Results: 415

• Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs v Meier

  31 Jul 2008 [2008] EWCA Civ 903; [2009] 1 WLR 828; [2009] PTSR 357; [2009] 1 All ER 614, CA

  01 Dec 2009 [2009] UKSC 11; [2009] 1 WLR 2780; [2010] PTSR 321; [2010] 1 All ER 855; [2009] WLR (D) 347; Case details, SC(E)

  Subsequent considerations : 2 neutral; most recently considered: 2023. Subsequent citations: 45.
  INJUNCTION — Trespass — Order for possession
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  INJUNCTION — Trespass — Order for possession — Gipsies and travellers — Travellers in trespassory occupation of area of woodland owned by Secretary of State — Fear of travellers moving to other areas of woodland also owned by Secretary of State but distinct from that occupied by defendants — Secretary of State's application for possession order against defendants in respect of other land — Whether power in court to grant — Whether discretion to refuse order extending to other land order “real danger” of further occupation shown — Injunction to restrain further occupation — Whether appropriate — Government guidance on unauthorised encampments — Effect and relevance — CPR Pt 55

  INJUNCTION — Trespass — Order for possession — Gipsies and travellers — Travellers in trespassory occupation of area of woodland owned by Secretary of State — Fear of travellers moving to other areas of woodland also owned by Secretary of State but distinct from that occupied by defendants — Secretary of State's application for possession order against defendants in respect of other land — Whether power in court to grant — Injunction to restrain occupation — Whether appropriate — Government guidance on unauthorised encampments — Effect and relevance — CPR Pt 55

  5 Case(s) considered

  1 Statutory Instrument considered
• R (G) v Southwark London Borough Council

  29 Jul 2008 [2008] EWCA Civ 877; [2009] 1 WLR 34; [2008] 2 FLR 1762, CA

  20 May 2009 [2009] UKHL 26; [2009] 1 WLR 1299; [2009] PTSR 1080; [2009] 3 All ER 189; [2009] LGR 673; [2009] 2 FLR 380; [2009] WLR (D) 159, HL(E) (Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Mance, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury)

  Subsequent considerations : 2 positive; 3 neutral; most recently considered: 2024. Subsequent citations: 75.
  CHILDREN — Children in need — Welfare services
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  CHILDREN — Children in need — Welfare services — Claimant aged 17 and homeless applying to local social services authority for accommodation — Authority assessing claimant in accordance with national guidance as not needing social services support — Authority determining that claimant needing help with accommodation but not appearing to it to “require accommodation” — Claimant referred to authority's homeless persons unit and provided with accommodation under housing powers — Whether guidance lawful — Whether authority's decision that claimant not requiring accommodation lawful — Children Act 1989 (as amended by Adoption and Children Act 2002, s 116(1)), ss 17(6), 20(1)(c)

  5 Case(s) considered

  2 Words & Phrases considered

  1 Statute considered
• Football Association Premier League Ltd v QC Leisure (Football Association Premier League Ltd v AV Station plc, Football Association Premier League Ltd v Madden)

  24 Jun 2008 [2008] EWHC 1411 (Ch); [2008] FSR 32, Ch D (Kitchin J )

  13 Nov 2008 [2008] EWHC 2897 (Ch); [2009] 1 WLR 1603, Ch D (Kitchin J)

  04 Oct 2011 (Joined cases C-403/08 and C-429/08); EU:C:2011:631; [2012] Bus LR 1321; [2012] All ER (EC) 629; [2011] WLR (D) 286, ECJ

  03 Feb 2012 (No 2) [2012] EWHC 108 (Ch); [2012] FSR 366, Ch D (Kitchin J)

  20 Dec 2012 [2012] EWCA Civ 1708; [2013] Bus LR 866; [2012] WLR (D) 392, CA

  Subsequent considerations : 2 positive; 4 neutral. Subsequent citations: 99.
  PRACTICE — Parties — Joinder

  EUROPEAN UNION — Free competition — Restriction or distortion of competition

  EUROPEAN UNION — Satellite broadcasting — Broadcasting of football matches
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  PRACTICE — Parties — Joinder — Court referring questions to Court of Justice of the European Communities — Non-parties applying to be joined as claimants to national court proceedings in order to take part in preliminary reference procedure — Whether court having jurisdiction to join parties as claimants to national court proceedings for that purpose — Whether discretion to be exercised — CPR r 19.2(2)(a)

