BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted February 24th, 2011 in law reports by sally

Supreme Court

London Borough of Hounslow v Powell [2011] UKSC 8 (23 February 2011)

Forsyth, R v [2011] UKSC 9 (23 February 2011)

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

Daley- Murdock, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 161 (23 February 2011)

Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Delta Air Lines Inc [2011] EWCA Civ 162 (23 February 2011)

Berezovsky v Abramovich [2011] EWCA Civ 153 (23 February 2011)

007 Stratford Taxis Ltd., R (on the application of) v Stratford On Avon District Council [2011] EWCA Civ 160 (23 February 2011)

Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Premium Aircraft Interiors UK Ltd & Anor [2011] EWCA Civ 163 (23 February 2011)

Mirza & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 159 (23 February 2011)

High Court (Chancery Division)

CMCS Common Market Commercial Services AVV v Taylor [2011] EWHC 324 (Ch) (23 February 2011)

Irwin v Wilson & Ors [2011] EWHC 326 (Ch) (23 February 2011)

High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)

Mugweni v NHS London [2011] EWHC 334 (QB) (23 February 2011)

High Court (Administrative Court)

Western Power Distribution Investments Ltd. v Cardiff County Council [2011] EWHC 300 (Admin) (23 February 2011)

SM, R (on the application of) v FM [2011] EWHC 338 (Admin) (23 February 2011)

High Court (Commercial Court)

Melinda Holdings SA v Hellenic Mutual War Risks Association (Bermuda) Ltd [2011] EWHC 181 (Comm) (18 February 2011)

High Court (Technology and Construction Court)

Lansdowne House (St George’s Hill) Ltd v Liberty Syndicate Management Ltd & Anor [2011] EWHC 332 (TCC) (23 February 2011)

Source: www.bailii.org

Baxter v Mannion – WLR Daily

Posted February 24th, 2011 in appeals, land registration, law reports, limitations, mistake by sally

Baxter v Mannion [2011] EWCA Civ 120; [2011] WLR (D) 54

“Where a registrar of the Land Registry found that a person who had been registered as the proprietor of land as adverse possessor had not in fact been in adverse possession of the land, he could exercise his power under paragraph 5(a) of Schedule 4 to the Land Registration Act 2002 to alter the register for the purpose of correcting a mistake, so as to restore the original proprietor.”

WLR Daily, 23rd February 2011

Source: www.lawreports.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.

Ineos Healthcare Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd, other party) – WLR Daily

Posted February 24th, 2011 in burden of proof, EC law, law reports, trade marks by sally

Ineos Healthcare Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd, other party) (Case T-222/09); [2011] WLR (D) 53

“In opposition proceedings against registration of a trade mark pursuant to article 42 of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94, the opposing party was not obliged to adduce evidence in support of the opposition. Whilst in relation to proceedings relating to relative grounds for refusal the Board of Appeal of the Office of Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) could take into account facts which were likely to be known by anyone or which might be learned from generally accessible sources, it was not, however, entitled to exceed the conditions governing examination set out in article 74 of Regulation 40/94.”

WLR Daily, 23rd February 2011

Source: www.lawreports.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.

Regina v Forsyth; Regina v Mabey – WLR Daily

Regina v Forsyth; Regina v Mabey [2011] UKSC 9; [2011] WLR (D) 52

“The power under section 1(1) of the United Nations Act 1946 to create a criminal offence by Order in Council so as to enforce a United Nations Security Council Resolution was not restricted to use at or about the same time as when the Resolution had been passed.”

WLR Daily, 23rd February 2011

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note that once a case has been reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted February 23rd, 2011 in law reports by sally

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

Tullett Prebon Plc & Ors v BGC Brokers LP & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 131 (22 February 2011)

Baxter v Mannion [2011] EWCA Civ 120 (22 February 2011)

PO (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 132 (22 February 2011)

Goad v Butcher & Anor [2011] EWCA Civ 158 (22 February 2011)

Bateman, R (on the application of) v South Cambridgeshire District Council [2011] EWCA Civ 157 (22 February 2011)

High Court (Administrative Court)

Solicitors Regulation Authority v Dennison [2011] EWHC 291 (Admin) (22 February 2011)

High Court (Family Division)

Kremen v Agrest [2010] EWHC 2571 (Fam) (15 October 2010)

Kremen v Agrest [2010] EWHC 3091 (Fam) (03 December 2010)

Source: www.bailii.org

Cecil and others v Bayat and others – WLR Daily

Cecil and others v Bayat and others [2011] EWCA Civ 135; [2011] WLR (D) 51

“The claimants in a proposed action for breach of contract and damages were not entitled unilaterally to decide to postpone service of their claim form out of the jurisdiction under CPR 7.6(1). They should have served the form in the period of its initial validity, and, if they were not in a financial position to proceed immediately with the claim, they should have issued an application seeking a stay, or an extension of the time for procedural steps to be taken. The fact that the claimants spent the period of initial validity seeking a conditional fee agreement and after-the-event insurance was not a valid reason for their not having served the claim form, since their funds were sufficient to serve the claim even if they were not then in a position to fund the entire course of the litigation.”

