Maranowska v. Richardson & Anr
AXA Insurance UK plc v. Norwich Union Insurance Ltd.
Birmingham City FC plc v. Revenue & Customs Commissioners
Corbett v. South Yorkshire Strategic HA
Shanks v. Swan Hunter Group plc
Daily Telegraph, 14th June 2007
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
Please note the Daily Telegraph Law Reports are only available online for one week.
Monthly mass cycle rides require notice to police
Regina (Kay) v. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
Court of Appeal
“Because they followed no fixed route, monthly campaigning cycle rides through central London could not be considered commonly and customarily held processions and therefore the organisers were required to give the police prior notice of the names of organisers, date and start time and intended route.”
The Times, 13th June 2007
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 (Civil Division)
Lawrence v Pembrokeshire County Council [2007] EWCA Civ 446 (07 June 2007)
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Considine, R v [2007] EWCA Crim 1166 (06 June 2007)
Green, R. v [2007] EWCA Crim 1248 (25 May 2007)
Stephens & Anor, R. v [2007] EWCA Crim 1249 (25 May 2007)
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Berkeley Community Villages Ltd & Anor v Pullen & Ors [2007] EWHC 1330 (Ch) (07 June 2007)
Shierson & Anor v Rastogi (A Bankrupt) [2007] EWHC 1266 (Ch) (25 May 2007)
High Court (Family Division)
JPC v SLW & Anor [2007] EWHC 1349 (Fam) (08 June 2007)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Ridgway v JP Morgan Chase Bank National Association [2007] EWHC 1325 (QB) (08 June 2007)
Islington v Honeygan-Green (Honeygan) [2007] EWHC 1270 (QB) (25 May 2007)
Wakeling v McDonagh & Anor [2007] EWHC 1201 (QB) (25 May 2007)
European Court of Human Rights
FORBES v. THE UNITED KINGDOM – 65727/01 [2007] ECHR 468 (12 June 2007)
DODDS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM – 59314/00 [2007] ECHR 469 (12 June 2007)
BOTMEH AND ALAMI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM – 15187/03 [2007] ECHR 456 (7 June 2007)
Source: www.bailii.org.uk
Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v. Aaron and others
“In directors disqualification proceedings, the court might at times need expert assistance on issues of fact, but, generally speaking, it was hard to see why a court should need expert evidence that was simply expert opinion when considering the key question of whether a director was unfit to be concerned in the management of a limited company.”
WLR Daily, 7th June 2007
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.
Housing authority need not state the obvious that the offer is final
Omar v. Birmingham City Council
Court of Appeal
“It was not necessary for a letter offering accommodation in discharge of a local housing authority’s duty under the Housing Act 1996 to a person with priority need who was not intentionally homeless to state in so many words that the letter was “a final offer for the purposes of section 193(7)” where it was clear that it was a final offer.”
The Times, 12th June 2007
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.
When accused tries to import victim’s sexual history
Privy Council
“A Scottish statute providing that when a court gave permission for a person accused of certain sexual offences to lead evidence of the alleged victim’s previous sexual history, there was a presumption in favour of laying before the jury the accused’s previous convictions for sexual offences unless he could show that such disclosure would not be in the interests of justice, or would prejudice his right to a fair trial.”
The Times, 12th June 2007
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.
Extent of without-prejudice privilege before dispute
Barnetson v. Framlington Group Ltd. and Another
Court of Appeal
“When considering whether evidence of prelitigation disputes between the parties should be excluded under without-prejudice privilege, the critical feature of proximity to the litigation was the subject matter of the dispute rather than how long before the threat or start of litigation the matter was aired in negotiations between the parties.”
The Times, 11th June 2007
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.
Power to exclude evidence of probative value
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
“Cases would be rare in which a breach of procedural rules would entitle a court to exclude evidence of substantial probative value and a court should be most reluctant to exclude evidence of that quality for such a breach; nevertheless there would be cases where the only way in which the court could ensure fairness was by excluding evidence even of substantial probative value.”
