Coyle -v- Lanarkshire Health Board; SCS 25-Sep-2014

Extra Division – Inner House – the parties agreed that the midwives had been negligent in failing to call quickly enough for medical assistance, and that the child had suffered injury, but disagreed as to whether the failure had contributed to the injury.

Court: SCS
Date: 25-Sep-2014
Judges: Lady Clark of Calton
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] ScotCS CSIH_78,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Professional Negligence, Scotland

Conor McNally -v- City Building (Glasgow) Llp; SIC 14-Sep-2009

Mr McNally requested from City Building (Glasgow) LLP (CBG) information relating to improvement works carried out at a specified address. CBG responded by providing some information. However, CBG advised Mr McNally that the remainder of the information he had asked for was either not held by it, or was considered exempt in terms of section 33(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA). Following a review, Mr McNally remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that CBG had partially failed to deal with Mr McNally’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA by failing to advise him which of the information he had requested it did not hold and by failing to identify all of the information falling within the scope of his request. However, the Commissioner found that CBG had correctly applied the exemption in section 33(1)(b) in relation to the pricing information. The Commissioner did not require CBG to take any action in relation to the breaches identified in this decision.

Court: SIC
Date: 14-Sep-2009
Links: Bailii,
References: [2009] ScotIC 110_2009,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Information, Scotland

Banbridge Fuel Services Ltd -v- Revenue & Customs; FTTTx 27-May-2009

FTTTx Input tax disallowed – absence of valid tax invoices – absence of evidence of payment of – goods supplied – appeal dismissed

Court: FTTTx
Date: 27-May-2009
Links: Bailii,
References: [2009] UKFTT 112 (TC),

Leave a Comment

Filed under VAT

Attorney Generals Reference No 61 of 2007 (Madden); CACD 4-Jul-2007

The defendant had been found guiltyy of wounding with intent. The AG now appealed saying that the 3 years sentence of imprisonment was inadequate. He had attacked another man outside a oub with a knife. He had a previous offence involving an attack outside a pub with a bottle. He was a serving private in the army.
Held: A sentence of five and a half year’s imprisonment was substituted.

Court: CACD
Date: 04-Jul-2007
Judges: Hooper LJ, McCombe, Field JJ
Statutes: Criminal Justice Act 1988 36
Links: Bailii,
References: [2007] EWCA Crim 2215,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Criminal Sentencing

Abdulkhakov -v- Russia; ECHR 2-Oct-2012

Court: ECHR
Date: 02-Oct-2012
Statutes: European Convention on Human Rights
Links: Bailii,
References: 14743/11 - HEJUD, [2012] ECHR 1771

Leave a Comment

Filed under Human Rights

AA146122005-V2 (Unreported); AIT 4-Jul-2007

Court: AIT
Date: 04-Jul-2007
Links: Bailii,
References: [2007] UKAITUR AA146122005-V2

Leave a Comment

Filed under Immigration

AA143612006 (Unreported); AIT 4-Jul-2007

Court: AIT
Date: 04-Jul-2007
Links: Bailii,
References: [2007] UKAITUR AA143612006,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Immigration

AA123982011 & AA123962011 (Unreported); AIT 6-Nov-2012

Court: AIT
Date: 06-Nov-2012
Links: Bailii,
References: [2012] UKAITUR AA123982011),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Immigration

AA099032008 (Unreported); AIT 27-May-2009

Court: AIT
Date: 27-May-2009
Links: Bailii,
References: [2009] UKAITUR AA099032008,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Immigration

AA079572006 (Unreported); AIT 4-Jul-2007

Court: AIT
Date: 04-Jul-2007
Links: Bailii,
References: [2007] UKAITUR AA079572006,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Immigration

102 Wheatlands – Hounslow : London; LVT 10-Jul-2014

LVT Forfeiture

Court: LVT
Date: 10-Jul-2014
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] EWLVT LON_LV_FFT_00AT_0

Leave a Comment

Filed under Landlord and Tenant

Qongwane and Others -v- The Secretary of State for The Home Department; CA 8-Jul-2014

The court was asked questions as to the interpretation and effect of paragraph 353B of the Immigration Rules.

Court: CA
Date: 08-Jul-2014
Judges: Lewison, Underhill LJJ, Sir StanleyBurnton
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] EWCA Civ 957,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Immigration

Macleod -v- Mears Ltd; QBD 8-Jul-2014

The claimant sought payment of over £2m from his former employer being he said due under a proit sharing bonus agreement.

Court: QBD
Date: 08-Jul-2014
Judges: Hamblen J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] EWHC 2191 (QB),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Contract, Employment

Stoll Construction Ltd -v- Colclough and others; LT 4-Jul-2007

LT COLLECTIVE ENFRANCHISEMENT – Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 section 33 – costs of enfranchisement – procedural defect in LVT reducing costs claimed by reversioner by reference to a matter which was not in dispute between the parties.

Court: LT
Date: 04-Jul-2007
Statutes: Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 33
Links: Bailii,
References: [2007] EWLands LRA_184_2006,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Landlord and Tenant

SKS Ltd -v- Brown; EAT 4-Jul-2007

EAT Practice & Procedure – striking out/dismissal & Appearance/Response & Review
Non – acceptance of response (form incomplete). Correct form sent in time, but Employment Tribunal declined to pay excess postage (Respondents franking machine missed envelope, in post). Review application rejected. Appeal against review decision allowed.

Court: EAT
Date: 04-Jul-2007
Links: Bailii,
References: [2007] UKEAT 0245_07_0407,
Cases Cited:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Employment

Sandwell Metropolitan Council (Decision Notice); ICO 7-Nov-2011

ICO The complainants requested copies of correspondence between Sandwell Council and named individuals. The Council withheld the information under regulation 13 of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to refuse the request under regulation 13 of the EIR.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 13 – Complaint Not upheld

Court: ICO
Date: 07-Nov-2011
Links: Bailii,
References: [2011] UKICO FER0399153,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Information

Norfolk County Council (Decision Notice); ICO 14-Sep-2009

ICO The complainant requested information from Norfolk County Council (‘the Council’

Court: ICO
Date: 14-Sep-2009
Links: Bailii,
References: [2009] UKICO FS50207672,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Information

National Archives (Decision Notice); ICO 4-Jul-2007

ICO The National Archives refused to allow the complainant access to a closed Foreign and Commonwealth Office file relating to the supply of tanks for the Saudi Arabian National Guard citing section 27 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act). The Commissioner decided that in refusing this request, The National Archives had dealt with it in accordance with part I of the Freedom of Information Act. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 27 – Complaint Not upheld

Court: ICO
Date: 04-Jul-2007
Links: Bailii,
References: [2007] UKICO FS50111530,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Information

Cadogan -v- Erkman; LT 22-Dec-2008

LT LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT – procedure – whether amendment to statements of case and replies should be permitted – whether evidence challenging guidance in Sportelli should be excluded.

Court: LT
Date: 22-Dec-2008
Links: Bailii,
References: [2008] EWLands LRA_56_2007,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Landlord and Tenant

Thomas Watts and Co -v- Malcolm Davies Smith; CA 20-Jan-1997

Application was made for the rehearing of an appeal.

Court: CA
Date: 20-Jan-1997
Judges: Lord Woolf MR, Waite LJ, henry LJ
Links: Bailii,
References: [1997] EWCA Civ 810,
Cases Cited:
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Legal Professions

McLoughlin -v- Queens University of Belfast; CANI 1995

The words ‘registration’ and ‘enrolment’ refer in our opinion to variants of conferment of qualifications upon persons who thereby achieve some status in relation to their work or the work which they propose to do.’

Court: CANI
Date: 01-Jan-1995
Statutes: Fair Employment Act (Northern Ireland) 1976 16
References: [1995] NI 82,
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Discrimination

Davies -v- Revenue & Customs; FTTTx 27-Feb-2014

FTTTx Income Tax – penalty for late payment of tax – whether a reasonable excuse for late payment – no – appeal dismissed.

