Vranicki v. Architects Registration Board
R (Transport for London) v. Parking Adjudicator
Milton v. Crown Prosecution Service
Antoniades v. East Sussex Hospitals NHS Trust
R (Malik) v. Waltham Forest NHS Primary Care Trust & Anr
Daily Telegraph, 5th April 2007
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
Please note that the Daily Telegraph Law Reports are only available online for one week.
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Hickling v Baker [2007] EWCA Civ 287 (04 April 2007)
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Leaf, R. v [2007] EWCA Crim 802 (04 April 2007)
Taylor & Anor, R. v [2007] EWCA Crim 803 (04 April 2007)
Gittins & Anor, R. v [2007] EWCA Crim 806 (04 April 2007)
European Court of Human Rights
COPLAND v. THE UNITED KINGDOM – 62617/00 [2007] ECHR 253 (3 April 2007)
Source: www.bailii.org
WWF – World Wide Fund for Nature and another v. World Wrestling Federation Entertainment Inc [2007] EWCA (Civ) 286
“On an action for breach of covenant the court could grant injunctions to restrain future breaches and damages for past breaches which could be in the form of a reasonable payment for the hypothetical release of that covenant during the period of the breach. However, if the claimant had sought to add a claim for an account of profits arising from the breach on the basis that such damages would not be claimed, and permission had been refused, it would be an abuse of process for him subsequently to advance a claim for such damages against the same defendant in the same action.”
WLR Daily, 3rd April 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.
New evidence after justices retire
Malcolm v. Director of Public Prosecutions
Queen’s Bench Division
“Justices could, in special circumstances, receive further evidence after they had retired to consider their verdict. ”
The Times, 4th April 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.
No offset for overpaid benefit
Brown v. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
Court of Appeal
“Where payments of disability living allowance had been suspended for overpayment and a redetermination made, payments subsequently awarded could not be offset against the irrecoverable overpayment, since the amount of payments would vary depending on how long it took for the redetermination to be reached.”
The Times, 4th April 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.
Prison telephone call policy breaches inmate’s rights
Court of Session, Outer House
“There was no lawful authority for interference with a prisoner’s right to private and family life by the imposition of a policy under which a message was played to the recipient of his telephone calls stating that the call was being made from a prison. ”
The Times, 4th April 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.
Secretary of State for the Home Department v. AF
“A control order made by the Secretary of State imposing restrictions which amounted cumulatively to a deprivation of liberty was a nullity.”
WLR Daily, 2nd April 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.
O’Hanlon v. Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2007] EWCA (Civ) 283
“An employer’s sick pay policy prohibiting unlimited full pay for a disabled employee having lengthy absences from work due to her disability did not entitle her to bring a claim for discrimination under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.”
WLR Daily, 2nd April 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.
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Source: www.bailii.org
Computing depreciation of unsold stock for cash.
Commissioners of Revenue and Customs v. William Grant and Sons Distillers Ltd.
“Taxpayer companies that had carried forward that part of the depreciation in fixed assets that related to production of unsold stocks as part of the cost of unsold stocks had not infringed the prohibition in section 74(1)(f) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, as renumbered by section 144(2) of the Finance Act 1994, of deductions for the depreciation of capital assets.
The Times, 2nd April 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 2025