An application for extension of time is implied in an application to set down; no strike out should follow.
Times 30-Jun-1995, Gazette 19-Jul-1995
County Court Rules 1981 Order 17 rule 11(9)
England and Wales
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.80501
Court may look at financial disadvantages of residence order including Child Support.
Times 10-May-1995
England and Wales
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.82139
Company Director Disqualification proceedings were struck out for delay. There has to be a balance between the public interest in securing the disqualification of bad directors and the prejudice to private citizens and the people subject to the application process. Proceedings which are brought at the end of the two-year period are liable to be struck out, if there has been inordinate or inexcusable delay.
Staughton LJ said that ‘the public interest in the disqualification of unfit directors may . . have to yield to the lapse of time.’ The question he posed was ‘whether that public interest is outweighed by the requirements of justice in the particular circumstances of the particular case.’
Staughton LJ
Times 22-Jun-1995, [1995] 1 BCLC 578
Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986
England and Wales
Appeal from – In Re Manlon Trading Ltd ChD 15-Aug-1994
A different approach is required on striking out in Company Director Disqualification proceedings. . .
Cited – Eastaway v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry CA 10-May-2007
The applicant had been subject to company director disqualification proceedings. Eventually he gave an undertaking not to act as a company director, but then succeeded at the ECHR in a complaint of delay. He now sought release from his undertaking . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Eastaway CA 6-Apr-2001
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.82043
External confiscation order of proceeds of drug trafficking enforceable in rem.
Times 11-Jul-1995
England and Wales
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.82009
Cogent evidence of abuse is required varying according to the gravity of the case. A high standard is required in sexual abuse in care homes cases.
Times 03-Jul-1995
England and Wales
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.81991
An owner of a park for mobile homes increased the rent to allow for loss of profits after the home owners began to buy their liquid gas from other sources. He showed that profits from such sales were part of the normal profit structure of such parks and factored into the rents.
Held: The site owner’s appeal succeeded. The company had properly increased the rent to reflect the change.
Simon Brown LJ, Rattee J
Gazette 27-Jun-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 1568
England and Wales
Appeal from – Howard and others v Kinvena Homes Limited CA 19-Mar-1999
Application for leave to appeal – granted. . .
Cited – Stroud v Weir Associates CA 1987
The court was asked to set pitch fees on a registered mobile home site. The site owner had sought to rely upon the fact of the order which cut from 15 per cent to 10 per cent the maximum commission chargeable by a site owner on an occupier’s . .
Cited – Walker v Badcock CA 24-Jun-1997
The tenants on a registered mobile home site appealed a decision that they shoud contribute to the expenses of lopping trees at the edge of the site by including it in the pitch fee. The site owner said that it had been carried out for the benefit . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.81500
An agreement between the parties to extend the time for filing a defence, ousts the automatic striking out rules.
Times 05-Jun-1995, Ind Summary 03-Jul-1995
England and Wales
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.81301
A Local Authority could reclaim overpaid Housing Benefits even though it had failed to follow precisely the required procedures for such a recovery, provided that it could demonstrate that the failing was immaterial, and that the failure caused the defendant no injustice.
Rich, Otton, Pill LJJ
Times 03-Jun-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 1491, (2000) 32 HLR 517
Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 No 1971 Sch 6
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v London Borough of Tower Hamlets ex parte Tower Hamlets Combined Traders Association QBD 19-Jul-1993
The court discussed the way in which local authorities should conduct their activities under the section: ‘[T]he budgetary exercise required of a local authority under section 32 is a part of its larger duty to administer its funds so as to protect . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.81238
A warrant for possession is unenforceable after six years without first obtaining the leave of the court.
Times 17-May-1995
England and Wales
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.81123
A UK court may continue to hear a Spanish company’s claim against it’s own directors if a court was first seized of the matter here. Where a case concerned matters as to the constitution of a company, the courts of the company in which the company was incorporated had exclusive jurisdiction.
Stuart-Smith LJ: ‘The test laid down in Zelger is a chronological test. It requires a moment in time to be identified. When were the requirements first fulfilled? A doctrine of relation back cannot alter the answer to be given to this question. Under Spanish law, the requirement for pendency was not fulfilled until the proceedings were served on Grupo Torras in October, 1993. Again, the argument of the defendants confuses the fulfilment of the requirement with the consequences of that fulfilment in the domestic procedural law.’
Stuart-Smith LJ
Independent 05-Jul-1995, [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 7, [1995] EWHC 1 (Comm)
European Convention on Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments 16-2
England and Wales
See Also – Grupo Torras SA and Torras Hostench London Limited v Sheikh Fahad Mohammed Al Sabah and others (2) CA 21-Mar-1997
The Court of Appeal should interfere with Judge’s case management decisions only with great reluctance. . .
See Also – Grupo Torras SA and Torras Hostench London Limited v Sheikh Fahad Mohammed Al-Sabah Et Al CA 2-Oct-1997
A party choosing to provide discovery of substantial documents on a Compact Disk must ask the court first before charging extra for the service. . .
See Also – Grupo Torras SA and Another v Al-Sabah and others Lst CA 6-Feb-1998
. .
See Also – Barbara Alison Al-Sabah and Another v Grupo Torras S A and Others PC 10-Oct-2000
PC (Jersey) The board refused special leave to appeal: ‘Normally all such questions of case management are matters for the courts concerned and are not suitable for any further review before their Lordships’ . .
See Also – Khaled Naser Hamoud Al-Sabah and Juan Jose Folchi Bonafonte v Grupo Torras SA CA 2-Nov-2000
The court discussed the approach to be taken when asked to act upon evidence which it found to be unreliable, though the witness’s credibility had not been destroyed. In a claim for dishonest assistance it is not necessary to show a precise causal . .
See Also – Grupo Torras Sa and Another v Al-Sabah and others CA 30-Jul-2001
The hearing followed others concluding that the claimant had been defrauded of substantial sums by the defendants. The parties sought clarifications. . .
