Vestergaard Frandsen A/S and others v Bestnet Europe Ltd and others – WLR Daily

Vestergaard Frandsen A/S and others v Bestnet Europe Ltd and others [2013] UKSC 31; [2013] WLR (D) 200

“A former employee who started a business which developed a product using her former employers’ trade secrets was not liable for breach of confidence in circumstances where she neither knew the identity of those secrets nor that they were being used to develop the new product.”

WLR Daily, 22nd May 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Appellant) v Marks and Spencer plc (Respondent); Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Respondent) v Marks and Spencer plc (Appellant) – Supreme Court

Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Appellant) v Marks and Spencer plc (Respondent); Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Respondent) v Marks and Spencer plc (Appellant) [2013] UKSC 30 (YouTube)

Supreme Court, 22nd May 2013

Source: www.youtube.com/user/UKSupremeCourt

Vestergaard Frandsen A/S (now called mvf3 Apps) and others (Appellants) v Bestnet Europe Limited and others (Respondents) – Supreme Court

Vestergaard Frandsen A/S (now called mvf3 Apps) and others (Appellants) v Bestnet Europe Limited and others (Respondents) [2013] UKSC 31 | UKSC 2011/0144 (YouTube)

Supreme Court, 22nd May 2013

Source: www.youtube.com/user/UKSupremeCourt

Public Prosecution Service (Respondent) v McKee (Appellant) – Supreme Court

Public Prosecution Service (Respondent) v McKee (Appellant) [2013] UKSC 32 | UKSC 2012/0007 (YouTube)

Supreme Court, 22nd May 2013

Source: www.youtube.com/user/UKSupremeCourt

Marks & Spencer plc v Revenue and Customs Commissioners – WLR Daily

Marks & Spencer plc v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2013] UKSC 30; [2013] WLR (D) 191

“The inquiry as to whether a parent company established in the United Kingdom was entitled to cross-border group relief in respect of the losses of its non-resident subsidiaries was to be conducted on the basis of the circumstances existing as at the date of its claim, and not at the end of the accounting period in which those losses crystallised.”

WLR Daily, 22nd May 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Alison L. Young: Fact/Law – a Flawed Distinction? – UK Constitutional Law Group

Posted May 21st, 2013 in civil justice, criminal injuries compensation, news, Supreme Court, VAT by sally

“If prizes were awarded to ‘Distinctions in English law’, then a good contender for the ‘lifetime achievement’ award would be the distinction between ‘law’ and ‘fact’. Whilst adventurers have their Swiss Army knife, and the Dr has his sonic screwdriver, lawyers have the multi-purpose malleable ‘law/fact’ distinction which is just as capable of opening or closing avenues of review, or providing a deus ex machina ‘get out of jail free’ card – or so a perusal of two recent decisions of the Supreme Court might have us believe.”

Full story

UK Constitutional Law Group 21st May 2013

Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org

When do the secular courts protect the rights of a minister of religion? When is a minister of religion called by God to a non-contractual relationship and when does she do her job under a contract? – Employment Law Blog

“The Supreme Court held in The President of the Methodist Conference v Preston that a Methodist minister was not an employee and therefore had no claim for unfair dismissal.”

Full story

Employment Law Blog, 20th May 2013

Source: www.employment11kbw.com

Shurely shome mishtake? – 4 New Square

Posted May 21st, 2013 in mistake, news, setting aside, Supreme Court, taxation, trusts by sally

“The Supreme Court’s decision on mistake and the flawed exercise of discretion by trustees, and the impact of the decision on professional advisers and their insurers.”

Full story (PDF)

4 New Square, 17th May 2013

Source: www.4newsquare.com

Preston (formerly Moore) v President of the Methodist Conference – WLR Daily

Posted May 17th, 2013 in Christianity, employment, law reports, Supreme Court, unfair dismissal by sally

Preston (formerly Moore) v President of the Methodist Conference [2013 UKSC 29; [2013] WLR (D) 179

“The basis for the rights and duties of an ordained minister of the Methodist Church were to be found in the constitutional provisions of the church and not in any arrangement of a kind which could amount to a contract. Therefore a Methodist minister was not an ’employee’ of the church for the purposes of section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and was not entitled to bring proceedings for unfair dismissal against the church.”

WLR Daily, 15th May 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

The President of the Methodist Conference (Appellant) v Preston (Respondent) – Supreme Court

Posted May 16th, 2013 in Christianity, employment, law reports, Supreme Court, unfair dismissal by sally

The President of the Methodist Conference (Appellant) v Preston (Respondent) [2013] UKSC 29 | UKSC 2012/0015 (YouTube)

Supreme Court, 15th May 2013

Source: www.youtube.com/user/UKSupremeCourt

Supreme Court rules that God is above the law – Daily Telegraph

Posted May 16th, 2013 in Christianity, employment, news, Supreme Court, unfair dismissal by sally

“It has passed judgments affecting multimillionaires, multinational banks and MPs but now Britain’s highest court has made clear that it does not have jurisdiction over God.”