Court: FTTTx
Date: 27-Feb-2014
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] UKFTT 226 (TC),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Income Tax

Beer And Regan -v- Germany; ECHR 18-Feb-1999

Court: ECHR
Date: 18-Feb-1999
Links: Bailii, ECHR, Bailii,
References: 28934/95, [1999] ECHR 6, ,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Human Rights

Weitz and Another -v- Monaghan; 2-Feb-1962

It was the prostitute who was guilty of soliciting by his or her physical presence. It was not enough for a written advertisement to be placed by him or her, or on their behalf, in a public place . A prostitute who displays an advertisement in a public street indicating that she is available for any one who desires her services does not thereby solicit.
Lord Parker CJ said: ‘I am quite satisfied that soliciting . . involves the physical presence of the prostitute and conduct on her part amounting to an importuning of prospective customers.’

Date: 02-Feb-1962
Judges: Lord Parker CJ, with whom Ashworth and MacKenna JJ
Statutes: Street Offences Act 1959 1(1)
References: [1962] 1 WLR 262,
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Crime

Utilise TDS Ltd -v- Davies and Others; ChD 24-Feb-2014

The court was asked, as against the background of Mitchell, ‘if the breach of a court order attracting sanctions, considered in isolation, can be viewed as trivial, can another trivial breach of the same order result in the first breach being viewed as a non-trivial one? ‘

Court: ChD
Date: 24-Feb-2014
Judges: Hodge QC HHJ
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] EWHC 834 (Ch), [2014] 3 Costs LO 417

Leave a Comment

Filed under Litigation Practice

Storm (Trade Mark: Revocation); IPO 4-Jul-2007

Interlocutory Hearing re the filing of part of Form 8, Counterstatement and exhibits by way of email
Result
Incomplete documents filed in defence of registration by email: Appeal allowed. Registered Proprietor allowed to defend its registration
Points Of Interest
The filing of documents by email is allowed
Summary
An application for revocation of the mark in suit was filed and the proprietor was allowed until 16 January 2007 to file a defence. On 16 January the registered proprietor filed the first page of Form TM8, a counterstatement and exhibits by way of email. The registry indicated that the papers and method of filing were not acceptable and the proprietor’s attorney filed a properly completed TM8 on 25 January 2007. Following further correspondence the registered proprietor requested a hearing.
After hearing the two parties the Hearing Officer indicated by letter that the filing of documents by email was not precluded by the Trade Marks Act and Rules. She also went on to exercise the Registrar’s discretion under Section 31(3) to allow the registered proprietor a short period to put its evidence into acceptable format and to defend its registration. The applicant for revocation asked for a statement of the grounds for the Hearing Officer’s decision.
The Hearing Officer dealt with the acceptability of the filing of document by email, by comparison with the filing of documents by facsimile, and decided that this method was not precluded. She took account of the fact that this method has been allowed by the Courts since the introduction of The Civil Procedure (Amendment) rules 2002 (Rule 4).

Court: IPO
Date: 04-Jul-2007
Judges: Mrs A Corbett
Statutes: Trade Marks Act 1994 31(3)
Links: Bailii,
References: [2007] UKIntelP o18607, O/186/07

Leave a Comment

Filed under Intellectual Property

SA -v- WI; Admn 4-Jul-2007

The claimant sought a declaration that the second defendant holds £12,000 which the claimant paid to the first defendant in his capacity as a hawaladar on trust for the claimant. The claim raises two issues: firstly, did the first defendant hold this £12,000 on trust for the claimant; and secondly, if the answer to that question is yes, is the trust enforceable against the second defendant?

Court: Admn
Date: 04-Jul-2007
Judges: Sullivan J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2007] EWHC 2025 (Admin), [2008] Bus LR 168, [2007] ACD 88

Leave a Comment

Filed under Trusts

KH, Re Judicial Review; SCS 27-May-2009

Outer House – Request for judicial review of a decision of the Secretary of State for the Home Department refusing to treat representations made on claimant’s behalf as a fresh claim for asylum.

Court: SCS
Date: 27-May-2009
Judges: Lady Dorrian
Links: Bailii,
References: [2009] ScotCS CSOH_73,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Immigration, Scotland

Kark (Norman) Publications Ltd -v- Odhams Press Ltd; 1962

Wilberforce, J described the basis of a passing off action in respect of the name of a newspaper or magazine as being a proprietary right not so much in the name itself but in the goodwill established through the use of the name in connection with the plaintiff’s publication. Referring to what the plaintiff must prove, he added: ‘The plaintiff must show that the name has become distinctive of his goods, and that a reputation has attached to them under the name in question, and that use by the defendant of the name is likely to cause confusion resulting in damage to the goodwill of the plaintiff.’ and ‘As a subsidiary point it is enough to show that a substantial number of persons likely to become purchasers of the goods are liable to be deceived by the defendant’s use of the name. On the one hand, it is not necessary to show that all, or substantially all, persons in the market associate the name of the plaintiff’s goods, if this can be shown of a substantial proportion of person who are probable purchasers of the goods of the kind in question.’

Date: 01-Jan-1962
Judges: Wilberforce J
References: [1962] RPC 163, [1962] 1 All ER 636, [1962] 1 WLR 380
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Intellectual Property

GK -v- Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; UTAA 27-May-2009

UTAA Recovery of overpayments – failure to disclose

Court: UTAA
Date: 27-May-2009
Links: Bailii,
References: [2009] UKUT 98 (AAC),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Benefits

C -v- Mirror Group Newspapers and Others; CA 21-Jun-1996

Husband and wife were involved in a custody dispute. The father made serious but false allegations to the press. She now claimed in defamation, ut he relied upon limitation. She said the facts had only become known to her much later.
Held: ‘Facts relevant to cause’ referred to those facts necessary to be pleaded but not in rebuttal.

Court: CA
Date: 21-Jun-1996
Judges: Neill, Morritt, Pill LJJ
Statutes: Limitation Act 1980 32A
Links: Times, Bailii,
References: [1996] EMLR 518, [1997] 1 FCR 556, [1996] 2 FLR 532, [1996] 4 All ER 511, [1996] Fam Law 671, [1996] EWCA Civ 1290, [1997] 1 WLR 131
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Defamation, Limitation, Media

Baker -v- Carrick; 1894

Publication by a solicitor is protected by qualified privilege if his client would have been similarly protected in making the same publication, provided that the solicitor is acting within the scope of his authority.

Date: 01-Jan-1894
References: [1894] QB 838,
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Defamation, Legal Professions

Symonds -v- Seabourne; 1792

An action on the case may be maintained by a lessee for years for obstructing the lights of an aricient messuage.

Date: 01-Jan-1792
Links: Commonlii,
References: [1792] EngR 2431, (1792) Cro Car 325, (1792) 79 ER 884

Leave a Comment

Filed under Land, Landlord and Tenant

In the Estate of Bercovitz, deceased; Canning -v- Enever; CA 1962

Upheld – The court must be satisfied that the witness had signed the will with the intention of attesting the testator’s signature or of attesting the will.

Court: CA
Date: 01-Jan-1962
References: [1962] 1 WLR 321, [ 1962] 1 All ER 552
Cases Cited:
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Wills and Probate

Commission EEC -v- Italy; ECJ 27-Feb-1962

ECJ 1. It follows from a literal interpretation of articles 12 and 14 of the EEC Treaty that the term ‘duties applied’, as used in these two articles, means the duties actually applied rather than those legally applicable. This interpretation is confirmed by the third subparagraph of article 19(2) of the EEC Treaty which, while it refers only to the common customs tariff, is not limited in scope to this area but allows the conclusion to be drawn that the authors of the treaty were aware of the difference between those duties legally applicable and those actually applied and that by using the words ‘duties applied’ they intended to refer to those duties which were actually applied.
2. According to the principles of international law, a member state which by virtue of the entry into force of the eec treaty, assumes new obligations which conflict with rights held under an earlier agreement, refrains from exercising such rights to the extent necessary for the performance of its new obligations; article 234 of the EEC Treaty only guarantees the rights held by third countries under earlier agreements.

