Ramadan El-Delbi, Regina v: CACD 20 Jun 2003

The court considered an appeal where the jury had been invited to draw an inference from the defendant’s silence at interview that the defendant ‘had not had a chance to prepare his story’ as being its equivalent.
Held: The court accepted the inference as proper in the circumstances.

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Crim 1767

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice nd Public Order Act 1994 34

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Petkar and Farquar, Regina v CACD 16-Oct-2003
The defendants appealed their convictions and sentence for theft. Whilst employed by a bank thay had arranged for transfers to their own account. Each blamed the other. They appealed on the basis that the direction on their silence at interview was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.184269

Ottaway v Norman: ChD 1971

Proof required for mutual wills claim

The testator devised his house to a Miss Hodges intending that she should dispose of the property in her will to specific individuals. He communicated his intention to her and she agreed to it. After the testator’s death, Miss Hodges changed her will in a way which did not reflect the intention. On her death, the plaintiffs sought a declaration that the property was held on trust for them.
Held: Considering secret trusts and the doctrine of mutual wills: ‘It will be convenient to call the person upon whom such a trust is imposed the ‘primary donee’ and the beneficiary under that trust the ‘secondary donee.’ The essential elements which must be proved to exist are: (i) the intention of the testator to subject the primary donee to an obligation in favour of the secondary donee; (ii) communication of that intention to the primary donee; and (iii) the acceptance of that obligation by the primary donee either expressly or by acquiescence.’
Brightman J interpreted Lord Westbury’s statement in McCormick as meaning that if a will contains a gift in absolute terms that ‘clear evidence is needed before the Court will assume that the testator did not mean what he said’ and the standard of proof ‘is analogous to that ‘which the court requires before it will rectify a written instrument, for there again a party is saying that neither meant what they have written’.

Judges:

Brightman J

Citations:

[1972] Ch 698, [1971] 3 All ER 1325

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – McCormick v Grogan HL 23-Apr-1869
C made a will leaving his property to G, and appointed him executor. When about to die C sent for G and in a private interview told him of the will, and G asked whether that was right. C said that he would not have it otherwise. C then told G where . .

Cited by:

Cited – Goodchild and Another v Goodchild CA 2-May-1997
The deceased and his wife made wills in virtually identical form. The husband changed his will after their divorce, but his son and other wife claimed that the couple had intended the wills to be part of a larger arrangement of their affairs, . .
Cited – Healey v Brown ChD 25-Apr-2002
The two deceased had made mutual wills bequeathing the family home. The survivor transferred the property during his life to defeat the agreement. It was now said that the arrangement fell foul of the 1989 Act and was unenforceable.
Held: . .
Cited – Kasperbauer; Griffith v Griffith; Havens; Zorab and Griffith CA 21-Nov-1997
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Trusts, Wills and Probate

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.183794

Machin v Adams and others: CA 13 Sep 1995

Citations:

[1995] EWCA Civ 3

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Hedley Byrne and Co Ltd v Heller and Partners Ltd HL 28-May-1963
Banker’s Liability for Negligent Reference
The appellants were advertising agents. They were liable themselves for advertising space taken for a client, and had sought a financial reference from the defendant bankers to the client. The reference was negligent, but the bankers denied any . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Professional Negligence

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.200687

AEG (UK) Limited v Logic Resource Limited: CA 20 Oct 1995

The question of the reasonableness of a clause must be assessed having regard to the relevant clause viewed as a whole: it is not right to take any particular part of the clause in isolation, although it must also be viewed against a breach of contract which is the subject matter of the case before the court.

Judges:

Hobhouse LJ

Citations:

[1995] EWCA Civ 19, [1996] CLC 265

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Overseas Medical Supplies Limited v Orient Transport Services Limited CA 20-May-1999
The appellant challenged a finding that it was responsible for the loss of medical equipment being transported from Tehran to the UK, and of failing to insure it as required, the contractual term exempting it from responsibility being an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.187458

Cropper v Smith: CA 1883

Bowen LJ: ‘Now it is a well established principle that the object of courts is to decide the rights of the parties, and not to punish them for mistakes they make in the conduct of their cases by deciding otherwise than in accordance with their rights . . I know of no kind of error or mistake which, if not fraudulent or intended to overreach, the court ought not to correct, if it can be done without injustice to the other party. Courts do not exist for the sake of discipline, but for the sake of deciding matters in controversy, and I do not regard such amendment as a matter of favour or grace . . It seems to me that as soon as it appears that the way in which a party has framed his case will not lead to a decision of the real matter in controversy, it is as much a matter of right on his part to have it corrected, if it can be done without injustice, as anything else in the case is a matter of right.’

Judges:

Bowen LJ

Citations:

(1883) 26 Ch D 700

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Mauthoor v THF Delap and Associates Limited CA 2-Oct-1995
The parties agreed for the transfer of shares. The payment cheque was not honoured. The appellant first claimed an absence of consideration, then sought to amend her defence to say that she had acted under economic duress. Threats had been made as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.180938

Belvedere Court Management Ltd v Frogmore Developments Ltd: CA 24 Oct 1995

Landlords had sold flats to Frogmore without serving a section 5 notice under the 1987 Act. Prior to receipt of a purchase notice, Frogmore granted certain leases in the block of flats to another party.
Held: The agreements were upheld, and were not shams even though they had been intended to work around the 1987 Act.
Criticising the anomalies under the Act, Sir Thomas Bingham MR said: ‘Nothing in section 12 imposes on the new landlord a duty not to dispose of his interest, such as is imposed on the original landlord by section 6(1). It is unclear why not. There is nothing in section 12 which gives the tenants a right to require a subsequent purchaser from the new landlord to dispose of his interest to the tenants’ nominees. A limited right is given by section 16, but it is not equivalent to the right given by section 12(1) against the new landlord. It is again unclear why not. Counsel discounted the suggestion that an acceptance notice under section 6(1)(b) or a purchase notice under section 12(1) might create a equitable interest in the land capable of registration as a land charge or protection by a caution, and I am not inclined to disagree. But one could wish that the Act provided as many answers as it raised problems.’
‘A purchase notice must give adequate notice to the new landlord of the qualifying tenants’ desire to purchase the estate or interest that they should have been offered by the original landlord. That is imperative, in the sense that it must be followed to the letter, but some of the other requirements of section 12 are only directory.’
Sir Thomas Bingham MR described the work of the committee upon whose work the 1987 Act had been founded: ‘the committee intended occupying tenants to have a right to acquire the reversion to their leases when their landlord proposed to part with it, and that the ultimate objective was to give the tenants in a block where the majority wanted it a power to manage the block themselves and so to have a greater say in their own affairs.’

