Click the case name for better results:

Countryside Alliance and others, Regina (on the Application of) v Attorney General and Another: HL 28 Nov 2007

The appellants said that the 2004 Act infringed their rights under articles 8 11 and 14 and Art 1 of protocol 1. Held: Article 8 protected the right to private and family life. Its purpose was to protect individuals from unjustified intrusion by state agents into the private sphere within which they expected to be … Continue reading Countryside Alliance and others, Regina (on the Application of) v Attorney General and Another: HL 28 Nov 2007

OMV Petrom Sa v Glencore International Ag: ComC 7 Feb 2014

The claimant sought to have struck out as abuse of process parts of the defence, saying that the factual issues raised had already been resolved in arbitration proceedings, but as against a different oarty. The defendant replied that the arbitration had been confidential to the parties to it. Held: The application was refused. Independently of … Continue reading OMV Petrom Sa v Glencore International Ag: ComC 7 Feb 2014

Tchenguiz and Others v Imerman: CA 29 Jul 2010

Anticipating a refusal by H to disclose assets in ancillary relief proceedings, W’s brothers wrongfully accessed H’s computers to gather information. The court was asked whether the rule in Hildebrand remained correct. W appealed against an order restraining her use of the information obtained, saying that ‘the law which protects Mr Imerman’s confidential information and … Continue reading Tchenguiz and Others v Imerman: CA 29 Jul 2010

Regina v Director of Public Prosecutions, ex parte Kebilene and others: HL 28 Oct 1999

(Orse Kebeline) The DPP’s appeal succeeded. A decision by the DPP to authorise a prosecution could not be judicially reviewed unless dishonesty, bad faith, or some other exceptional circumstance could be shown. A suggestion that the offence for which a prosecution was authorised was framed so as to breach the accused’s human rights was to … Continue reading Regina v Director of Public Prosecutions, ex parte Kebilene and others: HL 28 Oct 1999

Begum (otherwise SB), Regina (on the Application of) v Denbigh High School: HL 22 Mar 2006

The student, a Muslim wished to wear a full Islamic dress, the jilbab, but this was not consistent with the school’s uniform policy. She complained that this interfered with her right to express her religion. Held: The school’s appeal succeeded. The school had acted responsibly and carefully seeking to balance and respect several interests when … Continue reading Begum (otherwise SB), Regina (on the Application of) v Denbigh High School: HL 22 Mar 2006

Mitchell MP v News Group Newspapers Ltd: CA 27 Nov 2013

(Practice Note) The claimant brought defamation proceedings against the defendant newspaper. His solicitors had failed to file his costs budget as required, and the claimant now appealed against an order under the new Rule 3.9, restricting very substantially the costs which might be made in his favour. Held: The appeal was refused. It was inherent … Continue reading Mitchell MP v News Group Newspapers Ltd: CA 27 Nov 2013

Meek v City of Birmingham District Council: CA 18 Feb 1987

Employment Tribunals to Provide Sufficient Reasons Tribunals, when giving their decisions, are required to do no more than to make clear their findings of fact and to answer any question of law raised. Bingham LJ said: ‘It has on a number of occasions been made plain that the decision of an Industrial Tribunal is not … Continue reading Meek v City of Birmingham District Council: CA 18 Feb 1987

O’Leary International Ltd v North Wales Police: Admn 31 May 2012

The company employed drivers to cross the UK. They were stopped and did not have the requisite drivers records. Instead they produced certificates as to having had rest days. These proved false, and the drivers said that the had been produced for them by the employer. The drivers were convicted and the lorries impounded. The … Continue reading O’Leary International Ltd v North Wales Police: Admn 31 May 2012

Arthur JS Hall and Co (A Firm) v Simons; Barratt v Woolf Seddon (A Firm); Harris v Schofield Roberts and Hill (A Firm): HL 20 Jul 2000

Clients sued their solicitors for negligence. The solicitors responded by claiming that, when acting as advocates, they had the same immunities granted to barristers. Held: The immunity from suit for negligence enjoyed by advocates acting in both criminal and civil proceedings is no longer appropriate or in the public interest and is removed: ‘The standard … Continue reading Arthur JS Hall and Co (A Firm) v Simons; Barratt v Woolf Seddon (A Firm); Harris v Schofield Roberts and Hill (A Firm): HL 20 Jul 2000

law index

Our law-index is a substantial selection from our database. Cases here are restricted in number by date and lack the additional facilities formerly available within lawindexpro. Please do enjoy this free version of the lawindex. Case law does not ‘belong’ to lawyers. Judgments are made up of words which can be read and understood (if … Continue reading law index