Results: 70

• AMT Futures Ltd v Marzillier, Dr Meier & Dr Guntner Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH

  11 Apr 2014 [2014] EWHC 1085 (Comm); [2015] QB 699; [2015] 2 WLR 187; [2015] 1 All ER (Comm) 374; [2014] WLR (D) 182; [2014] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 349, QBD (Popplewell J)

  26 Feb 2015 [2015] EWCA Civ 143; [2015] QB 699; [2015] 3 WLR 282; [2016] 1 All ER (Comm) 486; [2015] WLR (D) 95, CA

  28 Jul 2015 (appn all) [2015] 1 WLR 4935, SC(E)

  02 Feb 2016 (appn all) [2016] 1 WLR 1159, SC(E)

  01 Mar 2017 [2017] UKSC 13; [2018] AC 439; [2017] 2 WLR 853; [2017] 4 All ER 382; [2017] 2 All ER (Comm) 1041; [2017] WLR (D) 154; Case details, SC(E) (Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury PSC, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke of Stone-cum-Ebony, Lord Sumption, Lord Hodge JJSC)

  Subsequent considerations : 1 positive. Subsequent citations: 51.
  COSTS — Discretion of court — Order against successful party

  CONFLICT OF LAWS — Jurisdiction under European Union Regulation — Special jurisdiction
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  COSTS — Discretion of court — Order against successful party — Court of Appeal ordering part of costs of proceedings to be paid by successful party — Whether successful party to recover full costs — CPR r 44.2

  CONFLICT OF LAWS — Jurisdiction under European Union Regulation — Special jurisdiction — Matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict — Claimant entering into agreements with clients containing exclusive English jurisdiction clauses — German defendant allegedly inducing clients to breach clauses by bringing claims against claimant in Germany — Claimant bringing claim against defendant in England alleging tort of wrongfully inducing breach of contract — Nature of harm resulting from alleged tortious conduct — Whether “harmful event occurred” in England — Whether English court having jurisdiction — Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, art 5(3)

  5 Case(s) considered

  1 Words & Phrases considered

  1 EU Enactment considered

  1 Statutory Instrument considered
• Jafri v Lincoln College

  16 Apr 2014 [2014] EWCA Civ 449; [2015] QB 781; [2014] 3 WLR 933; [2014] ICR 920; [2014] 3 All ER 709; [2014] WLR (D) 178, CA

  Subsequent considerations : 1 positive; 1 neutral. Subsequent citations: 127.
  INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS — Employment Appeal Tribunal — Appeal to
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS — Employment Appeal Tribunal — Appeal to — Employment tribunal dismissing unfair dismissal claim — Appeal tribunal identifying legal and factual errors in decision — Whether obliged to remit case for further hearing — Correct test for remittal to employment tribunal — Employment Tribunals Act 1996, s 35(1)

  6 Case(s) considered

  1 Statute considered

• R (Lee-Hirons) v Secretary of State for Justice

  28 Jun 2013 [2013] EWHC 1784 (Admin); [2015] QB 385; [2015] 2 WLR 256; [2013] CN 1000, QBD (Dingemans J)

  01 May 2014 [2014] EWCA Civ 553; [2015] QB 385; [2015] 2 WLR 256; [2014] WLR (D) 183, CA

  24 Feb 2015 (appn all) [2015] 1 WLR 1434, SC(E)

  27 Jul 2016 [2016] UKSC 46; [2017] AC 52; [2016] 3 WLR 590; [2017] 3 All ER 97; [2016] WLR (D) 424; Case details, SC(E)

  Subsequent citations: 17.
  MENTAL DISORDER — Secretary of State’s powers — Restricted patient

  HUMAN RIGHTS — Liberty — Restricted patient
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  MENTAL DISORDER — Secretary of State’s powers — Restricted patient — Recall to hospital — Department of Health circular requiring provision of written reasons within 72 hours of readmission — Reasons given orally when warrant for recall executed — Whether adequate — Further oral reasons given over two weeks later — Written reasons for recall not given — Whether duty to provide written reasons when warrant executed — Whether recall lawful — Whether duty to give written reasons for recall — Whether failure to give written reasons rendering recall and subsequent detention unlawful — Whether practice of including brief reasons in warrant good — Mental Health Act 1983, s 42(3) — Human Rights Act 1998, Sch 1, Pt I, art 5.1, 5.2