Judges:

Sir Thomas Bingham MR, Hobhouse LJ

Citations:

[1996] 1 All ER 312, [1997] QB 858

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 5

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Denetower Ltd v Toop CA 1991
The tenants sought to acquire the freehold under the Act. The landlord sought to exclude the gardens and other appurtenancies.
Held: They had been included in the demise of the flats and were to be included in the title to be purchased. The . .
Cited – District Bank v Webb 1958
The court was asked whether a lease constituted an incumbrance on a title: ‘In the first place, I am not satisfied that a lease was an incumbrance to these parties. It is true that in certain circumstancess a lease may be regarded as an incumbrance, . .
Cited – Nolan v Eagle Wharf Developments Ltd LVT 1992
Tenants set out to purchase the freehold under the Act. The landlord had later granted a lease of the roof-space and of a car park. The tenant under that new lease did not come within section 4(2).
Held: The tenants acquired the freehold free . .
Cited – Jones v Wrotham Park Settled Estates HL 1979
An attempt to determine the meaning of an enactment should not cross the boundary between construction and legislation: ‘My Lords, I am not reluctant to adopt a purposive construction where to apply the literal meaning of the legislative language . .
Cited – Englefield Court Tenants v Skeels LVT 1990
Tenants sought to exercise their rights to purchase the freehold under the 1987 Act. The landlord had granted a reversionary lease of part to her husband.
Held: The tenants took the freehold subject to the lease. . .
Cited – W T Ramsay Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners HL 12-Mar-1981
The taxpayers used schemes to create allowable losses, and now appealed assessment to tax. The schemes involved a series of transactions none of which were a sham, but which had the effect of cancelling each other out.
Held: If the true nature . .
Cited – Furniss (Inspector of Taxes) v Dawson HL 9-Feb-1983
The transfer of shares to a subsidiary as part of a planned scheme immediately to transfer them to an outside purchaser was regarded as a taxable disposition to the outside purchaser rather than an exempt transfer to a group company. In defined . .
Cited – Gisborne v Burton CA 1988
The land-owner held an agricultural holding. He wanted to let it but, in doing so, to deprive the tenant of the benefit of the statutory regime giving security of tenure. So he let the property to his wife, and his wife granted a sub-tenancy to the . .
Cited – Hilton v Plustitle Ltd CA 1988
The landlord and the ‘tenant’ specifically agreed that the tenancy should be granted to a limited company formed by the tenant, which it was legitimate for them to do so as to avoid the Rent Acts, and the tenant had taken legal advice.
Held: . .

Cited by:

Cited – Kay-Green and Others v Twinsectra Limited CA 15-May-1996
The former landlord had sold a number of buildings, some of which fell within Part I of the 1987 Act. The section 5 notice had not been served. The vendor had also failed to comply with his duty (under s 5(5)) to ‘sever’ the transaction, and sell . .
Cited – M25 Group Limited v Tudor and others CA 4-Dec-2003
Tenants served notices under the Act requiring information about the disposal of the freehold. The landlords objected that the notices were invalid in failing to give the tenants’ addresses as required under the Act.
Held: The addresses were . .
Cited – Englewood Properties Limited v Patel and Another ChD 16-Feb-2005
The claimant was a property developer, which sought to sell a row of shops at auction. One lot was a Woolworths store, where the company owned both freehold and leasehold interests, with Woolworths occupying an underlease, which the claimant had . .
Cited – Kensington Heights Commercial Company Ltd v Campden Hill Developments Ltd CA 21-Mar-2007
The head landlord had accepted a surrender of the head lease and granted a new lease. but for a longer term. The claimant company sought, on behalf of the qualifying tenants of the estate, an order for the disposal to it of the original lease under . .
Cited – Bankway Properties Ltd v Penfold-Dunsford and Another CA 24-Apr-2001
A grant of an assured tenancy included a clause under which the rent would be increased from pounds 4,680, to pounds 25,000 per year. It was expected that the tenant would be reliant upon Housing Benefit to pay the rent, and that Housing Benefit . .
Cited – Mainwaring and Yeoman’s Row Management Limited v Trustees of Henry Smith’s Charity (No 2) CA 3-Oct-1996
The tenants had sought to purchase the freehold under the 1987 Act. One tenant having signed an ‘irrevocable’ agreement to participate, withdrew his involvement in the purchase, and the remaining number of tenants were no longer a sufficient . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.194051

Ketteman v Hansel Properties Ltd: HL 1987

Houses were built on defective foundations. The purchasers sued the builders and later the architects who designed them. The defendants argued that the houses were doomed from the start so that the cause of action accrued, not when the physical damage to the houses occurred, but when the plaintiffs became the owners of the houses with defective foundations, at which time they suffered economic loss because the houses were less valuable than they would have been if the foundations had been sound.
Held: As to the defendant’s argument, a building should not be considered to be ‘doomed from the start’, for purposes of statutes of limitation merely because it had a latent defect which must inevitably result in some damage at some later stage.
Lord Keith: ‘The proposition that a cause of action in tort accrued out of negligence resulting in pure economic loss was thought to be vouched by reference to Junior Books Ltd. v Veitchi Co. Ltd. 1983 1 AC 520. That case was cited in Pirelli in support of the argument that, since in that case there was economic loss when the chimney was built, the cause of action arose then. The argument was clearly rejected in the speech of Lord Fraser concurred in by all the others of their Lordships who participated in the decision. At p.16, he expressed the opinion that a latent defect in the building does not give rise to a cause of action until damage occurs. In the present case there can be no doubt that the defects in the houses were latent. No-one knew of their existence until damage occurred . . this branch of the argument for the architects is in my opinion inconsistent with the decision in Pirelli and must be rejected.’ and ‘Whatever Lord Fraser may have had in mind in uttering the dicta in question, it cannot, in my opinion have been a building with a latent defect which must inevitably result in damage at some stage. That is precisely the kind of building that Pirelli was concerned with, and in relation to which it was held that the cause of action accrued when the damage occurred. This case is indistinguishable from Pirelli and must be decided similarly.’ Lord Brandon: ‘The argument of counsel, as I understand it, proceeded as follows. Where a house was built on defective foundations, a buyer of it might suffer two kinds of damage. The first kind of damage was physical in the form of consequential structural failure or damage. The second kind of damage was economic loss, in the form of diminution in market value. In the case of the first kind of damage, the buyer’s cause of action against any party for negligence in respect of the defective foundations accrued when the consequential structural failure or damage occurred. But in the case of the second kind of damage, the diminution in market value was present from the time of the original construction, and it was at that earlier time that the buyers cause of action in respect of such diminution accrued. The plaintiffs in the present case had sued for the second kind of damage, namely diminution of market value. The causes of action had therefore accrued at the date when the houses were built. In my opinion this contention cannot be supported. I do not know what special cases Lord Fraser had in mind when he referred in his speech in Pirelli to buildings ‘doomed from the start’. It may be that he was only keeping open the possibility of the existence of such special cases out of major caution. Be that as it may, however I am quite sure that he was not seeking to differentiate between causes of action in respect of making good defects or damage on the one hand and the causes of action in respect of diminution in market value on the other . . . In my view there is nothing in the facts of the present case which would take it out of the general principle laid down in Pirelli . . ‘
The House outlined the practice to be followed in deciding whether to allow a statement of claim to be amended: ‘Whether an amendment should be granted is a matter for the discretion of the trial judge and he should be guided in the exercise of the discretion by his assessment of where justice lays. Many and diverse factors will bear upon the exercise of this discretion. I do not think it possible to enumerate them all or wise to attempt to do so. But justice cannot always be measured in terms of money and in my view a judge is entitled to weigh in the balance the strain the litigation imposes on litigants, particularly if they are personal litigants rather than business corporations, the anxieties occasioned by facing new issues, the raising of false hopes, and the legitimate expectation that the trial will determine the issues one way or the other. Furthermore to allow an amendment before a trial begins is quite different from allowing it at the end of the trial to give an apparently unsuccessful defendant an opportunity to renew the fight on an entirely different defence.’ The doctrine of relator back was disapporved. As to the addition of a defendant: (Lord Keith) ‘A cause of action is necessarily a cause of action against a particular defendant and the bringing of the action which is referred to must be the bringing of the action against that defendant in respect of that cause of action.’
Lord Griffiths: ‘Whether an amendment should be ganted is a matter for the discretion of the trial judge and he should be guided in the exercise of the discretion by his assessment of where justice lays. Many and diverse factors will bear upon the exercise of this discretion. I do not think it possible to enumerate them all or wise to attempt to do so. But justice cannot always be measured in terms of money and in my view a judge is entitled to weigh in the balance the strain the litigation imposes on litigants, particularly if they are personal litigants rather than business corporations, the anxieties occasioned by facing new issues, the raising of false hopes, and the legitimate expectation that the trial will determine the issues one way or the other. Furthermore to allow an amendment before a trial begins is quite different from allowing it at the end of the trial to give an apparently unsuccessful defendant an opportunity to renew the fight on an entirely different defence.’

