Author: admin

Aspect Contracts (Asbestos) Ltd v Higgins Construction Plc: CA 29 Nov 2013

The appeal succeeded. The Scheme implied that any overpayment could be recovered.
References: [2013] EWCA Civ 1541, 151 Con LR 72, [2013] WLR(D) 463, [2014] BLR 79, [2014] 1 WLR 1220, [2013] 2 CLC 1019, [2014] CILL 3449, [2014] Bus LR 367, [2013] 49 EG 77
Links: Bailii
Judges: Longmore, Rimer, Tomlinson LJJ
Statutes: Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 108(5), Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Regulations 1998
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

This case is cited by:

  • Appeal from – Aspect Contracts (Asbetos) Ltd v Higgins Construction Plc SC 17-Jun-2015 (, [2015] UKSC 38, [2015] 4 All ER 482, [2015] WLR(D) 261, 160 Con LR 28, [2015] BLR 503, [2015] 1 WLR 2961, [2015] 2 All ER (Comm) 965, [2015] Bus LR 830, , , UKSC 2014/0021, , , )
    Aspect had claimed the return of funds paid by it to the appellant Higgins under an adjudication award in a construction contract disute. The claimant had been asked to prpare asbestos surveys and reports on maisonettes which Higgins was to acquire . .
  • Cited – Aspect Contracts (Asbetos) Ltd v Higgins Construction Plc SC 17-Jun-2015 (, [2015] UKSC 38, [2015] 4 All ER 482, [2015] WLR(D) 261, 160 Con LR 28, [2015] BLR 503, [2015] 1 WLR 2961, [2015] 2 All ER (Comm) 965, [2015] Bus LR 830, , , UKSC 2014/0021, , , )
    Aspect had claimed the return of funds paid by it to the appellant Higgins under an adjudication award in a construction contract disute. The claimant had been asked to prpare asbestos surveys and reports on maisonettes which Higgins was to acquire . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 23 September 2020; Ref: scu.518494

Thesing, Bloomberg Finance Lp v European Central Bank: ECJ 6 Nov 2013

ECJ Order – Appeals – Application to intervene – Representation by a lawyer – Interest in the result of the case – Rejection
References: C-28/13, [2013] EUECJ C-28/13
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: European
This case is cited by:

  • Opinion – Thesing, Bloomberg Finance Lp v European Central Bank ECJ 6-Feb-2014 (, [2014] EUECJ C-28/13, C-28/13, ECLI:EU:C:2014:230)
    ECJ Order – Appeal – Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Article 169(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Content required in the application initiating an appeal . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 23 September 2020; Ref: scu.518464

Dixons Retail Plc v Commissioners For Her Majesty’s Revenue And Customs: ECJ 21 Nov 2013

ECJ Directive 2006/112/EC – Value added tax – Supply of goods – Concept – Fraudulent use of a bank card
References: [2014] 2 WLR 893, [2013] EUECJ C-494/12, [2014] 1 Ch 326, ECLI:EU:C:2013:758, [2014] STC 375, [2013] WLR(D) 448, [2014] BVC 2, [2013] STI 3573
Links: Bailii
Statutes: Directive 2006/112/EC
Jurisdiction: European
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Airtours Holidays Transport Ltd v Revenue and Customs SC 11-May-2016 (, [2016] UKSC 21, , [2016] 4 WLR 87, [2016] STI 1529, [2016] 4 All ER 1, [2016] BVC 17, [2016] STC 1509, UKSC 2014/0215, , )
    The court was asked whether the appellant, Airtours Holidays Transport Ltd (formerly MyTravel Group plc), was entitled to recover, by way of input tax VAT charged by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP in respect of services provided by PwC and paid for by . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 23 September 2020; Ref: scu.518456

X v Minister Van Financien: ECJ 21 Nov 2013

ECJ Request for a preliminary ruling – Article 43 EC – Motor vehicles – Use in a Member State of a private motor vehicle registered in another Member State – Taxation of that vehicle in the first Member State when it was first used on the national road network and also in the second Member State when it was registered – Vehicle used by the citizen concerned for both private use and for going, from the Member State of origin, to the place of work situated in the first Member State
References: C-302/12, [2013] EUECJ C-302/12
Links: Bailii
Judges: R. Silva de Lapuerta
Jurisdiction: European

Last Update: 23 September 2020; Ref: scu.518465

Peter Macinsky v Getfin SRO Financreal SRO: ECJ 21 Nov 2013

ECJ Opinion – Admissibility – Directive 93/13/EEC – Consumer credit agreement – Unfair terms – Settlement of a secured claim by recourse to the public auction of immovable property – Possibility of foregoing judicial proceedings under national legislation – Principle of effectiveness – Limitation of the temporal effects of a judgment
References: C-482/12, [2013] EUECJ C-482/12
Links: Bailii
Judges: Wahl AG
Statutes: Directive 93/13/EEC
Jurisdiction: European

Last Update: 23 September 2020; Ref: scu.518462

Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs v Assistant Deputy Coroner for Inner North London: Admn 27 Nov 2013

The SS had claimed public interest immunity (PII) in respect of several documents requested for an inquest into the death of Alexander Litvinenko, a prominent Russian exile. The coroner had rejected the claim for several, and the SS now appealed.
References: [2013] EWHC 3724 (Admin)
Links: Bailii
Judges: Goldring, Treacy LJJ, mitting J
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 23 September 2020; Ref: scu.518481

Alansi, Regina (on The Application of) v London Borough of Newham: Admn 27 Nov 2013

The claimant challenged the decision by the respondent no longer to treat her as being in the Priority Homeseeker category for rehousing.
References: [2013] EWHC 3722 (Admin), [2014] WLR(D) 117, [2014] PTSR 948
Links: Bailii, WLRD
Judges: Stuart-Smith J
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 23 September 2020; Ref: scu.518475

Devon and Cornwall Police v HM Coroner for Plymouth, Torbay and South Devon and Others: Admn 27 Nov 2013

The court heard an application by the police to restrain a question being put to an inquest jury. Two people had died after a police car had sought to persuade a driver to stop. He was thought to be at risk of committing suicide. The coroner sought to ask the jury whether any defect had been shown in the Police procedures.
Held: The question was not to be asked. This was an exceptional case allowing such an intervention, and, inter alia, ‘the jury would otherwise be asked to make findings that could have a substantial negative impact on PC Bickford in particular when, on the information available to me, he has had no proper opportunity to deal in evidence with the criticisms that would inevitably arise if the jury were to answer question 9 affirmatively. ‘
References: [2013] EWHC 3729 (Admin)
Links: Bailii
Judges: Stuart-Smith J
Statutes: Coroners and Justice Act 2009 5
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 23 September 2020; Ref: scu.518477

European Commission v Council of The European Union, United Kingdom of Great Britain And Northern Ireland: ECJ 19 Nov 2013

ECJ Action for annulment – Decision 2011/866/EU – Annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union – Staff Regulations – Article 65 of the Staff Regulations – Method of adjustment – Article 3 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations – Exception clause – Article 10 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations – Serious and sudden deterioration in the economic and social situation – Adjustment of correction coefficients – Article 64 of the Staff Regulations – Council decision – Refusal to adopt the Commission’s proposal
References: C-63/12, [2013] EUECJ C-63/12
Links: Bailii

Last Update: 23 September 2020; Ref: scu.518458

Glaxosmithkline Biologicals Sa v Comptroller-General Of Patents, Designs And Trade Marks: ECJ 14 Nov 2013

ECJ Medicinal products for human use – Supplementary protection certificate – Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 – Concepts of ‘active ingredient’ and ‘combination of active ingredients’ – Adjuvant
References: C-210/13, [2013] EUECJ C-210/13
Links: Bailii
Judges: Caoimh P
Statutes: Regulation (EC) No 469/2009

Last Update: 23 September 2020; Ref: scu.518459

El Hogar Perfecto Del Siglo Xxi, Sl v Office For Harmonisation In The Internal Market (Trade Marks And Designs), v Wenf International Advisers Ltd: ECFI 21 Nov 2013

ECJ Community design – Invalidity proceedings – Registered Community design representing a corkscrew – Earlier national design – Ground for invalidity – Lack of individual character – Overall impression not different – Informed user – Degree of freedom of the designer – Articles 4, 6 and 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002
References: T-337/12, [2013] EUECJ T-337/12
Links: Bailii
Statutes: Regulation (EC) No 6/2002

Last Update: 23 September 2020; Ref: scu.518457

Astrazeneca Ab v Comptroller General Of Patents, Designs And Trade Marks: ECJ 14 Nov 2013

ECJ Medicinal products for human use – Supplementary protection certificate – Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 – Article 13(1) – Concept of ‘first authorisation to place [a product] on the market in the Community’ – Authorisation issued by the Swiss Institute for Medicinal Products (Swissmedic) – Automatic recognition in Liechtenstein – Authorisation issued by the European Medicines Agency – Period of validity of a certificate
References: C-617/12, [2013] EUECJ C-617/12, [2014] EUECJ C-617/12
Links: Bailii, Bailii
Statutes: Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 13(1)

