Republic of Latvia (supported by Republic of Lithuania and Slovak Republic intervening) v European Commission (supported by United Kingdom intervening) – WLR Daily

Republic of Latvia (supported by Republic of Lithuania and Slovak Republic intervening) v European Commission (supported by United Kingdom intervening) (Case T-369/07);  [2011] WLR (D)  101

“The three-month time limit under article 9(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC during which the Commission might reject a member state’s plan stating the total quantity of greenhouse gas emission allowance that it intended to allocate, started to run from the initial notification and subsequent notifications of different versions of the plan, so that each notification triggered a new three-month time-limit.”

WLR Daily, 22nd March 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 (Lumba (Congo)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Same v Same (No 2); Regina (Mighty (Jamaica)) v Same; [On appeal from Regina (WL (Congo)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department] – WLR Daily

Posted March 25th, 2011 in damages, deportation, detention, false imprisonment, law reports by sally

Regina (Lumba (Congo)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Same v Same (No 2); Regina (Mighty (Jamaica)) v Same; [On appeal from Regina (WL (Congo)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department] [2011] UKSC 12;;  [2011] WLR (D)  100

 “The unlawful exercise by the Secretary of State of the power to detain foreign national prisoners gave rise to a private law action for the tort of false imprisonment without the need for proof of damage on the part of the prisoners, even though it could be demonstrated that they could and would still have been detained if the power had been lawfully exercised. However, in those circumstances the prisoners had suffered no loss or damage and were entitled to no more than nominal damages.”

WLR Daily, 23rd March 2011

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted March 24th, 2011 in law reports by sally

Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

L & R v R. [2011] EWCA Crim 649 (23 March 2011)

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

Bayfine UK v HM Revenue and Customs [2011] EWCA Civ 304 (23 March 2011)

Baturina v Times Newspapers Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 308 (23 March 2011)

High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)

National Westminster Bank Plc v Binney [2011] EWHC 694 (QB) (23 March 2011)

High Court (Chancery Division)

The Hedgehog Golf Company Ltd v Hauser [2011] EWHC 689 (Ch) (23 March 2011)

Digrado v D’Angelo [2011] EWHC 635 (Ch) (18 March 2011)

B v S [2011] EWHC 691 (Comm) (23 March 2011)

High Court (Administrative Court)

O (A Child), R (on the application of) v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham [2011] EWHC 679 (Admin) (23 March 2011)

Rozo-Hermida, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWHC 695 (Admin) (23 March 2011)

San Michael College Ltd, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWHC 642 (Admin) (18 March 2011)

BE, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWHC 690 (Admin) (23 March 2011)

High Court (Family Division)

N v F [2011] EWHC 586 (Fam) (11 March 2011)

Baby X, Re [2011] EWHC 590 (Fam) (15 March 2011)

High Court (Technology and Construction Court)

Simon Carves Ltd v Ensus UK Ltd [2011] EWHC 657 (TCC) (23 March 2011)

High Court (Patents Court)

Atrium Medical Corporation & Anor v DSB Invest Holding SA [2011] EWHC 429 (Pat) (24 February 2011)

Source: www.bailii.org

Legal opinions – Joshua Rozenberg reflects on 25 years covering the law – Legal Week

Posted March 24th, 2011 in BBC, law reports, news by sally

“As mainstream media shies away from legal coverage, Joshua Rozenberg talks to Alex Aldridge about the 25 years under his belt that have made him the UK’s best-known legal commentator.”

Full story

Legal Week, 24th March 2011

Source: www.legalweek.com

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted March 23rd, 2011 in law reports by sally

Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

Noye, R. v [2011] EWCA Crim 650 (22 March 2011)

Whiston- Dew & Anor, R. v [2011] EWCA Crim 647 (22 March 2011)

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

DS (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 305 (22 March 2011)

Revenue and Customs v Chamberlin [2011] EWCA Civ 271 (22 March 2011)

MS (Algeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 306 (22 March 2011)

High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)

Goldsmith& Anor v BCD [2011] EWHC 674 (QB) (22 March 2011)

Clyde & Co LLP & Anor v Winkelhof [2011] EWHC 668 (QB) (22 March 2011)

Abramova v Oxford Institute of Legal Practice [2011] EWHC 613 (QB) (18 March 2011)