Judges:

Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Griffiths

Citations:

[1987] 2 WLR 312, [1987] AC 189

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Junior Books v Veitchi Co Ltd HL 15-Jul-1982
The defendant was a specialist sub-contractor brought in to lay a floor. In laying the composition floor the defenders used too wet a mixture and applied too thin a top coat and failed to cure the material properly. As a result cracks began to . .
Overruled – Mitchell v Harris Engineering Co Ltd CA 1967
The plaintiff was seeking to claim against his employers for personal injuries. There was correspondence with them before action that did not lead to a settlement. When the writ was issued a junior clerk made a mistake and issued it in the very . .
Approved – Liff v Peasley CA 1980
The court will not add a person as a defendant to an existing action if the claim was already statute-barred and he wished to rely on that defence, and if the court allows such addition ex parte it will not, on objection allow the addition to stand. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Mauthoor v THF Delap and Associates Limited CA 2-Oct-1995
The parties agreed for the transfer of shares. The payment cheque was not honoured. The appellant first claimed an absence of consideration, then sought to amend her defence to say that she had acted under economic duress. Threats had been made as . .
Cited – E I Du Pont de Nemours and Co v S T Dupont (2) ChD 22-Nov-2002
The parties had appeared before a hearing officer at the Trade Marks registry. The opponent of the registration sought leave to argue an additional point which, though unpleaded, could have been argued without any significant adjournment. The . .
Cited – Barings Plc (In Liquidation) and Another, Barings Futures (Singapore) Pte Ltd (In Liquidation) v Coopers and Lybrand (A Firm) and Others, Mattar and 36 Others ChD 17-Oct-2003
BFS was a company incorporated in Singapore which conducted its internal affairs in Singapore Dollars. It was by statute required to render its accounts in that currency. It paid its staff in Singapore Dollars. It sought damages in Singapore . .
Cited – Parsons and Another v George and Another CA 13-Jul-2004
The claimant sought to begin proceedings to renew his business tenancy, but the proceedings were issued in the wrong name. He sought to amend the proceedings to substitute the correct defendant, but that application was out of time.
Held: . .
Cited – Parsons and Another v George and Another CA 13-Jul-2004
The claimant sought to begin proceedings to renew his business tenancy, but the proceedings were issued in the wrong name. He sought to amend the proceedings to substitute the correct defendant, but that application was out of time.
Held: . .
Cited – Abbott and Another v Will Gannon and Smith Ltd CA 2-Mar-2005
The claimant had employed the defendants to design refurbishment works for their hotel. The work was said to be negligent, and the claimant sought damages. The defendant argued as a preliminary point that the claim was time barred. The question was . .
Cited – Smithkline Beecham Plc and others v Apotex Europe Ltd and others PatC 26-Jul-2005
Application was made to join in further parties to support a cross undertaking on being made subject to interim injunctions.
Held: On orders other than asset freezing orders it was not open to the court to impose cross-undertakings against . .
Cited – Les Laboratoires Servier and Another v Apotex Inc and others ChD 9-Oct-2008
The claimant had alleged that the defendant was producing generic drugs which infringed its rights in a new drug. The patentee had given a cross-undertaking in damages, but the patent was later ruled invalid. The court had to assess the damages to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Limitation

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.182324

Palomares v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police: CA 11 Oct 1996

The Chief Constable appealed a finding of false imprisonment. The claimant had been arrested, but later the charges were dismissed. The jury found on the trial for malicious prosecution that the officers had not believed the truth of the allegations they had made. The plaintiff had insulted the officer and later apologised. The defendant appealed saying the jury’s verdict was inconsistent, and the judge’s direction inadequate.
Held: The jury’s verdict was not inconsistent. Though the plaintiff had misbehaved, the officers had ‘gilded the lily’ and thrown the book at him, and the judge’s approach on that point had been correct. However the judge had failed to draw distinctions which were necessary regarding the connection between the lawfulness of the arrest and later the reasonable and probable cause for the charges laid, and the honest or other belief of the officers, and later again as to damages. The jury’s verdict must be set aside.

Judges:

Lord Justice Beldam, Lord Justice Ward, Lord Justice Schiemann

Citations:

[1996] EWCA Civ 709

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Glinski v McIver HL 1962
The court considered the tort of malicious prosecution when committed by a police officer, saying ‘But these cases must be carefully watched so as to see that there really is some evidence from his conduct that he knew it was a groundless charge.’ . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Torts – Other

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.140576

Cast v Croydon College: CA 19 Mar 1998

Complaint was made within time limit when the decision complained of was a reconsideration of an earlier decision, not just a reference back to it.
Held: In a sex discrimination case, where there has been a constructive dismissal, time runs from the date of the employer’s breach and not from the date of the employee’s resignation, and ‘the Industrial Tribunal, having found that the College reconsidered and looked at the matter again in 1993, erred in law in failing to consider the implications of that finding for the purpose of the running of time. It is true that the best that Mrs Cast could have achieved on this approach was a determination that the final refusal occurred on 10th May 1993. That was still outside the three months time limit, but only by three days, a trivial over-run when compared with that of thirteen and a half months if the refusal on 26th March 1992 were the only potential act of discrimination, and thus material to the exercise by the tribunal of its discretion whether to extend the time limit.’

