OA344642007 (Unreported); AIT 7-May-2008

Court: AIT
Date: 07-May-2008
Links: Bailii,
References: [2008] UKAITUR OA344642007,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Immigration

OA290032007 (Unreported); AIT 7-May-2008

Court: AIT
Date: 07-May-2008
Links: Bailii,
References: [2008] UKAITUR OA290032007,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Immigration

OA214932007 & OA218232007 (Unreported); AIT 7-May-2008

Court: AIT
Date: 07-May-2008
Links: Bailii,
References: [2008] UKAITUR OA214932007,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Immigration

IA215362007 (Unreported); AIT 7-May-2008

Court: AIT
Date: 07-May-2008
Links: Bailii,
References: [2008] UKAITUR IA215362007,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Immigration

IA214992007 (Unreported); AIT 7-May-2008

Court: AIT
Date: 07-May-2008
Links: Bailii,
References: [2008] UKAITUR IA214992007,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Immigration

IA191782007 (Unreported); AIT 7-May-2008

Court: AIT
Date: 07-May-2008
Links: Bailii,
References: [2008] UKAITUR IA191782007,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Immigration

IA183442007 (Unreported); AIT 7-May-2008

Court: AIT
Date: 07-May-2008
Links: Bailii,
References: [2008] UKAITUR IA183442007,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Immigration

IA137902007 (Unreported); AIT 7-May-2008

Court: AIT
Date: 07-May-2008
Links: Bailii,
References: [2008] UKAITUR IA137902007,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Immigration

VA384242007 & VA384262007 (Unreported); AIT 7-May-2008

Court: AIT
Date: 07-May-2008
Links: Bailii,
References: [2008] UKAITUR VA384242007,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Immigration

United Fish Industries (UK) Ltd -v- Herbert; EAT 18-Jan-2002

EAT Unfair Dismissal – Procedural fairness/automatically unfair dismissal.

Court: EAT
Date: 18-Jan-2002
Judges: His Hon Judge J R Reid QC
Links: Bailii, EAT,
References: EAT/792/01, EAT/226/01, [2002] UKEAT 226_01_0905
Cases Cited:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Employment

United Fish Industries (UK) Ltd -v- Herbert; EAT 3-Apr-2001

Court: EAT
Date: 03-Apr-2001
Links: Bailii,
References: [2001] UKEAT 226_01_0304,
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Employment

Davenport and Others, Regina -v-; QBD 8-Dec-2005

An application was made for consent to file a voluntary bill against the defendants.
Held: Mr Justice Pitchers said: ‘No application for a voluntary bill is, in form, an appeal from a decision from another court. However, at least when a High Court Judge is considering an application following a refusal of justices to commit for trial, the decision of a lower court is being considered by a judge of a higher court. There may then be scope for taking a broader view of the circumstances in which it is right in effect to overturn the decision of the lower court. That is not this case and I express no further view on the point.
That cannot be said where an application for a voluntary bill is made after dismissal of transferred charges. It happens that the decision in this case was taken by a Circuit Judge but it might well have been taken by another High Court Judge. In those circumstances, it must, in my judgment, be wrong in principle for the prosecution to be able to get round a decision they do not like by inviting another judge to take a different view of the same material that was before the judge who dismissed the charge. In R v The Crown Court at Snaresbrook ex parte the Director of the Serious Fraud Office (1998) LSG 35, the Divisional Court pointed out that Bell J had refused to grant a voluntary bill on the basis that the application was in effect an appeal from one single judge to another single judge whose judgment appeared to be clearly and carefully reasoned. He said it was not obviously wrong or unreasonable.
I make no attempt to list the circumstances in which it might in general be appropriate to invoke the exceptional procedure of applying for a voluntary bill in transferred cases. That said, an obvious example would be if the judge had not had a crucial authority or statutory provision drawn to his attention. The context of this case is that the judge in dismissing the charges took the decision after detailed and careful argument and gave full and clear reasoned judgments. In this case, apart from one point made about the judge’s treatment of one area of evidence, the crown do not really argue he erred in law.
Therefore, to the extent that the crown argue I should come to a different decision from the judge on the same material that was before him, I reject the argument as fundamentally flawed.’

Court: QBD
Date: 08-Dec-2005
Judges: Pichers J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2005] EWHC 2828 (QB),
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Criminal Practice

Davenport -v- The City of Westminster; CA 19-Apr-2011

The appellant challenged an injunction preventing him making any development of a property without planning permission. He was said to have been using it for commercial purposes without such.

Court: CA
Date: 19-Apr-2011
Judges: Pill, Hooper, Munby LJJ
Statutes: Town & Country Planning Act 1990 172
Links: Bailii,
References: [2011] EWCA Civ 458,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Planning

Regina -v- Wright; 2014

The court decided to refuse to lift a stay granted by a circuit judge, but to permit the admission of evidence founding counts subject to this delay as evidence of very similar conduct, adduced to rebut any suggestion of concoction or mistake.

Date: 01-Jan-2014
References: [2014] EWCA Crim 1790,
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Criminal Practice

Olsen Doors & Windows Ltd -v- Davenport; NOM 6-Jul-2012

Full Decision – Transfer

Court: NOM
Date: 06-Jul-2012
Links: Bailii,
References: [2012] DRS 11309,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Intellectual Property

Austin And Others -v- The United Kingdom; ECHR 15-Mar-2012

Grand Chamber – The applicants complained that their restriction within a police cordon (a measure known as ‘kettling’) for up to seven hours during the course of a demonstration in central London amounted to a deprivation of their liberty in breach of Article 5-1 of the Convention.

Court: ECHR
Date: 15-Mar-2012
Judges: Francoise Tulkens, P
Statutes: European Convention on Human Rights 5-1
Links: Bailii,
References: (2012) 55 EHRR 14, [2012] Crim LR 544, 32 BHRC 618, 39692/09, [2012] ECHR 459
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Human Rights, Police

Barron, Regina (on the Application of) -v- Surrey County Council; CA 18-Jan-2002

Directions for a hearing before a full three man court of appeal after finding that the point at issue was an important issue relating to access to the court of appeal in representative public law proceedings where the claim is brought by one person on behalf of herself and others who are involved in the same issue.

Court: CA
Date: 18-Jan-2002
Judges: Brook, Mance LJJ
Links: Bailii,
References: [2002] EWCA Civ 53,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Administrative, Litigation Practie

Monavon Construction Ltd -v- Davenport and Another No. 2; TCC 17-Jul-2006

Court: TCC
Date: 17-Jul-2006
Links: Bailii,
References: [2006] EWHC 1810 (TCC),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Costs

Betts -v- Tokley; CA 18-Jan-2002

The appellant fell whilst leaving the premises of the respondent, her employer, and sustained a serious fracture to her humerus. The County Court Judge concluded that she had fallen down some steps which should have been lit. He held that the respondent was accordingly in breach of his ordinary duty of care at common law, and the common duty of care owed to the appellant as lawful visitor. He also found her contributorily negligent to the extent of 60%. She now appealed against that apportionment.
Held: The appeal failed. She had ‘to establish that no reasonable judge could have come to such a conclusion if he is to succeed. The statement of facts which I have related indicates, of itself, that the appellant was clearly at fault in the way she approached the dark area. As the judge essentially put it, she pressed on regardless of the risk, and the risk was the risk of tripping or falling, which is what ultimately happened to her.’

