BAILII: Recent Decisions
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Category: law reports
Hartley and others v King Edward VI College – WLR Daily
Hartley and others v King Edward VI College [2015] EWCA Civ 455; [2015] WLR (D) 216
‘Section 2 of the Apportionment Act 1870 applied to teachers’ contracts of employment, requiring that apportionment of pay be considered as accruing from day to day; but it was an error to construe the provision as though it also contained a principle of equal daily accrual.’
WLR Daily, 14th May 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
In re Lehman Bros International (Europe) (in administration) (No 4) – WLR Daily
‘The Court of Appeal made rulings following determination of issues raised in the administration of three companies as to the potential liability of two members in the group for the liabilities of the principal trading company, an unlimited company, and in particular its subordinated liabilities, and the relationship between their liability, if any, as members and their claims as creditors.’
WLR Daily, 14th May 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Takhar v Gracefield Developments Ltd – WLR Daily
Takhar v Gracefield Developments Ltd [2015] EWHC 1276 (Ch); [2015] WLR (D) 206
‘A judgment could be set aside for fraud even if the new evidence could reasonably have been obtained for the original trial.’
WLR Daily, 6th May 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Polish Judicial Authorities v Celinski; Slovakian Judicial Authority v Cambal; Nida v Polish Judicial Authorities; Ciemiega v Polish Judicial Authorities; Regina (Inglot) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and another; Polish Judicial Authorities v Pawelec – WLR Daily
‘In extradition proceedings under Part I of the Extradition Act 2003 an appellate court, in answering the question whether a district judge had been wrong to decide that extradition was or was not proportionate with the requested person’s rights under article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, had to focus on whether the decision on proportionality itself was wrong.’
WLR Daily, 6th May 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Brantley and others v Constituency Boundaries Commission and others – WLR Daily
‘A proclamation signed by the Governor General authorising alteration of the constituency boundaries in the territories of St Christopher and Nevis was made, under section 119 of the Constitution, when it was published in the Official Gazette; and it came into force, pursuant to section 50(6) of the Constitution, on the next dissolution of Parliament after it was made. Therefore, where the Governor General had dissolved Parliament with effect from 16 January 2015 and fixed the election date for 16 February 2015, and, by proclamation published in the Official Gazette on 20 January, authorised alteration of the constituency boundaries, the proclamation, having been made after the dissolution of Parliament, if valid only came into force on the dissolution of the Parliament elected in February 2015 and did not govern the 2015 election.’
WLR Daily, 11th May 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
B v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Regina (B) v Special Immigration Appeals Commission – WLR Daily
‘Where a person’s detention by the Home Secretary, purportedly made pursuant to paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 1971 as amended, pending deportation was unlawful, or where a person not currently in detention could not lawfully be detained under that provision, bail could not be granted pursuant to paragraphs 22 and 29 of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act, as amended.’
WLR Daily, 6th May 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Gaughran v Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland (Secretary of State for the Home Department intervening – WLR Daily
‘The policy in Northern Ireland, England and Wales of retaining indefinitely the DNA samples and other information obtained from persons who were arrested and subsequently convicted of an offence was proportionate and justified, and was within the margin of appreciation afforded to member states. A convicted person’s the right to respect for his private life guaranteed by article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms was therefore not infringed when the police refused to give him an assurance that his DNA samples would be destroyed.’
WLR Daily, 13th May 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Dransfield v Information Commissioner and another; Craven v Information Commissioner and another – WLR Daily
‘The Court of Appeal gave guidance as to the approach of a decision-maker when determining, for the purposes of section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2004, whether a right to information request was vexatious and whether, for the purposes of regulation 12(4)(b) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, a request for environmental information was “manifestly unreasonable”.’
WLR Daily, 14th May 2015
Source:www.iclr.co.uk
In re MN (An Adult) (Court of Protection: Jurisdiction) – WLR Daily
In re MN (An Adult) (Court of Protection: Jurisdiction): [2015] EWCA Civ 411; [2015] WLR (D) 208
‘The function of the Court of Protection was to take, on behalf of adults who lacked capacity, the decisions which, if they had capacity, they would take themselves. The Court of Protection was thus confined to choosing between available options, including those which there was good reason to believe would be forthcoming in the foreseeable future and, in the final analysis, could not compel a public authority to agree to a care plan which the authority was unwilling to implement.’
