Search Results for: Supreme Court Act 1981 42

Click the case name for better results:

Guardian News and Media Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court: Admn 21 Dec 2010

The claimant appealed against a refusal by the magistrate to allow access to documents filed during proceedings when the court felt that all relevant matters had been discussed openly and in detail in court. Held: The appeal failed, and the court refused leave to appeal. Judges: Sullivan LJ and Silber J Citations: [2010] EWHC 3376 … Continue reading Guardian News and Media Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court: Admn 21 Dec 2010

Her Majestys Courts Service (Decision Notice): ICO 25 Mar 2009

ICO The complainant was the subject of a civil proceedings order issued under section 42 of the Supreme Court Act 1981. The complainant asked the public authority for a letter about him which was sent by the judges to the Attorney General’s Office after his court case that initiated this order. The public authority did … Continue reading Her Majestys Courts Service (Decision Notice): ICO 25 Mar 2009

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

HM Attorney General v Foden: Admn 7 Apr 2005

Application for Civil Proceedings Order. Held: ‘This defendant has become a compulsive litigant who has lost touch with reality. Her remorseless pursuit of litigation is wholly without merit, is clearly vexatious and has perpetrated a waste of scarce judicial resources needed for the determination of proper claims. Nothing in the documents put in by the … Continue reading HM Attorney General v Foden: Admn 7 Apr 2005

Attorney General v Hayward: CA 10 Nov 1995

The standard of proof in vexatious litigant proceedings is civil not criminal. Even so, because the fundamental rights of the subject are affected by the making of a civil proceedings order, there should be evidence placed before the court that the appropriate law officer has personally considered the papers and has personally authorised the making … Continue reading Attorney General v Hayward: CA 10 Nov 1995

Attorney General v Perotti: Admn 10 May 2006

The respondent had been subject first to a Grepe v Loam order and then to an extended civil restraint order. The court had still faced many hopeless applications. An order was now sought that any future application for permission to appeal be heard by a nominated judge, and any oter application should be heard first … Continue reading Attorney General v Perotti: Admn 10 May 2006

H M Attorney General v Foley and Foley: CA 21 Aug 1997

Citations: [1997] EWCA Civ 2308 Statutes: Supreme Court Act 1981 42(1) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: Cited – Attorney General v Hayward CA 10-Nov-1995 The standard of proof in vexatious litigant proceedings is civil not criminal. Even so, because the fundamental rights of the subject are affected by the making of a civil proceedings order, … Continue reading H M Attorney General v Foley and Foley: CA 21 Aug 1997

In Re E (No 2): CA 11 Aug 1994

The claimant was subject to a cvil proceedings order, requiring to obtain leave before issuing proceedings. He now sought to appeal a finding against him that he should have sought such permission before applying for permission to issue judicial review proceedings. Held: The Court of Appeal may not hear an appeal from a refusal of … Continue reading In Re E (No 2): CA 11 Aug 1994

Attorney General v Bhamjee: Admn 8 Dec 2003

Civil Restraint Order Citations: [2003] EWHC 3114 (Admin) Links: Bailii Statutes: Supreme Court Act 1981 42 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: See Also – Bhamjee v Forsdick and others CA 14-May-2003 . . See Also – Bhamjee v Forsdick and Others (No 2) CA 25-Jul-2003 The Court set out the range of remedies available to … Continue reading Attorney General v Bhamjee: Admn 8 Dec 2003

Regina v Ebert: ChD 12 Nov 2001

An order had been made enjoining the respondent from entering the Royal Courts of Justice, or commencing proceedings, without written leave. Some insolvency applications remained outstanding. The applications made several repetitions of applications already refused. No new evidence or arguments were put forward. ‘Mr. Ebert has either lost touch with the realities of his position … Continue reading Regina v Ebert: ChD 12 Nov 2001

