Oceanbulk Shipping and Trading SA v TMT Asia Ltd and Others
Court of Appeal
“There was not, and need not be an exception to the ‘without-prejudice’ rule so as to permit evidence of such communications and discussions to be given in a dispute about the interpretation of a written settlement agreement.”
The Times, 1st March 2010
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
High Court (Queen’s Bench)
Moore v Hotelplan Ltd (t/a Inghams Travel) & Anor [2010] EWHC 276 (QB) (22 February 2010)
Rutherford v Seymour Pierce Ltd [2010] EWHC 375 (QB) (11 February 2010)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Sharafi & Anor v Woven Rugs Ltd & Ors [2010] EWHC 230 (Ch) (24 February 2010)
Shah v Shah & Ors [2010] EWHC 313 (Ch) (24 February 2010)
Good Harvest Partnership Llp v Centaur Services Ltd [2010] EWHC 330 (Ch) (23 February 2010)
HR Trustees Ltd v German & Anor [2010] EWHC 321 (Ch) (26 February 2010)
High Court (Family Division)
B, C, and D (Children), Re [2010] EWHC 262 (Fam) (05 February 2010)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Prasannan v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea [2010] EWHC 319 (Admin) (25 February 2010)
DPP v Fearon [2010] EWHC 340 (Admin) (10 February 2010)
L v Crown Prosecution Service [2010] EWHC 341 (Admin) (10 February 2010)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Kazeminy & Ors v Siddiqi & Ors [2010] EWHC 201 (Comm) (25 February 2010)
Choil Trading SA v Sahara Energy Resources Ltd [2010] EWHC 374 (Comm) (26 February 2010)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
Forest Heath District Council v ISG Jackson Ltd [2010] EWHC 322 (TCC) (22 February 2010)
Softlanding Systems, Inc v KDP Software Ltd & Anor [2010] EWHC 326 (TCC) (26 February 2010)
S G South Ltd v Swan Yard (Cirencester) Ltd [2010] EWHC 376 (TCC) (26 February 2010)
Source: www.bailii.org
Norris v Government of United States of America (No 2)
Supreme Court
“Only the gravest effects of interference with family life would make extradition disproportionate to the public interest in the prevention of crime.”
The Times, 25th February 2010
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Bournemouth University Higher Education Corpn v Buckland [2010] EWCA Civ 121; [2010] WLR (D) 51
“A repudiatory breach of contract, once it had happened, could not be cured by the contract breaker.”
WLR Daily, 24th February 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.
“Co-operation between national financial regulators was of the greatest importance, particularly where there were suspicions or allegations of fraud. The Financial Services Authority was entitled to assist the US Security and Exchange Commission in a share fraud investigation without subjecting its request for help to critical examination. The FSA was required only to comply with the requirements of statute, and the terms of memoranda of understanding were immaterial. There was no requirement to provide notice under s 170(2) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.”
WLR Daily, 24th February 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.
“It was wrong to restrict the circumstances in which a solicitor might lawfully terminate his retainer to those in which he was instructed to do something improper. Solicitors were under a professional duty not to advance arguments which they did not consider to be properly arguable and where a client insisted that such an argument should be advanced a solicitor was lawfully entitled to terminate his retainer.”
WLR Daily, 24th February 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.
Good Harvest Partnership LLP v Centaur Services Ltd [2010] EWHC 330 (Ch); [2010] WLR (D) 48
“The Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 precluded a person who had guaranteed a tenant’s obligations under a lease from being required to give a further guarantee in respect of an assignee of the lease.”
WLR Daily, 24th February 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.
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Richard Buxton (Solicitors) v Mills-Owens & Anor [2010] EWCA Civ 122 (23 February 2010)
High Court (Patents Court)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Moore v Hotelplan Ltd (t/a Inghams Travel) & Anor [2010] EWHC 276 (QB) (22 February 2010)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
Forest Heath District Council v ISG Jackson Ltd [2010] EWHC 322 (TCC) (22 February 2010)
Source: www.bailii.org
Gibson and others v Sheffield City Council [2010] EWCA Civ 63; [2010] WLR (D) 47
“In an equal pay claim, it was open to an employer to avoid the need for objective justification of a pay disparity if he could show that, even if the pay practice had an adverse impact on women, that practice was not tainted by sex discrimination under s 1(3) of the Equal Pay Act 1970, so that the obligation to justify the disparity objectively did not arise. However, the application of that proposition was limited and merely because there was an explanation for the difference in pay which was not directly discriminatory did not necessarily mean that the pay practice was not tainted by sex.”
