Tag: Jury

IA, Regina (on The Application of) v City of Westminster Council (Rev 1): Admn 20 May 2013

‘ significant issue relating to the operation of the decision-making process of a local housing authority making an inquiry into applications by an homeless person for accommodation and its interim duty to accommodate in cases of apparent priority need and the role of the Administrative Court when an homeless person’s applications for a section 184 decision and for interim accommodation application pending a review are refused on allegedly irrational or unlawful grounds.’

Judges:

Judge Anthony Thornton QC

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 1273 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 29 August 2022; Ref: scu.510194

T (Sri Lanka), Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 1 May 2013

‘The Claimant, a Sri Lankan Tamil refugee with a right of residence in the UK, seeks to prevent the Defendant removing her brother to Germany as a safe third country which has accepted the responsibility of dealing with his asylum claim under the provisions of the Dublin II Regulation. She does so on the basis that his removal will breach her rights as a refugee because of the likely effect on her mental health.’

Judges:

Philip Mott QC

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 1093 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 29 August 2022; Ref: scu.510195

Mauritius Commercial Bank Ltd v Hestia Holdings Ltd and Another: ComC 24 May 2013

Application by the Defendants for an order setting aside the Claim Form and staying all further proceedings on the grounds that the English court does not have jurisdiction to try the claim.

Judges:

popplewell J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 1328 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Jurisdiction

Updated: 18 August 2022; Ref: scu.510084

Actavis Group Hf v Eli Lilly and Company: CA 21 May 2013

pemetrexed

Citations:

[2013] EWCA Civ 517, [2013] RPC 37

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Actavis Group Hf v Eli Lilly and Company PatC 27-Nov-2012
Pemetrexed . .

Cited by:

See Also – Actavis UK Ltd v Eli Lilly and Company PatC 27-Nov-2013
(pemetrexed) Application by the Defendant for a stay of two claims referred to as the Fourth and Fifth Actions on the ground of alleged abuse of process. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.510007

Aspen Insurance UK Ltd v Adana Construction Ltd: ComC 20 Jun 2013

Claim by insurers for a declaration of non liability to which the insured responds seeking declarations that it is covered by the policy and entitled to have its associated defence costs paid.

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 1568 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appral from – Aspen Insurance UK Ltd v Adana Construction Ltd CA 5-Mar-2015
. .
See Also – Aspen Insurance UK Ltd v Adana Construction Ltd (Costs) CA 5-Mar-2015
Post judgment orders for costs and otherwise . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Litigation Practice

Updated: 07 August 2022; Ref: scu.510952

William Davis Ltd and Another v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Governments and Another: Admn 11 Oct 2013

One of the grounds of refusal was based on a policy E20 the effect of which was generally to exclude development in a so-called ‘green wedge’ area defined on the proposals map. Lang J recorded an argument for the developer that the policy should have been regarded as a ‘relevant policy for the supply of housing’ under paragraph 49 because ‘the restriction on development potentially affects housing development’. The judge rejected this argument summarily, saying ‘policy E20 does not relate to the supply of housing and therefore is not covered by paragraph 49’

Judges:

Lang DBE J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 3058 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Suffolk Coastal District Council v Hopkins Homes Ltd and Another SC 10-May-2017
The Court was asked as to the proper interpretation of paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework: ‘Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.516441

S, Regina (on The Application of) v The General Teaching Council for England and Another: Admn 13 Sep 2013

Issues concerning the interpretation of the Education (Induction Arrangements for School Teachers) (England) Regulations 2008, regulations under which an appeal may be pursued by a newly qualified teacher (an ‘NQT’) against a decision of a local education authority (‘the appropriate body’) that his or her compulsory induction period has not been completed satisfactorily. It raised issues concerning the extent to which it is lawful and/or appropriate for matters occurring outside the 3-month period normally constituting an induction period to be taken into account in deciding whether the NQT has or has not completed that period satisfactorily.

Judges:

Mr Justice Foskett

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 2779 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Education, Employment

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.515311

Mr Billy Briggs and Lothian Health Board (Contract Information): SIC 24 Jan 2017

Lothian Health Board (NHS Lothian) was asked for contract information relating to the construction of the new Royal Hospital for Sick Children and the adjacent Department of Clinical Neurosciences. NHS Lothian withheld some of the information requested on the basis that it was exempt in terms of various provisions of FOISA.
The Commissioner found that NHS Lothian had considered the request under the wrong legislation. The requested information was environmental information and so NHS Lothian should have considered it under the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (the EIRs).
The Commissioner required NHS Lothian to respond to the request under the EIRs.

