Regina (SA (A Child) (by SH as litigation friend)) v Kent County Council (Secretary of State for Education, intervener) – WLR Daily

Posted November 15th, 2011 in appeals, children, families, fostering, law reports, local government by sally

Regina (SA (A Child) (by SH as litigation friend)) v Kent County Council (Secretary of State for Education, intervener) [2011] EWCA Civ 1303; [2011] WLR (D) 326

“The obligations imposed on a local authority in certain circumstances pursuant to section 23(2) and (6) of the Children Act 1989, relating to the provision of accommodation and/or maintenance for certain children in need and being looked after by the authority, were to be considered as alternatives, rather than as parallel means by which to achieve a single statutory purpose.”

WLR Daily, 10th November 2011

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Cheshire West and Chester Council v P (by his litigation friend the Official Solicitor) – WLR Daily

Posted November 14th, 2011 in disabled persons, human rights, law reports, mental health, restraint by sally

Cheshire West and Chester Council v P (by his litigation friend the Official Solicitor) [2011] EWCA Civ 1257; [2011] WLR (D) 325

“In determining whether or not there was a deprivation of liberty, it was legitimate to have regard both the objective ‘reason’ why someone was placed and treated as they were and also the objective ‘purpose’ or ‘aim’ of the placement. For adults with disabilities, whose lives were dictated by their own cognitive and other limitations, the question whether they had been deprived of liberty fell to be determined by comparing their situation with that of an adult of similar age with the same capabilities, affected by the same condition or suffering the same inherent mental and physical disabilities and limitations.”

WLR Daily, 9th November 2011

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

McGuinness v Norwich and Peterborough Building Society – WLR Daily

Posted November 14th, 2011 in bankruptcy, debts, guarantees, law reports, surety by sally

McGuinness v Norwich and Peterborough Building Society [2011] EWCA Civ 1286; [2011] WLR (D) 324

“A petition in bankruptcy against a guarantor could be founded, in certain circumstances, upon a guarantee which had contained a ‘see to it’ clause.”

WLR Daily, 9th November 2011

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted November 11th, 2011 in law reports by sally

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

SA, R (on the application of) v Kent County Council [2011] EWCA Civ 1303 (10 November 2011)

Berry v Ashtead Plant Hire Co Ltd & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 1304 (10 November 2011)

Bubb v London Borough of Wandsworth [2011] EWCA Civ 1285 (09 November 2011)

Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

Mears & Anor, R. v [2011] EWCA Crim 2651 (10 November 2011)

High Court (Administrative Court)

Cherwell District Council v Anwar [2011] EWHC 2943 (Admin) (10 November 2011)

The Sefton Care Association & Ors, R (on the application of) v Sefton Council [2011] EWHC 2676 (Admin) (09 November 2011)

High Court (Chancery Division)

JSC BTA Bank v Shalabayev & Anor [2011] EWHC 2915 (Ch) (10 November 2011)

Forensic Telecommunications Services Ltd v West Yorkshire Police & Anor [2011] EWHC 2892 (Ch) (09 November 2011)

High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)

Hussain v Bradford Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust & Anor [2011] EWHC 2914 (QB) (10 November 2011)

Germany v Flatman [2011] EWHC 2945 (QB) (10 November 2011)

Fortune v Roe [2011] EWHC 2953 (QB) (10 November 2011)

High Court (Technology and Construction Court)

Carillion Construction Ltd. v Stephen Andrew Smith [2011] EWHC 2910 (TCC) (10 November 2011)

Source: www.bailii.org

Bubb v Wandsworth London Borough Council – WLR Daily

Posted November 11th, 2011 in appeals, homelessness, housing, judicial review, law reports, local government by sally

Bubb v Wandsworth London Borough Council: [2011] EWCA Civ 1285;  [2011] WLR (D)  323

“A county court judge hearing an appeal on a point of law under section 204 of the Housing Act 1996, against a review of whether a local housing authority owed a duty to a homeless person under the 1996 Act, had no jurisdiction to find the relevant primary facts for himself. The judge’s function was to consider whether the reviewing officer’s decision should be quashed on judicial review grounds.”

