Results: 108

• Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society

  26 Oct 2010 [2010] EWCA Civ 1106, CA

  21 Nov 2012 [2012] UKSC 56; [2013] 2 AC 1; [2012] 3 WLR 1319; [2013] 1 All ER 670; [2012] WLR (D) 335; Case details, SC(E)

  Subsequent considerations : 8 positive; 2 neutral; 1 negative; most recently considered: 2023. Subsequent citations: 81.
  VICARIOUS LIABILITY — Relationship akin to employment — Religious teaching order
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  VICARIOUS LIABILITY — Relationship akin to employment — Religious teaching order — Brother members of order taking vows of chastity, poverty and obedience and living communal life — School management board employing brothers as teachers at residential school — Brothers living communally on school premises — Physical and sexual abuse of boys by brothers alleged to have taken place — School management board vicariously liable as employer — Whether relationship between brothers and order akin to employment — Whether close connection between relationship between brothers and order and employment of brothers as teachers at school — Whether order jointly vicariously liable for abuse

  3 Case(s) considered

• Balgobin v South West Regional Health Authority

  10 May 2012 [2012] UKPC 11; [2013] 1 AC 582; [2012] 3 WLR 698; [2012] 4 All ER 655; [2012] WLR (D) 143; Case details, PC (Lord Hope, Lady Hale, Lord Brown, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson)

  Subsequent citations: 2.
  PRACTICE — Judgment in default of appearance — Election
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  PRACTICE — Judgment in default of appearance — Election — Claimant injured at work and bringing action against first defendant as employer — First defendant denying liability and contending that company was claimant's employer — Claimant adding company as second defendant and obtaining judgment in default of appearance against it — Judge subsequently concluding that first defendant was claimant's employer — Whether claimant unequivocally electing to pursue claim against second defendant only — Whether judgment in default operating as bar to finding of liability against first defendant — Trinidad and Tobago

  4 Case(s) considered
• In re New Cap Reinsurance Corpn Ltd (New Cap Reinsurance Corpn Ltd v Grant)

  15 Mar 2011 [2011] EWHC 677 (Ch), Ch D (Lewison J)

  09 Aug 2011 [2011] EWCA Civ 971; [2012] Ch 538; [2012] 2 WLR 1095; [2012] Bus LR 772; [2012] 1 All ER 755; [2012] 1 All ER (Comm) 1207; [2011] BCC 937; [2011] BPIR 1428; [2011] WLR (D) 274, CA (Mummery, Lloyd, McFarlane LJJ)

  24 Oct 2012 [2012] UKSC 46; [2013] 1 AC 236; [2012] 3 WLR 1019; [2013] Bus LR 1; [2013] 1 All ER 521; [2013] 1 All ER (Comm) 513; [2012] 2 Lloyd's Rep 615; [2012] BPIR 1204; The Times, 9 November 2012; Case details, SC(E) (Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke of Stone-cum-Ebony, Lord Sumption JJSC, Lord Collins of Mapesbury)

  Subsequent considerations : 1 positive; most recently considered: 2024. Subsequent citations: 81.
  INSOLVENCY — Liquidation — Foreign company
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  INSOLVENCY — Liquidation — Foreign company — Liquidators of foreign companies seeking to enforce in England judgments of United States and Australian courts to recover moneys transferred to defendants before liquidation — Defendants claiming not to have been present in or submitted to jurisdiction of foreign courts — Whether judgments in personam — Whether ordinary rules for enforcing judgments in personam inapplicable to bankruptcy proceedings — Whether judgments enforceable at common law — Whether alternative method of enforcement through international assistance provisions of Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency — Statutory provisions allowing English court to “assist” Australian court in insolvency matter and for registration and enforcement of Australian judgment in “civil or commercial” matter — Whether either provision allowing English court to enforce Australian judgment against defendants — Foreign Judgements (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933, ss 4, 6 — Insolvency Act 1986, s 426 — Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments (Australia) Order 1994, art 4(a) — Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006, Sch 1, arts 2, 21

