Coventry and others (Respondents) v Lawrence and another (Appellants) – Supreme Court
Coventry and others (Respondents) v Lawrence and another (Appellants) [2014] UKSC 13 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 26th February 2014
Category: law reports
Forde and McHugh Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners – WLR Daily
Forde and McHugh Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2014] UKSC 14; [2014] WLR (D) 99
‘Contributions made by a company into a funded unapproved retirement benefits scheme in favour of one of its directors did not constitute the director’s “earnings” for the purposes of section 6(1) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 and thus the company was not liable to pay national insurance contributions in respect of the value of the contribution.’
WLR Daily, 26th February 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Rowstock Ltd and another v Jessemey – WLR Daily
Rowstock Ltd and another v Jessemey [2014] EWCA Civ 185; [2014] WLR (D) 101
‘The Court of Appeal so stated when allowing the appeal of the claimant, Mr P Jessemey, against a decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal on 5 March 2013 [2013] ICR 807 dismissing his appeal against a decision by the employment tribunal sitting at Reading to dismiss his claim against his former employer Rowstock Ltd and its director Mr Davis for victimisation pursuant to section 108 of the Equality Act 2010.’
WLR Daily, 26th February 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Makudi v Baron Triesman of Tottenham – WLR Daily
Makudi v Baron Triesman of Tottenham [2014] EWCA Civ 179; [2014] WLR (D) 98
‘Where a claim in defamation was brought against the defendant for repeating at an extra-parliamentary inquiry his evidence before a parliamentary committee, he was immune from the claim, by virtue of article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689, because of the public interest in the evidence and the close nexus between the evidence on the two occasions.’
WLR Daily, 26th February 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Redbridge London Borough Council v Dhinsa and another – WLR Daily
Redbridge London Borough Council v Dhinsa and another [2014] EWCA 178; [2014] WLR (D) 97
‘Section 200 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was apt to exclude a parks police constable from claiming unfair dismissal where the Parks Police Service employing him was a “constabulary maintained by virtue of an enactment”, since, for the purposes of section 200(2)(a) of the 1996 Act, all members of the Service were “constables” who had made an appropriate declaration before a Justice of the Peace and the Service was also maintained by virtue of two enactments.’
WLR Daily, 26th February 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina (Miranda) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and another (Liberty and others intervening) – WLR Daily
‘It was lawful that a journalist’s assistant who was thought to harbour state secrets in electronic form against the wishes of Britain and a foreign power should be stopped and held at an airport on the basis that investigating him amounted to determining whether he was a terrorist under section 40(1)(b) of and paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000.’
WLR Daily, 19th February 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Nottingham City Council v LM and others – WLR Daily
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
Jervis and others v Pillar Denton Ltd (Game Station) and others – WLR Daily
‘In the context of insolvency, where rent was payable in advance the office holder should make payments at the rate of the rent for the duration of any period during which he retained possession of the demised property for the benefit of the winding up or administration. The rent would be treated as accruing from day to day. Those payments were payable as expenses of the winding up or administration. The duration of the period was a question of fact and was not determined merely by reference to which rent days occurred before, during or after that period.’
WLR Daily, 24th February 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Marks & Spencer plc v Revenue and Customs Commissioners (No 2) – WLR Daily
Marks & Spencer plc v Revenue and Customs Commissioners (No 2) [2014] UKSC 11; [2014] WLR (D) 90
‘A company was entitled to make successive claims to cross-border group relief against corporation tax in relation to the same loss incurred in the same accounting period by a European subsidiary which had gone into liquidation and then to withdraw any earlier claims in respect of the same surrendered loss which did not meet the subsequent judicially determined test, subject to the claim ultimately relied upon not being statute-barred.’
WLR Daily, 19th February 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Privilege and reporting the contents of documents read by the court – Legal Week
‘The fair and accurate reporting of court proceedings has long been protected from libel action by the defence of privilege. Contemporaneous fair and accurate reports of court proceedings in public are now protected by absolute privilege and other fair and accurate reports by qualified privilege. In the former case no libel action can be brought, in the latter an action will only succeed if malice is proved.’
Legal Week, 27th February 2014
Source: www.legalweek.com
Recent Statutory Instruments – legislation.gov.uk
The Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment) Regulations 2014
The Child Benefit and Tax Credits Up-rating Order 2014
The Zimbabwe (Financial Sanctions) (Amendment) Regulations 2014
The Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013 (Transitional Provision) Order 2014
The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Consumer Credit) (Transitional Provisions) Order 2014
The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 (Consequential Amendments) (Employment) Order 2014
The Employment Rights (Increase of Limits) Order 2014
Source: www.bailii.org
BAILII: Recent Decisions
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
JE (Jamaica) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 192 (25 February 2014)
Pillar Denton Ltd & Ors v Jervis & Ors [2014] EWCA Civ 180 (24 February 2014)
Santander UK Plc v R.A. Legal Solicitors [2014] EWCA Civ 183 (24 February 2014)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Jackson v Norfolk County Council [2014] EWHC 332 (Admin) (24 February 2014)
MWH UK Ltd v Wise (HM Inspector of Health & Safety) [2014] EWHC 427 (Admin) (24 February 2014)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Hearst Holdings Inc & Anor v A.V.E.L.A. Inc & Ors [2014] EWHC 439 (Ch) (25 February 2014)
High Court (Commercial Court)
High Court (Family Division)
SA v PA [2014] EWHC 392 (Fam) (21 February 2014)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Tsavdaris v Home Office [2014] EWHC 440 (QB) (25 February 2014)
Source: www.bailii.org
BAILII: Recent Decisions
High Court (Chancery Division)
Constantin Medien AG v Ecclestone & Ors [2014] EWHC 387 (Ch) (20 February 2014)
Clutterbuck & Anor v Al Amoudi [2014] EWHC 383 (Ch) (20 February 2014)
Cometson & Anor v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council [2014] EWHC 419 (Ch) (21 February 2014)
High Court (Family Division)
K v B [2014] EWHC B7 (Fam) (31 January 2014)
SAB (A Child), Re [2014] EWHC 384 (Fam) (23 January 2014)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Source: www.bailii.org
Regina v Price and another – WLR Daily
Regina v Price and another [2014] EWCA Crim 229; [2013] WLR (D) 86
‘The standard of care required to avoid the service offence of negligent performance of a duty, contrary to section 15(2) of the Armed Forces Act 2006, was to be measured against the standard to be expected of the reasonable serviceman having similar training, knowledge and experience as the accused. A subjective consideration of a defendant’s skills or weaknesses had no place in the objective judgment whether the defendant had reached the appropriate standard of care.’