See Also – Al Sabah and Al Sabah v Grupo Torras SA Culmer as trustee of the property of Sheikh Fahad Mohammed Al Sabah, bankrupt PC 11-Jan-2005
PC (Cayman Islands) The claimant complained of an order of the Court of Appeal of the Cayman Islands, requiring him to comply with a letter of request from the Grand Court of the Bahamas.
Held: In earlier . .
Cited – Siegfried Zelger v Sebastiano Salinitri ECJ 7-Jun-1984
Article 21 of the Convention of 28 September 1968 must be interpreted as meaning that the court ‘first seised’ is the one before which the requirements for proceedings to become definitively pending are first fulfilled, such requirements to be . .
Cited – Speed Investments Ltd and Another v Formula One Holdings Limited and Others (No 2) ChD 20-Jul-2004
The defendants sought a stay of the action, arguing that proceedings had begun first in Switzerland.
Held: An English court became seised of an action for the purposes of the Convention at the time when the proceedings were served. Under the . .
See Also – Grupo Torras SA and Torras Hostench London Limited v Sheikh Fahad Mohammed Al Sabah and others (2) CA 21-Mar-1997
The Court of Appeal should interfere with Judge’s case management decisions only with great reluctance. . .
See Also – Grupo Torras SA and Torras Hostench London Limited v Sheikh Fahad Mohammed Al-Sabah Et Al CA 2-Oct-1997
A party choosing to provide discovery of substantial documents on a Compact Disk must ask the court first before charging extra for the service. . .
See Also – Grupo Torras SA and Another v Al-Sabah and others Lst CA 6-Feb-1998
. .
See Also – Barbara Alison Al-Sabah and Another v Grupo Torras S A and Others PC 10-Oct-2000
PC (Jersey) The board refused special leave to appeal: ‘Normally all such questions of case management are matters for the courts concerned and are not suitable for any further review before their Lordships’ . .
See Also – Khaled Naser Hamoud Al-Sabah and Juan Jose Folchi Bonafonte v Grupo Torras SA CA 2-Nov-2000
The court discussed the approach to be taken when asked to act upon evidence which it found to be unreliable, though the witness’s credibility had not been destroyed. In a claim for dishonest assistance it is not necessary to show a precise causal . .
See Also – Grupo Torras Sa and Another v Al-Sabah and others CA 30-Jul-2001
The hearing followed others concluding that the claimant had been defrauded of substantial sums by the defendants. The parties sought clarifications. . .
See Also – Al Sabah and Al Sabah v Grupo Torras SA Culmer as trustee of the property of Sheikh Fahad Mohammed Al Sabah, bankrupt PC 11-Jan-2005
PC (Cayman Islands) The claimant complained of an order of the Court of Appeal of the Cayman Islands, requiring him to comply with a letter of request from the Grand Court of the Bahamas.
Held: In earlier . .
Cited – Nussberger and Another v Phillips and Another (No 4) CA 19-May-2006
A claim was issued in London in December 2004, and then served in part in Switzerland in January 2005. One copy was removed from the bundle by a Swiss official, seeing that it had been marked ‘Nor for service out of the jurisdiction.’ That marking . .
Cited – Canada Trust Co and Others v Stolzenberg and Others (No 2) HL 12-Oct-2000
The plaintiffs alleged the involvement of the defendant in a conspiracy to defraud. He had been domiciled in England, but had moved to Germany. He denied that the UK court had jurisdiction. The court of appeal said that jurisdiction was determined . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.81072
A ‘Planteria’ for the growing and storage of plants pending sale was premises, or a building, and not plant; no allowance was available. In considering the appeal, ‘the question for this Court, as it was for the Judge, is whether the facts found by the Commissioners are such that no person acting judicially and properly instructed as to the relevant law could have come to the decision to which the Commissioners came or, if you prefer it in the other form, whether their decision is contradicted by the true and only reasonable conclusion from the facts found.’ As to the decision of whether an item constituted plant: ‘The essential question here is whether the structure which is the taxpayer’s planteria can reasonably be called apparatus with which their trade is carried on as opposed to premises in which it is carried on, it being established that a large structure used for the purposes of the trade may be capable of falling into the former category.
Nourse, Kennedy and Beldam LJJ
Times 31-May-1995, Gazette 31-Aug-1995, Ind Summary 19-Jun-1995, (1995) 67 TC 401
Capital Allowances Act 1990 22
England and Wales
Appeal from – Gray (Inspector of Taxes) v Seymours Garden Centre Chd 10-May-1993
A glasshouse ‘planteria’ which was used to show plants in a garden centre, was premises and not plant for capital allowances purposes. . .
Cited – Inland Revenue Commissioners v Barclay Curle and Co Ltd 1969
Even a large structure used for the purposes of the trade may be capable of being plant. In this case a dry dock was used in trade of ship builders, ship repairers and marine engineers. . .
Appealed to – Gray (Inspector of Taxes) v Seymours Garden Centre Chd 10-May-1993
A glasshouse ‘planteria’ which was used to show plants in a garden centre, was premises and not plant for capital allowances purposes. . .
Cited – Lingfield Park (1991) Limited v Shove CA 31-Mar-2004
The taxpayers sought capital allowances on the costs of installing an artificial all-weather race track.
Held: The track was not either plant or machinery, and the taxpayer was not eligible for the relief. The only reasonable conclusion was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.80986
It was not an abuse of process, to restart a claim within the limitation period after an automatic striking out of an earlier action. Millett LJ referred to the ‘same dilatory progress’ all the parties to the action continued to make after the guillotine date. Sir Thomas Bingham MR said: ‘I would add only this by way of footnote. If a plaintiff whose first action is automatically struck out under Ord.17,r.11(9) is subject to an order for costs and brings a second action within the limitation period, it is certainly open to the defendant in that second action to seek an order that the second action be stayed until the costs of the first action are duly met. That is not a ground upon which the plaintiff can be precluded from bringing the second action, but it may, in my judgment, afford grounds upon which he may be restrained from pursuing it until he has paid his debts.’
Millett LJ, Sir Thomas Bingham MR
Times 18-Jan-1996, Gazette 21-Feb-1996, [1996] 1 WLR 571
County Court Rules 1981 17(11)
England and Wales
Cited – Dowse v Kappell CA 12-Dec-1996
The plaintiff had had his claim re-instated after being struck out. The defendant appealed.
