“If a change in a person’s circumstances did not affect any entitlement of his to any benefit under the social security legislation there was no obligation to disclose that change to the prescribed person.”
WLR Daily, 18th June 2007
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.
Risk of costs when tenant changes mind over lease
Lay and Others v. Drexler and Others
“A business tenant who told his landlord he wanted to renew his lease and subsequently told the court he had changed his mind could be liable for the landlord’s court costs.”
The Times, 20th June 2007
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
Jury understands ‘significant’
When determining whether a person was guilty of causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable adult by the unlawful act of a person in the same household, when he was or ought to have been aware of a significant risk of serious physical harm, the term “significant” bore its ordinary, normal meaning.
The Times, 20th June 2007
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only availabe free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
Statutory cap cannot be exceeded
Bunney v. Burns Anderson plc and Another
“It was outwith the Financial Services Ombudsman’s powers to make a direction under section 229(2) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 that, if implemented, would require a firm to pay a complainant an amount exceeding the statutory cap of £100,000.”
The Times, 20th June 2007
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
“Because, inter alia, the provision in art 5(1) of Directive 89/391 imposing a duty on employers to ensure the safety and health of workers did not require employers to be subject to no-fault liability, the Commission of the European Communities had not established that, by restricting the duty on employers to ensure the safety and health of workers in all aspects related to work to a duty to do that only ‘so far as is reasonably practicable’, the UK had failed to fulfil its obligations under art 5(1) and (4) of the Directive.”
WLR Daily, 14th June 2007
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.
R (Pereira) v. HM Coroner for Inner South London and others
“A coroner’s power to adjourn an inquest under s 16(1)(b) of the Coroner’s Act 1988 was discretionary. Where a reason not to adjourn had been established, a decision to do so made in the exercise of that discretion could not be impugned by way of judicial review provided that the decision had been made rationally, taking into account all relevant matters and in the light of the state’s duty to investigate a death under art 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.”
WLR Daily, 14th June 2007
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Extending suspension of doctor
General Medical Council v. Hiew
Court of Appeal
“It was not the function of a judge being asked to extend the interim suspension from practice of a doctor by the General Medical Council to make findings of fact that led to the suspension. If the reason for the suspension was to be challenged, the doctor should seek judicial review.”
The Times, 15th June 2007
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
Conspirators each liable for full compensation
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
“Where two or more persons acting together as principals in a drug-trafficking offence jointly received payment or reward in connection with that offence, the value of each person’s proceeds for confiscation purposes included the whole value of that payment or reward.”
The Times, 15th June 2007
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
UK in breach of uninsured drivers’ duty
Byrne v. Motor Insurers’ Bureau and Another
Queen’s Bench Division
“Failure by the United Kingdom to comply with the Second European Directive on motor insurance rendered it liable in damages.”
The Times, 15th June 2007
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
R (Al-Skeini and others) v. Secretary of State for Defence (Aire Centre and 10 others intervening)
S 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 was capable of applying to acts committed by a UK public authority outside its territory where in exceptional circumstances the victim was “within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom” for purposes of art1 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
WLR Daily, 13th June 2007
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.
Regina (Al-Skeini and Other) v. Secretary of State for Defence
House of Lords
“The Human Rights Act 1998 was capable of applying to acts of a United Kingdom public authority performed outside its territory only where the victim was within the jurisdiction of the UK for purposes of article 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights.”
The Times, 14th June 2007
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
Maranowska v. Richardson & Anr
AXA Insurance UK plc v. Norwich Union Insurance Ltd.
Birmingham City FC plc v. Revenue & Customs Commissioners
Corbett v. South Yorkshire Strategic HA
Shanks v. Swan Hunter Group plc
Daily Telegraph, 14th June 2007
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
Please note the Daily Telegraph Law Reports are only available online for one week.
Monthly mass cycle rides require notice to police
Regina (Kay) v. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
Court of Appeal
“Because they followed no fixed route, monthly campaigning cycle rides through central London could not be considered commonly and customarily held processions and therefore the organisers were required to give the police prior notice of the names of organisers, date and start time and intended route.”
The Times, 13th June 2007
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Lawrence v Pembrokeshire County Council [2007] EWCA Civ 446 (07 June 2007)
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Considine, R v [2007] EWCA Crim 1166 (06 June 2007)
Green, R. v [2007] EWCA Crim 1248 (25 May 2007)
Stephens & Anor, R. v [2007] EWCA Crim 1249 (25 May 2007)
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Berkeley Community Villages Ltd & Anor v Pullen & Ors [2007] EWHC 1330 (Ch) (07 June 2007)
Shierson & Anor v Rastogi (A Bankrupt) [2007] EWHC 1266 (Ch) (25 May 2007)
High Court (Family Division)
JPC v SLW & Anor [2007] EWHC 1349 (Fam) (08 June 2007)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Ridgway v JP Morgan Chase Bank National Association [2007] EWHC 1325 (QB) (08 June 2007)
Islington v Honeygan-Green (Honeygan) [2007] EWHC 1270 (QB) (25 May 2007)
Wakeling v McDonagh & Anor [2007] EWHC 1201 (QB) (25 May 2007)
European Court of Human Rights
FORBES v. THE UNITED KINGDOM – 65727/01 [2007] ECHR 468 (12 June 2007)
DODDS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM – 59314/00 [2007] ECHR 469 (12 June 2007)
BOTMEH AND ALAMI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM – 15187/03 [2007] ECHR 456 (7 June 2007)
Source: www.bailii.org.uk
Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v. Aaron and others
“In directors disqualification proceedings, the court might at times need expert assistance on issues of fact, but, generally speaking, it was hard to see why a court should need expert evidence that was simply expert opinion when considering the key question of whether a director was unfit to be concerned in the management of a limited company.”
WLR Daily, 7th June 2007
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.
Housing authority need not state the obvious that the offer is final
Omar v. Birmingham City Council
Court of Appeal
“It was not necessary for a letter offering accommodation in discharge of a local housing authority’s duty under the Housing Act 1996 to a person with priority need who was not intentionally homeless to state in so many words that the letter was “a final offer for the purposes of section 193(7)” where it was clear that it was a final offer.”
The Times, 12th June 2007
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
When accused tries to import victim’s sexual history
Privy Council
“A Scottish statute providing that when a court gave permission for a person accused of certain sexual offences to lead evidence of the alleged victim’s previous sexual history, there was a presumption in favour of laying before the jury the accused’s previous convictions for sexual offences unless he could show that such disclosure would not be in the interests of justice, or would prejudice his right to a fair trial.”
The Times, 12th June 2007
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
Extent of without-prejudice privilege before dispute
Barnetson v. Framlington Group Ltd. and Another
Court of Appeal
“When considering whether evidence of prelitigation disputes between the parties should be excluded under without-prejudice privilege, the critical feature of proximity to the litigation was the subject matter of the dispute rather than how long before the threat or start of litigation the matter was aired in negotiations between the parties.”
The Times, 11th June 2007
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
Power to exclude evidence of probative value
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
“Cases would be rare in which a breach of procedural rules would entitle a court to exclude evidence of substantial probative value and a court should be most reluctant to exclude evidence of that quality for such a breach; nevertheless there would be cases where the only way in which the court could ensure fairness was by excluding evidence even of substantial probative value.”
The Times, 11th June 2007
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
© Inner Temple Library 2025