WLR Daily, 21st February 2011

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Werynski v Mediatel 4B spólka z o o – WLR Daily

Posted February 21st, 2011 in costs, EC law, jurisdiction, law reports, news, witnesses by sally

Werynski v Mediatel 4B spólka z o o (Case C-283/09); [2011] WLR (D) 50

“In respect of acts which had been adopted in the field of Title IV of the EC Treaty, since December 1 2009 the Court of Justice of the European Union has had jurisdiction to hear and determine a reference for a preliminary ruling from a court against whose decision there was a judicial remedy under national law even where the reference was lodged prior to that date. In determining whether the question referred to the Court of Justice was necessary to enable the referring court to ‘give judgment’ pursuant to article 267FEU of the FEU Treaty, ‘give judgment’ referred to the entire process of creating the judgment, including all issues relating to the responsibility for the costs of proceedings. Where the examination of a witness by a court was at issue there was a direct connection between the question referred for a preliminary ruling and the performance by the referring court of a judicial function. A requested court was not entitled pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 on cooperation between the courts of the member states in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 174, p 1), to make the examination of a witness conditional on prior payment of an advance from the requesting court covering his witness expense and there was no obligation upon the requesting court to pay such an advance nor was the requesting court obliged to reimburse the expenses paid to the witness examined.”

WLR Daily, 21st February 2011

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Haribo Lakritzen Hans Riegel Betriebs GmbH v Finanzamt Linz; Osterreichische Salinen AG v Same – WLR Daily

Posted February 21st, 2011 in corporation tax, dividends, EC law, law reports, subsidiary companies by sally

Haribo Lakritzen Hans Riegel Betriebs GmbH v Finanzamt Linz; Osterreichische Salinen AG v Same(Joined Cases C-436/08 and C-437/08); ; [2011] WLR (D) 49

“Legislation of a member state which discriminated against portfolio dividends received by a resident company from a company resident in a non member state party to an EEA Agreement, was contrary to the principle of free movement of capital, where that discrimination was based upon a comprehensive agreement of mutual assistance. It was not contrary to article 63FEU of the FEU Treaty for member states to exempt from corporation tax portfolio dividends which one resident company received from another whilst subjecting portfolio dividends which a resident company received from a non member state company party to an EEA Agreement or from a company resident in another member state, provided that the tax was credited against tax payable in the members state of the recipient company and the administrative burdens were not excessive. National legislation which discriminated against dividends received from non member states on the basis of the shareholding held by the recipient company in the non member state company was not contrary to article 63FEU provided the mechanisms in place to off set the charges to tax led to equivalent results.”

WLR Daily, 18th February 2011

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted February 21st, 2011 in law reports by sally

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

MD (Gambia), R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 121 (17 February 2011)

Test Claimants In the Thin Cap Group Litigation v HM Revenue and Customs [2011] EWCA Civ 127 (18 February 2011)

Axa Sun Life Services Plc v Campbell Martin Ltd & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 133 (18 February 2011)

Welford v Transport for London [2011] EWCA Civ 129 (18 February 2011)

Bayat Telephone Systems Internaitonal Inc & Ors v Lord Michael Cecil & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 135 (18 February 2011)

Acre 1127 Ltd (Formerly known as Castle Galleries Ltd) v De Montfort Fine Art Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 130 (18 February 2011)

Kulasekara v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 134 (18 February 2011)

High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)

Close Brothers Ltd v Pearce [2011] EWHC 298 (QB) (18 February 2011)

Dainton v Powell [2011] EWHC 219 (QB) (18 February 2011)

Henry v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2011] EWHC 296 (QB) (18 February 2011)

Tovey & Ors v Ministry of Justice [2011] EWHC 271 (QB) (18 February 2011)

Lord Ashcroft KCMG v Foley & Ors [2011] EWHC 292 (QB) (18 February 2011)

Hunt v Evening Standard Ltd [2011] EWHC 272 (QB) (18 February 2011)

High Court (Chancery Division)

Roberts v Frohlich & Anor [2011] EWHC 257 (Ch) (18 February 2011)

Hurndell v Hozier & Ors [2011] EWHC 321 (Ch) (18 February 2011)