Attorney General v Barker: Admn 16 Feb 2000

The AG sought a civil proceedings order against the respondent. Held: Before the court can make an order under the section it must be satisfied that the statutory precondition of an order is fulfilled, namely that the person against whom the order is sought has habitually and persistently and without any reasonable ground instituted vexatious … Continue reading Attorney General v Barker: Admn 16 Feb 2000

Branch and others v Department for Constitutional Affairs: QBD 8 Apr 2005

The claimant appealed against an order striking out his claim and a consequential civil proceedings order had been made. Held: ‘ the statement of case in this action disclose no reasonable grounds for bringing any of these claims. Accordingly it must be struck out in its entirety. ‘ Judges: Tugendhat Citations: [2005] EWHC 550 (QB) … Continue reading Branch and others v Department for Constitutional Affairs: QBD 8 Apr 2005

Johnson, Regina (on the Application Of) v Attorney General: Admn 29 Jun 2005

Citations: [2005] EWHC 1534 (Admin) Links: Bailii Statutes: Supreme Court Act 1981 42 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: Cited – Harkness v Bell’s Asbestos and Engineering Limited CA 1966 The plaintiff’s solicitors had applied to a district registrar for leave of the court for the purposes of the Limitation Act 1963 when they ought to … Continue reading Johnson, Regina (on the Application Of) v Attorney General: Admn 29 Jun 2005

Attorney General v Alexander: Admn 26 Nov 2003

Application by HM Attorney General, pursuant to section 42 of the Supreme Court Act 1981, for a civil proceedings order against Mr Alexander. The basis of the claim is that Mr Alexander has habitually and persistently and any without reasonable ground instituted vexatious civil proceedings, and made vexatious applications within civil proceedings, whether instituted by … Continue reading Attorney General v Alexander: Admn 26 Nov 2003

Bhamjee v Forsdick and Others (No 2): CA 25 Jul 2003

The Court set out the range of remedies available to protect court processes from abuse by litigants who persist in making applications totally devoid of merit. The courts are facing very serious contemporary problems created by the activities of litigants who bombard them with applications which have no merit at all. The court made an … Continue reading Bhamjee v Forsdick and Others (No 2): CA 25 Jul 2003

Bhamjee v Forsdick and others: CA 14 May 2003

Judges: Brooke, Carnwath LJJ Citations: [2003] EWCA Civ 799 Links: Bailii Statutes: Supreme Court Act 1981 42 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: See also – Bhamjee v Forsdick and Others (No 2) CA 25-Jul-2003 The Court set out the range of remedies available to protect court processes from abuse by litigants who persist in making … Continue reading Bhamjee v Forsdick and others: CA 14 May 2003

HM Attorney General v Pepin: Admn 27 May 2004

Civil proceedings order. The defendant had commenced ten sets of proceedings which the court held amounted to serial and repeated litigation of the same points. Held: The fact that new details had emerged which might throw new light on the underlying events did not mean that the respondent’s behaviour did not come within the section. … Continue reading HM Attorney General v Pepin: Admn 27 May 2004

Hm Attorney General v Gleaves: Admn 9 Mar 1999

The defendant had been made subject to a civil proceedings order but had begun criminal prosecutions from his prison cell against journalists. Held: The civil restraint order did not prevent the defendant commencing criminal actions. A criminal proceedings restraint order was made. Citations: [1999] EWHC Admin 216 Links: Bailii Statutes: Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 … Continue reading Hm Attorney General v Gleaves: Admn 9 Mar 1999

Regina v Dean and Chapter of St Paul’s Cathedral and Church In Wales ex parte Williamson: Admn 22 Aug 1997

The claimant, subject to a vexatious litigant order under the 1981 Act, sought leave to bring judicial review proceedings of a decision by the respondents to appoint a woman to the position of Minor Canon in the cathedral. Held: Permission was refused. He had no prospect of success, and the proceedings woud amount to an … Continue reading Regina v Dean and Chapter of St Paul’s Cathedral and Church In Wales ex parte Williamson: Admn 22 Aug 1997

Regina v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board ex parte E: Admn 10 Mar 1997

