Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Ahmed & Anor v Mustafa [2014] EWCA Civ 277 (17 March 2014)
M-M (A Child), Re [2014] EWCA Civ 276 (17 March 2014)
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Bhatia Best LTD v Lord Chancellor [2014] EWHC 746 (QB) (17 March 2014)
Source: www.bailii.org
Márquez Samohano v Universitat Pompeu Fabra: (Case C-190/13); [2014] WLR (D) 129
‘Clause 5 of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work, annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC, did not preclude national rules which allowed universities to renew successive fixed term employment contracts concluded with associate lecturers, with no limitation as to the maximum duration and the number of renewals of those contracts, where such contracts were justified by an objective reason within the meaning of clause 5(1)(a), which was a matter for the referring court to verify. It was also for that court to ascertain that whether the renewal of the successive fixed-term employment contracts at issue was actually intended to cover temporary needs and that rules were not, in fact, used to meet fixed and permanent needs in terms of employment of teaching staff.’
WLR Daily, 13th March 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Clause 4(1) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work, annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC, precluded a national rule which provided that for the termination of fixed-term contracts of more than six months, a fixed notice period of two weeks would be applied regardless of the length of service of the worker concerned, whereas the length of the notice period for contracts of indefinite duration was fixed in accordance with the length of service of the worker concerned and could vary from two weeks to three months, where those two categories of workers were in comparable situations.’
WLR Daily, 13th March 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Brogsitter v Fabrication de Montres Normandes EURL and another: Case C-548/12; [2014] WLR (D) 130
‘Civil liability claims, such as those at issue in the instant case, which were made in tort under national law, had to none the less be considered as concerning “matters relating to a contract” within the meaning of article 5(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, where the conduct complained of could be considered a breach of the terms of the contract, which could be established by taking into account the purpose of the contract.’
WLR Daily, 13th March 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Your Response Ltd v Datateam Business Media Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 281 (14 March 2014)
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Holmes, R v [2014] EWCA Crim 420 (14 March 2014)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Lehman Brothers International (Europe) & Ors, Re [2014] EWHC 704 (Ch) (14 March 2014)
Bank St Petersburg & Anor v Arkhangelsky & Ors [2014] EWHC 695 (Ch) (14 March 2014)
High Court (Commercial Court)
IPCO (Nigeria) LTD v Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation [2014] EWHC 576 (Comm) (14 March 2014)
Energy Venture Partners Ltd v Malabu Oil & Gas Ltd [2014] EWHC 663 (Comm) (14 March 2014)
High Court (Family Division)
Z (A Child: Independent Social Work Assessment), Re [2014] EWHC 729 (Fam) (14 March 2014)
Source: www.bailii.org
‘On the hearing of an application by a police officer for a production order under section 9 of, and Schedule 1 to, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, seeking access to journalistic material held by a news organisation for the purposes of an investigation into an alleged offence, the court could not have regard to evidence adduced by the police in support of the application which had not been disclosed to the news organisation.’
WLR Daily, 12th March 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v Elsayed; [2014] EWCA Crim 333; [2014] WLR (D) 125
‘For the purposes of confiscation proceedings the market value of drugs might vary depending for example on the time at which the drugs were obtained or the capacity or role of the person obtaining them and a judge was entitled to make findings of fact as to what a defendant would do with those drugs, ie sell them as a dealer at street level. Such findings of fact necessarily bore on the value of the property obtained by the defendant.’
WLR Daily, 4th March 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina (Evans) v Attorney General; [2014] EWCA Civ 254; [2014] WLR (D) 124
‘The issue of a certificate by the Attorney General, an accountable person under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, of a certificate under section 53(2) of the Act so as to override and render ineffective a decision of an independent and impartial tribunal required more than that he merely disagreed with the tribunal’s determination. Examples of what would suffice were that there had been a material change of circumstances since the tribunal’s decision or that it was clearly flawed in fact or in law.’
WLR Daily, 12th March 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Dunhill v Burgin (Nos 1 and 2): [2014] UKSC 18; [2014] WLR (D) 122
‘The test of capacity to conduct proceedings for the purpose of CPR Pt 21 was the capacity to conduct the claim or cause of action which the claimant in fact had, rather than the claim as formulated by her lawyers. A consent order based on the settlement of a claim by a claimant who lacked capacity and did not have a litigation friend was not valid even though the claimant was legally represented.’