Court: CA
Date: 18-Jan-2002
Judges: Buxton, Latham LJJ
Statutes: Occupier's Liability Act 1997, Workplace (Health, Safety & Welfare) Regulations 1992
Links: Bailii,
References: [2002] EWCA Civ 52,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Health and Safety, Personal Injury

Base Metal Trading Ltd -v- Shamurin; CA 18-Jan-2002

Renewed application by the defendant for permission to appeal.

Court: CA
Date: 18-Jan-2002
Links: Bailii,
References: [2002] EWCA Civ 40,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Litigation Practice

Attorney General

There had been delay by the prosecution in bringing a police officer to trial, so that the trial was not due to start till 27 months after the alleged offence.
Held: The trial judge ordered a stay of the proceedings. The traditional common law approach to abuse of process cases is that the courts may in their discretion, refuse the relief of a stay where to proceed would not amount to an abuse of process, or the unfairness could be cured. ‘The trial process itself is equipped to deal with the bulk of complaints which have founded applications for a stay.’ The power to order a stay is ‘a power to be exercised only in exceptional cases’.

Court: CACD
Date: 01-Jan-1990
Judges: Lord Lane CJ
References: [1992] QB 630, (1992) 95 Cr App R 296
Cases Cited:
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Criminal Practice

Director of Public Prosecutions -v- Brooks; PC 1974

The defendant appealed against a conviction for the possession of drugs.
Held: ‘In the ordinary use of the word ‘possession’, one has in one’s possession whatever is, to one’s knowledge, physically in one’s custody or under one’s physical control.’

Court: PC
Date: 01-Jan-1974
Judges: Lord Diplock
References: [1974] AC 862,
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Commonwealth, Crime

Wright -v- Nipponkoa Insurance (Europe) Ltd; EAT 17-Sep-2014

EAT Practice and Procedure : Striking-Out/Dismissal – (1) Strike-out
The EJ had been entitled to have regard to the case of the person (who shared the relevant protected characteristic with the Claimant) appointed to the position in issue. Whilst not the Claimant’s actual comparator, this was an appropriate evidential comparison and the EJ was entitled to have regard to this case when testing the possible construction of a hypothetical comparator.
This was all the more so given the difficulty in understanding the Claimant’s case. Allowing that ‘race’ can be defined broadly and can take into account cultural/ethnic traits, there was no basis (other than racial stereotype) for the Claimant’s assertion that he suffered detriment as a result of Japanese cultural deference.
The EJ had been entitled to conclude that claims 2 and 3 had no reasonable prospect of success and should be struck out.
(2) Deposit Orders
Save in respect of claim 6, the EJ had applied the correct test and was entitled to reach the conclusion that the allegations had little reasonable prospect of success and should therefore be made subject to deposit orders.
In relation to claim 6, the EJ had not taken account of the way in which the Claimant put his case in terms of the copying him into an email in Japanese, which might be construed as insulting about him. His case was that he had been copied in on the basis of an assumption that, as an English member of staff, he could not understand Japanese and so this was mocking him. The failure to take that argument (which was rather more readily comprehensible as a complaint of race discrimination than the others) into account could amount to a failure to have regard to a relevant factor and on that basis the deposit order of this claim could not safely stand.
(3) The Quantum of the Deposit Orders
The 2013 Rules permitted the making of separate deposit orders in respect of individual arguments or allegations and the EJ had been entitled to make a number of such orders. If making a number of deposit orders, how ever, an EJ (or ET) should have regard to the question of proportionality in terms of the total award made. Here the EJ did so. He had reached decisions in respect of the amount of each deposit order that were entirely open to him and had had proper regard to the total sum awarded. There was no error of law.

Court: EAT
Date: 17-Sep-2014
Judges: Eady QC HHJ
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] UKEAT 0113_14_1709,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Discrimination, Employment

Ridge -v- HM Land Registry; EAT 19-Jun-2014

EAT Estoppel or abuse of process
Contract of employment
Appeal allowed and claims remitted for re-hearing before a freshly constituted Employment Tribunal because (1) the Employment Tribunal made, on the first day of the hearing, a ruling on issue estoppel which was incorrect in law and which foreclosed part of the Claimant’s case; (2) the Employment Tribunal gave no adequate reasons for a finding that it was an abuse of the process for the Claimant to raise other aspects of his case; and (3) the Employment Tribunal, when denying the Claimant’s contract claim on the basis that it was extinguished by an overpayment to him, gave no adequate reasons for its finding that there was an overpayment.

Court: EAT
Date: 19-Jun-2014
Judges: David Richardson HHJ
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] UKEAT 0485_12_1906,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Employment

Regina -v- Jackson; CACD 22-Jul-2011

The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder arguing that the judge had wrongly admitted the fact that he had a previous conviction for murder, and further that an officer and the judge had incorrectly stated that two other possible suspects had been eliminated.

Court: CACD
Date: 22-Jul-2011
Judges: Pitchford LJ, David, Ryder JJ
Links: Bailii,
References: [2011] EWCA Crim 1870,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Crime

Davenport -v- Farrow; QBD 18-Mar-2010

The claimant athlete sought damages for personal injury from his athletics coach. He had complained of pain to his coach, but said he had been encouraged to continue training, resulting in serious injury and damage to his athletics career.
Held: The conflicting evidence was found to indicate that the injury predated the intensive training period alleged to be its cause. The claim failed.

Court: QBD
Date: 18-Mar-2010
Judges: Owen J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2010] EWHC 550 (QB),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Personal Injury

City of Westminster -v- Davenport and Another; QBD 30-Jul-2010

The court granted to Westminster an injunction forbidding defined uses of property in London. The defendant and persons unknown, were forbidden from using any part of the property for commercial or non-residential purposes and from undertaking any development in respect of the property without an express grant of planning permission.

Court: QBD
Date: 30-Jul-2010
Judges: Eady J
Statutes: Town and Country Planning Act 1990 187B
Links: Bailii,
References: [2010] EWHC 2016 (QB),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Planning

Regina -v- Burns, Paul; CACD 27-Apr-2010

The defendant appealed against his conviction for assault. He had picked up a sex worker, driven away, but then changed his mind, and forcibly removed her from the car when she delayed. He now argued that he had the same right at common law to remove her from trespassing in his car as he would if she was in his house.
Held: The appeal failed. The implicit agreement was that, having driven away for some distance, he would return her. He had not been acting in self-defence. The law should be reluctant to extend the civil remedy of self help to occasions which might come to violence. There had been no need or right to resort to violence in this case, he could simply have done what he had agreed to do, to return her to where they had started.

Court: CACD
Date: 27-Apr-2010
Judges: Lord Judge LCJ
Statutes: Offences Against the Person Act 1861 47
Links: Bailii, Times, WLRD,
References: [2010] EWCA Crim 1023, [2010] WLR (D) 110, [2010] 2 Cr App R 16, [2010] Crim LR 767
Cases Cited:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Crime

Regina -v- Egan (Paul); CACD 16-Feb-2004

A judge must be given full details of an offender’s sentencing history if his task is not to be impossible. They had not been made available routinely and should be.