Judges:

Auld LJ, Walker LK, Otton LJ

Citations:

Times 26-Mar-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 498, [1998] ICR 500, [1998] IRLR 318

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Sex Discrimination Act 1975 76(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Cast v Croydon College EAT 9-May-1996
. .
Cited – Barclays Bank Plc v Kapur HL 1991
The bank had decided not to credit re-located employees, for pension purposes, with their previous service in East Africa. The employees had been re-located to the United Kingdom some time in the early 1970s all upon terms that their prior service . .
Cited – Owusu v London Fire and Civil Defence Authority EAT 1-Mar-1995
The employee complained of his employer’s repeated failure to regrade him, and alleged discrimination. The employer said his claim was out of time.
Held: Mummery J made the distinction between single acts of discrimination, and continuing . .
Cited – Amies v Inner London Education Authority EAT 1977
A female art teacher and deputy department head applied in 1975 to be department head at her school. In September a man was appointed instead. The 1975 Act came into force on 29th December. On 1st January 1996 she complained to the Tribunal on the . .
Cited – Sougrin v Haringey Health Authority CA 1992
The claimant alleged race discrimination arising out of a disputed grading and because it affected her pay she said it was a continuing act.
Held: The court drew the distinction between a ‘one-off’ act of alleged racial discrimination and its . .
Cited – Calder v James Findlay EAT 1989
The EAT considered the denial of access to a female employee of a preferential mortgage subsidy scheme which favoured male employees.
Held: So long as the applicant remained in the employment of these employers there was a continuing . .
Cited – Rovenska v General Medical Council EAT 22-Sep-1994
The complainant said that the respondent’s rules imposing language skills testing on doctors with recognised foreign qualifications were discriminatory.
Held: Discriminatory rules are a continuing act and the complaint was not barred by time . .
Cited – Rovenska v General Medical Council CA 4-Dec-1996
A Czechoslovakian doctor complained against the General Medical Council under Section 12(1)(a) of the 1976 Act 1976 in respect of the most recent of a series of refusals, under its rules for the grant of limited registration as a medical . .
Cited – Clarke v Hampshire Electro Plating Co Ltd EAT 24-Sep-1991
The EAT remitted a case to the Employment tribunal and stressed the importance of determining, as between alleged incidents of discrimination on different dates, when the act of discrimination ‘crystallized’. . .
Cited – Swithland Motors Plc v Clarke and others EAT 14-Jul-1993
There could be no act of discrimination under the Section 6(1)(c) of the 1975 Act in omitting to offer employment until the person allegedly responsible for the omission was in a position to offer such employment. . .
Cited – Meade-Hill and Another v The British Council CA 7-Apr-1995
An employee mobility clause in a contract must be justified, or it may be discriminatory against women.
The potentially discriminatory effect on the complainant of the introduction of a ‘mobility clause’ to her contract of employment was a . .
Cited – Meade-Hill and Another v The British Council CA 7-Apr-1995
An employee mobility clause in a contract must be justified, or it may be discriminatory against women.
The potentially discriminatory effect on the complainant of the introduction of a ‘mobility clause’ to her contract of employment was a . .

Cited by:

Doubted – Nottinghamshire County Council v Meikle CA 8-Jul-2004
The claimant was a teacher who had come to suffer a sight disability. She complained that her employers had failed to make reasonable accomodation for her disability, and subsequently she resigned claiming constructive dismissal and damages for . .
Cited – Coutts and Co Plc Royal Bank of Scotland v Paul Cure Peter Fraser EAT 6-Aug-2004
The applicants complained of less favourable treatment as fixed term workers in that they had not been paid a non-contractual bonus. The employer said the claim was out of time, and appealed a finding against it.
Held: Time ran from the date . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.143977

Regina v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board Ex Parte Cook: CA 22 Dec 1995

Where the board was refusing an application, it need not set out every matter which it had taken into account.

Citations:

Times 22-Dec-1995, [1996] 2 All ER 144, [1996] 1 WLR 1037

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina on Application of M v Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel Admn 31-Aug-2001
The complainant had suffered repeated acts of sexual abuse as a child including acts of penetration. She sought compensation under the scheme, but was initially refused on the basis that it was not a crime of violence, then later awarded pounds . .
Cited – Regina v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board ex parte Moore CA 23-Apr-1999
Where a claimant acquired a criminal conviction after the claim had been referred to a single board member for decision, he was entitled, despite the absence of an explicit rule, to refer the case back to the board. Reasons for a decision should . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.86471

Steans Fashions Ltd and Another v Legal and General Assurance Society Ltd: CA 31 Dec 1994

A company could be re-instated to the companies register retrospectively for the purposes of a court action. The case was suspended, and not to be struck-out, pending that re-instatement.

Citations:

Gazette 08-Feb-1995, Times 31-Dec-1994

Statutes:

Companies Act 1985 653

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Company, Litigation Practice

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.89523

House T/A P and J Autos v Customs and Excise Commissioners: CA 20 Oct 1995

A global assessment to VAT over several periods made by the Commissioners was not invalid just because separate assessments were also possible.

Citations:

Gazette 27-Mar-1996, Gazette 08-Nov-1995, Times 20-Oct-1995, Ind Summary 13-Nov-1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – House (T/A P and J Autos) v Commissioners of Customs and Excise QBD 7-Jan-1994
A VAT assessment issued by the Commissioners may cover several periods if the figures are calculable. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.81493

Barclays Bank Plc and Others v British and Commonwealth Holdings Plc: CA 10 Aug 1995

A company remained liable in damages for a breach of a covenant to redeem its own shares despite the obligations under the section making the failure to redeem the shares itself not actionable.

Citations:

Independent 25-Aug-1995, Times 10-Aug-1995, Gazette 13-Sep-1995

Statutes:

Companies Act 1985 178(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Company

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.78188

Secretary of State for Home Department v Ravichandran: CA 6 Jun 1997

Application for leave to appeal granted.
Held: This was a case where the relationship of the Tribunal to the Special Adjudicator can and should be considered. ‘I have indicated some of the difficulties which may arise. There is no doubt that the Tribunal have power to make findings of fact and to reverse findings of fact of a Special Adjudicator, but the manner in which they may do so and the type of case in which they may do so is much in issue.’

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Civ 1812

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Assah 1994
The adjudicator had accepted at least a substantial part of the appellant’s evidence, whereas the IAT, without the benefit of hearing it, had concluded that none of the accounts which he had put forward in relation to past material events was true. . .
Cited – Regina v Governor of Pentonville Prison, Ex parte Fernandez: Fernandez v Government of Singapore HL 1971
Test for police protection need
The court considered the degree of risk to an individual which should give rise to a duty on the police to protect him under article 2.
Held: Lord Diplock said: ‘My Lords, bearing in mind the relative gravity of the consequences of the court’s . .
Cited – Regina v Home Secretary, ex parte Sivakumaran HL 16-Dec-1987
The House of Lords were concerned with the correct test to be applied in determining whether asylum seekers are entitled to the status of refugee. That in turn gave rise to an issue, turning upon the proper interpretation of Article 1.A(2) of the . .
See Also – Regina v The Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Another ex parte Rajendrakumar CA 11-Oct-1995
The three Tamil applicants had left the area of Sri Lanka controlled by the Tamil Tigers and gone to live in Colombo. It was asserted that in Colombo they had a well-founded fear of persecution because they were young male Tamils and were therefore . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.142208

West of England Ship Owners Mutual Insurance Association (Luxembourg) v Cristal Ltd (The Glacier Bay): CA 26 Oct 1995

An agreement giving to a ‘sole judge’ the power to make a final decision was effective, and there was no appeal from his decision. The defendant’s decision in his capacity as Convention administrator was as a final arbiter and was unreviewable.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The agreement was unusual, but the decisions was final and binding ‘ . .subject . . to any question of unfairness, bad faith or perversity’. Neill LJ ‘It remains the general rule of common law that an agreement wholly to oust the jurisdiction of the Courts is against public policy and void. . . It is clear, however, that in applying the rule questions of fact are treated differently from questions of law . .’

