“Judicial review of a refusal by the Upper Tribunal of permission to appeal to itself was limited to the grounds upon which permission to make a second-tier appeal to the Court of Appeal would be granted.”
WLR Daily, 22nd June 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Atrium Medical Corpn and another v DSB Invest Holding SA [2011] EWHC 74 (Pat); [2011] WLR (D) 202
“High Court proceedings for declarations as to whether a product incorporated technical information, thus ultimately resulting in the determination of whether royalties were due, fell within the definition of ‘intellectual property litigation’ in regulation 3 of the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents Higher Courts Qualification Regulations 2007 and therefore a patent attorney litigator was an ‘authorised person’ entitled to conduct the litigation and to exercise rights of audience in relation thereto.”
WLR Daily, 21st June 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Widdows, R. v [2011] EWCA Crim 1500 (21 June 2011)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
EH v Kent County Council [2011] EWCA Civ 709 (21 June 2011)
AM v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 710 (21 June 2011)
IR (Sri Lanka) & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 704 (21 June 2011)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Woodham v Turner (t/a Turners of Great Barton) [2011] EWHC 1588 (QB) (21 June 2011)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Soutzos v Asombang & Ors [2011] EWHC 1582 (Ch) (21 June 2011)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Halligen v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWHC 1584 (Admin) (21 June 2011)
G v St Gregory’s Catholic Science College (Rev 1) [2011] EWHC 1452 (Admin) (17 June 2011)
High Court (Commercial Court)
JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov [2011] EWHC 1522 (Comm) (21 June 2011)
High Court (Patents Court)
Atrium Medical Corp & Anor v DSB Invest Holding SA [2011] EWHC 74 (Pat) (21 January 2011)
Source: www.bailii.org
“The prohibition on the sale of tobacco from automatic vending machines was justified on the ground of the protection of public health, was proportionate and therefore did not violate EU law by its adverse effect on the business of the operators of vending machines and suppliers in other EU states.”
WLR Daily, 17th June 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
HM Attorney General v Joanne Fraill and Jamie Sewart [2011] EWCA Crim B2 (16 June 2011)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
SW v CW [2011] EWCA Civ 703 (17 June 2011)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Derfshaw Ltd. & Ors, Re [2011] EWHC 1565 (Ch) (02 June 2011)
Sunwing Vacation Inc & Ors v E-Clear (UK) Plc & Ors [2011] EWHC 1544 (Ch) (03 June 2011)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Caplin v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2011] EWHC 1567 (QB) (20 June 2011)
BB & Ors v The Home Office [2011] EWHC 1446 (QB) (08 June 2011)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Yukos Capital SARL v OJSC Rosneft Oil Company [2011] EWHC 1461 (Comm) (14 June 2011)
Astrazeneca UK Ltd v Albemarle International Corp & Anor [2011] EWHC 1574 (Comm) (21 June 2011)
Source: www.bailii.org
“The provisions of the Ofcom Broadcasting Code had to be interpreted, as well as being applied in a particular case, so as to comply with the requirements of the right to freedom of expression in article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The question whether the publication of a finding by the statutory regulator constituted a permissible interference with a claimed right to freedom of expression under the article demanded rigorous scrutiny.”
WLR Daily, 17th June 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Zinda v The Governing Body of Barn Hill Community High & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 690 (17 June 2011)
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Barbudev v Eurocom Cable Management Bulgaria EOOD & Ors [2011] EWHC 1560 (Comm) (17 June 2011)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
Mouchel Ltd v Van Oord (UK) Ltd (No 2) [2011] EWHC 1516 (TCC) (15 June 2011)
Source: www.bailii.org
Tido v The Queen [2011] UKPC 16; [2011] WLR (D) 199
“A dock identification of a defendant was not inadmissible evidence per se. Nor was the admission of such evidence to be regarded as permissible in only the most exceptional circumstances.”
WLR Daily, 15th June 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Miguel v State of Trinidad and Tobago [2011] UKPC 14; [2011] WLR (D) 198
“A constitutional provision which exempted both existing laws and enactments which altered existing laws from its protection did not extend to an enactment which altered a law that had existed before the Constitution came into force but had since been abolished. It followed that a mandatory sentence of death for a murder conviction in Trinidad and Tobago under the ‘arrestable offence murder’ rule in section 2A of the Criminal Law Act, based on an earlier-abolished ‘felony murder’ rule, was outside the exemption and so unconstitutional.”