WLR Daily, 21st February 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina (EM (Eritrea)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (United Nations High Commissioner for; Refugees intervening); Regina (EH (Iran)) v Same; Regina (AE (Eritrea)) v Same; Regina (MA (Eritrea)) v Same – WLR Daily
‘A presumption that members of an alliance of states such as those which comprised the European Union would comply with their international obligations in regard to refugee protection did not extinguish the need to examine whether in fact those obligations would be fulfilled when evidence was presented that it was unlikely that they would be. The removal of a person from a member state of the European Union was forbidden if it were shown that there was a real risk that the person removed would suffer inhuman or degrading treatment in violation of article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. It did not need to be shown that the source of that risk was a systemic deficiency in the asylum and reception procedures of the state to which the person was being removed.’
WLR Daily, 19th February 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
BAILII: Recent Decisions
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
British Telecommunications Plc v Luck & Ors [2014] EWHC 290 (QB) (17 February 2014)
Krause v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2014] EWHC 293 (QB) (19 February 2014)
Brownlie v Four Seasons Holdings Incorporated [2014] EWHC 273 (QB) (19 February 2014)
Donkers & Anor v Storm Aviation Ltd [2014] EWHC 241 (QB) (20 February 2014)
Leigh v London Ambulance Service NHS Trust [2014] EWHC 286 (QB) (20 February 2014)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Dunham & Anor v and Government of the United States [2014] EWHC 334 (Admin) (19 February 2014)
Dusza & Anor v Powys Teaching Local Health Board [2014] EWHC 339 (Admin) (21 February 2014)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
Savash v CIS General Insurance Ltd [2014] EWHC 375 (TCC) (20 February 2014)
Source: www.bailii.org
BAILII: Recent Decisions
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Pace & Anor v R. [2014] EWCA Crim 186 (18 February 2014)
Boughton -Fox v R. [2014] EWCA Crim 227 (21 February 2014)
Price & Anor v R [2014] EWCA Crim 229 (21 February 2014)
Tatham v R. [2014] EWCA Crim 226 (21 February 2014)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
RWE Npower Renewables Ltd v J N Bentley Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 150 (19 February 2014)
Ted Baker Plc & Anor v Axa Insurance UK Plc & Ors [2014] EWCA Civ 134 (19 February 2014)
Wall v Mutuelle De Poitiers Assurances [2014] EWCA Civ 138 (20 February 2014)
Rawlinson And Hunter Trustees SA & Ors v Akers & Anor [2014] EWCA Civ 136 (20 February 2014)
Blueco Ltd v BWAT Retail Nominee & Ors [2014] EWCA Civ 154 (21 February 2014)
M (A Child), Re [2014] EWCA Civ 152 (21 February 2014)
Source: www.bailii.org
J P Morgan Chase Bank, National Association v Northern Rock (Asset Management) plc – WLR Daily
‘As a matter of construction of section 77A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, where a creditor had provided the debtor with a statement which failed to set out the information required by the Consumer Credit (Information Requirements and Duration of Licences and Charges) Regulations 2007, the period of non-compliance commenced on a date to be calculated as if no statement had been served at all, and the period of non-compliance began on the day following the last day on which a compliant statement could have been given.’
WLR Daily, 19th February 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v Wright (Robert) – WLR Daily
Regina v Wright (Robert) [2014] WLR (D) 84
‘Where an insurance company paid a defendant’s solicitors’ fees, for which he would otherwise have been liable, in connection with a false insurance claim he had made, he obtained a pecuniary advantage as a result of or in connection with his false claim, for the purposes of section 76(5) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Therefore, by section 76(4), those fees formed part of the defendant’s benefit from his criminal conduct for the purposes of any confiscation order made under the 2002 Act.’
WLR Daily, 19th February 2014
Regina v Ahmed (Mohammed Kamal) – WLR Daily
Regina v Ahmed (Mohammed Kamal) [2014] WLR (D) 85
‘Where breach of an enforcement notice alleged unlawful change of use rather than development without planning permission, it was not appropriate to charge an offence in contravention of section 181(5) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990; the appropriate offence would be under section 179(2) of the 1990 Act.’
WLR Daily, 20th February 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
