law reports – Page 60 – Current Awareness

‘The freeholder of a building being redeveloped failed to agree with the local billing authority a date on which the building would be brought into the ratings list. The authority subsequently delivered to the manager of the building a completion notice addressed to “the owner” specifying a date. The manager, who was not authorised to accept legal documents on behalf of the freeholder, scanned the document and e-mailed a copy to the freeholder. When the building was entered onto the ratings list the freeholder appealed on the grounds that the completion notice was invalid and had not been validly served. Before the Court of Appeal the sole issue was the validity of service.’

WLR Daily, 15th June 2017

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

In re Nortel Networks UK Ltd and related companies (No 2) – WLR Daily

Posted June 21st, 2017 in administrators, courts, expenses, insolvency, jurisdiction, law reports by sally

In re Nortel Networks UK Ltd and related companies (No 2) [2017] EWHC 1429 (Ch)

‘The applicants, the administrators of companies in the same group, were aware of a number of potential claims, which might if established, qualify as administration expenses (“expense claims”), and thereby rank for payment in priority to the claims of unsecured creditors. Neither the Insolvency Act 1986, nor the Insolvency Rules 1986, nor the Insolvency Rules 2016 provided any express mechanism under which an administrator could require expense claims to be asserted by a specific date, or enable him to refuse to deal with claims asserted after that date in the context of a distribution to unsecured creditors. In the absence of any applicable statutory scheme, the administrators applied to the High Court for directions under paragraph 63 of Schedule B1 to the 1986 Act to implement a scheme informing potential claimants that any expense claims which had not yet been made had to be notified to the administrators on a prescribed form on or before a specified date.’

WLR Daily, 16th June 2017

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Regina (Williams) v Powys County Council – WLR Daily

Posted June 21st, 2017 in appeals, judicial review, law reports, legal language, legislation, listed buildings, planning, Wales by sally

Regina (Williams) v Powys County Council [2017] EWCA Civ 427

‘The defendant local planning authority granted planning permission for the erection of a wind turbine on the farm of the interested party. The wind turbine was erected on the side of a hill the other side of which, about 1·5 km from the wind turbine, was a Grade II* listed building. Several scheduled monuments were also in the surrounding area, two of which were within two km of the site. The claimant, a local resident, applied for judicial review of the council’s decision to grant planning permission. The judge dismissed the claim, determining that (i) the planning authority was not required to consult the Welsh ministers under article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Wales) Order 2012 as the requirement to consult on development “likely to affect the site of a scheduled monument” in paragraph k of Schedule 4 to the Order applied only to development likely to have some direct physical effect on the monument, not also to development likely to have visual effects on the setting of the monument, and (ii) the planning authority had not erred in failing to perform the duty in section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, which required it to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the setting of a listed building when deciding whether to grant planning permission for development which affected a listed building or its setting.’

WLR Daily, 9th June 2017

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Regina (Khan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department – WLR Daily

Posted June 21st, 2017 in appeals, immigration, judicial review, law reports, oral hearings, Pakistan, tribunals by sally

Regina (Khan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 424

‘The claimant, a national of Pakistan, had limited leave to remain in the United Kingdom. A few days before the expiry of his leave he applied for an extension of his period of leave. The Secretary of State rejected that application on the grounds that it had not been accompanied by the required fee. Since the claimant had no right of appeal against this rejection, he submitted a renewed application accompanied by the required fee. The Secretary of State refused that application on the merits, informing the claimant that he had no right of appeal against her refusal since his renewed application had been made at a time when he had no leave to remain. The claimant sought judicial review of the Secretary of State’s determination that he had no right of appeal, contending that he had had leave to remain at the time of making his renewed application since his leave had been automatically extended pursuant to section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 when he made his original application for an extension, and was still continuing. The claimant was granted permission to proceed with his claim, but at the full hearing the Upper Tribunal dismissed the claim on the basis that the claimant had an alternative remedy in the form of an appeal to the First-tier Tribunal.’