The applicant, subject to a civil proceedings order, was refused permission to appeal to the court of appeal against refusal of his request for permission to bring judicial review proceedings against the respondent in respect of his claim for compensation for personal injuries after being assaulted. Judges: Laws J Citations: [1997] EWHC Admin 240 Links: … Continue reading Regina v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board ex parte E: Admn 10 Mar 1997

Attorney-General v Covey; Attorney-General v Matthews: CA 19 Feb 2001

Appeals were made against orders under s42 of the 1981 Act restraining the appellants from commencing proceedings without consent of the court. Held: The non-disclosure of a bench memorandum was the usual practice internationally, and not a breach of the litigant’s human rights. The right to present a case, did not include the right to … Continue reading Attorney-General v Covey; Attorney-General v Matthews: CA 19 Feb 2001

Johnson v Valks: CA 23 Nov 1999

A person requiring leave to issue proceedings as a vexatious litigant, had also to obtain leave again before entering an appeal to the Court of Appeal. The entering of an appeal is either the institution of new proceedings, or an application requiring leave as an application in any civil proceedings instituted in any court.Sir Richard … Continue reading Johnson v Valks: CA 23 Nov 1999

Attorney-General v Barker: CA 16 Feb 2000

An order that someone be denied access to the courts save with consent of a judge was a challenge to that individual’s constitutional rights, and should only be made if the statutory pre-conditions are fulfilled. It had to be shown that the litigant had habitually and persistently and without reasonable ground instituted vexatious civil proceedings. … Continue reading Attorney-General v Barker: CA 16 Feb 2000

Attorney-General v Covey: QBD 6 Oct 2000

In an application for a vexatious litigant order, the court asked whether the repetitious proceedings must be against the same defendant. Lord Justice Rose: ‘The question is whether it is a necessary prerequisite for the making of an order under section 42 that the repetitious behaviour of which complaint is made has necessarily either to … Continue reading Attorney-General v Covey: QBD 6 Oct 2000

Regina v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate ex parte Barrett: Admn 21 Oct 1998

‘Mr Barrett is obsessed with the loss of his house and has been making wild allegations of fraud against anyone who decides anything against him in the context of that loss. He is totally unable to appreciate that his activities before the court are vexatious and are completely lacking in any merit whatever. ‘ His … Continue reading Regina v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate ex parte Barrett: Admn 21 Oct 1998

HM Attorney-General v Ebert: Admn 21 Sep 2001

The defendant had instituted over 80 fruitless actions over years. He had been made subject to a vexatious litigant order, but the Attorney General now requested additional injunctive relief. This was a very extreme instance of extreme litigation. He had since applied for permission over 150 times to begin different kinds of proceedings. He had … Continue reading HM Attorney-General v Ebert: Admn 21 Sep 2001

Douglas v HM Attorney General and Others: Admn 15 Dec 2015

The claimant sought discharge of a declaration that she was a vexatious litigant. The order had been made in 2006. Held: The claimant had persisted with attempts to litigate speculative matters. The claim was rejected: ‘The Applicant’s recent attempts at litigation, right up to last year, demonstrate that her propensity for vexatious litigation remains. I … Continue reading Douglas v HM Attorney General and Others: Admn 15 Dec 2015

Oxfordshire County Council v Oxford City Council and others: HL 24 May 2006

Application had been made to register as a town or village green an area of land which was largely a boggy marsh. The local authority resisted the application wanting to use the land instead for housing. It then rejected advice it received from a non-statutory enquiry, and sought a declaration from the court as to … Continue reading Oxfordshire County Council v Oxford City Council and others: HL 24 May 2006

Lucasfilm Ltd and Others v Ainsworth and Another: SC 27 Jul 2011

The claimant had produced the Star War films which made use of props, in particular a ‘Stormtrooper’ helmet designed by the defendant. The defendant had then himself distributed models of the designs he had created. The appellant obtained judgment against the respondent in the US for punitive damages, but these had not been collected, and … Continue reading Lucasfilm Ltd and Others v Ainsworth and Another: SC 27 Jul 2011