Court: CACD
Date: 16-Feb-2004
Judges: Mantell, Butterfield LJJ, Hodgson J
References: Times, 09-Mar-2004,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Criminal Sentencing

Callander -v- Oelrichs And Another; 12-Nov-1838

The court considered the extent of a duty of care which might be owed by an agent.
Bosanquet J. said: ‘The jury were warranted in concluding, that if the Defendants were to effect an insurance upon the terms in question, they undertook to give notice in case of failure: that undertaking arises out of the nature of the case, and the relation in which the parties stood to each other: and according to the principle laid down in Smith v. Lascelles if a merchant is led, from previous transactions, to expect that his correspondent will effect an insurance, he has a right to rely on his discharging that duty, unless he receives a letter to the contrary.
Whether that expectation arises from previous dealings, or from an undertaking to insure in the particular instance, can make no difference; and Buller J. says, ‘Where the merchant abroad has no effects in the hands of his correspondent, yet, if the course of dealing between them be such that the one has been used to send orders for insurance, and the other to comply with them, the former has a right to expect that his orders for insurance will be obeyed, unless the latter give him notice to discontinue that course of dealing.”

Date: 12-Nov-1838
Links: Commonlii,
References: , [1838] EngR 915, (1838) 5 Bing NC 58, (1838) 132 ER 1026

Leave a Comment

Filed under Agency, Insurance

Jandu -v- Crane Legal Ltd; EAT 11-Apr-2014

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reasonableness of dismissal
UNLAWFUL DEDUCTION FROM WAGES
The Appellant, a solicitor, was employed under a contract of employment that contained a bonus entitlement. He was dismissed on grounds that he claimed bonuses to which he was not entitled. The ET dismissed his claims for unfair dismissal, unlawful deduction of wages and breach of contract. The issue before the EAT was whether the Respondent had reasonable grounds for its belief that the Appellant was guilty of gross misconduct. The EAT was satisfied that it was so entitled. Accordingly the appeal against the dismissal of the unfair dismissal complaint failed. The EAT further held that if the Appellant had a good claim for bonus, which he did not, it would have to be brought as a claim for breach of contract as his loss, if any, was very difficult to quantify (see Coors Brewers Ltd v Adcock [2007] ICR 983). In fact there was no loss.

Court: EAT
Date: 11-Apr-2014
Judges: Supperstone J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] UKEAT 0198_13_1104,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Employment

Crown Prosecution Service (Durham) -v- Nelson; CPS -v- Pathak; CPS -v- Paulet; CACD 28-Jul-2009

Nelson had been found possessing a stolen digger worth £14,000. It was returned to the owner. He was to receive £1,000 for supplying documents for it. Pathak used monet stolen from his employers to purchase property, but had repaid the money stolen. The property was ordered to be confiscated. Paulet as an immigrant had worked illegally. He was ordered to repay his net earnings. The Crown appealed against an order staying their applications under the 2002 act as an abuse, and oppressive.
Held: The CPS application had been in accordance with statutory provisions, and it was wrong to treat such an application as an abuse. The case of Smith remains good law despite the decision in Jennings.
Lord Judge was concerned that stays for abuse were being too readily granted by the courts: ‘Abuses of the confiscation process may occur and, when they do, the appropriate remedy will normally be a stay of proceedings. However an abuse of process argument cannot be founded on the basis that the consequences of the proper application of the legislative structure may produce an ‘oppressive’ result with which the judge may be unhappy. Although the court may, of its own initiative, invoke the confiscation process, the responsibility for deciding whether properly to seek a confiscation order is effectively vested in the Crown. When it does so, the court lacks any corresponding discretion to interfere with that decision if it has been made in accordance with the statute. The just result of these proceedings is the result produced by the proper application of the statutory provisions as interpreted in the House of Lords and in this court. However to conclude that proceedings properly taken in accordance with statutory provisions constitute an abuse of process is tantamount to asserting a power in the court to dispense with the statute.’

Court: CACD
Date: 28-Jul-2009
Judges: Lord Judge LCJ
Statutes: Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 31
Links: Bailii, WLRD,
References: [2009] EWCA Crim 1573, [2009] WLR (D) 266, [2010] 2 WLR 788
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Criminal Sentencing

Selvanayagam -v- United Kingdom; ECHR 12-Dec-2002

Any presumption of law which had operated against the applicant had been within reasonable limits, had taken account of the importance of what was at stake and had maintained the rights of the defence.

Court: ECHR
Date: 12-Dec-2002
Statutes: European Convention on Human Rights 10
Links: Bailii,
References: Unreported, 12 December 2002, 57981/00, [2002] ECHR 857
Cases Cited:
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Crime, Human Rights

McCabe -v- Greater Glasgow Health Board; EAT 10-Jun-2014

EAT Jurisdictional Points : Claim In Time and Effective Date of Termination
UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Dismissal/ambiguous resignation
A claim for unfair dismissal was held out of time on the basis that the dismissal occurred on 1 November, but the ET1 was filed on the following 15 February. The Claimant asserted that the EDT was 29 November, since there was no gross misconduct, she was entitled to notice, and had been told she would receive notice pay. She said giving her notice was what the parties intended. Her claim for discrimination on the ground of her disability relied on dismissal as the last identified act, and in the absence of any evidence or submission that it was just and equitable that time should be extended the Employment Tribunal held that out of time too.
Held. An Employment Tribunal had to approach the question whether a dismissal was with or without notice objectively. The intention of the parties could be derived only from what they did and what the surrounding circumstances showed was probable. If, objectively viewed, there was a dismissal without notice it did not matter that this would be a breach of contract by the employer or that the employer may not have intended it: there was only a very limited role for evidence of one party’s expressed intention. Objectively, the Employment Tribunal was entitled to conclude there was a dismissal on 1 November.
A submission that the rejection of the appeal against dismissal was an act of discrimination, and because of its date extended time for the acts relied on to within three months of the claim, asserted a continuing act of which there was no sign in the ET1, where the last act relied on had been dismissal itself. This submission was rejected. The process of appeal did not in this case extend time to within the primary period. Since the Employment Tribunal was not bound to consider if time should be extended without there being evidence or submission to that effect, the appeal was dismissed. An application for costs was rejected.

Court: EAT
Date: 10-Jun-2014
Judges: Langstaff P J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] UKEAT 0004_14_1006,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Employment

In Re O (Restraint Order: Disclosure of Assets); 1991

A restraint order had been made against O in an action under the 1988 Act. He sought a variation. On the application of the prosecutor he was ordered to file an affidavit of means. He sought to appeal, but the prosecutor said no appeal lay.
Held: An appeal was possible. It succeeded only to the extent that the court ordered that it should not be available in evidence against the defendant in criminal proceedings against O or his wife. Donaldson J drew a distinction between a judgment ‘in a criminal cause or matter’ and a judgment ‘collateral to a criminal cause or matter’.’

Date: 01-Jan-1991
Judges: Donaldson J
Statutes: Criminal Justice Act 1988 77(1)
References: [1991] 2 QB 520,
Cases Cited:
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Criminal Practice

In re B (a Child); B -v- W; CA 21-Jan-2014

F’s adjourned applications for permission to appeal the orders of HHJ Roddy made on 3 June 2013 and 28 October 2013; the former allowing the mother’s appeal from the order of the Tameside Family Proceedings Court, the latter her own order on a hearing de novo of the evidence and which consequently granted the mother permission to re-locate with their child E to London from Manchester.