Held: There was material on which the learned Circuit Judge was entitled to reach the conclusion which she did. Although this was a borderline case, it . .
Cited – Reville v Wright CA 18-Jan-1996
Re-instatement of an action after an automatic strike out could be proper if due diligence and a reasonable excuse could be shown. ‘The principles which emerge from those three decisions can be stated in summary form: (a) there are two threshold . .
Cited – Worldwide Corporation Limited v GPT Limited and GPT (Middle East) Limited CA 2-Dec-1998
Reasons for dismissal of application for leave to appeal – refusals of leave to amend particulars. The court must take into account the public interest in the efficient administration of justice which may be damaged by the disruption and delay . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.80752
Plaintiffs who were claiming damage from the emission of noxious fumes did not need particularise the gases which they thought had caused the damage.
Gazette 14-Jun-1995, Times 18-May-1995
England and Wales
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.80740
An obligation taken on by a subsequent assignee cannot affect liability of original Tenant or surety. Variation of tenancy without intention to create new tenancy does not end surety.
Times 31-Jul-1995, Independent 14-Sep-1995
England and Wales
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.80692
The claimant had received some instruction as to the use of gymnastic mats, but the instruction from the defendants was inadequate and had not made him aware of the dangers. Subsequently, when the claimant used the mats with a friend on a subsequent occasion, without supervision, he suffered a serious injury. A Local Authority allowing facilities for unsupervised gymnastics may be liable in negligence for injury. Where the only connection between the acts of the claimant and the defendant is the fact that the defendant made it possible for the claimant to harm himself, the claimant’s acts are taken to be the sole cause of the harm.
Millett LJ upheld the original decision for the defendant’s assumption of responsibility in respect of the inadequate teaching and advice given to the claimant: ‘Having assumed the task of teaching Mr Fowles how to perform the forward somersault, the defendants voluntarily assumed a responsibility to teach him properly and to make him aware of the dangers. They failed to do either; and then compounded their failure by providing unrestricted access to the crash mat, thereby encouraging him to use it to practice what he had been taught, without warning him that he must on no account do so without supervision.
This appears to me to be a sound basis for ascribing some degree of responsibility to the defendants. It is true that it is not how the case was primarily pleaded or presented, but it is supported by the evidence and it would cause no injustice to the defendants if liability was put on this basis.’
Millett LJ
Times 22-May-1995, [1996] ELR 51, [1995] PIQR P380.
England and Wales
Cited – Portsmouth Youth Activities Committee (A Charity) v Poppleton CA 12-Jun-2008
The claimant was injured climbing without ropes (‘bouldering’) at defendant’s activity centre. The defendant appealed against a finding of 25% responsibility in having failed to warn climbers that the existence of thick foam would not remove all . .
Cited – Geary v JD Wetherspoon Plc QBD 14-Jun-2011
The claimant, attempting to slide down the banisters at the defendants’ premises, fell 4 metres suffering severe injury. She claimed in negligence and occupiers’ liability. The local council had waived a requirement that the balustrade meet the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.80650
Service by post at the last known address of a defendant is not deemed effective if the defendant can show that he did not actually receive it.
Ind Summary 31-Jul-1995, Times 06-Jul-1995
Rules of the Supreme Court Order 10 r1
England and Wales
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.80644
A charge executed before a purchase was ‘fed’ by a subsequent purchase and had priority. ‘Feeding the estoppel’ doctrine may apply to charges on registered land. The estoppel was fed by a later purchase without a clear recital of the title in the charge.
Ind Summary 31-Jul-1995, Times 25-Jul-1995, Gazette 15-Sep-1995
England and Wales
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.80559
A Local Authority has no power to change a tree preservation order to ‘woodland’ on the making of the order.
Times 18-Jul-1995
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 199-1
England and Wales
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.80390
Security for costs for ‘nominal plaintiff’ only after some duplicity shown.
Times 02-May-1995
England and Wales
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.80351
A close company has an additional obligation to notify the Revenue that a loan was chargeable to tax, and in default, it was liable for interest.
Ind Summary 01-May-1995, Times 17-Mar-1995
England and Wales
Appeal from – Earlspring Properties Ltd v Guest (Inspector of Taxes) ChD 28-May-1993
In computing company’s tax liability excessive pay not deductible. . .
Appealed to – Earlspring Properties Ltd v Guest (Inspector of Taxes) ChD 28-May-1993
In computing company’s tax liability excessive pay not deductible. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.80212
Leasehold Disputes (Management) – Service Charges
[2020] UKFTT BIR – 00CN – LIS
England and Wales
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.658230
[2020] EWHC 3329 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.656798
[2017] NIIT 01749 – 17IT
Northern Ireland
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.619040
Appeal against conviction brought with the leave of the full court and which depends upon the admission of fresh evidence pursuant to section 23 of the 1968 Act.
Macur LJ
[2021] EWCA Crim 689
England and Wales
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.662500
[2017] UKUT 401 (AAC)
England and Wales
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.598498
A provision in a tenancy agreement that the tenancy would cease upon the bankruptcy of the tenant, continued and became part of the terms of a statutory tenancy following the contractual one. The provision was not inconsistent with the idea of the statutory tenancy, and the term was implied into the statutory tenancy.
Stuart-Smith and Laws L.JJ. and Jonathan Parker J.)
Times 01-Jun-1999, Gazette 03-Jun-1999, Gazette 09-Jun-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 1470, [1999] 1 WLR 1689, [1999] L and TR 481
England and Wales
Appeal from – Cadogan Estates Limited v McMahon HL 26-Oct-2000
When a tenancy was terminated and was followed by a statutory tenancy, a term in the contractual tenancy that the tenancy should be forfeit on the tenant’s bankruptcy was continued in and inherited by the statutory tenancy. Though perhaps in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.78822
A receiver’s remuneration may be set by the court on either the standard or indemnity basis.
Times 24-May-1995
England and Wales
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.77749
A UK Settlor/beneficiary was liable to be taxed on distribution gains from an offshore trust.
