Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
P, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice [2009] EWCA Civ 701 (06 July 2009)
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Downer, R. v [2009] EWCA Crim 1361 (06 July 2009)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Home Office & Anor v The Information Commissioner [2009] EWHC 1611 (Admin) (06 July 2009)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Clift v Slough Borough Council & Anor [2009] EWHC 1550 (QB) (06 July 2009)
Source: www.bailii.org.
GISDA Cyf v Barratt [2009] EWCA Civ 648; [2009] WLR (D) 229
“The ‘effective date of termination of employment’ within section 97(1)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was not necessarily the date yielded by contractual analysis. When determining the relevant time limit for making an unfair dismissal claim, an employment tribunal had not erred in concluding that the effective date of termination of employment was when the employee read the letter of summary dismissal and not the date when the letter reached the employee’s home address when she was away.”
WLR Daily, 3rd July 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.
Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Holland and another [2009] EWCA Civ 625; [2009] WLR (D) 228
“A human director of a corporate director could in certain circumstances be regarded as a de facto director of the subject company but he would not automatically be so regarded.”
WLR Daily, 3rd July 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.
Radmacher (formerly Granatino) v Granatino [2009] EWCA Civ 649; [2009] WLR (D) 227
“A judge should give due weight to the marital property regime into which a couple entered so as to legitimately exercise the very wide discretion conferred on judges to achieve fairness between the parties to ancillary relief proceedings.”
WLR Daily, 3rd July 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.
Court of Appeal
“However comprehensive legislation relating to sentences might seek to be, it could not cover all the many different facets of human criminal behaviour which sentencing judges had to take into account.”
The Times, 6th July 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Boyle v SCA Packaging Ltd, Equality and Human Rights Commission intervening
House of Lords
“In determining whether a person was disabled within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1975 by reason of having an impairment which, although capable of being controlled by measures taken to treat it, would be likely to have substantial adverse effects but for those measures, the word ‘likely’ did not mean ‘probable’ but ‘could well happen’.”
The Times, 6th July 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
English Welsh & Scottish Railway Ltd v Enron Coal Services Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 647 (01 July 2009)
Zahoor & Ors v Masood & Ors [2009] EWCA Civ 650 (03 July 2009)
Sagal (t/a Bunz Uk) v Atelier Bunz GmbH [2009] EWCA Civ 700 (03 July 2009)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Berry v Laytons & Anor [2009] EWHC 1591 (QB) (03 July 2009)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Stanford International Bank Ltd & Ors, Re [2009] EWHC 1441 (Ch) (03 July 2009)
High Court (Family Division)
DS v RS [2009] EWHC 1594 (Fam) (03 July 2009)
SS v KS [2009] EWHC 1575 (Fam) (03 July 2009)
London Borough of Brent v S [2009] EWHC 1593 (Fam) (03 July 2009)
High Court (Administrative Division)
BM v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWHC 1572 (Admin) (03 July 2009)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
William Hare Ltd v Shepherd Construction Ltd [2009] EWHC 1603 (TCC) (25 June 2009)
Source: www.bailii.org
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Radmacher v Granatino [2009] EWCA Civ 649 (02 July 2009)
Walkden v Walkden [2009] EWCA Civ 627 (25 June 2009)
High Court (Queen’s Bench)
C v Dixon [2009] EWHC 708 (QB) (25 June 2009)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Woolf [2009] EWHC B15 (Ch) (19 June 2009)
Lindop v Agus & Ors [2009] EWHC B14 (Ch) (03 July 2009)
High Court (Administrative Division)
Nicholas v Chester Magistrates Court [2009] EWHC 1504 (Admin) (11 June 2009)
Nadour v Chester Magistrates Court [2009] EWHC 1505 (Admin) (11 June 2009)
Director of Public Prosecutions v Agyemang [2009] EWHC 1542 (Admin) (24 June 2009)
Source: www.bailii.org
AM (Somalia) v Entry Clearance Officer [2009] EWCA Civ 634; [2009] WLR (D) 22
“The requirement under the Immigration Rules for a disabled British citizen living in the United Kingdom on disability living allowance who was sponsoring her foreign husband to settle in UK to prove that they would be able to maintain themselves without recourse to public funds did not amount to disporportionate discrimination against disabled sponsors under art 14 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.”
WLR Daily, 2nd July 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.
