Point West Gr Ltd v Bassi and Others: CA 24 Jun 2020

The background to this appeal is a dispute about service charges; but the main issue is procedural. Its principal focus is the power of the First Tier Tribunal (‘the FTT’) to review one of its decisions, following an application for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal (‘the UT’).

Citations:

[2020] EWCA Civ 795

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.651926

PJD AV Services Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Corporation Tax – Penalty for Late Filing): FTTTx 20 Aug 2019

Penalty for late filing of company tax returns – late appeal to HMRC – taxpayer relied on agent to deal with tax affairs – whether to give permission for late appeals to be made – Martland and Katib considered – permission refused

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 542 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.641347

Various Claimants v News Group Newspapers Ltd (1435): ChD 4 Jun 2020

Application for inspection of disclosed documents, but the real issue in the application is whether a given individual, to whom the inspection relates, is correctly treated as a confidential source of the defendant and whether the documents should nonetheless be made available for inspection. The situation is a slightly unusual one because in this instance the identity of the individual is known. What the defendant seeks to protect is not his identity, but the fact that he was the source of various tips and/or newspaper stories.

Judges:

Mann J

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 1435 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Media

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.651919

Various Claimants v News Group Newspapers Ltd (1436): ChD 4 Jun 2020

Judges:

Mann J

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 1436 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Various Claimants v News Group Newspapers Ltd ChD 19-Jun-2020
Defendant’s strike out application – limitation . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Torts – Other

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.651920

The Lord Chancellor v Blavo and Co Solictors Ltd and Another: QBD 21 Dec 2018

Attempt to recover legal aid fees said to have been paid on fraudulent claims.

Judges:

Pepperall J

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 3556 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Legal Aid, Torts – Other, Legal Professions

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.632217

Lima (Trade Mark: Opposition): IPO 6 Dec 2018

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 – Particular visual / aural / conceptual considerations

Citations:

[2018] UKIntelP o78218

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.631776

Matchfit Conditioning (Trade Mark: Opposition): IPO 7 Dec 2018

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 – Conceptual distinctions
Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Dilution Cases – Reputation
Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Dilution Cases – Link
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:

[2018] UKIntelP o78418

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.631778

The Cellular Clothing Co Ltd v Maxton and Murray: HL 27 Apr 1899

An action of interdict was raised by the makers of a certain fabric which they had advertised and sold for some years under the name of ‘cellular cloth,’ for the purpose of preventing a rival trader from using the term ‘cellular’ to designate goods not made and sold by the pursuers.
The House of Lords (aff. the judgment of the First Division) refused to grant interdict, in respect that the pursuers had failed to prove (1) that the defenders had, otherwise than by the use of the term ‘cellular,’ done anything to induce the belief that the goods offered by them were goods of the pursuers’ manufacture, or (2) that the term ‘cellular’ had acquired in the trade any technical or secondary meaning different from its ordinary meaning as a term descriptive of the goods, so as to entitle the pursuers to claim its exclusive use.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Halsbury), and Lords Watson, Shand, and Davey

Citations:

[1899] UKHL 605, 36 SLR 605

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.631832

Timehealth (Trade Mark: Opposition): IPO 20 Dec 2018

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
Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Earlier Trade Marks – Conceptual distinctions
Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Average Customer – Identification of
Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Average Customer – Consumer attention levels
Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Average Customer – Purchasing process
Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Distinctive Character of Earlier Trade Mark – Any unusual issues

Citations:

[2018] UKIntelP o81918

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.631786

Primal Instinct (Trade Mark: Opposition): IPO 21 Aug 2018

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
Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Earlier Trade Marks – Conceptual distinctions
Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Dilution Cases – Reputation

Citations:

[2018] UKIntelP o51418

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.631594

Williams v Singer and Others Pool v Royal Exchange Assurance: HL 17 May 1920

Under the Income Tax Act 1853, section 2, Schedule D, British trustees acting under the marriage contract of a French lady resident abroad were assessed in respect of income from foreign securities and possessions paid to her abroad. In the second case the respondents, who were domiciled in the United Kingdom, were trustees under a will, and were assessed in respect of the income of foreign investments paid to a Swedish lady also resident abroad. Held that as the beneficiary in each case was domiciled and resident abroad the income in question was not liable for income tax merely because the legal ownership of the investments was in British trustees.
Decision of the Court of Appeal (1919, 2 K.B. 108) affirmed.