Last Update: 23 September 2020; Ref: scu.518452

Banco De Valencia Sa v Maria Teodolinda Rivas Quichimbo: ECJ 14 Nov 2013

ECJ Directive 93/13/EEC – Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Consumer contracts – Mortgage loan agreement – Mortgage enforcement proceedings – Powers of the national court responsible for enforcement – Unfair terms – Criteria for assessment
References: C-537/12, [2013] EUECJ C-537/12
Links: Bailii
Statutes: Directive 93/13/EEC

Last Update: 23 September 2020; Ref: scu.518453

Hastings Borough Council (Local Government): ICO 26 Jul 2018

The complainant has requested to know the total severance payments made to two named individuals. Hastings borough Council (the council) initially refused the request under section 40(2) of the FOIA – third party personal data. During the Commissioner’s investigations it amended its response to refuse the request under section 40(5)(b)(i) of the FOIA – to neither confirm nor deny whether any severance payments were made. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40(5)(b)(i) of the FOIA is engaged to this request. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
FOI 40: Complaint not upheld
References: [2018] UKICO fs50707029
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 23 September 2020; Ref: scu.621324

West Yorkshire Police (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 3 Jun 2020

The complainant has requested information about audio tapes from West Yorkshire Police (‘WYP’). WYP advised that to comply with the request would exceed the cost limit at section 12 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that WYP was entitled to rely on section 12(1) to refuse to comply with the request and met its obligations under section 16 of the FOIA. However, WYP breached section 10(1) of the FOIA by failing to respond to the request within the statutory time limit. No steps are required.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld FOI 16: Complaint not upheld FOI 12: Complaint not upheld
References: [2020] UKICO fs50902023
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 23 September 2020; Ref: scu.653701

South Lakeland District Council (Local Government): ICO 22 Jul 2020

The complainant has requested information regarding a tendering process. South Lakeland District Council did not comply with the request, citing section 12(1) (Cost compliance exceeds the appropriate limit) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that South Lakeland District Council has not applied section 12(1) of the FOIA appropriately. The Commissioner requires South Lakeland District Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a fresh response, not citing section 12(1) of the FOIA. South Lakeland District Council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
FOI 12(1): Complaint upheld
References: [2020] UKICO fs50887650
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 23 September 2020; Ref: scu.653792

Human Tissue Authority (Health): ICO 22 Jul 2020

The complainant has requested information from the Human Tissue Authority (HTA) on incidents reported to in 2018 under the category of ‘release of wrong body’. The HTA release information on numbers but withheld two incident reports on the basis of section 31(1)(g) leading to 31(2)(c) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the HTA has correctly engaged the section 31 exemption and the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption.
FOI 31: Complaint not upheld
References: [2020] UKICO fs50892471
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 23 September 2020; Ref: scu.653758

Teignbridge District Council (Local Government): ICO 9 Jul 2020

The complainant has requested information in relation to the council and legal definitions. Teignbridge District Council provided some information and explained that it did not hold any further information in relation to question 1 and no information in relation to question 2. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Teignbridge District Council is correct to state that it does not hold any further information in relation to question 1 and no information in relation to question 2. The Commissioner therefore considers that it has not breached section 1 (right to information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require Teignbridge District Council to take any steps as a result of this decision.
FOI 1: Complaint not upheld
References: [2020] UKICO fs50889706
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 23 September 2020; Ref: scu.653798

OFWAT (Decision Notice): ICO 28 Nov 2012

The complainant has requested information related to an exercise carried out by Ofwat in which water companies provided costings for the supply of services to a particular site. Ofwat disclosed some information but withheld the remainder under section 44 of FOIA.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 44 – Complaint Not upheld
References: [2012] UKICO FS50447680
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 23 September 2020; Ref: scu.530035

Bury Council (Local Government): ICO 3 Aug 2020

The complainant has requested information in relation to a method or tender statement for a contract regarding the collection, kennelling and disposal of stray dogs. Bury Council withheld the information on the grounds of section 43(2) – commercial interests. The Commissioner’s decision is that Bury Council has correctly cited section 43(2) and that the balance of public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
FOI 43(2): Complaint not upheld
References: [2020] UKICO fs50867432
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 23 September 2020; Ref: scu.653810

NHS Rotherham (Decision Notice): ICO 26 Nov 2012

The complainant has requested information from NHS Rotherham about the number of practitioners on its performers list that have not worked in the Rotherham locality within the past 12 months, but have remained on the list. NHSR initially provided a response to the complainant’s request. However, following the complaint to the Commissioner and his intervention, NHSR applied section 12 of the FOIA to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHSR is correct to rely upon section 12 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld
References: [2012] UKICO FS50445924
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 23 September 2020; Ref: scu.530030

Victoria and Albert Museum (Decision Notice): ICO 26 Nov 2012

The complainant has requested information relating to the qualifying standards and ages of people who qualified for shortlisting for the position of gallery assistant at the Victoria and Albert Museum (the V and A). The V and A provided information on the essential criteria for the job and how this was assessed and a statistical summary showing candidates grouped into age bands. Any further information was refused on the basis of section 41 and 40(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that the V and Al has correctly applied section 41 to withhold the requested information and requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 41 – Complaint Not upheld
References: [2012] UKICO FS50458206
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 23 September 2020; Ref: scu.530043

University College London (Education): ICO 9 Jul 2020

The complainant has requested University College London (UCL) to disclose email correspondence between Professor Birchall and Lancet in relation to a case report that was published by the Professor in the Lancet in 2008. UCL refused to disclose the requested information citing section 36(2)(b) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that UCL is entitled to refuse to disclose the requested information in accordance with section 36(2)(b)(ii) and that the public interest rests in maintaining this exemption. The Commissioner does not require any further action to be taken.
FOI 36(2)(b)(ii): Complaint not upheld
References: [2020] UKICO fs50899400
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 23 September 2020; Ref: scu.653801

Sedgemoor District Council (Local Government): ICO 7 Jul 2020

The complainant requested environmental health and health and safety inspection reports for a specified holiday park. Sedgemoor District Council (the ‘Council’) provided the information it held (namely food hygiene reports) and initially said it could not provide any further information in relation to the health and safety inspection reports due to an ongoing investigation. Ultimately, the complainant confirmed he was only concerned with the health and safety information. The Council refused to confirm or deny that it held the requested information, citing the ‘neither confirm nor deny’ provision within the FOIA section 30(3) exemption for public authority investigations. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was correct to consider this request under FOIA. She also finds that section 30(3) of FOIA is engaged and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. Accordingly, the Council was entitled to rely on section 30(3) to refuse to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information. The Commissioner’s position is largely set out in a confidential annex which will be provided to the Council only. By failing to issue its refusal notice within the statutory 20 working days’ time limit, the Council has breached 17(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision.
FOI 17: Complaint upheld FOI 30: Complaint not upheld
References: [2020] UKICO fer0902469
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 23 September 2020; Ref: scu.653787

Aramark (UK) Ltd v Fernandes (Unfair Dismissal – Reasonableness of Dismissal): EAT 13 Mar 2020

In this case, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) was asked to interpret Section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (the 1996 Act) and decide whether in failing to place an employee whose post had become redundant on a list of workers whose services could be called upon if required, the employer had acted unreasonably within the meaning of s.98(4)(a). The EAT held that since placing the employee on the List would not avoid the redundancy, the failure was not within the scope of the section. The EAT allowed the appeal.
References: [2020] UKEAT 0028 – 19 – 1303
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 23 September 2020; Ref: scu.653912

Bristol NHS Primary Care Trust (Decision Notice): ICO 10 Dec 2012

The complainant requested the names of the lay representatives who had attended a patient engagement event in relation to the review of pathology services in the Bristol area along with the names of the organisations that they were representing. NHS Bristol withheld the requested information on the basis of section 40 of FOIA, the personal data exemption. The Commissioner is satisfied that in the particular circumstances of this case NHS Bristol is entitled to rely on section 40 to withhold the information requested by the complainant.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld
References: [2012] UKICO FS50456735
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 23 September 2020; Ref: scu.530052

Barts NHS Foundation Trust v Raqeeb and Others: FD 3 Oct 2019

‘The dilemma presented by cases concerning, as this case does, the withdrawal of life sustaining treatment from a child rests on the fact that they address what many see as an appalling present, but a present that for many also remains sanctified morally or as an article of religious faith because life subsists.’
References: [2019] EWHC 2530 (Fam)
Links: Bailii
Judges: Mr Justice MacDonald
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 23 September 2020; Ref: scu.648675

Ministry of Justice (Central Government): ICO 27 Jul 2020

The complainant requested information relating to the cost of card payment facilities. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) provide some information within the scope of the request but refused to provide the remainder, citing sections 41 (information provided in confidence) and 43 (commercial interests) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 41(1). The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
FOI 41: Complaint not upheld
References: [2020] UKICO fs50911366
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 23 September 2020; Ref: scu.653776