  4 Case(s) considered

  1 Words & Phrases considered

  2 Statutes considered

  2 Statutory Instruments considered
• RT (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (SM (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (United Nations High Comr for Refugees intervening), AM (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (United Nations High Comr for Refugees intervening), KM (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (United Nations High Comr for Refugees intervening))

  18 Nov 2010 [2010] EWCA Civ 1285; [2011] Imm AR 259; [2011] INLR 217; [2010] WLR (D) 295, CA (Carnwath, Lloyd, Sullivan LJJ)

  25 Jul 2012 (United Nations High Comr for Refugees intervening) [2012] UKSC 38; [2013] 1 AC 152; [2012] 3 WLR 345; [2012] 4 All ER 843; [2012] INLR 562; [2012] WLR (D) 226; The Times, 15 August 2012; Case details, SC(E) (Lord Hope of Craighead DPSC, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore, Lord Clarke of Stone-cum-Ebony, Lord Dyson, Lord Wilson, Lord Reed JJSC)

  Subsequent considerations : 1 positive; most recently considered: 2018. Subsequent citations: 46.
  IMMIGRATION — Asylum — Fear of persecution
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  IMMIGRATION — Asylum — Fear of persecution — Claimants having no political beliefs — Asylum claims refused on ground that able and willing to feign support for persecutory regime in country of nationality — Whether reasonable to expect claimants to lie about lack of political beliefs to avoid persecution — Whether claimants facing risk of persecution on grounds of imputed political belief — Whether entitled to refugee status — Convention and Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (1951) and (1967), art 1A(2)

  IMMIGRATION — Asylum — Fear of persecution — Claimants not engaging in political activities in Zimbabwe fearful of persecution for opinions imputed to them — Asylum claims refused for failure to establish well-founded fear of persecution — Whether claimants reasonably to be expected to profess loyalty to regime or lie to authorities to avoid persecution if returned to country of nationality — Test to be applied — Whether claimants entitled to refugee status — Conventional and Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (1951) (Cmd 9171) and (1967) (Cmnd 3906), art 1A(2)

  3 Case(s) considered

  1 International Agreement considered
• R v Waya

  25 Mar 2010 [2010] EWCA Crim 412; [2011] 1 Cr App R (S) 15, CA

  14 Nov 2012 [2012] UKSC 51; [2013] 1 AC 294; [2012] 3 WLR 1188; [2013] 1 All ER 889; [2013] 2 Cr App R (S) 20; [2012] WLR (D) 324; Case details, SC(E)

  Subsequent considerations : 11 positive; 13 neutral; 1 negative. Subsequent citations: 150.
  CRIME — Sentence — Confiscation order

  HUMAN RIGHTS — Peaceful enjoyment of possessions — Deprivation of property
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  CRIME — Sentence — Confiscation order — Defendant making false statements to obtain mortgage — Property purchased partly with mortgage and partly with defendant's own funds — Defendant convicted of obtaining money transfer by deception — Market value of property much higher when application for confiscation order heard — Proper approach to calculating amount of confiscation order — Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, ss 6(5), 76(4), 80(2)(3)

  HUMAN RIGHTS — Peaceful enjoyment of possessions — Deprivation of property — Confiscation order made following criminal conviction — Whether order disproportionate when proceeds of crime restored to victim — Whether interfering with defendant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions — Whether possible to read legislation compatibly with Convention rights — Human Rights Act 1998, s 3(1), Sch 1, Pt II, art 1

  6 Case(s) considered

  2 Statutes considered

• In re J (Children) (Care Proceedings: Threshold Criteria) (In re J (Children) (Non-Accidental Injury: Past Possible Perpetrator in New Family), In re J (Children) (Care Proceedings: Past Possible Perpetrators in New Family Unit))

  03 Apr 2012 [2012] EWCA Civ 380; [2013] 1 AC 680; [2012] 3 WLR 952; [2012] 2 FLR 842; [2012] 2 FCR 1; [2012] WLR (D) 111, CA (Lord Judge LCJ, Lord Neuberger MR, McFarlane LJ)