Coys of Kensington Automobiles Ltd v Pugliese [2011] EWHC 655 (QB) (22 March 2011)

High Court (Chancery Division)

Kojima v HSBC Bank Plc [2011] EWHC 611 (Ch) (22 March 2011)

High Court (Administrative Court)

Thaker v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2011] EWHC 660 (Admin) (22 March 2011)

Mazurkiewicz v Rzeszow Circuit Court, Poland [2011] EWHC 659 (Admin) (22 March 2011)

High Court (Technology and Construction Court)

Millharbour Management Ltd & Ors v Weston Homes Ltd & Anor [2011] EWHC 661 (TCC) (22 March 2011)

Source: www.bailii.org

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted March 22nd, 2011 in law reports by sally

High Court (Administrative Court)

The Commission for Equality & Human Rights v Griffin & Ors [2011] EWHC 675 (Admin) (21 March 2011)

High Court (Technology and Construction Court)

London Borough of Southwark v IBM UK Ltd [2011] EWHC 653 (TCC) (21 March 2011)

Source: www.bailii.org

Strong Segurança SA v Município de Sintra and another – WLR Daily

Posted March 22nd, 2011 in EC law, law reports, public procurement, tenders by sally

Strong Segurança SA v Município de Sintra and another (Case C-95/10); [2011] WLR (D) 99

“Article 47(2) of Parliament and Council Directive 2004/18/EC (permitting an economic operator participating in a public tendering process for the provision of services to rely on the capacities of other entities, provided that it could prove that it would have at its disposal the resources necessary) did not apply to contracts which had as their object services referred to in Annex IIB of the Directive, such as the provision of surveillance and security services. However member states and, possibly, contracting authorities, could provide for that which article 47(2) permitted in, respectively, their legislation and the documents relating to the contract.”

WLR Daily, 17th March 2011

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Proceedings brought by Peñarroja Fa – WLR Daily

Posted March 22nd, 2011 in courts, EC law, freedom of movement, law reports, service by sally

Proceedings brought by Peñarroja Fa (Joined Cases C-372/09 and C-373/09); [2011] WLR (D) 98

“A duty entrusted by a court, in relation to specific matters within the context of a dispute before it, to a professional who had been appointed as a court expert translator constituted the provision of services for the purposes of article 50EC of the EC Treaty (now article 57FEU of the FEU Treaty)). The activities of court experts in the field of translation did not constitute activities which were connected with the ‘exercise of official authority’ for the purposes of the first paragraph of article 45EC of the EC Treaty (now article 51FEU of the FEU Treaty). Article 49 EC (now Article 56 TFEU) precluded (a) national legislation under which (i) enrolment in a register of court expert translators was subject to conditions concerning qualifications but (ii) the interested parties could not obtain knowledge of the reasons for the decision taken and that decision was not open to effective judicial scrutiny enabling its legality to be reviewed, inter alia, with regard to its compliance with the requirement under European Union law that the qualifications obtained and recognised in other member states had to have been properly taken into account; and (b) a requirement that no person might be enrolled in a national register of court experts as a translator unless he could prove that he had been enrolled for three consecutive years in a register of court experts maintained by a particular national court, where such a requirement was found to prevent the qualification obtained by a person and recognised in that another member state from being duly taken into account for the purposes of determining whether that qualification might attest to skills equivalent to those normally expected of a person who had been enrolled for three consecutive years in a register of court experts maintained by the member state in which the expert was seeking enrolment. The duties of court expert translators, as discharged by experts enrolled in a national register were not covered by the definition of ‘regulated profession’ set out in article 3(1)(a) of Parliament and Council Directive 2005/36/EC of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ 2005 L 255, p 22).”

WLR Daily, 17th March 2011

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Deutsche Lufthansa AG v Kumpan – WLR Daily

Posted March 21st, 2011 in contract of employment, EC law, law reports by sally

Deutsche Lufthansa AG v Kumpan (Case C-109/09); [2011] WLR (D) 90

“Where an employee was first employed on a contract for an indefinite period and then subsequently employed by the same employer to carry out the same work on successive fixed-term contracts over a period of several years, clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work, which had the objective of preventing the abuse of the successive use of fixed-term contracts, had to be interpreted as meaning, in relation to the imposition of the final fixed-term contract, that according to the national law ‘a close objective connection with a previous employment contract of indefinite duration concluded with the same employer’ existed.”

