law reports – Page 243 – Current Awareness

Regina v Lancaster – WLR Daily

Posted March 5th, 2010 in appeals, benefits, false accounting, law reports, theft by sally

Regina v Lancaster [2010] EWCA Crim 370; [2010] WLR (D) 63

“Where a person was charged with an offence of falsifying a document made or required for an accounting purpose, by omitting a material particular from that document, contrary to s 17 of the Theft Act 1968, the omitted particular was to be regarded as material if it had the effect that the document was liable to mislead in a way which was significant, or in a way which mattered.”

WLR Daily, 4th March 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 NW – WLR Daily

Posted March 5th, 2010 in appeals, law reports, public order, violent disorder by sally

Regina v NW [2010] EWCA Crim 404; [2010] WLR (D) 62

“The words ‘present together’ in the expression ‘Where three or more persons who are present together’ in s 2(1) of the Public Order Act 1986 denoted no more than that the persons concerned were in the same place at the same time.”

WLR Daily, 4th March 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 March 4th, 2010 in law reports by sally

Supreme Court

W (Children), Re (Rev 1) [2010] UKSC 12 (03 March 2010)

Lewis, R (on the application of) v Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council & Anor (Rev 1) [2010] UKSC 11 (03 March 2010)

Martin v Her Majesty’s Advocate [2010] UKSC 10 (03 March 2010)

Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

R v W [2010] EWCA Crim 372 (02 March 2010)

NW, R v [2010] EWCA Crim 404 (03 March 2010)

Costello v R. [2010] EWCA Crim 371 (02 March 2010)

Lancaster, R. v [2010] EWCA Crim 370 (02 March 2010)

Gore, R v [2010] EWCA Crim 369 (01 March 2010)

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

Myckoo (Jamaica), R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Rev 1) [2010] EWCA Civ 160 (02 March 2010)

High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)

Webster & Ors v The Ridgeway Foundation School [2010] EWHC 318 (QB) (02 March 2010)

High Court (Administrative Court)

Albert Court Residents Association & Ors, R (on the application of) v Corporation of the Hall of Arts & Sciences [2010] EWHC 393 (Admin) (02 March 2010)

Matovu, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWHC 357 (Admin) (01 March 2010)

High Court (Technology and Construction Court)

Gold Group Properties Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd [2010] EWHC 323 (TCC) (3 March 2010)

Source: www.bailii.org

Regina v W – WLR Daily

Posted March 4th, 2010 in appeals, law reports, misfeasance in public office, police, retrials by sally

Regina v W [2010] EWCA Crim 372; [2010] WLR (D) 61

“Where the crime of misconduct in a public office was committed in circumstances involving the acquisition of property by theft or fraud, particularly when the holder of a public office was alleged to have made improper claims for public funds in circumstances which were said to be criminal, proof that the defendant was dishonest was an essential ingredient of the offence.”

WLR Daily, 3rd March 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 Upper Bay Ltd – WLR Daily

Posted March 4th, 2010 in appeals, children, duty of care, health & safety, law reports, parental responsibility by sally

Regina v Upper Bay Ltd [2010] WLR (D) 60

“The duty of a parent to supervise his child and the duty of an employer to conduct its undertaking in such a way as to ensure that persons not in its employment, such as a child, were not exposed to risks to health or safety were concurrent duties so that if the child suffered harm the breach of parental duty did not absolve an employer from responsibility.”

WLR Daily, 3rd March 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 (Lewis) v Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council (No 2) – WLR Daily

Posted March 4th, 2010 in commons, law reports, Supreme Court by sally

Regina (Lewis) v Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council (No 2) [2010] UKSC 11; [2010] WLR (D) 59

“The tripartite test of nec vi, nec clam, nec precario (not by force, nor stealth, nor the licence of the owner) was sufficient to establish that land which had been used by local inhabitants for lawful sports and pastimes for 20 years had been used ‘as of right’ so that they were entitled to have the land registered as a town or village green under s 15 of the Commons Act 2006. It was not necessary to impose a further test as to whether it would have appeared to a reasonable landowner that the local inhabitants were asserting a right to use the land for the lawful sports and pastimes in which they were indulging. If confronted by such use over a period of 20 years, it was reasonable to expect a landowner to resist or restrict the use if he wished to avoid the possibility of registration.”

