Court of Appeal
“The jurisdiction which permitted a second retrial, after the jury in two earlier trials had been unable to reach a verdict, had to be exercised with extreme caution.”
The Times, 26th January 2010
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Chief Constable of Lincolnshire Police v Caston
Court of Appeal
“There was no principle of employment law which dictated how generously or sparingly the power to enlarge time limits was to be exercised.”
The Times, 26th January 2010
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Kennedy v Information Commissioner and another [2010] WLR (D) 6
“The Information Tribunal was correct in holding that the wording of s 32(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 had a very wide scope. There was no right under the 2000 Act to disclosure of documents held by public authorities which had been placed in the custody of or created by a person conducting an inquiry or arbitration for the purposes of the inquiry or arbitration, even after the inquiry or arbitration had concluded; the documents fell under the absolute exemptions set out in s 32(2) of the Act, regardless of their content and the consequences of their disclosure, and notwithstanding the public interest in their disclosure. However, the exemption could be waived and the information could be released by inquiries and arbitrators when the public interest required it.”
WLR Daily, 22nd 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.
AXA Insurance plc and Another v Sulaman
Court of Appeal
“It was not usually helpful to compare factual details in one case with another to decide whether to deprive a litigant of some costs.”
The Times, 25th January 2010
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Carey v HSBC Bank plc and Associated Cases
Queen’s Bench Division
“A creditor could satisfy its duty under section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, to give a debtor, when asked in writing, a copy of the running-account regulated credit agreement and other documents referred to therein, by providing a reconstituted version of the executed agreement, which might be from sources other than the signed version.”
The Times, 25th January 2010
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Starmer v R [2010] EWCA Crim 1 (22 January 2010)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
JO (Uganda) & Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWCA Civ 10 (22 January 2010)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Lidl GmbH v Just Fitness Ltd & Anor [2010] EWHC 39 (Ch) (15 January 2010)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Uren v Corporate Leisure (UK) Ltd & Ors [2010] EWHC 46 (QB) (22 January 2010)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Secretary of State for Justice v Slee [2010] EWHC 73 (Admin) (22 January 2010)
OM (Algeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWHC 65 (Admin) (22 January 2010)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
Rok Building Ltd v Celtic Composting Systems Ltd (No. 2) [2010] EWHC 66 (TCC) (22 January 2010)
Source: www.bailii.org
“In deciding whether or not the recommendation of the Competition Commission that a proposed merger should be prevented as contrary to the public interest, the Competition Appeal Tribunal was not required to exercise a greater intensity of judicial review than would be applied on a normal judicial review application. S 120(4) of the Competition Act 1998 required the appeal tribunal to apply the same principles as would be applied by a court on an application for judicial review. It would fly in the face of the section’s words if the tribunal, as a hyper-competent specialised tribunal, were required to undertake a more intensive review.”
WLR Daily, 21st 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.
“Where an individual was subject to two or more sets of proceedings, or phases of a single proceeding, and a civil right or obligation enjoyed or owed by him would be determined in one of them, he could (but not necessarily would), by force of art 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, enjoy appropriate procedural rights in relation to another of them if its outcome would have a substantial influence or effect on the determination of the civil right or obligation. Accordingly, disciplinary proceedings which could lead to a teacher being statutorily barred from working with children were determinant of an individual’s right to practice his profession and art 6 was engaged by those proceedings.”
WLR Daily, 21st 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.
Regina (Boyejo and Others) v Barnet London Borough Council; Regina (Smith) v Portsmouth City Council
Queen’s Bench Division
“References in documentation before decision-makers to disabilities or to rights of equality, was not sufficient to fulfil the statutory requirement of such recognition.”
The Times, 22nd January 2010
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
M-W (A Child), Re [2010] EWCA Civ 12 (21 January 2010)
McHale v Cadogan [2010] EWCA Civ 14 (21 January 2010)
British Sky Broadcasting Group Plc v The Competition Commission [2010] EWCA Civ 2 (21 January 2010)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Biddle & Company (a firm) v Tetra Pak Ltd & Ors [2010] EWHC 54 (Ch) (21 January 2010)
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
Supablast (Nationwide) Ltd. v Story Rail Ltd. [2010] EWHC 56 (TCC) (21 January 2010)
High Court (Commercial Court)
ING Bank N.V. v Ros Roca S.A. [2010] EWHC 50 (Comm) (21 January 2010)
Source: www.bailii.org
“Legislative proposals included in the Children, Schools and Families Bill should encourage media attendance at family court cases, the Ministry of Justice said today.”