Citations:

[1920] UKHL 380, 59 SLR 380

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.631532

VA168852013 and VA168912013: AIT 20 Nov 2014

Appeals against the decision of the entry clearance officer to refuse to entry clearance to come to the UK as family visitors was allowed by the First-tier Tribunal. The entry clearance officer was not satisfied that the family income was as claimed. There was insufficient evidence of rental income or earnings from land. Accordingly, the applications were refused.

Citations:

[2014] UKAITUR VA168852013

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.544161

Department of Health v Information Commissioner (Freedom of Information Act 2000): FTTGRC 15 Oct 2009

The Department had altered the way it reported the incidence of late abortions so as to protect the identities of those involved. It said that the numbers were so small that any detail could lead to identification.
Held: (1) The disputed information constituted personal data in the hands of the Department of Health.
(2) That the disclosure would not contravene the data protection principles, and consequently the Department of Health was wrong to rely on Section 40 of FOIA to withhold the disputed information.
(3) The Information Commissioner was right to find that disclosure would not be in breach of the Abortion Regulations, and therefore Section 44 of the FOIA was not engaged, and
(4) By failing to disclose the disputed information, the Department of Health had breached Section 1 of FOIA.

Citations:

[2009] UKFTT EA – 2008 – 0074 (GRC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information Act 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Department of Health, Regina (on The Application of) v Information Commissioner Admn 20-Apr-2011
The department appealed against an order requiring it to disclose statistical information about late abortions. The department argued that the numbers involved were such that the individual patients involved mighty be identified, and that therefore . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.428743

OA215782012: AIT 15 Oct 2014

The appellant is the Entry Clearance Officer in Lagos, the respondent is a citizen of Nigeria. The Entry Clearance Officer has been given permission to appeal the determination of First-Tier Tribunal who allowed her appeal on Article 8 human rights grounds against the Entry Clearance Officer’s decision to refuse to grant her entry clearance for settlement in the United Kingdom as the spouse of her husband and sponsor, a naturalised British citizen.

Judges:

Moulden UTJ

Citations:

[2014] UKAITUR OA215782012)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.542730

Northern Ireland Co-Operation Overseas (Central Government): ICO 10 Oct 2019

The complainant has requested information from Northern Ireland Co-Operation Overseas (‘NI-CO’) relating to training materials for a certain project. NI-CO refused the request, citing the exemptions set out in sections 27(1) and 43(2) of the FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that NI-CO has correctly applied section 43(2) of the FOIA to the complainant’s request and so she did not go on to consider its application of section 27(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner therefore requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 43(2): Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50831003

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.643507

Department of Health and Social Care (Central Government): ICO 21 Oct 2021

The complainant has requested information on financial due diligence checks made by the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) into a named PPE supplier. The request also asked for correspondence between the DHSC and a senior figure a the supplier on the procurement. The DHSC aggregated this request with three earlier requests and refused them on the basis complying would exceed the cost limit under section 12 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DHSC was entitled to aggregate the requests and that the DHSC has demonstrated that it would exceed the cost limit to confirm what information is held under section 12(2) of the FOIA. The DHSC has also complied with its duty under section 16 of the FOIA by providing advice and assistance.
FOI 12: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO ic-61559

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.675002

Ingram v Wyatt: 1828

Mere evidence of execution of a will and codicil by a person of weak and inert mind, appointing his attorney and agent sole executor and almost universal legatee of a large property, is insufficient, without proof of instructions by the deceased; instructions for the will being given to the solicitor, who prepared and attested it, by and in the handwriting of the executor’s father (so the deceased’s co-agent and attorney) ; the codicil being prepared exclusively for his own benefit by the executor, in whose house the deceased was living apart from his family ; and other circumstances strongly inferring fraud and circumvention.

Citations:

[1828] EngR 143, (1828) 1 Hag Ecc 384, (1828) 162 ER 621

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Wills and Probate

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.322907

NHS Lincolnshire Integrated Care Board (Health): ICO 2 Nov 2022

The complainant requested information from NHS Lincolnshire Integrated Care Board (‘the Board’) relating to the care of an individual. By the date of this notice the Board had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Board has breached section 10(1) of FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Board to provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2022] UKICO 110200

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.683182

Aquapri (Environment – Assessment of A Project Likely To Affect A Protected Site – Judgment): ECJ 10 Nov 2022

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Environment – Directive 92/43/EEC – Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora – Article 6(3) – Assessment of a project likely to affect a protected site – Obligation to conduct an assessment – Continuation of the economic activity of an operation already authorised at the planning stage, under unchanged conditions, where authorisation has been granted following an incomplete assessment

