“A ‘completely unacceptable’ UK Border Agency backlog of more than 16,000 applications from migrants for permission to stay in Britain, some of them dating back almost a decade, has been uncovered by the chief inspector of borders and immigration.”
The Guardian, 23rd January 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Lloyds TSB Foundation for Scotland v Lloyds Banking Group plc [2013] UKSC 3; [2013] WLR (D) 19
“In construing a contractual provision, where there had been an unforeseeable and fundamental change in the legal context since the execution of the contract, the proper approach was to adopt a meaning which best gave effect to the parties’ original intentions and purposes. Where, therefore, a deed executed in 1997 provided for payment to be made by a banking group to a charitable foundation by reference to the group’s pre-tax profit or loss shown in the audited accounts, and a change in accounting practice subsequently required the group consolidated income statement to include, as a profit, a sum representing an unrealised gain on acquisition, the inclusion of such a sum was to be ignored for the purposes of calculating the amount payable to the foundation under the deed.”
WLR Daily, 23rd January 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Zakrzewski v District Court in Torun, Poland [2013] UKSC 2; [2013] WLR (D) 18
“Where the information set out by the requesting state in an European arrest warrant had correctly specified ‘the sentence . . . imposed’ on the convicted person whose extradition it sought, as required by section 2(6)(e) of the Extradition Act 2003, but the courts in that state had subsequently aggregated the sentences so that he was to serve a different, albeit lesser, sentence than that stated in the information, the warrant remained valid and the person could be extradited.”
WLR Daily, 23rd January 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
European Commission v Tomkins plc (Case C-286/11P); [2013] WLR (D) 17
“Where the liability of a parent company was derived exclusively from that of its subsidiary and where the parent and its subsidiary had brought parallel applications having the ‘same object’, the Court was entitled, without infringing the ne ultra petita principle—that European Union courts could not rule on aspects concerning addressees other than those covered by the applicant’s application—to take account of the outcome of the action brought by the subsidiary and to annul the action brought by the parent on that basis, despite the fact that the scope of the applications and arguments presented in each application were different.”
WLR Daily, 22nd January 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“A rare Rent Act 1977 possession case, with possession sought as ‘reasonably required’ under Case 9 Of Schedule 15 of the 1977 Act via section 98(1).”
NearlyLegal, 24th January 2013
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
“England’s most senior doctor has questioned the government’s policy of criminalising all people who take illegal drugs and said they should be treated primarily as if they have a ‘health problem’.”
Daily Telegraph, 23rd January 2013
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“A clash between the home secretary, Theresa May, and her expert drugs advisory group is looming after it decided against banning qat, a mild herbal stimulant, traditionally used in Britain’s Somali, Yemeni and Ethiopian communities.”
The Guardian, 23rd January 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Supreme Court, 23rd January 2013
Supreme Court, 23rd January 2013
Supreme Court, 23rd January 2013
“A widow whose husband was killed as he walked home from his local pub is to campaign for a change in the law after a banned driver dubbed ‘an absolute menace on the roads’ was jailed for only 18 months today for causing his death.”
Daily Telegraph, 23rd January 2013
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“Cuts to legal aid and grants means courts will be dealing with unprecedented number of self-represented litigants.”
The Guardian, 23rd January 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Two types of readers may be interested in this case; the first, who are interested in the age-old judging problem of whom to believe when faced with a conflict of evidence, and the second (and I don’t want to do any gender-stereotyping) those who are fascinated in whether a replica Porsche 917 (think Steve McQueen in Le Mans) over-revved and blew because (a) it had a gearbox fault or (b) the Defendant driver missed a gear.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 23rd January 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“A man has been jailed for three months for dumping a pig’s head outside a mosque in Berkshire.”
BBC News, 23rd January 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“The Treasury is urging the supreme court to consider secret evidence for the first time when it hears an appeal by an Iranian bank against sanctions imposed on it by the British government.”
The Guardian, 22nd January 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
KC v MGN Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 3 (22 January 2013)
MS (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWCA Civ 7 (22 January 2013)
Bank of Scotland Plc v Watson [2013] EWCA Civ 6 (22 January 2013)
TG (A Child), Re [2013] EWCA Civ 5 (22 January 2013)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Piper v Hales [2013] EWHC B1 (QB) (18 January 2013)
Cummings & Ors v The Ministry of Justice [2013] EWHC 48 (QB) (22 January 2013)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Kenya Aid Programme v Sheffield City Council [2013] EWHC 54 (Admin) (22 January 2013)
Source: www.bailii.org
“In assessing whether an individual would be at risk on return to a member state, the fact that the receiving state was itself bound by the same Conventions and Community law as the sending state was to be regarded as obviating the risk unless there was a systemic failure in the receiving state. Unless there had been such a failure, the person was adequately protected: he had his rights against the receiving government and, if necessary, the possibility of recourse to the European Court of Human Rights from the receiving country.”
WLR Daily, 16th January 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Thames Water Utilities Ltd v Transport for London [2013] WLR (D) 15
“On the plain construction of regulation 19 of the Traffic Management Permit Scheme (England) Regulations 2007 a statutory undertaker could not avoid a criminal sanction where a person contracted to act on its behalf to undertake specified works in a specified street did so without a permit.”
WLR Daily, 17th January 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024