Ind Summary 22-May-1995
England and Wales
Appeal from – De Rothschild v Lawrenson (Inspector of Taxes) ChD 7-Dec-1993
A UK resident settlor was liable for tax on gains in a non-resident trust. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.79854
Successful Lloyds names were entitled to enforce their claims in the normal time sequence. The transfer of the rights of the insured against the insurer under section 1(1) the 1930 Act takes place on the event of insolvency, even if the insured’s liability to the third party has not yet been established. In handling claims, instructing solicitors and so forth, the insurers act as agents for the company and are entitled to reimbursement for their expenses.
Lord Justice Saville said: ‘Under the Act the rights of the insured against the insurer are transferred to the third party on (in the case of an insured company) the making of a winding up order etc.: see s.1(b) of the Act. It follows from this that a statutory transfer can take place before the obligation of the insurer to pay arises i.e. before the liability of the insured has been established. In such an event, since it is clear from the authorities that the third party is to be put in no better position than the insured, the third party does not obtain the right to immediate payment until the liability of the insured is established. .
That right [the right of the third party to immediate payment by the insurers] only arises when, in each case, the claim is established, just as that right, while owned by the insured, would also arise only when the particular claim in question was established. It is only when that right arises that the insurers come under the correlative obligation to make payment. To my mind it follows that as each claim is established (whether before or after the statutory assignment), the right to payment arises and thus the amount of available insurance is in effect diminished, so that when it is exhausted later established claims have no right to an indemnity. . .’
Lord Justice Saville
Independent 09-Jun-1995, Times 16-May-1995, [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 437
Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930 1(1)(b)
England and Wales
Appeal from – Cox v Bankside Members Agency Ltd and Others QBD 27-Jan-1995
Some agents had policies against which there were likely to be various calls, either because several claims were being pursued against the same agents by different Lloyd’s Names, or because the policies were group policies covering several agents . .
Cited – AXA Reinsurance (UK) Plc v Field HL 12-Sep-1996
The terms originating ’cause’ and ‘event’ are to be differently construed, one means a continuing situation and the other refers to a discrete event.
Under the ‘LMX Spiral’ Lloyds’ syndicates wrote substantial excess of loss business.The cross . .
Cited – Lloyds TSB General Insurance Holdings and others v Lloyds Bank Group Insurance Company Ltd HL 31-Jul-2003
The applicant had paid out many claims for mis-selling pensions. They sought to claim under their insurance. The claims met the requirements of the principle insurance, but the insurance companies sought to impose a limit by aggregation.
Held: . .
Dicta adopted – First National Tricity Finance Ltd v OT Computers Ltd; In re OT Computers Ltd (in administration) CA 25-May-2004
The company had gone into liquidation. They had sold consumer policies as extended warranties on behalf of the claimant. The company had insured its own joint liability under the contracts, and the claimant sought information from the company’s . .
Cited – Freakley and Curzon Insurance Ltd v Centre Reinsurance International Company and Another; similar CA 11-Feb-2005
Claims were made for personal injury caused by asbestos. The re-insurers sought declaratory relief against the head insurers, and the administrators of the insolvent company. The administrators sought declarations in turn. Curzon insured the company . .
Cited – Freakley and others v Centre Reinsurance International Company and others HL 11-Oct-2006
When it became clear that the company would be financially overwhelmed by asbestos related claims, a voluntary scheme of arrangement was proposed under s425. The House was now asked whether the right to re-imbursement of the company’s lawyers after . .
Cited – Teal Assurance Company Ltd v WR Berkley Insurance (Europe) Ltd SC 31-Jul-2013
An international engineering company had several layers of professional indemnity insurance. The top later did not cover claims originating in the US or Canada. The several insurers now disputed apportionment of liability between them. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.79585
Repayment claim was allowed for a misrepresentation though claimant was innocent herself.
Gazette 07-Jun-1995
England and Wales
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.79046
Claimant’s inability to comprehend no bar to claim for repayment of overpayment.
Times 10-May-1995
Social Security Administration Act 1992
England and Wales
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.79045
There is no duty on a contractor to safeguard a sub-contractor’s plant on a site.
Ind Summary 30-May-1995
National Federation of Building Trades Employers Trades 1978 7-1
England and Wales
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.78836
Allied Maples had made a corporate takeover of assets and businesses within the Gillow group of companies, during which it was negligently advised by the defendant solicitors in relation to seeking protection against contingent liabilities of subsidiaries within the vendor’s group. Allied Maples would have been better off, competently advised, if, but only if: (a) it had raised the matter with Gillow and sought improved warranties and (b) Gillow had responded by providing them.
Held: Allied Maples had to prove point (a) on a balance of probabilities, but point (b) should be assessed upon the basis of loss of the chance that Gillow would have responded favourably.
The scale of losses alone did not make damages claim too remote if it was nevertheless foreseeable. Liability for damages for negligent advice depends upon type not scale of loss.
Claims against underwriters are separate for each year, set-off not allowed.
Stuart-Smith, Hobhouse and Millett LJJ
Times 26-Jul-1995, Gazette 15-Sep-1995, Independent 13-Sep-1995, [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 513, [1995] 4 All ER 598
England and Wales
Appeal from – Brown v KMR Services Ltd; Sword-Daniels v Pitel and Others QBD 19-Apr-1994
A Lloyds agent who was asked to find a low risk syndicate has a duty to do so. . .
Cited – Transfield Shipping Inc of Panama v Mercator Shipping Inc of Monrovia ComC 1-Dec-2006
The owners made substantial losses after the charterers breached the contract by failing to redliver the ship on time as agreed.
Held: On the facts found the Owners’ primary claim is not too remote. To the knowledge of the Charterers, it was . .
Cited – Perry v Raleys Solicitors SC 13-Feb-2019
Veracity of a witness is for the court hearing him
The claimant, a retired miner, had sued his former solicitors, alleging professional negligence in the settlement of his claim for Vibration White Finger damages under the government approved scheme for compensation for such injuries. At trial, the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.78703
Compensation for subsidence damage measured by cost of repair and re-instatement. Lands Tribunal has no general power to award interest on compensation.