Court: CA
Date: 21-Jan-2014
Judges: Moore-Bick, Kitchin, Macur DBE LJJ
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] EWCA Civ 19,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Children

Duncan -v- Ministry of Defence; EAT 2-Oct-2014

Sex Discrimination : Jurisdiction – Section 121 Equality Act 2010 – purposive construction required to achieve lawful balance between the statutory aim of enabling the Armed Forces to determine complaints internally prior to litigation and a complainant’s right of access to a Court/Tribunal within a reasonable time. That could be achieved by reading section 121(2) EqA as operating as a jurisdictional bar only where the right (under the Armed Forces Redress of Individual Grievances (Procedure and Time Limits) Regulations 2007) to make a referral to the Defence Council has arisen and has not been exercised.
The Employment Judge’s failure to give this provision such a purposive construction had led him to strike out the Claimant’s Employment Tribunal claim. It was now common ground that the Employment Judge’s ruling amounted to an error of law and the appeal should be allowed on this basis.
Costs – given the outcome of the appeal, the Employment Tribunal’s costs award against the Claimant cannot stand. By consent the Respondent is ordered to pay the Claimant’s costs of the appeal and those occasioned by its application to strike out the claim before the Employment Tribunal.

Court: EAT
Date: 02-Oct-2014
Judges: Eady QC HHJ
Statutes: Equality Act 2010 121, Armed Forces Redress of Individual Grievances (Procedure and Time Limits) Regulations 2007
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] UKEAT 0191_14_0210,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Armed Forces, Costs, Discrimination, Employment

S, Regina -v-; CACD 6-Mar-2006

The court restated the principles applying a stay for abuse of process occasioned by delay. Rose VP LJ said: , the correct approach for a judge to whom an application for a stay for abuse of process on the ground of delay is made, is to bear in mind the following principles:
(i) Even where delay is unjustifiable, a permanent stay should be the exception rather than the rule;
(ii) Where there is no fault on the part of the complainant or the prosecution, it will be very rare for a stay to be granted;
(iii) No stay should be granted in the absence of serious prejudice to the defence so that no fair trial can be held;
(iv) When assessing possible serious prejudice, the judge should bear in mind his or her power to regulate the admissibility of evidence and that the trial process itself should ensure that all relevant factual issues arising from delay will be placed before the jury for their consideration in accordance with appropriate direction from the judge;
(v) If, having considered all these factors, a judge’s assessment is that a fair trial will be possible, a stay should not be granted.’

Court: CACD
Date: 06-Mar-2006
Judges: Rose VP LJ, Stanley Burnton, Hedley JJ
Links: Bailii,
References: [2006] 2 Cr App R 23, 170 JP 434, [2007] Crim LR 296, (2006) 170 JP 434, [2006] EWCA Crim 756
Cases Cited:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Criminal Practice

Wright -v- Commissioner of Police for The Metropolis; QBD 11-Sep-2013

The claimant sought damages for false imprisonment and infrimgement of his human rights in the manner of the defendant’s management of a demonstration in which he was involved. The issue was whether ilce action was justified on the basis that the defendant’s actions were likely to encourage others to breach the peace.
Held: The police officers honestly believed that a breach of the peace was about to occur; the key question is: did the officers have reasonable grounds for that belief: ‘ there would be a real danger of falling into the trap of circularity of reasoning which both the Claimant and Mr Southey forcibly mentioned. If, ex hypothesi, there are no reasonable grounds, how can the police create those grounds by informing protesters that unless they comply they will be arrested? Although the Defendant’s position was that a reasonable protester would want to enter the pen, I can see the force of the argument that this assumes too much and places a form of burden of persuasion or justification on the Claimant. In truth, the onus is on the police to justify containment and the protester is quite entitled to say: ‘I am not causing a breach of the peace: let me stand on my rights’.’
However, as matters progressed, the police did come to have reasonable grounds as required, and ‘Had it not been for the Claimant’s own actions, I am far from convinced that the other matters prayed in aid by CI Osborn would have been sufficient. The refusal to go into the pen could well be regarded as protesters standing on their rights. On the other hand, protesters who claimed that they wanted to leave the scene, were let out of the pen, and then rekindled their protest elsewhere placed themselves in a different category: they were not simply standing on their rights; they had misled the police and could therefore be regarded as untrustworthy.’

Court: QBD
Date: 11-Sep-2013
Judges: Jay J
Statutes: European Convention on Human Rights 5 10 11
Links: Bailii,
References: [2013] EWHC 2739 (QB),
Cases Cited:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Human Rights, Police, Torts - Other

Regina -v- Nicol and Selvanayagam; QBD 10-Nov-1995

The appellants appealed a bind-over for a finding that each appellant had been guilty of conduct whereby a breach of the peace was likely to be occasioned. The appellants, concerned about cruelty to animals, had obstructed an angling competition by seeking to distract the fish and to dissuade the anglers from catching them. No violence was used or threatened, but in spite of police requests to desist the appellants continued until they were arrested.
Held: Simon Brown LJ said: ‘Before the court can properly find that the natural consequence of lawful conduct by a defendant would, if persisted in, be to provoke another to violence, it should, it seems to me, be satisfied that in all the circumstances it is the defendant who is acting unreasonably rather than the other person . . [A]s it seems to me, some clear interference at least with the rights . . of others is bound to characterise any conduct of which it can properly be said that it would naturally provoke violence in others. Putting it another way, the Court would surely not find a section 115 complaint proved if any violence likely to have been provoked on the part of others would be not merely unlawful but wholly unreasonable – as, of course, it would be if the defendant’s conduct was not merely lawful but such as in no material way interfered with the other’s rights. A fortiori if the defendant was properly exercising his own basic rights, whether of assembly, demonstration or free speech.’

Court: QBD
Date: 10-Nov-1995
Judges: Simon Brown LJ, Scott Baker J
Statutes: Magistrates Courts Act 1980 8115
References: [1996] Crim LR 318, [1995] Times LR 607, (1996) 160 JP 155
Cases Cited:
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Crime, Police

IA126702007 (Unreported); AIT 7-May-2008

Court: AIT
Date: 07-May-2008
Links: Bailii,
References: [2008] UKAITUR IA126702007,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Immigration

HXAA104902005 (Unreported); AIT 7-May-2008

Court: AIT
Date: 07-May-2008
Links: Bailii,
References: [2008] UKAITUR HXAA104902005

Leave a Comment

Filed under Immigration

AA114462007 (Unreported); AIT 7-May-2008

Court: AIT
Date: 07-May-2008
Links: Bailii,
References: [2008] UKAITUR AA114462007,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Immigration

AA092112006 (Unreported); AIT 7-May-2008

Court: AIT
Date: 07-May-2008
Links: Bailii,
References: [2008] UKAITUR AA092112006,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Immigration

AA091292007 (Unreported); AIT 7-May-2008

Court: AIT
Date: 07-May-2008
Links: Bailii,
References: [2008] UKAITUR AA091292007,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Immigration

AA063012007 (Unreported); AIT 7-May-2008

Court: AIT
Date: 07-May-2008
Links: Bailii,
References: [2008] UKAITUR AA063012007,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Immigration