Leslie v Leslie’s Creditors: SCS 20 Feb 1900

(Inner House First Division) The Court has power, in an application by a parish minister for his discharge in bankruptcy, to make it a condition of the discharge that the bankrupt shall assign a portion of his stipend to his creditors.
Circumstances in which held that pounds 80 was a reasonable sum so to be assigned out of an income, from stipend, manse, and glebe, of about pounds 270.
References: [1900] SLR 37 – 444
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: Scotland

Last Update: 23 September 2020; Ref: scu.611716

Sullivan v Bury Street Capital Ltd (Disability Discrimination): EAT 9 Sep 2020

The Claimant was a sales executive with a small finance company. From about July 2013, following a split with a Ukrainian girlfriend, the Claimant suffered paranoid delusions that he was being followed and stalked by a Russian gang. These delusions affected his timekeeping, attendance and record-keeping (which were already a matter of concern even before 2013). However, things improved after September 2013. Whilst there were sporadic references to the Claimant’s poor attitude in that period, it was not until April 2017 that there was a worsening of the effect of the paranoid delusions on his day-to-day activities. The Claimant’s employment was terminated on 8 September 2017, ostensibly for reasons to do with capability and attitude. The Claimant lodged a claim complaining of unfair dismissal, disability discrimination and deduction of wages (amongst others). The Tribunal held that he did not have a disability within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010. However, his claim of unfair dismissal was upheld.
Held (dismissing the appeal), that the Tribunal did not err in concluding that the long-term requirement in the definition of disability was not met. The Tribunal was entitled to conclude on the evidence that, although there was a substantial adverse effect in 2013 and again in 2017, in neither case was it likely that the adverse effect would last for 12 months or that it would recur. The Tribunal had correctly applied ‘likely’ as if it meant ‘could well happen’, and had approached the question of the likelihood of recurrence correctly. The Tribunal also did not err in deciding that the Respondent did not know and could not reasonably be expected to know of the disability.
References: [2020] UKEAT 0317 – 19 – 0909
Links: Bailii
Judges: Choudhury J P
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 23 September 2020; Ref: scu.653918

Re Criminal Injuries Compensation: UTAA 7 Jan 2015

Criminal Injuries Compensation : Other – application for judicial review brought with permission in which the Applicant seeks a quashing order in respect of a decision of the First-tier Tribunal whereby it confirmed a decision of the Interested party, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, that the Applicant was entitled to an award of 2,000 pounds under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2008 in respect of sexual assaults while he was a child but was not entitled to an award in respect of a disabling mental illness.
References: [2015] UKUT 9 (AAC)
Links: Bailii
Judges: Upper Tribunal Judge Rowland
Statutes: Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2008
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 23 September 2020; Ref: scu.544790

A and Another, (On the Application of) v The Central Criminal Court and Another: Admn 26 Jan 2017

(As redacted) Search warrants were challenged on the grounds that insufficient care had been taken of the possibility of the presence of privileged and or ‘excluded’ material.
References: [2017] EWHC 70 (Admin), [2017] WLR(D) 339, [2017] 1 WLR 3567
Links: Bailii, WLRD
Judges: Ouseley J, Lord Justice Gross
Statutes: Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

  • Cited – S, F and L, Regina (on The Application of) v Chief Constable of The British Transport Police and Another Admn 20-Jun-2013 (, [2013] EWHC 2189 (Admin), [2014] 1 All ER 268, [2013] WLR(D) 312, )
    The claimants, solicitors, challenged search warrants issued against their homes and professional premises.
    Held: The court considered the proper procedure to be used when the police wish to search the premises or homes of solicitors for . .
  • Cited – Gittins v Central Criminal Court Admn 14-Jan-2011 (, [2011] EWHC 131 (Admin), [2011] Lloyd’s Rep FC 219)
    The claimant sought judicial review of decisions to issues search warrants to HMRC in respect of his premises. HMRC wanted to look for evidence of tax avoidance schemes which it thought might be unlawful. Until the morning of the hearing, HMRC . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 23 September 2020; Ref: scu.573493

Broxbourne Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 6 Dec 2012

The complainant requested information from Broxbourne Borough Council (the council) concerning the council’s remuneration panel. The council provided some information but withheld other information using the exemptions under section 40(2), 36 and 43 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the FOIA). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council correctly withheld all the information using section 40(2). However, he found that the council breached section 1(1)(a), 1(1)(b), 10(1), 17(1) and 17(1)(a) (b) (c) and 17(7)(b).
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld
References: [2012] UKICO FS50442194
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 23 September 2020; Ref: scu.530053

Halton Borough Council (Local Government) FS50879998: ICO 3 Aug 2020

The complainant has requested information about penalty charge notices for Mersey Tolls. The Commissioner’s decision is that Halton Borough Council is entitled to rely upon the exemption at section 12(1) and has, during the course of the investigation, complied with its duty under section 16 of the FOIA. However, it breached section 10(1) in responding to the complainant outside of the statutory time periods. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
FOI 12(1): Complaint not upheld FOI 16: Complaint not upheld FOI 10(1): Complaint upheld
References: [2020] UKICO FS50879998
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 23 September 2020; Ref: scu.653818

Halton Borough Council (Local Government) FS50867835: ICO 3 Aug 2020

The complainant has made a number of requests for information regarding penalty charge notices for Mersey Tolls. The Commissioner’s decision is that Halton Borough Council failed to respond to some requests within twenty working days and therefore breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. As the requests have either been answered or superseded by subsequent requests, the Commissioner does not require any steps.
FOI 10(1): Complaint upheld
References: [2020] UKICO FS50867835
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 23 September 2020; Ref: scu.653817

Oriental Delicacay Ltd v Revenue and Customs: VDT 9 Jun 2005

Value Added Tax – pre-registration expenditure on fitting-out restaurant premises – invoices in respect of ‘services’ pre-dating registration by more than 6 months – whether recoverable as ‘input tax’ following on registration – Regulation 111(2) (d) of VAT Regulations (SI 1995/2518) and Article 17 of the Sixth Directive – Appeal refused.
References: [2005] UKVAT V19112
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 22 September 2020; Ref: scu.229569

Odyssey Re (London) Ltd (Formerly Sphere Drake Insurance Plc) and Another v OIC Run-Off Ltd (Formerly Orion Insurance Co Plc): Admn 15 Feb 2000

References: [2000] EWHC Admin 291
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

  • See Also – Sphere Drake Insurance Plc and Another v Orion Insurance Company Plc ComC 11-Feb-1999 (, [1999] EWHC 286 (Comm))
    ComC Multi-party run-off agreement made in 1975 to govern parties’ contributions towards run-off based on estimates of likely claims- asbestos-related claims led to final liabilities being vastly greater than . .
  • Cited – Seabord Offshore Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport (The Safe Carrier) HL 25-Mar-1994 (Independent 24-Mar-94, Gazette 11-May-94, Times 25-Mar-94, [1994] 2 All ER 99, [1994] 1 WLR 541)
    The House was asked whether a ship manager was legally responsible for the acts of the ship’s chief engineer under s31(1) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, which imposed a duty on the manager to take all reasonable steps to secure that the ship was . .

This case is cited by:

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 22 September 2020; Ref: scu.140105

Stark v Post Office: CA 2 Mar 2000

A component in a postman’s bicycle gave way even though the machine had been sensibly maintained and checked. He sought damages for his injuries.
Held: The duty imposed by the regulations was absolute, and an employee postal worker who was injured when a brake on his bicycle broke, was entitled to damages.
There is no rule to prevent a member state imposing duties over and above those required under European law. The bicycle was not ‘in an efficient working order and in good repair’.
References: Times 29-Mar-2000, Gazette 06-Apr-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 64, [2000] PIQR 105, [2000] ICR 1013
Links: Bailii
Judges: Waller LJ
Statutes: Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1992 (1992 No 2932), European Directive 89/655
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

  • Applied – Millar v Galashiels Gas Co Ltd; Galashiels Gas Company Ltd v O’Donnell HL 20-Jan-1949 ([1949] AC 275, [1949] SC (HL) 31, , [1949] UKHL 2, 47 LGR 213, 1949 SLT 223, 65 TLR 76, [1949] LJR 540, [1949] AC 275, [1949] 1 All ER 319)
    A hoist mechanism failed, the employee was injured, and he sought damages from his employer under the Act.
    Held: The section imposes an absolute obligation to maintain work equipment in an efficient state or in efficient working order. The . .

