Mountpace Ltd v London Borough of Haringey: Admn 28 Mar 2012

The case concerns the criminal liability under the ‘duty of care’ provisions of section 34 of the 1990 Act, of a commercial freeholder of property who verbally contracted out renovations works on the property, including the removal and disposal of any waste, to an independent contractor who on two successive days in December 2009 disposed of waste to a ‘fly tipper’ in contravention of section 33 of the 1990 Act.

Judges:

Lord Justice Stanley Burnton
And
Mr Justice King

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 698 (Admin), [2013] PTSR 664, [2012] WLR(D) 100, [2012] Env LR 32

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Environmental Protection Act 1990

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime, Environment

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.510724

Rostami, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 7 Jun 2013

This is the latest in a series of claims concerning the rights of those who seek asylum during the often protracted period in which their status as refugees is being determined.

Judges:

Mr Justice Hickinbottom

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 1494 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.510198

Mustafa, Regina (on The Application of) v The Office of The Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education: Admn 23 May 2013

The question raised by this case is whether a university’s decision that a student has committed plagiarism is final or whether it can form the subject of a complaint to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Males

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 1379 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Education

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.510032

Maclennan v Morgan Sindall (Infrastructure) Plc: QBD 17 Dec 2013

The defendant had applied for an order limiting the number of witnesses sought to be called by the claimant (43).
Held: The power to prohibit the calling of witnesses under CPR r 32.2(3) sat towards the more extreme end of the court’s powers and was a power to be considered after less intrusive measures had been considered and rejected.

Judges:

Green J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 4044 (QB), [2014] WLR(D) 509, [2014] 1 WLR 2462, [2013] WLR(D) 509

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 32.2(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.519049

EO and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 17 May 2013

Judges:

The Hon Mr Justice Burnett

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 1236 (Admin), [2013] WLR(D) 190

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedTaylor, Regina v SC 13-Nov-2019
(Redacted) The court was asked to consider the meaning of ‘torture’ from events in a rebellion in Liberia in 1990. The CACD certified the following point of law of general public importance: ‘What is the correct interpretation of the term ‘person . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.509316

Prima Equity Ltd v West Bromwich Commercial Ltd: ChD 26 Mar 2013

Application by the claimant Prima Equity Limited (‘Prima’) for summary judgment under CPR Part 24 on its claim for declaratory relief and for an order for an account.

Judges:

Mr John Jarvis QC
(Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 1450 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Contract

Updated: 15 April 2022; Ref: scu.515324

Harcus Sinclair (A Firm) v Buttonwood Legal Capital Ltd and Others: ChD 20 May 2013

Interpleader action brought by a firm of solicitors holding monies entrusted to them on a stakeholder basis in connection with an agreement for the funding of substantial litigation brought in the Commercial Court. They seek the determination of the court as to whether and to whom they should now pay those monies, but have not otherwise taken any part in the proceedings, which are in effect a contest between the first defendants, who are the lenders under the agreement, and the third to fourth defendants, the last two of whom are the borrowers, the second defendants being the Borrower’s solicitors.

Judges:

David Donaldson QC
Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 1193 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Legal Professions

Updated: 15 April 2022; Ref: scu.515325

Various Claimants v MGN: ChD 22 Mar 2018

Application by the defendant MGN to vary the early disclosure provisions which apply to this litigation. This litigation is managed litigation of claims against MGN based on unlawful phone hacking and other unlawful information gathering techniques.

Judges:

Mann j

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 708 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Jury

Updated: 07 April 2022; Ref: scu.608332

Golden Ocean Group Ltd v Humpuss Intermoda Transportasi Tbk Ltd and Another: ComC 16 May 2013

