“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
“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 [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
“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 [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 [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 [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
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 [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 [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 [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 [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
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
Sharif (FC) (Respondent) v The London Borough of Camden (Appellant) [2013] UKSC 10 | UKSC 2011/0117 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 20th February 2013
In the matter of L and B (Children) [2013] UKSC 8 | UKSC 2012/0263 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 20th February 2013
In the matter of J (Children) [2013] UKSC 9 | UKSC 2012/0128 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 20th February 2013
Supreme Court
L and B (Children), Re [2013] UKSC 8 (20 February 2013)
J (Children), Re [2013] UKSC 9 (20 February 2013)
Sharif v The London Borough of Camden [2013] UKSC 10 (20 February 2013)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Ricoh Europe Holdings BV & Ors v Spratt & Anor [2013] EWCA Civ 92 (19 February 2013)
DD v Durham County Council & Anor [2013] EWCA Civ 96 (19 February 2013)
Hawes v Burgess & Anor [2013] EWCA Civ 74 (19 February 2013)
Smeaton v Equifax Plc [2013] EWCA Civ 108 (20 February 2013)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Zeqaj v Government of Albania [2013] EWHC 261 (Admin) (20 February 2013)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Mahtani & Anor v Sippy & Ano [2013] EWHC 285 (Ch) (19 February 2013)
Source: www.bailii.org
The Inspectors of Education, Children’s Services and Skills Order 2013
The Export Control (Iran Sanctions) (Amendment) Order 2013
The National Health Service (Revision of NHS Constitution—Principles) Regulations 2013
The Competition Act 1998 (Consequential Provisions) Order 2013
Source: www.legislation.gov.uk
“The fourth data protection principle requires that ‘personal data shall be accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date’. It does not, however ‘impose an absolute and unqualified obligation on [data controllers] to ensure the entire accuracy of the data they maintain. Questions of reasonableness arise in the application of the fourth principle, as paragraph 7 of Part II of Schedule I spells out.’ This statement by Davis LJ (at para. 80) encapsulates the case of Smeaton v Equifax plc [2013] EWCA Civ 108, in which the Court of Appeal handed down judgment today.”
Panopticon, 20th February 2013
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
“Almost 8,000 criminals sent to prison last year had been given at least 11 community sentences before finally being jailed, figures showed.”
Daily Telegraph, 21st February 2013
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025