JA (Ivory Coast) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
Court of Appeal
“It was necessary to weigh in the balance how far the proportionality of removal of an individual from the jurisdiction was affected by the history of any compassionate grant and renewal for medical treatment of leave to remain.”
The Times, 2nd February 2010
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Regina (Ethos Recycling Ltd) v Barking and Dagenham Magistrates Court
Queen’s Bench Divisional Court
“Service by a local authority of a notice to abate an alleged statutory nuisance did not comprise the institution of summary proceedings.”
The Times, 2nd February 2010
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Megtian Ltd (in Administration) v Commissioners of Revenue and Customs
Chancery Division
“A person who knew that a transaction in which he participated was connected with fraudulent tax evasion was a participant in that fraud because he had a dishonest state of mind. By contrast, a person who merely ought to have known of the relevant connection was not dishonest, but had a state of mind broadly equivalent to negligence.”
The Times, 2nd February 2010
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Supreme Court
Office of Communications v The Information Commissioner [2010] UKSC 3 (27 January 2010)
Guardian News and Media Ltd & Ors, Re HM Treasury v Ahmed & Ors [2010] UKSC 1 (27 January 2010)
HM Treasury v Ahmed & Ors [2010] UKSC 2 (27 January 2010)
High Court (Patents Court)
Medeva BV v The Comptroller General of Patents [2010] EWHC 68 (Pat) (27 January 2010)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
Robinson v P E Jones (Contractors) Ltd [2010] EWHC 102 (TCC) (27 January 2010)
Source: www.bailii.org
In re Guardian News and Media Ltd and others [2010] UKSC 1; [2010] WLR (D) 13
“Where individuals challenged freezing orders made against them under the Terrorism (United Nations Measures) Order 2006 and the Al-Qaida and Taliban (United Nations Measures) Order 2006 the general public interest in publishing a full report of the proceedings in which they were named justified curtailing their right to respect for their private and family lives.”
WLR Daily, 27th 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.
Ahmed and others v HM Treasury (JUSTICE intervening); al-Ghabra v Same; R (Youssef) v Same
“In introducing a test of reasonable suspicion that a person was involved in terrorism as the basis for making an asset-freezing order against him under the Terrorism (United Nations Measures) Order 2006 the Treasury exceeded its powers under the enabling provisions of s 1 of the United Nations Act 1946.”
WLR Daily, 27th January 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 (Huitson) v HM Revenue and Customs [2010] EWHC 97 (Admin); [2010] WLR (D) 11
“It was within the permissible area of discretionary judgment of Parliament, and compatible with art 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, to legislate with retrospective effect to prevent taxpayers from seeking to use, by wholly artificial arrangements, a Double Tax Arrangement such as existed between the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man for a purpose for which it was not intended, so as to defeat the public policy that such an arrangement should do no more than relieve from double taxation.”
WLR Daily, 27th January 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 (RD and PM) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; Regina (EM and Others) v Same
Court of Appeal
“The distinction made between convicted prisoners serving part of their sentences in psychiatric hospital and non-prisoners in respect of eligibility for welfare benefits was justifiable.”
The Times, 1st February 2010
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Regina v Hussain (Munir): Regina v Hussain (Tokeen)
Court of Appeal
“Where a case fell outside the scope of the official sentencing guidelines, the ancient principles of justice and mercy fell to be applied.”
