“In December 2012, alongside the new European Regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters1, the European Commission released its proposal for a new Insolvency Regulation which is put forward to amend the current European Regulation on insolvency proceedings2 adopted on 29 May 2000.”
Hardwicke Chambers, 1st February 2013
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
“After the euphoria engendered by the Court of Appeal judgments in Rubin v Eurofinance SA and New Cap Reinsurance v Grant, the longawaited judgment of the Supreme Court which was handed down on 23 October 2012, has left the insolvency profession scratching its collective head. Lexa Hilliard QC takes a closer look at the judgment and explains why its reasoning is not entirely convincing.”
Full story (PDF)
11 Stone Buildings, January 2013
Source: www.11sb.com
“The UK Bankruptcy Courts have become the destination of choice for foreign debtors leading to ‘bankruptcy tourism’ and forum shopping. Why is this the case and is it ever safe to travel? Marcia Shekerdemian sets the scene, examines this phenomenon and puts a few cases under the insolvency microscope.”
Full story (PDF)
11 Stone Buildings, February 2013
Source: www.11sb.com
Hamilton v Hamilton [2013] EWCA Civ 13; [2013] WLR (D) 26
“An order in ancillary relief proceedings for the payment of a series of lump sums over time was not necessarily an order for a lump sum by instalments, within section 23(3)(c) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, and therefore variable under section 31 of the 1973 Act.”
WLR Daily, 24th January 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“John Tughan, barrister, 4 Paper Buildings, considers some recent important public law decisions of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal and High Court relating to children.”
Family Law Week, 21st January 2013
Source: www.familylawweek.com
Regina (Crown Prosecution Service) v Bolton Crown Court [2012] EWHC 3570 (Admin); [2013] WLR (D) 13
“The Crown Court had no power under regulation 3 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Regulations 1986, made under section 19(1) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, to make a costs order against a party to criminal proceedings in favour of another party’s counsel.”
WLR Daily, January 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“It will be interesting to watch the reception of a recent Court of Protection case, as yet unreported, in which a woman with profound learning difficulties was found to have capacity to decide not to terminate her pregnancy.”
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 21st January 2013
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
WH Newson Holding Ltd and others v IMI plc and others: [2012] EWHC 3680 (Ch); [2013] WLR (D) 5
“There was nothing to suggest that section 47A of the Competition Act 1998 was limited to the particular cause of action of a claim for breach of statutory duty. A claim brought under section 47A had to be in respect of the loss or damage suffered as a result of the infringement of competition law. The section would not generally permit claims to be brought in the Competition Appeal Tribunal for conduct that was distinct from the infringement, even when the infringement was an element that had to be established to complete the cause of action. The determining criterion was the factual nature of the claim, not the cause of action with which it was clothed.”
WLR Daily, 19th December 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Pensions Ombudsman v EMC Europe Ltd and others: [2012] EWHC 3508 (Ch); [2012] WLR (D) 382
“The Pensions Ombudsman had no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint by a scheme member to set aside a compromise agreement where successful determination of the complaint would adversely affect the rights of the parent company in circumstances where it was a necessary party to any claim to set aside the agreement but was not subject to the ombudsman’s jurisdiction.”
WLR Daily, 14th December 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“There was no general bar in principle to the award of general damages for emotional distress where a freezing order was wrongly obtained but any such award would be sensitive to the facts of a particular case.”
WLR Daily, 11th December 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Sally Bradley and Michael Edwards, Barristers, both of 4 Paper Buildings consider recent developments in the Court of Protection.”
Family Law Week, 6th December 2012
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
In re K (Children) (Direction to Investigate: Jurisdiction) [2012] EWCA Civ 1549; [2012] WLR (D) 364
“In family proceedings the court had jurisdiction to make more than one order under section 37 of the Children Act 1989 directing a local authority to investigate a child’s circumstances and consider issuing care proceedings. Where a judge was satisfied that the local authority either had not complied with the initial section 37 direction or had conducted an investigation which failed to a significant degree to engage with the court’s concerns, the court could extend or renew its section 37 direction.”
