L Batley Pet Products Limited (Appellant) v North Lanarkshire Council (Respondent) – Supreme Court
L Batley Pet Products Limited (Appellant) v North Lanarkshire Council (Respondent) [2014] UKSC 27 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 8th May 2014
Category: law reports
Barnes (as former Court Appointed Receiver) (Appellant) v The Eastenders Group and another (Respondents) – Supreme Court
Supreme Court, 8th May 2014
A (Respondent) v British Broadcasting Corporation (Appellant) (Scotland) – Supreme Court
A (Respondent) v British Broadcasting Corporation (Appellant) (Scotland) [2014] UKSC 25 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 8th May 2014
In re Olympus UK Ltd and others – WLR Daily
In re Olympus UK Ltd and others; [2014] EWHC 1350 (Ch); [2014] WLR (D) 184
‘A proposed cross-border merger where the shareholders in the transferor company had agreed not to receive shares or other securities in the transferee would be compliant with and effective under the Companies (Cross-Border Mergers) Regulations 2007 (SI 2007/2974).’
WLR Daily, 1st May 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Secretary of State for the Home Department v Mohamed (formerly CC); Same v CF – WLR Daily
‘Suspected terrorists subject to control orders and terrorism prevention and investigation measures who brought proceedings for abuse of process relating to the manner in which they were removed to the United Kingdom from Somaliland were entitled to see the Secretary of State’s objections to their case for alleged collusion and mistreatment. The Secretary of State was not permitted to confine reasons for rejecting their case on those issues to a closed judgment. The applicants and the public should not be denied all knowledge of the extent to which their factual and/or legal case was accepted or rejected. Such a total denial offended justice and propriety.’
WLR Daily, 2nd May 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina (O Twelve Baytree Ltd) v Rent Assessment Panel – WLR Daily
Regina (O Twelve Baytree Ltd) v Rent Assessment Panel: [2014] EWHC 1229 (Admin); [2014] WLR (D) 185
‘Notwithstanding that an applicant had given notice of its intention to withdraw an application under section 84(3) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 for determination of its right to manage premises, the Rent Assessment Panel retained jurisdiction and could either decide to dismiss the application or proceed to determine the application.’
WLR Daily, 16th April 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
BAILII: Recent Decisions
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
RB v Brighton & Hove City Council [2014] EWCA Civ 561 (07 May 2014)
HH (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 569 (07 May 2014)
AW Group Ltd v Taylor Walton (a firm) [2014] EWCA Civ 592 (07 May 2014)
Webster & Ors v Mark Liddington & Ors [2014] EWCA Civ 560 (07 May 2014)
Tinkler & Anor v Elliott [2014] EWCA Civ 564 (07 May 2014)
Davies & Anor v Davies [2014] EWCA Civ 568 (07 May 2014)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Best v The Chief Land Registrar & Anor [2014] EWHC 1370 (Admin) (07 May 2014)
High Court (Chancery Division)
High Court (Commercial Court)
American Overseas Marine Corp v Golar Commodities Ltd [2014] EWHC 1347 (Comm) (07 May 2014)
Kaneria v The English & Wales Cricket Board Ltd [2014] EWHC 1348 (Comm) (06 May 2014)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Mughal v Telegraph Media Group Ltd [2014] EWHC 1371 (QB) (07 May 2014)
Source: www.bailii.org
Regina (Lee-Hirons) v Secretary of State for Justice and another – WLR Daily
‘Where the Secretary of State recalled a person to be detained in hospital under section 42(3) of the Mental Health Act 1983, the Secretary of State was not under a duty at common law nor under article 5.1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms to give his reasons for the person’s detention immediately when he was detained and thus such reasons were not required to be given in writing upon detention. However, article 5.2 required those reasons to be adequately and promptly given to him following his detention.’
WLR Daily, 1st May 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
AMT Futures Ltd v Marzillier, Dr Meier & Dr Guntner Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH – WLR Daily
‘An exclusive jurisdiction clause was a contractual benefit, the deprivation of which constituted harm suffered in that jurisdiction for the purposes of article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.’
WLR Daily, 11th April 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
In re KP (A Child) (Abduction: Rights of Custody) – WLR Daily
In re KP (A Child) (Abduction: Rights of Custody): [2014] EWCA Civ 554; [2014] WLR (D) 181
‘The role of a judge meeting a child who was the subject of abduction proceedings under the Hague Convention should be largely that of a passive recipient of whatever communication the child wished to transmit, which the judge should not probe or seek to test.’