The Times, 1st February, 2010
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Wilkinson, R v [2009] EWCA Crim 2733 (11 December 2009)
Josephs, R v [2009] EWCA Crim 2800 (17 December 2009)
Sheppard & Anor, R v [2010] EWCA Crim 65 (29 January 2010)
C & Anor, R. v [2010] EWCA Crim 72 (29 January 2010)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Akzo Nobel UK Ltd v Arista Tubes Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 28 (29 January 2010)
Parkwood Leisure Ltd v Mark Alemo-Herron & 23 Ors [2010] EWCA Civ 24 (29 January 2010)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
LNS v Persons Unknown [2010] EWHC 119 (QB) (29 January 2010)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Nahome & Ors v Last Cawthra Feather Solicitors [2010] EWHC 76 (Ch) (29 January 2010)
Seymour Road (Southampton) Ltd v Williams & Ors [2010] EWHC 111 (Ch) (29 January 2010)
Webb v MacDonald & Anor [2010] EWHC 93 (Ch) (29 January 2010)
High Court (Administrative Division)
Allan v South Tyneside Law Courts [2010] EWHC 107 (Admin) (12 January 2010)
Source: www.bailii.org
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Boughtwood v Oak Investment Partners XII, Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 23 (28 January 2010)
Bradford (Valuation Officer) v Vtesse Networks Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 16 (28 January 2010)
S-C (Children) [2010] EWCA Civ 21 (28 January 2010)
High Court (Chancery Division)
The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc v Chandra & Anor [2010] EWHC 105 (Ch) (28 January 2010)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Huitson, R (on the application of) v Revenue and Customs [2010] EWHC 97 (Admin) (28 January 2010)
High Court (Commercial Court)
JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov & Ors [2010] EWHC 90 (Comm) (28 January 2010)
Sawiris & Ors v Marwan [2010] EWHC 89 (Comm) (28 January 2010)
Fortis Bank SA & Anor v Indian Overseas Bank [2010] EWHC 84 (Comm) (28 January 2010)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
Fitzroy Robinson Ltd v Mentmore Towers Ltd [2010] EWHC 98 (TCC) (26 January 2010)
Source: www.bailii.org
Bhamra v Dubb [2010] EWCA Civ 13; [2010] WLR (D) 10
“A caterer, who had supplied a dish for guests at a Sikh wedding knowing that the recipe could sometimes contain egg, a food prohibited by the Sikh religion, owed a duty of care to a guest who was allergic to eggs and subsequently died after eating the dish served. Such a conclusion was justified on the basis of well established principles of proximity, and after invoking CPR r 52.11(4) to enable the Court of Appeal to draw such inferences as were justified on the evidence where the judge below had not made a critical finding of fact.”
WLR Daily, 28th January 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.
Same v al-Ghabra; Regina (Youssef) v HM Treasury
Supreme Court
“The Treasury exceeded its powers by authorising, in on the test of reasonable suspicion alone, a major inroad into the rights of individuals to dispose of their assets as they chose and to live free of executive interference. The Terrorism (United Nations Measures) Order (SI 2006 No 2657) was accordingly to be quashed.”
The Times, 29th January 2010
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
In re Guardian and Media News Ltd and Others
Supreme Court
“Where individuals challenged anti-terrorism asset-freezing orders, the general public interest in publishing a report of the proceedings in which they were named justified curtailing their rights to private life.”
The Times, 28th January 2010
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Hines v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWHC Civ 69 (Admin) (26 January 2010)
High Court (Commercial court)
Source: www.bailii.org
Land Securities plc and Others v Fladgate Fielder (a Firm)
Court of appeal
“Property developers could not sue a party, who had challenged the grant of planning permission, for abuse of process or bringing proceedings maliciously, even if the motive of the challenger was to achieve a collateral objective.”
The Times, 27th January 2010
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Supreme Court
E, R (on the application of) v Governing Body of JFS & Anor [2009] UKSC 15 (16 December 2009)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Patel, Modha & Odedra v Entry Clearance Officer (Mumbai) [2010] EWCA Civ 17 (25 January 2010)
Lombard North Central Plc v Automobile World (UK) Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 20 (26 January 2010)
High Court (Family Division)
Imerman v Imerman [2010] EWHC 64 (Fam) (Wednesday 13 January 2010)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Hull, On the review of the tariff in the case of [2010] EWHC 74 (QB) (26 January 2010)
Goldsmith Williams (a firm) v Travelers Insurance Company Ltd [2010] EWHC 26 (QB) (26 January 2010)
Source: www.bailii.org.uk
“Deportation cases, where the aim was the prevention or disorder and crime, did not call for a materially different approach from that required in ordinary removal cases, where the aim was the maintenance of effective immigration control. The issues arose under the same legal framework and involved the same essential question as to whether, if expulsion would interfere with rights protected by art 8(1) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, such interference was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.”
WLR Daily, 25th January 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 it was sought to deport or remove a settled migrant who had spent the major part of his/her childhood in the United Kingdom, on the basis that he had committed criminal offences, the Home Secretary would have to show very serious reasons to justify his/her removal which would interfere with the migrant’s Convention right to respect for his private and family life. The decision letter should make it clear whether the decision had been made for the prevention of disorder or crime or for the maintenance of effective immigration control.”
WLR Daily, 25th January 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 Zaman [2010] WLR (D) 7
“Where a defendant has pleaded guilty to a charge under s 4(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 of assisting an offender, the conviction is not rendered unsafe by reason of subsequent acquittal of the person assisted.”
WLR Daily, 25th January 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.
© Inner Temple Library 2025