Ministry of Justice, 21st January 2010
Source: www.justice.gov.uk
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Bhamra v Dubb (t/a Lucky Caterers) [2010] EWCA Civ 13 (20 January 2010)
G, R (on the application of) v X School & Ors [2010] EWCA Civ 1 (20 January 2010)
Supershield Ltd v Siemens Building Technologies FE Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 7 (20 January 2010)
In the Pink Ltd v Leeds Magistrates Court & Ors [2010] EWCA Civ 8 (20 January 2010)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
B2net Ltd v HM Treasury (Sued As Buying Solutions) [2010] EWHC 51 (QB) (20 January 2010)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Burrows v Smith & Anor [2010] EWHC 22 (Ch) (20 January 2010)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Orobator v HMP Holloway & Anor [2010] EWHC 58 (Admin) (20 January 2010)
Persaud v Director of Public Prosecutions [2010] EWHC 52 (Admin) (20 January 2010)
High Court (Family Division)
Doctor A & Ors v Ward & Anor [2010] EWHC 16 (Fam) (08 January 2010)
Source: www.bailii.org
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
H (A Child). Re [2010] EWCA Civ 6 (19 January 2010)
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Bell, R. v [2010] EWCA Crim 3 (19 January 2010)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Halborg, R (on the application of) v The Law Society [2010] EWHC 38 (Admin) (19 January 2010)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Westvilla Properties Ltd v Dow Properties Ltd [2010] EWHC 30 (Ch) (15 January 2010)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Tandrin Aviation Holdings Ltd v Aero Toy Store Llc & Anor [2010] EWHC 40 (Comm) (19 January 2010)
Source: www.bailii.org
“The phrase ‘knew or ought to have known’ when applied for the purpose of identifying the state of a mind of a person who had participated in a transaction which was in fact connected with a fraud encompassed two different states of mind. A person who knew that a transaction was connected with fraudulent tax evasion was a participant in that fraud and 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.”
WLR Daily, 19th 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.
Pitt and another v Holt and another [2010] WLR (D) 2
“A receiver appointed under the Mental Health Act 1983 by the Court of Protection was entitled to rely on the principle that, where a trustee exercised a discretion pursuant to the terms of the trust and the effect of the exercise was different from that intended, the court would set aside his action if it was clear that he would not have acted as he had, had he not failed to take into account considerations which he ought to have taken into account, or taken into account considerations which he ought not to have taken into account (‘the Hastings-Bass principle’).”
WLR daily, 19th 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.
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Rooney, R v [2010] EWCA Crim 2 (18 January 2010)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF [2010] EWHC 42 (Admin) (18 January 2010)
High Court (Commercial Court)
High Court (Patents Court)
Nokia GmbH v Ipcom GmbH & Co KG [2009] EWHC 3482 (Pat) (18 January 2010)
Source: www.bailii.org
Axa General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others
Court of Session, Outer House
“Acts of the Scottish Parliament could be reviewed on common law grounds as well as those set out in the Scotland Act 1998.”
The Times, 19th January 2010
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
KH (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
Court of Appeal
“Mental illness among failed asylum seekers could not be regarded as an exceptional circumstance.”
The Times, 19th January 2010
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Henry v Thames Valley Police [2010] EWCA Civ 5 (14 January 2010)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Dore & Ors (“BOTHCA”) v Leicestershire County Council & Ors [2010] EWHC 34 (Ch) (15 January 2010)
Megtian Ltd v HM Revenue & Customs [2010] EWHC 18 (Ch) (15 January 2010)
Far Out Productions Inc v Unilever UK & CN Holdings Ltd [2009] EWHC 3484 (Ch) (16 December 2009)
Croly v Good & Ors [2010] EWHC 1 (Ch) (08 January 2010)
Ailyan & Ors v Smith & Ors [2010] EWHC 24 (Ch) (08 January 2010)
High Court (Administrative Division)
High Court (Family Division)
Imerman v Imerman [2009] EWHC 3486 (Fam) (11 December 2009)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Safeway Stores Ltd & Ors v Twigger & Ors [2010] EWHC 11 (Comm) (15 January 2010)
Source: www.bailii.org
Syed v Director of Public Prosecutions
“The test which should be used by a police constable to establish whether or not he was entitled under s 17(1)(e) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to use force to enter and search premises, without a warrant, for the purpose of ‘saving life or limb or preventing serious damage to property’ was whether some serious or dangerous incident had occurred, or was likely to occur, within the premises, and not the officer’s ‘concern for the welfare’ of someone in the premises.”
WLR Daily, 14th 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