  20 Feb 2013 [2013] UKSC 9; [2013] 1 AC 680; [2013] 2 WLR 649; [2013] 3 All ER 1; [2013] 1 FLR 1373; [2013] 2 FCR 149; [2013] WLR (D) 74; The Times, 26 February 2013; Case details, SC(E) (Lord Hope DPSC, Lady Hale JSC, Lord Clarke JSC, Lord Wilson JSC, Lord Sumption JSC, Lord Reed JSC, Lord Carnwath JSC)

  Subsequent citations: 45.
  CHILDREN — Care proceedings — Threshold conditions
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  CHILDREN — Care proceedings — Threshold conditions — Judge's finding that child suffering significant harm caused by either mother or father or both — Identity of perpetrator not proven on balance of probabilities — Mother subsequently forming relationship with different man and caring for his two children — Mother having further child — Local authority bringing care proceedings in respect of all three children — Whether children "likely to suffer significant harm" — Whether court able to rely on judge's finding in previous proceedings — Children Act 1989, s 31(2)

  14 Case(s) considered

  1 Words & Phrases considered

  1 Statute considered
• Financial Services Authority v Sinaloa Gold plc (Barclays Bank plc intervening)

  25 Jan 2011 [2011] EWHC 144 (Ch), Ch D (Judge Hodge QC)

  18 Oct 2011 [2011] EWCA Civ 1158; [2012] Bus LR 753; [2011] WLR (D) 295, CA

  27 Feb 2013 [2013] UKSC 11; [2013] 2 AC 28; [2013] 2 WLR 678; [2013] Bus LR 302; [2013] 2 All ER 339; [2013] 1 All ER (Comm) 1089; [2013] WLR (D) 90; Case details, SC(E)

  Subsequent considerations : 3 positive; 1 neutral; most recently considered: 2025. Subsequent citations: 28.
  INJUNCTION — Interlocutory — Undertaking as to damages
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  INJUNCTION — Interlocutory — Undertaking as to damages — Financial Services Authority alleging defendants operating share scam and obtaining interlocutory freezing injunction against them — Order including standard cross-undertaking to pay third parties’ costs and losses — Authority subsequently seeking to exclude losses from undertaking — Whether cross-undertaking liability in “damages” — Whether authority’s statutory immunity in respect of damages rending cross-undertaking unenforceable — Whether court to exercise discretion to require authority exercising law enforcement role to give undertaking to third parties — Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, Sch 1, para 19

  6 Case(s) considered

  1 Words & Phrases considered

  1 Statute considered
• R (Faulkner) v Secretary of State for Justice

  29 Mar 2011 [2011] EWCA Civ 349; [2011] HRLR 489; [2011] ACD 101, CA (Sedley, Hooper, Wilson LJJ)

  01 May 2013 [2013] UKSC 23; [2013] 2 AC 254; [2013] 2 WLR 1157; [2013] WLR (D) 162; Case details, SC(E) (Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury PSC, Lord Mance, Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore, Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath JJSC)

  06 Oct 2016 (Application no 68909/13); (2017) 64 EHRR 18, ECtHR

  Subsequent considerations : 1 positive; 2 neutral; most recently considered: 2024. Subsequent citations: 66.
  FALSE IMPRISONMENT — Prisoner serving sentence — Delay by Parole Board

  HUMAN RIGHTS — Breach of Convention rights — Just satisfaction

  PRISONS — Prisoner's rights — Release on licence

  SUPREME COURT — Appeal to — Powers of court
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  FALSE IMPRISONMENT — Prisoner serving sentence — Delay by Parole Board — Claimant serving life sentence— Claimant’s case referred to Parole Board prior to expiry of minimum term— Review delayed in breach of claimant’s Convention right— Whether false imprisonment if claimant would have been at liberty but for delay

  HUMAN RIGHTS — Breach of Convention rights — Just satisfaction — Claimants serving life sentence or indeterminate sentence of imprisonment for public protection— Claimants’ cases referred to Parole Board prior to expiry of minimum term— Review delayed in breach of claimants’ Convention right to speedy determination of lawfulness of detention— Whether breach of Convention right to liberty if claimant would have been at liberty but for delay— Whether award of damages for breach of Convention right to speedy determination of lawfulness of detention appropriate— Whether declaration sufficient to afford just satisfaction— Human Rights Act 1998 (c 42), s 8, Sch 1, Pt I, art 5

