Ex Parte Lacey: 1789

[1789] EngR 811, (1789-1817) 1 Ves Jun Supp 633, (1789) 34 ER 955 (D)
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
See AlsoEx Parte Lacey 5-Feb-1802
Trustee Not To purchase Property of Trust
Lord Eldon held that equity imposed stringent duties on persons who were appointed trustees of trusts and that these duties were imposed with ‘relentless jealousy’ in order to ensure that trustees fulfilled their duties, and that trustees had to be . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 October 2021; Ref: scu.366442

Dornoch Ltd and Others v Westminster International Bv and Others: Adct 17 Jul 2009

The Hon. Mr Justice Tomlinson
[2009] EWHC 1782 (Admlty)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoDornoch Ltd and Others v Westminster International Bv and Others AdCt 12-Feb-2009
Claim following total loss of a mega trailer hopper dredger, the WD Fairway. The underwriters say that they had impliedly accepted the abandonment and exercised their rights to take over the vessel pursuant to Sections 63(1) and/or 79(1) of the . .
See AlsoDornoch Ltd and Others v Westminster International Bv and Others AdCt 29-Apr-2009
The vessel, a mega trailer having been lost, the underwriters claimed rights in it having paid under the policies, and the owners tendered notice of abandonment to the hull and machinery underwriters. The next day underwriters declined to accept . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 October 2021; Ref: scu.421232

Attorney-General v Governors of Harrow School: 26 Jul 1754

Charity jurisdiction – where trustees of a charity have discretionary powers, the court will not interpose unless they act corruptly. Though it may not choose to interpose, it does not follow that an information seeking the court’s interference, will be dismissed; since it may be serviceable to maintain a control over them. Where there is, in point of substance, a visitor, it excludes the general interference of the court either by commission within the 43 Eliz. or its ordinary jurisdiction.
[1754] EngR 159, (1754) Ves Sen Supp 406, (1754) 28 ER 562 (C), [1754] EngR 160, (1754) 2 Ves Sen 551, (1754) 28 ER 351 (B)
Commonlii, Commonlii
England and Wales

Updated: 17 October 2021; Ref: scu.378139

The Attorney-General v Lepine: 1789

[1789] EngR 2055, (1789-1817) 2 Ves Jun Supp 573, (1789) 34 ER 1232 (G)
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
See AlsoAttorney-General v Lepine 1818
The testator left part of his residuary estate for the benefit of a school for the poor in the parish of Dollar in Scotland.
Held: The English court declined jurisdiction. ‘I have always understood that, where a charity is to be administered . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 October 2021; Ref: scu.367686

Attorney-General v The Master And Wardens Of The Haberdashers’ Company: 12 Mar 1834

A gift of a specific sum, out of the rents of an estate, to one of the chartered companies in the city of London, ‘for the increase of the stock of corn for the service of the market in London’; and a gift of the Residue of such funds to the same company, ‘for the further increase of their stock of corn’, are donations for the benefit of the company and its revenues, and not subject, therefore, to the jurisdiction of the court as charities.
[1834] EngR 583, (1834) 1 My and K 420, (1834) 39 ER 741
Commonlii
England and Wales

Updated: 17 October 2021; Ref: scu.317259

Booth v Leycester: 23 Feb 1837

An injunction was granted to restrain the Plaintiff from prosecuting a suit not brought to a hearing in Ireland, the subject-matter of the suit being the same as that of a suit instituted in this Court, and in which this Court had pronounced a decree, refusing the relief sought by the Plaintiff:
[1837] EngR 534, (1837) 1 Keen 579, (1837) 48 ER 430 (B)
Commonlii
England and Wales

Updated: 17 October 2021; Ref: scu.313651

Attorney-General v Black: 17 Jul 1805

Petition to the Lord Chancellor, as visitor in right of the crown of the Free School of Woodbridge; two persons having been elected; the right of election being in the chief inhabitants; and the chief inhabitants at the time of the foundation, and the heir of the survivor, not to be discovered. Both elections were declared void; and a reference to the attorney-general to report, what directions or alterations will be proper as to the mode and right of election, and in the orders, constitutions, and directions, of the school; as shall seem to him most conducive to the interest of the objects of the charity, and the furtherance of the intention of the donors.
Lord Eldon, having decided that the election of a master of a free school had not been carried out in accordance with the terms of the trusts, continued the appointment of acting master until proper elections could be held, which was obviously a necessary and expedient intervention by the court.
Lord Eldon
[1805] EngR 248, (1805) 11 Ves Jun 191, (1805) 32 ER 1061
Commonlii
England and Wales