Citations:

[2017] ScotIC 013 – 2017

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.578902

Arogundade, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills: CA 16 Jul 2013

Citations:

[2013] EWCA Civ 823, [2013] ELR 466

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Arogundade, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills Admn 7-Sep-2012
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Tigere, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills SC 29-Jul-2015
After increasing university fees, the student loan system was part funded by the government. They introduced limits to the availability of such loans, and a student must have been lawfully ordinarily resident in the UK for three years before the day . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Education

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.512389

MF (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 8 Oct 2013

The court was asked: ‘How is the reference in rule 398 to ‘exceptional circumstances’ to be understood, compatibly with Convention rights?’
Held: The Court of Appeal accepted the submission made on behalf of the Secretary of State that the reference to exceptional circumstances (an expression which had been derived from the Jeunesse line of case law) served the purpose of emphasising that, in the balancing exercise, great weight should be given to the public interest in deporting foreign criminals who did not satisfy rules 398 and 399 or 399A, and that it was only exceptionally that such foreign criminals would succeed in showing that their rights under article 8 trumped the public interest in their deportation (paras 40 and 41). The court went on to explain that this did not mean that a test of exceptionality was being applied. Rather, the word ‘exceptional’ denoted a departure from a general rule:
‘The general rule is that, in the case of a foreign prisoner to whom paragraphs 399 and 399A do not apply, very compelling reasons will be required to outweigh the public interest in deportation. These compelling reasons are the ‘exceptional circumstances’.’
The court added that ‘the exceptional circumstances to be considered in the balancing exercise involve the application of a proportionality test as required by the Strasbourg jurisprudence’
and . . ‘In our view, that is not to say that a test of exceptionality is being applied. Rather it is that, in approaching the question of whether removal is a proportionate interference with an individual’s article 8 rights, the scales are heavily weighted in favour of deportation and something very compelling (which will be ‘exceptional’) is required to outweigh the public interest in removal.’

Judges:

Lord Dyson MR, Davis, Gloster LJJ

Citations:

[2013] EWCA Civ 1192, [2013] WLR(D) 380, [2014] 1 WLR 544, [2014] INLR 18, [2014] 2 All ER 543, [2014] Imm AR 211

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Hesham Ali (Iraq) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 16-Nov-2016
The appellant, an Iraqi national had arrived in 2000 as a child, and stayed unlawfully after failure of his asylum claim. He was convicted twice of drugs offences. On release he was considered a low risk of re-offending. He had been in a serious . .
Cited – Agyarko and Ikuga, Regina (on The Applications of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 22-Feb-2017
Applications were made by foreign nationals, residing unlawfully in the UK, for leave to remain as the partners of British citizens with whom they had formed relationships during their unlawful residence, relying primarily on the duty imposed on the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.516321

Cruz City 1 Mauritius Holdings v Unitech Ltd and Others: ComC 23 May 2013

Application under s. 37(1)[1] of the Senior Courts Act 1981 for an order compelling the Defendants to provide disclosure verified by an affidavit of a proper officer of all their assets worldwide.

Judges:

Field J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 1323 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.510037

Lancaster City Council v Thomas Newall Ltd: CA 11 Jul 2013

Citations:

[2013] EWCA Civ 802

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Thomas Newell Ltd v Lancaster City Council UTLC 8-Feb-2010
COMPENSATION – compulsory purchase – preliminary issues – planning permission – whether planning permission to be assumed on the basis that land allocated in development plan – whether any other expectation of planning permission as hope value – . .
Appeal from – Thomas Newall Ltd v Lancaster City Council UTLC 15-Dec-2011
COMPENSATION – compulsory purchase – former mill building occupied by various businesses – value – whether planning permission required to use bulk of accommodation as offices – held that it was – cost of essential repairs – whether 50 per cent . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Damages

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.512314

Ozoemene and Others v Secretary of State for The Home Department (Identity and Passport Service): Admn 22 Jul 2013

Application for judicial review of the Defendant’s decision, by the Identity and Passport Service, to seize and retain the British passports of the First, Second and Third Claimants and her refusal to issue the Fourth Claimant with a British passport.