The Times, 11th June 2007
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.
All steps to be taken in time
Drury v. British Broadcasting Corporation and Another
Court of Appeal
“A claimant applying to extend time for service of the claim form should demonstrate to the court that he had taken all reasonable steps to effect service on the defendant before the time for service expired.”
The Times, 11th June 2007
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.
“A term of imprisonment for public protection should not be imposed for an offence which was committed over a period of two or more days which straddled the coming into force of the dangerous offender provisions where it was not clear when the offence was actually committed.”
WLR Daily, 6th June 2007
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.
Britannia Alloys & Chemicals Ltd. v. Commission of the European Communities (Case C-76/06P)
“Where the Commission of the European Communities found that an undertaking had participated in anti-competitive practices contrary to art 81 EC and imposed a fine by reference to the undertaking’s turnover in the “preceding business year”, and the undertaking had no turnover in the business year preceding the date of the infringement decision, the Commission was entitled to refer to another business year.”
WLR Daily, 7th June 2007
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has ben fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Byrne v. Motor Insurers’ Bureau [2007] EWHC 1268 (QB)
“The procedure for making a claim to the Motor Insurers’ Bureau for compensation in respect of injury caused by an untraced driver under the Untraced Drivers Agreement 1972, which procedure was relied on by the United Kingdom as implementing art 1(4) of Council Directive 84/5/EEC, should be subject to a limitation period no less favourable than that which applied under s 28 of the Limitation Act 1980 to the commencement of proceedings by minors for personal injury in tort against a traced driver. Because the three-year time limit for the bringing of a claim under the Untraced Drivers Agreement 1972 was not compliant with art 1(4) of the Directive, which was capable of having direct effect, the United Kingdom was in sufficiently serious breach of its Community law obligations to give rise in principle to a liability for damages.”
WLR Daily, 7th June 2007
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.
Specific child need not be identified
Court of Appeal
“The offence of intentionally causing or inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity could be committed even though it was not possible to identify any specific or identifiable child to whom the incitement was addressed.”
The Times, 8th June 2007
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.
In the Matter of Stuart Geoffrey Ives
In the Matter of Leon Nigel Kenton
R (Legal Remedy UK Ltd) v. Secretary of State for Health & Others
Sutcliffe v. BMI Healthcare Ltd
Daily Telegraph, 7th June 2007
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
Please note the Daily Telegraph Law Reports are only available online for one week.
Payment-in and success fee
Court of Appeal
“In a road traffic accident claim, the claimant’s solicitors, operating under a conditional fee agreement providing for a success fee, were entitled to a 100 per cent success fee where the claimant had won at trial but failed to exceed a payment-in which was made earlier but rejected.”
The Times, 7th June 2007
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.
Act does not operate to curb enterprise zone losses
Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Smallwood
Court of Appeal
“Section 41(2) of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 did not operate to restrict allowable losses that would otherwise have accrued in respect of a taxpayer’s units in an enterprise zone property unit trust when he received distributions that gave rise to a deemed disposal under section 122 of that Act.”
The Times, 7th June 2007
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.
Complaints to police are privileged
Buckley v. Dalziel and Another
Queen’s Bench Division
“Absolute privilege and immunity from suit were available to a person who provided information to the police to set in motion the process of an inquiry into possible illegality.”
The Times, 7th June 2007
Source: www.thetimesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
Parole board 55-day target unlawful
Regina (Cooper) v. Parole Board
Queen’s Bench Division
“Parole Board’s target of 55 days from request for the setting of hearing dates to considering the propriety of a person’s recall to prison, being driven by resources, was unlawful.”
The Times, 6th June 2007
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.
Habeas corpus ultimate remedy
Hilali v. Govenor of Whitemoor Prison and Another
Queen’s Bench Divisional Court
“Where subsequent events had rendered unlawful the continued detention of a person under an extradition order, and the appeal procedure had been exhausted, the appropriate remedy was the issue of a writ of habeas corpus.”
The Times, 6th June 2007
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.
© Inner Temple Library 2024