Updated: 17 October 2021; Ref: scu.343321

James v Blockbuster Entertainment Ltd: CA 23 Oct 2008

The claimant renewed his application for leave to appeal.
Held: The claimant’s first ground was unarguable. His original application failed to comply with the requirements of the 2002 Act. On the second ground, the tribunal had disagreed with the claimant but not made an error of law. As to the second hearing, the tribunal had reached an adverse view of the claimant, and on the facts were entitled to that view, and no point of law arose.
[2008] EWCA Civ 1158
Bailii
Employment Act 2002
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoJames v Blockbuster Entertainment Ltd EAT 6-Oct-2005
EAT Practice and Procedure
Strike out case. ET struck out two claims for failing to comply with tribunal orders. Whether a proportionate sanction; whether they erred on a proper understanding of facts. . .
See AlsoBlockbuster Entertainment Ltd v James CA 25-May-2006
The defendant company appealed against an order re-instating the claimants’ claims for damages for race discrimination and victimisation after they had been struck out for wilful disobedience of the tribunal’s orders.
Held: When making a . .
Appeal fromJames v Blockbuster Entertainment Ltd EAT 18-Aug-2006
EAT Practice and Procedure – Costs
Costs orders for andpound;10,000 and andpound;1000 did not exceed the statutory maximum order Reg 14. Order for andpound;10000 made after striking-out order; that order was . .
CitedHendricks v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis CA 27-Nov-2002
The appellant appealed a finding of the Employment Appeal Tribunal against her. She had complained of sex and race discrimination. She alleged that the Tribunal had concentrated on the issues of policy within the respondent police force.
Held: . .
CitedCanary Wharf Management Limited v Edebi EAT 3-Mar-2006
EAT Practice and Procedure – striking-out/dismissal
Grievance procedures. Were they complied with? Held not to be in the circumstances of this case. Observations on what counts as compliance and how . .
CitedSelkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore EAT 2-May-1996
The claimant had been summarily dismissed. His application at first made no mention of a complaint that it had related to his trades union activities. He wrote to the secretary seeking amendment of his claim to include a claim that his dismissal was . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 October 2021; Ref: scu.277143

Attorney-General v The Haberdashers’ Company: 17 Jun 1835

The attendance of the attorney-general before the master, upon a reference to settle a scheme for the administration of a charity, may be dispensed with in certain cases. A direction for such attendance in a case where the charity fund did not much exceed pounds 1100 was struck out of the minutes of the decree.
[1835] EngR 836, (1835) 2 My and K 817, (1835) 39 ER 1156
Commonlii
England and Wales

Updated: 17 October 2021; Ref: scu.316344

A and others v HM Treasury; G v HM Treasury: CA 30 Oct 2008

The Treasury appealed against an order quashing its own 2006 Orders, giving effect to the obligations on the United Kingdom as a member of the United Nations to ensure that the assets of an individual designated by the UN were to be subject to severe financial restrictions.
Held: The Orders in Council made under the 1946 Act giving effect to UN resolutions were effective subject to certain conditions. In particular there was a need to show reasonable cause to suspect involvement in terrorist activities, and proper opportunity to object to and answer any allegations made.
Sir Anthony Clarke MR said: ‘There is no power to appoint a special advocate in proceedings arising out of an order [made under the 2006 Order]. However, as I see it there is no reason in principle why a special advocate should not be appointed in a particular case. The authorities show that in an appropriate case the court would have the power to authorise or request the use of a special advocate, see in particular the decision of the House of Lords in Roberts . . where it was held that the court had power to do so even though it was not sanctioned by Parliament. Whether it should do so would depend on the particular circumstances of the case. It has very recently been held by the Divisional Court in Malik . . that the court has power to ask the Attorney-General to appoint a special advocate or that it should only do so in an exceptional case and as a last resort. . ‘ and ‘the court has power to order a special advocate. In most cases such an advocate should be able to ensure that the individual will receive a fair hearing. In other cases the direction would have to be discharged, see the reasoning of the House of Lords in the MB case. In either case, the interests of the individual will be protected.’
Sir Anthony Clarke MR, Sedley LJ, Wilson LJ
[2008] EWCA Civ 1187, [2009] Lloyd’s Rep FC 14, [2009] 2 All ER 747, [2009] ACD 16, [2009] 3 WLR 25
Bailii, Times
Al-Qaida and Taliban (United Nations Measures) Order 2006, Terrorism (United Nations Measures) Order 2006, United Nations Act 1946
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedAl Rawi and Others v The Security Service and Others QBD 18-Nov-2009
The claimants sought damages from the defendants saying that they had been held and ill treated at various detention centres by foreign authorities, but with the involvement of the defendants. The defendants sought to bring evidence before the court . .
Appeal fromHM Treasury v Ahmed and Others SC 27-Jan-2010
The claimants objected to orders made freezing their assets under the 2006 Order, after being included in the Consolidated List of suspected members of terrorist organisations.
Held: The orders could not stand. Such orders were made by the . .
CitedAl Rawi and Others v The Security Service and Others CA 4-May-2010
Each claimant had been captured and mistreated by the US government, and claimed the involvement in and responsibility for that mistreatment by the respondents. The court was asked whether a court in England and Wales, in the absence of statutory . .
CitedAl Rawi and Others v The Security Service and Others SC 13-Jul-2011
The claimant pursued a civil claim for damages, alleging complicity of the respondent in his torture whilst in the custody of foreign powers. The respondent sought that certain materials be available to the court alone and not to the claimant or the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 October 2021; Ref: scu.277356