Serious Organised Crime Agency v Szepietowski (No 2) [2009] EWHC 1560 (Ch); [2009] WLR (D) 225
“There was no conflict between paras 7A.4 and 7B.1 of Practice Direction–Civil Recovery Proceedings and the associated legislative framework contained in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (as amended) and Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Legal Expenses in Civil Recovery Proceedings) Regulations 2005. Accordingly, where an order had been made excluding part of the property subject to an interim receiving order, to enable the person against whom the order was made to pay legal expenses, the court had power in appropriate circumstances to set that exclusion aside.”
WLR Daily, 2nd July 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.
“The jurisdiction of the Competition Appeal Tribunal under s 47A of the Competition Act 1998 was limited to the determination of follow-on claims for damages based on a finding by a regulator of infringement of a relevant prohibition. Such a finding was not only a pre-condition to the making of a s 47A(1) claim, it also determined and defined the claim’s limits and the tribunal’s jurisdiction in respect of it. The Court of Appeal had jurisdiction under s 49 of the 1998 Act to hear an appeal against a strike-out decision of the tribunal under r 40 of the Competition Appeal Tribunal Rules 2003, whether that decision was to strike out or not to strike out a claim.”
WLR Daily, 2nd July 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.
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Holland v Revenue and Customs & Anor [2009] EWCA Civ 625 (02 July 2009)
Generics (UK) Ltd v Daiichi Pharmaceutical Co Ltd & Anor [2009] EWCA Civ 646 (02 July 2009)
VH (Malawi) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWCA Civ 645 (02 July 2009)
High Court (Queen’s Bench)
Levi v Bates [2009] EWHC 1495 (QB) (02 July 2009)
High Court (Chancery Division)
The Republic of Croatia v The Republic of Serbia [2009] EWHC 1559 (Ch) (02 July 2009)
Source: www.bailii.org
Chartbrook Ltd and another v Persimmon Homes Ltd and another [2009] UKHL 38; [2009] WLR (D) 223
“The admission of pre-contractual negotiations as an aid to the construction of a contract would create uncertainty of outcome in disputes over interpretation and would add to the cost of advice and litigation. The law of contract was designed to enforce promises with a high degree of predictability and if conventional meanings and syntax were to be displaced by inferences drawn from pre-contractual negotiations, the less predictable the outcome was likely to be. The availability of the remedies of rectification and estoppel by convention were safeguards which would in most cases prevent any injustice caused by the exclusion of that evidence.”
WLR Daily, 1st July 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.
“When determining whether a person was disabled within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 by reason of having an impairment which, though capable of being controlled by measures taken to treat or control it, would be likely to have substantial adverse effects but for those measures, the word “likely” did not mean probable but ‘could well happen’. It followed that a woman whose propensity to develop vocal nodules was controlled by a strict management regime based on avoiding raising her voice, but which “could well” return and cause substantial adverse effects if that regime was not followed, was disabled for the purposes of the Act and her former employer, who had decided to place her in a noisier work environment despite her claim that it would require her to speak louder and so jeopardise her voice management regime, had to answer her claim that they had failed to make reasonable adjustments for her disability.”
WLR Daily, 1st July 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.
“Although it had not been reasonable for families to remain in their current accommodation indefinitely, the local housing authority had been entitled to leave them there in the short term, it being a question of fact whether the period was too long, but the authority had not been entitled to rely on its allocation policy to fulfil its duty. It had not been reasonable for a woman to continue to occupy a women’s refuge indefinitely, and she had accordingly remained “homeless” under the Housing Act 1996.”
WLR Daily, 1st July 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.
“Where a confiscation order was made pursuant to s 71 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 or s 6(4) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 against a defendant in respect of his benefit from his criminal conduct in respect of an offence of acting in contravention of an order or undertaking disqualifying him from being a company director, that benefit was not simply to be assessed as the turnover of the relevant company, but as the value of the property obtained by the defendant himself, as determined in accordance with ordinary common law principles of entitlement and ownership.”
WLR Daily, 1st July 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.
R (Allen) v Inner North London Coroner [2009] EWCA Civ 623; [2009] WLR (D) 219
“An inquest into the death of a patient who was detained in a hospital under s 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983 had to satisfy the enhanced requirements of art 2 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms which guaranteed the right to life.”
WLR Daily, 1st July 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.
Chartbrook Ltd and Another v Persimmon Homes Ltd and Another
House of Lords
“There were no grounds for the House of Lords to depart from the long standing rule that excluded evidence of what was said or done during the course of negotiating a contract for the purpose of drawing inferences about what the contract meant.”
The Times, 2nd July 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025