Court: ECJ
Date: 27-Feb-1962
Links: Bailii,
References: C-10/61, [1962] EUECJ C-10/61

Leave a Comment

Filed under European

Jameel, Abdul Latif Jameel Company Ltd -v- Wall St Journal Europe SPRL; QBD 7-Oct-2003

The court was asked to rule on two remaining pre-trial issues in this defamation claim. ‘namely, (1) an issue of meaning and (2) questions on the admissibility and relevance of eleven witness statements served on the Claimants’ behalf, and accompanied by Civil Evidence Act notices in May of this year.’

Court: QBD
Date: 07-Oct-2003
Judges: Eady J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2003] EWHC 2322 (QB),
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Defamation

The Queen -v- The Inhabitants of St Marylebone; 29-May-1850

Stat. 35 G. 3, c. 73, renders the incoming and the outgoing tenant of premises in the parish of St. Marylebone liable respectively to the payment
of the rates of the parish in proportion to the times of their occupation respectively. A. occupied a house in St. Marylebone for the latter part of a year, in respect of which the outgoing tenant was rated ; and A. paid the portion of the rate in respect of the time during which he occupied, but was not entered on the ratebook as occupier for any part of that time. Held, that he acquired a settlement under stat. 3 W. & M. c. 11, s. 6.

Date: 29-May-1850
Links: Commonlii,
References: [1850] EngR 590, (1850) 15 QB 399, (1850) 117 ER 510

Leave a Comment

Filed under Rating

S -v- S; CA 1962

The court considered an application for a decree of nullity based upon non-consummation. Medical evidence was provided as to W’s vagina being malformed so that she was unable to allow full penetration. An operation was available to correct the situation, but this might decrease any pleasure she might receive and she would still be inable to conceive.
Held: The petition was denied. It is not enough for the Petitioner to simply establish that they have not had sexual intercourse since the date of their marriage. The fact of the availability of the operation meant that she would be able to consummate the marriage.

Court: CA
Date: 01-Jan-1962
References: [1962] 3 All ER 55,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Family

Karen Millen Fashions Limited -v- Wei Lin; Nom 2-Oct-2012

Nom Summary Decision – Transfer

Court: Nom
Date: 02-Oct-2012
Links: Bailii,
References: [2012] DRS 11756,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Intellectual Property

In the Estate of Knibbs, deceased. Flay -v- Trueman; 1962

Wrangham J said: ‘As Salter J said in Beech’s case: ‘I think that, in order to constitute a will, the words used by the testator must be intended by him, at or after the time when he uses them, to be preserved or remembered so as to form the guide to those who survive in carrying out his wishes.’ In other words, in order to be a testamentary act there must be a statement of the deceased’s wishes for the disposition of his property after his death which is not merely imparted to his audience as a matter of information or interest, but is intended by him to convey to that audience a request, explicit or implicit, to see that his wishes are acted on.’ and ‘A testamentary act does not have to be a document or act of any sort attended by any particular formalities. Indeed, an act may be testamentary in this sense, even though the speaker did not know that he was making a will, or that he was capable of making a will at the time when be uttered the words in issue.’

Date: 01-Jan-1962
Judges: Wrangham J
References: [1962] 1 WLR 852, [1962] 2 All ER 829
Cases Cited:
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Wills and Probate

Blythe Corporations Application; 1962

A covenant required the purchasers to erect and maintain a chain link fence.
Held: The covenant was a positive personal covenant between the original vendor and the original purchaser and was not a restrictive covenant. The Lands Tribunal declined jurisdiction to vary it under the section.

Date: 01-Jan-1962
Statutes: Law of Property Act 1925 84
References: (1962) 14 PLCR 56,
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Land

Somerville -v- Chapman; 1779

Bill to compel an hospital to renew a lease dismissed

Date: 01-Jan-1779
Links: Commonlii,
References: [1779] EngR 16, (1779) 1 Bro CC 61, (1779) 28 ER 985

Leave a Comment

Filed under Landlord and Tenant

Hill and Others -v- Sorrento Management Association Ltd and Others; UTLC 31-Jul-2014

LANDLORD AND TENANT – appointment of manager – application dismissed by First-tier Tribunal – whether Tribunal gave adequate reasons for its decision

Court: UTLC
Date: 31-Jul-2014
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] UKUT 349 (LC),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Landlord and Tenant

Greenwich London Borough Council -v- Regan; CA 31-Jan-1996

The authority had taken possession proceedings against the secure tenant for non-payment of rent, and obtained an order, suspended on condition as to payments. He again fell into arrears, and the authority made a further agreement. They now sought issue of a warrant, and the tenant argued that a new possession was required, saying that the further agreement constituted the grant of a new tenancy or licence, and that this happened irrespective of anybody’s intentions.
Held: No new tenancy had been created, and no new possession order was required. It would be wrong to require the authority to apply to court each time a tenant under a suspended order was late in payment. The tenancy was determined when the conditions were breached. The authority might waive that breach, in which case situation continued as before. Whether the variation created a new tenancy was a question of fact. In this case the tenancy ended twice. The waivers by the authority did not determine the tenancy. Had he applied, the tenant would have been granted a postponment of the possession on the new agreement.
‘The tenancy continues until the date on which the tenant is ordered to give up possession. If the order is suspended on terms, the tenancy continues until there is a breach of those terms and then determines. The Local Authority is free to treat the tenant as a trespasser and to request the court to issue a warrant of execution. The tenant, on the other hand, is entitled to apply to the court to vary the terms of the order by postponing the date of possession. If it does so, the tenancy is reinstated and treated as if it had not determined.’

Court: CA
Date: 31-Jan-1996
Judges: Millett LJ
Statutes: Housing Act 1985 85
Links: Times,
References: (1996) 28 HLR 469, (1996) 72 P & CR 507
Cases Cited:
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Housing, Landlord and Tenant

Doe d. Kindersley -v- Hughes; 1840

The tenant challenged the validity of a notice given by not all his landlords.
Held: The notice was valid.

Date: 01-Jan-1840
References: (1840) 7 M & W 139,
Cases Cited:
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Landlord and Tenant

Bouchers Case; 1791

A commitment under a warrant which does not specify the crime the party is charged with, is false imprisonment and therefore, if a serjeant at mace justifies an arrest by command of the mayor, his plea must shew in certaint for what cause the arrest was made.

Date: 01-Jan-1791
Links: Commonlii,
References: [1791] EngR 132, (1791) Cro Jac 81, (1791) 79 ER 69 (A)

Leave a Comment

Filed under Torts - Other

Berezovsky and Another -v- Forbes Inc and Another; CA 27-Nov-1998

Where a defamatory article was published in many jurisdictions, there is no rule preventing a plaintiff recovering in those jurisdictions where a remedy is given. Not confined by restriction to most appropriate jurisdiction.

Court: CA
Date: 27-Nov-1998
Links: Times, Bailii,
References: [1998] EWCA Civ 1791,
Cases Cited:
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Defamation, Jurisdiction

Smith -v- Mansi; CA 1962

Where a land contract was not to be by way of exchange of multiple parts, but by signatures on one document, and in the absence of any other indication, the contract became binding upon the last signature being appended.

Court: CA
Date: 01-Jan-1962
References: [1963] 1 WLR 26, [1962] 3 All ER 857

Leave a Comment

Filed under Contract, Land

Robinson -v- Unicos Property Corpn Ltd; CA 1962

The plaintiff sought an additional averment (unsuccessfully objected to as constituting the addition of a new cause of action) to plead that the first plaintiff sued as equitable assignee of the benefit of a contract made with the defendant (the contract itself having been pleaded in the original claim).
Held: Holroyd Pearce LJ explained the concept of a ‘new cause of action’ as meaning ‘a new claim made on a new basis.’