High Court (Administrative Court)

Jbol Ltd, R (on the application of) v The Health Protection Agency [2011] EWHC 236 (Admin) (18 February 2011)

Bourgass & Anor, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice [2011] EWHC 286 (Admin) (18 February 2011)

Waste Recycling Group Ltd, R (on the application of) v Cumbria County Council [2011] EWHC 288 (Admin) (18 February 2011)

London Borough of Camden v The Parking Adjudicator & Ors [2011] EWHC 295 (Admin) (18 February 2011)

British Pregnancy Advisory Service v Secretary of State for Health [2011] EWHC 235 (Admin) (14 February 2011)

High Court (Technology and Construction Court)

Crown Aluminium Ltd v Northern & Western Insurance Company Ltd & Anor [2011] EWHC 277 (TCC) (18 February 2011)

Source: www.bailii.org

Stonham v Ramrattan and another – WLR Daily

“Section 283A of the Insolvency Act 1986, which gave a trustee in bankruptcy three years from the date of the bankruptcy to decide what to do about any interest in a house inhabited by the bankrupt or their current or former spouse or civil partner, was concerned only with property which actually formed part of the bankrupt’s estate at the time at the commencement of the bankruptcy. It did not apply to property currently vested in a third party but in respect of which a claim to set aside a transaction at an undervalue might be made under section 339 of the 1986 Act, in respect of which the limitation period remained the 12 years provided for under section 8 of the Limitation Act 1980.”
WLR Daily, 17th February 2011
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Regina (Hertfordshire County Council) v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council – WLR Daily

Posted February 18th, 2011 in community care, detention, law reports, local government, mental health by sally
“A  mental patient who was compulsorily detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 was not thereby to be treated as ‘resident’ in the local authority within whose area he was detained. On a proper construction of section 117(3) of the 1983 Act the patient’s ‘residence’ was distinct from his place of detention. Section 117 of the 1983 Act was the appropriate section, rather than section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948, to determine which authority should have the responsibility of paying for the patient’s after-care accommodation.”
WLR Daily, 16th February 2011

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted February 17th, 2011 in law reports by sally

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

Winwood& Ors v Biffa Waste Services Ltd & Anor [2011] EWCA Civ 108 (17 February 2011)

Stonham v Ramrattan & Anor [2011] EWCA Civ 119 (16 February 2011)

O (Children) [2011] EWCA Civ 128 (16 February 2011)

High Court (Administrative Court)

Abdul & Ors v Director of Public Prosecutions [2011] EWHC 247 (Admin) (16 February 2011)

Lunn & Ors, R (on the application of) v HM Revenue and Customs [2011] EWHC 240 (Admin) (16 February 2011)

Renaissance Habitat Ltd, R (on the application of) v West Berkshire District Council [2011] EWHC 242 (Admin) (16 February 2011)

High Court (Chancery Division)

Sompo Japan Insurance Inc [2011] EWHC 260 (Ch) (16 February 2011)

Cosco Bulk Carrier Co Ltd v Armada Shipping SA & Anor [2011] EWHC 216 (Ch) (11 February 2011)

High Court (Commercial Court)

Wightlink Ltd v Mitchell Diesel Ltd (t/a Mitchell Power Systems) [2011] EWHC 241 (Comm) (14 February 2011)

Nanjing Tianshun Shipbuilding Co Ltd v Orchard Tankers PTE Ltd [2011] EWHC 164 (Comm) (11 February 2011)

Chalabi & Ors v Jaffar & Anor [2011] EWHC 203 (Comm) (11 February 2011)

INEOS Manufacturing Scotland Ltd. v Grangemouth Chp Ltd & Anor [2011] EWHC 163 (Comm) (11 February 2011)

High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)

Chvetsov v Matuzny [2011] EWHC 248 (QB) (16 February 2011)

Source: www.bailii.org

Vicoplus SC PUH v v Minister van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid; BAM Vermeer Contracting sp. zoo v Same; Olbek Industrial Services sp. zoo v Same – WLR Daily

Posted February 16th, 2011 in EC law, employment, freedom of movement, law reports by sally

Vicoplus SC PUH v v Minister van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid; BAM Vermeer Contracting sp. zoo v Same; Olbek Industrial Services sp. zoo v Same (Case C-307/09 to C-309/09); [2011] WLR (D) 46

“Articles 56FEU and 57FEU of the FEU Treaty did not preclude a member state from making the hiring out on its territory of workers who were Polish nationals subject to the obtaining of a work permit during the transitional period provided for in paragraph 2 of Chapter 2 of Annex XII to the Act of Accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (OJ 2003 L236, p 33). The hiring out of workers, within the meaning of article 1(3)(c) of Parliament and Council Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (OJ 1997 L18, p1), was a service provided for remuneration in respect of which the worker who had been hired out remained in the employ of the undertaking providing the service, no contract of employment having been entered into with the user undertaking.”

