Recovery of Medical Costs for Asbestos Diseases (Wales) Bill: reference by the Counsel General for Wales – Supreme Court
Supreme Court, 9th February 2015
Category: law reports
Michael and others (Appellants) v The Chief Constable of South Wales Police and another (Respondents) – Supreme Court
Supreme Court, 28th January 2015
Ealing London Borough Council and others v Notting Hill Housing Trust and another – WLR Daily
‘Article 3 of the Council Tax (Exempt Dwellings) Order 1992 provided that a dwelling was an exempt dwelling for the purposes of section 4 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 if it fell into Class B: “a dwelling owned by a body established for charitable purposes only, which is unoccupied and has been so for a period of less than sixmonths since the last occupation day, and was last occupied in furtherance of the objects of the charity”. When seeking exemption from council tax under that provision applicants were required to provide sufficient evidence to show that those conditions were satisfied.’
WLR Daily, 29th January 2015
Edwards v Kumarasamy – WLR Daily
Edwards v Kumarasamy; [2015] EWCA Civ 20; [2015] WLR (D) 40
‘A tenant was not required to give notice of a defect to a landlord for the latter to be liable under section 11(1A) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for injury or loss to the tenant resulting from the failure of the landlord to keep in repair any part of the building in which the landlord had an interest.’
WLR Daily, 28th January 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
In re S-W (Children) (Care Proceedings: Case Management Hearing) – WLR Daily
‘It would not be appropriate in care proceedings to dispose of a case at the case management hearing where there remained any significant issue as to threshold, assessment, or placement; nor could it ever be appropriate where the children’s guardian had not at least had an opportunity of seeing the child or children in question and to prepare a case analysis. Where, unusually, a case was to be disposed of at that hearing adequate notice had to be given to the parties; reluctance on the part of the parents or the children’s guardian would ordinarily be fatal. Furthermore a care order should not be made without some reasons or a judgment, no matter how concise, noting the available options, the positions of the parties and confirming that the outcome for the child was in his or her best interests and was proportionate.’
WLR Daily, 30th January 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
BAILII: Recent Decisions
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Walford v Worcestershire County Council [2015] EWCA Civ 22 (27 January 2015)
Mulugeta & Ors v R. [2015] EWCA Crim 6 (27 January 2015)
Hough v Greathall Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 23 (27 January 2015)
BB, PP, W, U & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 9 (23 January 2015)
Powys Teaching Local Health Board v Dusza & Anor [2015] EWCA Civ 15 (22 January 2015)
Fenty & Ors v Arcadia Group Brands Ltd & Anor [2015] EWCA Civ 3 (22 January 2015)
Welch v Waterworth [2015] EWCA Civ 11 (22 January 2015)
Border v Lewisham And Greenwich NHS Trust [2015] EWCA Civ 8 (21 January 2015)
Kaur v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 13 (20 January 2015)
Hussain v The London Borough of Waltham Forest [2015] EWCA Civ 14 (20 January 2015)
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
S v R [2014] EWCA Crim 2648 (20 January 2015)
Dillon v R [2015] EWCA Crim 3 (20 January 2015)
Thorsby & Ors v The Queen [2015] EWCA Crim 1 (20 January 2015)
Chinegwundoh v R [2014] EWCA Crim 2649 (20 January 2015)
Ahmed v The Queen [2014] EWCA Crim 2647 (20 January 2015)
Wells & Ors v R [2015] EWCA Crim 2 (20 January 2015)
Source: www.bailii.org
Broni v Ministry of Defence; Woof v Ministry of Defence; Barbour v Ministry of Defence – WLR Daily
‘The words “contract of service” in section 2(1) of the Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 Act were not to be given a construction broader than their usual meaning. It followed that the claimants, as members of the armed forces, were not “employees” for the purposes of section 2(1) the 1969 Act and the fixed success fee regime for employer’s liability claims, as set out in Section IV of CPR Pt 45 (pre 1 April 2013), did not apply to their claims against the defendant ministry.’
WLR Daily, 20th January 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Hussain v Waltham Forest London Borough Council – WLR Daily
Hussain v Waltham Forest London Borough Council [2015] EWCA Civ 14; [2015] WLR (D) 21
‘The phrase “other violence” in section 177(1) of the Housing Act 1996 covered not only physical violence (actual or threatened) but other threatening or intimidating behaviour or abuse, if of such seriousness that it might give rise to psychological harm.’
WLR Daily, 20th January 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Elashmawy v Court of Brescia, Italy – WLR Daily
Elashmawy v Court of Brescia, Italy [2015] EWHC 28 (Admin); [2015] WLR (D) 15
‘Italian prison conditions were compliant with article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.’
WLR Daily, 16th January 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Savoye and another v Spicers Ltd – WLR Daily
Savoye and another v Spicers Ltd [2014] EWHC 4195 (TCC); [2015] WLR (D) 17
‘The factual test of whether something formed “part of the land” for the purposes of section 105(1) of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 was informed, but not circumscribed, by principles to be found in the law of real property and fixtures and ultimately was a question of fact and degree, looking at the purpose of the object or installation and having regard to the installation as a whole, rather than each individual element.’
