Divorcing couples often hide assets, survey suggests – BBC News
“Many people going through divorce could be hiding their wealth from their partners, a survey suggests.”
BBC News, 22nd February 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
Competition Commission raps Big Four accountants – BBC News
“Britain’s four biggest accountancy firms have been heavily criticised by the Competition Commission.”
BBC News, 22nd February 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
UK’s most senior female judge calls for more diversity at the top – The Guardian
“Positive discrimination may be needed to redress the gender imbalance among senior judges, the only woman in Britain’s highest court has proposed.”
The Guardian, 21st February 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Guilty: the ringleaders who plotted a terror spectacular to rival 9/11 – The Independent
“The ringleaders of a Birmingham-based extremist cell whose deadly ambitions were matched only by their incompetence are facing life terms after the unravelling of their plot for a terrorist spectacular to rival the September 11 attacks.”
The Independent, 21st February 2013
Source: www.independent.co.uk
Vicky Pryce retrial decision triggers defence of jury system – The Guardian
“Britain’s jury system should not be judged by the outcome of a single, complex and highly unusual case, senior lawyers have warned following the collapse of the Vicky Pryce trial.”
The Guardian, 21st February 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Ricoh Europe Holdings BV and others v Spratt and another – WLR Daily
Ricoh Europe Holdings BV and others v Spratt and another [2013] EWCA Civ 92; [2013] WLR (D) 70
“A liquidator who had already valued a creditor’s contingent claims pursuant to rule 4.86 of the Insolvency Rules 1986 and so admitted them to proof in the amount of the valuation was not under a duty to provide for the contingency in full by making a reserve against any distribution to members.”
WLR Daily, 19th February 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
In re L and another (Children) (Preliminary Finding: Power to Reverse) – WLR Daily
“Contrary to the practice previously adopted, a judge’s power to reverse his or her decision at any time before the court order had been sealed was not reserved for exceptional circumstances. A carefully considered change of mind by the judge was permisssible in the interests of the overriding objective of dealing with a case justly.”
WLR Daily, 20th February 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina (Zacchaeus 2000 Trust) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions – WLR Daily
“The regime for the provision of housing benefit to private sector tenants enabled the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to cap increases in permitted levels of housing benefit by reference to the general rate of inflation.”
WLR Daily, 15th February 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Santander UK plc v Harrison and another – WLR Daily
Santander UK plc v Harrison and another [2013] EWHC 199 (QB); [2013] WLR (D) 67
“The rescheduling of a mortgage agreement did not amount to providing credit ‘in the form of a cash loan’ for the purposes of article 4(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 2006 (Commencement No 4 and Transitional Provisions) Order 2008.”
WLR Daily, 7th February 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
H (A Protected Party) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis – WLR Daily
“The statutory defence in section 5 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 did not impose impossible demands on those who did acts in connection with the care or treatment of others who lacked capacity. It required no more than what was reasonable, practical and appropriate. What that entailed depended on all the circumstances.”
WLR Daily, 14th February 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Tamiz v Google Inc and another – WLR Daily
Tamiz v Google Inc and another [2013] EWCA Civ 68; [2013] WLR (D) 65
“An internet service provider which supplied a platform for blogs and various tools to assist the blogger, and which was able to remove or block access to blogs when alerted to the fact that they breached its own terms and conditions, could be potentially liable for defamatory comments posted on a blog once it had received notification and had had sufficient time to act. A defence might be available under section 1 of the Defamation Act 1996, but if the potential liability would be so trivial because of the short period of time between notification of the complaint and removal of the offending material, the maintenance of the proceedings could not be justified.”
WLR Daily, 14th February 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v Dizaei – WLR Daily
Regina v Dizaei [2013] EWCA Crim 88; [2013] WLR (D) 64
“When a court was assessing the probative value of the evidence of bad character of a witness in criminal proceedings, in accordance with the provisions of section 100 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, among the factors relevant to the admissibility judgment, the court should consider whether the admission of such evidence might make it difficult for the jury to understand the remainder of the evidence, and whether its understanding of the case as a whole might be diminished. If the conclusion was that the evidence was not of substantial probative value in establishing propensity or lack of creditworthiness of the witness, or that the evidence was not of substantial importance in the context of the case as a whole, or both, the preconditions to admissibility would not established.”
WLR Daily, 14th February 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
VLM Holdings Ltd v Ravensworth Digital Services Ltd – WLR Daily
VLM Holdings Ltd v Ravensworth Digital Services Ltd [2013] EWHC 228 (Ch); [2013] WLR (D) 63
“Where the authority given by a head licensor to a sub-licensor was sufficiently wide in scope to allow the grant of a sub-licence which was capable of surviving termination of the head licence, the head licensor must be taken on normal agency principles as giving ultimate permission for the granting of the sub-licence.”
WLR Daily, 13th February 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina (Lewisham London Borough Council and others) v Assessment and Qualifications Alliance and others – WLR Daily
The court’s role in deciding a question of fundamental unfairness on a judicial review claim was supervisory. Only where a reasonable body could not fairly have acted as the defendants had did their conduct trespass into the area of conspicuous unfairness amounting to abuse of power.
WLR Daily, 13th February 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina (Purnell) v South Western Magistrates’ Court – WLR Daily
Regina (Purnell) v South Western Magistrates’ Court [2013] EWHC 64 (Admin); [2013] WLR (D) 61
Courts had to inquire closely before making an order for the payment of a fine at any enforcement hearing as to whether there were any outstanding fines and make clear the serious consequences to the offender or defaulter in not providing accurate information.
WLR Daily, 23rd February 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina (KA) v Essex County Council – WLR Daily
Regina (KA) v Essex County Council [2013] EWHC 43 (Admin); [2013] WLR (D) 60
Where an illegal entrant had been refused leave to remain but nevertheless had a substantive claim under the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, for example to a family or private life in this country, that would found an appeal against removal directions if made, it was necessary in for a local authority to consider whether, on the facts, support should be provided under the Children Act 1989 in order to avoid a breach of those rights as part of the procedural protection afforded by the Convention.
WLR Daily, 18th January 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Moore v British Waterways Board – WLR Daily
Moore v British Waterways Board [2013] EWCA Civ 73; [2013] WLR (D) 59
“At common law a riparian owner who did not own the river bed had no right to moor vessels there permanently. However, absence of a right to moor did not necessarily mean that a vessel was moored ‘without lawful authority’ within section 8 of the British Waterways Act 1983, which empowered the British Waterways Board to remove a vessel.”
WLR Daily, 14th Febraury 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Szpak v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions – WLR Daily
Szpak v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2013] EWCA Civ 46; [2013] WLR (D) 58
“Where a foreign national working in the United Kingdom applied late to be registered under the Accession (Immigration and Worker Registration) Regulations 2004 and his worker registration certificate was issued three months after commencing employment and covering only nine months of employment the certificate did not have retrospective effect so as to qualify him, under regulation 2(4), to claim the benefit as ‘legally working’ in the United Kingdom for 12 months for an ‘authorised employer’.”
WLR Daily, 13th February 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina (Children’s Rights Alliance for England) v Secretary of State for Justice (Equality and Human Rights Commission intervening) – WLR Daily
The constitutional right of access to the courts was properly to be understood as a duty owed by the state not to place obstacles in the way of access to justice, and did not entail a positive duty to seek out and notify individuals with potential claims against the state; nor was there anything in the Strasbourg jurisprudence on articles 3, 6 and 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms to justify the imposition of such a duty.
WLR Daily, 6th February 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