Court: CA
Date: 01-Jan-1962
Judges: Holroyd Pearce, and Harman LJJ
References: [1962] 1 WLR 520, [1962] 2 All ER 24
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Litigation Practice

Norman Kark Publications Ltd -v- Odhams Press Ltd; 1962

Date: 01-Jan-1962
References:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Cadam -v- Beaverbrook Newspapers Ltd; CA 1959

The defendants had published an article stating simply and solely that a writ had been issued against the four plaintiffs claiming damages for alleged conspiracy to defraud. They pleaded justification, based on the issue of the writ itself. The plaintiffs attacked this plea on the grounds that it offended against the repetition rule.
Held: The attack failed. It was arguable that the defence put forward of justification could be supported by a reference to the issue of a writ. Morris LJ said that it could not be said that these particulars could not justify some conceivable defamatory meaning that somebody might say was the ordinary meaning of those words.

Court: CA
Date: 01-Jan-1959
Judges: Hodson LJ, Morris LJ.
References: [1959] 1 QB 413,
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Defamation

Re Scott and Alvarezs Contract No 2; CA 1895

Lindley LJ discussed the circumstances under which a deposit paid under a contract for the sale of land could be returned. Even where specific performance was refused to the vendor because the title was wholly defective, the purchaser might be left unable to rescind by the terms of the contract, and therefore unable in law to claim return of the deposit: ‘There is no question of discretion in such a case as that . . The legal answer is this: ‘There is no breach of contract at all; you have taken your chance with respect to your deposit; and unless you shew a breach by the vendor of his bargain, you are not entitled to have that deposit back.”

Court: CA
Date: 01-Jan-1895
Judges: Lindley LJ
References: [1895] 2 Ch 603,
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Contract, Land

Davies -v- Information Commissioner; FTTGRC 20-Jan-2014

FTTGc Whether information was held by the Public Authority (Reg.5(1)) – Whether disclosure of withheld information ‘would adversely affect . . The course of justice’

Court: FTTGRC
Date: 20-Jan-2014
Statutes: Environmental Information Regulations 2004
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] UKFTT EA_2013_0126 (GRC

Leave a Comment

Filed under Information

Spring -v- Guardian Assurance Plc and Others; CA 1993

The test for malice is the same whether it arises in the context of libel or of injurious falsehood. Glidewell LJ said that ‘Maliciously’ in this context means either knowing that the words were false or being reckless as to whether they were false or not or being actuated by a dishonest or other improper motive. It suffices that a defendant was activated by an improper dominant purpose.

Court: CA
Date: 01-Jan-1993
Judges: Glidewell LJ
References: [1993] 2 All ER 273, [1993] IRLR 122, [1993] ICR 412
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Defamation

Youssoupoff -v- MGM Pictures; CA 1934

The plaintiff (herself a Princess) complained that she could be identified with the character Princess Natasha in the film ‘Rasputin, the Mad Monk’. On the basis that the film suggested that, by reason of her identification with ‘Princess Natasha’, she had been seduced by Rasputin, she was awarded £25,000 damages. The defendant contended that if the film indicated any relations between Rasputin and ‘Natasha’ it indicated a rape of Natasha and not a seduction.
Held: In defamation cases, the setting of the level of damages is for the jury.
Slesser LJ said that defamation could include words which cause a person to be shunned or avoided: ‘not only is the matter defamatory if it brings the plaintiff into hatred, ridicule, or contempt by reason of some moral discredit on [the plaintiff's] part, but also if it tends to make the plaintiff be shunned and avoided and that without any moral discredit on [the plaintiff's] part. It is for that reason that persons who have been alleged to have been insane, or be suffering from certain diseases, and other cases where no direct moral responsibility could be placed upon them, have been held to be entitled to bring an action to protect their reputation and their honour.’ and, on the facts:
‘One may, I think, take judicial notice of the fact that a lady of whom it has been said that she has been ravished, albeit against her will, has suffered in social reputation and in opportunities of receiving respectable consideration from the world.’ and
‘I, for myself, cannot see that from the plaintiff’s point of view it matters in the least whether this libel suggests that she has been seduced or ravished. The question whether she is or is not the more or the less moral seems to me immaterial in considering this question whether she has been defamed, and for this reason, that, as has been frequently pointed out in libel, not only is the matter defamatory if it brings the plaintiff into hatred, ridicule, or contempt by reason of some moral discredit on her part, but also if tends to make the plaintiff be shunned and avoided and that without any moral discredit on her part. It is for that reason that persons who have been alleged to have been insane, or to be suffering from certain diseases, and other cases where no direct moral responsibility could be placed upon them, have been held to be entitled to bring an action to protect their reputation and their honour.’ and
‘When this woman is defamed in her sexual purity I do not think that the precise manner in which she has been despoiled of her innocence and virginity is a matter which a jury can properly be asked to consider.’
Scrutton LJ defined a defamatory statement as ‘a false statement about a man to his discredit’.
As to the assessment of damages by the jury: ‘The constitution has thought, and I think there is great advantage in it, that the damages to be paid by a person who says false things about his neighbour are best decided by a jury representing the public.’

Court: CA
Date: 01-Jan-1934
Judges: Scrutton LJ, Slesser LJ
References: (1934) 50 TLR 581,
Cases Cited:
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Damages, Defamation

Watts -v- Times Newspapers Ltd, Neil, Palmer and Schilling & Lom; CA 22-Sep-1995

The plaintiff author had claimed damages for defamation, saying that he had been accused of plagiarism. An apology had been given in the form requested – no qualified privilege. The plaintiff brought an associated case against his lawyer, saying that he had drafted the apology in such a way as to repeat the libel complained of.
Held: The general principle on which common law qualified privilege was founded was the public interest frequently expressed as “the common convenience and welfare of society” or “the general interest of society”. The parties had been unable to identify any previous occasion on which an apology had been found itself to be defamatory. Throughout the history of the development of the doctrine of priviege, the protection has always been described as arising where “the occasion of the publication affords a defence in the absence of express malice”. The word “occasion” connotes the origin and circumstances of the publication of each individual defendant or third party, and in carrying through this exercise the position of each individual person involved in the publication requires separate consideration. Having regard to the origin and circumstances of the publication of this apology, the necessary conditions are satisfied by which protection should be obtained weer not satisfied.

Court: CA
Date: 22-Sep-1995
Judges: Hirst LJ, Henry LJ, Sir Ralph Gibson
Links: Times, Bailii,
References: [1997] QB 650, [1995] EWCA Civ 45, [1996] 2 WLR 427, [1996] EMLR 1, [1996] 1 All ER 152
Cases Cited:
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Defamation

DWF Llp -v- Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills, Acting On Behalf of The Insolvency Service; CA 8-Jul-2014

The claimant firm of solicitors challenged the decision made by the respondent in the award of contracts to provide legal services to the respondent.

Court: CA
Date: 08-Jul-2014
Judges: Arden, Black LJJ, Sir Robin Jacob
Statutes: Public Contracts Regulations 2006 4(3), EU Directive 2004/18/EC
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] EWCA Civ 900,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Legal Professions

Regan -v- Taylor; CA 9-Mar-2000

The claimant alleged defamation by the defendant, his then opponent’s solicitor. He now appealed summary judgment against him. A solicitor properly appointed by his client to represent his client in legal proceedings and responding to attacks at the door of the court was protected by qualified legal privilege. His agency authority could now naturally be considered to extend to such activities. The privilege was not a blanket permission to libel, but rather the ability of an agent to borrow the authority as agent for his client and to operate within the range of privilege afforded to that client.

