Results: 70

• MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd v Rock Advertising Ltd

  21 Jun 2016 [2016] EWCA Civ 553; [2017] QB 604; [2016] 3 WLR 1519; [2016] 2 Lloyd's Rep 391; [2016] L & TR 27; [2016] WLR (D) 330; The Times, 22 July 2016, CA (Arden, Kitchin, McCombe LJJ)

  31 Jan 2017 (appn all) [2017] 1 WLR 1223, SC(E)

  16 May 2018 [2018] UKSC 24; [2019] AC 119; [2018] 2 WLR 1603; [2018] 4 All ER 21; [2018] 2 All ER (Comm) 961; [2018] BLR 479; [2018] WLR (D) 301; The Times, 22 May 2018; Case details, SC(E) (Baroness Hale of Richmond PSC, Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Briggs JJSC)

  Subsequent considerations : 4 positive. Subsequent citations: 97.
  CONTRACT — Formation — Consideration

  CONTRACT — Formation — Variation

  ESTOPPEL — Promissory estoppel — Effect of promise
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  CONTRACT — Formation — Consideration — Licence agreement — Parties agreeing to reschedule payments due under agreement — Defendant promising to pay and making payment in accordance with revised schedule — Whether good consideration — Whether licence agreement orally varied

  CONTRACT — Formation — Variation — Clause in licence agreement expressly precluding oral variation of agreement — Whether agreement capable of oral variation — Whether orally varied — Whether claimant’s acceptance of defendant’s promise possibly giving rise to collateral unilateral contract

  ESTOPPEL — Promissory estoppel — Effect of promise — Creditor agreeing to accept payment of debt by instalments — Debtor acting on agreement by paying one instalment — Creditor accepting instalment — Whether necessarily inequitable for creditor to go back on agreement and insist on payment of balance — Whether dependent on circumstance

  CONTRACT — Formation — Variation — Clause in licence agreement expressly precluding oral modification of agreement — Parties later orally agreeing to vary fee payment schedule set out in licence agreement — Whether variation valid — Whether clauses precluding oral modification legally effective

  9 Case(s) considered
• R (Philip Morris Brands SARL) v Secretary of State for Health (Imperial Tobacco Ltd intervening) (Philip Morris Brands SARL and Others v Secretary of State for Health)

  04 May 2016 (Case C-547/14); EU:C:2016:325; [2017] QB 327; [2016] 3 WLR 973; [2016] WLR (D) 235, ECJ

  Subsequent considerations : 1 positive; most recently considered: 2019. Subsequent citations: 23.
  EUROPEAN UNION — Directive — Validity

  EUROPEAN UNION — Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  EUROPEAN UNION — Directive — Validity — Approximation and harmonisation of laws — Tobacco and related products — Directive prohibiting inclusion on labelling of any feature promoting product or encouraging consumption — Directive not affecting right of member states to maintain or introduce further requirements in relation to standardisation of packaging — Whether Directive valid — FEU Treaty, art 114FEU — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, art 11 — Parliament and Council Directive 2014/40/EU, arts 7, 8, 9, 10, 13(1), 18, 24

  EUROPEAN UNION — Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Directive 2014/40/EU — Articles 7, 18 and 24(2) and (3) — Articles 8(3), 9(3), 10(1)(a), (c) and (g), 13 and 14 — Manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products — Validity — Legal basis — Article 114 TFEU — Principle of proportionality — Principle of subsidiarity — Fundamental rights of the European Union — Freedom of expression — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 11

  6 Case(s) considered
• JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov (No 14) (Khrapunov v JSC BTA Bank)

  11 Feb 2016 [2016] EWHC 230 (Comm); [2017] QB 853; [2016] 3 WLR 659; [2016] 2 All ER (Comm) 218; [2016] WLR (D) 72, QBD (Teare J)