WLR Daily, 9th November 2011

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted November 10th, 2011 in law reports by sally

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

Drake & Anor v Fripp [2011] EWCA Civ 1282 (03 November 2011)

High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)

Pykett v Ebony Clement & Anor [2011] EWHC 2925 (QB) (09 November 2011)

High Court (Administrative Court)

VC & Ors, R (on the application of) v Newcastle City Council [2011] EWHC 2673 (Admin) (24 October 2011)

High Court (Chancery Division)

Forensic Telecommunications Services Ltd v West Yorkshire Police & Anor [2011] EWHC 2892 (Ch) (09 November 2011)

High Court (Family Division)

ML & Anor v RW & Anor [2011] EWHC 2455 (Fam) (29 July 2011)

AR v AR [2011] EWHC 2717 (Fam) (11 August 2011)

London Borough of Tower Hamlets v BB & Ors [2011] EWHC 2853 (Fam) (31 August 2011)

Source: www.bailii.org

Mexfield Housing Co-operative Ltd v Berrisford – WLR Daily

Posted November 10th, 2011 in landlord & tenant, law reports, leases, Supreme Court by sally

Mexfield Housing Co-operative Ltd v Berrisford [2011] UKSC 52; [2011] WLR (D) 322

“An agreement for a term of uncertain duration could not give rise to a tenancy in accordance with its terms but, pursuant to section 149(6) of the Law of Property Act 1925, it could take effect as a lease for 90 years, determinable on the death of the tenant.”

WLR Daily, 9th November 2011

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Jones v Kernott – WLR Daily

Posted November 10th, 2011 in cohabitation, law reports, mortgages, Supreme Court by sally

Jones v Kernott [2011] UKSC 53; [2011] WLR (D) 321

“When a cohabiting couple bought a family home in their joint names and were both responsible for the mortgage, but without any express declaration as to their beneficial interests, the starting point was that equity followed the law so that the presumption was that they were joint tenants both in law and in equity. That presumption could be displaced by showing that the parties had a different common intention at the time when they acquired the home or that they later formed a common intention that their respective shares would change. Their common intention was to be deduced objectively from their conduct. If it was clear that the parties did not intend joint tenancy at the outset or had changed their original intention, but it was not possible to ascertain, whether by direct evidence or by inference, what their actual intention was as to the shares in which they owned the property, each was entitled to that share which the court considered fair, having regard to the whole course of the dealing between them in relation to the property.”

WLR Daily, 9th November 2011

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Fresenius Kabi Deutchland GmbH and others v Carefusion 303, Inc and related action – WLR Daily

Posted November 10th, 2011 in appeals, costs, law reports, patents by sally

Fresenius Kabi Deutchland GmbH and others v Carefusion 303, Inc and related action [2011] EWCA Civ 1288; [2011] WLR (D) 320

“The practice in the Patents Court whereby a patentee could discontinue his claim for infringement and consent to the revocation of his patent on terms that he paid the costs of the action up to the date of service of the original defence, with the alleged infringer paying the costs of the action thereafter to the date of discontinuance, was no longer to be followed. It was to be replaced by the general rule in CPR r 38.6 that, unless the court otherwise ordered, a claimant who discontinued was liable to pay the defendant’s costs.”

WLR Daily, 8th November 2011

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Copple and others v Littlewoods plc and others – WLR Daily

Posted November 10th, 2011 in appeals, equal pay, law reports, pensions, sex discrimination by sally

Copple and others v Littlewoods plc and others [2011] EWCA Civ 1281; [2011] WLR (D) 319

“Where an employer’s pension scheme indirectly discriminated against part-timers on the ground of sex by denying them access to the scheme, a female part-time worker was not entitled to any remedy arising from her exclusion from the scheme if she would not in fact have chosen to join the scheme even if she had been eligible to do so.”

