Moreno v Motor Insurers’ Bureau [2015] EWHC 1002 (QB); [2015] WLR (D) 177
‘The scope of the defendant’s liability to the claimant under regulation 13(2) of the Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) (Information Centre and Compensation Body) Regulations 2003 was to be determined in accordance with the law of England and Wales and not the law of the country where the accident occurred.’
WLR Daily, 17th April 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Only defendants with a good character or deemed to be of effective good character were entitled to a good character direction. Where a defendant had a bad character, a judge was not obliged to give a good character direction; he or she had a discretion.’
WLR Daily, 16th April 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘In order for a non-party to be “directly affected” by a judgment or order for the purpose of CPR r 40.9, it was necessary that some interest capable of recognition by the law was materially and adversely affected by the judgment or order or would be materially and adversely affected by the enforcement of the judgment or order.’
WLR Daily, 17th April 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Al-Saadoon and others v Secretary of State for Defence [2015] EWHC 715 (Admin); [2015] WLR (D) 168
‘Individuals in certain test cases who had been shot by British forces in Iraq were within the United Kingdom’s jurisdiction, for the purposes of article 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, because they had been shot in the course of security operations in which British forces were exercising public powers normally exercised by the Iraqi government and because shooting someone involved the exercise of physical power over that person.
WLR Daily, 17th March 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Christofi v National Bank of Greece (Cyprus) Ltd [2015] EWHC 986 (QB); [2015] WLR (D) 170
‘There was no general power to extend the mandatory two-month time limit for an appeal against the registration of a settlement order by a party not domiciled within the jurisdiction under article 43(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.’
WLR Daily, 14th April 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Birdseye and another v Roythorne & Co and others [2015] EWHC 1003 (Ch); [2015] WLR (D) 169
‘It remained the case that a person had to establish as a prima facie case that he was a beneficiary before there could be any question of the court requiring a trustee or executor to disclose documents which would be protected by privilege if the applicant were not a beneficiary.’
WLR Daily, 15th April 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Swift 1st Ltd v Chief Land Registrar [2015] EWCA Civ 330; [2015] WLR (D) 167
‘The proprietor of a registered charge which turned out to have been a forged disposition was entitled to payment by way of indemnity under Schedule 8 to the Land Registration Act 2002 in circumstances where the registered proprietor and rightful owner of the property was in actual occupation at the date of the disposition.’
WLR Daily, 1st April 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Supreme Court, 26th March 2015
In the matter of S (A Child) [2015] UKSC 20 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 25th April 2015
Pham (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) [2015] UKSC 19 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 25th March 2015
R (on the application of SG and others ) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2015] UKSC 16 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 18th March 2015
‘A claim for misuse of private information should be categorised as a tort for the purposes of service of proceedings out of the jurisdiction.’
WLR Daily, 18th March 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Tower Hamlets London Borough Council v M and others [2015] EWHC 869 (Fam); [2015] WLR (D) 155
‘Since the removal of a passport, even on a temporary basis, was a very significant incursion into an individual’s freedom and personal autonomy such an order should not be made lightly and required the fullest unpartisan information to be put before the court. It had never to be forgotten that the court required a very high degree of candour on the part of all of those involved.’
WLR Daily, 27th March 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina (Coll) v Secretary of State for Justice [2015] EWCA Civ 328; [2015] WLR (D) 157
‘In providing approved premises for women released from prison on licence, the Secretary of State for Justice had not discriminated directly under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 or indirectly under section 19.’
WLR Daily, 31st March 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The question whether a person was not considered as a national by a state under the operation of its law, with the effect that he would be stateless if deprived of British citizenship, was not necessarily to be decided solely by reference to the text of the nationality legislation of the state in question, and reference might also be made to the practice of the government, even if not subject to effective challenge in the courts.’
WLR Daily, 25th March 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
In re Melodious Corpn; Pui-Kwan v Kam-Ho and others [2015] EWHC 621 (Ch); [2015] WLR (D) 162
‘Rule 7.55 of the Insolvency Rules 1986 had no application in circumstances where a meeting of the board of directors of the company purporting to place the company into administration out of court pursuant to paragraph 22(2) of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 was inquorate and accordingly the resolution to appoint an administrator was invalid.’
WLR Daily, 10th March 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘CPR r 3.3(5) did not apply to orders made under rule 6.5(1) of the Insolvency Rules 1986. Therefore an order under rule 6.5(1) did not have to state that the debtor could apply to have it set aside, varied or stayed.’
WLR Daily, 1st April 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A local housing authority, in carrying out its duties under the Housing Act 1996, was obliged to accommodate a homeless person in suitable accommodation within its district if it was reasonably practicable to do so. The authority was to determine the suitability of the proposed accommodation by reference to the needs of the individual homeless person and each member of her household and to its location. Where accommodation was offered outside the authority’s district, the placement was to be as close as possible to where the members of the household had previously lived. In reaching its decision, the authority was required to take account of the Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2012 (SI 2012/2601) and the guidance issued by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. It was also required, by section 11(2) of the Children Act 2004, to have regard to the need to safeguard and to promote the welfare of the children concerned.’
WLR Daily, 2nd April 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025