WLR Daily, 3rd March 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 (Lewis) v Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council and Another – Times Law Reports

Posted March 4th, 2010 in law reports by sally

Regina (Lewis) v Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council and Another

Supreme Court

“Where land had been used for lawful sports and pastimes for at least 20 years and local inhabitants had not tried to prevent golf being played there did not preclude the inhabitants’ use of the land from being as of right so as to allow it to be registered as a town green.”

The Times, 4th March 2010

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Regina (LG) v Independent Appeal Panel for Tom Hood School (Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, interested party) – WLR Daily

Posted March 3rd, 2010 in appeals, law reports, offensive weapons, school children, school exclusions by sally

Regina (LG) v Independent Appeal Panel for Tom Hood School (Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, interested party) [2010] EWCA Civ 142; [2010] WLR (D) 56

“A decision on the balance of probabilities that a school pupil had produced a knife during a fight was sufficient to found his permanent exclusion from the school. It did not infringe his right to a fair hearing before the decision-maker under art 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, since he had no arguable right under domestic law to continue to be educated at the school without good reason, and thus had no ‘civil right’ to do so. The appeal panel was not determining a criminal charge against the pupil: the sanction of permanent exclusion from a particular school was insufficiently severe to render the charge against him criminal.”

WLR Daily, 2nd March 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 Sheppard; Regina v Whittle – Times Law Reports

Posted March 3rd, 2010 in law reports by sally

Regina v Sheppard; Regina v Whittle

Court of Appeal

“The courts of England and Wales had jurisdiction over offences relating to racially inflammatory material if a substantial measure of the activities constituting the crime had taken place within the jurisdiction.”

The Times, 3rd March 2010

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Regina v Iqbal – Times Law Reports

Posted March 3rd, 2010 in law reports by sally

Regina v Iqbal

Court of Appeal

“For the time for proceedings for a confiscation order to be postponed, or extended beyond the permitted period of two years starting with the date of conviction, an application had to be made during the permitted period.”

The Times, 3rd March 2010

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Gulf International Ltd v Groupe Chimique Tunisien – Times Law Reports

Posted March 3rd, 2010 in law reports by sally

Gulf International Ltd v Groupe Chimique Tunisien

Court of Appeal

“An English court could restrain a party to a contract governed by English law from instituting any action in a foreign court contrary to an arbitration agreement in the contract.”

The Times, 3rd March 2010

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted March 3rd, 2010 in law reports by sally

Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

Franked Investment Group Litigation Test Claimants v Inland Revenue & Anor [2010] EWCA Civ 103 (23 February 2010)

Higgins & Anor v The Crown [2010] EWCA Crim 308 (24 February 2010)

Attorney General Refrence No 101 of 2009 [2010] EWCA Crim 238 (10 February 2010)

Tomkins, R. v [2010] EWCA Crim 244 (05 February 2010)

Irving, R. v [2010] EWCA Crim 189 (04 February 2010)

McCreesh & Anor, R. v [2010] EWCA Crim 314 (12 February 2010)

B, R. v (Rev 1) [2010] EWCA Crim 315 (12 February 2010)

Chisholm,R. v [2010] EWCA Crim 258 (03 February 2010)

Source: www.bailii.org

In re Stanford International Bank Ltd (in liquidation) – WLR Daily

Posted March 2nd, 2010 in appeals, foreign jurisdictions, insolvency, law reports, proceeds of crime by sally

In re Stanford International Bank Ltd (in liquidation) [2010] EWCA Civ 137; [2010] WLR (D) 55

“The centre of main interest of a company, for the purposes of recognition of a foreign main proceeding in cross-border insolvency proceedings, was to be identified by reference to factors which were both objective and ascertainable by third parties, not by applying the head office functions test.”

WLR Daily, 1st March 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.