Barnett v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government: Admn 20 Jun 2008

[2008] EWHC 1601 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromBarnett v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government CA 23-Mar-2009
The Court was asked whether a planning permission granted permission for the use of a piece of land for purposes ancillary to a dwelling house, so that that land became part of the curtilage of the house, and permitted the construction of a tennis . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 October 2021; Ref: scu.270841

Re Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd: ChD 4 Aug 2020

Application by Virgin Atlantic Airways Limited under s.901C(1) of the Companies Act 2006, for an order summoning meetings of certain of its creditors for the purpose of considering and, if thought fit, approving a compromise or arrangement within s.901A of the Act.
[2020] EWHC 2191 (Ch)
Bailii
Companies Act 2006 901C(1)
England and Wales

Updated: 17 October 2021; Ref: scu.653111

Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy v Rahman: ChD 14 Aug 2020

Judgment on a claim brought by the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy against the defendant for an order under section 8 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. The allegation against the defendant is that he was a de facto director (though not a de jure or a shadow director) of a company and that his conduct as such director makes him unfit to be concerned in the management of a company.
Held: Rejected: ‘there is in my judgment nothing to show that the defendant assumed the duties of a director, nothing to show that he had any role in the governance of the company, or in fact that he ever did anything for the company (even supervising the sale of alcohol) and nothing to show that anyone else thought he was a director. In my judgment, the evidence presented in this case, properly viewed in its own context, and having regard to the oral evidence given to me, does not demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that the defendant was a de facto director of the company.’
HHJ Paul Matthews
[2020] EWHC 2213 (Ch)
Bailii
Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 8
England and Wales

Updated: 17 October 2021; Ref: scu.653110

The Indian Fortune: 1985

O let their vessel to C on a time charter. Pursuant to orders, the vessel loaded a cargo of rice at Bangkok for carriage to the Soviet Union. The bills of lading contained a clause providing that all disputes would be determined were the carrier had his principal place of business. P brought a cargo claim for short delivery. D sought a stay on the grounds that the parties had agreed to litigate all disputes in India.
Held: that 1) P had not shown strong cause that the proceedings should remain in England; neither party nor the dispute had any connection with England and 2) The fact that there was likely to be a delay if the matter litigated in India could not be relied upon by P since all the day to date was of P’s making and 3) the fact that P’s claim might be time-barred in India was not decisive.
Sheen J
[198] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 344
England and Wales

Updated: 17 October 2021; Ref: scu.653204

Skatteforvaltningen (The Danish Customs and Tax Admin) v Solo Capital Partners Llp and Others: ComC 6 Aug 2020

Application of the Sanjay Shah Defendants for an order that a substantial sum currently held in court should be paid out for the purposes of enabling them to pay their legal fees to the end of this litigation.
Mr Justice Foxton
[2020] EWHC 2161 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 17 October 2021; Ref: scu.653087

