Results: 434

• R (Cart) v Upper Tribunal (Public Law Project intervening) (R (C) v Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Public Law Project intervening), R (U) v Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Public Law Project intervening))

  01 Dec 2009 [2009] EWHC 3052 (Admin); [2011] QB 120; [2010] 2 WLR 1012; [2010] PTSR 824; [2010] 1 All ER 908; [2010] STC 493, DC

  23 Jul 2010 [2010] EWCA Civ 859; [2011] QB 120; [2011] 2 WLR 36; [2011] PTSR 42; [2010] 4 All ER 714; [2010] STC 2556; [2010] WLR (D) 198, CA (Laws LJ, Owen J)

  22 Jun 2011 [2011] UKSC 28; [2012] 1 AC 663; [2011] 3 WLR 107; [2011] PTSR 1053; [2011] 4 All ER 127; [2011] STC 1659; [2012] 1 FLR 997; [2011] WLR (D) 203; Case details, SC(E)

  Subsequent considerations : 7 positive; 8 neutral; most recently considered: 2024. Subsequent citations: 221.
  JUDICIAL REVIEW — Court's jurisdiction — Special Immigration Appeals Commission

  JUDICIAL REVIEW — Court's jurisdiction — Upper Tribunal
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  JUDICIAL REVIEW — Court's jurisdiction — Special Immigration Appeals Commission — Commission “superior court of record” — Commission revoking and refusing bail on basis of closed evidence without disclosing gist to claimants — Decisions unappealable — Whether commission alter ego of High Court — Whether decisions susceptible to judicial review — Whether violating claimants' Convention rights — Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997, s 1(3) (as inserted by Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, s 35)

  JUDICIAL REVIEW — Court's jurisdiction — Upper Tribunal — Tribunal “superior court of record” — Tribunal refusing permission to appeal to itself — Decision unappealable — Whether tribunal alter ego of High Court — Whether decision susceptible to judicial review — Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, s 3(5)

  16 Case(s) considered

  1 Words & Phrases considered

  2 Statutes considered
• R (Morge) v Hampshire County Council

  17 Nov 2009 [2009] EWHC 2940 (Admin); [2010] Env LR 432, QBD (Judge Bidder QC)

  10 Jun 2010 [2010] EWCA Civ 608; [2010] PTSR 1882; [2010] LGR 961; [2010] WLR (D) 145, CA

  19 Jan 2011 [2011] UKSC 2; [2011] 1 WLR 268; [2011] PTSR 337; [2011] 1 All ER 744; [2011] LGR 271; [2011] WLR (D) 5; Case details, SC(E)

  Subsequent considerations : 1 neutral. Subsequent citations: 179.
  EUROPEAN UNION — Environment — Natural habitats

  PLANNING — Development — Natural habitats
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  EUROPEAN UNION — Environment — Natural habitats — Local planning authority granting permission for development affecting species or habitat of European protected species — Whether effects of development constituting “deliberate disturbance” of protected species — Whether planning decision made in breach of requirements of Council Directive — Council Directive 92/43/EEC, art 12(1)(b)

  PLANNING — Development — Natural habitats — European protected species — Local planning authority granting planning permission for development affecting species or habitat of bats — Whether effects of development constituting “deliberate disturbance” of protected species — Whether necessary to consider indirect, as well as direct, impact upon “deterioration or destruction of breeding sites or resting places” — Whether planning decision made in breach of requirements of Habitats Directive — Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) Regulations 1994 (as amended by Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) (Amendment) Regulations 2007, reg 5 and Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Regulations 2009, reg 7), regs 3(4), 39 — Council Directive 92/43/EEC, art 12(1)(b)(d)

  5 Case(s) considered

  2 Words & Phrases considered

  1 EU Enactment considered

  1 Statutory Instrument considered

• R v Forsyth (R v Mabey)

  23 Feb 2011 [2011] UKSC 9; [2011] 2 AC 69; [2011] 2 WLR 277; [2011] 2 All ER 165; [2011] WLR (D) 52; Case details, SC(E) (Lord Hope of Craighead DPSC, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood JJSC)

  Subsequent citations: 2.
  CROWN — Order in Council — Validity

  STATUTE — Construction — Hansard
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  CROWN — Order in Council — Validity — Statute conferring power on executive to make Orders in Council giving effect to United Nations Security Council Resolutions including creating criminal offences — Absence in statute of identifiable time limit for exercise of power — Security Council Resolution prohibiting making funds available to Government of Iraq — Order in Council making prohibited action criminal offence enacted ten years later — Whether recourse to parliamentary material surrounding passage of statute permissible to ascertain parliamentary intention as to temporal limits of power — Whether power to be exercised only at or about same time as relevant Security Council Resolution — Whether Order ultra vires enabling statute by reason of delay — United Nations Act 1946, s 1(1) — Iraq (United Nations Sanctions) Order 2000, arts 3(a), 11(4)

  STATUTE — Construction — Hansard — Statute conferring power on executive to make Orders in Council giving effect to United Nations Security Council Resolutions including creating criminal offences — Absence in statute of identifiable time limit for exercise of power — Whether recourse to parliamentary material surrounding passage of statute permissible to ascertain parliamentary intention as to temporal limits of power