Times 18-Jul-1995, Independent 06-Jul-1995
Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934 3(1), Coal Industries Act 1975 2(4)(a)
England and Wales
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.78618
Exact rules for affidavits must be followed on Order 14 proceedings. The solicitor swearing an affidavit on behalf of the bank had not disclosed the source of his information. Though the defect might be technical, the defendant was being deprived of his right to cross examine the witness and of his right to defend, and the rules must be strictly complied with.
Independent 23-May-1995, Times 31-May-1995, [1995] CLY 4228
Rules of the Supreme Court Order 14
England and Wales
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.78214
A milkman’s round agreement with the dairy supplying him with milk for sale, was registerable as a restrictive agreement if the words so require despite alternative remedies, and even though in this instance it might be borderline.
Gazette 19-Jul-1995, Times 06-Jul-1995
Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 9(3)
England and Wales
Appealed to – MD Foods v Baines and others; Associated Dairies Ltd v Baines and Others HL 27-Feb-1997
The appellant dairy sold milk to the defendant roundsmen, each agreeing not to sell milk by retail to the others customers. The defendant began to buy his milk elsewhere, and claimed the agreement should have been registered as a restrictive trade . .
Appeal from – MD Foods v Baines and others; Associated Dairies Ltd v Baines and Others HL 27-Feb-1997
The appellant dairy sold milk to the defendant roundsmen, each agreeing not to sell milk by retail to the others customers. The defendant began to buy his milk elsewhere, and claimed the agreement should have been registered as a restrictive trade . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.77920
It can be just possible that the existence of a rumour makes it right to repeat the rumour without checking its truth. Repetition need not always be quite unjustifiable.
Independent 20-Jul-1995, Times 11-Jul-1995, Gazette 31-Aug-1995
England and Wales
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.77912
The limit for an air carrier’s liability does not apply where there had ben extreme misconduct by the airline.
Ind Summary 15-May-1995
England and Wales
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.77824
A party who chose to contract as principal for the purpose of reselling the goods of the vendor on a speculative basis and for a profit, was not to be deemed to be a commercial agent of the first vendor, and so was not entitled to compensation on the breakdown of the relationship.
Peter Gibson, Judge, Waller LJJ
Gazette 07-Jul-1999, Times 08-Jul-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 1618, [1999] CLC 1391, [1999] 2 All ER (Comm) 249, [1999] Eu LR 930, (1999) 18 Tr LR 153, [2000] ECC 381
Commercial Agents (Council Directive) Regulations 1993 (1993 No 3053) Reg 2
England and Wales
Cited – Rossetti Marketing Ltd v Diamond Sofa Company Ltd and Another QBD 3-Oct-2011
The claimants sought compensation under the 1993 Rules. The defendants denied that the claimants were agents within the rules, since they also acted as agents for other furniture makers.
Held: Whether a party is a commercial agent within the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.77776
The standard of evidence required to show cause to serve proceedings overseas is that the applicant has an arguable case, not that he probably will win.
Ind Summary 26-Jun-1995, Times 22-May-1995
England and Wales
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.77674
[2017] CAT 23
England and Wales
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.609545
Practice and procedure – rule 50(1) schedule 1 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
The respondents made an application under rule 50(1) schedule 1 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 (‘the ET Rules’) to prohibit the disclosure of information relating to specified matters on the basis that this was said to be necessary in the interests of justice, to protect rights under articles 3, 5, 6 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’), and/or pursuant to an obligation of confidence; in particular, it was said to be necessary to protect the safety and security of non-participants in the litigation located outside the United Kingdom, in a country that was not a signatory to the ECHR.
It was the evidence of the second respondent that, if the application was not granted, he would not be prepared to give evidence in the employment tribunal (‘ET’) proceedings or let the first respondent continue to defend those proceedings. The ET refused the application, holding that it had no power under rule 50 to protect the rights of individuals under the ECHR who were located outside the jurisdiction of the signatory states. In the alternative, it concluded that the evidence adduced by the respondents was speculative and there was no objective verification of the potential risks such as would meet the necessary threshold for the orders sought. The ET further found that the subjective fears raised by the second respondent were insufficient to engage article 8 ECHR and did not consider it should take account of his stated intentions in relation to the proceedings (if the application was refused): there was no breach of article 6 ECHR, this was a matter of choice for the respondents. Although the ET accepted there was a contractual duty of confidence on the claimant, it did not accept that outweighed the principle of open justice. The respondents appealed.
Held: allowing the appeal in part
Although the ET was correct in its understanding of the territorial limitation of the ECHR, that did not answer the question whether the derogations sought were necessary in the interests of justice, whether that question was approached on common law principles or in conformity with the article 6 right to a fair trial.
The ET had been entitled to find that there was no objective verification of the respondents’ concerns such as to meet the necessary threshold to demonstrate a materially increased risk for the purposes of articles 3 and 5 ECHR. Different considerations arose, however, in relation to the ET’s assessment of the evidence at common law and in respect of the protections sought under articles 6 and 8 ECHR, in particular given that article 8 could extend to include concerns regarding the safety and security of work colleagues. The respondents’ subjective fears could be relevant for those purposes and the ET had erred in failing to consider whether those concerns – even if not well-founded – were such as would prejudice the administration of justice if the application was not granted. Although it would be open to the ET to discount the second respondent’s evidence as to his intentions if the application was refused, this was still a relevant matter for it to weigh in the balance and it had erred in failing to carry out any balancing exercise, whether at common law or under articles 6 and 8 ECHR.
The ET had also erred in its rejection of the application on confidentiality grounds. Having found that the claimant had owed a contractual duty of confidence, the ET failed to take that into account as a relevant circumstance: the question was not merely whether it was legitimate for the respondents to seek to keep the information confidential but whether it was in the public interest for the duty of confidence to be breached.
