BAILII: Recent Decisions
High Court (Administrative Court)
Sharma v General Medical Council [2014] EWHC 1471 (Admin) (22 May 2014)
Source: www.bailii.org
Category: law reports
Regina v Clayton – WLR Daily
Regina v Clayton [2014] EWCA Crim 1030; [2014] WLR (D) 231
‘Where there was information suggesting that an enforcement notice should not have been issued, a prosecution for breach of the notice was not open to challenge as an abuse of process because that would involve a challenge to the validity of the enforcement notice and such a challenge could be mounted only on appeal or by way of judicial review.’
WLR Daily, 23rd May 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
MN (Somalia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; KY (Somalia) v Same – WLR Daily
‘A tribunal conducting asylum proceedings could admit, as expert evidence, a report by an organisation based on a telephone interview with an asylum claimant in which its analysts commented on the likelihood of that person originating from his claimed place of origin, based on the person’s dialect and answers to questions about the area in question, even though the report was in the name of the organisation rather than an individual and those contributing to it were identified only by serial numbers. However it was necessary for the tribunal in each particular case to be satisfied that the anonymity was necessary, with safeguards for the claimant in place, and that the authors of the report had demonstrated that they had relevant expertise for each matter on which they had commented.’
WLR Daily, 21st May 2014
Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co (Europe) Ltd and another v Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime – WLR Daily
‘In order for persons to have been “riotously and tumultuously assembled together” for the purposes of a claim under section 2(1) of the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 there had to have been a riot within the meaning of section 1 of the Public Order Act 1986. The trial judge had to conduct an inquiry, focusing on whether property had been damaged or destroyed as a result of mob violence, and carrying out an evaluative exercise to determine whether the assembly was riotous and tumultuous in the light of the primary facts as found.’
WLR Daily, 20th May 2014
Regina (Barkas) v North Yorkshire County Council – WLR Daily
Regina (Barkas) v North Yorkshire County Council [2014] UKSC 31; [2014] WLR (D) 228
‘Local inhabitants indulged “by right” in lawful sports and pastimes on a recreation ground which had been provided for that purpose by a local authority in the exercise of its statutory powers, not “as of right” as was necessary pursuant to section 15(2) of the Commons Act 2006 in order to register the land as a town or village green.’
WLR Daily, 21st May 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Birmingham Hippodrome Theatre Trust Ltd v Revenue and Customs Comrs – WLR Daily
‘Where the taxpayer made a claim for repayment of VAT which had been paid owing to a mistake, all the consequences of the mistake were to be taken into account in assessing the quantum of his claim. The revenue was, therefore, entitled under section 81(3A) of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 to take into account both credits and debits and to set off amounts of input tax it had wrongly paid to the taxpayer against the amount the taxpayer now claimed to be repaid in respect of output tax it wrongly paid to the revenue.’
WLR Daily, 22nd May 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina (Revenue and Customs Commissioners) v Her Majesty’s Coroner for the City of Liverpool (Association of Personal Injury Lawyers intervening) – WLR Daily
‘The Revenue and Customs Commissioners were bound, by necessary implication, to comply with a notice issued by a coroner pursuant to Schedule 5 to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, requiring them to provide an occupational history in respect of a deceased person.’
WLR Daily, 21st May 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina (Allensway Recycling Ltd and others) v Environment Agency – WLR Daily
‘Section 108(6) of the Environment Act 1995, when read together with Schedule 18 to that Act, only required seven days’ notice to have been given prior to the issue of a warrant for entry and inspection relating to residential premises where that warrant was to be issued under conditions (a) or (b) of paragraph 2(2) of the Schedule. There was no such notice requirement in relation to a warrant issued under conditions (c), (d) or (e).’