Judges:

Neill LJ

Citations:

Times 26-Oct-1995, Independent 01-Nov-1995, [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 370, [1996] CLC 240

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – West of England Shipowners Mutual Insurance Association (Luxembourg) v Cristal Ltd ComC 25-Jan-1995
cw Contract – contractual rights – fulfilment of conditions – freedom to fulfil bargain – court action precluded – ouster clauses – arbitration – term – construction – one party sole arbitrator of construction – . .

Cited by:

Cited – Skidmore v Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust HL 22-May-2003
The disciplinary code for doctors employed by the NHS provides different procedures cases involving allegations of ‘professional conduct’ or ‘personal conduct.’ The first would involve a more judicial process, and the second a more informal . .
Reversed on Appeal – West of England Shipowners Mutual Insurance Association (Luxembourg) v Cristal Ltd ComC 25-Jan-1995
cw Contract – contractual rights – fulfilment of conditions – freedom to fulfil bargain – court action precluded – ouster clauses – arbitration – term – construction – one party sole arbitrator of construction – . .
Cited – McNicholas Plc v AEI Cables Limited TCC 25-May-1999
The claimant had subcontracted to supply cabling on the defendant’s project. The contract provided both for the exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts but also for arbitration. The defendant applied for the action to be stayed and referred to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Arbitration, Contract

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.90396

Spath Holme Ltd v Greater Manchester and Lancashire Rent Assessment Committee: CA 9 Aug 1995

The rent assessment committee had rejected market rent comparables as an indicator of market rent for the subject premises, because, inter alia, they were not satisfied of the actual absence of scarcity, and thus found that the landlord had not demonstrated the unsoundness of registered fair rent comparables.
Held: The decision was upheld. A fair rent is a market rent ignoring personal circumstances and scarcity. Comparables were wrongly rejected where discounting for scarcity and security possible. Fair rents were based on market rents, less scarcity and other disregards, and were not reasonable rents in any other sense including their impact on tenants. The Court gave general guidance to rent assessment committees making it clear that they were expected to follow market rent comparables as the best evidence of the starting point for fair rents, to give clear reasons and to explain their determinations with arithmetic if necessary. A ‘fair rent’ under the 1977 Act is the same as a ‘market rent’ under the 1988 Act save for the assumption of no scarcity and allowing for the statutory’disregards’, and that, in assessing a fair rent, regard should be had to market rent comparables if any: ‘… the fair rent to be determined is a market rent less the disregards and discounted for scarcity. Thus, … if there is no scarcity and no disregards then the rents should be the same whether the tenancy is a regulated tenancy or an assured tenancy.’
A fair rent is an adjusted market rent and market rent comparables are relevant to the assessment of a fair rent: ‘In this case there are a number of flats in the same block let on assured tenancies at, by definition, open market rents which are virtually identical to those for which a fair rent is to be determined. In my judgment if, in those circumstances, a Rent Assessment Committee wishes to exercise its discretion to adopt some other comparable or method of assessment it will be failing in its duty to give reasons if it does not explain why.
In this case the third reason given by the Rent Assessment Committee as recorded by the judge was that the registered rent comparables had not been demonstrated to be unsound. That is not, of course, a reason for rejecting the assured tenancy comparables. It is not for the court to say in advance what would be a good reason for doing so but if such a reason involves ‘working through’ such comparables so be it: that consequence is no ground for rejecting the validity of its cause. But it should also be noted that the registered rent comparables are not in their nature any more or less sound than the open market rent with or without discount. Any registered rent has built into at least two variables namely the open market rent and the discount for scarcity. Each should have been considered at the time of the original determination. The assessment of the soundness of that registered rent for use as a comparable would require each of those variables to be reconsidered at the time of their possible use as a comparable.
In this connection it was also objected that if the Rent Assessment Committee were required to give detailed reasons that might necessitate giving detailed arithmetical workings or quantifying the degree of scarcity involved contrary to statements in Guppy’s Property v. Knott No 1 … and Metropolitan Properties v. Laufer … But those statements were made in relation to the facts of those cases. It does not follow that there will not be cases in which the duty to give reasons will require such workings or quantification to be afforded.’

Judges:

Glidewell LJ. and Sir John May

Citations:

Ind Summary 28-Aug-1995, Times 09-Aug-1995, (1995) 28 HLR 107, [1995] 2 EGLR 80

Statutes:

Rent Act 1977 70(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Spath Home Ltd v Greater Manchester and Lancashire Rent Assessment Committee QBD 13-Jul-1994
The rent assessment committee had rejected proposed market rent comparables as an indicator of market rent for the premises, because they were not satisfied of the actual absence of scarcity. The landlord had not demonstrated the unsoundness of . .

Cited by:

Cited – Sheppard-Capurro, Regina (on the Application of) v London Rent Assessment Panel Admn 27-Jul-2005
. .
Cited – Curtis v Chairman of London Rent Assessment Committee; Huntingford and Packford CA 9-Oct-1997
The claimant sought to appeal the quashing of determinations of a fair rent for two properties. . .
See also – Spath Holme Ltd v Chairman of the Greater Manchester and Lancashire Rent Assessment Committee (No2); Curtis v Similar QBD 2-Jan-1998
A Bill of costs could be presented even though counsel’s fee had not yet been agreed; an extension of time was properly granted. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.89447

Macmillan Inc v Bishopsgate Investment Trust Plc and Others (No 3): CA 2 Nov 1995