Bridge Oil Limited v Owners And/Or Demise Charterers of Ship ‘Giuseppe De Vittorio’: CA 29 Oct 1997

The ownership of a ship by a sovereign state did not make the ship free from the possibility of arrest for non-payment. The State having operated demise charter, and having failed to comply with convention had lost its state immunity of a ship from arrest. Citations: Times 10-Nov-1997, Gazette 19-Nov-1997, [1997] EWCA Civ 2591 Statutes: … Continue reading Bridge Oil Limited v Owners And/Or Demise Charterers of Ship ‘Giuseppe De Vittorio’: CA 29 Oct 1997

Abraham and Another v Thompson and Another: CA 24 Jul 1997

The plaintiffs appealed an order that they should disclose who if any had funded their case. The case concerned failed business ventures in Portugal. Citations: [1997] EWCA Civ 2179 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: Appeal from – Abraham and Another v Thompson and Others ChD 12-May-1997 The court may issue a stay of proceedings pending … Continue reading Abraham and Another v Thompson and Another: CA 24 Jul 1997

Jones v Vans Colina: CA 15 Aug 1996

An ex parte order allowing an action by a vexatious litigant is not appealable by the prospective defendant to the action permitted. Such a defendant to proceedings by a vexatious litigant against whom a civil proceedings order had been made was neither a party to the application for leave under section 42(3) nor was entitled … Continue reading Jones v Vans Colina: CA 15 Aug 1996

NFC Properties Ltd v London Borough of Camden: CA 15 Feb 1993

An order relating to the taxation of costs was not itself an order ‘only for costs’ which must be left to the discretion of the judge hearing the application. Accordingly, the court of appeal could grant leave to appeal against the order where this was refused by the judge involved. Citations: Ind Summary 15-Feb-1993 Statutes: … Continue reading NFC Properties Ltd v London Borough of Camden: CA 15 Feb 1993

Huddleston v Control Risks: 1987

The plaintiffs were protesters against Apartheid. The defendant, a political risks consultancy, was to sell a report on the activities of anti-apartheid groups, their relationship with terrorist groups and their intentions. The claimants were concerned that the report might contain material that was defamatory of them and they wish to see it before it was … Continue reading Huddleston v Control Risks: 1987

JSC BTA Bank v Solodchenko and Others: ChD 5 Aug 2011

The claimant sought discovery of documents from the solicitors for a defendant said to be in contempt of court. Held: The disclosure was required to support an existing finding of contempt and in enforcing the order for committal. Henderson J said that in the absence of such an order the disclosure order would not have … Continue reading JSC BTA Bank v Solodchenko and Others: ChD 5 Aug 2011

Mehmet, Regina (on the Application of) v Clerk To the Justice of Miskin, Cynon Valley and Methyr Tydfill Petty Sessional Divisions: CA 29 Aug 2002

The applicant sought leave to appeal refusal of a judicial review of the decision of the respondent with regard to the taxation of his costs under a defendant’s costs order. The review had been refused as out of time and without merit. Held: The Court of Appeal could not hear an appeal from the High … Continue reading Mehmet, Regina (on the Application of) v Clerk To the Justice of Miskin, Cynon Valley and Methyr Tydfill Petty Sessional Divisions: CA 29 Aug 2002

RFC 2012 Plc (Formerly The Rangers Football Club Plc) v Advocate General for Scotland: SC 5 Jul 2017

The Court was asked whether an employee’s remuneration is taxable as his or her emoluments or earnings when it is paid to a third party in circumstances in which the employee had no prior entitlement to receive it himself or herself. Held: The company’s appeal failed. The purposive approach to the interpretation of the general … Continue reading RFC 2012 Plc (Formerly The Rangers Football Club Plc) v Advocate General for Scotland: SC 5 Jul 2017