Court: CA
Date: 09-Mar-2000
Judges: Henry, Chadwick, May LJJ
Links: Times, Bailii,
References: [2000] EWCA Civ 68, [2000] EMLR 549
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Defamation, Legal Professions

Davies -v- Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council; CA 26-Feb-2013

Lewison LJ said that Employment Tribunals should exercise more active control over cases before them, saying: ‘The function of the Employment Tribunal is a limited one. It is to decide whether the employer acted reasonably in dismissing the employee, it is not for the ET to conduct a primary fact finding exercise, it is there to review the employer’s decision. Still less is the ET there to conduct an investigation into the whole of the employee’s employment history. The Employment Tribunal itself commented in this case that much of the evidence that it heard was irrelevant to the issues it had to decide. But irrelevant evidence should be decided at the case management stage and excised. It should not be allowed to clutter up a hearing and distract from the real issues. The Employment Tribunal has power to do this and should not hesitate to use it. The Employment Tribunal has power to prevent irrelevant cross-examination and again should not hesitate to exercise that power. If the parties have failed in their duty to assist the Tribunal to further the overriding objective the Employment Tribunal must itself take a firm grip on the case. To do otherwise wastes public money, prevents other cases being heard in a timely fashion and is unfair to the parties in subjecting them to increasing costs and, at least in the case of an employer, detracting from his primary concern, namely to run the business.’

Court: CA
Date: 26-Feb-2013
Judges: Mummery, Lewison, Beatson LJJ
Links: Bailii,
References: [2013] EWCA Civ 135, [2013] IRLR 374
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Employment

Adam -v- Ward; HL 1917

The plaintiff, Major Adam MP, falsely attacked General Scobell in a speech in the House of Commons, thus bringing his charge into the national arena. The Army Council investigated the charge, rejected it and directed their secretary, Sir E Ward, the defendant, to write a letter to General Scobell, which was released to the press, vindicating him and in turn containing defamatory statements about the plaintiff.
Held: The letter was protected by qualified privilege. It was for the judge to decide whether there is any evidence of express malice fit to be left to the jury – that is, whether there is any evidence on which a reasonable man could find malice. Otherwise it is for the judge to determine whether the privilege applies. The defence of qualified privilege is based on public policy. It is usually analysed in terms of duty and interest.
Lord Dunedin said that the proper rule as respects irrelevant defamatory matter incorporated in a statement made on a privileged occasion is to treat it as one of the factors to be taken into consideration in deciding whether, in all the circumstances, an inference that the defendant was actuated by express malice can properly be drawn.
Lord Atkinson discussed the test for privilege: ‘It was not disputed, in this case on either side, that a privileged occasion is, in reference to qualified privilege, an occasion where the person who makes a communication has an interest or a duty, legal, social, or moral, to make it to the person to whom it is made and the person to whom it is so made has a corresponding interest or duty to receive it. This reciprocity is essential. Nor is it disputed that a privileged communication — a phrase often used loosely to describe a privileged occasion and vice versa — is a communication made upon an occasion which rebuts the prima facie presumption of malice arising from a false and defamatory statement prejudicial to the character of the plaintiff, and puts the latter to proof that there was malice in fact.’ and
After citingthe authorities: ‘These . . in my view clearly establish that a person making a communication on a privileged occasion is not restricted to the use of such language merely as is reasonably necessary to protect the interest or discharge the duty which is the foundation of his privilege; but that, on the contrary, he will be protected, even though his language should be violent or excessively strong, if, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, he might have honestly and on reasonable grounds believed that what he wrote or said was true or necessary for the purpose of his vindication, though in fact it was not so.’
Lord Loreburn said: ‘I understand the law to be as follows: It is for the judge alone to rule whether or not there is an occasion of privilege, and the rule on that subject was laid down many years ago in the case of Toogood v Spyring. Subsequent decisions have illustrated the rule, but the fact that an occasion is privileged does not necessarily protect all that is said or written on that occasion. Anything that is not relevant and pertinent to the discharge of the duty or the exercise of the right or the safeguarding of the interest which creates the privilege will not be protected. To say that foreign matter will not be protected is another way of saying the same thing.’
Lord Shaw of Dunfermline said: ‘Privileged, however, as the occasion might be, it was contended that the communication went beyond the occasion and so was not protected by privilege. I humbly think that this is a more correct way of stating the proposition than is usually adopted. Privilege is a term which is applied in a two senses. There is a privileged occasion, and there is also said to be a privileged communication. The former expression is correct; the latter, strictly viewed, tends to error. What is meant with regard to a privileged occasion is that it was protected as being within the scope of the privilege attaching to the occasion. The occasion is privileged, the communication is protected.
If, accordingly, and in so far as the communication deals with matter not in any reasonable sense germane to the subject-matter of the occasion, the protection is gone: the occasion with its privilege does not reach a communication upon this foreign and totally unconnected matter.’
Lord Finlay LC said: ‘If the communication was made in pursuance of a duty or on a matter in which there was a common interest on the party making and the party receiving it, the occasion is said to be privileged. This privilege is only qualified and may be rebutted by proof of express malice.’

Court: HL
Date: 01-Jan-1917
Judges: Lord Finlay LC, Lord Atkinson, Lord Dunedin, Lord Loreburn, Lord Shaw of Dunfermline
References: [1917] AC 309, [1917] AC 309, [1917] All ER 151, [1917] AC 309, [1916-17] All ER 157, 86 LJKB 849
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Defamation

David Truex, Solicitor (A Firm) -v- Kitchin; CA 4-Jul-2007

The claimant solicitors sought payment of their fees. The defendant claimed they had been negligent in not advising her that she might be entitled to legal aid. The firm had pointed out to her that they did not undertake legal aid work, and that she could choose another firm if she wished.
Held: The firm’s appeal was dismissed.

Court: CA
Date: 04-Jul-2007
Judges: Waller, Lawrence Collins LJJ
Links: Bailii,
References: [2007] 2 FLR 1203, [2007] Fam Law 903, [2007] NPC 87, [2007] 4 Costs LR 587, [2007] PNLR 33, [2007] EWCA Civ 618
Cases Cited:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Legal Aid, Legal Professions

Cannon Express & Logistics Limited -v- Revenue & Customs; FTTTx 27-May-2009

FTTTx VAT – ASSESSMENT – FLAT RATE SCHEME – Appellant traded as courier – unaware of the change in the flat rate scheme from April 2004 – continued to apply the previous rate resulting in an under-payment of VAT – No deliberate attempt by the Appellant to avoid its responsibilities – Appellant believed that HMRC partly to blame for the default – no substantive challenge to the legality of the assessment – Appeal dismissed

Court: FTTTx
Date: 27-May-2009
Links: Bailii,
References: [2009] UKFTT 116 (TC),

Leave a Comment

Filed under VAT

AJoh, Regina (on the Application of) -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department; CA 4-Jul-2007

The applicant complained of the delay in the processing of her asylum application.
Held: ‘It was reasonable to expect that both [the applicant] and her husband would be aware of her precarious immigration status’.

Court: CA
Date: 04-Jul-2007
Judges: Sir Igor Judge P QBD, May, Moore-Bick LJJ
Links: Bailii,
References: [2007] EWCA Civ 655,
Cases Cited:
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Immigration

Sandwell Homes Limited (Decision Notice); ICO 17-Nov-2011

ICO The complainant has requested information relating to an incident that occurred and the decision of Sandwell Homes Limited (Sandwell) not to take action against an individual. The Commissioner’s decision is that Sandwell has correctly relied on section 40(2) (third party personal data) of FOIA to withhold all information that does not constitute the complainant’s personal data, which has been separately considered under the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this notice.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Court: ICO
Date: 17-Nov-2011
Links: Bailii,
References: [2011] UKICO FS50389812,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Information

Regina (Crown Prosecution Service) -v- Guildford Crown Court; QBD 4-Jul-2007

The defendant had been convicted of rape. The judge had decided that an extended sentence was appropriate, and added four years to the seven year sentence under section 227. However the judge had no jurisdiction to do so, he retired on the same day and could not correct his mistake, and the prosecution delayed the appeal beyond the time limit. They now asked the divisional court to quash the sentence to allow him to be resentenced.
Held: To found a jurisdiction to quash the order, the prosecution had to establish that the matter related to a trial on indictment. The court had no such jurisdiction in this case, and could only resentence if requested by the defendant, who made no such request. The sentence was not itself an nullity and must be left to stand.