WLR Daily, 10th March 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.

Patmalniece v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (AIRE Centre intervening) – WLR Daily

Posted March 21st, 2011 in domicile, EC law, law reports, pensions, social security by sally

Patmalniece v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (AIRE Centre intervening) [2011] UKSC 11; [2011] WLR (D) 91

“The conditions for entitlement to state pension credit, which included a requirement that a claimant had a right to reside in the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland, constituted indirect discrimination against nationals of other European Union member states which was, however, justified by the legitimate aim of protecting the resources of the United Kingdom against benefit or social tourism by those who were not economically or socially integrated with the country.”

WLR Daily, 16th March 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.

Standard Life Assurance Ltd and another v Topland Col Ltd and others – WLR Daily

Standard Life Assurance Ltd and another v Topland Col Ltd and others [2010] EWHC 1781 (Ch); [2011] WLR (D) 92

“The disclosure of information by a person to the Serious Fraud Office (‘SFO’) pursuant to the latter’s statutory powers under the Criminal Justice Act 1987 did not give rise to any implied undertaking to any court not to use the documents other than for the purposes of a prosecution, actual or potential, or any undertaking to the court not to provide them to any person other than through one of the gateways under section 3 of the Act.”

WLR Daily, judgment reissued 14th March 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.

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted March 21st, 2011 in law reports by sally

Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

Haddock, R v [2011] EWCA Crim 303 (07 February 2011)

M, R v [2011] EWCA Crim 648 (18 March 2011)

Takkar v R. [2011] EWCA Crim 646 (18 March 2011)

Attorney Generals Reference No. 73, 75 & 03 of 2010 [2011] EWCA Crim 633 (03 March 2011)

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

Tradegro (UK) Ltd v Wigmore Street Investments Ltd & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 268 (16 March 2011)

High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)

Stevenson & Ors v London Borough of Southwark [2011] EWHC 636 (QB) (18 March 2011)

High Court (Administrative Court)

British Pregnancy Advisory Service v Secretary of State for Health [2011] EWHC 637 (Admin) (18 March 2011)

Hall, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWHC 600 (Admin) (18 March 2011)

High Court (Commercial Court)

Mujur Bakat SDN BHD & Anor v Uni. Asia General Insurance Berhad & Ors [2011] EWHC 643 (Comm) (18 March 2011)

Source: www.bailii.org

Regina (Parsipoor) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Regina (Salih and another) v Same – WLR Daily

Regina (Parsipoor) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Regina (Salih and another) v Same [2011] EWCA Civ 276; [2011] WLR (D) 97

“A claimant in a claim for judicial review was entitled to an oral hearing even where the claims were academic.”

WLR Daily, 17th March 2011

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Milebush Properties Ltd v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council and another – WLR Daily

Posted March 21st, 2011 in declaratory judgment, enforcement, law reports, planning, rights of way by sally

Milebush Properties Ltd v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council and another [2011] EWCA Civ 270; [2011] WLR (D) 96

“Although the court had a wide discretion to grant declaratory relief in diverse circumstances in both public and private law proceedings, where a party who was not a party to the contract brought private proceedings seeking declaratory relief to enforce a public authority’s planning obligation the court would not lend its assistance.”

WLR Daily, 17th March 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 (Medical Justice) v Secretary of State for the Home Department – WLR Daily

Posted March 21st, 2011 in appeals, civil procedure rules, judicial review, law reports by sally

Regina (Medical Justice) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 269; [2011] WLR (D) 95

“Where a party sought permission to appeal from a judge and permission was granted on terms, that party had no right to appeal against those terms by reason of section 54(4) of the Access to Justice Act 1999, unless the party concerned was not present at the permission hearing at which the terms were imposed. The proper course was either to accept the terms, or to treat them as a refusal of permission and to make a fresh application under section 54(4) to the appropriate appeal court for permission.”