UBS Ag and Another v Revenue and Customs: SC 9 Mar 2016

UBS AG devised an employee bonus scheme to take advantage of the provisions of Chapter 2 of the 2003 Act, with the sole purpose other than tax avoidance, and such consequential advantages as would flow from tax avoidance. Several pre-ordained steps were taken according to a detailed timetable. Once the structure of the scheme had … Continue reading UBS Ag and Another v Revenue and Customs: SC 9 Mar 2016

Brown v Executors of the Estate of HM Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother and others: CA 8 Feb 2008

The claimant sought leave to appeal refusal of access to the will of Princess Margaret. He wished to prove that he was her illegitimate son. The will had been subject to an order providing that its contens were not to be published. Held: ‘Sections 124 and 125 of the 1981 Act deal with access to … Continue reading Brown v Executors of the Estate of HM Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother and others: CA 8 Feb 2008

Kensington International Ltd v Republic of Congo and Another: ComC 20 Jul 2006

The claimant sought leave to cross examine an officer of the defendant in connection with his affidavit sworn in search order proceedings. The case had a history of deceit and dishonest oral evidence. Held: Though such an order would be exceptional, sufficient grounds had been shown in this case. Judges: Morison J Citations: [2006] EWHC … Continue reading Kensington International Ltd v Republic of Congo and Another: ComC 20 Jul 2006

Smithkline Beecham Plc Glaxosmithkline UK Ltd and Another v Apotex Europe Ltd and others (No 2): CA 23 May 2006

The parties to the action had given cross undertakings to support the grant of an interim injunction. A third party subsequently applied to be joined, and now sought to take advantage of the cross undertakings to claim the losses incurred through the giving of the ‘wrongful undertakings’ Held: The joined party, who had not itself … Continue reading Smithkline Beecham Plc Glaxosmithkline UK Ltd and Another v Apotex Europe Ltd and others (No 2): CA 23 May 2006

Right Hon Aitken MP and Preston; Pallister and Guardian Newspapers Ltd: CA 15 May 1997

The defendants appealed against an order that a defamation trial should proced before a judge alone. Held: ‘Where the parties, or one of them, is a public figure, or there are matters of national interest in question, this would suggest the need for a jury trial; but a question relating to a person’s ‘fitness for … Continue reading Right Hon Aitken MP and Preston; Pallister and Guardian Newspapers Ltd: CA 15 May 1997

Clarke, Regina v; Regina v McDaid: HL 6 Feb 2008

An indictment had not been signed despite a clear statutory provision that it should be. The defects were claimed to have been cured by amendment before sentence. Held: The convictions failed. Sections 1(1) and 2(1) of the 1933 Act which provided for a bill of indictment (which had of itself no legal standing save as … Continue reading Clarke, Regina v; Regina v McDaid: HL 6 Feb 2008

Manuel and Others v Attorney-General; Noltcho and Others v Attorney-General: ChD 7 May 1982

The plaintiffs were Indian Chiefs from Canada. They complained that the 1982 Act which granted independence to Canada, had been passed without their consent, which they said was required. They feared the loss of rights embedded by historical treaties. The Attorney General sought the strike out of the claims. Held: The application for a strike … Continue reading Manuel and Others v Attorney-General; Noltcho and Others v Attorney-General: ChD 7 May 1982

Medcalf v Mardell, Weatherill and Another: HL 27 Jun 2002

The appellants were barristers against whom wasted costs orders had been made. They appealed. They had made allegations of fraud in pleadings, but without being able to provide evidence to support the allegation. This was itself a breach of the Bar Council Code of Practice. Held: A barrister must not draft a pleading containing an … Continue reading Medcalf v Mardell, Weatherill and Another: HL 27 Jun 2002

Micula and Others v Romania: SC 19 Feb 2020

The appellant sought to enforce a international arbitration award against the respondent. The award was made under an arrangement which later became unlawful on Romania’s accession to the EU, and Romania obtained s stay pending resolution by the CJEU. Held: The stay was lifted. Judges: Lady Hale, Lord Reed, Lord Hodge, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Sales … Continue reading Micula and Others v Romania: SC 19 Feb 2020