  PRISONS — Prisoner's rights — Release on licence — Claimant serving indeterminate sentence of imprisonment for public protection— Claimant’s case referred to Parole Board prior to expiry of minimum term— Review delayed in breach of claimant’s Convention right— Parole Board refusing to direct release on licence— Whether test for directing release different from test for imposing sentence— Appropriate remedy for breach of Convention right— Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 (c 43), s 28(6) — Human Rights Act 1998, s 8(3), Sch 1, Pt I, art 5.4

  SUPREME COURT — Appeal to — Powers of court — Power to determine any question necessary for purposes of doing justice in appeal— Whether circumventing need to obtain permission to appeal on particular issue— Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (c 4), s 40(5)

  12 Case(s) considered

  3 Statutes considered
• DD (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

  10 Dec 2010 [2010] EWCA Civ 1407; [2010] WLR (D) 330, CA (Pill, Rimer, Black LJJ)

  21 Nov 2012 (United Nations High Comr for Refugees intervening) [2012] UKSC 54; [2013] 1 AC 745; [2012] 3 WLR 1263; 34 BHRC 69; [2013] Imm AR 330; [2013] INLR 665; The Times, 19 December 2012; Case details, SC(E) (Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore, Lord Wilson JJSC, Lord Dyson MR, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers)

  Subsequent considerations : 1 positive; 1 neutral; most recently considered: 2018. Subsequent citations: 38.
  IMMIGRATION — Asylum — International crime
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  IMMIGRATION — Asylum — International crime — Asylum seeker member of proscribed terrorist organisation — Secretary of State refusing asylum — Tribunal allowing claimant’s appeal on ground that claimant not excluded from protection of Refugee Convention — Whether statutory provision on construction of Refugee Convention applying only to acts done after section coming into force — Whether claimant’s actions contrary to purposes and principles of United Nations — Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006, s 54 — Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (1951) (Cmd 9171), art 1F(c)
• Rahmatullah v Secretary of State for Defence (Rahmatullah v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs)

  29 Jul 2011 [2011] EWHC 2008 (Admin); [2012] 1 WLR 1462; [2011] 4 All ER 926; [2012] ACD 10; (2011) 161 NLJ 1183, DC (Laws LJ, Silber J)

  21 Dec 2011 [2011] EWCA Civ 1540; [2012] 1 WLR 1462; [2012] 1 All ER 1290; [2012] HRLR 9; [2011] WLR (D) 368, CA (Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury MR, Maurice Kay, Sullivan LJJ)

  23 Feb 2012 [2012] EWCA Civ 182; [2012] 1 WLR 1462, CA (Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury MR, Maurice Kay, Sullivan LJJ)

  31 May 2012 (appn all) [2012] 1 WLR 1912, SC(E)

  31 Oct 2012 (JUSTICE intervening) [2012] UKSC 48; [2013] 1 AC 614; [2012] 3 WLR 1087; [2013] 1 All ER 574; 33 BHRC 679; [2013] HRLR 4; [2012] WLR (D) 301; The Times, 16 November 2012; Case details, SC(E) (Lord Dyson MR, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore, Lord Reed, Lord Wilson, Lord Carnwath JJSC, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers)

  Subsequent considerations : 2 negative; most recently considered: 2014. Subsequent citations: 30.
  HABEAS CORPUS — Jurisdiction — Control
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  HABEAS CORPUS — Jurisdiction — Control — Applicant Pakistan national captured in Iraq by British forces — Applicant transferred to United States forces and detained in Afghanistan — Applicant held under arrangement permitting United Kingdom to request his return — United States detainee review board determining applicant not enduring security threat — Applicant remaining in detention — Habeas corpus application in High Court — Whether writ of habeas corpus to issue notwithstanding applicant in custody of United States forces — Whether applicant in power and control of United Kingdom — Whether return to writ showing request for return would not be complied with sufficient — Geneva Conventions Act 1957, Sch 4, arts 45, 49, 132, 133

  8 Case(s) considered

  1 Statute considered