WLR Daily, 15th December 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v Chinegwundoh – WLR Daily
Regina v Chinegwundoh [2014] EWCA Crim 2649; [2015] WLR (D) 18
‘A finding that a person under a disability had done the acts charged against him was not an acquittal and did not therefore give the court the power to make a restraining order under section 5A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.’
WLR Daily, 20th January 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Phonepayplus Ltd v Ashraf and another – WLR Daily
Phonepayplus Ltd v Ashraf and another [2014] EWHC 4303 (Ch); [2015] WLR (D) 16
‘OFCOM had the power to delegate to the relevant “enforcement authority” under section 120 of the Communications Act 2003 all powers of enforcement of the provisions of the Code of Practice under the Act. It was implicit in the code that the provisions in it for imposing sanctions upon premium rate service providers for breach of the code were subject to the limitations set out in section 123(2) of the Act.’
WLR Daily, 19th December 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Webber v Department for Education – WLR Daily
Webber v Department for Education [2014] EWHC 4240 (Ch); [2015] WLR (D) 14
‘It was prima facie a matter for the ombudsman to assess whether and to what extent an oral hearing was necessary either to enable the investigation to be satisfactorily completed or out of fairness, and such decisions could only be challenged on appeal on the familiar basis that they exceeded the generous ambit within which reasonable disagreement was possible.’
WLR Daily, 19th December 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina (Byczek and another) v Secretary of State for the Home Department – WLR Daily
‘Regulation 24A of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 was within the ambit of the rule making power in section 2(2)(b) of the European Community Act 1972.’
WLR Daily, 19th December 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Ashley and others v Tesco Stores Ltd and others – WLR Daily
Ashley and others v Tesco Stores Ltd and others [2015] WLR (D) 11
‘The applicable time limit for service outside the jurisdiction of a claim form on a Scottish registered company, at its registered office in Scotland, where the claimant sought to serve the claim form under section 1139(1) of the Companies Act 2006 was six months from the date of issue of the claim form, as laid down by CPR r 7.5(2).’
WLR Daily, 15th January 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Thwaytes v Sothebys – WLR Daily
Thwaytes v Sothebys [2015] EWHC 36 (Ch); [2015] WLR (D) 12
‘The standard of care imposed on an auction house where a person consigned a work of art for research and assessment was no greater than that owed to a person who consigned a work of art for sale.’
WLR Daily, 16th Janury 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina (Richards) v Teesside Magistrates’ Court and another – WLR Daily
Regina (Richards) v Teesside Magistrates’ Court and another [2015] EWCA Civ 7; [2015] WLR (D) 13
‘Varying a sexual offences prevention order to require the wearing of a location monitoring device or electronic tag while away from the home address of the person subject to it came within the powers conferred by the Sexual Offences Act 2003, and the interference with that person’s private life under article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Rights was “in accordance with the law”.’
WLR Daily, 16th January 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
BAILII: Recent Decisions
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Gilks & Anor v Hodgson & Anor [2015] EWCA Civ 5 (15 January 2015)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Elashmawy v Court of Brescia, Italy & Ors [2015] EWHC 28 (Admin) (16 January 2015)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Thwaytes v Sotheby’s [2015] EWHC 36 (Ch) (16 January 2015)
Plaza BV v The Law Debenture Trust Corporation Plc [2015] EWHC 43 (Ch) (16 January 2015)
Reinhard v Ondra LLP & Ors (Rev 1) [2015] EWHC 26 (Ch) (14 January 2015)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Navig8 Inc v South Vigour Shipping Inc & Ors [2015] EWHC 32 (Comm) (16 January 2015)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
ST v Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust [2015] EWHC 51 (QB) (16 January 2015)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
Oakrock Ltd v Travelodge Hotels Ltd & Ors [2015] EWHC 30 (TCC) (16 January 2015)
BPC Hotels Ltd & Ors v Brooke North (A Firm) [2015] EWHC 27 (TCC) (16 January 2015)
Savoye And Savoye Ltd v Spicers Ltd [2015] EWHC 33 (TCC) (15 January 2015)
Surce: www.bailii.org
BAILII: Recent Decisions
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Law Society of England and Wales v Shah – WLR Daily
Law Society of England and Wales v Shah [2014] EWHC 4382 (Ch); [2015] WLR (D) 5
‘The supervisory jurisdiction embodied in section 50 of the Solicitors Act 1974 could not be invoked by the Law Society in the case of a solicitor who may have pretended to be one, but who had not necessarily done so, who denied doing so, and had not been cross-examined on the issue. Section 41(4)(c) of the 1974 Act was wide enough to enable the court to grant an order against a struck off former solicitor, which could be framed so as to restrain him from committing criminal acts, namely that of acting as a solicitor when disqualified, or carrying on a reserved legal activity without entitlement to do so.’
WLR Daily, 12th January 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