Coppard v The Commissioners of Customs and Excise, Lord Chancellor intervening: CA 9 Apr 2003

The judge, a circuit judge who had been appointed a judge of the TCC, had adjudicated on the claimant’s case in the High Court in the false belief that the appointment allowed him to do so. Held: The judge had not wilfully closed his eyes to the law, and his mistake was understandable. On established … Continue reading Coppard v The Commissioners of Customs and Excise, Lord Chancellor intervening: CA 9 Apr 2003

Lee-Hirons v Secretary of State for Justice: SC 27 Jul 2016

The appellant had been detained in a mental hospital after a conviction. Later released, he was recalled, but he was not given written reasons as required by a DoH circular. However the SS referred the recall immediately to the Tribunal. He appealed from refusal of a finding that his subsequent detention had been unlawful. Held: … Continue reading Lee-Hirons v Secretary of State for Justice: SC 27 Jul 2016

Treasury Solicitors (Decision Notice): ICO 23 Oct 2006

ICO The complainant is the subject of a civil proceedings order issued under section 42 of the Supreme Court Act 1981. The Complainant wrote to the Attorney General’s Office to request information related to the making of this order. The request was transferred to the Treasury Solicitors who refused the request on the grounds that … Continue reading Treasury Solicitors (Decision Notice): ICO 23 Oct 2006

HM Attorney-General v Ian Richard Flack: Admn 29 Nov 2000

A civil proceedings order was sought against the respondent. The respondent had commenced many actions against a particular company, which it was claimed were vindictive in nature. Held: Though the earliest proceedings had been vexatious it was not possible to characterise more recent attempts to litigate as such. ‘An improper motive may convert an otherwise … Continue reading HM Attorney-General v Ian Richard Flack: Admn 29 Nov 2000

Hill (As Trustee In Bankruptcy of Nurkowski) v Spread Trustee Company Ltd and Another: CA 12 May 2006

The defendants sought relief for transactions entered into at an undervalue. The bankrupt had entered into charges and an assignment of a loan account in their favour before his bankruptcy, and the trustee had obtained an order for them to be set aside as a fraud on his creditors. Held: To have such orders set … Continue reading Hill (As Trustee In Bankruptcy of Nurkowski) v Spread Trustee Company Ltd and Another: CA 12 May 2006

Underhill v Hernandez: 29 Nov 1897

(US Supreme Court) Underhill, a US citizen, had constructed a waterworks in Bolivar for the government which was eventually overthrown by revolutionary forces, one of whose generals was Hernandez. After Hernandez had captured Bolivar, Underhill sought to leave. Hernandez refused the request and confined Underhill to his house, in order to coerce Underhill into continuing … Continue reading Underhill v Hernandez: 29 Nov 1897

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

Travelers Insurance Company Ltd v XYZ: SC 30 Oct 2019

Challenge to the making of a non-party costs order under section 51 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 against the product liability insurer of one of the defendants in litigation being managed under a Group Litigation Order (‘GLO’). Many of the claimants in the successful action were not insured, and Travelers, the defendant’s insurers resisted … Continue reading Travelers Insurance Company Ltd v XYZ: SC 30 Oct 2019

TGA Chapman Limited; Benson Turner Limited v Christopher and Sun Alliance and London Insurance Plc: CA 8 Jul 1997

A section 51 application was made because the cover was limited under the defendant’s liability policy and insufficient to pay all the damages, let alone any part of the costs, and the defendant was not worth powder and shot. Nonetheless the claim fell squarely within the cover provided by the policy. It was an insured … Continue reading TGA Chapman Limited; Benson Turner Limited v Christopher and Sun Alliance and London Insurance Plc: CA 8 Jul 1997

