Anderson v The Queen: PC 13 Jul 1971

(Jamaica) A appealed his conviction of murder. Juries are not free, on the other hand, uncritically to reject unchallenged expert evidence on a matter calling for scientific expertise.

Citations:

[1971] UKPC 25, [1971] 3 WLR 718, [1971] 3 All ER 76, [1972] AC 100

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Commonwealth

Cited by:

Cited – Brennan v Regina CACD 21-Nov-2014
The defendant, then 22 had a history of disturbed childhood, sexual abuse and outpatient mental health treatment together with one instance when he was sectioned following a suicide attempt. On the undisputed psychiatric evidence he suffered from a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.444466

Central Research Laboratories Ltd v Intelligent Clothing Ltd and Alan Magill (Patent): IPO 24 Jul 2000

IPO The parties had entered into an agreement under which CRL agreed to take the patent application into the national phase in designated countries and in return IC would make two payments to CRL. The agreement included a default clause whereby IC would assign 30% of the patent application and any subsequent published patents to CRL if IC did not make the first and second payments.
IC argued that the default clause only came into play if both the first and the second payments were not made. The Hearing Officer found that the default clause must be construed as coming into play if any of the payments were not made and that therefore IC had defaulted on the agreement.
Neither party had any clear idea of the intended meaning of the default clause. CRL suggested either that they could be co-patentees (which would effectively give them a 50% share) or, since it was unlikely that either party would themselves manufacture the invention, that the parties could share in the proportions 70:30 any royalties which might accrue from licensing the technology. The other side suggested that it could mean a non-exclusive licence.
The Hearing Officer held that the clause was incapable of proper interpretation without further agreement between the parties in order to implement it and therefore it was void for uncertainty. IC was not relieved of its obligation to pay the money but CRL would have to look elsewhere for redress.

Citations:

[2000] UKIntelP o25600

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.453874

Central Research Laboratories Ltd v Intelligent Clothing Ltd and Alan Magill (Patent): IPO 29 Sep 2000

IPO In his decision dated 24 July 2000 the HO gave Mr Magill 6 weeks to indicate whether or not he wished to resist an order to assign the patent application to Intelligent Clothing Ltd.. In the absence of a response Mr Magill was ordered to assign the application within 6 weeks. The order does not extend to the US patent over which the HO had no jurisdiction.

Citations:

[2000] UKIntelP o36200

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Patents Act 1977 12

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.453937

Rex v Minister of Town and Country Planning, Ex parte Montague Burton Ltd: CA 1951

Section 37 of the 1889 Act provided that where an Act was not to come into operation immediately, and it conferred power to make regulations or other instruments for the purposes of the Act, that power could be exercised at any time after the passing of the Act, ‘so far as may be necessary or expedient for the purpose of bringing the Act into operation at the date of the commencement thereof’. The term ‘commencement’ was defined by section 36 as meaning ‘the time at which the Act comes into operation’.
Held: The power conferred by section 37 was not confined to bringing the Act ‘into operation’ in the sense of bringing it into legal force, but extended to taking measures which would enable the Act to operate in practice. Section 37 gave power to take the necessary steps to set up the machinery for bringing the Act into operation as well as for doing such an act as appointing a day for the Act to come into operation.

Judges:

Tucker, Asquith, Jenkins LJJ

Citations:

[1951] 1 KB 1

Statutes:

Interpretation Act 1889 37

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – RM v The Scottish Ministers SC 28-Nov-2012
The pursuer was held in a secure mental hospital. When moved to a highersecurity section, he challenged the move. He lost but then was unable to make an apeal as allowed iunder the 2003 Act because the Scottish Parliament had not created the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Constitutional