WLR Daily, 23rd 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.
Orams and Another v Apostolides
Court of Appeal
“There was no principle or public policy which prevented courts in the United Kingdom from recognising and enforcing judgments of the courts of Cyprus concerning land situated in North Cyprus controlled by the Turkish Cypriot administration.”
The Times, 24th February 2010
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Pitt and Another v Holt and Another
Chancery Division
“A receiver appointed under the Mental Health Act 1983 by the Court of Protection was entitled to set aside a settlement made by her, as receiver for her late husband, where the inheritance tax position had not been taken into account when the settlement was established.”
The Times, 24th February 2010
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Robot Arenas Ltd & Anor v Waterf1eld & Anor [2010] EWHC 115 (QB) (08 February 2010)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Moore v Hotelplan Ltd (t/a Inghams Travel) & Anor [2010] EWHC 276 (Ch) (22 February 2010)
Financial Services Authority v Anderson & Ors [2010] EWHC 308 (Ch) (22 February 2010)
Source: www.bailii.org
Hertfordshire County Council v Veolia Water Central Ltd [2010] EWHC 278 (QB); [2010] WLR (D) 46
“The effect of regs 3 and 4 of the Street Works (Maintenance) Regulations 1992, when read with s 81 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, was that an highway and street authority could not make a valid charge against a statutory undertaker for emergency works which the authority had carried out to secure apparatus for which the undertaker was responsible unless the undertaker had failed to afford the authority facilities to inspect the apparatus and unless the authority’s belief that the apparatus had not been maintained were informed by a subsidence or disturbance of the road surface.”
WLR Daily, 22nd 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.
Regina (G) v Governors of X School and Others
Court of Appeal
“A teacher was entitled to legal representation in disciplinary proceedings which might lead to a referral to the Secretary of State for Children School and Families, who could bar him from teaching children.”
The Times, 23rd February 2010
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Regina (Davies and Another) v Revenue and Customs Commissioners; Regina (Gaines-Cooper) v Same
Court of Appeal
“The Revenue had not altered its interpretation or guidance in assessing whether taxpayers had achieved non-resident status.”
The Times, 23rd February 2010
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Regina v H (Criminal propensity)
Court of Appeal
“Evidence of criminal propensity on the part of a person other than the defendant might be admissible under the provisions of section 100 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 which dealt with bad character.”
The Times, 23rd February 2010
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Garside v Black Horse Ltd & Ors [2010] EWHC 190 (QB) (12 February 2010)
Pankhurst v White [2010] EWHC 311 (QB) (18 February 2010)
Malone & Ors v British Airways Plc [2010] EWHC 302 (QB) (19 February 2010)
Sabin v BRB (Residuary) Ltd [2010] EWHC 267 (QB) (19 February 2010)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Thomas & Anor v BPE Solicitors (A Firm) [2010] EWHC 306 (Ch) (19 February 2010)
High Court (Administrative Court)
James v Birmingham City Council [2010] EWHC 282 (Admin) (19 February 2010)
Peake v Director of Public Prosecution [2010] EWHC 286 (Admin) (19 February 2010)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
Eribo & Anor v Odinaiya & Anor [2010] EWHC 301 (TCC) (19 February 2010)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Source: www.bailii.org
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
“Judicial Studies Board specimen directions provided guidance for trial judges but were not authority binding them unless approved or adopted by the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division.”
The Times, 22nd February 2010
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Regina v Valentas; Regina v Tabus
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
“Until there was a definite guideline issued by the Sentencing Council, proposals of the Sentencing Advisory Panel did not constitute guidance to sentencers which displaced guideline decisions of the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division.”
The Times, 22nd February 2010
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division
“If a member of the jury had to be discharged, at whatever stage in the trial, the judge was not required to direct the remaining members of the jury to ignore any views expressed by the juror who had departed.”
The Times, 22nd February 2010
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025