Roult v North West Strategic Health Authority
Court of Appeal
“There was no power in the context of personal injury litigation to vary the terms of a settlement where there had been an unforeseen event which destroyed the assumption on which the settlement was made.”
The Times, 8th June 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Rank Nemo (DMS) Ltd and Others v Coutinho
Court of Appeal
“An employment tribunal had no jurisdiction to enforce a discrimination compensation award it made to an employee; however, if the employee had entered a county court judgment on the award and the employer still failed to pay the money, then the employment tribunal could link the failure to post-employment discrimination and victimisation in order to assume jurisdiction to enforce the judgment.”
The Times, 8th June 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Chancery Division
“Companies offering introductory services to channel would-be customers to insurers by electronic means and who received a commission in the event of a contract of insurance being concluded were insurance brokers or insurance agents falling within the exemption from value-added tax.”
Times Law Reports, 5th June 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
NH v A County Council & Ors [2009] EWCA Civ 472 (04 June 2009)
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Karafarin Bank v Mansoury-Dara [2009] EWHC 1217 (Comm) (04 June 2009)
Source: www.bailii.org
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Crown Prosecution Service v Campbell [2009] EWCA Crim 997 (22 May 2009)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Webster & Ors v The Governors of the Ridgeway Foundation School [2009] EWHC 1140 (QB) (21 May 2009)
Source: www.bailii.org
Regina (G) v Southwark London Borough Council
House of Lords
“A local authority’s children’s services unit could not purport to fulfil its duties to look after a homeless child merely by referring him to the homeless persons unit.”
The Times, 4th June 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Regina v Horncastle; Regina v Blackmore; Regina v Marquis; Regina v Graham; Regina v Carter
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
“A criminal trial could be fair although the defence did not have the opportunity of examining every prosecution witness.”
The Times, 3rd June 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Curtis, R v [2009] EWCA Crim 1003 (30 April 2009)
Straughan, R v [2009] EWCA Crim 955 (28 April 2009)
Fazli, R v [2009] EWCA Crim 939 (24 April 2009)
Welsh, R. v [2009] EWCA Crim 945 (24 April 2009)
Hakimzadeh, R. v [2009] EWCA Crim 959 (28 April 2009)
Source: www.bailii.org
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
“The statutory right of a single appeal to the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division was not removed when the Attorney-General referred the case to that court, since the defendant had not exercised his right to appeal.”
The Times, 1st June 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Regina (Wood) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
Court of Appeal
“Justification for state interference with the right to privacy had to be the more compelling where that interference was in pursuit of the protection of the community from the risk of public disorder or low level crime as against the danger of terrorism or really serious criminal activity.”
The Times, 1st June 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Joseph & Ors v Spiller & Anor [2009] EWHC 1152 (QB) (22 May 2009)
Source: www.bailii.org
“There would be no breach of art 6, and in particular art 6(3)(d), of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, if a criminal conviction were based solely or to a decisive degree on the evidence of an identified but absent witness, provided the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 were observed.”
WLR Daily, 27th May 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.
Napier and another v Pressdram Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 443; [2009] WLR (D) 172
“Where a complainant made a complaint against his solicitor to the Law Society the complainant owed no duty of confidentiality to the solicitor or his firm not to reveal to others the result of the adjudication where the subject matter underlying the adjudication contained no private information concerning the solicitor. The procedural nature of the investigation itself did not give rise to a duty of confidentiality.”
WLR Daily, 27th May 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 (Criminal Division)
Horncastle & Ors v R. [2009] EWCA Crim 964 (22 May 2009)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Enviroco Ltd v Farstad Supply A/S [2009] EWHC 906 (Ch) (22 May 2009)
High Court (Queen’s Bench)
Lloyds TSB Commercial Finance Ltd. v Melia & Ors [2009] EWHC 1114 (QB) (05 May 2009)
Joseph & Ors v Spiller & Anor [2009] EWHC 1152 (QB) (22 May 2009)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Defence Estates v JL & Anor [2009] EWHC 1049 (Admin) (05 May 2009)
Nicholas-Pillai v General Medical Council [2009] EWHC 1048 (Admin) (06 May 2009)
Mitchell v The Nursing and Midwifery Council [2009] EWHC 1045 (Admin) (06 May 2009)
Southall v The General Medical Council [2009] EWHC 1155 (Admin) (22 May 2009)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Vitol SA v Conoil Plc [2009] EWHC 1144 (Comm) (22 May 2009)
High Court (Patents Court)
TNS Group Holdings Ltd. v Nielsen Media Research Inc [2009] EWHC 1160 (Pat) (20 May 2009)
Source: www.bailii.org
Rolls Royce plc v Unite the Union
Court of Appeal
“Length of service was a lawful criterion for selection for redundancy since it achieved a legitimate aim by a proportionate means.”
The Times, 27th May 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Wood v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2009] EWCA Civ 414 (21 May 2009)
Baker v Quantum Clothing Group [2009] EWCA Civ 499 (22 May 2009)
R (A Child), Re [2009] EWCA Civ 445 (22 May 2009)
Vodafone 2 v HM Revenue & Customs [2009] EWCA Civ 446 (22 May 2009)
BCL Old Co Ltd & Ors v BASF SE & Ors [2009] EWCA Civ 434 (22 May 2009)
High Court (Chancery Division)
L’Oreal SA & Ors v EBay International AG & Ors [2009] EWHC 1094 (Ch) (22 May 2009)
Interflora, Inc & Anor v Marks & Spencer Plc & Anor [2009] EWHC 1095 (Ch) (22 May 2009)
Blue Sphere Global Ltd v HM Revenue & Customs [2009] EWHC 1150 (Ch) (22 May 2009)
Mohammadi v Shellpoint Trustees Ltd & Anor [2009] EWHC 1098 (Ch) (22 May 2009)
Lovett & Anor v Carson Country Homes Ltd & Ors [2009] EWHC 1143 (Ch) (01 May 2009)
Revenue & Customs v Micro Fusion 2004-1 LLP [2009] EWHC 1082 (Ch) (22 May 2009)
Source: www.bailii.org
Aerotel Ltd v Wavecrest Group Enterprises Ltd and others [2009] EWCA Civ 408; [2009] WLR (D) 171
“A patentee seeking to rely on commercial success as an indicator of non-obviousness in order to rebut an allegation of its patent being obvious over prior art had to establish that the commercial success relied on was due to his invention and not to other market factors. Where a number of other factors might have explained the success, unless he could show they were irrelevant or largely so, he would not have proved what he needed to rebut the allegation. The evidential onus of proof was on him, and the party making the allegation was not required to show that the commercial success was due to other factors.”
WLR Daily, 21st May 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.
Vodafone 2 v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2009] EWCA Civ 446; [2009] WLR (D) 170
“It was possible to provide a conforming interpretation of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 which avoided any unlawful restriction on a taxpayer company’s freedom of establishment, conferred by art 43EC of the EC Treaty, by the introduction of an additional exception to those contained in s 748(1)(a) to (e) and (3) in respect of the apportionment of profits of controlled foreign companies by the additional implication of the words ‘ if [the company] is, in that accounting period, actually established in another member state of the EEA and carries on genuine economic activities there’.”
WLR Daily, 21st May 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.
© Inner Temple Library 2025