The Honourable Mrs Justice Eady DBE, President
[2022] EAT 74
Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, European Convention on Human Rights 3 5 6 8
England and Wales
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.677563
[2017] DRS 19290
England and Wales
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.599362
Trial of preliminary issues as to the meaning of certain publications
Saini J
[2020] EWHC 374 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.648904
Whether land bound by restrictive covenant
HHJ Paul Matthews
(Sitting as a Judge of the High Court)
[2020] EWHC 302 (Ch)
England and Wales
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.648548
Is service of a claim form, a reserved legal activity for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007
[2018] EWCA Civ 2865
England and Wales
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.632679
[2017] ScotIC 163 – 2017
Scotland
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.616183
The complainant has requested information relating to a contract for day care provision. Northamptonshire County Council initially stated that the information was not held but subsequently disclosed the information during the Commissioner’s investigation. The Commissioner’s decision is that Northamptonshire County Council failed to disclose the requested information within the statutory time limit and breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
FOI 10: Upheld
[2017] UKICO FS50670863
England and Wales
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.602326
T-878/16, [2017] EUECJ T-878/16
European
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.598871
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters – Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Jurisdiction – Article 2(1) – Jurisdiction of the courts of the place where the defendant is domiciled – Article 22(4) – Exclusive jurisdiction in proceedings concerned with the registration or validity of intellectual property rights – Proceedings to determine whether a person was correctly registered as the proprietor of a trade mark
C-341/16, [2017] EUECJ C-341/16, ECLI:EU:C:2017:738, [2018] Bus LR 1384, [2017] WLR(D) 632
European
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.598863
T-336/16, [2017] EUECJ T-336/16
European
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.598914
T-139/16, [2017] EUECJ T-139/16
European
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.598899
PENALTIES – personal penalty notices- application for appeal out of time -permission granted
[2017] UKFTT 738 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.598786
[2017] UKUT 393 (AAC)
England and Wales
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.598504
[2017] UKUT 399 (AAC)
England and Wales
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.598489
[2017] UKUT 397 (AAC)
England and Wales
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.598501
EU trade mark – Application for EU word mark SPURBAR ANDERS. – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (2), of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001]
T-126/16, [2017] EUECJ T-126/16, ECLI:EU:T:2017:688
European
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.597505
Post judgment application for admission of further witness statement.
John Baldwin QC
[2017] EWHC 2413 (Ch)
England and Wales
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.597472
The claimant, father of a child born by artificial insemination from a frozen embryo, alleged that the signature on the form of consent had been forged.
Jay J
[2017] EWHC 2438 (QB), [2017] WLR(D) 640
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990
England and Wales
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.598438
The court was asked whether an investor with an interest in Notes issued in bearer form and held through the Clear stream system has a direct claim for breach of contract against the issuer of the Notes, in respect of an alleged breach of the misleading statements term.
Beatson, David Richards, Irwin LJJ
[2017] EWCA Civ 1486
England and Wales
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.595818
The claimant challenged the calculation of the release date from prison after conviction of MS of the murder of her husband. The AG also argued that the proper appeal was to the Court of Appeal from Northern Ireland and not the Supreme Court.
Held: The proceedings did not amount to a ‘criminal cause or matter’ and therefore the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal. An appeal to the Supreme Court is only possible if a point of law of general public importance is certified. In contrast, in all other cases appeal rights from the High Court to the Court of Appeal are directed to ensuring that errors at first instance in individual cases can be rectified. No showing of public importance is required.
Lady Hale, Lord Wilson, Lord Carnwath, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Sales
[2020] UKSC 6, [2021] AC 392, [2021] Crim LR 397, [2020] NI 324, [2020] 3 All ER 827, [2020] 2 WLR 510
Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 41(1)
Northern Ireland
Appeal from – McGuinness v Department of Justice QBNI 15-Jan-2019
Whether the assessment on the part of the Respondent, the Department of Justice (‘the Department’), that by July 2018 Michael Stone (hereinafter ‘the prisoner/Mr Stone’), a convicted murderer of some notoriety sentenced to life imprisonment in 1988 . .
Cited – Belhaj and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions and Another SC 4-Jul-2018
Challenge to decision not to prosecute senior Intelligence Service officials for alleged offences in connection with his unlawful rendition and mistreatment in Libya. The issue here was whether on the hearing of the application for judicial review, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.648172
By an application notice the First Defendant, Syleta Monica Susan Samuel, applies for an order that a probate claim brought by her sister, Merlina Jacqueline Samuel, be struck out as an abuse of process pursuant to CPR r 3.4(2)(b). Shortly stated, the basis for the application is that Merlina was a party to a probate claim brought by their brother Christopher in 2012 seeking substantially the same relief as that now sought by Merlina and that Merlina could and should have sought the relief she is now seeking in those earlier proceedings.
Teverson M
[2018] EWHC 3513 (Ch)
Civil Procedure Rules 3.4(2)(b)
England and Wales
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.632195
Feasibility study – Carer’s Allowance : Partially upheld
[2017] ScotIC 163 – 2017
Scotland
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.616184
[2017] ScotCS CSOH – 142
Scotland
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.605041
The complainant has requested information relating to a letter sent to them by the council regarding a planning application. Kent County Council initially refused the request under the exemption for Legal Professional Privilege – section 42 of the FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation it reconsidered the request under the EIR and applied the exception for the course of justice (regulation 12(5)(b)) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Kent County Council wrongly handled the request under the FOIA and breached regulation 5(1) and 14 of the EIR and, correctly withheld the requested information under regulation 12(5)(b). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
EIR 5(1): Upheld EIR 13: Upheld EIR 12(5)(b): Not upheld
[2017] UKICO FS50677503
England and Wales
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.602307
The complainant requested information about the duties and responsibilities of sessional prison chaplains and payments made to them. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Ministry of Justice relied correctly on the section 14(1) FOIA exemption (vexatious or repeated requests). The Commissioner also decided that, in failing to respond to the request within the statutory timescale, MOJ had breached section 10(1) FOIA (time for compliance). As a response has been provided, the Commissioner does not require the Ministry of Justice to take any further steps.