Rex v Legislative Committee of the Church Assembly: 1928

It was sought to prohibit the Assembly from proceeding further with the Prayer Book Measure, 1927. I think that the Church Assembly has no such power, and therefore no such duty.’
Held: In order to invoke the court’s jurisdiction to review a decision by means of a prerogative writ, it was necessary to establish that the decision under challenge was made by a decision-maker subject to a duty to act judicially: ‘The question therefore which we have to ask ourselves in this case is whether it is true to say in this matter, either of the Church Assembly as a whole, or of the Legislative Committee of the Church Assembly, that it is a body of persons having legal authority to determine questions affecting the rights of subjects, and having the duty to act judicially. It is to be observed that in the last sentence of Atkin L .J. the word is not ‘or ‘, but ‘and ‘. In order that a body may satisfy. the required test it is not enough that it should have legal authority to determine questions affecting the rights of subjects; there must be superadded to that characteristic the further characteristic that- the body has the duty to act judicially. The duty to act judicially is an ingredient which, if the test is to be satisfied, must be present. As these writs in the earlier days were issued only to bodies which without any harshness of construction could be called, and naturally – would be called Courts, so also today these Writs do not issue except to bodies which act or are under the duty to act in a judicial capacity .’
Lord Hewart CJ
[1928] 1 KB 411
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedRidge v Baldwin (No 1) HL 14-Mar-1963
No Condemnation Without Opportunity For Defence
Ridge, a Chief Constable, had been wrongfully dismissed because he was not given the opportunity of presenting his defence. He had been acquitted of the charges brought against him, but the judge at trial had made adverse comments about his . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 October 2021; Ref: scu.653102

Scott v Martin: 1987

When construing a land contract, the parties should not readily be assumed to have intended to act in breach of planning requirements
[1987] 1 WLR 841
Cited by:
CitedGeoffrey Allan Chadwick, Sylvia Joyce Chadwick, Edward James Chadwick v Abbotswood Properties Ltd, Gordon Leonard Hauser, Pamela Ann Hauser, Rectory Pump Ltd ChD 18-May-2004
Between to new houses was a steep bank. Who owned it? Before the transfer there had been different plans and much correspondence.
Held: Where there was doubt as to the extent of land transferred, the court could look to the physical boundaries . .
CitedStafford and Another v Lee and Another CA 10-Nov-1992
The plaintiff had built houses on his land and sought an easement of necessity over the neighbour’s drive for access for the houses under the rule in Pwllbach Colliery, saying an intended easement had been granted because it was known to the parties . .
CitedClarke and Another v Corless and Another ChD 8-Jul-2009
The parties disputed whether one could retain for his own benefit land on an estate reserved for an estate road. A trust was claimed under Pallant saying that the parties had made an informal agreement before the property was purchased.
Held: . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 October 2021; Ref: scu.197730

Ferris v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 15 Jun 2020

Information Notice – Schedule 36 Finance Act 2008 – whether information ‘reasonably required’ – burden of proof – business records found ‘incomplete’ and ‘unreliable’ – necessity for further information to establish alternative bases for checking tax position – validity of request for ‘personal records’ – whether joint-named accounts ‘third-party’ documents – the restriction criteria paras 18 and 19(3) of Sch 36 – Notice confirmed – appeal dismissed
[2020] UKFTT 258 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 17 October 2021; Ref: scu.652284

Welsh Government (Central Government): ICO 21 Feb 2020

The complainant requested a copy of the Equality Impact Assessment conducted for the Welsh Government’s plan to advance quality for transgender people. The Welsh Government stated that it did not hold the information requested. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities the Welsh Government does not hold the information requested. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
FOI 1: Complaint not upheld
[2020] UKICO fs50865468
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 17 October 2021; Ref: scu.651445

Sherrington and Others v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax – Loss Relief): FTTTx 9 Mar 2020

INCOME TAX – loss relief – whether appellants carrying on a trade – no – whether any trade carried on on a commercial basis with a view to profit – no – whether loss calculated in accordance with generally accepted accounting practice – no – appeals dismissed
[2020] UKFTT 128 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 17 October 2021; Ref: scu.649215