  02 Feb 2017 [2017] EWCA Civ 40; [2017] QB 853; [2017] 2 WLR 1563; [2017] 2 All ER 918; [2017] 2 All ER (Comm) 1; [2017] WLR (D) 71, CA

  08 Aug 2017 (appn all) [2017] 1 WLR 3788, SC(E) (Lord Mance, Lord Clarke of Stone-cum-Ebony, Lord Sumption JJSC)

  18 Jan 2018 (appn dis) [2018] 1 WLR 1204, SC(E) (Lord Mance DPSC, Lord Sumption, Lord Hodge JJSC)

  21 Mar 2018 [2018] UKSC 19; [2020] AC 727; [2018] 2 WLR 1125; [2018] 3 All ER 293; [2018] 2 All ER (Comm) 479; [2018] WLR (D) 184; Case details, SC(E) (Lord Mance DPSC, Lord Sumption, Lord Hodge, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Briggs JJSC)

  Subsequent considerations : 2 positive; 1 neutral; 1 negative; most recently considered: 2025. Subsequent citations: 116.
  CONFLICT OF LAWS — Jurisdiction — Special jurisdiction

  TORT — Cause of action — Conspiracy to injure by unlawful means
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  CONFLICT OF LAWS — Jurisdiction — Special jurisdiction — Domicile of other defendant — Defendant leaving United Kingdom in violation of obligation under freezing order — Whether defendant to be taken still to be domiciled in United Kingdom — Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (c 27), s 41A(2) (as inserted by Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Regulations 2009 (SI 2009/3131), reg 18(2)) — Lugano Convention on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 2007, art 6

  TORT — Cause of action — Conspiracy to injure by unlawful means — Whether contempt of court amounting to unlawful means

  TORT — Cause of action — Conspiracy to injure by unlawful means — Whether contempt of court by breach of court order capable of amounting to unlawful means

  CONFLICT OF LAWS — Jurisdiction — Special jurisdiction — Matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict — Claimant bringing action in tort of conspiracy to injure by unlawful means — Whether English court having jurisdiction — Whether harmful event occurring in England — Whether event giving rise to harm hatching or implementation of conspiracy — Lugano Convention on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (2007), art 5(3)

  13 Case(s) considered

  1 Statute considered

  1 International Agreement considered
• R (Al-Saadoon) v Secretary of State for Defence (R (Rahmatullah) v Secretary of State for Defence)

  17 Mar 2015 [2015] EWHC 715 (Admin); [2017] QB 1015; [2015] 3 WLR 503; [2015] WLR (D) 168, QBD (Leggatt J)

  09 Sep 2016 [2016] EWCA Civ 811; [2017] QB 1015; [2017] 2 WLR 219; [2017] 2 All ER 453; [2016] WLR (D) 491, CA (Leggatt J)

  Subsequent considerations : 1 positive. Subsequent citations: 20.
  HUMAN RIGHTS — Inhuman or degrading treatment — State’s duty to investigate alleged breach

  HUMAN RIGHTS — Jurisdiction — Actions of British soldiers abroad

  HUMAN RIGHTS — Liberty — State’s duty to investigate alleged breach
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  HUMAN RIGHTS — Inhuman or degrading treatment — State’s duty to investigate alleged breach — Prohibition against torture — Iraqi civilians alleging breach of Convention rights by British soldiers in Iraq — Scope and content of state’s duty to investigate — Whether Convention against torture giving rise to domestically enforceable legal rights or affecting scope of investigative duty — Extent to which duty arising in respect of alleged mistreatment following handover of detainees to another state — Whether arising where no arguable substantive breach of Convention right — Human Rights Act 1998 (c 42), Sch 1, Pt I, art 3 — Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 1984 (1991) (Cm 1775), arts 2, 10, 11, 12, 13