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 2167 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Administrative

Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.513748

Page and Another v Hewetts Solicitors and Another: ChD 20 Sep 2013

Claims for breach of the duties owed in contract and/or tort by the First Defendant (a firm of solicitors) and the Second Defendant (a legal executive in that firm) when acting in and about the sale of the principal asset of the estate of which the Claimants are administrators (‘the common law claims’); and for dishonestly procuring or assisting in an innocent breach of trust by the First Claimant in advising him to sell that asset (his deceased parent’s home at an undervalue to an entity associated with the Second Defendant

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 2845 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Torts – Other

Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.516283

Conductive Inkjet Technology Ltd v Uni -Pixel Displays Inc: ChD 7 Oct 2013

Application to set aside the permission granted to the claimant (‘CIT’) to serve two related claims out of the jurisdiction on the defendant (‘UPD’), on the basis that there is no jurisdiction for such service or that such jurisdiction should not be exercised.

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 2968 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Jurisdiction

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.516286

Walton Homes Ltd v Staffordshire County Council: ChD 8 Oct 2013

Short but interesting argument on the meaning and effect of an agreement for sale of land between the Defendant (1) and the Claimant (2). The dispute is over the meaning and effect of an overage clause.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Peter Smith

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 2554 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Contract

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.516331

HTC Corp v Nokia Corp: ChD 9 Sep 2013

Application to amend the grounds of invalidity in two parallel actions between HTC and Nokia. The actions concern two Nokia patents.

Judges:

Mr Justice Birss

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 2768 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 09 June 2022; Ref: scu.517764

Rap Group Plc v Customs and Excise: ChD 9 Nov 2000

Whether RAP was entitled to deduct the input tax on the supplies of services by three professional advisers in relation to the acquisition by it of Welpac plc.

Judges:

The Hon Mr Justice Patten

Citations:

[2000] EWHC 1566 (Ch), [2000] STC 980

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.515333

Tidal Energy Ltd v Bank of Scotland Plc: QBD 13 Sep 2013

The point at issue is whether an instruction to make a payment through the Clearing House Automated Payment System (‘CHAPS’) is satisfied by funds being sent to, and accepted by, the bank which maintains the account with the number and sort code identified in the instruction as the destination of the payment, albeit that the holder of that account is not the beneficiary named in the instruction.

Judges:

His Honour Judge Havelock-Allan QC

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 2780 (QB), [2013] 2 CLC 407, [2013] Bus LR 1379, [2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 605

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Banking

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.515378

Europa Oil and Gas Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Others: Admn 25 Jul 2013

mineral extraction was proposed in the Green Belt. Held; Ouseley J said that ‘any correct analysis of the proviso to NPPF 90 . . has to start from the different premise that such exploration or extraction can be appropriate . . [the] premise . . for a proper analysis is that there is nothing inherent in the works necessary, generally or commonly found for extraction, which would inevitably take it outside the scope of appropriate development in the Green Belt’ . . ‘some level of operational development for mineral extraction . . has to be appropriate and necessarily in the Green Belt without compromising the two objectives’, and ‘[were] it otherwise, the proviso would always negate the appropriateness of any mineral extraction in the Green Belt and simply make the policy pointless’.
He observed that, ‘as Green Belt policies NPPF 89 and 90 demonstrate, considerations of appropriateness, preservation of openness and conflict with Green Belt purposes are not exclusively dependent on the size of building or structures but include their purpose’. These concepts, he said, ‘are to be applied, in the light of the nature of a particular type of development’.

Judges:

Ouseley J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 2643 (Admin), [2014] 1 P and CR 3

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v North Yorkshire County Council SC 5-Feb-2020
The Court was asked whether the appellant county council, as local planning authority, correctly understood the meaning of the word ‘openness’ in the national planning policies applying to mineral working in the Green Belt, as expressed in the . .
Appeal from – Europa Oil and Gas Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Others CA 19-Jun-2014
Appeal as to an application for planning permission for exploratory drilling for hydrocarbons in the Green Belt. It raises a point of interpretation of paragraph 90 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
Held: The appeal failed.
Cited – Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v North Yorkshire County Council SC 5-Feb-2020
The Court was asked whether the appellant county council, as local planning authority, correctly understood the meaning of the word ‘openness’ in the national planning policies applying to mineral working in the Green Belt, as expressed in the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.514987