AA056002007 & AA056022007 (Unreported); AIT 7-May-2008

Court: AIT
Date: 07-May-2008
Links: Bailii,
References: [2008] UKAITUR AA056002007,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Immigration

HX420012002 (Unreported); AIT 9-Sep-2003

Court: AIT
Date: 09-Sep-2003
Links: Bailii,
References: [2003] UKAITUR HX420012002,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Immigration

HX400232002 (Unreported); AIT 9-Sep-2003

Court: AIT
Date: 09-Sep-2003
Links: Bailii,
References: [2003] UKAITUR HX400232002,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Immigration

HX378652002 (Unreported); AIT 9-Sep-2003

Court: AIT
Date: 09-Sep-2003
Links: Bailii,
References: [2003] UKAITUR HX378652002,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Immigration

HX265672003 (Unreported); AIT 9-Sep-2003

Court: AIT
Date: 09-Sep-2003
Links: Bailii,
References: [2003] UKAITUR HX265672003,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Immigration

HX262062002 (Unreported); AIT 9-Sep-2003

Court: AIT
Date: 09-Sep-2003
Links: Bailii,
References: [2003] UKAITUR HX262062002,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Immigration

HX244082001 (Unreported); AIT 9-Sep-2003

Court: AIT
Date: 09-Sep-2003
Links: Bailii,
References: [2003] UKAITUR HX244082001,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Immigration

HX232022003 (Unreported); AIT 9-Sep-2003

Court: AIT
Date: 09-Sep-2003
Links: Bailii,
References: [2003] UKAITUR HX232022003,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Immigration

HX231462002 (Unreported); AIT 9-Sep-2003

Court: AIT
Date: 09-Sep-2003
Links: Bailii,
References: [2003] UKAITUR HX231462002,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Immigration

HX095652003 (Unreported); AIT 9-Sep-2003

Court: AIT
Date: 09-Sep-2003
Links: Bailii,
References: [2003] UKAITUR HX095652003,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Immigration

HX038762003 (Unreported); AIT 9-Sep-2003

Court: AIT
Date: 09-Sep-2003
Links: Bailii,
References: [2003] UKAITUR HX038762003,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Immigration

198 Revelstoke Road – Wandsworth : London; LVT 11-Sep-2006

LVT Service Charges

Court: LVT
Date: 11-Sep-2006
Links: Bailii,
References: [2006] EWLVT LON_LV_SVC_00BJ_0

Leave a Comment

Filed under Landlord and Tenant

1-54 Regatta Court Oyster Row/Stanley Road – Cambridge : Midland : Birmingham; LVT 11-Sep-2006

LVT Service Charges

Court: LVT
Date: 11-Sep-2006
Links: Bailii,
References: [2006] EWLVT CAM_LV_SVC_12UB_0

Leave a Comment

Filed under Landlord and Tenant

Kiernan and Others, Regina -v-; CACD 8-May-2008

Court: CACD
Date: 08-May-2008
Links: Bailii,
References: [2008] EWCA Crim 972,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Crime

Game Conservancy Trust -v- RWPS; Nom 9-Sep-2003

The Complainant contends that the disputed Domain Name, save for its designation suffix, is identical or similar to a name or mark in which it has rights, in that it consists of the words ‘game’ and ‘conservancy’. The Complainant also contends – again with the same proviso – that it is identical to some of the domain names operated by and the unregistered trade mark used by the Complainant.

Court: Nom
Date: 09-Sep-2003
Links: Bailii,
References: [2003] DRS 1104,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Intellectual Property

Mark: AAXEL; TMR 9-Sep-2003

IPO Invalidity.

Court: TMR
Date: 09-Sep-2003
Judges: Mr M Reynolds
Statutes: Trade Marks Act 1994
Links: IPO,
References: 767758,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Intellectual Property

Re G (Children); CA 14-Sep-2001

‘Mrs S is the maternal aunt of three children E, born in 1992; S, born in 1993 and T born in 1997 to her sister, who sadly has a history of mental illness. The only issue that I have to review this morning is the management of an application which she made for leave to apply under the Children Act 1998 for orders in respect of residence and/or contact. That leave was necessary because she falls without that band of persons who have a right of application by statute. ‘

Court: CA
Date: 14-Sep-2001
Judges: Thorpe LJ
Statutes: Children Act 1989
Links: Bailii,
References: [2001] EWCA Civ 1433,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Children

JH (Zimbabwe) -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department; CA 7-May-2008

The claimant had used the wrong form to apply for leave to remain. Leave to appeal granted.

Court: CA
Date: 07-May-2008
Statutes: Immigration (Leave to Remain) (Prescribed Forms and Procedures) Regulations 2003
Links: Bailii,
References: [2008] EWCA Civ 605,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Immigration

Ehiabor -v- Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea; CA 8-May-2008

Court: CA
Date: 08-May-2008
Judges: Pill LJ, Arden DBE LJ, Scott Baker LJ
Links: Bailii,
References: [2008] EWCA Civ 1074,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Housing, Immigration

Rinke -v- Arztekammer Hamburg; ECJ 9-Sep-2003

ECJ Equal treatment for men and women – Directives 86/457/EEC and 93/16/EEC – Obligation to undertake certain periods of full-time training during part-time training in general medical practice.
The complainant challenged the validity of the two directives laying down conditions for general medical practice across the community, saying that they were a form of indirect sex discrimination, insofar as they required part time trainees to undertake some periods of full time training.
Held: Insofar as such directives conflicted with the fundamental requirement of equal treatment, they were invalid. It was recognised that more women than men would want to train part time.

Court: ECJ
Date: 09-Sep-2003
Statutes: Council Directive 86/457/EEC, Council Directive 93/16/EEC
Links: Bailii,
References: C-25/02, Times, 25-Sep-2003, [2003] EUECJ C-25/02

Leave a Comment

Filed under Discrimination, European

(Un-named); SSCS 17-Sep-2001

The Claimant is a man now aged 40 who became incapable of work on 27 October 1997, the cause of incapacity being certified by his doctor to be general debility. He did not, however, satisfy the contribution conditions for an award of incapacity benefit, and was awarded incapacity credits.