This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Hislop v Lynx Express Parcels IHCS 3-Apr-2003 (Times 17-Apr-03, , [2003] ScotCS 98)
    The claimant was injured when, after stopping the vehicle he was driving for his employers, he was scalded when the radiator cap flew off. He appealed against the dismissal of his claim on the basis that he had been unable to show any fault.
  • Cited – Lewis v Avidan Ltd (T/A High Meadow Nursing Home) CA 13-Apr-2005 (, [2005] EWCA Civ 670)
    A nurse claimed damages after slipping on a patch of water in the nursing home where she worked. The defendant argued that the pipe which had broken was not equipment so as to make it liable.
    Held: The nurse’s appeal failed. The mere fact of . .
  • Cited – Smith v Northamptonshire County Council HL 20-May-2009 (, [2009] UKHL 27, Times 21-May-09, [2009] 4 All ER 557, [2009] 1 WLR 2353, [2009] All ER (D) 170)
    The claimant, a health care worker was visiting the home of a client when she fell from a defective wheelchair ramp and suffered injury. She sought damages from her employer.
    Held: Her appeal failed (Lord Hope and Lady Hale dissenting). The . .
  • Cited – Munro v Aberdeen City Council SCS 17-Sep-2009 (, [2009] ScotCS CSOH – 129)
    The pursuer was injured slipping on ice in her defender employer’s car park. Liability depended on the interpretation of regulation 5, the claimant saying that it imposed an absolute requirement to maintain the workplace in efficient working order . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 22 September 2020; Ref: scu.147097

Carr-Glynn v Frearsons (a Firm): CA 29 Jul 1998

The solicitors had failed to advise the testator to issue a notice of severance of a joint tenancy, with the result that the house passed outside the will.
Held: The plaintiff did have a remedy. ‘The duty owed by the solicitors to the testator is a duty to take care that effect his given to his testamentary intentions . . The duty owed by the solicitors to the specific legatees is not a duty to take care to ensure that the specific legatee receives his legacy. It, also, is a duty to take care to ensure that effect is given to the testator’s testamentary intentions. The loss from which the specific legatee is to be saved harmless is the loss from which he will suffer if the effect is not given to the testator’s testamentary intentions.’
References: [1998] EWCA Civ 1325, [1999] Ch 326, [1998] 4 All ER 225
Links: Bailii
Judges: Chadwick LJ
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Humblestone v Martin Tolhurst Partnership (A Firm) ChD 5-Feb-2004 ([2004] EWHC 151 (Ch), , Times 27-Feb-04, Gazette 04-Mar-04)
    The solicitors sent a will to the client for execution, but failed to notice on its return that it had not been properly executed, the signature not being that of the client.
    Held: The solicitors were under a duty to ensure that the will would . .
  • Cited – Worby, Worby and Worby v Rosser CA 28-May-1999 (Times 09-Jun-99, Gazette 16-Jun-99, , [1999] EWCA Civ 1520, [2000] PNLR 140)
    Three potential beneficiaries sought payment from a solicitor of the costs of resisting the grant of probate to a will, saying that he had owed them a duty of care to ensure that the testator did not execute a later will in circumstances in which he . .
  • Distinguished – Walker v Geo H Medlicott and Son (a Firm) CA 19-Nov-1998 (Times 25-Nov-98, , [1998] EWCA Civ 1806, [1999] 1 All ER, [1999] 1 WLR 727, [1999] PNLR 531)
    The claimant said that the defendant solicitor had negligently failed to include in the will a specific devise of property in his favour.
    Held: A beneficiary who alleged negligent failure of a will draftsman to include a gift to him in a will . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 22 September 2020; Ref: scu.144804

Wigginton and Milner Ltd v Winster Engineering Ltd: CA 7 Dec 1977

Various conveyances had dealt with land. By mistake, certain land was excluded from the plans.
Held: The plan had been included ‘for identification purposes only’, but that did not mean that the plan was to be disregarded. It could not overrule the description in the parcels, but the indications it provided were properly used to establish what land had been intended to be conveyed. In this case the land and parcels description was sufficient to say that the land had not been intended to be included in the relevant conveyance: ‘providing a plan did not conflict with explicit descriptions in the parcels, the fact that it was said to be ‘for identification only’ did not exclude it from consideration in order to solve problems left undecided by the explicit descriptions in the parcels.’
In fixing a boundary line, the first recourse is to the description of the property in the relevant conveyance. If the relevant conveyance, in normal circumstances the parcels clause, contains a verbal description of the property in question, sufficient to enable the disputed line to be ascertained; there is no need to refer to the conveyance plan. If, however, no definite conclusion can be reached from the parts or the whole of the description, the recitals and other parts of the deed can be considered for expressions of the intention of the parties. If these cannot be found, extrinsic evidence can, in some few cases, be used, for example to show to what property the description applies.
Buckley LJ explained Neilson v Poole: ‘There, Brooklands South is a specific description of a piece of land, the boundaries of which could be established by extrinsic evidence. If the plan was not to control the parcels, the plan could not have any relation to the boundaries of what was known as Brooklands South, those being matters which were implicit in the explicit description of the parcel concerned as ‘what was known as Brooklands South’; and the observation by Megarry J that words such as ‘for the purposes of identification only seemed to him to confine the use of the plan to ascertaining where the land is situated, was I think an obiter observation on his part and not part of his decision at all, for he was not concerned merely with that phrase but with its use in conjunction with ‘more particularly delineated’.’
Bridge LJ said: ‘I cannot think that any of the judicial pronouncements on this subject to which we were referred in argument and which have been cited in the judgment of Buckley LJ were made in contemplation of a case where the boundary shown on a plan ‘for the purposes of identification only’ is the sole means by which the conveyance affords to indicate where that boundary is intended to be drawn. To refer to the plan in such a case in order to ascertain the boundary allows the plan merely to elucidate, not to control, the parcels. The ascertainment of boundaries being an integral part of the process of identifying the land conveyed, I cannot see why, as a matter of language, the qualifying words ‘for the purpose of identification only’ should inhibit the use of the plan for this purpose when no other means is available by which the relevant boundary can be ascertained.’
‘in so far as the plan does not conflict with the parcels, I can see no reason why, because it is described as being ‘for identification purposes only’ it should not be looked at to assist in understanding the description of the parcels. The process of identification is in fact the process of discovering what land was intended to pass under the conveyance, and that is the precise purpose the plan is said to serve. Accordingly, so long as the plan does not come into conflict with anything which is explicit in the description of the parcels, the fact that it is said to be ‘for the purposes of identification only’ does not appear to me to exclude it from consideration in solving problems which are left undecided by what is explicit in the description of the parcel’.
References: [1978] 1 WLR 1462
Links: lip
Judges: Buckley and Bridge LJJ and Sir David Cairns, Megarry J
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

  • Explained – Neilson v Poole ChD 1969 ([1969] 20 P and CR 909)
    The parties, neighbours, disputed the boundary between their gardens. In a conveyance of land where the plan is stated to be for identification purposes only, the effect of those words: ‘Seems . . to confine the use of the plan to ascertaining where . .

This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Yui Tong Man v Mahmood and Another CA 13-Dec-1996 ([1996] EWCA Civ 1218)
    Application for leave to appeal. The parties occupied adjoining premises under leases. The defendant sought to appeal an oder that he remove a refrigeration plant erected behind his premises, but on the roof of the other premises.
    Held: There . .
  • Cited – Druce v Druce CA 11-Feb-2003 (, [2003] EWCA Civ 535)
    The parties disputed the extent of land conveyed. The conveyance described the plan as for identification purposes only but the decsription went on to say that it was ‘more particularly delineated on’.
    Held: In the circumstances the plan would . .
  • Cited – Sefton v Halliwell CA 2-May-2007 (, [2007] EWCA Civ 473)
    Boundary dispute. . .
  • Cited – Stafford and Another v Lee and Another CA 10-Nov-1992 (Gazette 09-Dec-92, (1993) 65 P and CR 172, Times 16-Nov-92, , [1992] EWCA Civ 17, [1992] EG 136 (CS), [1992] NPC 142)
    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 . .
  • Cited – Pennock and Another v Hodgson CA 27-Jul-2010 (, [2010] EWCA Civ 873)
    In a boundary dispute, the judge had found a boundary, locating it by reference to physical features not mentioned in the unambigous conveyance.
    Held: The judge had reiterated but not relied upon the statement as to the subjective views of the . .
  • Cited – Taylor v Lambert and Another CA 18-Jan-2012 (, [2012] EWCA Civ 3)
    The court heard an appeal against a judgment in a boundary dispute, the losing party having latterly dicovered aerial photopgraphs. There appeared to be a difference between the total area as specified in a 1974 conveyance off of part and the area . .
  • Cited – Paton and Another v Todd ChD 11-May-2012 (, [2012] EWHC 1248 (Ch))
    The claimants sought leave to appeal against rejection of their request made to the Deputy Adjudicator for the rectification of the title to land they claimed title to land which was registered to the respondent neighbour.
    Held: The claimant’s . .
  • Cited – Paton and Another v Todd ChD 11-May-2012 (, [2012] EWHC 1248 (Ch))
    The claimants sought leave to appeal against rejection of their request made to the Deputy Adjudicator for the rectification of the title to land they claimed title to land which was registered to the respondent neighbour.
    Held: The claimant’s . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 22 September 2020; Ref: scu.177494

Lindop v Stuart Noble and Sons Ltd: OHCS 25 Jun 1998

In Scottish receivership an employee was not entitled to claim for preference of payment of claim for wages for absence of notice when the company went into receivership. Scottish receivership distinct process.
References: Times 25-Jun-1998
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Worby, Worby and Worby v Rosser CA 28-May-1999 (Times 09-Jun-99, Gazette 16-Jun-99, , [1999] EWCA Civ 1520, [2000] PNLR 140)
    Three potential beneficiaries sought payment from a solicitor of the costs of resisting the grant of probate to a will, saying that he had owed them a duty of care to ensure that the testator did not execute a later will in circumstances in which he . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 22 September 2020; Ref: scu.83077