The ‘Barito’) Application for permission to serve an arbitration claim form out of the jurisdiction on the First and Second Defendants and for an interim ‘anti-arbitration’ injunction to restrain the Second Defendant from pursuing arbitration proceedings in Singapore.
Popplewell J also carefully explored the burden and standard of proof, and the correct weight to be given under English law to the principle of separability and the doctrine of Kompetenz-Kompetenz. He emphasised that as a matter of principle the court can finally decide issues under s9(4) but it has a wide discretion and practical considerations may be significant. He provided useful guidance as to the relevant considerations for the court in choosing whether to decide the matter summarily, give directions for trial, or stay the matter in order to leave it to the Tribunal at [59(6)]:
‘If D has brought himself within section 9(1) it is for C to satisfy the court that the arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of having effect under section 9(4). If it is not clear on the evidence before the court whether the agreement is ‘null and void etc’, the court may order the trial of that issue, but is not bound to do so. If it declines to do so, it will be sufficient for D to show an arguable case that the arbitration agreement is valid and effective because in such circumstances C will have failed to discharge the burden imposed on him by section 9(4) of satisfying the court that the agreement by which he agreed to refer the matters in dispute is ‘null and void etc’.
In deciding whether to order the trial of the arbitrability issue under section 9(1) or section 9(4), or whether to grant a stay under the inherent jurisdiction to permit the arbitrability issue to be resolved by the tribunal, the court will consider all the circumstances of the case. Factors which are likely to be of significance include the following: ‘(a) Whether the arbitrability issue is likely to fall to be resolved by the court in any event, for example in the context of enforcement of an award. If so, this will be a powerful factor in favour of the court deciding the issue rather than leaving it in the first instance to the arbitral tribunal.
(b) Whether the resolution of the arbitrability issue will involve findings of fact or law which impact on the substantive rights and obligations of the parties in relation to their underlying dispute, or only affects the question whether such rights and liabilities are arbitrable. In the latter case, the court can conduct the inquiry without risk of interfering with D’s right to have his chosen tribunal decide the disputes, because if the issue is resolved in D’s favour, there will be a stay in favour of the tribunal without the court having trespassed into considering issues which affect the merits of the underlying dispute. On the other hand where, as is not uncommon, the determination of the issue whether there is an effective agreement to arbitrate is bound up with the issues which arise in relation to the underlying dispute, there is a balance of prejudice to each party to be taken into consideration. It may be more efficient and just to leave the arbitrability issue to be dealt with by the tribunal where, if the issue is resolved in D’s favour, he can at the same time obtain an award on the merits from his chosen tribunal. Against this is to be weighed the risk of any prejudice to C in being subjected to the process and decision of a tribunal on which he may not have agreed to confer jurisdiction.
(c) The length and cost of the inquiry into the arbitrability issue and how quickly it will be resolved. Where the issue cannot be resolved without a lengthy investigation, the court will be reluctant to order the issue to be tried in advance of the arbitration. This will be especially so where the trial of the issue is likely to extend widely over the substantive matters in dispute between the parties, in which case considerations of cost and convenience may be decisive: ordering a trial of the arbitrability issue will normally be inappropriate where the trial cannot be confined to a relatively circumscribed area of investigation.
(d) Whether there have been or will be related proceedings addressing the arbitrability issue between the same or other parties. If the arbitrability dispute has been or will be addressed or resolved in other proceedings, the court will be anxious to do what it can to minimise the risk of inconsistent judgments and provide for orderly case management.
(e) The degree of connection between the arbitrability dispute and England. In this context the law applicable to the arbitrability issue may be of significance. Where the law governing the issue of the existence, effectiveness or applicability of the agreement to arbitrate is English law, that will be a factor in favour of the issue being resolved by the English court rather than a foreign tribunal, unless it is clear that there is no real dispute as to the legal principles, or that the foreign tribunal is as well placed to apply those principles as an English court. Other relevant factors in this context will include the relative convenience for the parties of contesting the arbitrability question before the English court, on the one hand, or the arbitral tribunal on the other. Factors such as the location and language of witnesses and documents and other factors commonly taken into account when considering the Spiliada discretion will here be relevant. Also relevant in this context would be the potential applicability of an English jurisdiction clause if the agreement to arbitrate did not exist or was ineffective or inapplicable, as in Claxton.
(f) The strength of the arguments on the arbitrability issue. The court will not conduct a mini trial in determining whether to direct a trial of the issue. But as in other interlocutory contexts, if the court can determine on a brief perusal of the materials before it that one party has a very strong case on the arbitrability issue, the court will take this into account.
(g) The nature and quality of the arbitral tribunal and arbitral process, including the supervisory jurisdiction of the curial court. Where the English court declines to resolve the issue and leaves it to the Kompetenz- competence of the tribunal in the first instance, C has the comfort that if he is right in his contention that there is no applicable or effective agreement to arbitrate, he will have the opportunity to establish that before the tribunal, which will then decline jurisdiction. The degree of comfort will depend upon the quality of the tribunal and of the arbitral process, supported by resort to the courts having supervisory jurisdiction over the arbitral process. The degree of prejudice to C in requiring him to entrust the issue to a tribunal with whom it may transpire he has not agreed that it should be entrusted will depend to which the tribunal can be trusted to reach the correct answer.’