Global Process Systems Inc and Another v Syarikat Takaful Malaysia Berhard – Times Law Reports

Posted March 2nd, 2010 in law reports by sally

Global Process Systems Inc and Another v Syarikat Takaful Malaysia Berhard

Court of Appeal

“Perils of the sea were not to be equated with inherent vice of the cargo when assessing whether a marine loss was excluded from an all-risks policy of insurance.”

The Times, 2nd March 2010

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Regina (Perinpanathan) v City of Westminster Magistrates Court and Another – Times Law Reports

Posted March 2nd, 2010 in forfeiture, law reports by sally

Regina (Perinpanathan) v City of Westminster Magistrates Court and Another

Court of Appeal

“Magistrates were entitled not to order the police to pay the costs of a claimant who had successfully defended a forfeiture case on the ground that the police had reasonably and properly brought the proceedings in the public interest.”

The Times, 2nd March 2010

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted March 2nd, 2010 in law reports by sally

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

Olden v Serious Organised Crime Agency [2010] EWCA Civ 143 (26 February 2010)

Mohamed, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs (Rev 1) [2010] EWCA Civ 158 (26 February 2010)

LG, R (on the application of) v Independent Appeal Panel for Tom Hood School & Ors [2010] EWCA Civ 142 (26 February 2010)

Mann v Northern Electric Distribution Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 141 (26 February 2010)

Stanford International Bank Ltd, Re [2010] EWCA Civ 137 (25 February 2010)

YH, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWCA Civ 116 (25 February 2010)

Seabrook Warehousing Ltd & Ors, R (on the application of) v Revenue and Customs [2010] EWCA Civ 140 (25 February 2010)

MK (Iran), R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWCA Civ 115 (25 February 2010)

Speymill Contracts Ltd v Baskind [2010] EWCA Civ 120 (25 February 2010)

Kellogg Brown & Root Holdings (UK) Ltd v HM Revenue and Custioms [2010] EWCA Civ 118 (24 February 2010)

Cipriani SRL & Ors v Cipriani (Grosvenor Street) Ltd & Ors [2010] EWCA Civ 110 (24 February 2010)

Sinclair v Kearsley & Ors [2010] EWCA Civ 112 (24 February 2010)

UK Housing Alliance (North West) Ltd v Francis [2010] EWCA Civ 117 (24 February 2010)

Buckland v Bournemouth University Higher Education Corp [2010] EWCA Civ 121 (24 February 2010)

Financial Services Authority (FSA) & Ors v Amro International SA & Anor [2010] EWCA Civ 123 (24 February 2010)

Stanton v Collinson [2010] EWCA Civ 81 (24 February 2010)

Richard Buxton (Solicitors) v Mills-Owens & Anor [2010] EWCA Civ 122 (23 February 2010)

Franked Investment Group Litigation Test Claimants v Inland Revenue & Anor [2010] EWCA Civ 103 (23 February 2010)

Source: www.bailii.org

Kellogg Brown & Root Holdings (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners – WLR Daily

Posted March 1st, 2010 in appeals, capital gains tax, company law, law reports, shareholders by sally

Kellogg Brown & Root Holdings (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2010] EWCA Civ 118; [2010] WLR (D) 53

“For the purposes of capital gains tax in relation to associated companies, under s 286(5)(b) of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992, a ‘group’ did not require any common purpose but was to be given its ordinary meaning of ‘collection’. Where shares were disposed of by the taxpayer to another company and the ultimate parent companies of each were ‘connected persons’ then the taxpayer and the acquiring company were sufficiently connected within s 18(3) of the 1992 Act for the capital loss on the disposal to be deductible only from chargeable gains arising on other disposals between the same two companies.”

WLR Daily, 25th February 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.

Norris v Government of United States of America (No 2) – WLR Daily

Posted March 1st, 2010 in extradition, law reports, public interest, Supreme Court by sally

Norris v Government of United States of America (No 2) [2009] UKSC 9; [2010] WLR (D) 52

“It was only if some quite exceptionally compelling feature, or combination of features, was present that interference with the right to family life under art 8(1) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms consequent upon extradition would be other than proportionate to the objective that extradition served.”

WLR Daily, 25th February 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.