Spetsializirana Prokuratura and A La Locale) (Judgment): ECJ 17 Nov 2022

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Processing of personal data in the electronic communications sector – Confidentiality of communications – Providers of electronic communications services – Generalized and indiscriminate retention of traffic data and location data for a period of six months – Fight against serious crime – Access to retained data – Information of data subjects – Right of appeal – Directive 2002/58/EC – Article 15, paragraphs 1 and 2 – Directive (EU) 2016/680 – Articles 13 and 54 – Charter of rights fundamentals of the European Union – Articles 7, 8, 11 and 47 as well as Article 52, paragraph 1

Citations:

C-350/21, [2022] EUECJ C-350/21

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

European

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.683346

Birmingham Women’s and Children’s Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (Health): ICO 8 Oct 2021

The complainant requested copies of Royal College reports. Birmingham Women’s and Children’s Hospital NHS Foundation Trust had not responded to the request at the date of this notice. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Trust to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a substantive response, under the FOIA, to the request.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO IC-125445

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.669609

University College London (Education): ICO 21 Oct 2021

The complainant has requested from University College London (UCL) information about the Coronavirus Mitigation Group (CMG). UCL denied holding the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that UCL has failed to issue a response to the request that complies with the requirements of section 1(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires UCL to issue a fresh response to the request that does not rely on the assertion that UCL does not hold information within scope of the request on the basis that the CMG was not a formal group.
FOI 1: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO ic-70147

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.675043

Durham County Council (Local Government): ICO 23 Nov 2021

The complainant requested information from Durham County Council (‘the Council’) comprising the legal advice given to a councillor on whether they should declare a disclosable pecuniary interest (DPI) at a meeting of Great Aycliffe Town Council. The Council withheld the information under section 42(1) of the FOIA: legal professional privilege. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption at section 42(1) of the FOIA is engaged, and that balance of the public interests favours the information being withheld under the exemption. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
FOI 42: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO ic-81057

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.675082

Warwickshire County Council (Local Government): ICO 4 Oct 2019

The complainant has asked Warwickshire County Council all emails, reports, photos and letters which relate to a visit by Warwickshire Trading Standards and the Animal and Plant Health Agency (‘APHA’) to a named game bird farm on 27 July 2017. The Council has refused the complainant’s request in reliance on section 30(1)(b) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Warwickshire County Council has correctly applied section 30(1)(a) of the FOIA to the information requested by the complainant. The Commissioner is satisfied that the information relates to investigations the public authority has the power to conduct and the public interest favours withholding that information.
FOI 30: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50833823

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.643524

South Yorkshire Police (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 1 Mar 2022

The complainant has requested information about a deceased police officer including complaints made about him, his disciplinary record and reports relating to misconduct. South Yorkshire Police (‘SYP’) would neither confirm nor deny whether it held the requested information, citing the exemption at section 38(2) (Health and safety) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that SYP has not demonstrated that section 38(2) is engaged in this case. The Commissioner requires SYP to confirm or deny whether information falling within the scope of the request is held, and either disclose that information or issue a refusal notice compliant with section 17 of FOIA.
FOI 38: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2022] UKICO ic-109664

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.674973

Health and Safety Executive (Other): ICO 13 Mar 2020

The complainant has requested a safety report relating to Redcliffe Bay Petroleum Storage Depot. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) disclosed some information but withheld other information under the exceptions provided by regulation 13 – personal information, and regulation 12(5)(a) – adverse affect to national security and public safety. The complainant has not challenged the application of regulation 13, which has simply been applied to the names of the individuals who authored the report, or are employees of the company operating the site. The Commissioner finds that the HSE breached regulation 5(2) by failing to respond to the request within the statutory time for compliance. The HSE also breached regulation 11(4) by failing to conclude its internal review within the time allowed. However in respect of the main issue the Commissioner finds that the HSE is entitled to rely on the exception provided by regulation12(5)(a) to withhold the remaining information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further action in respect of this request. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0120 under appeal.
EIR 11(4): Complaint upheld EIR 12(5)(a): Complaint not upheld EIR 5(2): Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2020] UKICO fs50853537

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.653533

Royal Bank of Scotland Plc v Highland Financial Partners Lp and Another: Comc 10 Feb 2010

Judges:

Mr Justice Burton

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 194 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Royal Bank of Scotland Plc v Highland Financial Partners Lp and Others CA 14-Jul-2010
The court was asked to construe provisions of a collateralised debt obligation agreement. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.396724

Clark v Wallis: 26 Apr 1866

A decree for specific Performance was made against a purchaser in possession, but he was unable to complete the purchase. The Court rescinded the contract and ordered the purchaser to pay to the vendor the rents received by him, together with the costs of suit and those occasioned by the non-completion of the purchase.