Judges:

The Hon Mr Justice Popplewell

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 1240 (Comm), [2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 421, [2013] 2 All ER (Comm) 1025, [2013] 1 CLC 929

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

ApprovedJoint Stock Company ‘Aeroflot-Russian Airlines’ v Berezovsky and Others CA 2-Jul-2013
Aikens LJ explained: ‘It is necessary first to analyse the structure of section 9(1) and (4) of the AA 1996, to see where the burden lies and what standard of proof is required when there is an application for a stay of proceedings because one side . .
CitedSoleymani v Nifty Gateway Llc ComC 24-Mar-2022
Arbitration jurisdiction applications stayed
The claimant sought declaratory relief as to the basis of a purchase after he placed a bid for a blockchain-based non-fungible token (also known as an NFT) associated with an artwork by the artist known as Beeple titled ‘Abundance’. The court was . .
CitedSoleymani v Nifty Gateway Llc ComC 24-Mar-2022
Arbitration jurisdiction applications stayed
The claimant sought declaratory relief as to the basis of a purchase after he placed a bid for a blockchain-based non-fungible token (also known as an NFT) associated with an artwork by the artist known as Beeple titled ‘Abundance’. The court was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Arbitration

Updated: 03 April 2022; Ref: scu.509275

Joint Stock Company ‘Aeroflot-Russian Airlines’ v Berezovsky and Others: CA 2 Jul 2013

Aikens LJ explained: ‘It is necessary first to analyse the structure of section 9(1) and (4) of the AA 1996, to see where the burden lies and what standard of proof is required when there is an application for a stay of proceedings because one side asserts that two parties are bound by an arbitration agreement to submit the disputes being litigated to arbitration and the other side asserts that there was no concluded arbitration agreement or it is ‘null and void’. Section 9(1) and (4) are based on article II of the New York Convention 1958. That stipulates that each contracting state ‘shall’ recognise arbitration agreements in writing and it further obliges a court of a contracting state to refer the parties to arbitration if requested to do so by one of the parties in the context of an action in a matter which is the subject of an arbitration agreement, unless the court ‘finds that the said agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed’.
That has been translated into the terms of section 9(1) so as to give a party the right to apply for a stay of proceedings ‘in respect of a matter which under the [arbitration] agreement is to be referred to arbitration’. Therefore, it seems to me in principle that there is a burden on the party asserting that there is: (a) a concluded arbitration agreement as defined in the 1996 Act; and (b) that it covers the disputes that are the subject of the court proceedings, to prove that this is the case. This is borne out by the authorities. If the party seeking a stay cannot prove both (a) and (b), then there is no jurisdiction to grant a stay under section 9(1) and (4) of the AA 1996. However, if the court considers that it cannot decide those issues for itself in a summary fashion on the written evidence, it has two other options, as this court made clear in Al-Naimi v Islamic Press Agency Inc.40 It can direct an issue to be tried, pursuant to CPR 62.8(3), or it can stay the proceedings (under its inherent jurisdiction) so that the putative arbitral panel can decide the issue of the existence of the arbitration agreement, pursuant to section 30 of the AA 1996. If the court decides that it will and can determine whether or not there was concluded arbitration agreement on the written evidence before it then, in my view, the authorities establish that it is for the party asserting the existence of the concluded arbitration clause to prove it on a balance of probabilities. As I point out below, the position appears to be different if the court decides, on an application for a stay, that it cannot, on the materials before it, determine whether there was a concluded arbitration agreement.
Under section 9(4) the court ‘shall grant a stay’ unless ‘satisfied’ that the arbitration agreement is ‘null and void, [or] inoperative . . .’. This means, in my view, that once the first party has established the existence of an apparently concluded relevant arbitration agreement and that it covers the matters in dispute in the proceedings, it is for the party resisting a stay to ‘satisfy’ the court apparently existing arbitration agreement is ‘null and void’.
. . .
As for the standard of proof that must be achieved by a party wishing to establish that an arbitration agreement is ‘null and void’ or ‘inoperative’, the starting point must be the wording of section 9(4). That stipulates that a stay will be granted unless the court is ‘satisfied’ that the arbitration agreement is ‘null and void’ or ‘inoperative’ or ‘incapable of being performed’. The wording in article II of the New York Convention is stronger: it states ‘unless [the court] finds that’ the arbitration agreement is ‘null and void’ and so forth. The words ‘satisfied’ and ‘find’ suggest that, in the context of civil proceedings in the English court, the standard of proof which must be attained in order that the court should refuse a stay is one of the balance of probabilities.
I think that this must be correct. After all, it is for the court finally to decide the issue of whether or not to refuse a stay because the arbitration agreement is ‘null and void’ or ‘inoperative’. No other tribunal has or can have this jurisdiction.
In theory I suppose the court could order that there be a trial of an issue to determine whether the arbitration agreement was ‘null and void’ or ‘inoperative’. But if the evidence and possible findings going to the issue of whether the arbitration agreement is ‘null and void’ or ‘inoperative’ also impinge on the substantive rights and obligations of the parties the court is unlikely to do so unless such a trial can be confined to ‘a relatively circumscribed area of ‘investigation’. Otherwise, in such a case, where the court is satisfied of the existence of the arbitration agreement and that the matters in dispute are within its scope, then logically it must be for the arbitral tribunal finally to decide the ‘section 9(4) matters’, assuming it has competence-competence to do so. In such a case, the right course for the court to take is to grant a stay under section 9(4) and let the arbitral tribunal get on with determining the dispute.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Laws
Lord Justice Aikens
And
Mr Justice Mann