WLR Daily, 15th February 2011

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted February 15th, 2011 in law reports by sally

Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

Romani v R. [2011] EWCA Crim 183 (14 February 2011)

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

Hertfordshire County Council, R (on the application of) v JM [2011] EWCA Civ 77 (15 February 2011)

Iqbal v Dean Manson Solicitors [2011] EWCA Civ 123 (15 February 2011)

High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)

Murdock v Scarisbrick Group Ltd. [2011] EWHC 220 (QB) (11 February 2011)

Hirschfeld v McGrath [2011] EWHC 249 (QB) (15 February 2011)

High Court (Administrative Court)

Lai, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Defence [2011] EWHC 145 (Admin) (15 February 2011)

Source: www.bailii.org

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted February 15th, 2011 in law reports by sally

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

Traversa v Freddi [2011] EWCA Civ 81 (14 February 2011)

High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)

Lightfoot v Go-Ahead Group Plc [2011] EWHC 89 (QB) (01 February 2011)

XYZ v Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust [2011] EWHC 243 (QB) (14 February 2011)

British Pregnancy Advisory Service v Secretary of State for Health [2011] EWHC 235 (Admin) (14 February 2011)

Poi v “Lina” [2011] EWHC 234 (QB) (14 February 2011)

High Court (Administrative Court)

Mamaniat, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWHC 157 (Admin) (24 January 2011)

High Court (Commercial Court)

Ground Gilbey Ltd & Anor v Jardine Lloyd Thompson UK Ltd [2011] EWHC 124 (Comm) (02 February 2011)

Sharon’s Bakery (Europe) Ltd v Axa Insurance UK Plc & Anor [2011] EWHC 210 (Comm) (09 February 2011)

High Court (Patents Court)

Datacard Corporation v Eagle Technologies Ltd [2011] EWHC 244 (Pat) (14 February 2011)

Source: www.bailii.org.uk

Law Society v McPhail – WLR Daily

Posted February 15th, 2011 in committals, contempt of court, law reports, Law Society by sally

Law Society v McPhail [2011] WLR (D) 45

“In the interests of fairness, a person charged with contempt of court whose liberty was therefore at stake should be able to appear at a hearing to answer points raised by his accusers.”

WLR Daily, 14th February 2011

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Andersson v Staten genom Kronofogdemyndigheten i Jönköping, Tillsynsmynidigheten – WLR Daily

Posted February 15th, 2011 in EC law, employment, insolvency, law reports, shareholders, time limits by sally

Andersson v Staten genom Kronofogdemyndigheten i Jönköping, Tillsynsmynidigheten C-30/10; [2011] WLR (D) 44

“A provision of national law which excluded an employee from entitlement under the guarantee of payment of employees’ outstanding claims in the event of their employer’s insolvency, on the ground that the employee within the six months preceding the application for a declaration of insolvency had been the owner of an essential part of the undertaking or business concerned and had had a considerable influence on it activities, was compatible with Parliament and Council Directive 2008/94/EC relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer.”

WLR Daily, 14th February 2011

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted February 14th, 2011 in law reports by sally

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

Consolidated Contractors International Company SAL & Anor v Masri [2011] EWCA Civ 64 (03 February 2011)

High Court (Chancery Division)

MW Trustees Ltd & Ors v Telular Corporation [2011] EWHC 104 (Ch) (31 January 2011)

Source: www.bailii.org

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted February 11th, 2011 in law reports by sally

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

Chichvarkin & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 91 (10 February 2011)

Walsh v Singh [2011] EWCA Civ 80 (10 February 2011)

High Court (Administrative Court)

Luton Borough Council & Nottingham City Council & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Education [2011] EWHC 217 (Admin) (11 February 2011)

YZ & Ors, R. (On the Applications Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWHC 205 (Admin) (10 February 2011)

High Court (Commercial Court)

JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov & Ors [2011] EWHC 202 (Comm) (10 February 2011)

Source: www.bailii.org.uk

In re St Andrew’s Churchyard, Alwalton – WLR Daily

Posted February 11th, 2011 in burials and cremation, faculties, human rights, law reports by sally
“A petition for the exhumation of remains buried in consecrated land brought on the basis of an objection to enforcement of the churchyard regulations would not be granted where the petitioner had failed to establish special circumstances justifying an exception from the norm that Christian burial was final.”
WLR Daily, 10th February 2011

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.