  HUMAN RIGHTS — Jurisdiction — Actions of British soldiers abroad — Iraqi civilian claimants alleging breach of Convention rights by British soldiers in Iraq — Whether within United Kingdom’s “jurisdiction” — Whether extraterritorial jurisdiction exceptional — Scope of state agent authority and control over individuals — Whether United Kingdom exercising public powers over individuals — Whether exercise of physical power and control by agents of state — Whether claimants having Convention rights — Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1953) (Cmd 8969), art 1

  HUMAN RIGHTS — Liberty — State’s duty to investigate alleged breach — Iraqi civilians alleging breach of Convention rights by British soldiers in Iraq — Scope and content of state’s duty to investigate — Whether arising in all cases of detention — Human Rights Act 1998, Sch 1, Pt I, art 5

  16 Case(s) considered

  1 Statute considered

  2 International Agreements considered
• Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No 5)

  06 May 2015 [2015] EWHC 1258 (Comm); [2016] 1 All ER (Comm) 766; [2015] CN 766, QBD (Flaux J)

  10 May 2016 [2016] EWCA Civ 452; [2017] QB 67; [2016] 3 WLR 1117; [2017] 1 All ER (Comm) 807; [2017] 2 All ER 139; [2016] WLR (D) 252, CA

  Subsequent considerations : 2 positive; most recently considered: 2023. Subsequent citations: 4.
  HUMAN RIGHTS — Claim — “Victim”

  CROWN — Order in Council — Validity

  HUMAN RIGHTS — Breach of Convention rights — Just satisfaction
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  HUMAN RIGHTS — Claim — “Victim” — Treasury making Order in Council prohibiting persons operating in UK financial sector from dealing with claimant Iranian bank — Claimant seeking damages against Treasury on human rights grounds — Claim including claim for loss of earnings of UK bank in which claimant majority shareholder — Whether UK bank “victim” and so able to bring human rights claim — Whether claimant thereby precluded from bringing human rights claim — Human Rights Act 1998 (c 42), ss 7, 8, Sch 1, Pt II, art 1

  CROWN — Order in Council — Validity — Treasury making Order in Council containing direction prohibiting transactions or business relationships with Iranian bank in order to prevent facilitation of production of nuclear weapons in Iran — Effect of Order to shut bank out from United Kingdom financial sector — Bank claiming damages for loss caused by Order — Supreme Court remitting case to High Court and preliminary issues arising for determination — Whether bank free to pursue claim for diminution in value of its shareholding in subsidiary — Human Rights Act 1998 (c 42), ss 7, 8, Sch 1, Pt II, art 1 — Financial Restrictions (Iran) Order 2009 (Si 2009/2725)

  HUMAN RIGHTS — Breach of Convention rights — Just satisfaction — Treasury making Order in Council prohibiting persons operating in United Kingdom financial sector from dealing with claimant Iranian bank — Claimant seeking damages against Treasury as just satisfaction for breach of Convention rights including claim for loss of earnings of English bank in which claimant majority shareholder — Whether English bank “victim” and so able to bring just satisfaction claim in its own right — Whether claimant thereby precluded from bringing just satisfaction claim in respect of English bank’s losses — Human Rights Act 1998, ss 7, 8, Sch 1, Pt II, art 1 — Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1953) (Cmd 8969)

  10 Case(s) considered

  1 Statute considered

  1 Statutory Instrument considered

  1 International Agreement considered
• Criminal proceedings against Petruhhin (Aleksei Petruhhin v Latvijas Republikas Ģenerālprokuratūra)

  06 Sep 2016 (Case C-182/15); EU:C:2016:630; [2017] QB 299; [2016] 3 WLR 1491; [2016] WLR (D) 479, ECJ

  Subsequent considerations : 2 positive. Subsequent citations: 31.
  EXTRADITION — Scope of European Union law — Treaty rights