Citations:

[2013] EWCA Civ 784, [2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 242, [2013] 2 CLC 206

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Arbitration Act 1996 9(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

ApprovedGolden Ocean Group Ltd v Humpuss Intermoda Transportasi Tbk Ltd and Another ComC 16-May-2013
The ‘Barito’) Application for permission to serve an arbitration claim form out of the jurisdiction on the First and Second Defendants and for an interim ‘anti-arbitration’ injunction to restrain the Second Defendant from pursuing arbitration . .

Cited by:

CitedSoleymani v Nifty Gateway Llc ComC 24-Mar-2022
Arbitration jurisdiction applications stayed
The claimant sought declaratory relief as to the basis of a purchase after he placed a bid for a blockchain-based non-fungible token (also known as an NFT) associated with an artwork by the artist known as Beeple titled ‘Abundance’. The court was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Arbitration, Jurisdiction

Updated: 03 April 2022; Ref: scu.512122

Wm and James Douglas v Sir G Colebrooke and Co: HL 1789

This case is reported in Mor. p. 1605, 18th July 1780, and is stated by Professor Bell (Com. vol. i. p. 416, n. 2.) to have been affirmed on appeal; but no appeal case has been found, and no trace of it in the Journals of the House of Lords.

Citations:

[1789] UKHL 3 – Paton – 682a

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Jury

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.580993

Commercial First Business Ltd v Atkins: ChD 13 Jul 2012

(1) in what circumstances is a mortgagee of commercial investment property entitled to withhold its consent to a letting of that property, where it is a term of the mortgage that ‘the Mortgagor will not let or grant a licence or tenancy in respect of the Property, or any part of it (nor agree to do so) without the prior written consent of the Lender’; and (2) what consequences follow if such a mortgagee withholds its consent in circumstances where it is not entitled to do so. Whilst these questions arise in the specific context of a mortgage of commercial investment property, the answers may have a potentially wider application for mortgagors of ‘buy-to-let’ residential properties.

Judges:

His Honour Judge Hodge QC
Sitting as a Judge of the High Court

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 4388 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 07 February 2022; Ref: scu.520886

M v M and Others: FD 14 Aug 2013

Application by the wife for an order for financial relief under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 following her divorce in Russia from her husband.