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.470870

Kirkwood v The United Kingdom: ECHR 12 Mar 1984

(Admissibility – Commission) The claimant, a United States national, said that the proceedings for his extradition from the United Kingdom to the United States infringed article 6(3)(d), because he was not permitted to cross-examine the witnesses against him in the United Kingdom.
Held: Although ‘the tasks of the Magistrates’ Court included the assessment of whether or not there was, on the basis of the evidence, the outline of a case to answer against the applicant’ and ‘[t]his necessarily involved a certain, limited, examination of the issues which would be decisive in the applicant’s ultim[at]e trial’, nevertheless, ‘these proceedings did not in themselves form part of the determination of the applicant’s guilt or innocence, which will be the subject of separate proceedings in the United States which may be expected to conform to standards of fairness equivalent to the requirements of article 6, including the presumption of innocence, notwithstanding the committal proceedings’. In these circumstances ‘the committal proceedings did not form part of or constitute the determination of a criminal charge within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention’
Article 1 of the Convention: The undertaking given by High Contracting Parties in respect of everyone within their jurisdiction extends, in the Article 3 sphere, to a duty not to expose anyone to an irremediable situation of objective danger, even outside their jurisdiction.
Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention: Because Article 2 authorises capital punishment, pursuant to the law and a court sentence, this may create a long period of incertitude for the convicted person during the appeal proceedings in an elaborate judicial system. However, it cannot be held that this long period of uncertainty (the’death row phenomenon’) falls outside the notion of inhuman treatment (Article 3).
The terms of Article 2 do not support the contention that if a State were to fail to require binding assurances from the Stale requesting extradition that the death penalty would not be inflicted, this would constitute treatment- contrary to Article 3.
Article 3 of the Convention; Factors to be considered in assessing whether the long period of uncertainty experienced by the person condemned to death, during the appeal procedures (the ‘death row phenomenon’) amounts to inhuman treatment: the importance of the appeal system designed to protect the right to life, delays caused by the backlog of cases before the appeal courts, the possibility of a commutation of sentence by very reason of the duration of detention on ‘death row’.
Article 6 of the Convention: This provision does not apply to a court’s examination of an extradition request from a foreign State, even if the Court carries out an assessment of whether there is an outline of a criminal case to answer against the applicant.

Citations:

10479/83, [1984] ECHR 19

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 6(3)(d)

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Lukaszewski v The District Court In Torun, Poland SC 23-May-2012
Three of the appellants were Polish citizens resisting European Arrest Warrants. A fourth (H), a British citizen, faced extradition to the USA. An order for the extradition of eachhad been made, and acting under advice each filed a notice of appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Extradition

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.451302

Barnes (T/A Pool Motors) v Seabrook and Others: Admn 23 Jul 2010

In each of three cases, the former defendants sought leave to bring claims for contempt of court in respect of what it said were fraudulent claims by the respondents. The defendants argued that a party had first to go to the Attorney General.
Held: ‘Notwithstanding the language of Rules 32.14 and 31.23 and, in particular, the language of paragraph 28 of the PD, it seems to me that a party in county court proceedings is entitled to come to the Divisional Court under RSC Order 52 and obtain from the Divisional Court an order of committal to prison or other penalty and is not obliged to follow the procedure in para. 28 of the PD to Rule 32. ‘

Judges:

Hooper LJ, Kenneth Parker J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 1849 (Admin), [2010] CP Rep 42, [2010] ACD 87

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

County Courts Act 1984 118, Contempt of Court Act 1981 14(1), Civil Procedure Rules 32.14

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Daltel Europe Ltd and others v Makki and others CA 28-Feb-2006
The defendant had breached freezing orders and had verified statements put before the court without honestly believing them. He now challenged the subsequent contempt proceedings saying that they were criminal within section 25 of the 1988 Act and . .
Cited – KJM Superbikes Ltd v Hinton CA 20-Nov-2008
The claimant had been sued for the misuse of trademarks by selling motorcycles imported via a parallel market. It claimed that the defendant had filed false evidence in that action, and now appealed a refusal by the judge to bring contempt . .
Cited – Malgar Ltd v R E Leach Engineering Ltd ChD 1-Nov-1999
The Civil Procedure Rules could not change the substantive law. It therefore remained necessary for it to be shown that in addition to knowing that what was said was false, the party had to have known that what was being said was likely to interfere . .
Cited – Kirk v Walton QBD 24-Jul-2008
The defendant sought leave to bring proceedings for contempt of court against the claimant saying that she had had no honest belief in the matters deposed in her statement of truth, in that she had substantially exaggerated her injuries.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contempt of Court

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.421050

M v V: FD 23 Jun 2010

The mother applied for financial provision for her daughter. The father said the court did not have jurisdiction to make an order. An agreement had been reached between them under French law acknowledging F’s paternity and otherwise.

Judges:

Sir Nicholas wall P

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 1453 (Fam), [2011] 1 FLR 109, [2010] Fam Law 923

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Children Act 1989

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.417781

Gaunt, Regina (on The Application of) v The Office of Communications: CA 24 Jan 2011

The applicant sought leave to appeal against a finding that his radio talk show interview with a councillor regarding the policy of not permitting foster parents who smoked was so vehement as to be a breach of the respondent’s Code. The divisional court had also found that the interview had become gratuitously offensive. He challenged the finding saying that the court had not first asked the necessary question of whether an interefrence with the applicant’s article 10 rights was necessary.
Held: The issue raised was proper and leave was given.

