Category: law reports

British Airways plc v Unite the Union – WLR Daily

Posted May 24th, 2010 in airlines, appeals, ballots, industrial action, law reports, trade unions by sally

British Airways plc v Unite the Union [2010] WLR (D) 131

“When, following a ballot the result of which supported strike action, one was asking whether a union and its members were protected from a claim in tort under certain provisions within Part V of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, the conditions contained in s 231 of the Act as to the provision by the union of information to its members concerning the results of the ballot were critical. However, s 231 was poorly drafted and it was not appropriate to adopt an over-literal interpretation of its wording.”

WLR Daily, 21st May 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.

Roberts v Gill & Co – WLR Daily

Posted May 24th, 2010 in civil procedure rules, derivative claims, law reports, limitations, Supreme Court, wills by sally

Roberts v Gill & Co [2010] UKSC 22; [2010] WLR (D) 130

“A beneficiary under a will who had commenced proceedings against solicitors he alleged had acted negligently in connection with the estate could not, after the relevant limitation period had expired, amend his claim so as to also claim on behalf of the estate by way of a derivative action.”

WLR Daily, 21st May 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.

Bank Mellat v HM Treasury – Times Law Reports

Posted May 24th, 2010 in law reports by sally

Bank Mellat v HM Treasury

Court of Appeal

“Where, in civil proceedings in which a litigant’s rights to a fair trial under article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights applied, irreducible minimum rights were required to be accorded the litigant to be given sufficient information of the evidential case against him, to enable him to give effective instructions concerning the essential allegations against him.”

The Times, 18th May 2010

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Vaughan v Vaughan – Times Law Reports

Posted May 24th, 2010 in law reports by sally

Vaughan v Vaughan

Court of Appeal

“A subsequent spouse had to take the other subject to all existing encumbrances, whether known or not.”

The Times, 18th May 2010

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Unite and Others v Nortel Networks UK Ltd (in Administration) – Times Law Reports

Posted May 24th, 2010 in law reports by sally

Unite and Others v Nortel Networks UK Ltd (in Administration)

Chancery Division

“A claim by an employee against an employer in administration did not require a judgment to render it provable for two reasons: the nature of the claim and the nature of the decision on which any award depended.”

The Times, 18th May 2010

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted May 21st, 2010 in law reports by sally

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

L’Oreal SA & Ors v Bellure NV & Ors [2010] EWCA Civ 535 (21 May 2010)

Re W (Children) [2010] EWCA Civ 537 (20 May 2010)

Groveholt Ltd v Hughes & Anor [2010] EWCA Civ 538 (20 May 2010)

MJ (Angola) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWCA Civ 557 (20 May 2010)

Condron, R (on the application of) v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council & Ors [2010] EWCA Civ 534 (20 May 2010)

Nessa v London Borough of Tower Hamlets [2010] EWCA Civ 559 (20 May 2010)

Brown, R (on the application of) v Stobart Air Ltd. [2010] EWCA Civ 523 (19 May 2010)

Churchill Insurance Company Ltd v Wilkinson & Ors [2010] EWCA Civ 556 (19 May 2010)

Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

Basso & Anor v R [2010] EWCA Crim 1119 (19 May 2010)

High Court (Administrative Court)

The Civil Aviation Authority v Travel Republic Ltd [2010] EWHC 1151 (Admin) (20 May 2010)

Tegni Cymru Cyf v The Welsh Ministers & Anor [2010] EWHC 1106 (Admin) (20 May 2010)

Dudko v The Government of the Russian Federation [2010] EWHC 1125 (Admin) (19 May 2010)

Khan v Government of the United States of America [2010] EWHC 1127 (Admin) (19 May 2010)

Save Britain’s Heritage, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Ors [2010] EWHC 979 (Admin) (14 May 2010)

Sandler v General Medical Council [2010] EWHC 1029 (Admin) (14 May 2010)

Leeds Unique Education Ltd (t/a Leeds Professional College) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWHC 1030 (Admin) (14 May 2010)

Doubtfire & Anor, R (on the application of) v West Mercia Police Authority & Anor [2010] EWHC 980 (Admin) (14 May 2010)

 High Court (Chancery Division)

Cadogan Petroleum Plc & Ors v Tolley & Ors [2010] EWHC 1107 (Ch) (18 May 2010)

 Littlewoods Retail Ltd & Ors v HM Revenue and Customs [2010] EWHC 1071 (Ch) (19 May 2010)

Barclays Bank Plc v Nylon Capital LLP [2010] EWHC 1139 (Ch) (19 May 2010)

High Court (Commercial Court)

Pineway Ltd v London Mining Company Ltd & Anor [2010] EWHC 1143 (Comm) (20 May 2010)

High Court (Family Division)

ES v AJ & Anor [2010] EWHC 1113 (Fam) (19 May 2010)

High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)

Swain v Geoffrey Osborne Ltd & Anor [2010] EWHC 1108 (QB) (19 May 2010)

Source: www.bailii.org

Bilta (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) v Nazir and others – WLR Daily

Posted May 20th, 2010 in arbitration, civil procedure rules, law reports, stay of proceedings, time limits by sally

Bilta (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) v Nazir and others [2010] EWHC 1086 (Ch); [2010] WLR (D) 129

“An application for a stay of legal proceedings made under s 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996 was not subject to the procedural rules contained in CPR Pt 11 for challenging the jurisdiction of the court. An application for an extension of time to serve the defence was not a step in the proceedings to answer the substantive claim and the defendant was not debarred from seeking a stay by s 9(3) of the Act.”

