Click the case name for better results:

The Child Poverty Action Group v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: SC 8 Dec 2010

The Action Group had obtained a declaration that, where an overpayment of benefits had arisen due to a miscalculation by the officers of the Department, any process of recovering the overpayment must be by the Act, and that the Department could not use the law of unjust enrichment. The Department Appealed. Held: The appeal failed. … Continue reading The Child Poverty Action Group v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: SC 8 Dec 2010

Child Poverty Action Group, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: Admn 27 Feb 2009

Challenge to defendant’s practice in seeking recovery of overpayments. Held: The court refused to grant a declaration that the respondent could not use common law or equitable powers to recover over-payment of benefits where the payee had neither misrepresented his position, nor otherwise been at fault. Judges: Michael Supperstone QC Citations: [2009] EWHC 341 (Admin), … Continue reading Child Poverty Action Group, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: Admn 27 Feb 2009

Child Poverty Action Group, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary Of State for Work and Pensions: CA 14 Oct 2009

CPAG appealed against a refusal of a declaration that the respondent could use only the 1992 Act to recover overpayment of benefits where there had been neither misrepresentation nor non-disclosure. Held: The appeal succeeded, and the court made a declaration that: ‘where a benefit falling within section 71(11) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 … Continue reading Child Poverty Action Group, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary Of State for Work and Pensions: CA 14 Oct 2009

Hodgson and others v Imperial Tobacco Limited Gallagher Limited etc: CA 12 Feb 1998

A large number of plaintiffs brought actions against the defendants, three tobacco companies, claiming damages for personal injuries by reason of cancer which they claimed was caused by smoking cigarettes manufactured by the defendants. A hearing for directions was heard ‘in chambers’ and an issue arose as to what the parties could say about that … Continue reading Hodgson and others v Imperial Tobacco Limited Gallagher Limited etc: CA 12 Feb 1998

Child Poverty Action Group, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: Admn 17 Jul 2012

The claimant challenge a strategy document called ‘A new Approach to Child Poverty: Tackling the Causes of Disadvantage and Transforming Families’ Lives’. Judges: Singh J Citations: [2012] EWHC 2579 (Admin) Links: Bailii Statutes: Child Poverty Act 2010 1 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Administrative Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.464616

Legal Services Commission v Henthorn: QBD 4 Feb 2011

The claimant sought to recover overpayments said to have been made to the defendant barrister in the early 1990s. Interim payments on account had been made, but these were not followed by final accounts. The defendant, now retired, said that the claims were defeated by limitation and laches and were an abuse of process because … Continue reading Legal Services Commission v Henthorn: QBD 4 Feb 2011

Corner House Research, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry: CA 1 Mar 2005

The applicant sought to bring an action to challenge new rules on approval of export credit guarantees. The company was non-profit and founded to support investigation of bribery. It had applied for a protected costs order to support the application, and now appealed its refusal. Held: The court restated the practice on the making of … Continue reading Corner House Research, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry: CA 1 Mar 2005

Swain v Hillman: CA 21 Oct 1999

Strike out – Realistic Not Fanciful Chance Needed The proper test for whether an action should be struck out under the new Rules was whether it had a realistic as opposed to a fanciful prospect of success. There was no justification for further attempts to explain the meaning of what are clear words. The judge … Continue reading Swain v Hillman: CA 21 Oct 1999

Regina v Secretary of State for The Home Department Ex Parte Simms: HL 8 Jul 1999

Ban on Prisoners talking to Journalists unlawful The two prisoners, serving life sentences for murder, had had their appeals rejected. They continued to protest innocence, and sought to bring their campaigns to public attention through the press, having oral interviews with journalists without undertakings from the journalists not to publish any element of the interview. … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for The Home Department Ex Parte Simms: HL 8 Jul 1999

Regina v Special Commissioner And Another, ex parte Morgan Grenfell and Co Ltd: HL 16 May 2002

The inspector issued a notice requiring production of certain documents. The respondents refused to produce them, saying that they were protected by legal professional privilege. Held: Legal professional privilege is a fundamental part of ensuring human rights as a right of privacy, and is recognised in European law (A M and S Europe Ltd). A … Continue reading Regina v Special Commissioner And Another, ex parte Morgan Grenfell and Co Ltd: HL 16 May 2002

Total Network Sl v Revenue and Customs: HL 12 Mar 2008

The House was asked whether an action for unlawful means conspiracy was available against a participant in a missing trader intra-community, or carousel, fraud. The company appealed a finding of liability saying that the VAT Act and Regulations contained the entire regime. Held: Criminal conduct at common law or by statute can constitute unlawful means … Continue reading Total Network Sl v Revenue and Customs: HL 12 Mar 2008

Johnson v Unisys Ltd: HL 23 Mar 2001

The claimant contended for a common law remedy covering the same ground as the statutory right available to him under the Employment Rights Act 1996 through the Employment Tribunal system. Held: The statutory system for compensation for unfair dismissal is a complete system, and was intended to replace any common law action for damages arising … Continue reading Johnson v Unisys Ltd: HL 23 Mar 2001

Catholic Care (Diocese of Leeds) v Charity Commission for England and Wales and Another: ChD 17 Mar 2010

The charity appealed against refusal of permission to amend its charitable objects as set out in the memorandum of association. The charity was successful as an adoption agency particularly in placing children who would otherwise have had difficulty finding a home, following the principles of the Roman Catholic Church, and it wanted to restrict its … Continue reading Catholic Care (Diocese of Leeds) v Charity Commission for England and Wales and Another: ChD 17 Mar 2010

Acts

1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts

Deutsche Morgan Grenfell Group Plc v Inland Revenue and Another: HL 25 Oct 2006

The tax payer had overpaid Advance Corporation Tax under an error of law. It sought repayment. The revenue contended that the claim was time barred. Held: The claim was in restitution, and the limitation period began to run from the date when the claimants discovered their mistake. The appellants had submitted that section 33 of … Continue reading Deutsche Morgan Grenfell Group Plc v Inland Revenue and Another: HL 25 Oct 2006

Marcic v Thames Water Utilities Limited: HL 4 Dec 2003

The claimant’s house was regularly flooded by waters including also foul sewage from the respondent’s neighbouring premises. He sought damages and an injunction. The defendants sought to restrict the claimant to his statutory rights. Held: The damages were restricted to the statutory ones. The defendant was regulated under the 1991 Act by the Director-General, who … Continue reading Marcic v Thames Water Utilities Limited: HL 4 Dec 2003

Radmacher v Granatino: CA 2 Jul 2009

Husband and wife, neither English, had married in England. Beforehand they had signed a prenuptial agreement in Germany agreeing that neither should claim against the other on divorce. The wife appealed against an order to pay a lump sum to the husband. The husband had not had independent legal advice before signing the agreement. Held: … Continue reading Radmacher v Granatino: CA 2 Jul 2009