The question of ownership of a company is to be decided according to law of country where the company is incorporated. Conflict of laws rules are to be used to look to the issue in the case not the cause of action.
Staughton LJ said: ‘In any case which involves a foreign element it may prove necessary to decide what system of law is to be applied, either to the case as a whole or to a particular issue or issues. Mr. Oliver, for Macmillan Inc., has referred to that as the proper law; but I would reserve that expression for other purposes, such as the proper law of a contract, or of an obligation. Conflict lawyers speak of the lex causae when referring to the system of law to be applied. For those who spurn Latin in favour of English, one could call it the law applicable to the suit (or issue) or, simply, the applicable law.
In finding the lex causae there are three stages. First, it is necessary to characterise the issue that is before the court. Is it for example about the formal validity of a marriage? Or intestate succession to moveable property? Or interpretation of a contract?
The second stage is to select the rule of conflict of laws which lays down a connecting factor for the issue in question. Thus the formal validity of a marriage is to be determined, for the most part, by the law of the place where it is celebrated; intestate succession to moveables, by the law of the place where the deceased was domiciled when he died; and the interpretation of a contract, by what is described as its proper law.
Thirdly, it is necessary to identify the system of law which is tied by the connecting factor found in stage two to the issue characterised in stage one. Sometimes this will present little difficulty, though I suppose that even a marriage may now be celebrated on an international video link. The choice of the proper law of a contract, on the other hand, may be controversial.’
Auld LJ said: ‘Subject to what I shall say in a moment, characterisation or classification is governed by the lex fori. But characterisation or classification of what? It follows from what I have said that the proper approach is to look beyond the formulation of the claim and to identify according to the lex fori the true issue or issues thrown up by the claim and defence. This requires a parallel exercise in classification of the relevant rule of law. However, classification of an issue and rule of law for this purpose, the underlying principle of which is to strive for comity between competing legal systems, should not be constrained by particular notions or distinctions of the domestic law of the lex fori, or that of the competing system of law, which may have no counterpart in the other’s system. Nor should the issue be defined too narrowly so that it attracts a particular domestic rule under the lex fori which may not be applicable under the other system: see Cheshire and North’s Private International Law , 12th ed., pp. 45-46, and Dicey and Morris , vol. 1, pp. 38-43, 45-48.’ (p. 407 B/D)
‘I agree with the judge when he said [1995] 1 W.L.R. 978, 988: ‘In order to ascertain the applicable law under English conflict of laws, it is not sufficient to characterise the nature of the claim: it is necessary to identify the question at issue.’ Any claim, whether it be a claim that can be characterised as restitutionary or otherwise, may involve a number of issues which may have to be decided according to different systems of law. Thus it is necessary for the court to look at each issue and to decide the appropriate law to apply to the resolution of that dispute.’

Judges:

Auld, Staughton LJJ

Citations:

Ind Summary 11-Dec-1995, Gazette 29-Nov-1995, Times 07-Nov-1995, [1996] 1 WLR 387, [1995] EWCA Civ 55, [1996] 1 All ER 585

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Macmillan Inc v Bishopsgate Investment Trust Plc and Others (No 3) ChD 1-Jul-1993
Bona fide chargees for value of shares situated in New York and held on trust for Macmillan were able, by application of New York law, to take the shares free of Macmillan’s prior equitable interest of which the chargees had had no notice. Where . .
Cited – Norris v Chambres 1861
A company director had committed suicide; the claim was brought by his estate. The company had been established in England to work a Prussian coal mine, and the director had personally advanced a large sum towards its purchase. The company agreed to . .

Cited by:

Cited – Knight v Axa Assurances QBD 24-Jul-2009
The claimant was injured in a car accident in France. The defendant insurer said that the quantification of damages was to be according to French law and the calculation of interest also. The claimant said that English law applied.
Held: The . .
Cited – Cox v Ergo Versicherung Ag CA 25-Jun-2012
The deceased member of the armed forces had died in a road traffic accident in Germany. The parties didputed whether the principles governing the calculation of damages were those in the 1976 Act and UK law, or under German law.
Held: ‘There . .
Cited – Raffelsen Zentralbank Osterreich Ag v Five Star General Trading Llc and Others CA 1-Mar-2001
An assigned marine insurance policy was subject to a claim. The issue was the ability of an assignee to claim as a claim in contract where the proper law was that under which the contract was made, or a claim of an intangible right to claim against . .
Cited – Gorjat v Gorjat ChD 29-Jun-2010
The claimant, daughters of the deceased by his first marriage challenged a transfer of a significant sum by their father before his death, saying that he lacked mental capacity. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

International, Company

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.83285

Eurocross Sales Ltd and Another v Cornhill Insurance Plc: CA 5 Sep 1995

The company was in financial difficulties but not yet in liquidation. It sold its assets, including a claim against the defendant insurance company, to its principal shareholder Mr. Sood. The company’s action against the defendant was proceeding in the county court and the company had been ordered by the district judge to give security for costs. Mr. Sood applied under the County Court equivalent of R.S.C. Ord. 15, r. 6 to be joined as an additional plaintiff. The judge granted the order subject to a condition that Mr. Sood give security for costs in the sum of pounds 5,000. The reason he gave was that: ‘I think it is important that if the defendant is to be adequately protected here then Mr. Sood should be placed on terms similar to those of the order for security for costs against the plaintiff company . . Of course if he defaults on that, he does not join as a party to the action.’
Held: The court discharged the order. The question was whether it was appropriate for the judge to have exercised his discretion so that the defendant: ‘should enjoy the same protection against costs in relation to Mr. Sood as it already enjoyed against the plaintiff company under the unappealed order of the district judge.’ Sir Thomas Bingham M.R: this was not a proper ground upon which to exercise the discretion: ‘Cornhill is in no worse position than if the company had sold its business to Mr. Sood before bringing proceedings and he had been the plaintiff from the outset. It is in no worse a position than, instead of being joined, Mr. Sood had commenced a fresh action as a plaintiff. And the potential injustice against which the security order was intended to protect Cornhill no longer exists: the company’s action is stayed unless and until it provides the security ordered: but in Mr. Sood it faces a personal plaintiff who is liable to the extent of his available assets to meet any costs order made against him. Depending on his means, he may or may not be able to meet such an order, but the law affords a defendant no protection against costs which may not be paid by impecunious plaintiffs. Had Mr. Sood been ordered to pay, and give security for, the costs occasioned by or thrown away as a result of his joinder, there could in our judgment be no sustainable objection to the order. But we can find no justification for the order in fact made.’

Judges:

Sir Thomas Bingham MR, Auld and Ward LJJ

Citations:

Times 05-Sep-1995, [1995] 1 WLR 1517

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Norglen Ltd (In Liquidation) v Reeds Rains Prudential Ltd and Others; Circuit Systems Ltd (In Liquidation) and Another v Zuken-Redac HL 1-Dec-1997
An assignment of a cause of action by a company in liquidation was valid, even though the dominant purpose was to avoid having to give security for costs, and to get legal aid. In dismissing the argument that the transactions were a device to defeat . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.80380

British Telecommunications Plc v Sun Life Assurance Society Plc: CA 3 Aug 1995

A landlord became in breach of his duty of repair under his covenant immediately the repairable defect occurred, not after a reasonable time had been given to make the repair. Nourse LJ summarised the earlier authorities: ‘It is now established by a line of authority culminating in the decision of the House of Lords in O’Brien v Robinson [1973] AC 912 that, where a defect occurs in the demised premises themselves, a landlord is in breach of his obligation to keep them in repair only when he has information about the existence of the defect such as would put a reasonable landlord on inquiry as to whether the works of repair to it are needed and he has failed to carry out the necessary works with reasonable expedition thereafter . .’

Judges:

Nourse LJ

Citations:

Times 03-Aug-1995, Gazette 20-Sep-1995, Independent 12-Sep-1995, [1996] Ch 69

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – O’Brien v Robinson HL 19-Feb-1973
The plaintiffs sought damages after being injured when the ceiling of their bedroom fell on them. They were tenants of the defendants.
Held: The 1961 Act implied a duty on L to keep in repair the structure. What was meant by ‘keep in repair.’ . .