St Anne’s Well Brewery Co v Roberts: 1928

Acton J
(1928) 140 LT 1
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromSt Anne’s Well Brewery Co v Roberts CA 2-Jan-1928
Scrutton LJ said: ‘Under those circumstances it appears to me that the cardinal thing which would have to be proved to establish any liability against anybody would be, namely, knowledge of the defect which ultimately resulted in the fall of the . .
CitedCoope and Others v Ward and Another CA 28-Jan-2015
The court was asked: ‘ (i) whether the Appellants, owed to the Respondents a ‘measured duty of care’ which, in certain circumstances, may arise as between adjoining landowners in respect of a hazard arising on their land without their fault; (ii) . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 October 2021; Ref: scu.542056

St Anne’s Well Brewery Co v Roberts: CA 2 Jan 1928

Scrutton LJ said: ‘Under those circumstances it appears to me that the cardinal thing which would have to be proved to establish any liability against anybody would be, namely, knowledge of the defect which ultimately resulted in the fall of the wall and (or) failure to acquire that knowledge because you had failed to use reasonable care to ascertain what you should have ascertained.’ and ‘One of the most normal uses of land, it appears to me, is to put buildings on it.’
Scrutton LJ
(1928) 140 LT 1
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromSt Anne’s Well Brewery Co v Roberts 1928
. .

Cited by:
CitedCoope and Others v Ward and Another CA 28-Jan-2015
The court was asked: ‘ (i) whether the Appellants, owed to the Respondents a ‘measured duty of care’ which, in certain circumstances, may arise as between adjoining landowners in respect of a hazard arising on their land without their fault; (ii) . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 October 2021; Ref: scu.542057

AA005362014: AIT 6 Nov 2014

AIT ‘The appellant is a female citizen of Egypt born 28 August 1983. She claimed asylum in October 2013, having arrived in the United Kingdom earlier that month. In a decision letter dated 14 January 2014, the respondent refused her application to asylum and gave directions for her removal. The appellant appealed against that decision.
The appeal came before Judge of the First-Tier Tribunal Harmes sitting at Newport in February 2014. The appellant was not represented, but the respondent was represented by a Presenting Officer. The appellant gave evidence. The refusal letter questioned the credibility of the appellant, but the determination shows that Judge Harmes found the appellant to be credible for the reasons given. Judge Harmes allowed the appeal on asylum and on Articles 2 and 3 ECHR grounds.
The respondent sought leave to appeal alleging that the judge had failed to give reasons or any adequate reasons for findings on material matters. It further alleged that the judge failed to take into account and/or resolve conflicts of facts or opinion.
Specifically it was alleged that the judge had failed to provide adequate reasons for making findings regarding the arrest of the appellant’s husband prior to the overthrow of the Morsi Regime. It is also alleged that the judge failed to give reasons for accepting the appellants claimed membership of the ‘FJP’ and criticises the judge for comments that the respondent had based a decision on a biased view of the evidence.’
Poole UTJ
[2014] UKAITUR AA005362014
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 17 October 2021; Ref: scu.543406

Regina v Hailwood and Ackroyd Ltd: CCA 1928

During a parliamentary by-election in which there were three candidates, Conservative, Liberal and Labour, the accused had in- curred expenses on account of issuing publications which were antagonistic to the Conservative candidate and advised the constituents not to vote for him, but did not in express terms advise them to vote for either of the other candidates. It was held by the court that this constituted an offence under section 34(1). In delivering the judgment of the court, Avory J. said: ‘It is now suggested that, in a case like the present, where there are three candidates representing three different political parties, Conservative, Liberal and Labour, if a person who is not authorised by the election agent of a candidate incurs expenses of the kind in question he cannot be convicted under the section, which prohibits the incurring of the expenses for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of ‘any candidate’, unless it be shown definitely that he had the intention of promoting or procuring the election of one of these three candidates in particular. The answer to that suggestion is that the expression ‘any candidate’ in the section is not limited to one candidate only, since it is provided by the Interpretation Act. 1889 (52 and 53 Vict. c. 63), section 1 subsection (1)(b), that words in the singular shall include the plural. It is further said that the appellant is not liable, inasmuch as while he endeavoured to prevent the election of one of the candidates, he did not directly promote or procure the election of any of them. If, however, a person has done what is forbidden by the section for a purpose which must have the effect of promoting or procuring the election of a candidate or candidates then there can be no question that he has committed an offence under the section.’
Avory J
[1928] 2 KB 277
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Luft HL 26-May-1976
The defendants were campaigning against the National Front in an election. They were separately said to have distributed leaflets infringing the 1949 Act, in that the expenses were not authorised, and the leaflets did not have the name of the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 October 2021; Ref: scu.536061