Court: SSCS
Date: 17-Sep-2001
Judges: Mr C Turnbull
Links: Bailii,
References: [2001] UKSSCSC CIB_849_2001,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Benefits

Status Supplies (T/A Olton International) -v- Revenue & Customs; Excs 12-Sep-2006

Excs EXCISE TRANSIT PROCEDURE – revocation of excise duty guarantee given by transporter under CEMA 1979 s 157 – AADs not accompanying consignments from UK to France under duty suspension – transporter purporting to create substitute AAD – excise goods consigned to France diverted to West Midlands – AAD purporting to show receipt of goods in France not proved – observations on reasonableness of revocation – appeal dismissed

Court: Excs
Date: 12-Sep-2006
Links: Bailii,
References: [2006] UKVAT-Excise E00990,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Customs and Excise

West -v- Revenue & Customs; Cust 12-Sep-2006

Customs CUSTOMS DUTIES – Ford Zephyr Mark 1 Convertible motor car manufactured in 1955 – whether within CN heading 87.03 or CN heading 97.05 as a collector’s piece – only point in issue on the application of the CNEN was whether the motor car was ‘of high value’or ‘may fetch a high price’ – Erika Daiber v Hauptzollamt Reutlingen (Case 200/84) considered – earlier Tribunal Decisions in Stephen Bernard Saunders, Barnfinds Limited, Andrew Burford, and Julian Sibree Paul considered – held the Commissioners’ policy to interpret the requirement that a motor vehicle ‘may fetch a high price’ in order to qualify for classification as a collector’s piece, as a requirement that its value must be at least £20,000 is unreasonable, arbitrary, and not supported by Daiber – the correct comparison is between the motor car’s customs value and the value of its constituent materials – if a motor car is classifiable as a collector’s piece its customs value must be out of all proportion with the value of its constituent materials – Direction for the appeal to be relisted for further evidence as to the value of the motor car’s constituent materials

Court: Cust
Date: 12-Sep-2006
Links: Bailii,
References: [2006] UKVAT-Customs C00224,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Customs and Excise

Dean & Dean (A Firm) -v- G; QBD 7-May-2008

Solicitors sought payment of their fees. The defendant appealed the grant of a world wide assets freezing order, saying that the firm had no claim and had not made full disclosure and that there was no demonstrated risk of her dissipating her assets.

Court: QBD
Date: 07-May-2008
Links: Bailii,
References: [2008] EWHC 927 (QB),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Litigation Practice

Walbrook Trustees (Jersey) Ltd and others -v- Fattal and others; ChD 7-May-2008

Further case management in substantial case after additional pleadings.

Court: ChD
Date: 07-May-2008
Judges: Henderson J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2008] EWHC 991 (Ch),
Cases Cited:
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Litigation Practice

Boote -v- Ministry of Defence; NIIT 9-Sep-2003

The unanimous decision of the tribunal is:-
The applicant was indirectly discriminated against on grounds of sex contrary to the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976.
The applicant was not directly discriminated against on grounds of sex contrary to the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976.

Court: NIIT
Date: 09-Sep-2003
Links: Bailii,
References: [2003] NIIT 1846_00,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Employment, Northern Ireland

Mean Fiddler Holdings Ltd -v- London Borough of Islington; LT 9-Sep-2003

LT COMPENSATION – Compulsory Purchase – Agreed statement of facts for preliminary issue – Whether binding in further hearing – Issue estoppel – Abuse of process – Tribunal’s implicit power to prevent abuse of process – Failure to raise issue at appropriate time – No impropriety or harassment – Whether raising matter after preliminary issue determined necessarily an abuse

Court: LT
Date: 09-Sep-2003
Links: Bailii,
References: [2003] EWLands ACQ_29_2001,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Land

Mike Kiernans Beer Tent Co Ltd (T/A Fish & Duck) -v- Customs & Excise; VDT 9-Sep-2003

VDT COSTS – Company appearing by director – Successful appellant claiming costs in respect of time spent by director and director’s wife in preparation and conduct of appeal – No legal qualification – Whether entitled to such costs – No – Application dismissed to that extent

Court: VDT
Date: 09-Sep-2003
Links: Bailii,
References: [2003] UKVAT V18310,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Costs, VAT

Wilkinson -v- Coverdale; 1793

The defendant had gratuitously undertaken to arrange insurance for the plaintiff. He had not done so, and the plaintiff sued him in negligence.
Held: He was liable.
Case will lie where a party undertakes to get a policy done for another therein, without any consideration, if the party so undertaking it takes any steps for that purpose, but does it so negligently, that the person has no benefit from it.

Date: 01-Jan-1793
Judges: Lord Kenyon
Links: Commonlii,
References: (1793) 1 Esp 74, [1801] EngR 101, (1793, 1796, 1801) 1 Esp 75, (1801) 170 ER 284 (B)
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Negligence

Havering London Borough Council -v- Stevenson; 1970

The defendant carried on a car hire business as opposed to the business of a motor car vendor or dealer. He had a fleet of twenty-four cars and made a regular practice of selling his hire cars when he had had them for about two years or when the condition of a particular vehicle warranted it. He did not buy or sell the cars at a profit but simply for the purposes of replacing his fleet vehicles from time to time.
Held: The expression ‘in the course of a trade or business’ was not used in the broadest sense. The transaction in issue was caught. It was ‘an integral part of the business carried on as a car hire firm’. The defendant’s business as part of its normal practice bought and disposed of cars.

Date: 01-Jan-1970
Judges: Lord Parker CJ
Statutes: Trade Descriptions Act 1968 1(1)(b)
References: [1970] 1WLR 1375,
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Consumer, Crime

Bartlett Engineering (South Wales) Limited and Bartlett -v- Corcoran (Patent); IPO 9-Sep-2003

IPO Entitlement – As a result of an uncontested reference filed under section 8(1) by Bartlett Engineering (South Wales) Limited, it was found that patent application number GB 0208639.5 should proceed in the sole name of Bartlett Engineering (South Wales) Limited and that Michael Charles Richard Bartlett, a party to the reference, and Steven Corcoran should be named as joint inventors in any published patent application for the invention.

Court: IPO
Date: 09-Sep-2003
Judges: Mrs S Williams
Statutes: Patents Act 1977 8(1)
Links: PO, Bailii,
References: O/316/03, [2003] UKIntelP o31603, GB 0208639.5

Leave a Comment

Filed under Intellectual Property

Stevenson -v- MacDonald; 1952

Denning J described the difference between a contract of service and a contract for services: ‘It is often easy to recognise a contract of service when you see it, but difficult to say wherein the difference lies. A ship’s master, a chauffeur, and a reporter on the staff of a newspaper are all employed under a contract, of service; but a ship’s pilot, a taximan, and a newspaper contributor are employed under a contract for services’.

Date: 01-Jan-1952
Judges: Denning J
References: (1952) 1 TLR 101,
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Contract, Employment

Vranckx -v- Commission; ECFI 9-Sep-2003

ECFI Order

Court: ECFI
Date: 09-Sep-2003
Links: Bailii,
References: T-293/02, [2003] EUECJ T-293/02

Leave a Comment

Filed under European

Kempster, Regina -v-; CACD 7-May-2008

The defendant appealed his conviction saying that evidence of an ear-print expert had been wrongly admitted.
Held: The court rejected an argument based on Coutts. Ear-print evidence can be admitted provided the experts were appropriatelt experienced and the sample was sufficient. In this case the sample used was insufficient.

Court: CACD
Date: 07-May-2008
Judges: Lord Justice Latham, Mrs Justice Swift and Mr Justice Foskett
Links: Bailii,
References: [2008] EWCA Crim 975, Times, 16-May-2008
Cases Cited:
  • Regina -v- Coutts, HL, Cited, (Bailii, [2006] UKHL 39, [2006] 1 WLR 2154, Times 24-Jul-06, [2007] 1 CAR 60, [2006] 4 All ER 353, [2006] Crim LR 1065, [2007] 1 Cr App R 6)
  • Regina -v- Dallagher, CACD, Cited, (Times 21-Aug-02, Bailii, [2002] EWCA Crim 1903)

Leave a Comment

Filed under Crime, Evidence

Seele Austria Gmbh & Co Kg -v- Tokio Marine Europe Insurance Ltd; CA 7-May-2008

The court was asked whether under a policy covering the liability of third parties in a construction project, that policy covered also the costs of gaining access to parts of the building to replace defective parts.