WLR Daily, 1st May 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
BAILII: Recent Decisions
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Haleemudeen v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 558 (02 May 2014)
Mohamed & Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 559 (02 May 2014)
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Golds, R v [2014] EWCA Crim 748 (02 May 2014)
Thompson v R [2014] EWCA Crim 836 (02 May 2014)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Goodchild-Simpson v General Medical Council [2014] EWHC 1343 (Admin) (02 May 2014)
M v Director of Legal Aid Casework & Ors [2014] EWHC 1354 (Admin) (02 May 2014)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Cosmetic Warriors Ltd & Anor v Amazon.co.uk Ltd & Anor [2014] EWHC 1316 (Ch) (02 May 2014)
Giles v The Royal National Institute for the Blind & Ors [2014] EWHC 1373 (Ch) (02 May 2014)
Wood & Anor v Waddington [2014] EWHC 1358 (Ch) (01 May 2014)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Mohammed v Ministry of Defence & Ors [2014] EWHC 1369 (QB) (02 May 2014)
Source: www.bailii.org
BAILII: Recent Decisions
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
KP, Re [2014] EWCA Civ 554 (01 May 2014)
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Cox v R. [2014] EWCA Crim 804 (01 May 2014)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Uba v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWHC 1166 (Admin) (01 May 2014)
Njie v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2014] EWHC 1279 (Admin) (25 April 2014)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Vodafone Group Plc, Re [2014] EWHC 1357 (Ch) (01 May 2014)
Olympus UK Ltd & Ors [2014] EWHC 1350 (Ch) (01 May 2014)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Starbev Gp Ltd v Interbrew Central European Holdings BV [2014] EWHC 1311 (Comm) (29 April 2014)
Tchenguiz & Anor v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2014] EWHC 1315 (Comm) (29 April 2014)
High Court (Family Division)
London Borough of Haringey v Musa [2014] EWHC 1341 (Fam) (16 April 2014)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Contostavlos & Anor v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2014] EWHC 1339 (QB) (01 May 2014)
Source: www.bailii.org
Regina v White (Anthony) – WLR Daily
Regina v White (Anthony) [2014] EWCA Crim 714; [2014] WLR (D) 175
‘If a defendant, wrongly charged with offences contrary to section 16(1) of the Theft Act 1968, rather than under section 15A of the 1968 Act, was prepared to admit his dishonest transactions in relation to mortgage advances, it would be wrong to permit him to evade the consequences of his behaviour by refusing to substitute conviction of the correct offence simply in order to punish the prosecution for its egregious failures in relation to charging.’
WLR Daily, 15th April 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Jafri v Lincoln College – WLR Daily
Jafri v Lincoln College [2014] EWCA Civ 449; [2014] WLR (D) 178
‘When the Employment Appeal Tribunal detected a legal error by an employment tribunal, it had to remit the case unless it was able, without itself making any factual assessment or judgment as to the merits, either to conclude that the error could not have affected the result, or to conclude what different result there must have been without the error.’
WLR Daily, 16th April 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Dhooharika v Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth Lawyers Association intervening) – WLR Daily
‘The common law offence of scandalising the court, a species of contempt of court which although abolished by statute in England and Wales continued to exist in many parts of the common law world, was “reasonably justifiable in a democratic society” within the meaning of section 12 of the Constitution of Mauritius.’
WLR Daily, 16th April 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Kásler and another v OTP Jelzálogbank Zrt – WLR Daily
Kásler and another v OTP Jelzálogbank Zrt (Case C‑26/13); [2014] WLR (D) 180
‘The expression the “main subject matter of a contract” in article 4(2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts covered a term, incorporated in a loan agreement denominated in foreign currency concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer and not individually negotiated, pursuant to which the selling rate of exchange of that currency was applied for the purpose of calculating the repayment instalments for the loan, only in so far as it was found, which it was for the national court to ascertain, that that term laid down an essential obligation of that agreement which characterised it. Such a term, in so far as it contained a pecuniary obligation for the consumer to pay, in repayment of instalments of the loan, the difference between the selling rate of exchange and the buying rate of exchange of the foreign currency, could not be considered as “remuneration” the adequacy of which as consideration for a service supplied by the lender could not be the subject of an examination as regards unfairness under article 4(2) of Directive 93/13.’
WLR Daily, 30th April 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
BAILII: Recent Decisions
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Hakki v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions & Anor [2014] EWCA Civ 530 (25 April 2014)
High Court (Chancery Division)
High Court (Administrative Court)
AA & Sons Ltd v Slough Borough Council [2014] EWHC 1127 (Admin) (14 April 2014)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
Source: www.bailii.org
In re St Lawrence, Wootton – WLR Daily
In re St Lawrence, Wootton: [2014] WLR (D) 176
‘Where disposal of church treasures was contemplated would-be petitioners and chancellors should apply a sequential approach, considering first disposal by loan, and only where that was inapposite, disposal by limited sale; and only where that was inapposite, disposal by outright sale. Chancellors merely needed to decide whether the grounds for sale were sufficiently compelling to outweigh the strong presumption against sale. For the future little weight should normally attach to “separation” of the article from the church as a reason for disposal by sale, and it was doubtful that “separation” would ever, on its own, have sufficient strength to justify sale of a church treasure.’
WLR Daily, 14th April 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Kaneria v Kaneria and others – WLR Daily
Kaneria v Kaneria and others: [2014] EWHC 1165 (Ch); [2014] WLR (D) 177
‘An in-time application for extension of time was not to be treated as if it were an application for relief from sanctions, but was to be judged against the overriding objective rather than CPR r 3.9. When dealing with an in-time application, the court was not to give paramount status to the considerations of enforcing compliance with rules, Practice Directions and orders.’
WLR Daily, 15th April 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