  HUMAN RIGHTS — Liberty — Restricted patient — Patient recalled to hospital — Reasons for recall given orally when warrant for recall executed — Whether adequate — Further oral reasons given over two weeks later — Written reasons for recall not given — Whether failure to provide adequate reasons promptly after detention breaching Convention rights to liberty and to reasons for detention — Whether breaches rendering recall and detention unlawful — Human Rights Act 1998, Sch 1, Pt I, art 5.1, 5.2

  HUMAN RIGHTS — Liberty — Restricted patient — Patient recalled to hospital — Brief reasons for recall given orally when warrant executed — Further oral but not written reasons given 15 days later — Whether reasons given adequate — Whether breach of Convention right to reasons for detention — Whether rendering detention unlawful — Whether damages payable — Human Rights Act 1998 (c 42), s 8, Sch 1, Pt I, art 5.1, 5.2

  MENTAL DISORDER — Secretary of State’s powers — Restricted patient — Recall to hospital — Department of Health circular requiring provision of oral and written reasons within three days of readmission — Reasons given orally when warrant for recall executed — Further oral but not written reasons given 15 days later — Whether failure to provide reasons rendering detention unlawful — Whether damages payable — Mental Health Act 1983 (c 20), s 42(3) — Human Rights Act 1998, s 8, Sch 1, Pt I, art 5.1, 5.2

  9 Case(s) considered

  3 Statutes considered
• R (McCarthy) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

  18 Dec 2014 (Case C-202/13); EU:C:2014:2450; [2015] QB 651; [2015] 3 WLR 61; [2015] All ER (EC) 215; [2014] WLR (D) 555, ECJ

  Subsequent considerations : 1 positive; 2 neutral. Subsequent citations: 28.
  EUROPEAN UNION — Freedom of movement — Rights of entry and residence

  EUROPEAN UNION — Citizenship of the European Union — Directive 2004/38/EC
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  EUROPEAN UNION — Freedom of movement — Rights of entry and residence — Husband with British and Irish nationality and third-country national wife residing in Spain and regularly travelling to United Kingdom — Wife holding residence card issued by Spain — Generally applicable national legislation requiring such family members to obtain entry permits before entering United Kingdom — Whether European Union legislation precluding national legislation — Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006, reg 11 — FEU Treaty, Protocol No 20, art 1 — Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC, art 35

  EUROPEAN UNION — Citizenship of the European Union — Directive 2004/38/EC — Right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of a Member State — Right of entry — Third-country national who is a family member of a Union citizen and in possession of a residence card issued by a Member State — National legislation requiring an entry permit to be obtained prior to entry into national territory — Article 35 of Directive 2004/38/EC — Article 1 of the Protocol No 20 on the application of certain aspects of Article 26 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to the United Kingdom and to Ireland

  2 Case(s) considered

  2 EU Enactments considered

  1 Statutory Instrument considered

• R (Reilly) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (No 2) (Jeffrey v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions)

  04 Jul 2014 [2014] EWHC 2182 (Admin); [2015] QB 573; [2015] 2 WLR 309; [2014] WLR (D) 420, QBD (Lang J)

  11 Feb 2015 [2015] UKUT 56 (AAC), UT

  28 Apr 2016 [2016] EWCA Civ 413; [2017] QB 657; [2016] 3 WLR 1641; [2016] WLR (D) 240, CA

  06 Dec 2016 (appn dis) [2017] 1 WLR 518, SC(E)

  Subsequent citations: 36.
  HUMAN RIGHTS — Fair trial — Determination of civil rights and obligations

  HUMAN RIGHTS — Peaceful enjoyment of possessions — Deprivation
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  HUMAN RIGHTS — Fair trial — Determination of civil rights and obligations — Statute enacted to validate retrospectively Regulations found to be invalid in ongoing judicial review proceedings — Whether impermissible interference in judicial determination of ongoing proceedings — Whether statute incompatible with claimants’ Convention rights to determination by court of civil rights and obligations — Human Rights Act 1998, Sch 1, Pt I, art 6.1 — Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Act 2013, s 1 — Jobseeker’s Allowance (Employment, Skills and Enterprise Scheme) Regulations 2011