WLR Daily, 19th May 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 Kluxen; Regina v Rostas and another – WLR Daily

Posted May 20th, 2010 in appeals, crime, deportation, law reports, sentencing by sally

Regina v Kluxen; Regina v Rostas and another [2010] EWCA Crim 1081; [2010] WLR (D) 128

“Where the Secretary of State for the Home Department was required by s 32 of the United Kingdom Borders Act 2007 to make a deportation order in respect of a foreign criminal, namely a person who was not a British citizen and who had been convicted of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment or detention of at least 12 months, it was not appropriate or necessary for the sentencing court to recommend the deportation of that person.”

WLR Daily, 18th May 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 R (L) – WLR Daily

Posted May 20th, 2010 in abuse of process, appeals, Crown Prosecution Service, defence, evidence, indecent photographs of children, law reports by sally

Regina v R (L) [2010] EWCA Crim 924; [2010] WLR (D) 126

“Where a defendant was charged with offences relating to indecent images of children, arrangements to provide his lawyers with copies of those images for the sole purpose of discharging their professional responsibilities to the defendant, and the acceptance by them of access to the material for that purpose, could not in any circumstances be regarded as criminal. Where the Crown had possession of such material it had to propose satisfactory arrangements to enable the defendant to have confidential, private discussions of the material with his lawyers, unsupervised and unobserved by police officers or Crown representatives.”

WLR Daily, 18th May 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 W and others – WLR Daily

Posted May 20th, 2010 in appeals, environmental protection, law reports, waste by sally

Regina v W and others [2010] EWCA Crim 927; [2010] WLR (D) 125

“Where a person was accused of permitting the deposit, disposing or keeping of controlled waste, contrary to s 33 of the Control of Pollution Act 1990, the question whether the material in question amounted to ‘waste’, and if so, ‘controlled waste’, was a question of fact for the jury, as was the question of whether material which was originally waste had been acceptably recovered or disposed of in accordance with the aims of Parliament and Council Directive 2006/12/EC and therefore no longer constituted waste. The recipient’s intention to re-use waste material did not alter its status as waste, although actual re-use, if in accordance with the aims of the Directive, could.”

WLR Daily, 18th May 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.

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted May 18th, 2010 in law reports by sally

Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

Banaszek v R. [2010] EWCA Crim 1076 (18 May 2010)

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

Investec Bank (UK) Ltd v Zulman & Anor [2010] EWCA Civ 536 (18 May 2010)

High Court (Chancery Division)

Cadogan Petroleum Plc & Ors v Tolley & Ors [2010] EWHC 1107 (Ch) (18 May 2010)

Source: www.bailii.org

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted May 17th, 2010 in law reports by sally

High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)

Adris & Ors v The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc [2010] EWHC 941 (QB) (29 April 2010)

High Court (Chancery Division)

Milebush Properties Ltd v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council & Ors [2010] EWHC 1022 (Ch) (13 May 2010)

Future Investments SA v Federation Internationale De Football Association [2010] EWHC 1019 (Ch) (11 May 2010)

Source: www.bailii.org

Mobilx Ltd ( in administration) v Revenue and Customs Commissioners; Blue Sphere Global Ltd v Same; Calltel Telecom Ltd and another v Same – WLR Daily

Posted May 17th, 2010 in appeals, fraud, law reports, tax evasion, VAT by sally

Mobilx Ltd ( in administration) v Revenue and Customs Commissioners; Blue Sphere Global Ltd v Same; Calltel Telecom Ltd and another v Same [2010] EWCA Civ 517; [2010] WLR (D) 124

“Where a trader had means of knowing that by his purchase he was participating in a transaction connected with fraudulent evasion of VAT he lost his right to deduct input tax but only when he knew or should have known that the transaction was connected to fraud. To lose his entitlement it was not sufficient that the taxpayer knew or should have known that it was more likely than not that his purchase was connected to fraud.”

WLR Daily, 14th May 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.

