“The Parole Board did not have the independence from the executive that was required for its judicial role in determining whether convicted prisoners should be released on licence.”
WLR Daily, 5th February 2008
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.
Hiscox Syndicates Ltd and Another v The Pinnacle Ltd
Chancery Division
“An obligation to use all reasonable endeavours was equated with an obligation to use best endeavours which was more onerous than an obligation to use reasonable endeavours. ”
The Times, 6th February 2008
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
Regina (Walker (David)) v Secretary of State for Justice; Regina (James (Brett)) v Same
Court of Appeal
“The Secretary of State for Justice acted unlawfully in failing to let prisoners serving indeterminate sentences for public protection show the Parole Board by the expiry of their minimum terms that it was no longer necessary to confine them.”
The Times, 6th February 2008
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
High Court (Administrative Court)
Williams, Re [2008] EWHC 154 (Admin) (01 February 2008)
Tran, Re [2008] EWHC 159 (Admin) (01 February 2008)
Johnson, Re [2008] EWHC 160 (Admin) (01 February 2008)
Secretary of State for the Home Department v AE [2008] EWHC 132 (Admin) (01 February 2008)
Fretwell, Re [2008] EWHC 155 (Admin) (01 February 2008)
Wealleans, Re [2008] EWHC 161 (Admin) (01 February 2008)
High Court (Admiralty Division)
Parrott v Parkin [2007] EWHC 210 (Admlty) (08 February 2007)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Golden President Shipping Corporation v Bocimar NV [2008] EWHC 130 (Comm) (31 January 2008)
High Court (Family Division)
VB v JP [2008] EWHC 112 (Fam) (29 January 2008)
High Court (Patents Court)
Source: www.bailii.org
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Secretary of State for Justice v Walker [2008] EWCA Civ 30 (01 February 2008)
Wragg & Ors v Surrey County Council [2008] EWCA Civ 19 (01 February 2008)
Ravengate Estates Ltd v Horizon Housing Group Ltd & Anor [2008] EWCA Civ 16 (31 January 2008)
Glaxo Group Ltd v Genentech Inc & Anor [2008] EWCA Civ 23 (31 January 2008)
Drake v Harbour [2008] EWCA Civ 25 (31 January 2008)
Gloucestershire County Council v Evans & Ors [2008] EWCA Civ 21 (31 January 2008)
Gab Robins (UK) Ltd v Triggs [2008] EWCA Civ 17 (30 January 2008)
P (A Child) [2008] EWCA Civ 15 (30 January 2008)
Davies v Meadwestvaco Calmar Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 8 (30 January 2008)
Ofulue & Anor v Bossert [2008] EWCA Civ 7 (29 January 2008)
Batey v Jewson Ltd & Anor [2008] EWCA Civ 18 (29 January 2008)
Leonard & Anor v Byrt & Ors [2008] EWCA Civ 20 (29 January 2008)
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Source: www.bailii.org
“The Parole Board’s relationship with the executive was such that it did not have the independence required when determining whether convicted prisoners should remain in prison or be released on licence.”
The Times, 5th February 2008
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
Martin v Triggs Turner Barton (a Firm) and Others
“The court was entitled to make an order to ensure that specific disclosure was carried out properly.”
The Times, 5th February 2008
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
Gloucestershire County Council v Evans and others: [2008] EWCA Civ 21; [2008] WLR (D) 25
“A conditional fee agreement which provided for payment of a basic rate of £95 per hour, with an enhancement first to £145 per hour as the basic charge on winning the case, and then to £290 per hour, in the event of success for risk element was not contrary s 58(4)(b) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 and art 4 of the Conditional Fee Agreements Order 2000 and was therefore enforceable.”
