Clavis Liberty Fund LPI v Revenue and Customs Commissioners and others [2015] WLR (D) 69
‘The First-tier Tribunal Tax Chamber had no jurisdiction to issue witness summonses addressed to prospective witnesses who had no presence in the jurisdiction.’
WLR Daily, 12th February 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
R (James) v HM Prison Birmingham and others [2015] EWCA Civ 58; [2015] WLR (D) 59
‘There was no obligation on a judge to deduct from a term of imprisonment the time spent on remand by a person arrested under section 43 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009 for breach of a final gang injunction order under sections 34 to 36 of the 2009 Act, and subsequently imprisoned for contempt of court pursuant to section 14 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 and section 120 of the County Courts Act 1984.’
WLR Daily, 9th February 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
In re Law Society [2015] EWHC 166 (Ch); [2015] WLR (D) 60
‘The Law Society had power under paragraph 16 of Part II of Schedule 1 to the Solicitors Act 1974 to destroy old and redundant documents seized in connection with interventions.’
WLR Daily, 9th February 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Where a court was considering whether a commercial practice amounted to a misleading omission by the omission of material information for the purposes of regulation 6 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, the court had to consider, particularly where the information omitted concerned alternative products, whether the average consumer could be said to have needed to obtain that information from the trader rather than from elsewhere.’
WLR Daily, 10th February 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
In re AJ (Deprivation Of Liberty: Safeguards) [2015] EWCOP 5 ; [2015] WLR (D) 64
‘In situations involving a deprivation of liberty local authorities and professionals needed to be alert to cases where vulnerable people were admitted to residential care, ostensibly for respite care, when the underlying plan was for a permanent placement without proper consideration of their rights under article 5 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.’
WLR Daily, 10th February 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina (Wingrove) v Stratford-on-Avon District Council [2015] EWHC 287 (Admin); [2015] WLR (D) 65
‘The wide discretionary power to refuse to determine a retrospective planning application for development subject to an enforcement notice under section 70C of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 was intended to provide local planning authorities with a tool to prevent such applications being used to delay enforcement action being taken against development. An applicant’s motive to use a retrospective application to cause such delay would clearly be a consideration in favour of a decision to invoke that discretion.’
WLR Daily, 12th February 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Where an application for leave to enter or remain on the grounds of private or family life was made prior to 9 July 2012 but the decision was made on or after 6 September 2012, the Secretary of State was entitled to take into account the provisions of paragraphs 276ADE to 276DH and Appendix FM of the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules (2012) (HC 194).’
WLR Daily, 12th February
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
High Court (Chancery Division)
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Graham v Commercial Bodyworks Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 47; [2015] WLR (D) 50
‘Where an employee, while at work, had perpetrated against his friend and colleague what was apparently intended to be a prank, by putting highly inflammable thinning agent on to his clothes and then igniting them, the employer was not vicariously liable.’
WLR Daily, 5th February 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina (Gra Acquisition Ltd) v Oxford City Council [2015] EWHC 76 (Admin); [2015] WLR (D) 47
‘There was no exhaustive or exclusive statutory rule to the effect that a single building and its curtilage, whatever their nature, scale or relationship to each other, could never be listed as a conservation area pursuant to section 69 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.’
WLR Daily, 22nd January 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A court’s obligation to follow any relevant sentencing guidelines unless satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so continued to apply where the offender was suffering from a mental disorder.’
WLR Daily, 4th February 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The undertaking in damages given on the appointment of a provisional liquidator did not automatically terminate on the making of a winding up order so as to deprive the court of jurisdiction to enforce the undertaking by ordering an inquiry as to damages.’
WLR Daily, 6th February 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina (Campbell-Brown) v Central Criminal Court [2015] EWHC 202 (Admin); [2015] WLR (D) 48
‘Trials involving defendants remanded in custody were not to be listed for trial after the expiry of the custody time limits without proper and rigorous judicial consideration first having been given to the statutory questions posed by section 22(3) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 in relation to the extension of custody time limits.’
WLR Daily, 3rd February 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v Ali (Nazakat) [2015] EWCA Crim 43; [2015] WLR (D) 46
‘A solicitor who had been instrumental in finding brides for non-European Union clients and advising the clients to make false applications for certificates of approval, which he submitted to the to the UK Border Agency, had facilitated a breach of immigration law by his clients.’
WLR Daily, 3rd February 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Police officers acting as handlers to informers, and responding to an automated out of hours telephone system, where contact was required between a handler and an informer, were entitled to overtime pay.’
WLR Daily, 3rd February 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
In re M and others (Children) (Abduction: Child’s Objections) [2015] EWCA Civ 26; [2015] WLR (D) 44
‘Where a court was determining, for the purposes of article 13 of the Hague Convention 1980, whether a child objected to being returned and had attained the age and degree of maturity at which it was appropriate to take account of its views, the use of sub-tests and technicality were to be avoided.’
WLR Daily, 27th January 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The fact that a party deliberately acted in defiance of a best interests declaration made by the Court of Protection could not, without more, trigger contempt proceedings since a declaration was ultimately no more than a formal, explicit statement or announcement and there could not be “defiance” or “enforcement” of such a declaration.’
WLR Daily, 29th January 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Supreme Court, 28th January 2015
Supreme Court, 9th February 2015
© Inner Temple Library 2025