Full story

Daily Telegraph, 15th May 2013

Source: www.telegraph.co.uk

Pitt and another v Holt and another; Futter and another v Futter and others – WLR Daily

Posted May 14th, 2013 in financial advice, law reports, mistake, Supreme Court, taxation, trusts by sally

Pitt and another v Holt and another; Futter and another v Futter and others [2013] UKSC 26; [2013] WLR (D) 172

“The court’s jurisdiction to intervene in a decision made by trustees who were acting within their power arose only if they could be shown to have acted in breach of duty. Trustees who wished to exercise a discretion which was within their powers and sought and acted on the advice of apparently competent professional advisers not in breach of duty merely because the professional advice turned out to be incorrect.”

WLR Daily, May 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Supreme Court ruling on trustee mistakes “likely to create uncertainty”, says expert – OUT-LAW.com

“A Supreme Court ruling on the circumstances in which courts can set aside decisions made wrongly by trustees is ‘likely to create uncertainty’ due to the subjective nature of the test, an expert has said.”

Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 10th May 2013

Source: www.out-law.com

BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited and others (Respondents) v Neuberger Berman Europe Ltd(on behalf of Sealink Funding Ltd) and others (Appellants); BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited and others (Respondents) v Eurosail-UK 2007-3BL PLC (Appellant) – Supreme Court

Posted May 10th, 2013 in company law, debts, insolvency, law reports, Supreme Court, winding up by sally

BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited and others (Respondents) v Neuberger Berman Europe Ltd(on behalf of Sealink Funding Ltd) and others (Appellants); BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited and others (Respondents) v Eurosail-UK 2007-3BL PLC (Appellant) [2013] UKSC 28 (YouTube)

Supreme Court, 9th May 2013

Source: www.youtube.com/user/UKSupremeCourt

Futter and another (Appellants) v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Respondent); Pitt and another (Appellants) v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Respondent) – Supreme Court

Posted May 10th, 2013 in law reports, mistake, Supreme Court, taxation, trusts by sally

Futter and another (Appellants) v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Respondent); Pitt and another (Appellants) v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Respondent) [2013] UKSC 26 (YouTube)

Supreme Court, 9th May 2013

Source: www.youtube.com/user/UKSupremeCourt

SL (FC) (Respondent) v Westminster City Council (Appellant) – Supreme Court

Posted May 10th, 2013 in housing, immigration, local government, mental health, news, Supreme Court by sally

SL (FC) (Respondent) v Westminster City Council (Appellant) [2013] UKSC 27 | UKSC 2011/0229 (YouTube)

Supreme Court, 9th May 2013

Source: www.youtube.com/user/UKSupremeCourt

Guidance from the Supreme Court on human rights damages – UK Human Rights Blog

Posted May 3rd, 2013 in damages, delay, human rights, news, parole, Supreme Court by sally

“Faulkner, R (on the application of ) v Secretary of State for Justice and another [2013] UKSC 23. The Supreme Court has taken a fresh look at what is meant by the Human Rights Act exhortation to take Strasbourg jurisprudence ‘into account’ when fashioning remedies for violations of Convention rights, in this case the right not to be arbitrarily detained under Article 5.”

Full story

UK Human Rights Blog, 2nd May 2013

Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com

 

UK could face substantial EU fines after Supreme Court ruling on air pollution, says expert – OUT-LAW.com

“The UK could face legal proceedings and substantial fines from the European
Commission as a result of its failure to meet air pollution limits, an expert
has said.”

Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 3rd May 2013

Source: www.out-law.com

R (on the application of Faulkner) (FC) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for Justice and another (Respondents); R (on the application of Faulkner) (FC) (Respondent) v Secretary of State for Justice (Respondent) and The Parole Board (Appellant); R (on the application of Sturnham) (Appellant) v The Parole Board of England and Wales and another (Respondents) – Supreme Court

Posted May 2nd, 2013 in compensation, delay, law reports, parole, Supreme Court by sally

R (on the application of Faulkner) (FC) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for Justice and another (Respondents); R (on the application of Faulkner) (FC) (Respondent) v Secretary of State for Justice (Respondent) and The Parole Board (Appellant); R (on the application of Sturnham) (Appellant) v The Parole Board of England and Wales and another (Respondents) [2013] UKSC 23 (YouTube)

Supreme Court, 1st May 2013

Source: www.youtube.com/user/UKSupremeCourt

WHA Limited and another (Appellants) v Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Respondent) – Supreme Court

Posted May 2nd, 2013 in insurance, law reports, repairs, Supreme Court, VAT by sally

WHA Limited and another (Appellants) v Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Respondent) [2013] UKSC 24 | UKSC 2009/0074 (YouTube)

Supreme Court, 1st May 2013

Source: www.youtube.com/user/UKSupremeCourt