Cited by:

Cited – Princes House Ltd and Another v Distinctive Clubs Ltd CA 27-Mar-2007
The landlord sought payment of arrears of service charge. The tenants counterclaimed that the landlord had failed to comply with its repairing obligation, and relied on a cap on the service charge in the lease. . .
Cited – Sykes v Harry and Trustee of Estate of Harry, a Bankrupt CA 1-Feb-2001
The tenant appealed dismissal of his claim for damages. He had suffered serious injury after inhaling carbon monoxide fumes from a defective gas fire. The fire had not been maintained and a fall of soot eventually prevented the escape of fumes.
Cited – Edwards v Kumarasamy SC 13-Jul-2016
The claimant sub-tenant had been injured entering the block of apartments. He said that the freeholder was responsible despite no report of the disrepair having been made. The lease excused the landlord from unnotified liability. The parties . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.78645

Amini v Revenue and Customs (Excise and Customs Duty – Importation of Tobacco Products): FTTTx 7 Dec 2020

Excise and Customs Duty – importation of tobacco products – appeal against Civil Evasion Penalties – s 25(1) of Finance Act 2003 and s 8(1) of Finance Act 1994 – whether dishonesty – yes – whether allowances given to reduce penalties correct – yes – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2020] UKFTT 496 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.661800

A County Council v M and Another: FC 23 Apr 2021

Two applications: by a grandmother under section 10(9) Children Act 1989 for permission to apply for either a Special Guardianship Order or a Child Arrangements Order with respect to a child (H) who is seven months old; and an application by the local authority under the inherent jurisdiction for permission not to carry out any assessment of her as a possible carer.

Judges:

The Hon Mrs Justice Judd

Citations:

[2021] EWFC 35

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.662340

Mahabir and Others v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 6 May 2021

Attempts by a Windrush victim, to be reunited with her husband and children by having them enter the United Kingdom from Trinidad and Tobago where they currently reside.

Judges:

Mr Tim Smith (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)

Citations:

[2021] EWHC 1177 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.662405

A Local Authority v C and Others (Supplemental): CoP 26 Apr 2021

Judges:

Mr Justice Hayden VP CoP

Citations:

[2021] EWCOP 26

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – A Local Authority v C and Others CoP 26-Apr-2021
Care of 27 year old man with genetic disorder affecting his development. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.662227

Sheth v Revenue and Customs (Application To Notify An Appeal Out of Time): FTTTx 8 Mar 2021

Application to notify an appeal out of time – Dispute as to length of delay – Consideration of reasons for the delay – Evaluation of the circumstances – Discussion of the Morse Review – Application dismissed – Recovery of debt abroad and observation on HMRC’s Care and Management Powers

Citations:

[2021] UKFTT 62 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.661792

Billions London (Trade Mark: Opposition): IPO 3 Oct 2019

Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Earlier Trade Marks – Distinctive and dominant components
Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Earlier Trade Marks – Treatment of descriptive / allusive elements
Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Earlier Trade Marks – Particular visual / aural / conceptual considerations

Citations:

[2019] UKIntelP o59319

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.661118

Planet Ice (Milton Keynes) Ltd and Another v Revenue and Customs (Value Added Tax – Package of Supplies of Admission To Ice Skating Rink and Hire of Children’S Ice Skates): FTTTx 27 Aug 2020

VALUE ADDED TAX – package of supplies of admission to ice skating rink and hire of children’s ice skates – whether single standard rated supply or multiple supplies – remittal by Upper Tribunal to find further facts about the options available to purchasers of the package and to reconsider decision at earlier hearing – on basis of facts so found, held that there were two separate supplies – appeals allowed.

Citations:

[2020] UKFTT 517 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.661795

Lucky Technology Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Application for Disclosure): FTTTx 23 Feb 2021

Application for disclosure – Disclosure sought ‘potentially relevant’ to issue(s) in the case – Whether disclosure precluded by s 18 Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 and GDPR – No – Application allowed – Directions made for progression of appeal

Citations:

[2021] UKFTT 55 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.661766

Silky Miracle (Trade Mark: Opposition): IPO 23 Jul 2019

Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Earlier Trade Marks – Distinctive and dominant components
Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Earlier Trade Marks – Treatment of descriptive / allusive elements
Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Earlier Trade Marks – Imperfect recollection
Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Likelihood of Confusion – State of the register
Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Dilution Cases – Reputation
Section 5(4) Earlier Rights – Passing off (Issues arising from Registry proceedings)
Other Issues – Survey evidence
Revocation / Proof of Use – Dates – sales to trade intermediaries
Revocation / Proof of Use – Variant forms of marks – stylistic / presentation differences
Revocation / Proof of Use – Partial revocation – arriving at a fair description of goods / services

Citations:

[2019] UKIntelP o42319

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.661007

Rubyware (Trade Mark: Opposition): IPO 13 Aug 2019

Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Earlier Trade Marks – Composite word marks
Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Earlier Trade Marks – Treatment of descriptive / allusive elements
Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Earlier Trade Marks – Particular visual / aural / conceptual considerations
Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Earlier Trade Marks – Importance of first element

Citations:

[2019] UKIntelP o47219

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.661055

Evergreen Timber Frames Ltd v Harrington (Contract of Employment): EAT 10 Mar 2021

The Employment Tribunal erred in concluding that the parties entered into a contractually binding agreement by which ownership of a car would transfer from the Respondent to the Claimant upon the termination of his employment. Although the Employment Tribunal did not err in deciding that a proposal described as a ‘gift’ was an offer, one of the ingredients of a contract, it erred in concluding that the Claimant could accept part of the Respondent’s offer insofar as it related to the car while seeking to improve upon other parts of the offer. The claim was remitted to a different Employment Tribunal to consider the Claimant’s contention that the parties entered into an oral agreement for the transfer of the car at a meeting on 30 May 2018.

Citations:

[2021] UKEAT 20 – 0072 – 20 –

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.661700

Dorset Dpc (Trade Mark: Opposition): IPO 25 Sep 2019

Section 3(1) Descriptiveness / Distinctiveness – Descriptiveness – geographical signs
Section 3(1) Descriptiveness / Distinctiveness – Descriptiveness – other characteristic of goods or services
Section 3(1) Descriptiveness / Distinctiveness – Customary in the language etc. – customary in the language
Section 3(1) Descriptiveness / Distinctiveness – Customary in the language etc. – trade name for goods or services
Section 3(1) Descriptiveness / Distinctiveness – Customary in the language etc. – acquired distinctiveness

Citations:

[2019] UKIntelP o56519

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.661071

E v X and Another (Juridictional : Time Points and Practice and Procedure): EAT 10 Dec 2020

Two appeals against the order of an employment tribunal which had revisited the order of an earlier tribunal of equivalent jurisdiction, in the absence of a material change in circumstances, or the original order being based on a material omission or mistreatment, or some other substantial reason necessitating the interference, would be allowed. The orders of the original employment tribunal would be restored and a preliminary hearing would take place before a fresh employment tribunal.
Earlier authorities relating to applications to strike out, at a preliminary hearing, claims which assert a continuing act but are said by the respondent to be time-barred, were reviewed and qualified.

Citations:

[2020] UKEAT 20 – 0079 – 20 –

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.661670

Rahman v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax – Penalties for Late Payment): FTTTx 5 Feb 2021

INCOME TAX – Schedule 56 Finance Act 2009 – penalties for late payment – whether taxpayer had a reasonable excuse for his late payment – appeal dismissed. Permission to appeal out of time – refused.

