BAILII: Recent Decisions
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
High Court (Chancery Division)
HM Revenue and Customs v Marks and Spencer Plc [2010] EWHC 2215 (Ch) (27 August 2010)
Source: www.bailii.org
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
High Court (Chancery Division)
HM Revenue and Customs v Marks and Spencer Plc [2010] EWHC 2215 (Ch) (27 August 2010)
Source: www.bailii.org
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Oracle America Inc v M-Tech Data Ltd & Anor [2010] EWCA Civ 997 (24 August 2010)
Sebastian Holdings Inc v Deutsche Bank AG [2010] EWCA Civ 998 (20 August 2010)
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Modi v United Kingdom Border Agency [2010] EWHC 1996 (QB) (30 July 2010)
City of Westminster v Davenport & Anor [2010] EWHC 2016 (QB) (30 July 2010)
Murdoch v Department for Work and Pensions [2010] EWHC 1988 (QB) (30 July 2010)
Morton v Portal Ltd [2010] EWHC 1804 (QB) (30 July 2010)
Bacon v Nacional Suiza Cia Seguros Y Reseguros SA [2010] EWHC 2017 (QB) (30 July 2010)
Islam Expo Ltd v The Spectator (1828) Ltd & Anor [2010] EWHC 2011 (QB) (30 July 2010)
Venables & Anor v News Group Papers Ltd & Ors [2010] EWHC B18 (QB) (30 July 2010)
High Court (Technology & Construction Court)
Chalbury McCouat International Ltd v PG Foils Ltd [2010] EWHC 2050 (TCC) (03 August 2010)
LPI (Hotels) Ltd v Technical & General Guarantee Company SA [2010] EWHC 2049 (TCC) (02 August 2010)
Nickleby FM Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd [2010] EWHC 1976 (TCC) (30 July 2010)
Source: www.bailii.org
Regina v Varsani [2010] EWCA Crim 1938; [2010] WLR (D) 237
“Where an offender was convicted of being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of duty on counterfeit cigarettes, contrary to s 170 of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979, the reference to the retail price of cigarettes ‘of that description’ in s 5(1) of the Tobacco Products Duty Act 1979, as amended, by which the value of the duty was to be calculated, was to the retail price of genuine non-counterfeit cigarettes which were of the same description as the counterfeit ones on which the duty was evaded.”
WLR Daily, 24th August 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Regina (B) v Islington London Borough Council [2010] WLR (D) 236
“The Education Act 1996 placed no obligation on a local authority to maintain a statement of special educational needs for a young person over the age of 19 or to fund him or her to continue in secondary education.”
WLR Daily, 24th August 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Regina v Hamer [2010] WLR (D) 235
“A fixed penalty notice which had been issued to a defendant pursuant to s 2 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 was not a conviction, admission of guilt, proof that a crime had been committed, or a stain on the defendant’s character, and therefore could not be regarded as evidence which impugned the character of the defendant or admitted as such.”
WLR Daily, 20th August 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Regina v Seaton [2010] EWCA Crim 1980; [2010] WLR (D) 234
“Where it was suggested at trial that a defendant’s or witness’s account was a recent fabrication, he could not, unless he had waived legal professional privilege, be asked whether he had told his lawyer what he now said was the truth, or whether he was willing to waive the privilege. If a defendant gave evidence of what had passed between him and his lawyer, he could not be in breach of his own privilege, but was waiving privilege, although not necessarily waiving it entirely and generally. If a defendant said that he had given his solicitor the account then offered at trial, that would ordinarily mean that he could not be cross-examined about exactly what he had told the solicitor on that topic, but another party could comment upon the fact that the solicitor had not been called to confirm something which, if true, he easily could confirm, if the comment were fair.”
WLR Daily, 20th August 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Batista v Secretary of State of the Home Department [2010] EWCA Civ 896; [2010] WLR (D) 233
“When considering whether a decision to deport a national of the European Economic Area (‘EEA’) was proportionate, the court should ask itself whether members of the deportee’s family would move to the country of origin with the deportee and whether it was reasonable to expect them to do so, rather than to ask whether there were ‘insurmountable obstacles’ to them moving.”
WLR Daily, 19th August 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Drake and another v Foster Wheeler Ltd [2010] EWHC 2004 (QB); [2010] WLR (D) 232
“Claims for hospice care were rare and were directly analogous to recoverable claims made by claimants from tortfeasor defendants for the recovery of compensation on behalf of relatives who had provided gratuitous care to the claimant in order to alleviate the consequences of tortiously inflicted injuries.”