WLR Daily, 1st February 2008
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 County Homesearch Co (Thames & Chilterns) Ltd v Cowham [2008] EWCA Civ 26; [2008] WLR (D) 24
“As in the case of a seller’s agent, where the remuneration of a property buyer’s agent was a commission on exchange of contracts, then unless the agency contract indicated otherwise, a term was to be implied that he was not entitled to such commission unless his services were the effective cause of the transaction brought about. However, no such term was to be implied in the present case as it would be inconsistent with the express terms of the contract between the buyer’s agent and the buyer.”
WLR Daily, 1st February 2008
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.
Boss Holdings Ltd v Grosvenor West End Properties and Another
House of Lords
“A property was a house, which a leaseholder was entitled to acquire, if it had been designed for living in when it was first built and the structure remained substantially the same, even if it had subsequently become internally dilapidated and incapable of beneficial occupation.”
The Times, 4th February 2008
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
“The Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to entertain an application by, and to grant permission to, someone who had not been a party to the proceedings in the court below, to enable them to appeal against the decision of the court below. The word “appellant” as defined in CPR Pt 52 did not exclude someone who had not been a party to the proceedings below and the rule should be interpreted in order to meet the overriding objective of enabling the court to deal with cases justly.”
WLR Daily, 31st January 2008
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.
Ofulue and another v Bossert [2008] EWCA Civ 7; [2008] WLR (D) 22
“The Court of Appeal should follow a decision of the European Court of Human Rights that the law of adverse possession as it stood prior to the Land Registration Act 2002 did not violate the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions, guaranteed by art 1 of Protocol No 1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.”
WLR Daily, 31st January 2008
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.
Glaxo Group Ltd v Genentech Inc and another [2008] EWCA Civ 23; [2008] WLR (D) 21
“The approach to a stay in European patent cases differed from a stay in ordinary commercial litigation because the possibility of parallel validity proceedings in national courts and in the European Patent Office was inherent in the legal arrangements in the Convention under which the EPO was established.”
WLR Daily, 31st January 2008
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.
“A claim for damages for personal injuries caused by a sexual assault fell within s 11 of the Limitation Act 1980, allowing a limitation period of three years from the date when the claimant first considered the injury sufficiently serious to justify proceedings and the possibility of an extension beyond that if it was equitable to do so.”
WLR Daily, 31st January 2008
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.
Cinpres Gas Injection Ltd v Melea Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 9; [2008] WLR (D) 19
“Where an inventor who gave perjured evidence at the trial of his employer’s application for a patent had been more than a mere witness in those proceedings, his fraud should be treated as his employer’s fraud for the purposes of the fraud exception to the doctrine of res judicata.”
WLR Daily, 31st January 2008
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.
Hilali v Governor of Whitemoor Prison
House of Lords
“Where there was a right of appeal under Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003 to appeal against an extradition order, habeas corpus was excluded by section 34; it would be contrary to the principle of mutual recognition to which the Act gave effect to grant habeas corpus on the ground of a change of circumstances.”
The Times, 1st February 2008
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
Court of Appeal
The fact that a successful claimant had not been awarded the whole amount of damages he sought did not mean that the defendant had partially succeeded and the judge could not reduce the claimant’s costs.
The Times, 1st February 2008
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
Hilali v Governor of Whitemoor Prison and another [2008] UKHL 3; [2008] WLR (D) 18
“In a case where there was a right of appeal under Pt 1 of the Extradition Act 2003 from a judge’s decision to make an extradition order, habeas corpus was excluded by s 34. To grant it on the ground of a fundamental change of circumstances would be contrary to the principle of mutual recognition given effect by the Act.”
WLR Daily, 30th January 2008
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.
GAB Robins (UK) Ltd v Triggs [2008] EWCA Civ 17; [2008] WLR (D) 17
“An employee who had been constructively dismissed was not entitled in proceedings for unfair dismissal to claim damages for the consequences prior to the dismissal of the employer’s repudiatory breach of the employment contract. It was the employee’s acceptance, by her resignation, of the employer’s repudiation of the contract which caused the dismissal, not the repudiatory conduct itself.”
WLR Daily, 30th January 2008
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