Rogers and Another v Hoyle: QBD 23 May 2013

The claimant’s relative had died in an air accident. They sought damages from the defendant pilot, seeking to rely upon the official report of the Air Accident Investigation Bureau The court was asked as to its admissibility.
Held: It was admissible.
Leggatt J said: ‘It is not, however, the function of an expert to express opinions on disputed issues of fact which do not require any expert knowledge to evaluate. However, as the judge observed, it is common to find in many expert’s reports opinions of that character, which are not helpful and to which the court would not have regard. As to those he thought it preferable: ‘to treat this as a question of weight rather than admissibility, particularly since there is no clear point at which an expert’s specialised knowledge and experience ceases to inform and give some added value to the expert’s opinions. It is a matter of degree. The more the opinions of the expert are based on special knowledge, the greater (other things being equal) the weight to be accorded to those opinions.’
Insofar as an expert’s report does no more than opine on facts which require no expertise of his to evaluate, it is inadmissible and should be given no weight on that account. But, as the judge also observed, there is nothing to be gained, except in very clear cases, from excluding or excising opinions in this category. I agree with what he said in para 117 of his judgment:
‘Such an exercise is unnecessary and disproportionate especially when such statements are intertwined with others which reflect genuine expertise and there is no clear dividing line between them. In such circumstances, the proper course is for the whole document to be before the court and for the judge at trial to take account of the report only to the extent that it reflects expertise and to disregard it in so far as it does not. As Thomas LJ trenchantly observed in Secretary of State for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform v Aaron [2008] EWCA Civ 1146 at para 39: ‘It is my experience that many experts report views on matters on which it is for the court to make its decision and not for an expert to express a view. No modern or sensible management of a case requires putting the parties to the expense of excision; a judge simply ignores that which is inadmissible’.’
The judge concluded that the whole of the Report was admissible, it being a matter for the trial judge to make use of the Report as he or she thought fit. Even if he had concluded that it contained some inadmissible material he would not have thought it sensible to engage in an editing exercise. The trial judge should see the whole report and leave out of account any part of it that was inadmissible.
Subject to the second and third grounds of appeal, I agree with this conclusion. It is not apparent to me that any part of the Report should be regarded as simply expressing an opinion on matters of fact (as opposed to recording evidence) in relation to which the expertise of the AAIB has no relevance. But even if any part of the Report was (or proves on close analysis hereafter) to have that character, the correct approach is as outlined by the judge.’

Judges:

Leggatt J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 1409 (QB), [2014] 3 WLR 148, [2015] 1 QB 265

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Hoyle v Rogers and Another CA 13-Mar-2014
The appellant had been pilot in a private plane which crashed leading to the passenger’s death. He now challenged the admission of an expert’s report, which, he said, went beyond the proper range of such a report.
Held: The report was . .
Cited – Moylett v Geldof and Another ChD 14-Mar-2018
Admissibility of parts of the Claimant’s expert report.
Held: ‘in so far as this report deals with whether this music was more likely to be composed on a guitar or on a piano, I consider that it is admissible and relevant expert evidence which . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Evidence

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.510035

Barker v Lancashire County Council: CA 23 May 2013

‘The short point for which permission to appeal has been given in this tripping case is said to be whether, granted that a claimant for the purpose of establishing liability under s. 41 of the Highways Act 1980 has to identify the particular defect in the highway that gave rise to his injury, the local authority can also refer exclusively to that particular defect when seeking to establish their statutory defence under s. 58 of the 1980 Act. Mr Barker submits that, if the local authority were in breach of duty in relation to a wider part of the highway than that containing the particular defect and if they ought to have performed the duty to maintain in such a way as to have eradicated the individual defect which caused the injury, then they should be liable notwithstanding that there was no absence of due care in relation to the individual defect that caused the accident.’

Citations:

[2013] EWCA Civ 582

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Local Government

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.510024

Thomas Cook Tour Operations Ltd and Another v Louis Hotels SA: QBD 29 Jul 2013

The claimant tour operators had suffered assorted losses after two tourists died of carbo monoxide poisoning whilst staying at the defendant’s hotel. They sought repayment of their losses, and now summary judgment.
Held: The defendant’s arguments as to breacj of contract by the claimants were with no real substance. Summary judgment given.

Judges:

Swift DBE J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 2139 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Contract

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.513779