  EUROPEAN UNION — Reference for a preliminary ruling — Citizenship of the Union
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  EXTRADITION — Scope of European Union law — Treaty rights — Third state requesting extradition of national of member state other than requested state — Requested state’s nationals protected against extradition but not nationals of other member states — Whether requested state required to ensure same level of protection for nationals of other member states as for own nationals — Whether required to give member state of origin opportunity to issue European arrest warrant for requested person’s extradition to that state before acceding to third state’s request — Whether required to verify that extradition not prejudicing rights against inhuman or degrading treatment — FEU Treaty, arts 18FEU, 21FEU — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, art 19 — Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA (as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA)

  EUROPEAN UNION — Reference for a preliminary ruling — Citizenship of the Union — Extradition to a third State of a national of a Member State who has exercised his right to freedom of movement — Scope of EU law — Protection of a Member State’s nationals against extradition — No protection for nationals of the other Member States — Restriction of freedom of movement — Justification based on the prevention of impunity — Proportionality — Verification of the guarantees provided for in Article 19 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

  4 Case(s) considered

  3 EU Enactments considered
• Gulati v MGN Ltd (Taggart v MGN Ltd, Alcorn v MGN Ltd, Frost v MGN Ltd, Ashworth v MGN Ltd, Yentob v MGN Ltd, Roche v MGN Ltd, Gascoigne v MGN Ltd)

  21 May 2015 [2015] EWHC 1482 (Ch); [2016] FSR 12; [2015] WLR (D) 232, Ch D (Mann J)

  24 Jun 2015 [2015] EWHC 1805 (Ch); [2015] CN 1085, Ch D (Mann J)

  20 Aug 2015 [2015] CN 1444, Ch D (Mann J)

  17 Dec 2015 [2015] EWCA Civ 1291; [2017] QB 149; [2016] 2 WLR 1217; [2016] 3 All ER 799; [2015] WLR (D) 535, CA (Arden LJ, Rafferty LJ, Kitchin LJ)

  22 Mar 2016 (appn dis) [2016] 1 WLR 2559, SC(E)

  Subsequent considerations : 1 positive; 1 neutral; 1 negative; most recently considered: 2021. Subsequent citations: 80.
  TORT — Privacy — Measure of damages

  COSTS — Discretion of court — Offer of settlement

  COSTS — Discretion of court — Infringement of privacy rights

  CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION — Misuse of private information — Damages
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  TORT — Privacy — Measure of damages — Damages claim for unlawful interception of mobile telephone voicemail messages — Proper approach to assessment of damages

  COSTS — Discretion of court — Offer of settlement — Whether costs to be award on indemnity because of unreasonable refusal to settle action

  COSTS — Discretion of court — Infringement of privacy rights — Common costs — Defendant applying to vary order on common costs — Whether application to be granted — CPR r 3.1(7)

  CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION — Misuse of private information — Damages — Newspapers intercepting claimants’ voicemail messages and misusing private information obtained — Proper approach to assessment of damages in tort of misuse of private information — Whether damages limited to distress or extending to compensation for invasion of privacy — Whether necessary for award to be comparable to personal injuries compensation — Whether necessary for award to be comparable to just satisfaction awards made by European Court of Human Rights — Guidance as to factors relevant to award of damages for misuse of private information — Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1953), art 41

  6 Case(s) considered

  1 Statutory Instrument considered

  1 International Agreement 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

• Devani v Wells

  15 Nov 2016 [2016] EWCA Civ 1106; [2017] QB 959; [2017] 2 WLR 1391; [2016] WLR (D) 604, CA (Arden, Lewison, McCombe LJJ)

  06 Nov 2017 (appn all) [2018] 1 WLR 23, SC(E) (Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption, Lord Hodge JJSC)

  13 Feb 2019 [2019] UKSC 4; [2020] AC 129; [2019] 2 WLR 617; [2019] 3 All ER 379; [2019] 2 All ER (Comm) 373; [2019] WLR (D) 104; [2019] WLR(D) 104; Case details, SC(E) (Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption, Lord Carnwath, Lord Briggs, Lord Kitchin JJSC)