Judges:

Mrs. Justice Eleanor King DBE

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 2534 (Fam)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Family

Updated: 03 February 2022; Ref: scu.514462

Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency: Admn 16 Jul 2013

Judges:

Mr Justice Edwards-Stuart

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 1966 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See AlsoNewby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency (No 2) Admn 26-Jul-2013
. .
See AlsoNewby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency and Others Admn 24-Oct-2013
. .
See AlsoNewby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency (No 4) Admn 22-Nov-2013
The claimant sought an order to allow it to continue to produce meat products for sale and an associated costs award. . .
See AlsoNewby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency (No 7) Admn 7-May-2014
. .
See AlsoNewby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency and Another Admn 21-May-2014
. .
See AlsoNewby Foods Ltd v Food Standards Agency ECJ 16-Oct-2014
ECJ Judgment – Protection of health – Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 – Hygiene rules for food of animal origin – Annex I, points 1.14 and 1.15 – Concepts of ‘mechanically separated meat’ and ‘meat preparations’ – . .
See AlsoNewby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency Admn 23-Mar-2016
Application of principles identified by ECJ on reference as to to the process of separating fresh meat from flesh bearing bones of pork and from chicken carcasses carried out by Newby. . .
See AlsoNewby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency CA 25-May-2017
Appeal by the Food Standards Agency against a decision in which he allowed in part a claim for judicial review by Newby Foods Limited and held, inter alia, that certain chicken and pork products manufactured by Newby should not be classified as . .
See AlsoNewby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency SC 3-Apr-2019
The parties disputed the classification and labelling of mechanically separated meats (‘MSM’) under EU law. The ECJ had imposed a moratorium on certain products. Newby challenged that unsuccessfully, but now Newby appealed to the Supreme Court on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Consumer

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.512396

Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency and Others: Admn 24 Oct 2013

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 3184 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoNewby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency Admn 16-Jul-2013
. .
See AlsoNewby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency (No 2) Admn 26-Jul-2013
. .

Cited by:

CitedNewby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency (No 4) Admn 22-Nov-2013
The claimant sought an order to allow it to continue to produce meat products for sale and an associated costs award. . .
See AlsoNewby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency (No 7) Admn 7-May-2014
. .
See AlsoNewby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency and Another Admn 21-May-2014
. .
See AlsoNewby Foods Ltd v Food Standards Agency ECJ 16-Oct-2014
ECJ Judgment – Protection of health – Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 – Hygiene rules for food of animal origin – Annex I, points 1.14 and 1.15 – Concepts of ‘mechanically separated meat’ and ‘meat preparations’ – . .
See AlsoNewby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency Admn 23-Mar-2016
Application of principles identified by ECJ on reference as to to the process of separating fresh meat from flesh bearing bones of pork and from chicken carcasses carried out by Newby. . .
See AlsoNewby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency CA 25-May-2017
Appeal by the Food Standards Agency against a decision in which he allowed in part a claim for judicial review by Newby Foods Limited and held, inter alia, that certain chicken and pork products manufactured by Newby should not be classified as . .
See AlsoNewby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency SC 3-Apr-2019
The parties disputed the classification and labelling of mechanically separated meats (‘MSM’) under EU law. The ECJ had imposed a moratorium on certain products. Newby challenged that unsuccessfully, but now Newby appealed to the Supreme Court on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Consumer

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.517006

Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency (No 2): Admn 26 Jul 2013

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 2132 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoNewby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency Admn 16-Jul-2013
. .

Cited by:

See AlsoNewby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency and Others Admn 24-Oct-2013
. .
See AlsoNewby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency (No 4) Admn 22-Nov-2013
The claimant sought an order to allow it to continue to produce meat products for sale and an associated costs award. . .
See AlsoNewby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency (No 7) Admn 7-May-2014
. .
See AlsoNewby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency and Another Admn 21-May-2014
. .
See AlsoNewby Foods Ltd v Food Standards Agency ECJ 16-Oct-2014
ECJ Judgment – Protection of health – Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 – Hygiene rules for food of animal origin – Annex I, points 1.14 and 1.15 – Concepts of ‘mechanically separated meat’ and ‘meat preparations’ – . .
See AlsoNewby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency Admn 23-Mar-2016
Application of principles identified by ECJ on reference as to to the process of separating fresh meat from flesh bearing bones of pork and from chicken carcasses carried out by Newby. . .
See AlsoNewby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency CA 25-May-2017
Appeal by the Food Standards Agency against a decision in which he allowed in part a claim for judicial review by Newby Foods Limited and held, inter alia, that certain chicken and pork products manufactured by Newby should not be classified as . .
See AlsoNewby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency SC 3-Apr-2019
The parties disputed the classification and labelling of mechanically separated meats (‘MSM’) under EU law. The ECJ had imposed a moratorium on certain products. Newby challenged that unsuccessfully, but now Newby appealed to the Supreme Court on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Consumer

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.513747