WLR Daily, 7th May 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina (Agyarko) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Regina (Evans) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Regina (Ikuga) v Secretary of State for the Home Department – WLR Daily
‘Where a party who had overstayed unlawfully and married or formed a relationship with a British citizen sought leave to remain, the “insurmountable obstacles” test as to return under the Immigration Rules was a stringent test and more demanding than a mere test of whether it would be reasonable to expect a couple to continue their family life outside the United Kingdom, although the test was also to be interpreted in a sensible and practical rather than a purely literal way.’
WLR Daily, 6th May 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
SS (Congo) and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department – WLR Daily
‘Where an application was made by a person for leave to enter the United Kingdom to join a spouse or family member who was a British citizen or refugee already residing there, but the application did not meet the minimum income or evidence of income requirements under the Immigration Rules for an application for leave to enter, compelling circumstances had to be shown to exist to justify the granting by the Secretary of State under her residual discretion of leave to enter outside the Immigration Rules on the grounds that refusal of entry would disproportionately interfere with the applicant’s article 8 Convention right to respect for family life.’
WLR Daily, 23rd April 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Breyer Group plc and others v Department of Energy and Climate Change; Free Power for Schools LP v Department of Energy and Climate Change; Homesun Holdings Ltd and another v Department of Energy and Climate Change; Touch Solar Ltd v Department of Energy and Climate Change – WLR Daily
‘Contracts which had been secured might be said to part of the goodwill of a business because they were the product of its past work, and thus capable of amounting to possessions within article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Contracts which the business hoped to secure in the future were no more than that and were merely a potential source of future income which could not amount to possessions under the article.’
WLR Daily, 28th April 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Sharpe v Bishop of Worcester (in his corporate capacity) – WLR Daily
Sharpe v Bishop of Worcester (in his corporate capacity) [2015] EWCA Civ 399; [2015] WLR (D) 196
‘In determining the question of whether a person was a “worker” within the meaning of section 43K(1)(a) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the words “terms on which he is or was engaged to do the work” required the person to have a contract with the person of whom he was said to be a “worker”.’
WLR Daily, 30th April 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Patel v Mussa – WLR Daily
Patel v Mussa [2015] EWCA Civ 434; [2015] WLR (D) 195
‘There was no justification for extending the residual appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal to encompass decisions of the county court which were alleged to breach article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms since appropriate forms of procedure existed by which a suitable remedy could be obtained.’
WLR Daily, 29th April 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Reynolds v CLFIS (UK) Ltd and others – WLR Daily
Reynolds v CLFIS (UK) Ltd and others [2015] EWCA Civ 439; [2015] WLR (D) 197
‘In a “tainted information case”, where the claimant claimed that she had been dismissed on grounds of age and the court’s focus had been on the potential prejudice of only one manager of the employer, not all of those who might have provided information bearing on any discrimination, the correct approach was to treat the conduct of the person supplying the information as separate from that of the person who acted on it, and the alternative “composite” approach was not appropriate to such a case.’
WLR Daily, 30th April 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina (Hemming (trading as Simply Pleasure Ltd) and others) v Westminster City Council (Architects Registration Board and others, intervening) – WLR Daily
‘A licensing authority was entitled to levy on a successful applicant for the grant or renewal of a licence a charge enabling the authority to recover the full cost of running and enforcing the licensing scheme.’
WLR Daily, 29th April 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority v Information Commissioner and another – WLR Daily
‘A journalist who, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, requested information in three invoices submitted by Members of Parliament as expenses claims was entitled to redacted copies of the documents themselves, not merely to a transcript of information contained in those documents, because the transcripts did not provide all the information which the statutory public authority was obliged to disclose to the requester.’
WLR Daily, 28th April 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
University and College Union v University of Stirling – WLR Daily
University and College Union v University of Stirling [2015] UKSC 26; [2015] WLR (D) 188
‘An employee was dismissed as redundant for the purposes of an employer’s duty to consult about proposed collective redundancies if the reason for his dismissal was not something to do with him—such as something he was or something he had done—but was a reason relating to the employer, such as his need to effect business change in some respect.’
WLR Daily, 29th April 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina (Nicolson) v Tottenham Magistrates’ Court – WLR Daily
Regina (Nicolson) v Tottenham Magistrates’ Court: [2015] EWHC 1252 (Admin); [2015] WLR (D) 204
‘Before being empowered to make an order under regulation 34(7) of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 for costs reasonably incurred by a local authority in council tax enforcement proceedings, the magistrates’ court had to have made a proper judicial determination of what costs had been reasonably incurred by the applicant in obtaining the liability order, that determination being based on proper and sufficient material provided by the applicant.’
WLR Daily, 6th May 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