WLR Daily, 8th November 2011

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted November 9th, 2011 in law reports by sally

Supreme Court

Berrisford v Mexfield Housing Co-operative Ltd [2011] UKSC 32 (9 November 2011)

Jones v Kernott [2011] UKSC 53 (9 November 2011)

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

Cheshire West and Chester Council v P [2011] EWCA Civ 1257 (09 November 2011)

Fresenius Kabi Deutschland GMBH & Ors v Carefusion 303 Inc [2011] EWCA Civ 1288 (08 November 2011)

SH (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 1284 (08 November 2011)

69 Marina, St Leonards-On-Sea, Freeholders of v Oram & Anor [2011] EWCA Civ 1258 (08 November 2011)

Copple & Ors v Littlewoods Plc & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 1281 (08 November 2011)

Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

Hutchings v R. [2011] EWCA Crim 2535 (08 November 2011)

St Regis Paper Company Ltd v R. [2011] EWCA Crim 2527 (04 November 2011)

High Court (Administrative Court)

Cairns, R (on the application of) v HM Deputy Coroner for Inner West London & Ors [2011] EWHC 2890 (Admin) (07 November 2011)

Royal Brompton & Harefield NHS Foundation Trust v Joint Committee of Primary Care Trusts & Anor [2011] EWHC 2986 (Admin) (07 November 2011)

High Court (Chancery Division)

Revenue & Customs v Cozens & Ors [2011] EWHC 2782 (Ch) (08 November 2011)

Wright & Anor v Gater & Ors [2011] EWHC 2881 (Ch) (07 November 2011)

High Court (Commercial Court)

Pacific Basin IHX Ltd v Bulkhandling Handymax AS [2011] EWHC 2862 (Comm) (08 November 2011)

Standard Bank Plc v Al Jaber [2011] EWHC 2866 (Comm) (08 November 2011)

Parbulk Ii A/S v Heritage Maritime Ltd SA [2011] EWHC 2917 (Comm) (08 November 2011)

Porton Capital Technology Funds & Ors v 3M UK Holdings Ltd & Anor [2011] EWHC 2895 (Comm) (07 November 2011)

High Court (Family Division)

A v B [2011] EWHC 2752 (Fam) (01 November 2011)

BJ v MJ (Financial Remedy: Overseas Trusts) [2011] EWHC 2708 (Fam) (27 October 2011)

G v M [2011] EWHC 2651 (Fam) (17 October 2011)

High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)

JGE v The English Province of Our Lady of Charity & Anor [2011] EWHC 2871 (QB) (08 November 2011)

Asiansky Television Plc & Anor v Khanzada & Ors [2011] EWHC 2831 (QB) (04 November 2011)

Crossland v University of Glamorgan [2011] EWHC 2809 (QB) (04 November 2011)

Holmes v Westminster City Council [2011] EWHC 2857 (QB) (03 November 2011)

Howarth v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2011] EWHC 2818 (QB) (03 November 2011)

Source: www.bailii.org

Wright and another v Gater and another – WLR Daily

Posted November 9th, 2011 in children, executors, intestacy, law reports, trusts by sally

Wright and another v Gater and another; [2011] EWHC 2881 (Ch);  [2011] WLR (D)  318

“The court should not in principle regard the postponement of the vesting of an estate as ‘beneficial’.”

WLR Daily,7th November 2011

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Regina v St Regis Paper Company Ltd – WLR daily

Regina v St Regis Paper Company Ltd; [2011] EWCA Crim 2527;  [2011] WLR (D)  317

“Criminal liability could not be imposed on a company for intentionally making a false entry to an environmental control record contrary to regulation 32(1)(g) of the Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) Regulations 2000, by virtue of the intentions of the employee who committed the offence, if he was not the directing mind and will of the company.”

WLR Daily, 4th November 2011

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Fenland District Council v Sheppard and others – WLR Daily

Posted November 8th, 2011 in insolvency, law reports, mortgages by sally

Fenland District Council v Sheppard and others [2011] EWHC 2829 (Ch); [2011] WLR (D) 316

“In making a vesting order, pursuant to section 320 of the Insolvency Act 1986, in favour of a statutory chargee whose charge ranked in priority to the mortgagees’ charge over the property, the court was not bound to set aside the mortgagees’ charge where the mortgagees did not themselves apply for a vesting order. Such an order would not effectively benefit only the mortgagees by extinguishing the statutory charge if it could be shown that the statutory chargee intended to preserve the benefit of its charge, or that the extinguishment of its charge would be against the statutory chargee’s interests, in which case there would be a presumption against extinguishment.”