Court: QBD
Date: 04-Jul-2007
Judges: Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers LCJ, Griffith Williams J
Statutes: Criminal Justice Act 2003 227
Links: Bailii,
References: Times, 16-Jul-2007, [2007] EWHC 1798 (Admin)
Cases Cited:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Criminal Practice, Criminal Sentencing

Okretowe -v- Rallo Vito & C. Snc & Another; ComC 14-Sep-2009

The defendants applied for a declaration that the court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case.

Court: ComC
Date: 14-Sep-2009
Links: Bailii,
References: [2009] EWHC 2249 (Comm),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Jurisdiction

Northern Ireland Office (Decision Notice); ICO 14-Sep-2009

ICO The complainant requested information relating to the decision to disband the three Home Service battalions of the Royal Irish Regiment. The Northern Ireland Office (the NIO) refused the request in reliance on the exemptions under sections 21, 35 and 36 of the Act. During the Commissioner’s investigation the NIO also sought to rely on the exemptions under section 26 and section 38 and section 40 of the Act, although it later withdrew reliance on section 26. Following the Commissioner’s intervention, the NIO released most of the requested information to the complainant. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2009/0090 has been disposed of by way of a consent order.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 35 – Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Court: ICO
Date: 14-Sep-2009
Links: Bailii,
References: [2009] UKICO FS50115412,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Information

North Yorkshire Police and Another v Revenue & Customs; FTTTx 14-Sep-2009

FTTTx Statutory payments – statutory maternity pay – date from which SMP payable – handling statutory payment appeals

Court: FTTTx
Date: 14-Sep-2009
Links: Bailii,
References: [2009] UKFTT 237 (TC),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Taxes - Other

Nester -v- Stuart; LT 4-Jul-2007

LT RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS – costs – single objector – objections withdrawn before exchange of expert reports -whether objector’s conduct unreasonable – objector ordered to pay applicants’ costs.

Court: LT
Date: 04-Jul-2007
Links: Bailii,
References: [2007] EWLands LP_53_2005,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Land

Lancashire Constabulary (Decision Notice); ICO 14-Sep-2009

ICO The complainant requested figures for information about the installation of imaging units; the number of Notes of Intended Prosecution (NIPS) issued at camera sites L4911, L4912 and K4946; and a breakdown of the outcome of the cases that resulted from these NIPS. The public authority refused to provide this information citing section 31(1)(a), (b) and (c) (Law Enforcement Exemption) and section 38(1)(a) and (b) (Health and Safety Exemption) as the basis for its refusal. The Commissioner decided that the public authority was correct to determine that the information was exempt under section 31(1)(a) and (b). He also found that section 31(1)(c) was not engaged in this case. As the Commissioner upheld the use of section 31(1)(a) and (b) he did not go on to consider the application of section 38(1)(a) and (b). The Commissioner does not require any remedial steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 31 – Complaint Not upheld

Court: ICO
Date: 14-Sep-2009
Links: Bailii,
References: [2009] UKICO FS50172691,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Information

Department of Trade and Industry (Decision Notice); ICO 4-Jul-2007

ICO The complainant requested a copy of information about meetings/correspondence between the DTI and the CBI for certain divisions of the DTI. The DTI provided the complainant with some of the information but claimed that the rest of the information was exempt from disclosure under sections 35, 36, 40 and 41 of the Act. Having investigated, the Commissioner does not accept that the public interest in withholding all of the information in respect of section 35 and 36 outweighs the public interest in disclosure and consequently finds that the exemptions were improperly applied to some of the information. Some of the information was, however, correctly withheld under the exemptions at sections 35, 36 and 40. The complaint is therefore partially upheld. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 35 – Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 36 – Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint Upheld

Court: ICO
Date: 04-Jul-2007
Links: Bailii,
References: [2007] UKICO FS50093052,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Information

Banco Nacional De Comercio Exterior Snc -v- Empresa De Telecommunicaciones De Cuba Sa and Another; CA 4-Jul-2007

Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to grant a worldwide freezing order following registration of a judgment under Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001 (the Regulation) in this case and whether the order should have contained the usual undertaking that ‘if the court later finds that this order has caused [anyone other than the respondent] loss, and decides that such person should be compensated for that loss, the applicant will comply with any order the court may make’.

Court: CA
Date: 04-Jul-2007
Judges: Tuckey LJ
Statutes: Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001
Links: Bailii,
References: [2007] EWCA Civ 662,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Litigation Practice

PLG Research Ltd and Another -v- Ardon International Ltd and Others; CA 1995

As to Catnic: ‘Lord Diplock was expounding the common law approach to the construction of a patent. This has been replaced by the approach laid down by the Protocol. If the two approaches are the same, reference to Lord Diplock’s formulation is unnecessary, while if they are different it is dangerous.’

Court: CA
Date: 01-Jan-1995
Judges: Millett LJ
Links: Times,
References: [1995] RPC 287,
Cases Cited:
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Intellectual Property

Khader -v- Aziz and Others; CA 23-Jun-2010

Court: CA
Date: 23-Jun-2010
Links: Bailii,
References: [2010] EWCA Civ 716, [2010] 1 WLR 2673, [2011] EMLR 2
Cases Cited:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Defamation

Birch -v- Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council; EAT 1995

‘The decision in the Commission’s case was on the basis of a concession made by the United Kingdom that non-profit-making organisations are excluded by the Regulations. That concession is not binding on the parties, or on the industrial tribunal or on this tribunal. No such concession has been made by the parties in this case. The Court made no determination of the scope of the derogation in reg. 2. Further, as far as the regulations were interpreted by the European Court of Justice (which we do not believe they were), that Court’s powers are limited to the interpretation of community law, and do not extend to the interpretation of domestic law. That is a matter for the domestic court.’

Court: EAT
Date: 01-Jan-1995
Judges: Mummery J, President
Statutes: Acquired Rights Directive (EC77/182), Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981
Links: Bailii,
References: [1995] IRLR 518, [1995] UKEAT 1083_93_2106
Cases Cited:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Employment

In Re S; CA 1995

Parents wanted their children to attend English middle schools in Wales. The Court dealt with the argument that the objective suitability of the nearer school had to be considered by the court on judicial review. Alternatively, it was argued that it was perverse of the LEA to decide that the Welsh school was suitable. As to Re C ‘In any event, I am clearly of the view that it was wrong and ‘suitable’ relates to the arrangements and not to the school. There is a distinction to be drawn between the objective suitability of the school which a child attends or may attend and the practical arrangements for the child’s attendance which may include the provision of free transport, boarding accommodation or enabling the child to become a registered pupil at a school nearer to his home within walking distance. Therefore, to take Roch J’s example (in ex p Schemet) it would be proper to question the suitability of the accommodation offered to the child’. As to parental choice: ‘It is inconceivable to my mind that Parliament intended the objective suitability of a school to be a defence in a subsection dealing with the lack of suitable arrangements for ensuring the attendance of a pupil. The requirement of considering objective suitability has to be inferred from the subsection and it is a construction which I do not consider it capable of bearing. Since I do not agree with [counsel's] construction of suitable arrangements it is not strictly necessary to consider the other arguments . . . ‘

Court: CA
Date: 01-Jan-1995
Judges: Butler-Sloss LJ
References: [1995] ELR 98,
Cases Cited:
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Education

Etat belge SPF Finances -v- Les Vergers Du Vieux Tauves; ECJ 22-Dec-2008

ECJ Corporation taxes – Directive 90/435/EEC – Status of parent company Capital holding Holding of shares in usufruct

Court: ECJ
Date: 22-Dec-2008
Statutes: Directive 90/435/EEC
Links: Bailii,
References: [2008] EUECJ C-48/07,
Cases Cited:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Corporation Tax, European

Keele University Students Union -v- Revenue & Customs; FTTTx 27-May-2009

FTTTx VAT – EXEMPT SUPPLIES – Cultural services

Court: FTTTx
Date: 27-May-2009
Links: Bailii,
References: [2009] UKFTT 114 (TC),

Leave a Comment

Filed under VAT

Jameel and Another -v- The Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl; QBD 5-Dec-2003

The defendant sought an order dismissing the defamation claim brought against it, saying that the rule that a defamation claim might be brought without proof of damage to reputation could not survive the introduction of the 1998 Act.