WLR Daily, 8th June 2017

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted June 21st, 2017 in law reports by sally

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

High Court (Administrative Court)

High Court (Chancery Division)

High Court (Commercial Court)

Abbot Investments (North Africa) Ltd v Nestoil Ltd [2017] EWHC 119 (Comm) (20 June 2017)

High Court (Family Division)

GP (Wrongful Removal) [2017] EWHC 1480 (Fam) (20 June 2017)

High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)

Brown v Bower & Anor [2017] EWHC 1388 (QB) (19 June 2017)

Source: www.bailii.org

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted June 20th, 2017 in law reports by sally

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

High Court (Administrative Court)

High Court (Chancery Division)

High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)

High Court (Technology and Construction Court)

Lea Valley Developments Ltd v Derbyshire [2017] EWHC 1353 (TCC) (16 June 2017)

Source: www.bailii.org

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted June 16th, 2017 in law reports by sally

Supreme Court

Kiarie and Byndloss, R (on the applications of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] UKSC 42 (14 June 2017)

A and B, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Health [2017] UKSC 41 (14 June 2017)

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

UKI (Kingsway) Ltd v Westminster City Council [2017] EWCA Civ 430 (15 June 2017)

Dexia Crediop SPA v Comune Di Prato [2017] EWCA Civ 428 (15 June 2017)

High Court (Administrative Court)

Alexander v The Public Prosecutor’s Office, Marseille District Court of First Instance, France [2017] EWHC 1392 (Admin) (15 June 2017)

Anugha, R (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWHC 1391 (Admin) (15 June 2017)

Nduka v General Medical Council [2017] EWHC 1396 (Admin) (15 June 2017)

Khaled & Anor v The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs & Ors [2017] EWHC 1422 (Admin) (15 June 2017)

MK (A Child By Her Litigation Friend CAE), R (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWHC 1365 (Admin) (14 June 2017)

Court (Chancery Division)

Byrne v Mullan [2017] EWHC 1387 (Ch) (15 June 2017)

High Court (Commercial Court)

Micula & Ors v Romania [2017] EWHC 1430 (Comm) (15 June 2017)

High Court (Technology and Construction Court)

Alstom Transport UK Ltd v London Underground Ltd & Anor [2017] EWHC 1406 (TCC) (15 June 2017)

Source: www.bailii.org

F v L (Child Arrangements Order: Relocation) – WLR Daily

Posted June 15th, 2017 in appeals, child arrangements orders, children, custody, domestic violence, law reports by sally

F v L (Child Arrangements Order: Relocation)[2017] EWHC 1377 (Fam)

‘The mother, an Italian national, sought a child arrangements order (“CAO”) under section 8 of the Children Act 1989, as amended, in respect of the child, aged five, and permission to relocate with him to Italy, alleging serious domestic abuse by the father. The Italian father opposed the application for relocation and cross-applied for a shared care CAO. Despite the recommendation in the report prepared by the CAFCASS officer that the child’s main carer be his mother and that she should be given permission to relocate to Italy, the trial judge decided not to consider or make any finding in respect of the abuse allegations, refused the mother’s application to relocate and ordered the continuance of the shared care regime. The mother appealed on the grounds, inter alia, that the trial judge had made a fundamental procedural error in failing to resolve the issue of the future care of the child prior to considering the application for relocation and had failed to make findings on the abuse allegations.’

WLR Daily, 9th June 2017

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Chugai Pharmaceutical Co Ltd v UCB Pharma SA and another; Chugai Pharmaceutical Co Ltd v UCB Biopharma SPRL – WLR Daily

Posted June 15th, 2017 in conflict of laws, jurisdiction, law reports, licensing, patents by sally

Chugai Pharmaceutical Co Ltd v UCB Pharma SA and another; Chugai Pharmaceutical Co Ltd v UCB Biopharma SPRL [2017] EWHC 1216 (Pat)

‘The first defendant in the first of two claims entered into a licence with the claimant in respect of a portfolio of patents, including a US patent, concerning tocilizumab, an immunosuppressive drug. The claimant sought, inter alia, a declaration that it was not obliged to continue to pay royalties under the licence in respect of its tocilizumab products. The defendants alleged that, although framed as a claim for a declaration relating to a contract, a part of the proceedings, in substance, concerned not only the scope but also the validity of the US patent. Accordingly, consideration of the claim would infringe the territorial limits of the courts jurisdictional powers and constitute an affront to comity (“the Moçambique rule”) and/or the foreign act of state doctrine, which militated against the English court determining issues relating to sovereign acts of a foreign state.’

WLR Daily, 26th May 2017

Source: www.iclr.co.uk