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted May 14th, 2010 in law reports by sally

Supreme Court

Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd, R (on the application of)v Wolverhampton City Council & Anor [2010] UKSC 20 (12 May 2010)

ZN (Afghanistan) & Ors v Entry Clearance Officer (Karachi) [2010] UKSC 21 (12 May 2010)

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust v Roldan [2010] EWCA Civ 522 (13 May 2010)

Moulton v Chief Constable of the West Midlands [2010] EWCA Civ 524 (13 May 2010)

De Bruyne v De Bruyne & Ors [2010] EWCA Civ 519 (13 May 2010)

Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

Dougall, R v [2010] EWCA Crim 1048 (13 May 2010)

High Court (Administrative Court)

Kotarski & Anor v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [2010] EWHC 1036 (Admin) (13 May 2010)

Chetwynd v South Norfolk District Council & Ors [2010] EWHC 1070 (Admin) (13 May 2010)

High Court (Chancery Division)

Mills & Ors, (Administrators of Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander Ltd) v Sportsdirect.Com Retail Ltd [2010] EWHC 1072 (Ch) (13 May 2010)

Youlton v Charles Russell (a firm) [2010] EWHC 1032 (Ch) (13 May 2010)

High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)

Kaschke v Osler [2010] EWHC 1075 (QB) (13 May 2010)

High Court (Technology and Construction Court)

Cleveland Bridge (UK) Ltd v Whessoe-Volker Stevin Joint Venture [2010] EWHC 1076 (TCC) (13 May 2010)

Packman Lucas Ltd.v Mentmore Towers Ltd & Anor [2010] EWHC 1037 (TCC) (13 May 2010)

Source: www.bailii.org

R (Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd) v Wolverhampton City Council – WLR Daily

Posted May 14th, 2010 in compulsory purchase, law reports, local government, planning, Supreme Court by sally

R (Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd) v Wolverhampton City Council [2010] UKSC 20; [2010] WLR (D) 123

“A planning authority, in considering the exercise of its compulsory purchase powers in relation to one site, was not entitled to take into account a commitment by a developer to secure the redevelopment of another unconnected site.”

WLR Daily, 13th May 2010

Source: www.lawreports.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.

Cooper v Attorney General – WLR Daily

Posted May 14th, 2010 in appeals, attorney general, damages, judicial review, law reports by sally

Cooper v Attorney General  [2010] EWCA Civ 464; [2010] WLR (D) 122

“The obligation of a member states to make good damage caused to individuals by infringements of Community law for which they were responsible also applied where the alleged infringement stemmed from a decision of a court adjudicating at last instance where the rule of Community law infringed was intended to confer rights on individuals, the breach was sufficiently serious and there was a direct causal link between that breach and the loss or damage sustained by the injured parties. In assessing whether there had been a sufficiently serious breach, domestic case law in particular carried weight where it purported to interpret and apply the relevant Community law.”

WLR Daily, 13th May 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

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted May 13th, 2010 in law reports by sally

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

Larkfield Ltd & Ors v Revenue & Customs Prosecution Office & Ors [2010] EWCA Civ 521 (12 May 2010)

Mobilx Ltd & Ors v HM Revenue & Customs [2010] EWCA Civ 517 (12 May 2010)

W (Minors) [2010] EWCA Civ 520 (12 May 2010)

High Court (Administrative Division)

Wiltshire Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2010] EWHC 1009 (Admin) (12 May 2010)

High Court (Commercial Court)

Astrazeneca UK Ltd v Albemarle International Corp & Anor [2010] EWHC 1028 (Comm) (12 May 2010)

High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)

Kris Motor Spares Ltd v Fox Williams LLP [2010] EWHC 1008 (QB) (12 May 2010)

Source: www.bailii.org

ZN (Afghanistan) and others v Entry Clearance Officer – WLR Daily

Posted May 13th, 2010 in immigration, law reports, sponsored immigrants, Supreme Court by sally

ZN (Afghanistan) and others v Entry Clearance Officer [2010] UKSC 21; [2010] WLR (D) 121

“Family members who sought entry to the United Kingdom to join a sponsor who had been granted asylum but had subsequently obtained British citizenship still had to satisfy the rules dealing with applications to join a person who had been granted asylum and, therefore, they did not have to meet the maintenance and accommodation requirements imposed by the general rules relating to applications by family members.”

WLR Daily, 12th May 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 White; Regina v Dennard; Regina v Perry; Regina v Rowbotham – WLR daily

Posted May 13th, 2010 in appeals, confiscation, customs and excise, law reports, VAT by sally

Regina v White; Regina v Dennard; Regina v Perry; Regina v Rowbotham [2010] EWCA Crim 978; [2010] WLR (D) 120

“For the purposes of tobacco smuggling cases there was unlikely to be any incompatibility between the rules which made those liable under the Excise Goods (Holding, Movement, Warehousing and REDS) Regulations 1992 or the Tobacco Products Regulations 2001 to pay duty and those made liable by Council Directive 92/12/EEC.”

WLR Daily, 12th May 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.

In re Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander Ltd (in administration) – WLR Daily

Posted May 13th, 2010 in administration orders, appeals, banking, debts, insolvency, law reports, set-off by sally

In re Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander Ltd (in administration) [2010] EWCA Civ 518; [2010] WLR (D) 119

“After the set-off of cross-claims as between a company in administration and one of its creditors, the balance payable by a creditor to the company under r 2.85(8) of the Insolvency Rules 1986 in respect of a future debt was not to be a sum discounted to present value under r 2.105 but was to be an equivalent undiscounted amount.”
WLR Daily, 11th May 2010
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.