  HUMAN RIGHTS — Peaceful enjoyment of possessions — Deprivation — Jobseeker’s allowance withheld from claimant for failure to participate in back to work scheme — Claimant appealing successfully in reliance on Court of Appeal decision that relevant Regulations ultra vires — Secretary of State promoting and Parliament enacting validating legislation reversing Court of Appeal’s decision — Whether Convention right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions engaged — Whether claimant deprived of “possession” — Whether validating legislation incompatible with claimant’s Convention right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions — Human Rights Act 1998, Sch 1, Pt II, art 1 — Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Act 2013, s 1 — Jobseeker’s Allowance (Employment, Skills and Enterprise Scheme) Regulations 2011

  HUMAN RIGHTS — Fair trial — Determination of civil rights and obligations — Statute enacted to validate retrospectively Regulations found to be invalid in ongoing judicial review proceedings — Whether impermissible interference in judicial determination of ongoing proceedings — Whether statute incompatible with claimants’ Convention rights to determination by court of civil rights and obligations — Whether statute capable of being read down so as to have no effect in existing proceedings — Jobseekers Act 1995 (c 18), s 17A (as inserted by Welfare Reform Act 2009 (c 24), s 1(2)) — Human Rights Act 1988 (c42), Sch 1, Pt I, art 6.1 — Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Act 2013 (c 17), s 1 — Jobseeker’s Allowance (Employment, Skills and Enterprise Scheme) Regulations 2011 (SI 2011/917)

  HUMAN RIGHTS — Peaceful enjoyment of possessions — Deprivation — Jobseeker’s allowance withheld from claimant for failure to participate in back to work scheme — Claimant appealing successfully in reliance on Court of Appeal decision that relevant Regulations ultra vires — Secretary of State promoting and Parliament enacting validating legislation reversing Court of Appeal’s decision — Whether Convention right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions engaged — Whether claimant deprived of “possession” — Whether validating legislation incompatible with claimant’s Convention right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions — Human Rights Act 1988, Sch 1, Pt II, art 1 — Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Act 2013, s1 — Jobseeker’s Allowance (Employment, Skills and Enterprise Scheme) Regulations 2011

  5 Case(s) considered

  1 Words & Phrases considered

  3 Statutes considered

  1 Statutory Instrument considered

• Federal Republic of Germany (supported by Czech Republic intervening) v Council of the European Union (supported by European Commission intervening)

  07 Oct 2014 (Case C-399/12); EU:C:2014:289; EU:C:2014:2258; [2015] QB 419; [2015] 2 WLR 1023; [2015] All ER (EC) 672; [2014] WLR (D) 412, ECJ

  Subsequent citations: 9.
  EUROPEAN UNION — Council Decision — Validity

  EUROPEAN UNION — Action for annulment — EU external action
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  EUROPEAN UNION — Council Decision — Validity — Members of international organisation concerning wine industry including individual member states but not European Union — Organisation making recommendations — Proposal to Council made under Treaty procedure allowing decisions to be adopted “on the Union’s behalf” — Council making Decision establishing common EU position in relation to organisation’s resolutions — Action for annulment of Decision — Whether EU entitled to establish position to be adopted on its behalf in body set up by international agreement to which it was not party — Whether organisation’s recommendations constituting “acts having legal effects” — FEU Treaty, art 218(9)FEU

  EUROPEAN UNION — Action for annulment — EU external action — Article 218(9) TFEU — Establishing the position to be adopted on behalf of the European Union in a body set up by an international agreement — International agreement to which the European Union is not a party — International Organisation of Vine and Wine (OIV) — ‘Acts having legal effects’ — OIV recommendations

  1 Case considered

  2 Words & Phrases considered

  1 EU Enactment considered

• European Commission (supported by European Parliament) v Council of the European Union (supported by Czech Republic)

  28 Apr 2015 (Case C-28/12); EU:C:2015:282; [2015] QB 834; [2015] 3 WLR 647; [2015] WLR (D) 185, ECJ

  Subsequent citations: 6.
  EUROPEAN UNION — Council Decision — Validity

  EUROPEAN UNION — Action for annulment — Mixed international agreements
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  EUROPEAN UNION — Council Decision — Validity — European Union and member states concluding mixed international agreements with third parties — Council of European Union alone having competence to authorise signature and provisional application of international agreements — Council of European Union and governments of member states adopting hybrid decision authorising signature and provisional application of agreements — Whether decision valid — EU Treaty, art 13EU — FEU Treaty, art 218FEU