  EUROPEAN UNION — Free competition — Restriction or distortion of competition — Broadcasting — Claimant operating system of licences for broadcast of football matches — Each licensee granted exclusive right to broadcast matches in single member state — Each subscriber requiring decoder card to decrypt licensee’s satellite signal — Licensees prohibited under licence agreement from supplying decoder cards to persons outside member state for which licence granted — Businesses in United Kingdom using decoder cards obtained by subterfuge from foreign licensee — Whether cards “illicit device” — Whether national legislation prohibiting import, sale or use of foreign decoder cards contrary to freedom to provide services — Whether objective of protecting intellectual property rights justifying prohibition — Whether contractual prohibition on supplying decoder cards contrary to EU competition law — Whether transient fragments of protected works on television screen “acts of reproduction” — Whether acts exempt — Whether transmission of works “communication to the public” for which authorisation required — Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, ss 297, 298 — FEU Treaty, arts 56FEU, 101FEU — Council Directive 98/84/EC, arts 2, 3 — Council Directive 2001/29/EC, arts 2, 3, 5

  EUROPEAN UNION — Satellite broadcasting — Broadcasting of football matches — Reception of the broadcast by means of satellite decoder cards — Satellite decoder cards lawfully placed on the market in one Member State and used in another Member State — Prohibition on marketing and use in a Member State — Visualisation of broadcasts in disregard of the exclusive rights granted — Copyright — Television broadcasting right — Exclusive licences to broadcast in a single Member State — Freedom to provide services — Article 56 TFEU — Competition — Article 101 TFEU — Restriction of competition by object — Protection of services based on conditional access — Illicit device — Directive 98/84/EC — Directive 2001/29/EC — Reproduction of works within the memory of a satellite decoder and on a television screen — Exception to the reproduction right — Communication of works to the public in public houses — Directive 93/83/EEC

  9 Case(s) considered
• Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF (No 3) (Secretary of State for the Home Department v AM, Secretary of State for the Home Department v AN, Secretary of State for the Home Department v AE)

  10 Mar 2008 (No 2) [2008] EWHC 453 (Admin); [2008] ACD 53, QBD (Stanley Burnton J)

  09 Apr 2008 (No 3) [2008] EWHC 689 (Admin); [2008] 4 All ER 340; The Times, 25 April 2008, QBD (Stanley Burnton J)

  17 Oct 2008 [2008] EWCA Civ 1148; [2010] 2 AC 269; [2009] 2 WLR 423; [2009] 2 All ER 602; The Times, 29 October 2008, CA

  10 Jun 2009 [2009] UKHL 28; [2010] 2 AC 269; [2009] 3 WLR 74; [2009] 3 All ER 643; 26 BHRC 738; The Times, 11 June 2009; [2009] WLR (D) 180, HL(E)

  Subsequent considerations : 12 positive; 5 neutral; 6 negative; most recently considered: 2025. Subsequent citations: 205.
  HUMAN RIGHTS — Right to fair trial — Suspected international terrorist
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  HUMAN RIGHTS — Right to fair trial — Suspected international terrorist — Home Secretary issuing non-derogating control orders — Court hearing to consider whether Home Secretary's decision flawed — Some or all of material not disclosed to controlee — Special advocates appointed to represent controlee with sight of closed material not disclosed to controlee — Whether hearing necessarily unfair absent disclosure to controlee of irreducible minimum of information — Whether procedure in breach of controlee's Convention right to fair trial — Human Rights Act 1998, Sch 1, Pt I, art 6 — Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, s 3(10), Sch, para 4 — CPR, Pt 76

  10 Case(s) considered

  2 Statutes considered

  1 Statutory Instrument considered
• NML Capital Ltd v Republic of Argentina

  29 Jan 2009 [2009] EWHC 110 (Comm); [2009] QB 579; [2009] 2 WLR 1332; [2009] 1 All ER (Comm) 697; [2009] 1 Lloyd's Rep 378, QBD

  04 Feb 2010 [2010] EWCA Civ 41; [2011] QB 8; [2010] 3 WLR 874; [2010] 2 All ER (Comm) 1206; [2010] 2 Lloyd's Rep 442; [2010] WLR (D) 28, CA