WLR Daily, 19th August 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“Where a landlord opposed the renewal of a tenancy under section 30(1)(f) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 on the ground that he intended to redevelop the land the date of the hearing at which the necessary intention had to be shown to exist was always the date of the substantive trial of the landlord’s ground of objection.”
WLR Daily, 19th August 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Supreme Court
High Court (Chancery Division)
VAC v JAD & Ors [2010] EWHC 2159 (Ch) (16 August 2010)
Source: www.bailii.org
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Osborne & Ors, R. v [2010] EWCA Crim 1981 (13 August 2010)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Benourad v Compass Group Plc [2010] EWHC 1882 (QB) (29 July 2010)
Source: www.bailii.org
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Seaton v R [2010] EWCA Crim 1980 (13 August 2010)
High Court (Administrative Court)
OM (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWHC 2147 (Admin) (13 August 2010)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Sucden Financial Ltd v Fluxo-Cane Overseas Ltd & Anor [2010] EWHC 2133 (Comm) (13 August 2010)
Source: www.bailii.org
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
VL (A Child) v Oxfordshire County Council [2010] EWHC 2091 (QB) (05 August 2010)
High Court (Chancery Division)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Asliturk v The City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court [2010] EWHC 2148 (Admin) (12 August 2010)
Regional Court In Konin, Poland v Walerianczyk [2010] EWHC 2149 (Admin) (12 August 2010)
Cook & Anor v Serious Organised Crime Agency [2010] EWHC 2119 (Admin) (27 July 2010)
Cummins, R (on the application of) v Manchester Crown Court [2010] EWHC 2111 (Admin) (27 July 2010)
Source: www.bailii.org
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Hudson Bay Apparel Brands LLC v Umbro International Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 949 (11 August 2010)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Leyland Printing Company Ltd v Leyprint Ltd [2010] EWHC 2105 (Ch) (11 August 2010)
High Court (Family Division)
Warwickshire County Council v TE & Ors [2010] EWHC B19 (Fam) (11 August 2010)
Source: www.bailii.org
High Court (Chancery Division)
CSC Media Group Ltd v Video Performance Ltd [2010] EWHC 2094 (Ch) (10 August 2010)
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
Aedifice Partnership Ltd v Shah [2010] EWHC 2106 (TCC) (10 August 2010)
Source: www.bailii.org
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Gojra & Anor, R v [2010] EWCA Crim 1939 (06 August 2010)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Lockheed Martin Corp v Willis Group Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 927 (30 July 2010)
Source: www.bailii.org
Omak Maritime Ltd v Mamola Challenger Shipping Co Ltd [2010] EWHC 2026 (Comm); [2010] WLR (D) 230
“An arbitral tribunal in assessing damages for breach of contract had been wrong to treat a claim for wasted expenses and a claim for loss of profits as two separate and independent claims which could not be ‘mixed’. Both claims were governed by the principle which required the court to make a comparison between the claimant’s current position and what it would have been had the contract been performed. Where steps had been taken to mitigate the loss which would otherwise have been caused by a breach of contract that principle required the benefits obtained by mitigation to be set against the loss which would otherwise have been sustained.”
WLR Daily, 6th August 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
R (PM) v Hertfordshire County Council [2010] EWHC 2056 (Admin); [2010] WLR (D) 229
“A local authority charged with obligations to children under ss 17 and 20 of the Children Act 1989 was not bound by a simple finding of fact by the First Tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) as to the age of an applicant for support. Such a finding was not a judgment in rem nor otherwise binding in law on the local authority, or on other strangers to the asylum and immigration appeal.”
WLR Daily, 6th August 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“The offence under s 328(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 of entering into or becoming concerned in an arrangement which a person knew or suspected facilitated the acquisition, retention, use or control of criminal property by or on behalf of another person, applied to property which was criminal at the time when the arrangement attached to it, and did not extend to property which was originally legitimate but became criminal only as a result of carrying out the arrangement.”
WLR Daily, 6th August 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
High Court (Chancery Division)
HMRC v Portsmouth City Football Club Ltd & Ors [2010] EWHC 2013 (Ch) (05 August 2010)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Chauhan v General Medical Council [2009] EWHC 2093 (Admin) (06 August 2010)
Source: www.bailii.org