Court: CA
Date: 07-May-2008
Judges: Waller LJ, Moore-Bick LJ, Richards LJ
Links: Bailii,
References: [2008] EWCA Civ 441,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Contract, Insurance

Horbury Building Systems Ltd -v- Hampden Insurance Nv; ComC 9-Sep-2003

The claimant had installed suspended ceilings in a new cinema complex. They took out insurance with the respondents, and now pursued a declaration as to the liability of the defendants under the policy. They had used the wrong washers, leading to a collapse of one ceiling, and a potential collapse of others. They sought to recover costs of re-instating the entire complex.
Held: The particular insurance contract had to be construed. In this case the liability extended to the physical damge which had actually occurred when the ceiling fell in, and any damages at law flowing from that collapse, but not the wider sums claimed.

Court: ComC
Date: 09-Sep-2003
Judges: Deputy Judge Ian Glick QC
Links: Bailii,
References: [2003] EWHC 2110 (Comm),
Cases Cited:
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Construction, Insurance

Nelson -v- Halifax Plc; CA 8-May-2008

A freezing order had been served on the respondent bank in respect of a person with whom the claimant held a joint account. The bank relied on its contractual rights to do so in their standard conditions. The freezing order was set aside, but the claimant said the bank had acted unlawfully and negligently, but the pleadings did not reflect this element. The claimant said that it was his duty to put forward the facts and the court’s duty was to apply the law to them. He declined to amend his pleadings to add either a claim in negligence or ato plead a human rights claim. The court declined to hear the claim in negligence, and the claimant appealed.
Held: Though understandably, the court had erred. The claimant had not abandoned his claims, and the case was remitted to be heard before a different judge.
Rix LJ said:’Litigants in person, with which these courts are entirely familiar, are of course deserving of the court’s sympathy for the difficult role that they must fulfil as non-experts in the law, and of course they also need and deserve help and support as traditionally has always been given them not only by the court but also by opposing counsel, as is understood to be their duty. Nevertheless, this was not a complex matter. Mr Nelson is clearly an intelligent man and – indeed, as we know from past litigation with which he has been concerned and which is mentioned in the bank’s skeleton argument – a very experienced litigator in person over a great number of years. For this court simply to insist that Mr Nelson’s claim must be tried as a claim in contract when Mr Nelson is telling the court repeatedly that he does not have a claim in contract, is, it seems to me, for this court to override the autonomy of the litigant. I say that, as I have made clear, even of the litigant in person. One does not know, and, subject to limits, one is not entitled to enquire, why a litigant takes one course rather than another. It is often the case that the courts look with puzzlement at decisions of litigants, even those advised by senior counsel. Ultimately, however, once the court has made proper enquiries on behalf of a litigant in person the court must, it seems to me, respect the autonomy of the litigant. ‘

Court: CA
Date: 08-May-2008
Judges: Sir Andrew Morritt VC, Rix LJ, Rimer LJ
Links: Bailii,
References: [2008] EWCA Civ 1016,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Banking, Human Rights, Litigation Practice

Cowl and others -v- Plymouth City Council; Admn 14-Sep-2001

The applicants were residents of a nursing home run by the respondents, and sought judicial review of the decision to close it. Before making the decision, the council consulted the residents and concluded that none had been offered a ‘home for life’. Though some understood this, the council argued that no promise had been given, or legitimate expectation had been created.
Held: Such an expectation requires a firm clear and sound foundation. None had been shown. Nor could it be shown that any of the residents had relied upon any representation. The council had to inform the residents well in advance, allow a reasonable time for objections and consider any resident’s objection. It must also follow the statutory uidance. The court rejected the suggestion that the residents had come to constitute a family, and that closure would interfere with the rights of that family under Articles 2,3 or 8.

Court: Admn
Date: 14-Sep-2001
Judges: Scott Baker J
Statutes: Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 7(1), European Convention on Human Rights
Links: Bailii,
References: [2001] EWHC Admin 734,
Cases Cited:
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Human Rights, Local Government

Regina -v- Gaynor; CANI 14-Sep-2001

The defendant sought leave to appeal against a sentence of three and a half years for offences of escaping lawful custody, dangerous driving and driving whilst disqualified. The sentence included consecutive and concurrent sentences. After being sentence for one offence, he feigned disability, and escaped. He was later caught after serious dangerous drunk driving. Concurrent sentences should normally be used in road traffic sentencing where the offences are on one occasion. The sentence of 21 months on a guilty plea for dangerous driving was excessive, and 18 moths was substituted. The overall total was reduced to three years by also reducing the sentence for escaping custody to nine months.

Court: CANI
Date: 14-Sep-2001
Links: Bailii,
References: [2001] NIECA 30,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Criminal Sentencing, Northern Ireland, Road Traffic

McDougall -v- Tawse; ScSf 14-Sep-2001

Application was made to deny a certificate that a case had been fit for the employment of counsel, despite his not actually having appeared in court. The matter was a personal injury case with an order obtained without attendance.
Held: There is no reason why counsel need appear before such sanction can be given.

Court: ScSf
Date: 14-Sep-2001
Links: Bailii, ScotC,
References: [2001] ScotSC 17,
Cases Cited:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Costs, Legal Professions, Scotland

Cubana (Trade Mark: Invalidity); IPO 9-Sep-2003

The applicants claimed to have operated a restaurant at Waterloo, London from May 1998 onwards under the name CUBANA and device of a letter C on a red star background and to have owned the website name www.cubana.co.uk from March 1998. They filed evidence of use of their mark and some local promotion of their restaurant.
The registered proprietors commenced to use their mark about October 2000 in relation to a restaurant in Sheffield; they applied to register the mark in February 2001 and registration was affected on 5 October 2001. They claimed to have no knowledge of the opponents when they adopted their mark. Indeed it would appear that the applicants only became aware of the registered proprietors when a friend of the owner of the applicants visited Sheffield and noticed the mark in suit being used as the name of a restaurant.
The Hearing Officer decided that the applicants had priority of use of the mark CUBANA but that they had at best only a local goodwill. There was no evidence of any confusion between the two restaurants at the relevant date (the date of application of the mark in suit) as neither had a national goodwill.
Taking an overall view of the matter the Hearing Officer found the applicants successful but indicated that the registered proprietors could retain their registration if they agreed to geographically restrict their specification to the County of South Yorkshire.

Court: IPO
Date: 09-Sep-2003
Judges: Mr D Landau
Links: PO, IPO, Bailii,
References: INV 81045, 2262365, [2003] UKIntelP o27403, O/274/03

Leave a Comment

Filed under Intellectual Property

Aaxel (Trade Mark: Invalidity); IPO 9-Sep-2003

IPO The applicants were proprietors of the Community Trade Mark ‘@@XL pharma’, registered in Classes 3, 5, & 42. The Hearing Officer found that the goods were similar. Both marks had a distinctive character. Having compared the marks, however, and having reviewed the submissions and relevant cases, the Hearing Officer was not persuaded that the proprietor’s mark captured the distinctive character of the applicants’ mark to the point where there was a likelihood of confusion. The application for invalidation failed.

Court: IPO
Date: 09-Sep-2003
Judges: Mr M Reynolds
Links: Bailii,
References: [2003] UKIntelP o27303,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Intellectual Property

10 Jac 9 Co 60, Bradshaws Case; 1220

A. makes a lease by indenture to B. for 31 years if C. so long lives ; C. is dead at the time ; this lease is absolute. A. covenants by this indenture with B. that he A, has full power to demise this land to B. as aforesaid ; in covenant brought by B, against A. UPON this, he need not shew how A had not full power : it is sufficient for him to declare generally that A. had not full power: for what power he had lies in the knowlegde of the covenant and not in the knowledge of the covenantee.
A. makes a lease to B. if C. lives for 31 years, and C. is dead at the time; this lease is void : for the condition is precedent. A lease for 31 years is made to A. to begin after a lease for 21 years made to C. shall determine ; whereas in truth no lease was made to C. this lease to A. shall begin immediately. The law requires truth and convenient certainty in counts and pleadings : this certainty ought to be shewn by him, who, in intendment of law, has the most certain knowledge of it.

Date: 01-Jan-1220
Links: Commonlii,
References: [1220] EngR 59, (1220-1623) Jenk 305, (1220) 145 ER 222 (B)

Leave a Comment

Filed under Landlord and Tenant

Secretary of State for the Home Department -v- Lord Alton of Liverpool and others; CA 7-May-2008

The Secretary of state had sought to register an organisation as a terrorist organisation (PMOI). The organisation had successfully appealed to the Proscribed Organisations Appeals Commission (POAC). The secretary now renewed his application for leave to appeal. The PMO had previously been involved in violence but said that it had abandoned violence several years ago, and now condemned it.
Held: It was indeed difficult to be clear as to just what was required to prove that an organisation was ‘otherwise engaged in terrorism’, however ‘The question of whether an organisation is concerned in terrorism is essentially a question of fact. Justification of significant interference with human rights is in issue. We agree with POAC that the appropriate course was to conduct an intense and detailed scrutiny of both open and closed material in order to decide whether this amounted to reasonable grounds for the belief that PMOI was concerned in terrorism.’
The court supported POAcs conclusion that ‘there is no evidence that the PMOI has at any time since 2003 sought to re-create any form of structure that was capable of carrying out or supporting terrorist acts. There is no evidence of any attempt to ‘prepare’ for terrorism. There is no evidence of any encouragement to others to commit acts of terrorism. Nor is there any material that affords any grounds for a belief that the PMOI was ‘otherwise concerned in terrorism’ at the time of the decision in September 2006. In relation to the period after May 2003, this cannot properly be described as ‘mere inactivity’ as suggested by the Secretary of State in his Decision Letter. The material showed that the entire military apparatus no longer existed whether in Iraq, Iran or elsewhere and there had been no attempt by the PMOI to re-establish it.’ Leave to appeal was refused.

Court: CA
Date: 07-May-2008
Judges: Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers LCJ, Lord Justice Laws and Lady Justice Arden
Statutes: Terrorism Act (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2001, Terrorism Act 2000 1
Links: Bailii,
References: [2008] EWCA Civ 443, , 13-May-2008

Leave a Comment

Filed under Criminal Practice

Birmingham City Council -v- Ashton; CA 29-Nov-2012

The council challenged a decision as to their claim for possession of a ground floor flat where the court granted a possession order but suspended possession on terms that the Respondent (1) complied with his tenancy agreement and (2) obeyed the Injunction Order made on that date. The appeal is as to the correctness of the decision to suspend the possession order.

Court: CA
Date: 29-Nov-2012
Judges: mummery, Patten, Treacy LJJ
Links: Bailii,
References: [2012] EWCA Civ 1557,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Housing

Bice (Trade Mark: Revocation); IPO 16-May-2014

Trade Mark: Revocation

Court: IPO
Date: 16-May-2014
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] UKIntelP o21814,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Intellectual Property

Betts and others -v- Brintel Helicopters Ltd and KLM Era Helicopters (UK) Ltd; CA 26-Mar-1997

There was no transfer of undertaking where only the employees and no other assets of the business had been transferred.

Court: CA
Date: 26-Mar-1997
Statutes: Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 (1981 No 1794)
Links: Times, Bailii,
References: [1997] EWCA Civ 1340, [1997] ICR 792, [1996] IRLR 45
Cases Cited:
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Employment

Better Drives Ltd -v- Customs and Excise; VDT 30-Sep-2004

Reasonable excuse appeal

Court: VDT
Date: 30-Sep-2004
Links: Bailii,
References: [2004] UKVAT V18772,

Leave a Comment

Filed under VAT

Benjamin Clowes Ltd -v- Revenue and Customs; VDT 13-Jul-2005

VDT VAT – PENALTIES – default surcharge – extra days allowed for payment of VAT for electronic means – payment by bank giro credit transfer – notes on reverse of Form VAT 100 found to be misleading – reasonable excuse held to exist for late payment of tax in reliance upon wording of notes – appeal allowed

Court: VDT
Date: 13-Jul-2005
Links: Bailii,
References: [2005] UKVAT V19165,

Leave a Comment

Filed under VAT

Bath & North East Somerset Council -v- A Mother and Others; FD 22-Dec-2008

Care proceedings – factual conclusions

Court: FD
Date: 22-Dec-2008
Judges: Barclay J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2008] EWHC B10 (Fam),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Children

Bacti Guard (Trade Mark: Revocation); IPO 30-Sep-2004

Request for ‘striking out': – Request refused. – 1. The Hearing Officer concluded that the Agreement between the parties had been reached on the basis of their trading arrangements at that time and there was no evidence to say what could happen if one party ceased to use its marks.
2. In his decision dated 25 August 2005 (BL O/236/05) the Appointed Person upheld the Hearing Officer’s decision but disagreed with his reasoning. In particular he did not accept that the wording of Clause 5 necessarily constituted a restraint of trade. It would be necessary to study the factual and trading position of the two parties when the agreement between them was entered into.

Court: IPO
Date: 30-Sep-2004
Judges: Mr C Bowen
Links: IPO, Bailii,
References: 2027376, [2004] UKIntelP o30004, O/300/04
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Intellectual Property

Anzhelo Georgiev And Others -v- Bulgaria; ECHR 30-Sep-2014

The applicants alleged, in particular, that they had been ill-treated by masked police officers during a special operation and that the authorities had not carried out an effective investigation into their complaints.

Court: ECHR
Date: 30-Sep-2014
Judges: Ineta Ziemele, P
Statutes: European Convention on Human Rights
Links: Bailii,
References: 51284/09, [2014] ECHR 1009,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Human Rights, Police

Abdurashidova -v- Russia; ECHR 8-Apr-2010

Court: ECHR
Date: 08-Apr-2010
Statutes: European Convention on Human Rights
Links: Bailii,
References: 32968/05, [2010] ECHR 495,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Human Rights

9 Cheltenham Court Dexter Close – St Albans : Midland : Birmingham; LVT 16-Oct-2010

LVT Service Charges

Court: LVT
Date: 16-Oct-2010
Links: Bailii,
References: [2010] EWLVT CAM_LV_SVC_26UG_0

Leave a Comment

Filed under Landlord and Tenant