Judges:

Maurice Kay LJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 75

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Gaunt v OFCOM and Liberty QBD 13-Jul-2010
The claimant, a radio presenter sought judicial review of the respondent’s finding (against the broadcaster) that a radio interview he had conducted breached the Broadcasting Code. He had strongly criticised a proposal to ban smokers from being . .

Cited by:

Leave to Appeal – Gaunt, Regina (on The Application of) v The Office of Communications CA 17-Jun-2011
The claimant appealed against rejection of his challenge to a determination of the respondent that a radio interview he conducted had been in breach of the Broadcasting Code. He said that the finding was an undue interference in his freedom of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Media, Human Rights

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.439725

Wells v Minister of Housing and Local Government: CA 1967

It had been the practice of planning authorities, acting through their officers, to tell applicants whether or not planning permission was necessary. A letter was written by the Council Engineer telling the applicants that no permission was necessary. The applicants acted on it.
Held: The planning authority could not go back on it. Lord Denning MR said: ‘It has been their practice to tell applicants that no planning permission is necessary. Are they now to be allowed to say that this practice was all wrong and their letters were of no effect? I do not think so. I take the law to be that a defect in procedure can be cured and an irregularity can be waived, even by a public authority, so as to render valid that which would otherwise be invalid.’

Judges:

Lord Denning MR, Lord Justice Megaw

Citations:

[1967] 1 WLR 1000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Lever (Finance) Ltd v City of Westminster CA 22-Jul-1970
The appellant developers had obtained detailed planning approval for fourteen houses, but after adjustments for a building line, moving several properties distances of several feet toward other properties, further plans were submitted without . .
Cited – Western Fish Products Ltd v Penwith District Council and Another CA 22-May-1978
Estoppel Cannot Oust Statutory Discretion
The plaintiff had been refused planning permission for a factory. The refusals were followed by the issue of Enforcement Notices and Stop Notices. The plaintiff said that they had been given re-assurances upon which they had relied.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Estoppel

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.443221

Southend-on-Sea Corporation v Hodgson (Wickford) Ltd: QBD 1961

The Corporation had, by its engineer, said that its permission for the use of land as a builder’s yard was not in fact and law required. It was mistaken in this view.
Held: What the engineer had said could not create an estoppel preventing the Corporation from exercising its statutory discretion to forbid the land being used as a builder’s yard. A local or planning authority cannot by contract fetter in an anticipatory way its future discretion to approve or reject applications after proper consideration in accordance with the prescribed procedure. An officer of a Planning Authority cannot estop that Planning Authority from subsequently contending that the particular development is not permitted

Judges:

Lord Parker CJ

Citations:

[1962] 1 QB 416, [1961] 2 All ER 46

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Lever (Finance) Ltd v City of Westminster CA 22-Jul-1970
The appellant developers had obtained detailed planning approval for fourteen houses, but after adjustments for a building line, moving several properties distances of several feet toward other properties, further plans were submitted without . .
Cited – Western Fish Products Ltd v Penwith District Council and Another CA 22-May-1978
Estoppel Cannot Oust Statutory Discretion
The plaintiff had been refused planning permission for a factory. The refusals were followed by the issue of Enforcement Notices and Stop Notices. The plaintiff said that they had been given re-assurances upon which they had relied.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Estoppel

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.443218

G v A: CA 18 Mar 2009

‘application for permission to appeal a tiny part of contentious proceedings between the parents of a child. The area of dispute that I review is a financial application ‘

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 357

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.365598

Robert Burgh An Infant, By His Guardian, Executor of Eleanor Burgh, Executrix of Robert Burgh, Plaintiffs; Humphrey Davis And Others, Defendants: 1674

Joint Executors, one of them died and the Executor of the Executor of him who was dead, brought a Bill to be relieved against an Action of Trover brought by the surviving Executor, who demurred for that the personal Estate of the Testator belonged to him as surviving Executor.

Citations:

[1674] EngR 65, (1674) Fin H 171, (1674) 23 ER 94 (A)

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Wills and Probate

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.406064

Sylvia Shipping Co Ltd v Progress Bulk Carriers Ltd (‘The Sylvia’): ComC 18 Mar 2010

Judges:

Hamblen J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 542 (Comm), [2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 81, [2010] 1 CLC 470

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Borealis Ab v Geogas Trading Sa ComC 9-Nov-2010
The parties had contracted for sale and purchase of butane for processing. It was said to have been contaminated. The parties now disputed the effect on damages for breach including on causation, remoteness, mitigation and quantum.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Arbitration, Damages

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.403361

James v Crown Prosecution Service: Admn 4 Nov 2009

The appellant was receiving care and support from social services. He was found to have abused and threatened the team leader in telephone calls to her. He appealed against a conviction under the 1997 Act, saying that his calls did not amount to a course of conduct because on two of the three occasions, she had been returning his call.
Held: The argument was hopeless: ‘The fact that the appellant did not initiate the particular calls is irrelevant.’

