High Court (Family Division)
RB (A Child), Re [2009] EWHC B26 (Fam) (10 November 2009)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Atanasova v The Governor of HMP Holloway & Anor [2009] EWHC 2740 (Admin) (04 November 2009)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Rainy Sky SA & Ors v Kookmin Bank [2009] EWHC 2624 (Comm) (29 October 2009)
Source: www.bailii.org
High Court (Administrative Division)
Islam v Paphos District Court of Cyprus [2009] EWHC 2786 (Admin) (06 November 2009)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Internet Investment Corporation Ltd, Re Insolvency Act 1986 [2009] EWHC 2744 (Ch) (06 November 2009)
High Court (Family Division)
K v K [2009] EWHC 2721 (Fam) (30 October 2009)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Martin v Channel Four Television Corporation & Ors [2009] EWHC 2788 (QB) (06 November 2009)
Ecclestone v Telegraph Media Group Ltd [2009] EWHC 2779 (QB) (06 November 2009)
Source: www.bailii.org
“Art 6 of Council Directive 89/105/EEC relating to the transparency of measures regulating the pricing of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems (OJ L40) (‘the Transparency Directive’) was engaged where the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (‘NICE’) published guidance making a recommendation in respect of a health care intervention for treatment of patients after making a single technology appraisal pursuant to para 2(1)(a) of the Directions and Consolidating Directions to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence 2005, issued by the Secretary of State pursuant to s 7 of the National Health Service Act 2006. Where the negative criteria for a single technology appraisal leading to the publication of guidance were the antithesis of the positive criteria it was incumbent upon the United Kingdom to communicate those criteria to the Commission of the European Communities pursuant to art 6 of the Transparency Directive. NICE was under a duty to act fairly in carrying out single technology appraisals.”
WLR Daily, 9th November 2009
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.
Gidden v Director of Public Prosecutions
Queen’s Bench Division
“In times of postal disruption, prosecuting authorities should not rely on ordinary first-class post for serving notices of intended prosecution.”
The Times, 10th November 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Attorney-General’s Reference No 68 of 2009
Court of Appeal
“Deterrent sentences had to be passed on defendant police officers who accessed for their own purposes records on police computers which were kept for police purposes.”
The Times, 10th November 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Regina (Prudential plc and Another) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax
Queen’s Bench Division
“Rather than apply legal advice privilege to a wider range of professionals than lawyers, its application to advice given by lawyers should be restricted, on a review of the policy and the public-interest considerations that underlay legal professional privilege.”
The Times, 10th November 2009
Source: www.timesonline,co.uk
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Brown, R v [2009] EWCA Crim 2133 (09 October 2009)
Williams, R v [2009] EWCA Crim 2111 (27 October 2009)
Ghulam, R. v [2009] EWCA Crim 2285 (21 October 2009)
Davarifar v R [2009] EWCA Crim 2294 (09 November 2009)
Pigott v R [2009] EWCA Crim 2292 (09 November 2009)
Gilham v R [2009] EWCA Crim 2293 (09 November 2009)
Hodson, R. v [2009] EWCA Crim 2233 (05 October 2009)
Tierney & Anor, R. v [2009] EWCA Crim 2220 (15 October 2009)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Davies & Ors v Jones & Anor [2009] EWCA Civ 1164 (09 November 2009)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
JBW Group Ltd v Westminster City Council [2009] EWHC 2697 (QB) (03 November 2009)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Skype Technologies SA v Joltid Ltd v Kasesalu & Ors [2009] EWHC 2783 (Ch) (06 November 2009)
High Court (Family Division)
RS v KS [2009] EWHC 1494 (Fam) (26 June 2009)
Source: www.bailii.org
Privy Council
“A defendant’s right to a fair trial was absolute and he was entitled to explain his story, however improbable, without being subjected to the judge’s sarcasm and hostility in the course of doing so.”