Stubbings v Webb and Another: HL 10 Feb 1993

Sexual Assault is not an Act of Negligence
In claims for damages for child abuse at a children’s home made out of the six year time limit time were effectively time barred, with no discretion for the court to extend that limit. The damage occurred at the time when the child left the home. A woman suffered child abuse and claimed as an adult. The limitation period for non-accidental personal injuries arising from complaints of rape or of indecent assault is six years (section 2).
Held: The damage arising from injuries deliberately inflicted arose at the time, or if the victim was a child, at the age of attaining majority. The time did not begin to run only when the claimant became aware of a causal connection between her damage and the injuries. An action for damages for deliberate assault or trespass to the person was not an ‘action for damages for negligence, nuisance or breach of duty’ in respect of personal injuries within the meaning of section 11(1) of the 1980 Act. Such an assault or trespass was not a breach of duty within the meaning of the section. It followed that, on the one hand, the limitation period was six years and, on the other hand, the court had no discretion under section 33 to extend the six year period.
References: Gazette 10-Feb-1993, [1993] AC 498, [1993] 2 WLR 120, Times 17-Dec-1992, [1993] 1 All ER 322, [1992] 1 QB 197
Judges: Griffiths L
Statutes: Limitation Act 1980 2 33 11(1) 11(2)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

  • Appealed to – Stubbings and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 22-Oct-1996 (Times 24-Oct-96, (1996) 23 EHRR 213, , [1996] ECHR 44, 22083/93, 22095/93, )
    There was no human rights breach where the victims of sex abuse had been refused a right to sue for damages out of time. The question is whether and to what extent differences in otherwise similar situations justify a different treatment in law: . .
  • Appeal from – Stubbings v Webb CA 1992 ([1992] QB 197)
    The claimant sought damages for having been raped. The defendant said the claim was out of time. . .
  • Cited – Letang v Cooper CA 15-Jun-1964 ([1965] 1 QB 232, , [1964] EWCA Civ 5, [1964] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 339, [1964] 2 All ER 929, [1964] 3 WLR 573)
    The plaintiff, injured in an accident, pleaded trespass to the person, which was not a breach of duty within the proviso to the section, in order to achieve the advantages of a six-year limitation period.
    Held: Trespass is strictly speaking . .

This case is cited by:

  • Cited – KR and others v Bryn Alyn Community (Holdings) Ltd and Another CA 12-Feb-2003 (, Times 17-Feb-03, [2003] EWCA Civ 85, [2003] QB 1441, [2003] Fam Law 482, [2004] 2 All ER 716, [2003] 1 FLR 1203, [2003] Lloyd’s Rep Med 175, [2003] 3 WLR 107, [2003] 1 FCR 385)
    The respondent appealed decisions by the court to allow claims for personal injury out of time. The claims involved cases of sexual abuse inflicted by its employees going back over many years.
    Held: The judge had misapplied the test laid down . .
  • Cited – Barry Young (Deceased) v Western Power Distribution (South West) Plc CA 18-Jul-2003 (, [2003] EWCA Civ 1034, Times 18-Jul-03, [2003] 1 WLR 2868, [2003] 1 WLR 2868)
    The deceased had begun an action on becoming ill after exposure to asbestos by the defendant. He withdrew his action after receiving expert evidence that his illness was unrelated. A post-mortem examination showed this evidence to be mistaken. His . .
  • Mentioned – McDonnell v Congregation of Christian Brothers Trustees (Formerly Irish Christian Brothers) and others HL 4-Dec-2003 (, [2003] UKHL 63, , Times 05-Dec-03, [2004] 1 AC 1101)
    In 2000, the claimant sought damages for sexual abuse from before 1951. The issue was as to whether the limitation law which applied was that as at the date of the incidents, or that which applied as at the date when he would be deemed uner the . .
  • Cited – A v Hoare QBD 14-Oct-2005 (, [2005] EWHC 2161 (QB), Times 27-Oct-05, [2006] ACD 12)
    The defendant had been convicted and sentenced for the attempted rape of the claimant. He had subsequently won a substantial sum on the lottery, and she now sought damages. He replied that the action was statute barred being now 16 years old. The . .
  • Criticised – A v Hoare; H v Suffolk County Council, Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs intervening; X and Y v London Borough of Wandsworth CA 12-Apr-2006 ([2006] Fam Law 533, [2006] 2 FLR 727, [2006] 1 WLR 2320, [2006] 3 FCR 673, , [2006] EWCA Civ 395, Times 28-Apr-06, [2006] 1 WLR 2320)
    Each claimant sought damages for a criminal assault for which the defendant was said to be responsible. Each claim was to be out of the six year limitation period. In the first claim, the proposed defendant had since won a substantial sum from the . .
  • Cited – KR and others v Royal and Sun Alliance Plc CA 3-Nov-2006 (, [2006] EWCA Civ 1454, Times 08-Nov-06)
    The insurer appealed findings of liability under the 1930 Act. Claims had been made for damages for child abuse in a residential home, whom they insured. The home had become insolvent, and the claimants had pursued the insurer.
    Held: The . .
  • Overruled – A v Hoare HL 30-Jan-2008 (, [2008] UKHL 6, Times 31-Jan-08, [2008] 2 WLR 311, Gazette 14-Feb-08, [2008] 1 AC 844, (2008) 11 CCL Rep 249, [2008] 1 FCR 507, [2008] Fam Law 402, [2008] 1 FLR 771, (2008) 100 BMLR 1, [2008] 2 All ER 1)
    Each of six claimants sought to pursue claims for damages for sexual assaults which would otherwise be time barred under the 1980 Act after six years. They sought to have the House depart from Stubbings and allow a discretion to the court to extend . .
  • Appeal from – Stubbings and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 22-Oct-1996 (Times 24-Oct-96, (1996) 23 EHRR 213, , [1996] ECHR 44, 22083/93, 22095/93, )
    There was no human rights breach where the victims of sex abuse had been refused a right to sue for damages out of time. The question is whether and to what extent differences in otherwise similar situations justify a different treatment in law: . .
  • Cited – Stingel v Clark 20-Jul-2006 ((2006) 80 ALJR 1339, , (2006) 228 ALR 229, [2006] HCA 37)
    Asutlii (High Court of Australia) Limitation of Actions – Appellant alleged respondent had raped and assaulted her in 1971 – Appellant alleged that she suffered post-traumatic stress disorder of delayed onset in . .
  • Reversed by Hoare – RAR v GGC QBD 10-Aug-2012 (, [2012] EWHC 2338 (QB))
    The claimant alleged that the defendant, her stepfather, had sexually and otherwise assaulted her when she was a child. He had pleaded guilty to one charge in 1978, and now said that the claim was out of time. The claimant sought the extension of . .
  • Cited – Alves v Attorney General of The Virgin Islands (British Virgin Islands) PC 18-Dec-2017 (, [2017] UKPC 42)
    From the Court of Appeal of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (British Virgin Islands) . .
  • Cited – Archbishop Bowen and Another v JL CA 21-Feb-2017 (, [2017] EWCA Civ 82)
    The defendants appealed against finding that they were responsible for the assaults by a priest on the claimant. . .
  • Cited – F and S v TH QBD 1-Jul-2016 (, [2016] EWHC 1605 (QB))
    Claim for damages as victims of sexual abuse alleged against father. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 22 September 2020; Ref: scu.89598

Aldred’s Case: 1619

An action would lie where a pig-stye was erected so close to the plaintiff’s house as to corrupt the air in the house, and also and similarly for a lime-kiln with smoke, or where filth from a dye house runs into a fish pond. Where the plaintiff claims that an easement has been acquired by prescription, the defendant cannot set up another easement to destroy that easement. Though an action will lie for obstruction of light, it will not for an obstruction of a prospect: ‘The law does not give an action for such things of delight.’
References: (1619) 9 Co Rep 57 b, (1619) 77 ER 816
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

  • Cited – Bland v Moseley 1587 ((1587),
    The court distinguished the elements of an easement of light and an easement of air. In the absence of an easement, a building may be erected so as to restrict the flow of air onto his neighbour’s land. . .