  3 Case(s) considered

  1 Statute considered

  1 Statutory Instrument considered

• R v Hamer

  17 Aug 2010 [2010] EWCA Crim 2053; [2011] 1 WLR 528; [2011] 1 Cr App R 23; [2010] WLR (D) 235, CA

  Subsequent citations: 7.
  CRIME — Evidence — Character
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  CRIME — Evidence — Character — Defendant tried on charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm — Defendant having no previous convictions or cautions — Penalty notice previously issued to defendant in respect of unrelated suspected public order offence — Whether evidence of notice admissible in relation to defendant's character — Whether defendant entitled to good character direction — Whether jury misdirected — Whether trial fair and conviction safe — Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, s 2(1) (as amended by Penalties for Disorderly Behaviour (Amendment of Minimum Age) Order 2004, art 2)

  1 Case considered

  1 Statute considered

• Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission v Beesley

  24 Nov 2010 [2010] EWCA Civ 1344; [2011] 1 WLR 1704; [2011] PTSR 893; [2011] 3 All ER 233; [2011] 1 FLR 1547; [2010] WLR (D) 304, CA (Ward LJ, Etherton LJ, Tomlinson LJ)

  SOCIAL SECURITY — Child support maintenance — Arrears
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  SOCIAL SECURITY — Child support maintenance — Arrears — Non-resident parent seeking individual voluntary arrangement as to arrears of child support and other debts — Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission not attending creditors' meeting — Creditors' meeting endorsing individual voluntary arrangement — Whether commission “creditor” capable of voting on, or being bound by, individual voluntary arrangement — Insolvency Act 1986, Pt VIII, s 260(2)(b) (as substituted by Insolvency Act 2000, s 3, Sch 3)

  2 Case(s) considered

  1 Words & Phrases considered

  1 Statute considered

• Official Solicitor v Yemoh

  15 Dec 2010 [2010] EWHC 3727 (Ch); [2011] 1 WLR 1450; [2011] 4 All ER 200; [2011] 2 FLR 371; [2010] WLR (D) 334, Ch D (Anthony Elleray QC)

  ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES — Intestacy — Immovable property
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES — Intestacy — Immovable property — Deceased domiciled in Ghana party to polygamous marriages contracted in accordance with Ghanaian customary law — Whether deceased's polygamous marriages recognised for purposes of succession to immovable property in England and Wales — Whether surviving wives “spouse” of deceased — Administration of Estates Act 1925, s 46(1) (as amended by Intestates' Estates Act 1952, s 1(2), Family Provision Act 1966, s 1(2)(a), Administration of Justice Act 1977, s 28(1) and Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1981, s 1(1), Sch 1, Pt I)

  3 Case(s) considered

  1 Words & Phrases considered

  1 Statute considered
• H v News Group Newspapers Ltd (JIH v News Group Newspapers Ltd)

  05 Nov 2010 [2010] EWHC 2818 (QB); [2011] EMLR 9, QBD (Tugendhat J)

  18 Nov 2010 [2010] EWHC 2979 (QB), QBD (Tugendhat J)

  31 Jan 2011 (Practice Note) [2011] EWCA Civ 42; [2011] 1 WLR 1645; [2011] 2 All ER 324; [2011] 2 FCR 95; [2011] EMLR 15; [2011] WLR (D) 27; (2011) 161 NLJ 211; The Times, 7 February 2011, CA (Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury MR, Maurice Kay, Smith LJJ)

  Subsequent considerations : 5 positive; 2 neutral; 1 negative; most recently considered: 2024. Subsequent citations: 152.
  HUMAN RIGHTS — Respect for private and family life — Interference with
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  HUMAN RIGHTS — Respect for private and family life — Interference with — Freedom of expression — Reporting restrictions — Newspaper report concerning private life of well-known sportsman — Claimant obtaining injunction to restrain publication of further confidential information with anonymity in proceedings — Balance of competing Convention rights — Proper approach when determining whether anonymity to be ordered — Human Rights Act 1998, Sch 1, Pt I, arts 8, 10

  3 Case(s) considered

  1 Statute considered
• Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No 2)

  11 Jun 2010 [2010] EWHC 1332 (QB); [2010] Lloyd's Rep FC 504; [2010] WLR (D) 148, QBD (Mitting J)

  13 Jan 2011 [2011] EWCA Civ 1; [2012] QB 101; [2011] 3 WLR 714; [2011] 2 All ER 802, CA

  19 Jun 2013 [2013] UKSC 38; [2013] UKSC 39; [2014] AC 700; [2013] 3 WLR 179; [2013] 4 All ER 495; [2013] 4 All ER 533; [2013] Lloyd's Rep FC 580; [2013] HRLR 30; [2013] WLR (D) 244, SC(E) (Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury PSC, Lord Dyson MR, Lord Hope of Craighead DPSC, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore, Lord Clarke of Stone-cum-Ebony, Lord Sumption, Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath JJSC)

  Subsequent considerations : 44 positive; 10 neutral; 4 negative; most recently considered: 2923. Subsequent citations: 580.
  STATUTORY INSTRUMENT — Validity — -