Citations:

[1866] EngR 143 (B), (1866) 35 Beav 460

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land, Contract

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.280854

South Yorkshire Police (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 20 Oct 2021

The complainant has submitted a multi-part request for information. In respect of part (1) of the request, South Yorkshire Police (SYP) disclosed a copy of its data protection policy, with redactions under section 31 (Law enforcement) of the FOIA. It refused to comply with the remainder of the request on the grounds that it was vexatious within the meaning of section 14(1) (Vexatious request) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that SYP was not entitled to rely on section 31 to withhold information in respect of part (1) of the request, or on section 14 to refuse to comply with the remainder of the request. The Commissioner requires SYP to disclose the data protection policy and to issue a fresh response to the remaining parts of the request, which does not rely on section 14 of the FOIA.
FOI 31: Complaint upheld FOI 14: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO ic-127807

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.675038

Health and Safety Executive (Other): ICO 11 Nov 2021

The complainant has requested information relating to an incident report held by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). The HSE relied on sections 30(1) (investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities) and 40(2) (third party personal data) of the FOIA to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the HSE is entitled to rely on section 40(2) of the FOIA to withhold the third party personal data contained within the withheld information. The Commissioner has also decided that the remaining withheld information is exempt from disclosure under section 30(1) of the FOIA, and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. However, the Commissioner has recorded a procedural breach of section 17 of the FOIA, as the HSE failed to issue the complainant with a refusal notice within the statutory time limits. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of the decision notice.
FOI 17: Complaint upheld FOI 30: Complaint not upheld FOI 40(2): Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO ic-54195

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.675094

London Borough of Croydon (Local Government) ic-137889: ICO 18 Nov 2021

The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Croydon (‘the Council’) relating to a specific planning application. By the date of this notice the Council had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR 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 Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation. The Council must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the EIR. The Council must take this step within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
EIR 5(2): Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO ic-137889

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.675115

Cambridgeshire County Council (Local Government): ICO 25 Nov 2021

The complainant has requested information from Cambridgeshire County Council (‘the Council’) in relation to various sets of information, including accounts, invoices, missing work orders, and reports. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has appropriately applied the exemption at section 40(2) of the FOIA to withhold the requested information. She also finds that the Council has correctly applied section 43(2) of the FOIA to part of the remaining withheld information, excluding the information detailed below. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. – Disclose the contractors’ day rates The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
FOI 43(2): Complaint partly upheld FOI 40(2): Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO ic-72562

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.675057

Johnson and Another, An Application By (Restrictive Covenant – Modification): UTLC 10 Nov 2022

Restrictive Covenant – Modification – proposal to operate an Ofsted registered childminding business – covenants not to carry on trade or business and to use only as a private dwellinghouse – application under s.84(1)(aa) and (c) – no admitted objectors – whether proposed use is reasonable – whether proposed use is impeded by the covenant – application granted

Citations:

[2022] UKUT 294 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.683204

Health and Safety Executive (Other) 191630: ICO 2 Nov 2022

The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified in the EIR. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 35 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under the EIR.
EIR 5(2): Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2022] UKICO 191630

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.683169

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (Other): ICO 7 Oct 2019

The complainant has requested information relating to the AEA Technology Pension Scheme (AEAT). The Commissioner’s decision is that Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) has correctly applied section 44(1) of the FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require PHSO to take any steps to ensure as a result of this decision notice.
FOI 44(1)(a): Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50747151

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.643512

Ministry of Justice (Central Government): ICO 1 Apr 2020

The complainant requested information relating to a claim concerning alleged historic abuse at the St William’s Approved School near Market Weighton. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) refused to provide the requested information, citing section 31(1)(c) (law enforcement) of the FOIA as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ was entitled to rely on the exemption at section 31(1)(c) of the FOIA and that the public interest favoured maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
FOI 31: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2020] UKICO fs50853293

