BAILII: Recent Decisions
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
British Airways Plc v Unite the Union [2010] EWHC 1210 (QB) (17 May 2010)
High Court (Family Division)
B v B [2010] EWHC 193 (Fam) (15 January 2010)
Source: www.bailii.org
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
British Airways Plc v Unite the Union [2010] EWHC 1210 (QB) (17 May 2010)
High Court (Family Division)
B v B [2010] EWHC 193 (Fam) (15 January 2010)
Source: www.bailii.org
Brazzill and others v Willoughby and others [2010] EWCA Civ 561; [2010] WLR (D) 140
“A segregated trust account was held on trust for all account holders of a bank in respect of whose deposits should have been made into the account in accordance with a notice served by the Financial Services Authority (‘FSA’) and was not limited to those account holders in respect of whose accounts payments were in fact made into the account. ‘Deposits’ had its regulatory meaning which meant it was limited to regulated depositors only.”
WLR Daily, 28th May 2010
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.
In re A (Children) (Abduction: Interim Powers) [2010] EWCA Civ 586; [2010] WLR (D) 139
“S 5 of the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 permitted a court to give directions to a local authority to provide accommodation for the abductor and abducted children.”
WLR Daily, 28th May 2010
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.
Kennedy v United Kingdom (Application No 26839/05)
European Court of Human Rights
“Sufficient safeguards existed in the United Kingdom’s interception of communications regime to ensure that individuals’ rights were not breached.”
The Times, 3rd June 2010
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
“Defence counsel must avoid ambushing the prosecution with a new issue.”
The Times, 3rd June 2010
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
“The phrase ‘a self-contained part of a building’ in ss 3 and 4 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 did not, either expressly or by implication, require that a self-contained part of a building should be indivisible into smaller such parts.”
WLR Daily, 27th May 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
O’Byrne v Aventis Pasteur MSD Ltd [2010] UKSC 23; [2010] WLR (D) 137
“In a claim under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 based on the rights conferred under Council Directive 85/374/EEC concerning liability for defective products, which by art 11 required proceedings to be brought against the producer within ten years of the product being put into circulation, domestic law could not allow the producer to be substituted as the defendant outside that period in place of a wholly-owned subsidiary (who was the supplier but had been erroneously thought to be the producer) unless the parent company had actually determined when the supplier put the product in circulation.”
WLR Daily, 27th May 2010
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.
Jones v Kernott [2010] EWCA Civ 578; [2010] WLR (D) 13
“Where the parties had agreed when they separated that they had equal interests in a residential property conveyed into their joint names there had to be something to displace those interests before the court could impute from the parties’ conduct an intention to vary that equality. The passage of time was insufficient to do so even if in the meantime the defendant had acquired alternative accommodation and the claimant had paid all the outgoings.”
WLR Daily, 27th May 2010
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.
Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2010] EWCA Civ 571; [2010] WLR (D) 135
“An employee who suffered damage as a result of findings of personal or professional misconduct leading to dismissal and loss of professional status that were made against him in disciplinary proceedings conducted in breach of contract, and which would not otherwise have been made, could recover damages at large.”
WLR Daily, 27th May 2010
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.
Court of Appeal
“Where a trader knew or should have known that by his purchase he was participating in a transaction connected with fraudulent evasion of value-added tax he lost his right to deduct input tax.”
The Times, 2nd June 2010
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
“The jury had to decide on the facts of the case whether an omission in a claim form was significant.”
The Times, 2nd June 2010
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
High Court (Administrative Court)
Source: www.bailii.org
O’Byrne v Aventis Pasteur MSD Ltd
Supreme Court
“Domestic law could not allow the producer of an allegedly defective product to be substituted as the defendant more than ten years after its being put into circulation in place of a wholly owned subsidiary, who was the supplier, but had been erroneously thought to be the producer, unless the parent company had actually determined when the supplier put the product in circulation.”