This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Hunter and Others v Canary Wharf Ltd HL 25-Apr-1997 (Gazette 14-May-97, Times 25-Apr-97, , [1997] UKHL 14, [1997] AC 655, [1997] Fam Law 601, [1997] 2 All ER 426, [1997] 2 FLR 342, [1997] 2 WLR 684, [1997] Env LR 488, [1997] 54 Con LR 12, [1997] 84 BLR 1, [1997] CLC 1045, (1998) 30 HLR 409)
    The claimant, in a representative action complained that the works involved in the erection of the Canary Wharf tower constituted a nuisance in that the works created substantial clouds of dust and the building blocked her TV signals, so as to limit . .
  • Cited – Prince Albert v Strange ChD 8-Feb-1849 ((1849) 1 H and Tw 1, 2 De G and SM 293, (1849) 1 Mac and G 25, , [1849] EWHC Ch J20, [1849] EngR 255, , (1849) 41 ER 1171, [1849] EngR 261, , (1849) 47 ER 1302, (1849) 2 De Gex and Sim 652)
    The Prince sought to restrain publication of otherwise unpublished private etchings and lists of works by Queen Victoria. The etchings appeared to have been removed surreptitiously from or by one Brown. A personal confidence was claimed.
    Held: . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 22 September 2020; Ref: scu.195584

Betteridge, Regina (On the Application of) v the Parole Board: Admn 23 Jun 2009

Application was made for damages after a wrongful delay in the prisoner’s release.
Held: Collins J urged practitioners not to pursue actions which are ‘not likely to achieve any sensible redress’. Claims in damages cannot be brought unless it is demonstrated that the claimant would have been released by a decision taken at a hearing which had occurred when it should have done, as opposed to when in fact it did.
References: [2009] EWHC 1638 (Admin)
Links: Bailii
Judges: Collins J
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Degainis, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice Admn 3-Feb-2010 (, [2010] EWHC 137 (Admin))
    The claimant sought damages. He had been released from prison and recalled, but the review of his continued detention was not undertaken as it should have been. The defendant said that the acknowledgement and apology were sufficient just . .
  • Cited – Chater, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Another Admn 2-Aug-2010 (, [2010] EWHC 2257 (Admin))
    The claimant sought judicial review of his treatment after recall to prison from licence. He had a history of the sexual abuse of children. A police surveillance report had been rejected by the Parole Board, but they had nevertheless continued his . .
  • At First Instance Court – Betteridge v The United Kingdom ECHR 29-Jan-2013 (1497/10 – HEJUD, , [2013] ECHR 97)
    The applicant prisoner complained of a delay in his release pending a review by the Parole Board.
    Held: The violation of article 5(4) resulted from a delay in the holding of a review by the Board following the expiry of an IPP prisoner’s . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 22 September 2020; Ref: scu.347715

Customs and Excise Commissioners v Harz and Power; Regina v Harz and Power: HL 1967

The rule that a confessional statement is not admissible if it was induced by a fear of prejudice or a hope of advantage exercised or held out by a person in authority applies equally where the inducement does not relate to the actual or contemplated charge as where the inducement does so relate. There was no requirement that the inducement relate to the charge, but no doubt was cast on the approach of Parke B in R v Moore.
References: [1967] 1 AC 760, (1967) 51 Cr App R 123
Judges: Lord Reid (Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Lord Hodson, Lord Pearce and Lord Wilberforce agreeing)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

  • Approve – Ibrahim v The King PC 6-Mar-1914 (, , [1914] UKPC 1, [1914] AC 599, , [1914] UKPC 16, [1914-15] All ER Rep 874, (1914) 24 Cox CC 174)
    (Hong Kong) The defendant was an Afghan subject with the British Army in Hong Kong. He was accused of murder. Having accepted the protection of the British Armed forces, he became subject to their laws. In custody, he was asked about the offence by . .

This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Hasan, Regina v HL 17-Mar-2005 (, [2005] UKHL 22, Times 21-Mar-05, , [2005] 2 AC 467, [2005] 2 WLR 709, [2005] 4 All ER 685)
    The House was asked two questions: the meaning of ‘confession’ for the purposes of section 76(1) of the 1984 Act, and as to the defence of duress. The defendant had been involved in burglary, being told his family would be harmed if he refused. The . .
  • Cited – A and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No 2) HL 8-Dec-2005 (, [2005] UKHL 71, , Times 09-Dec-05, [2005] 3 WLR 1249, [2006] 2 AC 221, [2006] 1 All ER 575, 19 BHRC 441, [2006] UKHRR 225, [2006] HRLR 6)
    The applicants had been detained following the issue of certificates issued by the respondent that they posed a terrorist threat. They challenged the decisions of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission saying that evidence underlying the . .
  • Cited – Mohamed, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 1) Admn 21-Aug-2008 (, [2008] EWHC 2048 (Admin), [2009] 1 WLR 2579)
    The claimant had been detained by the US in Guantanamo Bay suspected of terrorist involvement. He sought to support his defence documents from the respondent which showed that the evidence to be relied on in the US courts had been obtained by . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 22 September 2020; Ref: scu.223677

Regina (Commissioners of Customs and Excise) v Canterbury Crown Court and Another: QBD 14 Nov 2002

The magistrates court had received a request to depose witnesses to provide evidence for the Dutch Court. The Commissioners opposed an order made by a judge of the Crown Court that no depositions should be taken without the consent of the Crown Court.
Held: Though these proceedings were now nugatory, since the foreign proceedings had been concluded, the Court nevertheless declared that the Crow Court had acted without jurisdiction. The Magistrates Court and the Commissioner had been acting as an agent of the Secretary of State for the Home department. The Crown Court judge was concerned at achieving fairness in his own court only.
References: Times 06-Dec-2002
Judges: Laws LJ, Field J
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 22 September 2020; Ref: scu.178349

DA (Colombia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 13 Jul 2009

References: [2009] EWCA Civ 682, [2010] INLR 154
Links: Bailii
Judges: Rix, Wall, Aikens LJJ
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Secretary of State for The Home Department v HK (Turkey) CA 27-May-2010 (, [2010] EWCA Civ 583)
    The SS appealed against the successful appeal by the respondent against a deportation order. He had come to England in 1994, been granted indefinite leave to stay, and made a family here. In 2007 he was convicted of grievous bodily harm.
    Held: . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 22 September 2020; Ref: scu.347687

Stubbings v Webb: CA 1992

The claimant sought damages for having been raped. The defendant said the claim was out of time.
References: [1992] QB 197
Statutes: Limitation Act 1980 2
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – KR and others v Bryn Alyn Community (Holdings) Ltd and Another CA 12-Feb-2003 (, Times 17-Feb-03, [2003] EWCA Civ 85, [2003] QB 1441, [2003] Fam Law 482, [2004] 2 All ER 716, [2003] 1 FLR 1203, [2003] Lloyd’s Rep Med 175, [2003] 3 WLR 107, [2003] 1 FCR 385)
    The respondent appealed decisions by the court to allow claims for personal injury out of time. The claims involved cases of sexual abuse inflicted by its employees going back over many years.
    Held: The judge had misapplied the test laid down . .
  • Appeal from – Stubbings v Webb and Another HL 10-Feb-1993 (Gazette 10-Feb-93, [1993] AC 498, [1993] 2 WLR 120, Times 17-Dec-92, [1993] 1 All ER 322, [1992] 1 QB 197)
    In claims for damages for child abuse at a children’s home made out of the six year time limit time were effectively time barred, with no discretion for the court to extend that limit. The damage occurred at the time when the child left the home. A . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 22 September 2020; Ref: scu.179308

Regina v Anderson, Clarke, McDaid: CACD 9 Feb 1998

The defendants appealed their convictions on the basis that the voluntary bills of indictment had not been signed as required under the 1933 Act.
References: [1998] EWCA Crim 442
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Appeal from – Clarke, Regina v; Regina v McDaid HL 6-Feb-2008 (, [2008] UKHL 8, [2008] 1 WLR 338, [2008] 2 Cr App R 2, [2008] Crim LR 551, [2008] 2 All ER 665)
    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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 22 September 2020; Ref: scu.153316

Regina v Merriman: CACD 1973

Although the criminal division of the Court of Appeal is not so strictly bound by its own previous decisions as is the civil division, its liberty to depart from precedent which it is convinced was erroneous is restricted to cases where the departure is in favour of the accused. This would not be the case in the instant appeal. As to the issue of duplicity: ‘The rule against duplicity . . had always been applied in a practical, rather than a strictly analytical, way for the purpose of determining what constituted one offence. Where a number of acts of a similar nature committed by one or more defendants were connected with one another, in the time and place of their commission or by their common purpose, in such a way that they could fairly be regarded as forming part of the same transaction or criminal enterprise, it was the practice as early as the eighteenth century to charge them in a single count of indictment. ‘ (Lord Diplock)
References: [1973] AC 584
Judges: Lord Diplock
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

  • Cited – Regina v Gould CACD 1968 ([1968] 2 QB 65)
    Diplock LJ said: ‘In its criminal jurisdiction, which it has inherited from the Court of Criminal Appeal, the Court of Appeal does not apply the doctrine of stare decisis with the same rigidity as in its civil jurisdiction. If upon due consideration . .
  • Approved – Jemmison v Priddle 1972 ([1972] 56 Cr App R 229)
    ‘it is legitimate to charge on a single information one activity even though the activity may involve more than one act’. . .

