Nottingham City Council v LM and others [2014] EWCA Civ 152; [2014] WLR (D) 92
‘Jurisdiction had to be considered in every children case with an international element and at the earliest opportunity, particularly when the proceedings were issued and at the case management hearing.’
WLR Daily, 21st February 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The Office of Communications had jurisdiction under section 316 of the Communications Act 2003 to impose conditions in broadcasting licences where the practices of licenceholders made it appropriate to impose such conditions to ensure fair and effective competition.’
WLR Daily, 17th February 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The two men convicted of murdering Lee Rigby will be sentenced next week, after a key ruling was handed down today regarding the use of whole-life jail terms.’
The Independent, 18th February 2014
Source: www.independent.co.uk
Hamnett v Essex County Council [2014] EWHC 246 (Admin); [2014] WLR (D) 72
‘The Administrative Court, hearing a claim for a statutory review brought under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, did not have jurisdiction to investigate an alleged breach of section 29 of the Equality Act 2010.’
WLR Daily, 13th February 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Sally Bradley and Michael Edwards, barristers of 4 Paper Buildings, consider the President’s guidance on transparency in the Court of Protection as well as the most important recent judgments.’
Family Law Week, 16th February 2014
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘A State’s sovereignty is understood by reference to a geographical territory and jurisdiction is understood by reference to a State’s authority over persons within that territory. The primarily territorial perspective of jurisdiction must also be understood against the background of the historical period in which many international treaties, including the Convention, were written. In the post-WWII era, jurisdiction was a tool to allocate competency among fiercely independent and volatile nation States. In the minds of the drafters of such conventions, if one State assumed extraterritorial jurisdiction then it would, necessarily, encroach upon another State’s jurisdiction.’
Judiciary of England and Wales, 30th January 2014
Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk
Regina v Lewis (Leroy): [2013] EWCA Crim 2596; [2014] WLR (D) 38
‘Once an indictment had been properly preferred and signed it remained the indictment in the case, so that the Crown Court had jurisdiction to try a case where no evidence had been offered on the single indictable offence and only summary offences were left to be tried.’
WLR Daily, 5th December 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Vidal-Hall and others v Google Inc [2014] EWHC 13 (QB); [2014] WLR (D) 21
‘A claim for misuse of private information was a tort within the meaning of para 3.1(9) of Practice Direction 6B—Service out of the jurisdiction.’
WLR Daily, 16th January 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘This sad case arose out of the 2006 terrorist attack on the Taj Mahal Palace, Mumbai, India. The claimants, who had spent 15 days backpacking around Goa, decided to treat themselves to one night of luxury at the hotel before they were due to fly home from Mumbai. Shortly after the attack began the claimants hid in their room, locked the door and turned off the lights. Some hours later they tried to escape through the window. Their room was on the third floor of the tower part of the hotel. They tied together sheets, curtains and towels to make a rope. They hung it outside their room and the first claimant went first. The “rope” came apart and he fell to the ground suffering serious spinal injuries which have left him paraplegic. The second claimant was rescued subsequently. She did not suffer physical injuries but claims for continuing psychiatric consequences.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 24th January 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘A group of UK Google users called ‘Safari Users Against Google’s Secret Tracking’ have claimed that the tracking and collation of information about of their internet usage by Google amounts to misuse of personal information, and a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998. The Judge confirmed that misuse of personal information was a distinct tort. He also held that the English courts had jurisdiction to try the claims.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 23rd January 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
In re E (A Child) [2014] EWHC 6 (Fam); [2014] WLR (D) 10
‘In any care or other public law case with a European dimension good practice would now require the court to set out explicitly the basis upon which it had either accepted or rejected jurisdiction and to identify the precise basis upon which it had proceeded. Furthermore, in cases involving foreign nationals there had to be transparency and openness as between the English family courts and the consular and other authorities of the relevant foreign state.’
WLR Daily, 14th January 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Schmid v Hertel (Case C-328/12); [2014] WLR (D) 5
‘Under article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings, the courts of the member state within the territory of which insolvency proceedings had been opened had jurisdiction to hear and determine an action to set a transaction aside by virtue of insolvency that was brought against a person whose place of residence was not within the territory of a member state.’
WLR Daily, 16th January 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘CPR r 81.4(3), which gave the court power to order that a company director or officer be imprisoned for a company’s contempt, applied to a director who was outside the jurisdiction.’
WLR Daily, 20th December 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Google is to face a claim for damages before the High Court from three individuals who claim the company breached UK data protection laws by circumventing privacy settings deployed on their web browsers to serve them with personalised adverts.’
OUT-LAW.com, 17th January 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
‘In the case where, in the context of verification of compliance with a judgment delivered by the Court of Justice pursuant to article 260FEU of the FEU Treaty, a difference arose between the European Commission and the member state concerned as to whether national legislation or a national practice which the Court of Justice had not examined beforehand was appropriate for ensuring compliance with that judgment, the commission could not, by adopting a decision, resolve such a difference itself and draw from this the necessary inferences for the calculation of the penalty payment.’
WLR Daily, 15th January 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘It is again time for a round-up of recent competition law developments which have caught our attention.’
Competition Bulletin from Blackstone Chambers, 14th January 2014
Source: www.competitionbulletin.com
Corman-Collins SA v La Maison du Whisky SA (Case C-9/12); [2013] WLR (D) 513
‘The rule of jurisdiction laid down in the second indent of article 5(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 for disputes relating to contracts for the supply of services was applicable in the case of a legal action by which a claimant established in one member state claimed, against a defendant established in another member state, rights arising from an exclusive distribution agreement, which required the contract binding the parties to contain specific terms concerning the distribution by the distributor of goods sold by the grantor. It was for the national court to ascertain whether that was the case in the before it.’
WLR Daily, 19th December 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The English Patents Court had no jurisdiction to review or investigate the decision of European Patent Office (EPO) to register a patent on an application under article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, since the United Kingdom’s sovereign power in relation to that issue had been surrendered to the EPO under the European Patent Convention (EPC).’
WLR Daily, 20th December 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘On 20 December 2013 judgment was handed down in the first judicial review of a decision of the Legal Ombudsman (“LeO”) to reach a substantive hearing. The judgment will be of interest to lawyers and complainants wishing to challenge unappealable decisions of LeO. It is particularly (though not only) relevant to LeO decisions which direct a reduction in fees. This is an area which, in view of the absence of a limit on the amount by which LeO can reduce fees, has caused particular controversy.’
4 New Square, 3rd January 2014
Source: www.4newsquare.com
‘Does the Legal Ombudsman have teeth? That was, in effect, the question before the High Court in Layard Horsfall, a judicial review brought by a former solicitor against a decision by the Ombudsman to reduce his fees following a complaint by one of his clients. The Court’s answer was a very clear yes. Where the Ombudsman has made her decision properly, taking relevant factors into account, it is likely to withstand judicial review challenge.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 3rd January 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024