The Times, 9th November 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
SA (Kuwait) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWCA Civ 1157 (05 November 2009)
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Commercial Court)
HHR Pascal BV v W2005 Puppet II BV [2009] EWHC 2771 (Comm) (05 November 2009)
Source: www.bailii.org
R (Chester) v Secretary of State for Justice and another [2009] WLR (D) 316
“Where a United Kingdom court had made a declaration of incompatability [sic] pursuant to s 3(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 in respect of legislation and where the Government was in the process of putting forward legislation to Parliament and no further vindication of the claimants rights was necessary, the court would not exercise its discretion so as to make a further declaration of incompatability in respect of the same or similar legislation.”
WLR Daily, 4th November 2009
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.
Grainger plc v Nicholson UKEAT/219/09; [2009] WLR (D) 315
“An asserted philosophical belief that mankind was heading towards catastrophic climate change and therefore people were under a moral duty to lead their lives in a manner which mitigated or avoided that catastrophe for the benefit of future generations, and to persuade others to do the same, if genuinely held was capable of amounting to a ‘philosophical belief’ for the purpose of the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003.”
WLR Daily, 4th November 2009
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.
EBR Attridge Law LLP and another v Coleman UKEAT/71/09; [2009] WLR (D) 314
“The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 should be interpreted so as to prohibit discrimination against employees who, although not themselves disabled, were treated less favourably or harrassed on the ground of their association with a person who was disabled.”
WLR Daily, 4th November 2009
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Attorney-General’s Reference (No 16 of 2009); Regina v Yates
Court of Appeal
“An offender who chose to be loyal to a gang member who had committed murder and assisted in impeding his apprehension had to expect a substantial prison sentence.”
The Times, 6th November 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Regina (Webster) v Swindon Local Safeguarding Children Board
Queen’s Bench Division
“It was not necessary for a local safeguarding children board to wait for the outcome of civil proceedings before conducting a substantive and comprehensive serious case review.”
The Times, 9th November 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
4 Eng Ltd v Harper and Others (No 2)
Chancery Division
“Where a person had entered into a transaction at an undervalue for the purpose of defrauding creditors, the nature of any order and the relief granted by the court under sections 423 and 425 of the Insolvency Act 1986 should reflect the general principles inherent in other areas of the law and treat the mental state and degree of involvement of a defendant in wrongdoing as relevant to the extent of recovery available against him.”
The Times, 6th November 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Southern Pacific Mortgage Ltd v Heath [2009] EWCA Civ 1135 (05 November 2009)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Wasabi Frog Ltd v Miss Boo Ltd & Anor [2009] EWHC 2767 (Ch) (04 November 2009)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Source: www.bailii.org
ENE Kos 1 Ltd v Petroleo Brasilieiro SA [2009] EWCA Civ 1127; [2009] WLR (D) 313
“The effective date of a payment into court where payment was made by cheque, whether a sterling cheque or a foreign currency cheque, was the date when the cheque was lodged in the court fund office.”
WLR Daily, 4th November 2009
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Michel v The Queen [2009] UKPC 40; [2009] WLR (D) 312
“A defendant’s right to a fair trial was absolute and he was entitled to explain his case, however improbable, without constantly being subjected to the judge’s sarcasm and hostility. When the impropriety of a judge’s interventions and interruptions in a trial were so extreme as to render the trial unfair, an appeal court had no alternative but to set the conviction aside even when the evidence against the defendant was overwhelming.”
WLR Daily, 4th November 2009
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
ENE Kos 1 Ltd v Petroleo Brasilieiro SA
Court of Appeal
“The effective date of a payment into court where payment was made by cheque, whether a sterling cheque or a foreign currency cheque, was the date when the cheque was lodged in the court fund office.”
The Times, 5th November 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
EBR Attridge Law LLP (formerly Attridge Law) (a Firm) and Another v Coleman
Employment Appeal tribunal
“The carer of a disabled son who was not herself disabled was entitled to bring a claim of disability discrimination against her employers on the ground of her son’s disability.”
The Times, 5th November 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025