Court: QBD
Date: 05-Dec-2003
Judges: Eady J
Statutes: Human Rights Act 1998
Links: Bailii,
References: [2003] EWHC 2945 (QB), [2004] 2 All ER 92
Cases Cited:
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Defamation

HA (Conduct Of Hearing: Evidence Required) Somalia; AIT 27-May-2009

AIT Where a party who was represented at the hearing seeks reconsideration on the basis of the way it was conducted, reconsideration will not normally be granted without evidence on the point in question by way of a statement of truth from the representative, to which should be attached either a copy of any note on the point made by the representative at or near the time of the hearing, or an explanation of why no such note is available.

Court: AIT
Date: 27-May-2009
Judges: Ian Huddleston C
Links: Bailii,
References: [2009] UKAIT 00018,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Immigration

Warman International Ltd -v- Dwyer; 1995

(High Court of Australia) A fiduciary diverted a business in breach of his fiduciary duty.
Held: ‘The outcome in cases of this kind will depend upon a number of factors. They include the nature of the property, the relevant powers and obligations of the fiduciary and the relationship between the profit made and the powers and obligations of the fiduciary. Thus, according to the rule in Keech v. Sanford, a trustee of a tenancy who obtains for himself the renewal of a lease holds the new lease as a constructive trustee, even though the landlord is unwilling to grant it to the trust . . A similar approach will be adopted in a case in which a fiduciary acquires for himself a specific asset which falls within the scope and ambit of his fiduciary responsibilities, even if the asset is acquired by means of the skill and expertise of the fiduciary and would not otherwise have been available to the person to whom the fiduciary duty is owed. But a distinction should be drawn between cases in which a specific asset is acquired and cases in which a business is acquired and operated. Such a distinction was drawn by Upjohn J in In re Jarvis (decd) in the context of considering a defence of laches, acquiescence and delay. However, in our view, the distinction is also relevant in the context of the fiduciary’s liability to account for profits.’ Their Honours continued: ‘In the case of a business it may well be inappropriate and inequitable to compel the errant fiduciary to account for the whole of the profit of his conduct of the business or his exploitation of the principal’s goodwill over an indefinite period of time. In such a case, it may be appropriate to allow the fiduciary a proportion of the profits, depending upon the particular circumstances. That may well be the case when it appears that a significant proportion of an increase in profits has been generated by the skill, efforts, property and resources of the fiduciary, the capital which he has introduced and the risks he has taken, so long as they are not risks to which the principal’s property has been exposed. Then it may be said that the relevant proportion of the increased profits is not the product or consequence of the plaintiff’s property but the product of the fiduciary’s skill, efforts, property and resources. This is not to say that the liability of a fiduciary to account should be governed by the doctrine of unjust enrichment, though that doctrine may well have a useful part to play; it is simply to say that the stringent rule requiring a fiduciary to account for profits can be carried to extremes and … in cases outside the realm of specific assets the liability of the fiduciary should not be transformed into a vehicle for the unjust enrichment to the Plaintiff’.

Date: 01-Jan-1995
References: [1995] 128 ALR 201,
Cases Cited:
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Commonwealth, Trusts

Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (Decision Notice); ICO 14-Sep-2009

ICO The complainant requested information about whether the Council censored the local press, pointing to guidance for local authorities on community cohesion issued by the Department of Communities and Local Government that indicated that they worked together. The public authority responded that it did not hold any recorded information about this issue. The parties have agreed that on the balance of probabilities no relevant recorded information was held. However, the Commissioner has determined that the Council has breached sections 1(1)(a) and 10(1) in failing to explicitly deny it held relevant recorded information within the statutory timescales. The Commissioner requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Court: ICO
Date: 14-Sep-2009
Links: Bailii,
References: [2009] UKICO FS50236056,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Information

Shevill, Ixora Trading Inc., Chequepoint SARL and Chequepoint International Ltd -v- Presse Alliance SA; ECJ 7-Mar-1995

On a proper construction of the expression ‘place where the harmful event occurred’ in Article 5(3) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the accession of the Hellenic Republic, the victim of a libel by a newspaper article distributed in several Contracting States may bring an action for damages against the publisher either before the courts of the Contracting State of the place where the publisher of the defamatory publication is established, which have jurisdiction to award damages for all the harm caused by the defamation, or before the courts of each Contracting State in which the publication was distributed and where the victim claims to have suffered injury to his reputation, which have jurisdiction to rule solely in respect of the harm caused in the State of the court seised. The criteria for assessing whether the event in question is harmful and the evidence required of the existence and extent of the harm alleged by the plaintiff in an action in tort, delict or quasi-delict are not governed by the Convention but are determined in accordance with the substantive law designated by the national conflict of laws rules of the court seised on the basis of the Convention, provided that the effectiveness of the Convention is not thereby impaired. The fact that under the national law applicable to the main proceedings damage is presumed in libel actions, so that the plaintiff does not have to adduce evidence of the existence and extent of that damage, does not therefore preclude the application of Article 5(3) of the Convention.
The Court considered jurisdiction in relation to an action for defamation under article 5(3), observing: ‘In the area of non-contractual liability, the context in which the questions referred have arisen, the sole object of the Convention is to determine which court or courts have jurisdiction to hear the dispute by reference to the place or places where an event considered harmful occurred.
It does not, however, specify the circumstances in which the event giving rise to the harm may be considered to be harmful to the victim, or the evidence which the plaintiff must adduce before the court seised to enable it to rule on the merits of the case.
Those questions must therefore be settled solely by the national court seised, applying the substantive law determined by its national conflict of laws rules, provided that the effectiveness of the Convention is not thereby impaired.’

Court: ECJ
Date: 07-Mar-1995
Statutes: Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 5(3)
Links: Bailii,
References: C-68/93, [1995] ECR I-415, [1995] EUECJ C-68/93
Cases Cited:
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under European, Jurisdiction

LA (Para 289A: Causes Of Breakdown) Pakistan; AIT 27-May-2009

AIT In the light of AG (India) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] EWCA Civ 1534, when deciding if an appellant who is the victim of domestic violence has proved that the ‘relationship was caused to permanently break down before the end of that period as a result of domestic violence’ the Tribunal must be careful to assess the evidence in the round, looking at the totality of the evidence and remembering that a broken marriage may have ended before the parties separate and the marriage may have broken down as a result of domestic violence even if other grounds are given in matrimonial proceedings or raised before the Tribunal.

Court: AIT
Date: 27-May-2009
Links: Bailii,
References: [2009] UKAIT 00019,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Immigration

In re G (A Minor)(Care Order: Threshold Conditions); FD 1995

The court considered the standard of evidence required to satisfy the threshold condition under the Act: ‘The inescapable construction of section 31, in my judgment, is that the court has to be satisfied by evidence that the significant harm suffered by the child is attributable to the care, or absence of care, given to the child by the parent against whom the order is sought.’

Court: FD
Date: 01-Jan-1995
Judges: Waller J
Statutes: Children Act 1989 31
References: [1995] Fam 16,
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Children

Howell and others -v- Lees Millais and others; CA 4-Jul-2007

Appeal against refusal of judge to recuse himself after acrimonuious correspondence between judge and other members of the claimant’s solicitors firm who now asserted apparent bias.