Judges:

Elias LJ, David Clarke J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 2925 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Protection from Harassment Act 1997 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Patel (Nitin) CACD 11-Nov-2004
The defendant appealed his conviction under the 1977 Act.
Held: The judge directing a jury must require a finding that the different acts complained of had a sufficient connection with each other to form a ‘course of conduct’ within the Act. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.380254

H v Essex County Council: CA 13 Oct 2009

The grandparents of the appellant, H, applied in April 2007 to Essex County Council for a Residence Order allowance in order to assist with the costs of the care and accommodation which they provided for H, H being a young child.

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 1504, [2010] 1 FLR 1781, [2010] Fam Law 456

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Local Government

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.396637

Parlitigu v Maksu ja Tolliameti Pohja maksu ja tollikeskus (Common Customs Tariff): ECJ 16 Jul 2009

Customs Classification Salmon backbones

Europa Common Customs Tariff Combined Nomenclature Tariff classification Subheading CN 0511 91 10 Subheading CN 0303 22 00 Frozen backbones of farmed Atlantic salmon Regulation (EC) No 85/2006 Anti-dumping duties.

Citations:

C-56/08, [2009] EUECJ C-56/08

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Customs and Excise

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.374269

Re W (Children): CA 9 Feb 2010

Judges:

Wall, Rimer and Wilson LJJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 57, [2010] 1 FCR 365, [2010] Fam Law 447

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v B County Council, ex parte P CA 1991
Application was made for judicial review of a decision of the magistrate in proceedings under the Children and Young Persons Act. The issue arose as to whether or not young children should be compelled to give evidence.
Held: The decision of . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – In re W (Children) (Family proceedings: Evidence) (Abuse: Oral Evidence) SC 3-Mar-2010
The court considered the approach to be taken when considering whether to order a child’s attendance at court in care proceedings. It was argued that the starting point of assuming that a child should not attend, failed to respect the human right to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.396635

Hashem v Shayif and Others: CA 22 Jul 2009

Judges:

Thorpe LJ, Scott Baker LJ, Sullivan LJ

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 984

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Ben Hashem v Ali Shayif and Another FD 22-Sep-2008
The court was asked to pierce the veil of incorporation of a company in the course of ancillary relief proceedings in a divorce. H had failed to co-operate with the court.
After a comprehensive review of all the authorities, Munby J said: ‘The . .
See Also – Hashem v Shayif and Another FD 17-Apr-2009
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Trusts

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.375599

Cadogan v Panagopoulos and Another: ChD 15 Mar 2010

‘This case concerns the proper interpretation of certain provisions of that [1993 Act] regime when after a claim to collective enfranchisement has been made and registered, the freeholder grants a 999 year lease of a part of the premises. In a thorough and thoughtful judgment in the Central London County Court, HH Judge Marshall QC held that the lease granted by the freeholder in the circumstance of this case was caught by the anti-avoidance provisions in section 19[1] on several grounds. With leave granted by Peter Smith J, the freeholder appeals against that decision.’

Judges:

Roth J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 422 (Ch), [2010] 2 EGLR 151, [2010] 3 WLR 1125, [2010] L and TR 13, [2011] 1 P and CR 7, [2010] NPC 33

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Cadogan v McGirk CA 25-Apr-1996
The court considered whether the 1993 Act should be construed as expropriatory legislation and therefore was to be read strictly.
Held: The Court rejected the submission that the relevant provisions must be strictly construed because the 1993 . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Cadogan and Another v Panagopoulos and Another CA 11-Nov-2010
The court was asked whether a caretaker’s flat was within the ‘common parts’ of the relevant premises for the purposes of Part I of the 1993 Act. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.402732

Markel International Insurance Co Ltd v Higgins: CA 23 Jul 2009

‘This appeal arises out of a finding at trial of dishonesty against an underwriting agent in his early seventies who was then suffering from Alzheimer’s disease and had probably been suffering from it to some degree, possibly at a pre-clinical stage, at the time, two or three years earlier, when the events which led to that finding were taking place. The essential issue raised on this appeal is whether the judge, Teare J, was wrong in his conclusion that Alzheimer’s was not an explanation, either of the agent’s actions for which he had to render an account or of difficulties in his evidence at trial, such as should have led the judge to reject what were otherwise powerful allegations of dishonesty.’

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 790

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Torts – Other

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.361454