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.653571

High Speed Two Limited (Other): ICO 16 Jun 2020

The complainant has requested information relating to projected journey times using HS2 between a number of stations. HS2 Ltd dealt with the request under the FOIA. It confirmed that some of the requested information was held and provided links to where it considered some of the information held was available on the internet. However it originally withheld the rest of the information under the exemptions provided by section 36 of the FOIA – prejudice to the conduct of public affairs. Having been provided with copies of the journey times that were held and having considered the case carefully, the Commissioner determined that the information was environmental information and that therefore the request should have been considered under the EIR. As a consequence HS2 Ltd provided the Commissioner with a fresh submission setting out its arguments for withholding the information under regulation 12(4)(a) – information not held, 12(4)(d) – information in the course of completion, and regulation 12(4)(e) – internal communications. The Commissioner finds that HS2 Ltd does not hold the information on the times for 100 of the journeys that were requested. HS2 Ltd is entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(a) to refuse those elements of the request. However in respect of the 55 remaining journey times which HS2 Ltd does hold, the Commissioner finds that regulation 12(4)(d) is engaged, but that the public interest favours disclosure and that the exception provided by regulation 12(4)(e) is not engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information on projected journey times that it does hold.
EIR 12(4)(a): Complaint not upheld EIR 12(4)(d): Complaint upheld EIR 12(4)(e): Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2020] UKICO fs50854372

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.653646

Barclay v Barclay: FC 30 Mar 2021

Application by Lady Barclay (‘W’) for financial remedy orders against her husband Sir Frederick Barclay.

Judges:

Mr Justice Cohen

Citations:

[2021] EWFC 117

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Family

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.683254

EH v KCC (SEN): UTAA 19 Oct 2010

Special educational needs – Special educational provision – naming school

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 376 (AAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Education

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.433565

AT and T v Saudi Cable (No 1): ComC 13 Oct 1999

Arbitrator – apparent or unconscious bias – non-executive director of company – whether Gough principle applies to arbitrators.

Judges:

Longmore J

Citations:

[2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 14, [2000] CLC 231

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – A T and T Corporation and Another v Saudi Cable Co CA 23-May-2000
The test as to whether an arbitrator should declare an interest before adjudicating is the same as the test for a judge, namely whether there was any real danger that he was biased. The Act allowed a court to investigate whether a breach had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Arbitration

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.225426

City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (Local Government): ICO 1 Nov 2019

The complainant made a 14-part request for a range of information about the awarding of an IT contract. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council responded to 13 of those parts, but refused to respond to the remaining part because it did not consider that part of the request to be valid. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was valid, but it was unclear. The Council was therefore under a duty to seek clarification but did not discharge that duty. The Commissioner therefore considers that the Council has breached its section 16 duty to provide advice and assistance when responding to this request. The Council also provided its response after the 20 working day deadline and thus breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: contact the complainant to seek clarification of his request.
FOI 8: Complaint upheld FOI 16: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50859613

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.650279

Liverpool City Council (Local Government): ICO 27 May 2020

The complainant submitted a five-part request for information regarding infill at the northern end of West Waterloo Docks in Liverpool. Liverpool City Council (the Council) provided some information in response to the request and confirmed that some information was not held. However, the Commissioner finds that the information provided by the Council did not fall within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council did not hold any information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner also finds that the Council breached regulation 14(2) of the EIR by failing to provide a refusal notice within 20 working days and it breached regulation 11 of the EIR by failing to conduct an internal review within 40 working days. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
EIR 11: Complaint upheld EIR 5(1): Complaint not upheld EIR 14(2): Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2020] UKICO fer0867489

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.653598

Omagh District Council (Local Government): ICO 1 Oct 2019

The complainant has requested information concerning Fermanagh and Omagh District Council’s enforcement actions regarding a planning development. The Council supplied information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that Fermanagh and Omagh District Council has interpreted the request correctly, disclosing all relevant information and therefore complying with section 5(1) of the EIR. The Council is not required to take any steps.
EIR 5(1): Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fer0834833

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.643511

LMN v Bitflyer Holdings Inc and Others: ComC 29 Nov 2022

Information orders by LMN, which is a cryptocurrency exchange (‘C’) against six other cryptocurrency exchanges.

Judges:

The Hon Mr Justice Butcher

Citations:

[2022] EWHC 2954 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Financial Services

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.683588

Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Central Government): ICO 2 Nov 2022

The complainant has requested information relating to a charter flight. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (‘FCDO’) provided the majority of the requested information but refused to disclose the cost of the charter flight, citing section 43(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information engages section 43(2) and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
FOI 43(2): Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2022] UKICO 170946

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.683167

West Midlands Ambulance Service University NHS Foundation Trust (Health): ICO 6 Oct 2022

The complainant has requested information from West Midlands Ambulance Service University NHS Foundation Trust (WMAS) regarding complaints against named members of staff. WMAS refused to provide the requested information by virtue of section 40(2) of FOIA – third party personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that WMAS has correctly relied on section 40(2) of FOIA to refuse to disclose the requested information. The Commissioner does not require WMAS to take any remedial steps.
FOI 40(2): Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2022] UKICO 165129

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.683151

LW v CMEC: UTAA 8 Jun 2010

Child support – calculation of income

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 184 (AAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Child Support

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.423204

Regus (UK) Ltd v Epcot Solutions Ltd: ComC 4 May 2007

Claim for unpaid fees for the use of serviced office accommodation and a very large counter-claim for mis-representation and breach of contract over allegedly defective air conditioning.

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 938 (Comm), [2007] 2 All ER (Comm) 766

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v Forsyth HL 29-Jun-1995
Damages on Construction not as Agreed
The appellant had contracted to build a swimming pool for the respondent, but, after agreeing to alter the specification to construct it to a certain depth, in fact built it to the original lesser depth, Damages had been awarded to the house owner . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.252330

Norfolk County Council (Local Government): ICO 2 Oct 2019

The complainant requested information from Norfolk County Council (the Council) regarding details provided for an investigation which related to a project to develop a waste incinerator in Norfolk. The Council provided information which contained some redactions in accordance with regulations 12(3) and 13(1) (third party personal data) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was correct to apply regulations 12(3) and 13(1) to withhold some of the information. However, the Commissioner finds that the Council did not comply with the requirements of regulation 5(2) as it disclosed some information beyond the statutory time limit. The Council also breached regulation 11(4) of the EIR by failing to provide its internal review response within the required 40 working days. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
EIR 12(3): Complaint not upheld EIR 13(1): Complaint not upheld EIR 11(4): Complaint upheld EIR 5(2): Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50845050

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.643504

Western Sahara Campaign UK v Secretary of State for International Trade and Another: Admn 5 Dec 2022

Judges:

Mrs Justice Cockerill

Citations:

[2022] EWHC 3108 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Taxation (Cross-border) Trade Act 2018 9, Customs Tariff (Preferential Trade Arrangements) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, Customs (Tariff Quotas) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.683604

The London Hair Lab (Trade Mark: Opposition): IPO 12 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 – Treatment of descriptive / allusive elements
Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Issues To Do With Goods / Services – Goods v retail services
Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Average Customer – Identification of
Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Average Customer – Different consumer groups
Other Issues – Priority dates

Citations:

[2019] UKIntelP o40319

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.660992

Hybrid (Trade Mark: Opposition): IPO 11 Jul 2019

Section 3(6) Bad Faith – No intention to use
Section 3(6) Bad Faith – Knowledge of opponent’s mark outside the UK
Section 5(4) Earlier Rights – Passing off (Issues arising from Registry proceedings)
Procedural Issues – Cross-examination
Procedural Issues – Decisions in other jurisdictions

Citations:

[2019] UKIntelP o38919

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.660985

Oyston and Another v Rubin and Another: ChD 10 Feb 2021

Judges:

Miles J

Citations:

[2021] EWHC 448 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Oyston and Another v Rubin and Another ChD 19-Jun-2020
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Oyston and Another v Rubin and Another ChD 4-May-2021
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insolvency, Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.659549

Oyston and Another v Rubin and Another: ChD 19 Jun 2020

Judges:

Clark M

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 1726 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Oyston and Another v Rubin and Another ChD 10-Feb-2021
. .
See Also – Oyston and Another v Rubin and Another ChD 4-May-2021
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Company, Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.652228

Shabab, Regina v: CACD 14 Mar 2018

The appellant pleaded guilty to two counts of bringing a prohibited article into prison. The first of those counts related to a List A item (cannabis), contrary to section 40B(1) of the Prison Act 1952. The second count related to a List B item (a mobile phone), contrary to section 40C(1)(a) of the same Act. He was sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently.

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Crim 3021

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.651734

Falgor Commercial SA v Alsabahia Inc: CA 1986

Granting occupational licences of a serviced apartment was a breach of a covenant not to use the premises otherwise than as a single private residence.

Citations:

(1986) 18 HLR 123

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Triplerose Ltd v Beattie and Another UTLC 4-Jun-2020
Short term visitor sublets were breach of lease
Landlord and Tenant – Breach of Covenant – covenant against use of flat other than as a private dwelling house and prohibiting use for trade or business – whether breached by use of flat as serviced apartment advertised on internet booking sites – . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.651765

Florent v Horez: CA 1948

The tenant who held numerous meetings of a Turkish Cypriot cultural committee at his flat. The landlord objected that this was carrying n a business and a breach of the Lease.
Held: A leisure activity, hobby, occupation, social duty or other similar activity carried on by a tenant in a dwellinghouse does not amount to the carrying on of a business there unless there is some direct commercial involvement or the use is more than ancillary or subordinate to the residential use. It was a question of degree whether on the one hand, the use of premises was ancillary or subordinate to their residential use and therefore not a breach, or, on the other hand, amounted to carrying on business (in the widest sense) on the premises.

Citations:

(1948) 48 P and CR 166

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Triplerose Ltd v Beattie and Another UTLC 4-Jun-2020
Short term visitor sublets were breach of lease
Landlord and Tenant – Breach of Covenant – covenant against use of flat other than as a private dwelling house and prohibiting use for trade or business – whether breached by use of flat as serviced apartment advertised on internet booking sites – . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.651766

Ogunsanya and Another v General Medical Council: QBD 11 Jun 2020

Claimants’ CPR Part 8 claim for a declaration (and associated injunctive relief) that the Defendant has no power to investigate the First Claimant pursuant to the Medical Act 1983 (‘the 1983 Act’), in circumstances in which the First Claimant, who is both a registered medical practitioner and a solicitor, was acting in his capacity as a solicitor.

Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 1500 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health Professions, Legal Professions

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.651708

ABC v Principal Reporter and Another (Scotland): SC 18 Jun 2020

These appeals concern the role of siblings in the procedures by which children’s hearings in Scotland make compulsory supervision orders (‘CSOs’). The principal issue concerns the procedures required to make sure that public authorities comply with the obligation in article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’) to show respect for the private or family life established between a sibling and a child who might be the subject of a CSO.

Judges:

Lady Hale, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Hodge, Lady Arden

Citations:

[2020] UKSC 26

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Children, Human Rights

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.651752

Bresco Electrical Services Ltd v Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Ltd: SC 17 Jun 2020

This case is about the relationship between (a) the adjudication regime for building disputes and (b) a rule of insolvency law called insolvency set-off.

Judges:

Lord Reed (President), Lord Briggs, Lord Kitchin, Lord Hamblen, Lord Leggatt

Citations:

[2020] UKSC 25

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Arbitration, Insolvency, Construction

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.651724

Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd v Visa Europe Services Llc and Others: SC 17 Jun 2020

This appeal concerns whether certain rules of the Visa and Mastercard payment card schemes have the effect of restricting competition, in breach of article 101(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and equivalent national legislation.
Held: The banks’ appeal failed.

Judges:

Lord Reed (President), Lord Hodge, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Sales, Lord Hamblen

Citations:

[2020] UKSC 24

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Commercial, Banking, European

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.651725

Chief Constable West Midlands Police, Regina (on The Application of) v Panel Chair, Police Misconduct Panel and Another: Admn 4 Jun 2020

Application for judicial review brought by the Chief Constable of West Midlands Police, the Claimant, against the Decision on Outcome reached by the Police Misconduct Panel following a gross misconduct hearing concerning the interested party, Officer A.

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 1400 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Police

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.651202

Wilson Barca Llp and Another v Shirin (Jurisdictional and Time Points; Harassment): EAT 11 Jun 2020

JURISDICTIONAL AND TIME POINTS; HARASSMENT
In a reserved judgment on liability, the Employment Tribunal upheld four allegations of harassment on the ground of the Claimant’s age, and two allegations of harassment on the ground of her sex. Ten months later, on the first day of the remedy hearing, the Respondents contended for the first time that all six of the upheld allegations had been brought outside the statutory time limit. Although the Claimant did not respond to this point by making an application to extend time, in its reserved judgment on remedy the Employment Tribunal decided that it was just and equitable to extend time. It awarded the Claimant pounds 20,000 for injury to her feelings under the Vento guidelines before making adjustments for inflation, the Simmons v Castle uplift and interest. It also awarded pounds 5,000 aggravated damages in respect of the harassment on the ground of sex.
On appeal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal rejected the Respondents’ challenge to the remedy judgment on the time issue, holding that this was based on the erroneous premise that the Claimant ought to have made an application to extend time once the Respondents had raised the issue at the remedy hearing. The issues determined by the liability judgment were res judicata; the Respondents had never attempted to overturn the liability judgment. It was not, therefore, necessary for the Claimant to make an application for an extension of time as the Respondents contended. In any event, the Employment Appeal Tribunal would have upheld the Employment Tribunal’s decision to extend time in these circumstances, had it been necessary to do so.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal also rejected the Respondents’ arguments that the Employment Tribunal had been wrong in principle to make awards of compensation for injury to feelings and of aggravated damages. However, it upheld the appeal against the amount of compensation awarded. The Employment Tribunal’s reasoning was either internally inconsistent or was insufficient to explain the Tribunal’s reasons for the amount of the award. The assessment of compensation was remitted to the same panel of the Employment Tribunal for redetermination.

Citations:

[2020] UKEAT 0276 – 19 – 1106

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.651615