This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Simpson v Regina CACD 23-May-2003 ([2003] EWCA Crim 1499, Times 26-May-03, Gazette 10-Jul-03, [2004] QB 118, [2003] 3 WLR 337, [2003] Cr App R 36, , [2004] 1 Cr App R (S) 24, [2003] 2 Cr App R 36, [2003] 3 All ER 531)
    The appellant challenged a confiscation order. It was argued that one could not be made unless a proper notice had been given, and none of the offences occurred before 1995. On the assumption that section 1 of the 1995 Act was not in force, did the . .
  • Cited – Tovey and Another v Regina CACD 9-Mar-2005 (, [2005] EWCA Crim 530, Times 19-Apr-05)
    Each defendant appealed sentences where he had committed a series of offences and the sentence had been for specimen acts.
    Held: When choosing representative offences a prosecutor should be careful to try to give the court a proper picture of . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 22 September 2020; Ref: scu.182384

Mirehouse v Rennell: 1833

Parke B described how the elements of a common law offence are to be distilled from the cases in which the relevant principles have been set out: ‘Our common-law system consists in the applying to new combinations of circumstances those rules of law which we derive from legal principles and judicial precedent; and for the sake of attaining uniformity, consistency and certainty, we must apply those rules, where they are not plainly unreasonable and inconvenient, to all cases which arise; and we are not at liberty to reject them, and to abandon all analogy to them, in those to which they have not been judicially applied, because we think that the rules are not as convenient and reasonable as we ourselves could have devised.’
References: (1833) 1 Cl and F 527
Judges: Parke J
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Simpson v Regina CACD 23-May-2003 ([2003] EWCA Crim 1499, Times 26-May-03, Gazette 10-Jul-03, [2004] QB 118, [2003] 3 WLR 337, [2003] Cr App R 36, , [2004] 1 Cr App R (S) 24, [2003] 2 Cr App R 36, [2003] 3 All ER 531)
    The appellant challenged a confiscation order. It was argued that one could not be made unless a proper notice had been given, and none of the offences occurred before 1995. On the assumption that section 1 of the 1995 Act was not in force, did the . .
  • Cited – Hamilton, Regina v CACD 16-Aug-2007 (, [2007] EWCA Crim 2062, Times 16-Oct-07, [2008] 2 WLR 107, [2008] QB 224)
    The defendant appealed his conviction for outraging public decency. He had surreptitously filmed up the skirts of women in a supermarket. The offence was only discovered after the films were found on a search of his home for other material. The . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 22 September 2020; Ref: scu.182381

Palmer, Regina v: CACD 11 Oct 2002

The defendant appealed against a very substantial confiscation order. The prosecution had served notices under sections 71 and 72(1), but the section 72(1) notice was invalid. The judge allowed a second notice to be served, and the case to be adjourned for a later full hearing, at which the order was made.
Held: The service of a valid notice is a necessary condition for the making of such an order, and the court could not correct a mistake of its own motion. Nor did the judge have the power to postpone proceedings, nor to proceed directly to sentencing anticipating service of a notice. The confiscation order of more than pounds 30 million was quashed because of a defect in a prosecutor’s notice.
References: Times 05-Nov-2002, [2002] EWCA Crim 2202, [2003] 1 Cr App R (S) 112
Links: Bailii
Judges: Rix LJ, Sir Ian Kennedy
Statutes: Criminal Justice Act 1988 71 72(1)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

  • Disapproved in – Sekhon, etc v Regina CACD 16-Dec-2002 (Times 27-Dec-02, [2003] 1 Cr App R 575, [2003] 1 WLR 1655, , [2002] EWCA Crim 2954)
    The defendants appealed against confiscation orders on the basis that in various ways, the Crown had failed to comply with procedural requirements.
    Held: The courts must remember the importance of such procedures in the fight against crime, . .

This case is cited by:

  • Disappoved – Sekhon, etc v Regina CACD 16-Dec-2002 (Times 27-Dec-02, [2003] 1 Cr App R 575, [2003] 1 WLR 1655, , [2002] EWCA Crim 2954)
    The defendants appealed against confiscation orders on the basis that in various ways, the Crown had failed to comply with procedural requirements.
    Held: The courts must remember the importance of such procedures in the fight against crime, . .
  • Disapproved – Simpson v Regina CACD 23-May-2003 ([2003] EWCA Crim 1499, Times 26-May-03, Gazette 10-Jul-03, [2004] QB 118, [2003] 3 WLR 337, [2003] Cr App R 36, , [2004] 1 Cr App R (S) 24, [2003] 2 Cr App R 36, [2003] 3 All ER 531)
    The appellant challenged a confiscation order. It was argued that one could not be made unless a proper notice had been given, and none of the offences occurred before 1995. On the assumption that section 1 of the 1995 Act was not in force, did the . .
  • Cited – Regina v Soneji and Bullen HL 21-Jul-2005 (, [2005] UKHL 49, , Times 22-Jul-05, [2005] 3 WLR 303, [2006] 1 AC 340, [2006] 1 Cr App R(S) 79, [2006] Crim LR 167, [2005] 4 All ER 321, [2006] 2 Cr App R 20)
    The defendants had had confiscation orders made against them. They had appealed on the basis that the orders were made more than six months after sentence. The prosecutor now appealed saying that the fact that the order were not timely did not . .
  • Wrongly decided – Regina v Knights and Another HL 21-Jul-2005 (, [2005] UKHL 50, , Times 21-Jul-05, [2006] 1 AC 368, [2005] 4 All ER 347, [2005] 3 WLR 330)
    The defendants had been convicted of offences involving dealing with goods on which customs duty had not been paid. After conviction a timetable was set for sentencing and for confiscation proceedings. The House considered the making of the . .
  • Cited – Rowe v Regina CACD 15-Mar-2007 (, [2007] EWCA Crim 635, Times 26-Mar-07)
    The defendant had been convicted of possessing articles for terrorist purposes, namely a notebook with notes setting out how to construct a mortar bomb in his handwriting. There was also a coded list of potential targets.
    Held: The decision in . .
  • Cited – Guraj, Regina v SC 14-Dec-2016 (, [2016] UKSC 65, [2016] WLR(D) 673, [2017] Lloyd’s Rep FC 117, [2017] 1 WLR 22, [2017] 1 Cr App R (S) 32, [2017] Crim LR 320, , , UKSC 2015/0152, , )
    The defendant had pleaded to charges of possession of drugs with intent to supply. He was sentenced, but then the prosecutor was 14 months’ late serving its notice with regard to the confiscation order under section 16. The crown now appealed . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 22 September 2020; Ref: scu.177738

Regina v Newsome: CACD 1970

The court was dealing with the question of a guideline judgment on sentence. There was good reason to adopt a flexible approach. The discretion to depart from a previous precedent was not to be exercised lightly and we endorse that restrictive and cautious approach. The court sat with five judges for the purpose.
References: [1970] 2 QB 711
Judges: Widgery LJ
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Simpson v Regina CACD 23-May-2003 ([2003] EWCA Crim 1499, Times 26-May-03, Gazette 10-Jul-03, [2004] QB 118, [2003] 3 WLR 337, [2003] Cr App R 36, , [2004] 1 Cr App R (S) 24, [2003] 2 Cr App R 36, [2003] 3 All ER 531)
    The appellant challenged a confiscation order. It was argued that one could not be made unless a proper notice had been given, and none of the offences occurred before 1995. On the assumption that section 1 of the 1995 Act was not in force, did the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 22 September 2020; Ref: scu.182386

Regina v Gould: CACD 1968

Diplock LJ said: ‘In its criminal jurisdiction, which it has inherited from the Court of Criminal Appeal, the Court of Appeal does not apply the doctrine of stare decisis with the same rigidity as in its civil jurisdiction. If upon due consideration we were to be of opinion that the law had been either misapplied or misunderstood in an earlier decision of this court or its predecessor, the Court of Criminal Appeal, we should be entitled to depart from the view as to the law expressed in the earlier decision notwithstanding that the case could not be brought within any of the exceptions laid down in Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd as justifying the Court of Appeal in refusing to follow one of its own decisions in a civil case (Rex v Taylor). A fortiori, we are bound to give effect to the law as we think it is if the previous decision to the contrary effect is one of which the ratio decidendi conflicts with that of other decisions of this court or its predecessors of co-ordinate jurisdiction.’
References: [1968] 2 QB 65
Judges: Diplock LJ
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

  • Cited – Young v The Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd CA 28-Jul-1944 ([1944] KB 718, , 60 TLR 536, [1944] 2 All ER 293, , (1945) 78 Ll L Rep 6, , [1944] EWCA Civ 1)
    The claimant was injured and received compensation. He then sought to recover again, alleging breach of statutory duty by his employers.
    Held: The Court of Appeal was in general bound to follow its own previous decisions. The court considered . .