  06 Jul 2011 [2011] UKSC 31; [2011] 2 AC 495; [2011] 3 WLR 273; [2011] 4 All ER 1191; [2012] 1 All ER (Comm) 1081; [2011] 2 Lloyd's Rep 628; [2011] WLR (D) 220; Case details, SC(E)

  Subsequent considerations : 5 positive; 2 neutral; 2 negative; most recently considered: 2024. Subsequent citations: 85.
  INTERNATIONAL LAW — State immunity — Foreign judgment

  PRACTICE — Claim form — Service out of jurisdiction
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  INTERNATIONAL LAW — State immunity — Foreign judgment — Claimant obtaining New York judgment against foreign state in respect of default on bonds — Claimant bringing claim in England for enforcement of New York judgment — Whether proceedings in England “relating to … a commercial transaction” — Statutory provision allowing for recognition of judgment of foreign court where court would have had jurisdiction on basis of rules applicable in United Kingdom — Whether provision jurisdictional — Whether applicable only if statutory exception to state immunity applying — Whether terms of bond amounting to submission to English jurisdiction — State Immunity Act 1978, ss 1, 2, 3(1) — Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, s 31(1)

  PRACTICE — Claim form — Service out of jurisdiction — Claimant seeking to serve proceedings on foreign state — Claimant pleading state not immune from suit — Basis of contention legally flawed — Whether procedural error capable of remedy — Whether discretion to permit claimant to argue new bases for jurisdiction — CPR rr 3.10, 6.20(9)

  10 Case(s) considered

  1 Words & Phrases considered

  2 Statutes considered

  1 Statutory Instrument considered
• MO (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Odelola v Secretary of State for the Home Department)

  10 Apr 2008 [2008] EWCA Civ 308; [2009] 1 WLR 126, CA

  20 May 2009 [2009] UKHL 25; [2009] 1 WLR 1230; [2009] 3 All ER 1061; [2009] WLR (D) 162, HL(E)

  Subsequent considerations : 1 positive; 2 neutral. Subsequent citations: 156.
  IMMIGRATION — Immigration rules — Effect
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  IMMIGRATION — Immigration rules — Effect — Applicant seeking leave to remain as postgraduate doctor under immigration rules favourable to person with overseas medical degree — Change in immigration rules after date of application restricting leave to enter and remain as postgraduate doctor to person with recognised United Kingdom medical degree from United Kingdom institution — Secretary of State considering and refusing application under new rules — Whether immigration rules delegated or subordinate legislation or “rules” — Whether creating vested rights — Whether accrued rights preserved by statute — Whether common law rule against retrospectivity applying — Whether applicant entitled to have application determined under rules applying at date of application — Immigration Act 1971, s 3(2) — Interpretation Act 1978, s 16(1)(c) — Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules (HC 1016)

  6 Case(s) considered

  1 Words & Phrases considered

  2 Statutes considered

  1 Statutory Instrument considered

• Ajinomoto Sweeteners Europe SAS v Asda Stores Ltd

  15 Jul 2009 [2009] EWHC 1717 (QB); [2010] QB 204; [2009] 3 WLR 1149; [2010] 2 All ER 311, QBD

  02 Jun 2010 [2010] EWCA Civ 609; [2011] QB 497; [2011] 2 WLR 91; [2010] 4 All ER 1029; [2010] WLR (D) 144, CA

  Subsequent citations: 34.
  DEFAMATION — Malicious falsehood — Single meaning rule
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  DEFAMATION — Malicious falsehood — Single meaning rule — Claimant bringing action for malicious falsehood advancing alternative meanings for words complained of — Whether rule that words capable of bearing only one natural and ordinary meaning applying — Words reasonably capable of bearing allegedly false meaning and also meaning not alleged to be false — Whether court required to adopt meaning not alleged to be false

  DEFAMATION — Malicious falsehood — Single meaning rule — Claimant bringing action for malicious falsehood advancing alternative meanings for words complained of — Whether rule that words capable of bearing only one natural and ordinary meaning applying