Court: CA
Date: 04-Jul-2007
Judges: Sir Anthony Clarke MR
Links: Bailii,
References: [2007] EWCA Civ 720,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Litigation Practice

El Ajou -v- Dollar Land Holdings Plc; ChD 1995

The tracing of assets into the hands of a third party depends upon a notional charge. There are no inflexible rules. The essential elements of ‘knowing receipt’ are: ‘For this purpose the plaintiff must show, first, a disposal of his assets in breach of fiduciary duty; secondly, the beneficial receipt by the defendant of assets which are traceable as representing assets of the plaintiff; and thirdly, knowledge on the part of the defendant that the assets he received are traceable to a breach of fiduciary duty.’ The successful completion of a tracing exercise may be preliminary to a personal claim.

Court: ChD
Date: 01-Jan-1995
Judges: Robert Walker J
References: [1995] 2 All ER 213,
Cases Cited:
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Equity

East Hampshire District Council (Decision Notice); ICO 4-Jul-2007

ICO The complainant asked the Council for information concerning the job descriptions of employees who had attended particular training courses. The complainant also requested information concerning the Council’s application of the Hay job evaluation process. The Council withheld part of the requested information under section 40 (personal information). It withheld information concerning the Hay job evaluation process under section 36 (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs). The Commissioner agreed that part of the requested information was exempt under section 40 but decided that the information withheld under section 36 should be released. He also found that the Council had breached section 17 of the Act by its failure to address the public interest test in respect of its application of section 36.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 36 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Court: ICO
Date: 04-Jul-2007
Links: Bailii,
References: [2007] UKICO FS50085777,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Information

Tennaro Ltd -v- Majorarch; 2003

The parties entered into three related contracts to grant long leases of three flats in the same block (Nos 37, 32 and 31), and deposits paid. The vendor served notices to complete and when the purchaser did not comply, he rescinded each agreement and forfeited the deposits. The purchaser sought repayment of the deposits under section 49(2).
Held: Special circumstances are needed to justify the return of a deposit where the purchaser is in breach of contract. The fact that the vendor has resold the property elsewhere for a profit might constitute such a special circumstance. Two of the deposits were ordered to be returned. As to Dimsdale, Neuberger J said: ‘As I understand it, (the judge) considered that the fact that the Seller had sold the property at a substantially higher price than it would have received under the contract with the defaulting Buyer, was the crucial factor which justified the return of the deposit. However, it is right to add that he made deductions from the deposit, in favour of the Seller, in relation to expenditure wasted by the Seller under the abortive contract.’

Date: 01-Jan-2003
Judges: Neuberger J
Statutes: Law of Property Act 1925 49(2)
References: [2003] EWHC 2601,
Cases Cited:
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Contract, Land

Spook Erection Ltd -v- City of Edinburgh District Council; ScSf 1995

Court: ScSf
Date: 01-Jan-1995
References: 1995 SLT (Sh Ct) 107,
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Local Government, Scotland

Regina -v- Humphreys; CACD 1995

Defence of provocation to murder. Abnormal immaturity and attention seeking by wrist slashing were mental characteristics which should have been left for the jury to decide upon.

Court: CACD
Date: 01-Jan-1995
References: [1995] 4 All ER 1008,
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Crime

MD Foods -v- Baines and others; ChD 1995

An agreement between a dairy and a milk roundsman under which the agreed not to sell milk to each others clients was not registerable as a restrictive trade practice.

Court: ChD
Date: 01-Jan-1995
Judges: Sir John Vinelott
References: [1995] ICR 296,
Cases Cited:
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Commercial

Patel -v- Nagesan; CA 1995

Mrs Nagesan’s contract specified no retirement age. She was dismissed on attaining 60. The employers disputed the tribunal’s jurisdiction, saying they had written to all employees, including Mrs Nagesan, purporting to introduce a new retiring age of 60 for all. Mrs Nagesan had refused to accept the new terms and had maintained that no specific retirement age applied to her. The employers claimed that a new contract of employment was in force with Mrs Nagesan which did incorporate this new retirement age. The industrial tribunal rejected this contention, finding that ‘there was no retirement age of 60 in Mrs Nagesan’s case’, and the EAT dismissed the employers’ appeal. ‘All that the evidence amounts to, in my judgment, is that the Patels were attempting to impose on her a contract with a term that she retire at 60, an imposition which she resisted. If one tests it with Lord Fraser’s words in mind, by asking what the employee’s reasonable expectation at the time was, it clearly was not that she would have to retire at 60. [Counsel for Mrs Nagesan] puts it in this way: he says you cannot talk of a group expectation when her position is unique. A concept of a normal retiring age simply does not apply. In this context, I would read the words of the appeal tribunal in the final paragraph of their judgment: ‘The contention on behalf of the employer was that, because all the other employees had been persuaded to accept 60 as their retiring age for the future, that became the ‘normal’ age for retirement and the employee’s case therefore failed. We accept the contention of the employee that, as the ‘person in charge’ with responsibilities which statute imposes upon an individual holding that office, she was in a unique position. We consider that there was ample evidence upon which the tribunal could find that there was no retirement age specified and that accordingly the statutory retirement age of 65 now applies, there being no other ‘normal’ retirement age. It is noteworthy that at least one other employee had been employed when already over the age of 60.”

Court: CA
Date: 01-Jan-1995
Judges: McCowan LJ
References: [1995] ICR 988,
Cases Cited:
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Employment

Regina -v- Napper; CACD 1995

The operation of section 35 is not to be reduced or marginalised.

Court: CACD
Date: 01-Jan-1995
Judges: Lord Taylor of Gosforth CJ
Statutes: Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 35
References: (1995) 161 JP 16,
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Criminal Practice

Regina -v- Jennings and Miles; CACD 1995

When an application is made to have evidence admitted under the 1988 Act, the evidence in support of that application must be given under oath.

Court: CACD
Date: 01-Jan-1995
Statutes: Criminal Justice Act 1988 23(3)
References: [1995] Crim LR 810,
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Criminal Practice

Re T and E (proceedings: conflicting interests); 1995

Where a court had to recincile conflicting interests involving children, the court must normally undertake a balancing exercise to achieve the situation of least detriment.

Date: 01-Jan-1995
References: [1995] 1 FLR 581,
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Health

Nailrile Ltd -v- Cadogan and Others; LT 22-Dec-2008

LT LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT – intermediate leasehold interests – how to be valued Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 Schedule 13 paras 6, 7.

Court: LT
Date: 22-Dec-2008
Statutes: Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993
Links: Bailii,
References: [2008] EWLands LRA_114_2006,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Landlord and Tenant

Lait MP -v- Evening Standard Ltd; QBD 25-Mar-2010

The claimant MP alleged defamation. The defendant applied to have certain alleged meanings in the article struck out. The article related to the alleged relation to repayment of expenses claims in her capacity as an MP.
Held: Though certain elements were overpleaded, there remained defamatory meanings.

Court: QBD
Date: 25-Mar-2010
Judges: Eady J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2010] EWHC 642 (QB),
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Defamation

Jameel, Abdul Latif Jameel Company Limited -v- The Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl; QBD 2003

Court: QBD
Date: 01-Jan-2003
Judges: Eady J
References: [2003] EWHC 2945 (QB), [2004] 2 All ER 92
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Defamation

Godfrey -v- Lees; 1995

The court described the test for joint authorship in a work of music: ‘What the claimant to joint authorship of a work must establish is that he has made a significant and original contribution to the creation of the work and that he has done so pursuant to a common design. See, for example, Stuart v. Barrett [1994] EMLR 448. It is not necessary that his contribution to the work is equal in terms of either quantity, quality or originality to that of his collaborators. Nor, in the case of a song, does it matter that his contribution is to the orchestral arrangement of the song rather than to the song itself.’

Date: 01-Jan-1995
Judges: Blackburne J
References: [1995] EMLR 307,
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Intellectual Property