  CROWN — Order in Council — Validity

  SUPREME COURT — Jurisdiction — Evidence
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENT — Validity — - — Order directing persons operating in UK financial sector not to do business with claimant with aim of inhibiting development of nuclear weapons by Iran— Whether claimant should have been given opportunity to make representations before order made— Whether order “proportionate” having regard to risk to national interests of United Kingdom posed by Iranian development of nuclear weapons— Human Rights Act 1998, Sch 1, Pt I, art 6(1), Pt II, art 1— Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, Sch 7, paras 1(4), 9(6)— Financial Restrictions (Iran) Order 2009 (SI 2009/2725)

  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— Bank not given opportunity to make representations before making of Order— Bank applying to set aside direction— Whether requirement that least measure be used— Whether existence of less intrusive measure use of which would not significantly compromise legitimate aim of restriction relevant to its proportionality— Whether Order proportionate— Whether procedurally flawed— Whether Parliament excluding common law right to make representations before direction made— Whether Convention right to fair hearing engaged when direction made and laid before Parliament— Whether statutory procedure breaching Convention rights— Whether Order lawful— Human Rights Act 1998 (c 42), Sch 1, Pt I, art 6, Pt II, art 1 — Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 (c 28), ss 62, 63, Sch 7

  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— Bank not given opportunity to make representations before making of Order— Bank applying to set aside direction— Whether requirement that least measure be used— Whether Order proportionate— Whether procedurally flawed— Whether Parliament excluding common law right to make representations before direction made— Whether statutory procedure breaching Convention rights— Whether Order lawful— Human Rights Act 1998 (c 42), Sch 1, Pt I, art 6, Pt II, art 1 — Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 (c 28), ss 62, 63, Sch 7

  SUPREME COURT — Jurisdiction — Evidence — Closed material procedure— 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— Bank’s appeal from court’s refusal to set aside Order— Treasury proposing to rely on closed material in resisting appeal— Whether jurisdiction for Supreme Court to entertain closed material— Whether appropriate to entertain material— Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (c 4), s 40

  8 Case(s) considered

  3 Statutes considered

  1 Statutory Instrument considered
• BBGP Managing General Partner Ltd v Babcock & Brown Global Partners

  20 Aug 2010 [2010] EWHC 2176 (Ch); [2011] Ch 296; [2011] 2 WLR 496; [2011] Bus LR 466; [2011] 2 All ER 297; [2010] WLR (D) 238, Ch D (Norris J)

  Subsequent considerations : 1 neutral; most recently considered: 2024. Subsequent citations: 25.
  EVIDENCE — Privilege — Legal professional privilege
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  EVIDENCE — Privilege — Legal professional privilege — Investment group establishing defendant limited partnership — Limited partners including second and third claimants — Investment group establishing first claimant to be defendant's general partner and appointing one of its employees as executive director — Dispute arising between defendant and investment group — First claimant's executive director retaining solicitors in relation to dispute — Director in breach of fiduciary duty seeking advice from same solicitors regarding removal of first claimant as general partner — Advice e-mailed to director and stored on investment group's database — First claimant bringing action against defendant following its removal as general partner — Communications to and from solicitor found on investment group's database — Whether communications privileged — Identity of solicitor's clients — Whether use of investment group's e-mail accounts and consequent storage on its database resulting in loss of confidentiality and privilege — Whether defendant entitled to assert privilege against first to third claimants — Whether first claimant entitled to share material with its corporate shareholder — Whether shareholder in turn entitled to share it with its shareholders — Whether defendant's use of director to help secure removal of first claimant engaging iniquity principle — Whether evidence disclosing strong prima facie case of iniquity — Whether defendant losing privilege

  7 Case(s) considered
• R v McKenzie (Michael Anthony)

  23 Jun 2011 [2011] EWCA Crim 1550; [2011] 1 WLR 2807; [2011] 2 Cr App R 381; [2011] WLR (D) 207, CA

  Subsequent considerations : 1 neutral. Subsequent citations: 7.
  CRIME — Plea — Fitness to plead

  LAW REFORM — Whether necessary — Power to order retrial
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  CRIME — Plea — Fitness to plead — Defendant charged on indictment with counts alleging indecent assault contrary to statutory provision creating offence capable of being committed only against women — Particulars of offence alleging indecent assault on named man — Defendant found to be under disability — Jury making findings that defendant did acts charged — Whether pleading in particulars of specific acts sufficient to cure defect in charge — Whether possible to substitute findings in relation to correct offence for those of jury — Whether jury’s findings safe — Sexual Offences Act 1956, ss 14(1), 15(1) — Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964, s 4A (as substituted by Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991, s 2 and amended by Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act, s 22(4)) — Criminal Appeal Act 1968, s 3 (as amended by Criminal Justice Act 2003, s 316(2))

  LAW REFORM — Whether necessary — Power to order retrial — Whether Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) should have power to order retrial when quashing findings made against person under disability — Criminal Appeal Act 1968, s 16(4) (as substituted by Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991, s 7, Sch 3, para 3(3))

  3 Statutes considered