WLR Daily, 12th March 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Onu v Akwiwu & Anor [2014] EWCA Civ 279 (13 March 2014)
Gohil v Gohil [2014] EWCA Civ 274 (13 March 2014)
Simon v Byford & Ors [2014] EWCA Civ 280 (13 March 2014)
F (A Child), Re [2014] EWCA Civ 275 (13 March 2014)
SE (Zimbabwe) v The Secrtary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 256 (13 March 2014)
Hoyle v Rogers & Anor [2014] EWCA Civ 257 (13 March 2014)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Director of Public Prosecutions v Issler & Anor [2014] EWHC 669 (Admin) (12 March 2014)
High Court (Patents Court)
Kennametal Inc v Pramet Tools SRO & Anor [2014] EWHC 565 (Pat) (05 March 2014)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Lu v Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust [2014] EWHC 690 (QB) (13 March 2014)
Source: www.legislation.gov.uk
‘A member state was entitled, pursuant to Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC, to refuse to grant a right of residence to a third country national who was a family member of a Union citizen where that citizen was a national of and resided in that member state but regularly travelled to another member state in the course of his professional activities. However, article 45FEU of the FEU Treaty conferred on a third country national who was the family member of a Union citizen a derived right of residence in the member state of which that citizen was a national, where the citizen resided in that member state but regularly travelled to another member state as a worker within the meaning of that provision, if the refusal to grant such a right of residence discouraged the worker from effectively exercising his rights under article 45FEU, which was for the referring court to determine.’
WLR Daiily, 12th March 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Article 21(1)FEU of the FEU Treaty meant that where a Union citizen had created or strengthened a family life with a third country national during genuine residence, pursuant to and in conformity with the conditions set out in articles 7(1) and (2) and article 16(1) and (2) of Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC in a member state other than that of which he was a national, the provisions of the Directive applied by analogy where that Union citizen returned, with the family member in question, to his member state of origin.’
WLR Daily, 12th March 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Supreme Court
Dunhill v Burgin [2014] UKSC 18 (12 March 2014)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Duce v Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust [2014] EWCA Civ 249 (12 March 2014)
Evans, R (on the application of) v HM Attorney General & Anor [2014] EWCA Civ 254 (12 March 2014)
Johnson v Warburtons Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 258 (12 March 2014)
Southend-On-Sea Borough Council v Armour [2014] EWCA Civ 231 (12 March 2014)
Evans v The Information Commissioner & Ors [2014] EWCA Civ 253 (12 March 2014)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Newland Shipping and Forwarding Ltd v Toba Trading FZC [2014] EWHC 661 (Comm) (12 March 2014)
Rattan v UBS AG, London Branch [2014] EWHC 665 (Comm) (12 March 2014)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Stevens v Equity Syndicate Management Ltd [2014] EWHC 689 (QB) (12 March 2014)
Source: www.bailii.org
‘Article 15 of Parliament and Council Directive 2006/54/EC precluded national legislation which, on grounds relating to the public interest, excluded a woman on maternity leave from a vocational training course which formed an integral part of her employment and which was compulsory in order to be able to be appointed definitively to a post as a civil servant and in order to benefit from an improvement in her employment conditions, while guaranteeing her the right to participate in the next training course, the date of which was nevertheless uncertain. Article 14(2), which provided that a difference of treatment based on a characteristic relating to sex did not constitute discrimination in relation to particular occupational activities, did not apply since the national legislation did not limit a specified activity solely to male workers but only delayed access to that activity for female workers who had been unable to receive full vocational training as a result of compulsory maternity leave. Both articles 14(1)(c) and 15 were sufficiently clear, precise and unconditional to have direct effect.’
WLR Daily, 6th March 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina (Alansi) v Newham London Borough Council: [2013] EWHC 3722 (Admin); [2014] WLR (D) 117
‘The court’s approach to the interpretation of statements made by public bodies that were said to give rise to a legitimate expectation required it, inter alia, to ascertain the meaning which the authority’s statements would reasonably convey to the claimant in the light of all the background knowledge which he/she had in the situation in which she was at the time that the statements were made.’
WLR Daily, 27th November 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Mohamoud v Birmingham City Council: [2014] EWCA Civ 227; [2014] WLR (D) 119
‘The principle that a person conducting a review of a local housing authority’s decision as to what (if any) duty to provide accommodation it owed under section 193 of the Housing Act 1996 to an applicant could look at new matters to determine whether there was a “deficiency” in the decision for the purposes of regulation 8(2) of the Allocation of Housing and Homelessness (Review Procedures) Regulations 1999 was not confined to points which the applicant could not have taken at the outset.’
WLR Daily, 7th March 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v Dang (Manh Toan) and others; [2014] EWCA Crim 348; [2014] WLR (D) 118
‘For a defendant to be guilty of conspiring, contrary to the section 1 of the Criminal Law Act 1977, “to be concerned” in the production of a controlled drug, contrary to section 4(1)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, by supplying equipment to assist others to produce the drug, he had to share in the drug producer’s purpose and had to lend his assistance for that purpose. A generalised awareness that the equipment might be used for the unlawful purpose would not suffice.’
WLR Daily, 7th March 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Rubin v Rubin: [2014] EWHC 611 (Fam); [2014] WLR (D) 116
‘Under section 22ZA(3) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, as inserted, the court could not make a costs allowance unless it was satisfied that without the amount of the allowance the applicant would not reasonably be able to obtain appropriate legal services for the purposes of the proceedings or any part of the proceedings, and for the purpose of that provision the court had to be satisfied in particular that the applicant was not reasonably able to secure a loan to pay for the services.’
WLR Daily, 10th March 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024