Cotter (Respondent) v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (Appellant) – Supreme Court
Supreme Court, 6th November 2013
Category: economic loss
Supreme Court finds HMRC entitled to tax under dispute where taxpayer left it to HMRC to calculate the tax – OUT-LAW.com
“A taxpayer must perform a calculation of the amount of tax due itself, rather than leave that calculation to HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC), in order to retain possession of funds under dispute, the Supreme Court has ruled.”
OUT-LAW.com, 8th November 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
Defamation bill faces fresh attack from Conservatives – The Guardian
“The defamation bill, which was last month threatened with obliteration after a political row over Leveson press reforms, is once again under attack, but this time by the Tories who want to get rid of two key sections.”
The Guardian, 11th April 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
When human rights hit the private law of damages for death – UK Human Rights Blog
“Swift v. Secretary of State for Justice [2012] EWHC 2000 (QB) Eady J, read judgment. This decision involves the intersection of Articles 8 (family) and 14 (discrimination) of the ECHR with the law governing who can recover damages for the death of a relative. This law is the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 (for the text see [10] of the judgment – embarrassingly, the one freely available on the internet is out of date). One does not to think for very long before realising that the FAA is underpinned by an idea that one ought to respect the rights of the family, and to pay the family when one has negligently caused the death of a family member. But like all such laws, there is the problem of where to stop – where does the family stop for these purposes?”
UK Human Rights Blog, 24th July 2012
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
Dismissed News of the World journalists may have grounds to sue – The Guardian
“Journalists dismissed by the News of the World who are unable to find new jobs and fear their professional reputations have been damaged by the phone hacking scandal could have legal grounds for suing News International, according to employment specialists.”
The Guardian, 10th July 2011
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Robinson v PE Jones (Contractors) Ltd – WLR Daily
Robinson v PE Jones (Contractors) Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 9; [2011] WLR (D) 4
“The builder/vendor of a building did not by reason of his contract to construct or to complete the building assume any liability in the tort of negligence in relation to defects in the building giving rise to purely economic loss.”
WLR Daily, 19th Janaury 2011
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.
Shell UK Ltd v Total UK Ltd; Total UK Ltd v Chevron Ltd – WLR Daily
Shell UK Ltd v Total UK Ltd; Total UK Ltd v Chevron Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 180; [2010] WLR (D) 67
“A defendant who could reasonably foresee that his negligent actions would damage property owed a duty of care to a beneficial owner of that property. If the defendant damaged the property, he would be liable not merely for the physical loss of that property but also for the foreseeable consequences of that loss, such as the extra expenditure to which the beneficial owner was put or the loss of profit which he incurred. Provided that the beneficial owner could join the legal owner in the proceedings, it did not matter that the beneficial owner was not himself in possession of the property.”
WLR Daily, 8th March 2010
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.
Douglas and Another v. Hello! Ltd. and Others – Times Law Reports
Duty of confidentiality to celebrities is enforceable
Douglas and Another v. Hello! Ltd. and Others
House of Lords
“Photographic images of the wedding of two celebrities had a commercial value over which the celebrities had sufficient control to enable them to impose an obligation of confidence. A magazine publisher who had bought the exclusive right to publish the photographs and had the benefit of the duty of confidentiality imposed by the celebrities, had the right to enforce that duty against a rival magazine which published unauthorised photographs of the wedding.”
The Times, 3rd May 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.
Life got just tougher for those who get scooped – The Times
“The House of Lords’ ruling, by a 3 – 2 majority in favour of OK! magazine’s £1 million claim against Hello!, will further strengthen the grip that celebrities have over the exploitation of their fame. The use of “spoilers”, in which one publication beats another to an “exclusive” story, will now carry a much greater risk of large compensation claims.”
The Times, 2nd May 2007
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Lords OK Hello!’s Zeta-Jones wedding payout – The Times
“OK! magazine won it’s [sic] appeal today against glossy rival Hello! in the dispute over the Catherine Zeta-Jones and Michael Douglas wedding photographs.”
The Times, 2nd May 2007
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