WLR Daily, 15th June 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“For the purposes of deciding the starting point for determining the minimum term to be served by a defendant sentenced to life imprisonment on conviction of murder committed with a knife the fact that the defendant had taken a knife from the kitchen of a home to another room in the same home, even if a locked door was forced, did not mean that he had taken the knife to the scene within the meaning of paragraph 5A of Schedule 21 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003.”
WLR Daily, 16th June 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Pfleiderer AG v Bundeskartellamt (Case C-360/09); [2011] WLR (D) 196
“A person adversely affected by an infringement of European Union competition law was not precluded by the provisions of that law from being granted access to documents relating to the leniency procedure for the purposes of bringing a civil action for damages.”
WLR Daily, 14th June 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Rogers v R [2011] EWCA Crim 1459 (15 June 2011)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
NYK Logistics (UK) Ltd v Ibrend Estates BV [2011] EWCA Civ 683 (16 June 2011)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Culkin v The Wirral Independent Appeals Panel [2011] EWHC 1526 (QB) (15 June 2011)
Cook v Telegraph Media Group Ltd [2011] EWHC 1519 (QB) (16 June 2011)
High Court (Family Division)
Cheshire West and Chester Council v P & Anor [2011] EWHC 1330 (Fam) (14 June 2011)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Y, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Hillingdon [2011] EWHC 1477 (Admin) (15 June 2011)
High Court (Patents Court)
Nokia Oyj (Nokia Corporation) v IPCom GmbH & Co Kg [2011] EWHC 1470 (Pat) (16 June 2011)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Jet2.Com Ltd v Blackpool Airport Ltd [2011] EWHC 1529 (Comm) (15 June 2011)
Merchantbridge & Co Ltd & Anor v Safron General Partner 1 Ltd [2011] EWHC 1524 (Comm) (15 June 2011)
Source: www.bailii.org
“The power conferred on the Sea Fish Industry Authority under the Fisheries Act 1981 to impose a levy in respect of sea fish and sea fish products landed in the United Kingdom extended to sea fish or parts of sea fish first brought to land outside the United Kingdom and only later imported into the United Kingdom. The levy so imposed, pursuant to the Sea Fish Industry Authority (Levy) Regulations 1995 Confirmatory Order 1996, constituted an internal tax under article 110FEU, not a charge having equivalent effect to customs duty contrary to articles 28FEU and 30FEU, and was accordingly lawful.”
WLR Daily, 15th June 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
High Court (Administrative Court)
Longmire v Secretary of State for Justice [2011] EWHC 1488 (Admin) (15 June 2011)
Flasz & Ors v Havering Primary Care Trust [2011] EWHC 1487 (Admin) (15 June 2011)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
Carillion JM Ltd v Phi Group Ltd [2011] EWHC 1379 (TCC) (15 June 2011)
Source: www.bailii.org
Chapple v Suffolk County Council and another [2011] EWCA Civ 691; [2011] WLR (D) 194
“The structure of the tribunals system under the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 was designed to be flexible, as was the role of the Upper Tribunal. The Upper Tribunal hearing appeals from the First-tier tribunal should look at the procedural possibilities involved in complex cases and should, where appropriate, consider whether judicial review would be a suitable remedy.”
WLR Daily, 8th June 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Regina v Hichens [2011] WLR (D) 193
“On a charge of common assault the defence that the action was taken by way of self-defence to prevent a person from committing a crime or a breach of the peace was available even if the act of violence was not against the person concerned but was against an innocent third party.”
WLR Daily, 14th June 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
BG v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWHC 1478 (Admin); [2011] WLR (D) 192
“On an appeal under section 10(1)(4) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 against the renewal of a non-derogating control order, it was not part of the court’s task to determine whether the earlier decision under section 2(1)(a) to make the original control order had been or was now flawed. Evidence sought to be adduced for that purpose was not admissible.”
WLR Daily, 13th June 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
D (A Child) [2011] EWCA Civ 684 (14 June 2011)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
Source: www.bailii.org
In re E (Children)(Abduction: Custody Rights) [2011] UKSC 27; [2011] WLR (D) 191
“The application of article 13b of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (1980) required that the best interests of the child concerned was a primary consideration for the court requested to return an abducted child and, consequently, there was no conflict between the Hague Convention and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and no obvious conflict with the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.”
WLR Daily, 10th June 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Please note that once a case has been reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
© Inner Temple Library 2025