The Times, 27th May 2010
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Secretary of State for the Home Department v HK (Turkey) [2010] EWCA Civ 583 (27th May 2010)
Haugesund Kommune & Anor v Depfa ACS Bank [2010] EWCA Civ 579 (27 May 2010)
Varsani v Relfo Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 560 (27 May 2010)
Kookmin Bank v Rainy Sky SA & Ors [2010] EWCA Civ 582 (27 May 2010)
Brazzill & v Willoughby & Ors [2010] EWCA Civ 561 (27 May 2010)
Oxfordshire County Council v X & Ors [2010] EWCA Civ 581 (27 May 2010)
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Brewster & Anor v R. [2010] EWCA Crim 1194 (27 May 2010)
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Craftrule Ltd.v 41-60 Albert Palace Mansions (Freehold) Ltd [2010] EWHC 1230 (Ch) (27 May 2010)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Towler v Wills [2010] EWHC 1209 (Comm) (27 May 2010)
High Court (Queen’s Bench division)
Hurst & Ors v Hone & Ors [2010] EWHC 1159 (QB) (27 May 2010)
Underhill v Corser & Anor [2010] EWHC 1195 (QB) (27 May 2010)
Source: www.bailii.org
“The phrase ‘a self-contained part of a building’ in ss 3 and 4 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 did not, either expressly or by implication, require that a self-contained part of a building should be indivisible into smaller such parts.”
WLR Daily, 27th May 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
O’Byrne v Aventis Pasteur MSD Ltd [2010] UKSC 23; [2010] WLR (D) 137
“In a claim under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 based on the rights conferred under Council Directive 85/374/EEC concerning liability for defective products, which by art 11 required proceedings to be brought against the producer within ten years of the product being put into circulation, domestic law could not allow the producer to be substituted as the defendant outside that period in place of a wholly-owned subsidiary (who was the supplier but had been erroneously thought to be the producer) unless the parent company had actually determined when the supplier put the product in circulation.”
WLR Daily, 27th May 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Jones v Kernott [2010] EWCA Civ 578; [2010] WLR (D) 136
“Where the parties had agreed when they separated that they had equal interests in a residential property conveyed into their joint names there had to be something to displace those interests before the court could impute from the parties’ conduct an intention to vary that equality. The passage of time was insufficient to do so even if in the meantime the defendant had acquired alternative accommodation and the claimant had paid all the outgoings.”
WLR Daily, 27th May 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2010] EWCA Crim 571; [2010] WLR (D) 135
“An employee who suffered damage as a result of findings of personal or professional misconduct leading to dismissal and loss of professional status that were made against him in disciplinary proceedings conducted in breach of contract, and which would not otherwise have been made, could recover damages at large.”
WLR Daily, 27th May 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Supreme Court
OB v Aventis Pasteur SA [2010] UKSC 23 (26 May 2010
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Penner, R. v [2010] EWCA Crim 1155 (05 May 2010)
Gill, R. v [2010] EWCA Crim 1154 (07 May 2010)
Miller v R [2010] EWCA Crim 1153 (26 May 2010)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Shiner & Anor, R (on the application of) v HM Revenue & Customs [2010] EWCA Civ 558 (26 May 2010)
Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2010] EWCA Civ 571 (26 May 2010)
AT (Pakistan) & Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWCA Civ 567 (26 May 2010)
Kernott v Jones [2010] EWCA Civ 578 (26 May 2010)
High Court (Queen’s Bench)
Brady v Norman [2010] EWHC 1215 (QB) (26 May 2010)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Franbar Holdings Ltd v Casualty Plus Ltd [2010] EWHC 1164 (Ch) (26 May 2010)
High Court (Family Division)
DH NHS Foundation Trust v PS [2010] EWHC 1217 (Fam) (26 May 2010)
High Court (Commercial Court)
ACG Acquisition XX LLC v Olympic Airlines SA [2010] EWHC 923 (Comm) (21 April 2010)
Source: www.bailii.org
Court of Appeal
“It was not appropriate to adopt an over-literal interpretation of a poorly drafted section which might defeat the policy behind the relevant Act.”
The Times, 26th May 2010
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk