Click the case name for better results:

Regina v Walsall Justices, ex parte W (a minor): QBD 1990

A youth was charged with causing grievous bodily harm. His trial was fixed for 11 October 1988. On the date of trial, the prosecution applied for an adjournment on the grounds that, if the trial proceeded immediately and the magistrates decided that the victim did not have sufficient understanding to take the oath by reason … Continue reading Regina v Walsall Justices, ex parte W (a minor): QBD 1990

Clibery, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 30 Jul 2007

The claimant sought judicial review of a decision of the Home Secretary, to refuse his application for compensation. He had first been convicted and imprisoned and then had his conviction quashed. The respondent did not think that the conviction was quashed for some new fact discovered demonstrating innocence. The claimant victim had been shown later … Continue reading Clibery, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 30 Jul 2007

N Ltd and Another, Regina v: CACD 10 Jun 2008

The defence had requested and been give a ruling of no case to answer. The prosecutor now appealed saying that this had been before he had closed the prosecution case, and had been not with his consent. Held: The prosecutor’s appeal succeeded. The Galbraith case did not suggest that the judge had the power he … Continue reading N Ltd and Another, Regina v: CACD 10 Jun 2008

Hanning and Others v Top Deck Travel Group Ltd: CA 9 Jun 1993

The owner of a common appealed a finding that the neighbouring land owner had acquired by prescription a right of way across the common to use a track for commercial vehicles (buses) to get to the property (the bus depot). Held: An easement cannot become a right where the use of the route is illegal … Continue reading Hanning and Others v Top Deck Travel Group Ltd: CA 9 Jun 1993

Sea Shepherd UK v Fish and Fish Ltd: SC 4 Mar 2015

Accessory Liability in Tort The court considered the concept of accessory liability in tort. Activists had caused damage to vessels of the respondent which was transporting live tuna in cages, and had caused considerable damage. The appellant company owned the ship from which the attacks were made, but denied direct involvement in or responsibility for … Continue reading Sea Shepherd UK v Fish and Fish Ltd: SC 4 Mar 2015

Kennedy v The Charity Commission: SC 26 Mar 2014

The claimant journalist sought disclosure of papers acquired by the respondent in its conduct of enquiries into the charitable Mariam appeal. The Commission referred to an absolute exemption under section 32(2) of the 2000 Act, saying that the exemption continued until the papers were destroyed, or for 20 years under the 1958 Act. Held: The … Continue reading Kennedy v The Charity Commission: SC 26 Mar 2014

Ahmed and Qureshi v Regina: CACD 28 Oct 2004

The defendants appealed confiscation orders saying that the court had taken account of their interests in the matrimonial home, and that this would prejudice the interest of others. Held: Before the amendment to the section, the court had retained a discretion as to whther or not to include the value of a matrimonial home in … Continue reading Ahmed and Qureshi v Regina: CACD 28 Oct 2004

AXA General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others: SC 12 Oct 2011

Standing to Claim under A1P1 ECHR The appellants had written employers’ liability insurance policies. They appealed against rejection of their challenge to the 2009 Act which provided that asymptomatic pleural plaques, pleural thickening and asbestosis should constitute actionable harm for the purposes of an action of damages for personal injury. Held: The insurers’ appeals failed. … Continue reading AXA General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others: SC 12 Oct 2011

Crown Prosecution Service v Richards and Richards: CA 27 Jun 2006

The court was asked how to resolve the conflict between a public policy imperative to deprive offenders of the fruits of their crime and the requirement that dependants are provided for after divorce when the only funds available for both are the same? The CPS appealed against an order distributing a capital sum to the … Continue reading Crown Prosecution Service v Richards and Richards: CA 27 Jun 2006

Ridehalgh v Horsefield; Allen v Unigate Dairies Ltd: CA 26 Jan 1994

Guidance for Wasted Costs Orders Guidance was given on the circumstances required for the making of wasted costs orders against legal advisers. A judge invited to make an order arising out of an advocate’s conduct of court proceedings must make full allowance for the fact that an advocate has to make decisions quickly and under … Continue reading Ridehalgh v Horsefield; Allen v Unigate Dairies Ltd: CA 26 Jan 1994

Keeley (Widow of Terence Noel James Keeley Deceased) v Pashen and Wren Motor Syndicate 1202 at Lloyd’s: CA 10 Nov 2004

The driver had driven his car at a crowd of people intending to frighten them. Instead one had been killed. The insurers resisted liability saying that the use of the car for this purpose and as it was being used as a taxi, was not use for social domestic or pleasure purposes. Held: The court … Continue reading Keeley (Widow of Terence Noel James Keeley Deceased) v Pashen and Wren Motor Syndicate 1202 at Lloyd’s: CA 10 Nov 2004

Miller, Regina (On the Application Of) v The Prime Minister: QBD 11 Sep 2019

Prorogation request was non-justiciable The claimant sought to challenge the prorogation of Parliament by the Queen at the request of the respondent. Held: The claim failed: ‘the decision of the Prime Minister to advise Her Majesty the Queen to prorogue Parliament is not justiciable in Her Majesty’s courts.’‘The Prime Minister’s decision that Parliament should be … Continue reading Miller, Regina (On the Application Of) v The Prime Minister: QBD 11 Sep 2019

Coll v Floreat Merchant Banking Ltd and Others: QBD 3 Jun 2014

The court was asked whether it was possible to bring contempt proceedings against a solicitor for the breach of an undertaking other than one given to the court. The parties had been employee and employer. On the breakdown of that relationship, the employer took possession of a computer used by the employee. They disputed ownership. … Continue reading Coll v Floreat Merchant Banking Ltd and Others: QBD 3 Jun 2014