Regina v Pan: 29 Jun 2001

(Supreme Court of Canada) The court considered the reason behind the common law rule against a court examining the activities of a jury: ‘the rule seeks to preserve the secrecy of the jury’s deliberations, while ensuring that those deliberations remain untainted by contact with information or individuals from outside the jury. As a result, where … Continue reading Regina v Pan: 29 Jun 2001

Regina v Ashworth Hospital Authority (Now Mersey Care National Health Service Trust) ex parte Munjaz: HL 13 Oct 2005

The claimant was detained in a secure Mental Hospital. He complained at the seclusions policy applied by the hospital, saying that it departed from the Guidance issued for such policies by the Secretary of State under the Act. Held: The House allowed the Hospital’s appeal. The policy was lawful. Seclusion was to be seen as … Continue reading Regina v Ashworth Hospital Authority (Now Mersey Care National Health Service Trust) ex parte Munjaz: HL 13 Oct 2005

Holden and Co v Crown Prosecution Service (No 2); Similar Cases: CA 8 Jan 1992

The Civil Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to award Costs from central funds and they should be made in favour of successful applicants against wasted costs orders in criminal proceedings. Citations: Gazette 08-Jan-1992, [1992] 1 WLR 407, [1992] 2 All ER 642 Statutes: Supreme Court Act 1981 51(1) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Appeal … Continue reading Holden and Co v Crown Prosecution Service (No 2); Similar Cases: CA 8 Jan 1992

Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police: SC 8 Feb 2018

Limits to Police Exemption from Liability The claimant, an elderly lady was bowled over and injured when police were chasing a suspect through the streets. As they arrested him they fell over on top of her. She appealed against refusal of her claim in negligence. Held: Her appeal succeeded. It is normally only in a … Continue reading Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police: SC 8 Feb 2018

Assicurazioni Generali Spa v Arab Insurance Group (BSC): CA 13 Nov 2002

Rehearing/Review – Little Difference on Appeal The appellant asked the Court to reverse a decision on the facts reached in the lower court. Held: The appeal failed (Majority decision). The court’s approach should be the same whether the case was dealt with as a rehearing or as a review. Tanfern was limited to appeals from … Continue reading Assicurazioni Generali Spa v Arab Insurance Group (BSC): CA 13 Nov 2002

C Plc and W v P and Secretary of State for the Home Office and the Attorney General: ChD 26 May 2006

The claimant sought damages from the first defendant for breach of copyright. An ex parte search order had been executed, with the defendant asserting his privilege against self-incrimination. As computer disks were examined, potentially unlawful images of children were found. The searching officer asked the court for directions as to what to do. Held: The … Continue reading C Plc and W v P and Secretary of State for the Home Office and the Attorney General: ChD 26 May 2006

Hartley and Others v King Edward VI College: CA 14 May 2015

The claimant teachers had been involved in a day’s strike action They objected that the employer had deducted 1/260 and not 1/365 of their annual salary. Held: Section 2 of the 1870 Act did apply to a teacher’s contract, and the employee’s appeal failed. Elias, Tomlinson, Sales LJJ [2015] EWCA Civ 455, [2015] WLR(D) 216, … Continue reading Hartley and Others v King Edward VI College: CA 14 May 2015

Treasury Solicitors (Decision Notice): ICO 20 Jul 2006

The complainant requested a variety of information, including information on files and records relating to him and held by the Law Officers, papers generated in the proceedings brought against him under section 42 of the Supreme Court Act 1981, and access to all communications between the public authority and named third parties. Part of the … Continue reading Treasury Solicitors (Decision Notice): ICO 20 Jul 2006

S Franses Limited v The Cavendish Hotel (London) Ltd: SC 5 Dec 2018

The question which arises on this appeal is whether it is open to the landlord to oppose the grant of a new business tenancy if the works which he says that he intends to carry out have no purpose other than to get rid of the tenant and would not be undertaken if the tenant … Continue reading S Franses Limited v The Cavendish Hotel (London) Ltd: SC 5 Dec 2018