Click the case name for better results:

Gentle and Clarke, Regina (on the Application Of) v Prime Minister and others: CA 12 Dec 2006

The claimants appealed refusal of a judicial review of the defendant’s decision to enter into the war in Iraq. The claimants were parents of troops who had died in the war. They said that the legal advice given to the government was incorrect. Held: Human Rights law requires a proper investigation into deaths, but that … Continue reading Gentle and Clarke, Regina (on the Application Of) v Prime Minister and others: CA 12 Dec 2006

Jones v University of Warwick: CA 4 Feb 2003

The claimant appealed a decision to admit in evidence a tape recording, taken by an enquiry agent of the defendant who had entered her house unlawfully. Held: The situation asked judges to reconcile the irreconcilable. Courts should be reluctant to create rules which would deny the admission of genuine evidence. Where a party behaved in … Continue reading Jones v University of Warwick: CA 4 Feb 2003

Dyson Limited v The Registrar of Trade Marks: ChD 15 May 2003

Applications for trade marks on behalf of the claimant had been rejected. Acquired distinctiveness was a significant issue, and the question of whether the appeal was a review or a rehearing was significant. In this appeal, the parties had given oral evidence, and the Registrar contended that any further appeal to the High court should … Continue reading Dyson Limited v The Registrar of Trade Marks: ChD 15 May 2003

Moscow City Council v Bankers Trust Company and Another: QBD 5 Jun 2003

Proceedings before an arbitrator were governed by rule 62.10, which provided its own entire code, and imposed a presumption in favour of privacy. The principles of Scott v Scott need not apply. Scott would now be decided under analogous reasonings under the Human Rights Act. Judges: Cooke J Citations: Times 01-Sep-2003 Statutes: Civil Procedure Rules … Continue reading Moscow City Council v Bankers Trust Company and Another: QBD 5 Jun 2003

Anderton v Clwyd County Council (No 2); Bryant v Pech and Another Dorgan v Home Office; Chambers v Southern Domestic Electrical Services Ltd; Cummins v Shell International Manning Services Ltd: CA 3 Jul 2002

In each case, the applicant sought to argue that documents which had actually been received on a certain date should not be deemed to have been served on a different day because of the rule.
Held: The coming into force of the Human Rights Act . .