  Subsequent citations: 28.
  AGENCY — Estate agent — Contract

  CONTRACT — Formation — Implied term
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  AGENCY — Estate agent — Contract — Information to client of prospective liabilities — Estate agent providing terms of business after offer to buy accepted — Parties failing to specify event giving rise to agent’s commission — Estate agent applying for enforcement of contract — Whether “prejudice” and “culpability” to be considered together — Whether just to dismiss claim — Whether commission to be reduced to compensate client for prejudice — Estate Agents Act 1979 (c 38), s 18(6)(a)(b)

  CONTRACT — Formation — Implied term — Parties agreeing orally that claimant introduce buyer for defendant’s properties — Parties not specifying event triggering claimant’s entitlement to commission — Whether parties’ bargain complete — Claimant introducing buyer — Claimant providing terms of business after defendant’s acceptance of offer to buy — Claimant seeking commission after completion — Whether legitimate to imply term as to event triggering entitlement to commission so as to convert incomplete bargain into legally binding contract

  CONTRACT — Formation — Implied term — Parties agreeing orally that estate agent introduce buyer for vendor’s properties — No express agreement as to event triggering agent’s entitlement to commission — Whether parties’ bargain complete — Whether agreement containing term providing for payment of commission on completion — Whether legitimate to imply such term so as to convert incomplete bargain into legally binding contract

  AGENCY — Estate agent — Contract — Estate agent breaching statutory obligation to inform client of prospective liabilities — Agent applying for enforcement of contract notwithstanding breach — Whether just to dismiss agent’s application — Whether commission to be reduced to compensate client for prejudice — Proper approach to agent’s “culpability” and “prejudice” to client — Estate Agents Act 1979 (c 38), s 18(6)

  AGENCY — Estate agent — Contract — Information to client of prospective liabilities — Estate agent providing terms of business after offer to buy accepted — Parties failing to specify event giving rise to agent’s commission — Estate agent applying for enforcement of contract — Whether degree of culpability of agent sufficient to justify dismissal of the agent’s claim for commission — Estate Agents Act 1979 (c 38), s 18

  CONTRACT — Formation — Implied term — Parties agreeing orally that claimant introduce buyer for defendant’s properties — Claimant stating his commission fees during conversation — Parties not specifying event triggering claimants entitlement to commission — Whether parties’ bargain complete — Claimant introducing buyer — Claimant providing written terms of business after defendant’s acceptance of offer to buy — Claimant seeking commission after completion — Whether term providing for payment of commission on completion contained in agreement — Whether legitimate to imply term as to event triggering entitlement to commission so as to convert incomplete bargain into legally binding contract

  10 Case(s) considered

  2 Words & Phrases considered

  1 Statute considered
• Criminal proceedings against Ognyanov (Sofiyska gradska prokuratura intervening)

  08 Nov 2016 (Case C-554/14); EU:C:2016:319; EU:C:2016:835; [2017] QB 732; [2017] 2 WLR 1249; [2016] WLR (D) 580, ECJ

  Subsequent considerations : 1 neutral. Subsequent citations: 23.
  EUROPEAN UNION — Justice and home affairs — Enforcement of sentence

  EUROPEAN UNION — Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  EUROPEAN UNION — Justice and home affairs — Enforcement of sentence — National of executing state sentenced in issuing state and working there whilst in prison — Prisoner transferred to executing state under Council Framework Decision — National rule of executing state providing for reduction of custodial sentence on account of work carried out whilst in prison in issuing state — Rule of executing state more lenient than rule of issuing state — Whether Framework Decision precluding national rule — Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA (as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA), art 17

  EUROPEAN UNION — Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA — Article 17 — Law governing the enforcement of a sentence — Interpretation of a national rule of the executing State providing for reduction of a custodial sentence on account of work carried out by the sentenced person while detained in the issuing State — Legal effects of framework decisions — Obligation to interpret national law in conformity with EU law

  3 Case(s) considered

  1 EU Enactment considered