  4 Case(s) considered
• R (Noone) v Governor of Drake Hall Prison

  31 Jan 2008 [2008] EWHC 207 (Admin), QBD (Mitting J)

  17 Oct 2008 [2008] EWCA Civ 1097; [2009] 1 WLR 1321; [2009] 1 All ER 494, CA

  30 Jun 2010 [2010] UKSC 30; [2010] 1 WLR 1743; [2010] 4 All ER 463; [2010] WLR (D) 164; Case details, SC(E)

  Subsequent considerations : 1 neutral; most recently considered: 2012. Subsequent citations: 15.
  PRISONS — Prisoners’ rights — Release on licence
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  PRISONS — Prisoners’ rights — Release on licence — Computation of release dates where prisoner serving consecutive sentences of less than or more than 12 months passed under different statutory sentencing regimes — New statutory sentencing regime with transitional provisions — Calculation of earliest release date on home detention curfew and licence — Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Commencement No 8 and Transitional and Savings Provisions) Order 2005, Sch 2, para 14

  PRISONS — Prisoners’ rights — Release on licence — Computation of release dates where prisoner serving consecutive sentences of less than and more than 12 months — New statutory sentencing regime with transitional provisions — Calculation of earliest release date on home detention curfew and licence — Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Commencement No 8 and Transitional and Savings Provisions) Order 2005, Sch 2, para 14

  3 Case(s) considered

  1 Statutory Instrument considered
• R (Barclay) v Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice

  18 Jun 2008 [2008] EWHC 1354 (Admin); [2010] 1 AC 464; [2008] 3 WLR 867; [2008] UKHRR 1284, QBD (Wyn Williams J)

  02 Dec 2008 [2008] EWCA Civ 1319; [2010] 1 AC 464; [2009] 2 WLR 1205; The Times, 5 December 2008, CA (Pill, Jacob, Etherton LJJ)

  01 Dec 2009 [2009] UKSC 9; [2010] 1 AC 464; [2009] 3 WLR 1270; [2010] 2 All ER 267; [2010] HRLR 10; [2009] WLR (D) 349; (2009) 159 NLJ 1737; The Times, 2 December 2009; Case details, SC(E) (Lord Hope of Craighead DPSC, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood JSC, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury MR, Lord Collins of Mapesbury JSC)

  Subsequent considerations : 1 neutral; most recently considered: 2014. Subsequent citations: 28.
  HUMAN RIGHTS — Jurisdiction — Channel Islands

  HUMAN RIGHTS — Right to fair trial — Interference with

  HUMAN RIGHTS — Right to free elections — Interference with
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  HUMAN RIGHTS — Jurisdiction — Channel Islands — United Kingdom declaring Convention for Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms extending to Island of Sark as dependent territory — Whether Human Rights Act 1998 extending to Sark — Ministers and Privy Counsellors advising Queen to give Royal Assent to Laws proposed by legislature of Sark — Whether advisers acting as “public authority” — Human Rights Act 1998, s 6 — Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1953), art 56, First Protocol, art 4

  HUMAN RIGHTS — Right to fair trial — Interference with — Sark Law providing for Sark judge to sit in Sark legislature — Whether judge independent and impartial tribunal — Whether Law infringing Convention right to fair trial — Human Rights Act 1998, Sch 1, Pt I, art 6(1)

  HUMAN RIGHTS — Right to free elections — Interference with — Sark Law providing for officials to sit as unelected members of Sark legislature and prohibiting aliens from standing for election to legislature — Whether impairing “free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature” — Whether infringing Convention right to free elections — Whether “people” limited to citizens — Whether law breaching right of citizen of European Union to stand as candidate at “municipal elections” — Human Rights Act 1998, Sch 1, Pt II, art 3 — EC Treaty, art 19(1)EC

  17 Case(s) considered

  4 Words & Phrases considered

  1 EU Enactment considered

  1 Statute considered

  1 International Agreement considered

• Supperstone v Hurst

  09 Jun 2009 [2009] EWHC 1271 (Ch); [2009] 1 WLR 2306; [2009] WLR (D) 176, Ch D

  Subsequent citations: 3.
  PRACTICE — Vexatious litigant — Civil restraint order
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  PRACTICE — Vexatious litigant — Civil restraint order — Court's jurisdiction to make extended civil restraint order — Whether extending to restraining litigant from communicating with named persons — Practice Direction 3C supplementing CPR r 3.11, para 3.1

  1 Statutory Instrument considered