This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Regina v Merriman CACD 1973 ([1973] AC 584)
    Although the criminal division of the Court of Appeal is not so strictly bound by its own previous decisions as is the civil division, its liberty to depart from precedent which it is convinced was erroneous is restricted to cases where the . .
  • Cited – Simpson v Regina CACD 23-May-2003 ([2003] EWCA Crim 1499, Times 26-May-03, Gazette 10-Jul-03, [2004] QB 118, [2003] 3 WLR 337, [2003] Cr App R 36, , [2004] 1 Cr App R (S) 24, [2003] 2 Cr App R 36, [2003] 3 All ER 531)
    The appellant challenged a confiscation order. It was argued that one could not be made unless a proper notice had been given, and none of the offences occurred before 1995. On the assumption that section 1 of the 1995 Act was not in force, did the . .
  • Cited – Regina v Morgan HL 30-Apr-1975 ([1976] AC 182, [1975] 1 All ER 8, , [1975] UKHL 3)
    The defendants appealed against their convictions for rape, denying mens rea and asserting a belief (even if mistaken) that the victim had consented.
    Held: For a defence of mistake to succeed, the mistake must have been honestly made and need . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 22 September 2020; Ref: scu.182383

Regina v Copeland: CACD 2002

The court considered the necessary of any postponment of a dermination of a confiscation order.
Held: The court rejected the contention that the postponement order must specify the period of postponement. It was pointed out that the word used by the statute was ‘may’, not ‘must’: ‘there is no mention there of ‘must’: no mandatory provision. If it had been thought desirable then the statute could have been worded in words such as ‘for such period as the court shall specify.’
References: [2002] EWCA Crim 736, [2002] 2 Cr App R(S) 512
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Doubted – Regina v Pisciotto CACD 27-Jun-2002 (Times 19-Jul-02, Gazette 12-Sep-02, [2003] 1 Cr App R 68, [2002] EWCA Crim 1592, )
    The defendant was subject to a confiscation order. The judge had postponed the determination of the amount, but without specifying when it would take place.
    Held: The requirement in the Act was mandatory. When deciding to postpone an . .
  • Preferred – Sekhon, etc v Regina CACD 16-Dec-2002 (Times 27-Dec-02, [2003] 1 Cr App R 575, [2003] 1 WLR 1655, , [2002] EWCA Crim 2954)
    The defendants appealed against confiscation orders on the basis that in various ways, the Crown had failed to comply with procedural requirements.
    Held: The courts must remember the importance of such procedures in the fight against crime, . .
  • Cited – Simpson v Regina CACD 23-May-2003 ([2003] EWCA Crim 1499, Times 26-May-03, Gazette 10-Jul-03, [2004] QB 118, [2003] 3 WLR 337, [2003] Cr App R 36, , [2004] 1 Cr App R (S) 24, [2003] 2 Cr App R 36, [2003] 3 All ER 531)
    The appellant challenged a confiscation order. It was argued that one could not be made unless a proper notice had been given, and none of the offences occurred before 1995. On the assumption that section 1 of the 1995 Act was not in force, did the . .
  • Cited – Regina v Knights and Another HL 21-Jul-2005 (, [2005] UKHL 50, , Times 21-Jul-05, [2006] 1 AC 368, [2005] 4 All ER 347, [2005] 3 WLR 330)
    The defendants had been convicted of offences involving dealing with goods on which customs duty had not been paid. After conviction a timetable was set for sentencing and for confiscation proceedings. The House considered the making of the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 22 September 2020; Ref: scu.180118

Lexi Holdings Plc v Luqman and others: ChD 15 Jan 2008

Whether a prisoner serving a sentence for contempt of court is subject to the same rules as to early release etc as other prisoners.
Held: ‘paragraph 5.2 of PSO 6300 is unlawful in so far as it purports to require, or is interpreted by the Prison Service as requiring, the permission of the sentencing judge to be obtained before a contempt prisoner may be granted temporary release. The permission which has to be obtained is that of the Secretary of State or his representative acting in accordance with Rule 9. ‘
References: [2008] EWHC 151 (Ch)
Links: Bailii
Judges: Henderson J
Statutes: Contempt of Court Act 1981
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

This case is cited by:

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 22 September 2020; Ref: scu.264105

Horn and Another v Phillips and Another: CA 18 Dec 2003

In a boundary dispute, extrinsic evidence was not admissible to contradict, in this, case the transfer with an annexed plan, which clearly showed the boundary as a straight line and even contained a precise measurement of distance.
References: [2003] EWCA Civ 1877
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

  • Cited – Scarfe v Adams CA 1981 ([1981] 1 All ER 843)
    Transfer deeds for a sale of land did not define the boundary but referred to a plan which was held to be too small to show a precise boundary. The only other element of the parcels clause was that it was land adjoining Pyle Manor and that it was . .

This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Pennock and Another v Hodgson CA 27-Jul-2010 (, [2010] EWCA Civ 873)
    In a boundary dispute, the judge had found a boundary, locating it by reference to physical features not mentioned in the unambigous conveyance.
    Held: The judge had reiterated but not relied upon the statement as to the subjective views of the . .
  • Cited – Taylor v Lambert and Another CA 18-Jan-2012 (, [2012] EWCA Civ 3)
    The court heard an appeal against a judgment in a boundary dispute, the losing party having latterly dicovered aerial photopgraphs. There appeared to be a difference between the total area as specified in a 1974 conveyance off of part and the area . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 22 September 2020; Ref: scu.242462

Vine v National Dock Labour Board: HL 1957

The plaintiff was employed under a statutory scheme for the employment of dock labourers. He appealed against a finding that the rules on dismissal contained within the scheme were not the only ones appertaining.
Held: (reversing the majority decision of the Court of Appeal) The respondent wrongfully delegated its power to dismiss a worker to a disciplinary committee instead of deciding the issue itself. It was that process of delegation to a committee which did not itself have the power to dismiss which led to the declaration that the termination of the appellant’s employment was a nullity and that he was entitled to damages. That was an ultra vires act of the respondent itself. Referring to the ordinary master and servant case, Viscount Kilmuir LC said: ‘This is an entirely different situation from the ordinary master and servant case; there, if the master wrongfully dismisses the servant, either summarily or by giving insufficient notice, the employment is effectively terminated, albeit in breach of contract. Here, the removal of the plaintiff’s name from the register being, in law, a nullity, he continued to have the right to be treated as a registered dock worker with all the benefits which, by statute, that status conferred on him. It is therefore right that, with the background of this scheme, the court should declare his rights.’ A declaration that a dismissal was null and void would not be granted in the case of an ordinary contract of employment.
Lord Keith of Avonholm said that the case did not involve ‘a straightforward relationship of master and servant’. It involved the validity of certain administrative procedures.
References: [1957] AC 488, [1956] 1 QB 658, [1956] 3 All ER 939, [1957] 2 WLR 106
Judges: Viscount Kilmuir LC, Lord Keith of Avonholm
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

  • Approved – Russian Commercial and Industrial Bank v British Bank of Foreign Trade HL 1921 ([1921] 2 AC 438)
    The court considered how the court should exercise any jurisdiction to make declarations.
    Held: The House (Lord Dunedin) referred, with approval, to the approach taken by the Scottish Courts, identifying three propositions, namely that the . .
  • Appeal from – Vine v National Dock Labour Board CA 1956 ([1956] 1 All ER 1)
    The plaintiff complained as to the way he had been dismissed. He was employed as a dock labourer under a statutory scheme. The Board said that the power of dismissal was given by the statute and that therefore the standard rules on dismissal did not . .

This case is cited by:

  • Cited – F v West Berkshire Health Authority HL 17-Jul-1990 ([1990] 2 AC 1, , [1991] UKHL 1)
    The parties considered the propriety of a sterilisation of a woman who was, through mental incapacity, unable to give her consent.
    Held: The appeal succeeded, and the operation would be lawful if the doctor considered it to be in the best . .
  • Cited – Regina v East Berkshire Health Authority, ex Parte Walsh CA 14-May-1984 (, [1984] EWCA Civ 6, [1985] QB 152)
    A district nursing officer had been dismissed for misconduct. He applied for judicial review. He sought judicial review to quash the decision on the ground that there had been a breach of natural justice and that the district nursing officer had no . .
  • Cited – Shoesmith, Regina (on The Application of) v OFSTED and Others CA 27-May-2011 (, [2011] EWCA Civ 642, [2011] PTSR 1459, [2011] BLGR 649, [2011] IRLR 679, [2011] ICR 1195)
    The claimant appealed against dismissal of her claim. She had been head of Child Services at Haringey. After the notorious violent death of Baby P, the Secretary of State called for an inquiry under the Act. He then removed her as director. She . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 22 September 2020; Ref: scu.250063

Enfield London Borough Council v French: CA 1984

In considering a request for a possession order for which it was a requirement that an odder of suitable alternative accomodation, the question of whether the accommodation was suitable should be decided before the question whether it was reasonable to make an order for possession.
References: (1984) 17 HLR 211
Judges: Stephenson LJ
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Bracknell Forest Borough Council v Green and Another CA 20-Mar-2009 (, [2009] EWCA Civ 238, [2009] CP Rep 31, [2009] PTSR CS49, [2009] NPC 45, [2009] HLR 38)
    The council sought possession of the property saying that the three bedroomed property was underused by the tenant and his sister. The respondents said that it was not too extensive, and that no satisfactory alternative accommodation had been . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 22 September 2020; Ref: scu.323742