Citations:

C-278/21, [2022] EUECJ C-278/21, [2022] WLR(D) 447, ECLI:EU:C:2022:864

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

European

Environment

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.683331

Hackney London Borough Council (Local Government): ICO 16 Dec 2021

The complainant requested information on 13 August 2021 regarding information relating to which companies pay business rates in the London Borough of Hackney. By the date of this notice, London Borough of Hackney (‘the Borough’) had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Borough has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO ic-137697

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.675229

Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (Health) 173329: ICO 5 Oct 2022

The complainant has requested information relating to the identity of individuals responsible for decision making regarding MHRA’s intention to publish interactive drug analysis profiles (iDAPs) for the COVID-19 vaccines. MHRA provided the complainant with some information in response to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities MHRA does hold further information under section 1(1)(a) FOIA in relation to part 1 of the request and breached section 10(1) FOIA as it failed to provide a response within the statutory time for compliance and failed to respond to an aspect of part 3 of the request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: – MHRA must either disclose the further information it holds in relation to part 1 of the request, or issue a refusal notice that complies with section 17 of the FOIA. – In relation to part 3 of the request, in particular, ‘whether Ministers were involved with the decision not to publish so far’, MHRA must confirm or deny whether it holds this information. If the MHRA holds information it must either disclose it, or issue a refusal notice that complies with section 17 of the FOIA
FOI 10: Complaint upheld FOI 1: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2022] UKICO 173329

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.683055

Dalkia Utilities Services Plc v Celtech International Ltd (No 2): ComC 2 Feb 2006

Judges:

Christopher Clarke J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 63 – 2 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Judgement – Dalkia Utilities Services Plc v Celtech International Ltd ComC 27-Jan-2006
The Court was asked to decide (i) which, if either, of the two parties to a 15 year agreement lawfully terminated it; (ii) whether, if one of them did so, it was by giving notice under a contractual termination clause or by way of acceptance of the . .
See Also – Celtech International Limited v Dalkia Utilities Services Plc ChD 12-Feb-2004
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.272525

C v D: ComC 28 Jun 2007

Appeal against interim anti-suit injunction pending arbitration.

Judges:

Cooke J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 1541 (Comm), [2007] ArbLR 9, [2007] 2 All ER (Comm) 557

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Arbitration

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.253755

Health and Safety Executive (Other): ICO 10 Nov 2021

The complainant requested information from the Health and Safety Executive (‘the HSE’) about open circuit PEN conductor faults. By the date of this notice the HSE had failed to provide a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the HSE has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the HSE to respond to the complainant’s request in accordance with the FOIA. The HSE must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO ic-138945

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.675093

Liverpool City Council (Local Government): ICO 7 Mar 2022

The complainant has requested information from Liverpool City Council (‘the Council’) about job interviews. At the date of this notice, the Council has not provided a response to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The Council has breached section 10(1) of FOIA as it has not provided a valid response to the request within the statutory timeframe of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Provide a response to the part of the complainant’s request of 16 November 2021 that is covered by FOIA, that complies with that legislation.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2022] UKICO ic-155006

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.674960

General Teaching Council Northern Ireland (Education): ICO 23 Nov 2021

In a multi-part request, the complainant requested information from the General Teaching Council Northern Ireland (GTCNI) relating to its Publication Scheme, meetings, minutes of meetings, procedures and its handling of complaints/referrals about teachers. The complainant also requested further, related, information in a subsequent request. GTCNI ultimately provided some information but withheld the remainder citing sections 22 (information intended for future publication), 40(2) (personal information) and 42 (legal professional privilege) of FOIA. The Commissioner investigated its application of sections 22 and 40(2) to the information withheld by virtue of those exemptions. The Commissioner’s decision is that GTCNI correctly withheld information withheld by virtue of section 40(2) but that section 22 is not engaged. She also found procedural errors relating to GTCNI’s overall handling of the requests. The Commissioner requires GTCNI to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a fresh response with regard to the information within the scope of part (2) of the request dated 13 May 2019, namely ‘ copies of all approved GTC committee minutes since April 2018 ‘; issue a response to the request for information dated 16 July 2019.
FOI 17: Complaint upheld FOI 10: Complaint upheld FOI 40: Complaint not upheld FOI 22: Complaint upheld FOI 19: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO ic-45233

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.675087