WLR Daily, 3rd November 2011

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority – WLR Daily

Posted November 8th, 2011 in appeals, extradition, law reports by sally

Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority [2011] EWHC 2849 (Admin); [2011] WLR (D) 315

“In the context of the Extradition Act 2003, through interpretation of article 6 of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between member states (‘the Framework Decision’) and recognising differences of terminology used among member states, a ‘judicial authority’ was not confined to a judge who adjudicated, but could extend to a body that prosecuted.”

WLR Daily, 2nd November 2011

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted November 4th, 2011 in law reports by sally

Court of Appeal Civil Division)

Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council v Yerrakalva [2011] EWCA Civ 1255 (03 November 2011)

Smithurst v Sealant Construction Services Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 1277 (03 November 2011)

Dance v Savery & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 1250 (03 November 2011)

BVM Management Ltd v Yeomans (t/a the Great Hall At Mains) & Anor [2011] EWCA Civ 1254 (03 November 2011)

Drake & Anor v Fripp [2011] EWCA Civ 1279 (03 November 2011)

High Court (Administrative Court)

Shamsian v General Medical Council [2011] EWHC 2885 (Admin) (04 November 2011)

Belal v General Medical Council [2011] EWHC 2859 (Admin) (03 November 2011)

High Court (Chancery Division)

Fenland District Council v Sheppard & Ors [2011] EWHC 2829 (Ch) (03 November 2011)

High Court Queen’s Bench Division)

Howarth v Gwent Constabulary & Anor [2011] EWHC 2836 (QB) (01 November 2011)

Cox v Ergo Versicherung AG (Formerly Known As Victoria) [2011] EWHC 2806 (QB) (28 October 2011)

High Court (Technology and Construction Court)

Edmonds v Lawson & Anor (t/a Lawson Developments) [2011] EWHC 2867 (TCC) (03 November 2011)

NAP Anglia Ltd v Sun -Land Development Co Ltd [2011] EWHC 2846 (TCC) (03 November 2011)

Source: www.bailii.org.uk

Smith and another v Jafton Properties Ltd – WLR Daily

Posted November 4th, 2011 in assignment, enfranchisement, law reports, leases by sally

Smith and another v Jafton Properties Ltd; [2011] EWCA Civ 1251;  [2011] WLR (D)  314

“At common law an assignment of part of a leased property by which the leased property was physically severed had the effect that the holder of each severed part had privity of estate with the landlord only in respect of that severed part. In short, as a holder only of part of the land, he was the tenant of that severed part only.”

WLR Daily, 2nd November 2011

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Yerrakalva v Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council and another – WLR Daily

Posted November 4th, 2011 in costs, employment tribunals, law reports by sally

 Yerrakalva v Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council and another; [2011] EWCA civ 1255;  [2011] WLR (D)  313

“When exercising its discretion under rule 40 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004 to order costs against a party who had acted unreasonably in bringing or conducting proceedings, it was vital that the employment tribual looked at the whole picture of what happened in the case.”

WLR Daily, 3rd November 2011

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Eli Lilly & Co v Human Genome Sciences Inc – WLR Daily

Posted November 4th, 2011 in law reports, patents by sally

Eli Lilly & Co v Human Genome Sciences Inc [2011] UKSC 51;  [2011] WLR (D)  312

“Since the Technical Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office had adopted a consistent approach to patents for biological material, the English courts should follow the principles of law set out in its decisions. Accordingly, in deciding whether a patent disclosing a new protein and its encoding gene was susceptible to industrial application the question was whether, taking the common general knowledge into account, it had been plausibly shown that it was usable.”

WLR Daily, 2nd November 2011

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted November 3rd, 2011 in law reports by sally

Supreme Court

Rainy Sky SA & Orsd v Kookmin Bank [2011] UKSC 50 (2 November 2011)

Human Genome Sciences Inc v Eli Lilly and Company [2011] UKSC 51 (2 November 2011)

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

Smith & Anor v Jafton Properties Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 1251 (02 November 2011)

Shiva Ltd v Transport for London [2011] EWCA Civ 1189 (02 November 2011)

High Court (Chancery Division)

Business Dream Ltd, Re Insolvency Act 1986 [2011] EWHC 2860 (Ch) (02 November 2011)

High Court (Administrative Court)

Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority [2011] EWHC 2849 (Admin) (02 November 2011)

Ahmed, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWHC 2855 (Admin) (02 November 2011)

Source: www.bailii.org