15th June 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Miguel v State of Trinidad and Tobago [2011] UKPC 14; [2011] WLR (D) 198
“A constitutional provision which exempted both existing laws and enactments which altered existing laws from its protection did not extend to an enactment which altered a law that had existed before the Constitution came into force but had since been abolished. It followed that a mandatory sentence of death for a murder conviction in Trinidad and Tobago under the ‘arrestable offence murder’ rule in section 2A of the Criminal Law Act, based on an earlier-abolished ‘felony murder’ rule, was outside the exemption and so unconstitutional.”
WLR Daily, 15th June 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
© Inner Temple Library 2025