WLR Daily, 16th March 2011

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Brent London Borough Council v Fuller – WLR Daily

Posted March 21st, 2011 in employment tribunals, law reports, unfair dismissal by sally

Brent London Borough Council v Fuller [2011] EWCA Civ 267; [2011] WLR (D)

“It bore repetition that in unfair dismissal disputes it was for the employer to take the decision whether or not to dismiss an employee; for the employment tribunal to find the facts and decide whether, on an objective basis, the dismissal was fair or unfair; and for the Employment Appeal Tribunal (and the ordinary courts hearing employment appeals) to decide whether a question of law arose from the proceedings in the employment tribunal. As appellate tribunals and courts were confined to questions of law they ought not, in the absence of an error of law (including perversity), take over the employment tribunal’s role as an ‘industrial jury’ with a fund of relevant and diverse specialist expertise.”

WLR Daily, 15th March 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.

Koelzsch v État du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg – WLR Daily

Koelzsch v État du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg (Case C-29/10); [2011] WLR (D) 93

“Where an employee carries out activities in more than one contracting state the country in which the employee ‘habitually carries out his work in performance of the contract’, within the meaning of article 6(2)(a) of the Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations, was that in which or from which, in the light of all the factors which characterised that activity, the employee performed the greater part of his obligations towards his employer.”

WLR Daily, 15th March 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.

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted March 18th, 2011 in law reports by sally

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

M v F & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 273 (17 March 2011)

High Court (Administrative Court)

Johnson , Re [2011] EWHC 593 (Admin) (17 March 2011)

Q, R (on the application of) v Q Constabulary & Anor [2011] EWHC 592 (Admin) (17 March 2011)

Hinds, R (on the application of) v Blackpool Council [2011] EWHC 591 (Admin) (17 March 2011)

High Court (Chancery Division)

The Lorenz Consultancy Ltd. v Fox-Davies Capital Ltd. [2011] EWHC 574 (Ch) (17 March 2011)

Carey Group Plc & Ors v AIB Group (UK) Plc & Anor (No 2) [2011] EWHC 594 (Ch) (16 March 2011)

High Court (Patents Court)

Gedeon Richter Plc v Bayer Schering Pharma AG [2011] EWHC 583 (Pat) (17 March 2011)

High Court (Queen’s Bench Division) 

The Mayor of London (Greater London Authority) v Haw & Ors [2011] EWHC 585 (QB) (17 March 2011)

High Court (Technology and Construction Court)

London Borough of Southwark v IBM UK Ltd [2011] EWHC 549 (TCC) (17 March 2011)

Source: www.bailii.org

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted March 17th, 2011 in law reports by sally

Supreme Court

Patmalniece v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2011] UKSC 11 (16 March 2011)

Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

Rose v R. (Rev 1) [2011] EWCA Crim 579 (16 March 2011)

Synnott & Ors, R v [2011] EWCA Crim 578 (16 March 2011)

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

Mainline Private Hire Ltd v Nolan [2011] EWCA Civ 189 (02 March 2011)

A and D (Children), Re [2011] EWCA Civ 265 (17 March 2011)

Woodland v Stopford & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 266 (16 March 2011)

Medical Justice, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 269 (16 March 2011)

High Court (Administrative Court)

Arulananthan, R (On the Application Of), Tariff Decision Upon the Application of [2011] EWHC B6 (Admin) (16 March 2011)

High Court (Chancery Division)

ADM Milling Ltd v Twekesbury Town Council & Ors [2011] EWHC 595 (Ch) (16 March 2011)

Carey Group Plc & Ors v AIB Group (UK) Plc & Anor (No 2) [2011] EWHC 594 (Ch) (16 March 2011)

Bleasdale & Anor v Forster [2011] EWHC 596 (Ch) (16 March 2011)

High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)

Noble v Owens [2011] EWHC 534 (QB) (16 March 2011)

High Court (Commercial Court)

Rawlinson & Hunter Trustees SA v Kaupthing Bank HF & Ors [2011] EWHC 566 (Comm) (16 March 2011)

Source: www.bailii.org

Family lawyers face up to challenges ahead – Law Society’s Gazette

“Family law is facing an unprecedented year of change, with practitioners under intense pressure to be innovative if they want to maintain the viability of their practices. Some family law departments are already downsizing, or are being closed, as experienced practitioners move firms or set up their own niche practices. However, others are embracing change and are among their firms’ top teams in terms of fee income and profitability.”

Full story

Law Society’s Gazette, 17th March 2011

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk