Watts v Watts: CA 21 Dec 2015

The barrister for one of the parties was junior Counsel to the fee-paid judge in another case, which they had been working on together for the past year. The opponent appealed a refusal of the judge to recuse herself.
Held: The appeal failed.
Sales LJ concluded: ‘i) The notional fair-minded and informed observer would know about the professional standards applicable to practising members of the Bar and to barristers who serve as part-time deputy judges and would understand that those standards are part of a legal culture in which ethical behaviour is expected and high ethical standards are achieved, reinforced by fears of severe criticism by peers and potential disciplinary action if they are departed from: Taylor v Lawrence [2001] EWCA Civ 119, [33]-[36]; Taylor v Lawrence [2002] EWCA Civ 90; [2003] QB 528, [61]-[63]. These aspects of the legal culture of the Bench and legal professionals are not undermined by the fact that some litigation is now funded by means of CFAs;
ii) The notional fair-minded and informed observer would understand that a part-time judge’s approach to the case she is trying and to her relationships with other professionals will be governed by these professional standards. There is no reason to think that a judge would allow her professional training and ethics to be overridden by a concern not to upset a junior counsel she is leading in other litigation. Moreover, the judge would know that the junior counsel would himself understand that she is bound by strict professional standards, and hence would have no expectation that she would do anything other than act in accordance with them. So the judge would not expect any disgruntlement or difficulty to arise in her relationship with the junior counsel even if she makes a decision adverse to him in the case she is trying. Accordingly, the idea that the judge would adjust her behaviour as judge to avoid upsetting the junior counsel is far-fetched indeed. The notional fair-minded and informed observer would not consider that there was any genuine possibility of this occurring;
iii) . . The position is underlined by Smith v Kvaerner Cementation Foundations Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 242; [2007] 1 WLR 370. In that case, a personal injury claim was tried by a practising barrister and part-time judge sitting as a recorder, who was the head of the chambers to which both counsel for the claimant and counsel for the defendant belonged and who had also acted for the defendant or associated companies in the past and might do so in the future. This court rejected the suggestion that an appearance of bias arose by reason of the connection between the recorder and counsel through being members of the same chambers: [17]-[19]; it was only because the recorder regarded himself as having an on-going barrister-client relationship with the defendant that this court held he should have recused himself. Similarly, in Resolution Chemicals at [46] this court referred to the idea that the reasoning in Lawal ‘would preclude a judge from hearing a case in which his former pupil master or regular instructing solicitors were acting for one of the parties, or a deputy High Court judge from ever hearing a case in which a more senior member of his or her chambers was acting for one of the parties’ as something which it regarded as obviously untenable;
iv) As both the Taylor v Lawrence judgments and these other decisions indicate, relationships between members of the Bar, or between members of the Bar and their clients, can be much closer than that between the deputy judge and counsel for the respondent in the present case, yet because the relationships are mediated through known professional standards no appearance of bias arises.’

Judges:

Sales LJ, Cobb J, Sir Stanley Burnton

Citations:

[2015] EWCA Civ 1297

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Ameyaw v McGoldrick and Others QBD 6-Jul-2020
Recusal Refused – former Pupil Master
Request for recusal – the judge was said to have been a member of the same chambers as counsel for the claimant and had been his mentor.
Held: Refused: ‘It was untenable to contend that there was an appearance of bias in circumstances where . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Wills and Probate

Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.558065

Waterco Limited, Tandon and Cleine (Patent): IPEC 8 Apr 2015

An application under rule 10(2) of the Patent Rules 2007 was filed by Waterco Limited to mention Kenneth Cleine as a joint inventor along with Pradeep Kumar Tandon. Pradeep Kumar Tandon and Kenneth Cleine subsequently filed written consent in support of the application. As such, the comptroller considered the application to be unopposed and found that Kenneth Cleine should be mentioned as a joint inventor along with Pradeep Kumar Tandon in the granted patent for the invention and directed that an addendum slip mentioning Kenneth Cleine as a joint inventor be prepared for the granted patent for the invention.

Citations:

[2015] UKIntelP o15415

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.545470

Secretary of State for Defence v Turner Estate Solutions Ltd: TCC 30 Apr 2015

The defendant company had contracted for construction works at HMNB Clyde. The contract provided for payment to vary according to actual costs and a profit margin, but subject to a maximum. The costs would now well exceed the maximum charge, and argued that since the parties had ceased to use the change procedures, it was entitled to renegotiate and claim their actual costs and a profit margin.

Judges:

Coulson J

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 1150 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Construction, Contract

Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.546221

France v Commission: ECFI 30 Apr 2015

ECJ (Judgment) EAGGF – Guarantee Section – EAGF and EAFRD – Expenditure excluded from financing – Support measures for rural development – areas with natural handicaps – flat-rate financial correction – Expenditure by France – load test – Checks on site – Procedural safeguards

Judges:

G. Berardis, P

Citations:

T-259/13, [2015] EUECJ T-259/13, ECLI: EU: T: 2015: 250, [2018] EUECJ T-259/13RENV

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

European

Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.546222

Trust Risk Group Spa v AmTrust Europe Ltd: CA 30 Apr 2015

The appeal was as to a jurisdiction dispute arising from the breakdown of a business relationship about the placement of medical malpractice insurance in the Italian market. The underlying question was whether the contractual arrangements between TRG and ATEL consist of a single composite and overarching agreement, a ‘Framework Agreement’ to which an earlier agreement, a Terms of Business Agreement appended to it as a Schedule, is subordinate, or whether the Framework Agreement and the ToBA are two freestanding contracts.

Judges:

Elias, Beatson, Christopher Clarke LJJ

Citations:

[2015] EWCA Civ 437, [2016] 1 All ER (Comm) 325, [2017] 1 CLC 456, [2015] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 154

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Amtrust Europe Ltd v Trust Risk Group Spa ComC 10-Dec-2014
The parties disputed sums said to be due under arrangements selling medical malpractice insurance in Italy.
Held: ATEL had a ‘good arguable case’ that the ToBA continued as an agreement and was not superseded by the ‘Framework Agreement’, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Jurisdiction, Contract

Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.546214

Rotherham Action Group Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council: Admn 30 Apr 2015

The claimant challenged the defendant’s decision approving the designation of four areas in Rotherham as being subject to selective licensing pursuant to section 80 of the Housing Act 2004.

Judges:

Stewart J

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 1216 (Admin), [2015] HLR 34, [2015] PTSR 1312, [2015] LLR 575

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 2004
880

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.546219

Norfolk Constabulary (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 26 Oct 2021

The complainant has requested information relating to the number of active duty serving police officers stationed throughout the force broken down by police station and geographic area from Norfolk Constabulary. The Commissioner’s decision is that Norfolk Constabulary properly engaged section 31(1) and the public interest lies in maintaining the exemption. Therefore no steps are to be taken as a result of this decision.
FOI 31(1)(a): Complaint not upheld FOI 31(1)(b): Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO ic-67158

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.675025

Thames Valley Police (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 17 Oct 2022

The complainant requested information relating to the non-compliance and enforcement of 20mph speed zones via Fixed Penalty Notices in Oxford from Thames Valley Police (TVP). Thames Valley Police provided the complainant with a link which it said contained the requested information. From the evidence provided to the Commissioner in this case, it is clear that TVP failed to provide a definitive statement on whether it actually held information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that TVP has failed to comply with its duties under section 1(1)(a) of FOIA. It has also breached section 10(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires TVP to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. TVP must confirm or deny that it holds the requested information: and If it does hold the information, disclose it, or provide a refusal notice in accordance with its obligations under section 17 of FOIA.
FOI 1(1)(a): Complaint upheld FOI 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2022] UKICO 157418

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.683129

AB and others v British Coal Corporation and Another: ComC 18 May 2007

Resolution of disputes that have arisen between four claimants and the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) in relation to the smoking history of four miners, (three of them now deceased), in respect of whom claims for damages have been made within the British Coal Respiratory Disease Litigation (BCRDL).

Judges:

Swift J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 1295 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – AB and others v British Coal Corporation and Coal Mining Contractor Defendants QBD 22-Jun-2004
. .
See Also – AB and others v Department of Trade and Industry S/A British Coal Corporation CA 21-Dec-2005
. .
See Also – AB and others v British Coal Corporation and others CA 19-Oct-2006
A collective compensation agreement, which required affected persons to submit their claims, along with medical evidence, through authorised solicitors to be compensated on the basis of agreed damages formula, was introduced. . .

Cited by:

See Also – AB and others v British Coal Corporation (Department of Trade and Industry) QBD 27-Jun-2007
The parties disputed the effect of the Claims Handling Agreement (CHA) which regulated claims for compensation for respiratory diseases incurred by people working for the defendant as regards the circumstances for claimants with chronic bronchitis. . .
See Also – AB and others v British Coal Corporation (Department of Trade and Industry) (Costs) QBD 27-Jun-2007
. .
See Also – AB and others v British Coal Corporation (Rulings Appended) QBD 13-Aug-2007
. .
See Also – AB and others v British Coal Corporation ComC 15-Jan-2008
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury

Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.253467

The Governing Body of The University of East London (Education): ICO 24 Nov 2021

The complainant requested information from the University of East London (‘the University’) about the Post Qualified Professional Practice Programme. By the date of this notice the University had failed to provide a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University 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 University to respond to the complainant’s request in accordance with the FOIA. The University must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO ic-138342

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.675089

Royal Borough of Greenwich (Local Government): ICO 25 Oct 2022

The complainant asked a series of questions about Automatic Traffic Counters and a report concerning road closures to the Royal Borough of Greenwich (‘the Council’). The Commissioner’s decision is that, on a balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold the further information requested by the complainant.
FOI 1(1): Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2022] UKICO 156075

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.683101

Irby Upon Humber Parish Council (Local Government): ICO 11 Nov 2021

The complainant requested from Irby Upon Humber Parish Council (‘the Council’) information relating to meetings held by the Council. By the date of this notice the Council had not issued a substantive response to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council 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 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 FOIA. 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.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO ic-135958

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.675106

Craven District Council (Local Government): ICO 1 Nov 2019

The complainant requested information from Craven District Council (‘the Council’) relating to a public consultation on waste collection. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: The Council must issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA. The Council 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 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50882121

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.650284

Dixon v North Bristol NHS Trust: KBD 7 Dec 2022

Claimant’s application for an interim injunction to restrain the Defendant from providing two documents to a limited category of persons.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Nicklin

Citations:

[2022] EWHC 3127 (KB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.683816

University of Nottingham (Education): ICO 2 Mar 2022

The complainant has requested the interview score that would have guaranteed entry into the course ‘Medicine A100’ for 2021. The University of Nottingham (‘the University’) withheld this information under section 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption is engaged and the public interest lies in maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require the University to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
FOI 43(2): Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2022] UKICO ic-119875

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.674975

State of Qatar v Khalifa: ComC 17 May 1999

ComC Freezing order in aid of foreign proceedings – question of whether disclosure should be ordered – proportionality and equality set over the parties.

Judges:

Thomas J

Citations:

Unreported, 17 May 1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.225408

Bristol City Council (Local Government): ICO 4 Mar 2022

The complainant has requested information relating to the purchase of a barge by the council. The council refused the request on the basis that section 43(2) of the FOI Act applies to the information (prejudice to commercial interests). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply section 43(2) to withhold the information from disclosure. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
FOI 43(2): Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2022] UKICO ic-113344

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.674941

London Borough of Croydon (Local Government): ICO 27 Oct 2022

The complainant requested information from the Council relating to the interview process and breakdown of applications for an appointee position at HAF. 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 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 Council must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2022] UKICO 19405

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.683032

Standard Bank London Ltd v Apostolakis and Another: ComC 9 Feb 2001

Banking and financial services – conflict of laws – contract – anti-suit injunction – unfair contract terms – defendants signed foreign exchange margin trading agreement in greece – proceedings in greece and england – agreement contained english jurisdiction clause but defendants acted as consumers – defendants entitled to bring proceedings in greece despite jurisdiction clause under brussels convention arts 13, 14 – jurisdiction clause not binding by virtue of unfair terms in consumer contracts regulations 1994 and 1999

Judges:

Steel J

Citations:

[2001] EWHC 493 (Comm), [2002] CLC 933, [2001] Lloyd’s Rep Bank 240, [2002] CLC 939

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Barclays Bank Plc v Kufner ComC 10-Oct-2008
barclays_kufnerComC2008
The bank sought summary judgment under a guarantee to secure a loan to purchase a luxury yacht which was to be hired out in business. The loan had been charged against the yacht, but when the yacht was re-registered, the bank failed to re-establish . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Consumer, Banking

Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.201698

Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (Local Government): ICO 11 Nov 2021

The complainant has requested information from Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (‘the Council’), regarding business plans that were submitted to it by The Piece Hall Trust, on how it plans to run The Piece Hall. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council incorrectly cited sections 40(2) – personal data and 43(2) – commercial interest, of the FOIA. It should have cited section 1 of the FOIA – information not held. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps.
FOI 1: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO ic-47315

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.675056

Melvin International SA v Poseidon Schiffahrt GmbH: ComC 18 Jun 1999

ComC Guarantee – guarantor not exempted from liability ‘…by any variation in the terms of the . . 2 underlying charterparty – whether addenda to charterparty a ‘variation’ – the relevant legal principles – the general purview of the guarantee.

Judges:

Cresswell J

Citations:

[1999] 2 All ER (Comm) 761, [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 374, [1999] CLC 1398

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Approved – The Nefeli 1986
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Triodos Bank Nv v Dobbs (No 2) CA 24-May-2005
The bank sought payment under a guarantee given by the appellant. The appellant said that the original loan agreement had been varied so as to release him. The loan had been taken out to support a business venture. After the guarantee was signed a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Banking, Transport

Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.225415

Dover District Council (Local Government): ICO 1 Nov 2022

The complainant has requested a copy of a handwritten letter sent to Dover District Council (the Council) about the addition of a conservatory to the complainant’s property. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FOS has correctly relied upon regulation 13(2) of EIR to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
EIR 13: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2022] UKICO 175981

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.683166

London Borough of Waltham Forest (Local Government): ICO 31 Jan 2020

The complainant requested a variety of information from the London Borough of Waltham Forest (the London Borough), which related to a 2017 request that the London Borough previously responded to. The Commissioner’s decision is that, in respect of questions 2, 3 and 6 of the complainant’s request, the London Borough failed to respond within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2020] UKICO fs50901214

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.651381

Kermode v Macdonald: 19 Feb 1866

A testatrix, by her will, bequeathed both general arid specific legacies, and she willed that, in case of her personal estate proving insufficient for the payment of her legacies, then the deficiency should be made up out of her real estate. By a codicil, she gave ”all my personal estate to A. C. M’. Held, that A. C. M. took the whole personal estate disbarred of the legacies ; and secondly that the general legacies still remained charged on the real estate, but that the specific legacies did not, and therefore failed.

Citations:

[1866] EngR 106, (1866) 35 Beav 607, (1866) 55 ER 1032

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Wills and Probate

Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.280817

Ministry of Justice (Central Government): ICO 17 Oct 2022

The complainant requested information about 20 cases listed on the Court Funds Office’s Unclaimed Balances index. The Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) provided the requested court locations but refused to provide the court claim/case numbers, citing both section 32 of FOIA (the exemption for court records) and 40 (the exemption for personal information). During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the MOJ additionally relied on section 31(1)(a) of FOIA (the exemption for the prevention or detection of crime). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ has correctly relied on section 32(1)(c) of FOIA to withhold the remaining requested information for the reasons set out in this notice. As he has found section 32 to be engaged, the Commissioner does not deem it necessary to consider the MOJ’s reliance on sections 31 and 40 of FOIA. No steps are required as a result of this notice.
FOI 32: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2022] UKICO 160373

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.683070

John Dickson, And Others v Walter Graham: PC 1828

By the law of Scotland, an interim curator bonis (provisional committee of the estate) may be appointed by the Court of Session, without notice to the party affected by the appointment, and without cognition or inquest before a jury.

Citations:

[1828] EngR 149, (1828) 4 Bligh NS PC 492, (1828) 5 ER 175

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Litigation Practice

Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.322913

The King v Pilkington And Shute and co: 1728

An information was brought against the defendants for a riot in soliciting an assembly, and contributing a poll for the sheriff, and co.

Citations:

[1728] EngR 472, (1728) Skin 117, (1728) 90 ER 55

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.388805

Health and Safety Executive (Other): ICO 24 Nov 2021

The complainant requested information from the Health and Safety Executive (‘the HSE’) about fees for intervention. 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-137208

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.675092