  EUROPEAN UNION — Action for annulment — Mixed international agreements — Decision authorising the signing of those agreements and providing for their provisional application — Decision of the Council and of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States meeting within the Council — Autonomy of the EU legal order — Participation of the Member States in the procedure and decision provided for in Article 218 TFEU — Voting arrangements within the Council

  2 EU Enactments considered

• R (Littlejohns) v Devon County Council

  24 Mar 2014 [2015] EWHC 730 (Admin); [2015] QB 869; [2015] 3 WLR 862; [2015] WLR (D) 136, QBD (Lang J)

  06 May 2016 [2016] EWCA Civ 446; [2016] QB 1092; [2016] 3 WLR 743; [2016] WLR (D) 242, CA

  Subsequent citations: 1.
  COMMONS — Common land — Registration
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  COMMONS — Common land — Registration — Claimants applying for registration of rights of common acquired by prescription over existing common land — Commons registration authority refusing application on basis of impermissibility of right of common being created after specified date over registered common land — Whether local authority erring — Whether breach of Convention right to enjoyment of possessions — Commons Registration Act 1965, s 1(2)(b) — Human Rights Act 1998, Sch 1, Pt II, art 1 — Commons Act 2006, Sch 3, para 2

  COMMONS — Common land — Registration — Claimants applying for registration of rights of common acquired by prescription over existing common land — Commons registration authority refusing application on basis of impermissibility of right of common being created after specified date over registered common land — Whether local authority erring — Commons Registration Act 1965, s 1(2)(b) — Commons Act 2006, Sch 3, para 2

  1 Case considered

  3 Statutes considered
• ÖFAB, Östergötlands Fastigheter AB v Koot

  18 Jul 2013 (Case C-147/12); EU:C:2013:490; [2015] QB 20; [2014] 3 WLR 1278; [2013] 2 All ER (Comm) 969; [2013] WLR (D) 293, ECJ

  Subsequent considerations : 1 positive; 1 neutral. Subsequent citations: 17.
  CONFLICT OF LAWS — Jurisdiction under Council Regulation — Special jurisdiction

  EUROPEAN UNION — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  CONFLICT OF LAWS — Jurisdiction under Council Regulation — Special jurisdiction — Matters “relating to a contract” — Matters “relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict” — Place “where the harmful event occurred” — Actions relating to debts owing to contractors for work carried out in Sweden brought against director and shareholder of insolvent Swedish-based company — Defendants both domiciled in The Netherlands — Whether actions excluded from scope of Regulation as “proceedings relating to the winding up of insolvent companies” or “analogous proceedings” — Whether actions to be classified as matters relating to a contract or relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict — Whether classification of company’s debts relevant — Whether relevant that actions transferred from one creditor to another — Whether Swedish court having jurisdiction to hear claim — Council Regulation(EC) No 44/2001, arts 1(2)(b), 2(1), 5(1)(3)

  EUROPEAN UNION — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Court with jurisdiction — Special jurisdiction in ‘matters relating to contract’ and ‘matters relating to tort, delict and quasi-delict’

  5 Case(s) considered

  5 Words & Phrases considered

  1 EU Enactment considered

• Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority v First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber)

  04 Dec 2014 (British Pregnancy Advisory Service and Birthrights intervening) [2014] EWCA Civ 1554; [2015] QB 459; [2015] 2 WLR 463; [2015] 4 All ER 60; [2015] 1 Cr App R 246; [2015] PIQR P12; [2014] WLR (D) 520, CA

  31 Mar 2015 (British Pregnancy Advisory Service and others intervening) (appn dis) [2015] 1 WLR 2059, SC(E)

  Subsequent citations: 2.
  CRIME — Malicious administration of poison — “Any other person”
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  CRIME — Malicious administration of poison — “Any other person” — Mother consuming excessive amounts of alcohol while pregnant — Child born with foetal alcohol spectrum disorder causing permanent injury — Whether child victim of violent crime as result of mother’s excessive drinking while child in womb — Whether foetus “any other person” to whom poison administered so as to cause grievous bodily harm — Whether child entitled to criminal injuries compensation as innocent victim of violent crime — Offences against the Person Act 1861, s 23

  5 Case(s) considered

  1 Words & Phrases considered

  1 Statute considered