Citations:

[2021] UKFTT 32 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.661773

M Group Holdings Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Substantial Shareholding Exemption): FTTTx 12 Mar 2021

substantial shareholding exemption – schedule 7AC Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 – paragraphs 7 and 15A – whether relief available when the shares have been owned by a company in a group for less than 12 months – no

Citations:

[2021] UKFTT 69 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.661786

Cummine v Revenue and Customs (Application for Permission for Late Notification of Appeal – Reliance On Advisers): FTTTx 12 Mar 2021

PROCEDURE – application for permission for late notification of appeal – reliance on advisers – delay by HMRC in providing information — case could be added to existing appeals without much further work – balancing of factors – permission granted

Citations:

[2021] UKFTT 67 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.661783

Premia Naturals (Trade Mark: Opposition): IPO 16 Sep 2019

Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Earlier Trade Marks – Distinctive and dominant components
Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Earlier Trade Marks – Composite word and device marks
Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Earlier Trade Marks – Particular visual / aural / conceptual considerations
Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Earlier Trade Marks – Imperfect recollection

Citations:

[2019] UKIntelP o54619

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.661096

Luv Injection Sound (Trade Mark: Opposition): IPO 27 Jun 2019

Section 3(6) Bad Faith – Breakdown of former business relationship
Section 3(6) Bad Faith – Partnership issues
Section 3(6) Bad Faith – Music groups
Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Average Customer – Consumer attention levels
Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Dilution Cases – Reputation
Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Dilution Cases – Link

Citations:

[2019] UKIntelP o35919

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.660951

Just Airports London (Trade Mark: Opposition): IPO 17 Jul 2019

Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Earlier Trade Marks – Distinctive and dominant components
Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Earlier Trade Marks – Composite word and device marks
Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Earlier Trade Marks – Treatment of descriptive / allusive elements
Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Earlier Trade Marks – Imperfect recollection
Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Distinctive Character of Earlier Trade Mark – Any unusual issues
Other Issues – Domain name / company name
Revocation / Proof of Use – Dates – genuine use
Revocation / Proof of Use – Dates – use outside the relevant periods
Revocation / Proof of Use – Variant forms of marks – use with matter added or subtracted
Revocation / Proof of Use – Partial revocation – arriving at a fair description of goods / services

Citations:

[2019] UKIntelP o41319

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.660987

Fathers Justice (Trade Mark: Opposition): IPO 30 Jul 2019

Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Earlier Trade Marks – Distinctive and dominant components
Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Earlier Trade Marks – Composite word marks
Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Earlier Trade Marks – Conceptual distinctions

Citations:

[2019] UKIntelP o44519

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.660980

Recycoola Insulative Packaging System (Trade Mark: Opposition): IPO 12 Jul 2019

Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Earlier Trade Marks – Composite word and device marks
Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Earlier Trade Marks – Treatment of descriptive / allusive elements
Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Earlier Trade Marks – Imperfect recollection

Citations:

[2019] UKIntelP o39919

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.661001

Lagoniassa Device Mark (Trade Mark: Opposition): IPO 18 Jul 2019

Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Earlier Trade Marks – Particular visual / aural / conceptual considerations
Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Dilution Cases – Reputation
Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Dilution Cases – Link
Section 5(4) Earlier Rights – Passing off (Issues arising from Registry proceedings)

Citations:

[2019] UKIntelP o41519

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.660989

Lee v Nursery Furnishings Ltd: CA 1945

A Court should not be astute to find against either party, but should apply the ordinary standards. Lord Goddard said: ‘In the first place I think one may say this, that where you find there has been a breach of one of these safety regulations and where you find that the accident complained of is the very class of accident that the regulations are designed to prevent, a court should certainly not be astute to find that the breach of the regulation was not connected with the accident, was not the cause of the accident’

Citations:

[1945] 1 All ER 387

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Vyner v Waldenberg Brothers Ltd CA 1946
Vyner was working a circular saw when part of his thumb was cut off. The saw failed in several respects to comply with the Woodworking Machinery Regulations, and in particular the guard was not properly adjusted. The accident happened before the . .
Cited – Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw HL 1-Mar-1956
The injury of which the employee complained came from two sources, a pneumatic hammer, in respect of which the employers were not in breach of the relevant Regulations; and swing grinders, in respect of which they were in breach.
Held: It had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health and Safety

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.652298

Kamoka v The Security Service: QBD 1205

The court hearing an application for disclosure, should consider both the nature of the issue at stake and what is needed for the fair disposal of the litigation in hand.

Judges:

Irwin J

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 3307 (QB)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Reprieve and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Prime Minister Admn 30-Jun-2020
Standing may not be enough for JR
The claimants sought judicial review of the defendant’s decision that it was no longer necessary to establish a public inquiry to investigate allegations of involvement of the United Kingdom intelligence services in torture, mistreatment and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.652304

Curr v London and Country Mortgages: QBD 25 Jun 2020

Application by the Defendant for summary judgment under CPR 24.2, or alternatively for the claim to be struck out as an abuse of process, and for an Extended Civil Restraint Order against the Claimant.
Held: Summary judgment for the defendant but civil restraint order refused.

Judges:

Mrs Justice Andrews

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 1661 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.652128

Department of Work and Pensions v Boyers (Disability Discrimination): EAT 24 Jun 2020

The Claimant, who was disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010, was dismissed by the Respondent whilst on sickness absence. An Employment Tribunal found that the Claimant had been unfairly dismissed, contrary to the provisions of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The Tribunal also upheld the Claimant’s claim that her dismissal constituted disability discrimination, contrary to section 15 of the Equality Act. The Respondent appealed against the finding that the dismissal of the Claimant was unlawful discrimination, on the basis that the Employment Tribunal had erred in law in rejecting the Respondent’s justification defence.
The Employment Tribunal had accepted that the dismissal pursued two legitimate aims but held that it was not justified because it was not a proportionate means of achieving either aim. The Respondent contended that in considering the issue of justification the Tribunal had erred in law by focusing on criticism of the Respondent’s decision-making process rather than conducting a balancing exercise between the needs of the employer, as represented by the legitimate aims the Tribunal had accepted were being pursued, and the discriminatory effect on the employee.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the Respondent’s appeal and remitted the claim under section 15 of the Equality Act to the same Employment Tribunal for redetermination.

Citations:

[2020] UKEAT 0282 – 19 – 2406

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.652140

Ijomah v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (Practice and Procedure – Unless Orders): EAT 12 Jun 2020

In a case involving multiple claims of protected disclosure detriment, and a claim of unfair dismissal by reason of protected disclosures, the Employment Tribunal erred in its approach to whether there had been material non-compliance with an Unless Order that was attached to an earlier Order requiring further particulars of the claims. The EAT made observations on the particular perils and pitfalls of making, and construing, an Unless Order that is parasitic on an earlier Order, and that relates to the provision of particulars.
There were also breach of contract claims. The Tribunal correctly concluded that there had been material non-compliance in relation to all of those claims, and that they all stood struck out.

Citations:

[2020] UKEAT 0289 – 19 – 1206

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.652142