FOI 10: Upheld FOI 14: Not upheld
[2017] UKICO FS50661825
England and Wales
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.602319
The complainant made a three part request about an assessment (the ‘Assessment’) which was undertaken in connection with two criminal investigations by Staffordshire Police (‘SP’). In respect of part (1) of the request, SP disclosed some information but withheld the remainder citing the exemptions at sections 40(2)(personal information) and 31(1)(a), (b) and (g) (law enforcement) of the FOIA. In respect of parts (2) and (3), SP failed to provide a response. The Commissioner’s decision is that SP was entitled to rely on the exemptions cited in part (1) of the request; however, she finds that SP should have cited section 40(1) in respect of some of that information. In failing to respond to any part of the request within the statutory time limit SP breached section 10(1) (time for compliance) of the FOIA. Additionally, in failing to state whether or not its holds information in respect of parts (2) and (3), it breached section 1(1). In respect of parts (2) and (3) of the request the Commissioner requires SP to either provide the requested information or issue a valid refusal notice as set out in section 17 of the FOIA.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld FOI 31: Not upheld FOI 40: Not upheld
[2017] UKICO FS50673467
England and Wales
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.602346
The complainant has requested information about 999 calls where technician or emergency care assistant-only teams were the first or only responders, for particular years. West Midlands Ambulance Service (WMAS) released some information and withheld some under section 22 of the FOIA (information intended for future publication) and section 22A (research). The Commissioner’s decision is that, with regard to requests 3 and 4, WMAS does not hold the information on particular categories of ambulance call outs for the months June to December 2016. She finds WMAS breached section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA in this regard as it had confirmed it held information that it did not hold. The Commissioner has also decided that, at the time of the request, the information within the scope of request 1 that WMAS holds did not engage either section 22(1) or section 22A. WMAS was instructed to release this information to the complainant during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation. If it has not already done so, WMAS must take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Release to the complainant the information it holds that falls within the scope of request 1, for the months June to December 2016.
FOI 1: Not upheld FOI 22: Upheld
[2017] UKICO FS50676366
England and Wales
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.602358
The complainant made a request to Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (the council) for information on a proposed new road. The council refused to comply with the request under the exception in regulation 12(4)(d). The Commissioner has decided that regulation 12(4)(d) is engaged and that, in the specific circumstances of this request, the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighs the public interest in disclosure. She does, however, find that the council breached regulation 5(2) as it did not provide its refusal notice within 20 working days of the date of receipt of the request. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps as a result of this notice.
EIR 12(4)(a): Not upheld
[2017] UKICO FER0636600
England and Wales
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.602342
The complainant made a series of requests to the school. By the conclusion of the investigation the only outstanding matter was the school’s alleged failure to provide the personnel advice it had received from the council relating to its head teacher at the time. Ultimately the school argued that the requested information was not held. The Commissioner finds that on the balance of probabilities the school does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further action in respect this request.
FOI 1: Not upheld
[2017] UKICO FS50658803
England and Wales
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.602341
The complainant made a freedom of information request to the Department of Health (DoH) for information related to meetings with Ian Cumming, the Chief Executive of Health Education England. The DoH disclosed some information falling within the scope of the request under but withheld some information under the section 35(1)(a) (policy formulation and development), section 35(1)(d) (operation of ministerial private office) and section 40(2) (personal information) exemptions. During the course of the investigation it disclosed some further information to the complainant and confirmed that rather than section 35, it was now seeking to rely on the section 36 (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs etc) exemption to withhold the remaining undisclosed information. The Commissioner has decided that the remaining withheld information is exempt under section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner also found that section 40(2) applies to the name and contact details of one individual named in the withheld information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 36: Not upheld FOI 40: Not upheld
[2017] UKICO FS50655951
England and Wales
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.602270
C-437/16, [2017] EUECJ C-437/16
European
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.598918
EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU word mark COLINEB – Earlier national figurative mark Colina – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – Extent of the examination to be carried out by the Board of Appeal – Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001
T-36/17, [2017] EUECJ T-36/17, ECLI:EU:T:2017:69
European
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.598857
Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia – Freezing of funds – Action for annulment – Admissibility – Legal basis – Reinclusion of the applicant’s name on the basis of new grounds – Obligation to state reasons – Factual basis – Right to property – Proportionality
T-149/15, [2017] EUECJ T-149/15
European
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.598841
EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU word mark SKY ENERGY – Earlier EU word mark NRJ – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
T-184/16, [2017] EUECJ T-184/16, ECLI:EU:T:2017:703
European
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.598887
PROCEDURE – Application for costs – Withdrawal of decision by HMRC that SDLT was due – Whether acting unreasonably in defending or conducting proceedings – No – Application dismissed
[2017] UKFTT 739 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.598806
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts – Directive 2004/18/EC – Article 1(9) – Concept of contracting authority – Company wholly owned by a contracting authority – Transactions internal to the group
C-567/15, [2017] EUECJ C-567/15, [2017] WLR(D) 633, [2018] PTSR 912, ECLI:EU:C:2017:736
European
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.598879
[2017] UKUT 400 (AAC)
England and Wales
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.598496
EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU figurative mark GAPPOL – Earlier EU word mark GAP – Cross-appeal – Relative grounds for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – Reputation – Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or reputation – Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001) – Obligation to state reasons – Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001)
T-411/15, [2017] EUECJ T-411/15
European
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.597509
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Value added tax (VAT) – Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC – Directive 2006/112/EC – Exemption from VAT – Article 86(1)(b) and Article 144 – Relief from duties on the importation of goods of negligible or non-commercial value – Exemption for the supply of services relating to the importation of goods – National regulations subjecting to VAT the cost of transporting documents and goods of negligible value despite their ancillary to non-taxable property
C-273/16, [2017] EUECJ C-273/16, ECLI:EU:C:2017:733
European
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.597508
King, David Richards, Nicola Davies LJJ
[2018] WLR(D) 766, [2018] EWCA Civ 2803, [2019] 2 All ER 1074, [2020] QB 93, [2019] Med LR 119, [2019] 2 WLR 1094, [2019] 1 FLR 1317, [2019] 1 FLR 1317
England and Wales
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.631412
Losses from delay in air transportation of commercial cargoes.
Held: The preliminary issue would be answered in the claimant’s favour, that there would be no set-off against the air freight. The defendant would be obliged to bring a separate claim against the claimant for the alleged breach of contract.