WLR Daily, 21st May 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Lock v British Gas Trading Ltd – WLR Daily
Lock v British Gas Trading Ltd (Case C-539/12) ECLI:EU:C:2014:351; [2014] WLR (D) 224
‘Article 7(1) of Parliament and Council Directive 2003/88/EC precluded national legislation and practice under which a worker whose remuneration consisted of a basic salary and commission, the amount of which was fixed by reference to the contracts entered into by the employer as a result of sales achieved by that worker, was only entitled in respect of his paid annual leave, to remuneration composed exclusively of his basic salary. The methods of calculating the commission to which such a worker was entitled in respect of his annual leave had to be assessed by the national court or tribunal on the basis of the rules and criteria set out by the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and in the light of the objective pursued by article 7 of Directive 2003/88.’
WLR Daily, 22nd May 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov and others (No 11) – WLR Daily
JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov and others (No 11) [2014] EWCA Civ 602; [2014] WLR (D) 221
‘Where non-parties resident outside the jurisdiction applied for removal of an asset from the scope of freezing and associated orders, the court had jurisdiction to order the trial of an issue as to whether they owned the asset as claimed, but not as to whether they had colluded in breach of the orders, without steps being taken to establish extra-territorial jurisdiction in reliance on paragraph 3.1 of CPR Practice Direction 6B.’
WLR Daily, 14th May 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Newham London Borough Council v Ali and others – WLR Daily
Newham London Borough Council v Ali and others [2014] EWCA Civ 676; [2014] WLR (D) 223
‘A substantial breach of a planning obligation under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 would normally justify the grant of an injunction sought pursuant to section 106(5) unless relief ought to be withheld on equitable principles because of the local planning authority’s actions. The existence of an outstanding planning appeal would generally be irrelevant to whether an injunction should be granted, but the judge nevertheless had the power to suspend the injunction where it was fair, just and reasonable to do so.’
WLR Daily, 19th May 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Bates van Winkelhof v Clyde & Co LLP (Public Concern at Work intervening) – WLR Daily
‘An equity member of a limited liability partnership was a “worker” within the meaning of section 230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and therefore the employment tribunal had jurisdiction to hear a claim brought by the equity member against the partnership under section 47B of the Act, as inserted.’
WLR Daily, 21st May 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
BAILII: Recent Decisions
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Clayton & Anor v R [2014] EWCA Crim 1030 (23 May 2014)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Birmingham Hippodrome Theatre Trust Ltd v Revenue And Customs [2014] EWCA Civ 684 (22 May 2014)
Hone & Ors v Abbey Forwarding Ltd & Anor [2014] EWCA Civ 711 (23 May 2014)
Dar Al Arkan Real Estate Development Co & Anor v Al Refai & Ors [2014] EWCA Civ 715 (23 May 2014)
C (N, W & H), Re [2014] EWCA Civ 705 (23 May 2014)
Burrell v Micheldever Tyre Services Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 716 (23 May 2014)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Contrarian Funds Llc v Lomas & Ors [2014] EWHC 1687 (Ch) (23 May 2014)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Odone v Hawarden Services Ltd & Ors [2014] EWHC 1694 (QB) (23 May 2014)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Family Court Decisions (other Judges)
X (A Child) (care and placement orders) [2014] EWFC B59 (09 May 2014)
J and S (Children), Re [2014] EWFC 4 (23 May 2014)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
Lovell Partnerships Ltd & Anor v Merton Priory Homes [2014] EWHC 1615 (TCC) (23 May 2014)
High Court (Commercial Court)
BM Amro Commercial Finance Plc v McGinn & Ors [2014] EWHC 1674 (Comm) (23 May 2014)
High Court (Patents Court)
Shanks v Unilever Plc & Ors [2014] EWHC 1647 (Pat) (23 May 2014)
Source: www.bailii.org
Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant) v MN and KY (Respondent) – Supreme Court
Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant) v MN and KY (Respondent) [2014] UKSC 30 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 21st May 2014
Clyde & Co LLP and another (Respondents) v Bates van Winklehof (Appellant) – Supreme Court
Clyde & Co LLP and another (Respondents) v Bates van Winklehof (Appellant) [2014] UKSC 32 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 21st May 2014
R (on the application of Barkas) (Appellant) v North Yorkshire County Council and another (Respondents) – Supreme Court
Supreme Court, 21st May 2014
BAILII: Recent Decisions
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Welsh & Ors v R [2014] EWCA Crim 1027 (21 May 2014)
Crawley & Ors, R. v [2014] EWCA Crim 1028 (21 May 2014)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Allensway Recycling Ltd & Ors v The Environment Agency [2014] EWHC 1638 (Admin) (21 May 2014)
Fernando v General Medical Council [2014] EWHC 1664 (Admin) (21 May 2014)
Family Court Decisions (other Judges)
An NHS Foundation Hospital v P [2014] EWHC 1650 (Fam) (20 May 2014)
M, Re [2014] EWFC B58 (22 April 2014)
High Court (Family Division)
North Somerset Council v LW & Ors [2014] EWHC 1670 (Fam) (21 May 2014)
High Court (Commercial Court)
High Court (Patents Court)
Source: www.bailii.org
BAILII: Recent Decisions
Supreme Court
Clyde & Co LLP & Anor v van Winklehof (Rev 1) [2014] UKSC 32 (21 May 2014)
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Blackman, R. v [2014] EWCA Crim 1029 (22 May 2014)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Co-Operative Group Ltd v Birse Developments Ltd & Ors [2014] EWCA Civ 707 (22 May 2014)
Pathania v Adedeji & Ors [2014] EWCA Civ 681 (21 May 2014)
Spaul v Spaul & Anor [2014] EWCA Civ 679 (21 May 2014)
MWA (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 706 (21 May 2014)
Crossland v OCS Group UK Ltd & Anor [2014] EWCA Civ 678 (21 May 2014)
JG v The Lord Chancellor & Ors [2014] EWCA Civ 656 (21 May 2014)
Higson & Anor v Guenault & Anor [2014] EWCA Civ 703 (21 May 2014)
Price v Price [2014] EWCA Civ 655 (21 May 2014)
Raleys Solicitors v Barnaby [2014] EWCA Civ 686 (21 May 2014)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Atkinson v South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2014] EWHC 1590 (QB) (22 May 2014)
Groarke v Fontaine [2014] EWHC 1676 (QB) (22 May 2014)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Goldtrail Travel Ltd v Aydin & Ors [2014] EWHC 1587 (Ch) (22 May 2014)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Clayton v Army Board of the Defence Council & Anor [2014] EWHC 1651 (Admin) (22 May 2014)
High Court (Commercial Court)
PEC Ltd v Asia Golden Rice Company Ltd [2014] EWHC 1583 (Comm) (20 May 2014)
QOGT Inc v International Oil & Gas Technology Ltd [2014] EWHC 1628 (Comm) (22 May 2014)
Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v K.I. Holdings Co. Ltd & Anor [2014] EWHC 1671 (Comm) (22 May 2014)
Terminal Contenitori Porto Di Genova Spa v China Shipping Container Lines Ltd [2014] EWHC 1629 (Comm) (22 May 2014)
Diag Human Se v Czech Republic [2014] EWHC 1639 (Comm) (22 May 2014)
Source: www.bailii.org
Isaac Stoute v LTA Operations Ltd (trading as Lawn Tennis Association) – WLR Daily
‘Postal service of a claim form by the court in disregard of the claimant’s request to return the claim form to him so that he could serve it personally, in breach of CPR r 6.4(1)(b), was an “error of procedure”, within rule 3.10, and so did not invalidate service.’
WLR Daily, 15th May 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
In re S (Children) (Care Proceedings: Fact-finding Hearings) – WLR Daily
In re S (Children) (Care Proceedings: Fact-finding Hearings) [2014] EWCA Civ 638; [2014] WLR (D) 217
‘Reiterating the inappropriateness of separate fact-finding hearings in most care proceedings, it was essential that if there was to be a separate fact-finding hearing, the ambit of the hearing should be clearly defined and understood by all and, if the ambit altered as the case proceeded, that the adjustment was promptly reflected in the schedule of findings sought and that there was an authentic, definitive record of precisely what findings the judge had made.’
WLR Daily, 14th May 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