WLR Daily, 29th November 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The famous Victorian cricketer WG Grace is reputed once to have offered the following advice:
‘When you win the toss – bat. If you are in doubt, think about it, then bat. If you have very big doubts, consult a colleague – then bat.’
The recent Emerson decision [2012] EWCA Civ 1559 is another illustration that bringing a follow on claim in the CAT rather than in the High Court is the law’s equivalent of choosing to bowl.”
Competition Bulletin from Blackstone Chambers, 4th December 2012
Source: www.competitionbulletin.com
“That very significant vestiges of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to grant declaratory and injunctive relief have survived the implementation of the MCA 2005 is now clear. However, what is very much less clear is precisely: (1) how far the inherent jurisdiction has survived; and (2) how the High Court can or should exercise its powers under the inherent jurisdiction in respect of those who can only be afforded protection by way of its exercise. Cases decided since the beginning of the year have perhaps made the answers less rather than more clear, and this note seeks to draw together some of the threads, as much to provoke discussion as to offer solutions. It concludes with a brief discussion of the prospects for statutory reform in the area in the shape of the draft Care and Support Bill.”
Full story (PDF)
Thirty Nine Essex Street, December 2012
Source: www.39essex.com
Appleyard v Wewelwala [2012] EWHC 3302 (Ch); [2012] WLR (D) 345
“The court’s inherent jurisdiction to direct payment of the trustee in bankruptcy’s expenses extended to cases where the bankruptcy order was set aside on appeal. A trustee who had acted properly and innocently of any wrongdoing could expect to obtain payment of his reasonable expenses”
WLR Daily, 23rd November 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“It would be inappropriate for the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council substantively to consider issues raised in a petition referred by Her Majesty under section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act 1833, when those issues could be raised by way of ordinary proceedings in the first instance courts of the territory in which the issues arose.”
WLR Daily, 15th November 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
In re Press Association [2012] EWCA Crim 2434; [2012] WLR (D) 343
“The court did not have the power under section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 nor under section 1(2) of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 to make an order anonymising the name of a defendant. It was for those responsible for decisions relating to publication to ensure that the provisions which protected the public identification of a complainant in sexual cases were obeyed and they did so, not because there were enjoined to do so by judicial order, but because it was a statutory requirement.”
WLR Daily, 21st November 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Bank Handlowy w Warszawie SA and another v Christianapol sp z oo (Case C-116/11); [2012] WLR (D) 340
“On the proper interpretation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000, it was for the national law of the member state in which insolvency proceedings had been opened to determine at which moment the closure of those proceedings occurred. Where proceedings had a protective purpose, it was permissible to open secondary insolvency proceedings in the member state in which the debtor had an establishment. The court before which an application to have secondary insolvency proceedings opened had been made, could not examine the insolvency of a debtor against which main proceedings had been opened in another member state, even where the latter proceedings had a protective purpose.”
WLR Daily, 22nd November 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Shagroon v Sharbatly: [2012] EWCA Civ 1507; [2012] WLR (D) 337
“An English court would not recognise an overseas divorce, even if it was recognised by the country where the divorce had taken place, if the marriage performed between the parties was not recognised or recognisable in English law within the meaning of the Marriage Acts 1949 to 1986. Therefore, an English court had no jurisdiction to entertain a financial relief claim made under section 12 of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 by a party to such a marriage.”
WLR Daily, 21st November 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Gothaer Allgemeine Versicherung AG and others v Samskip GmbH (Case C-456/11); [2012] WLR (D) 329
“On the proper interpretation of articles 32 and 33 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p 1), the court of a member state in which recognition was sought of a judgment by which a court of another member state had declined jurisdiction on the basis of a jurisdiction clause was bound by the finding—declaring the action inadmissible—regarding the validity of that judgment.”
WLR Daily, 15th November 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025