Moulder J
[2017] WLR(D) 755, [2017] EWHC B20 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.601095
This is a libel and malicious falsehood action brought by the Claimant against five defendants. It concerns an announcement made on the London Stock Exchanges Regulatory News Service by Stobart Group Limited.
Nicklin J
[2018] EWHC 3563 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.632222
The complainant has requested information which was supplied to Cambridge City Council’s Legal Team and which concerns the property where the complainant lives. The information relates to attempts made by the Council to resolve matters in respect of compliance with Building Regulations and possible proceedings under Section 36(6) of the Building Act 1984. The Council has confirmed that it holds 6 documents which fall within the scope of the complainant’s request. It has withheld 5 of these documents in reliance on section 31(1)(g) of the FOIA and 1 document in reliance on section 21. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cambridge City Council has correctly applied the exemptions provided by sections 31(1)(g) and 21 of the FOIA. It is therefore entitled to continue to withhold the documents which the complainant seeks.
FOI 31: Not upheld FOI 21: Not upheld
[2017] UKICO FS50681829
England and Wales
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.602254
The complainant has requested information about a particular housing file. London Borough of Lambeth Council (LBL) has refused to comply with the request which it says is vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is vexatious under section 14(1). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
FOI 14: Not upheld
[2017] UKICO FER0682391
England and Wales
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.602311
The complainant made three separate requests for copies of correspondence between the Department for Transport and Devon County Council (the council). The council responded that the information was not held. The complainant was not satisfied with the council’s response to two of the three requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities the information is not held for those two requests. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
FOI 1: Not upheld
[2017] UKICO FS50600906
England and Wales
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.602272
The complainant requested information from Sheffield City Council (the Council) relating to the location of trees that had been selected by a Council contractor for the implementation of flexible paving. The Council denied holding any relevant information. The Commissioner investigated the complainant’s appeal and found that the information was held on behalf of the Council by one of its contractors. The Council confirmed that its revised response was that the request was manifestly unreasonable as per regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR, and that the balance of the public interest favoured maintaining the exception. The complainant confirmed he wished to appeal against this refusal of his request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council incorrectly refused the request as manifestly unreasonable. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with the requested information.
EIR 12(4)(b): Upheld
[2017] UKICO FS50637180
England and Wales
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.602339
The complainant has requested information on database design and columns in all of the DVLA’s databases. The DVLA refused the request, relying on section 12 of the FOIA as it considered that to provide the information would exceed the appropriate limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 12 of the FOIA is not engaged in this case. She also found that the DVLA has breached section 16 of the FOIA as it provided no advice or assistance. The Commissioner requires the public authority to issue a fresh response to the complainant in accordance with section 1 of the FOIA without relying on section 12 of the FOIA.
FOI 12: Upheld FOI 16: Upheld
[2017] UKICO FS50672711
England and Wales
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.602274
The complainant has requested information relating to credit balances in respect of all ratepayers within the billing area of London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (‘the Council’). The Council refused to disclose the requested information, citing section 31(1)(a) of the FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 31(1)(a) of the FOIA to the requested information. The Commissioner therefore requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 31: Not upheld
[2017] UKICO FS50643256
England and Wales
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.602288
The complainant requested information from Derbyshire County Council (‘the council’) relating to a Flood Risk Assessment. The council provided information but the complainants disputed that the council had provided the information sought. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council did not in fact hold the information. He finds that the council breached regulation 14(2) and 14(3)(a) for not stating that it did not hold the information sought by relying on the exception under regulation 12(4)(a) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (‘the EIR’). She does not require any steps to be taken.
EIR 5(1): Not upheld EIR 14(2): Upheld EIR 14(3)(a): Upheld
[2017] UKICO FS50665386
England and Wales
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.602271
The complainant made a request to Warwickshire County Council (the Council) for information on a proposed new road. The Council refused to provide the requested information and cited regulation 12(4)(b). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has not provided persuasive arguments to engage regulation 12(4)(b). The Commissioner considers that in the specific circumstances of this case, regulation 12(4)(b) is not engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to issue a fresh response that does not rely on regulation 12(4)(b). The public authority 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 Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
EIR 12(4)(b): Upheld
[2017] UKICO FER0637124
England and Wales
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.602354
The complainant has requested information on a proposed new road from Warwick District Council (the Council). The Council refused to provide the requested information citing the exception at regulation 12(4)(d). The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(4)(d) is engaged but, in the specific circumstances of this case, the public interest in disclosure of the requested information outweighs the public interest in maintaining the exception. The Commissioner also finds that the Council did not make all information held falling within the scope of the request available to the complainant in response to his request. She also finds the Council in breach of regulation 11(4) as it did not provide the complainant with the outcome of its internal review within the 40 working day statutory timeframe. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with an unredacted copy of the requested information. The public authority 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 Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
EIR 12(4)(d): Upheld
[2017] UKICO FER0641017
England and Wales
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.602353
The complainant has requested information on private hire operators in London including the number of vehicles registered with each one. Transport for London (TfL) refused to provide this information on the basis of section 41 and 43 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that TfL has correctly applied the provisions of section 41 to withhold the information and she requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 41: Not upheld
[2017] UKICO FS50676040
England and Wales
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.602350
PROCEDURE – HMRC application for extension of time to service Statement of Case – Appellant application that HMRC be debarred from proceedings – Extension of time GRANTED – HMRC not barred from proceeding
[2017] UKFTT 734 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.598771
T-176/16, [2017] EUECJ T-176/16
European
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.598873
European Union trade mark – Revocation procedure – European Union figurative silente PORTE and PORTE mark – Genuine use – Place of use – Nature of use – Use by third parties – Declaration of revocation – Rights of defense – Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009
T-386/16, [2017] EUECJ T-386/16, ECLI:EU:T:2017:706
European
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.598855
T-175/15, [2017] EUECJ T-175/15
European
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.598883
[2017] UKFTT 740 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.598781
[2017] UKFTT 741 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.598782
EU trade mark – Revocation proceedings – EU word mark INTESA – Article 51(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – No genuine use of the trade mark
T-143/16, [2017] EUECJ T-143/16
European
Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.597510