Results: 80

• R (Yam) v Central Criminal Court

  31 Oct 2014 [2014] EWHC 3558 (Admin); [2016] AC 771; [2015] 3 WLR 1050; [2015] 3 All ER 354; [2015] 1 Cr App R 114; [2015] ACD 26; [2014] CN 1877, DC

  29 May 2015 Permission to appeal to Supreme Court given

  16 Dec 2015 [2015] UKSC 76; [2016] AC 771; [2016] 2 WLR 19; [2017] 1 All ER 462; [2016] 1 Cr App R 17; [2015] WLR (D) 526; Case details, SC(E)

  Subsequent citations: 9.
  CROWN COURT — Practice — Reporting restrictions

  HUMAN RIGHTS — Access to courts — European Court of Human Rights

  JUDICIAL REVIEW — Crown Court — Jurisdiction
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  CROWN COURT — Practice — Reporting restrictions — Order that evidence heard in camera not be published — Whether within statutory powers — Whether within inherent powers of court — Administration of Justice Act 1960, s 12(1)(c) — Contempt of Court Act 1981, ss 2(1), 11

  HUMAN RIGHTS — Access to courts — European Court of Human Rights — Order made by Crown Court that evidence heard in camera not to be published — Convicted person applying to European Court of Human Rights alleging that right to fair trial infringed — Judge refusing to vary order to permit disclosure to European court — Whether access to European court fundamental right — Whether absolute right — Whether any infringement of right of access proportionate — Whether exercise of judge’s discretion reviewable — Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1953), arts 34, 38

  JUDICIAL REVIEW — Crown Court — Jurisdiction — Order that evidence heard in camera not be published — Whether matter “relating to trial on indictment” — Whether order amenable to judicial review — Senior Courts Act 1981, s 29(3) (as amended by Civil Procedure (Modification of Supreme Court Act 1981) Order 2004, art 3(b))

  HUMAN RIGHTS — Access to courts — European Court of Human Rights — Order made by Crown Court that evidence heard in camera not to be published — Convicted person applying to European Court of Human Rights alleging that right to fair trial infringed — Judge refusing to vary order to permit disclosure to European court — Whether decision hindering effective exercise of convicted person’s right of application to European court — Whether for domestic or European court to order disclosure if appropriate — Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, arts 34, 38

  CROWN COURT — Practice — Reporting restrictions — Order made by Crown Court that evidence heard in camera not to be published — Convicted person applying to European Court of Human Rights alleging that right to fair trial infringed — Judge refusing to vary order to permit disclosure to European court — Whether judge properly exercising discretionary power — Whether decision breaching United Kingdom’s international obligations — Whether breaching domestic law — Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1953), arts 34, 38

  12 Case(s) considered

  1 Words & Phrases considered

  3 Statutes considered

  1 International Agreement considered
• R (King) v Secretary of State for Justice (R (Hussain) v Secretary of State for Justice (Howard League for Penal Reform intervening), R (Bourgass) v Secretary of State for Justice)

  13 Oct 2010 [2010] EWHC 2522 (Admin); [2011] 1 WLR 2667; [2011] 3 All ER 776; [2010] WLR (D) 258; [2011] ACD 13; The Times, 8 March 2011; [2010] UKHRR 1245, DC

  27 Mar 2012 [2012] EWCA Civ 376; [2012] 1 WLR 3602; [2012] 4 All ER 44; [2012] HRLR 17; [2012] WLR (D) 102; The Times, 27 June 2012, CA

  17 Mar 2014 (appn all) [2014] 1 WLR 1233, SC(E)

  29 Jul 2015 (Howard League for Penal Reform intervening) [2015] UKSC 54; [2016] AC 384; [2015] 3 WLR 457; [2016] 1 All ER 1033; Case details, SC(E)

  Subsequent considerations : 2 positive; 2 neutral; most recently considered: 2021. Subsequent citations: 37.
  PRISONS — Prisoners’ rights — Disciplinary proceedings
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  PRISONS — Prisoners’ rights — Disciplinary proceedings — Inmates in young offender institution or prison — Governor ordering segregation from other inmates — Segregation review board regularly considering period of detention — Whether right to association with other inmates “civil right” — Whether right to private and family life engaged — Whether hearings before governor and segregation review boards “determination” of civil rights — Whether breach of Convention right to fair trial before independent tribunal — Whether availability of judicial review securing compliance with Convention — Human Rights Act 1998, Sch 1, Pt I, arts 6, 8

  PRISONS — Prisoners’ rights — Disciplinary proceedings — Prisoners placed in segregation for reasons of good order and discipline following incidents with other prisoners — Prison Service Order issued by Secretary of State purporting to delegate his power to authorise segregation beyond 72 hours to prison governors or officers — Whether delegation lawful — Decisions to maintain segregation taken by prison governor or senior prison officer — Whether decisions and continued segregation lawful — Prison Act 1952 (as amended by Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (c 33), s 6(2)). s 47(1) — Prison Rules 1999 (as amended by the Prison (Amendment) (No 2) Rules 2005 (SI 2005/3437), r 2, Sch 1, para 9). r 45

  17 Case(s) considered

  2 Words & Phrases considered

  2 Statutes considered

  1 Statutory Instrument considered
• In re J (A Child) (Reunite International Child Abduction Centre intervening) (Re J (A Child) (1996 Hague Convention) (Morocco))

  [2014] EWHC 3588 (Fam), Fam D (Wood J)

  01 Apr 2015 [2015] EWCA Civ 329; [2016] AC 1291; [2015] 3 WLR 747; [2015] 2 FLR 513; [2015] WLR (D) 201, CA (Moore-Bick, Black, Gloster LJJ)

  25 Nov 2015 [2015] UKSC 70; [2016] AC 1291; [2015] 3 WLR 1827; [2016] 4 All ER 1048; [2016] 1 FLR 170; [2015] WLR (D) 486; Case details, SC(E) (Lady Hale DPSC, Lord Wilson, Lord Reed, Lord Hughes, Lord Toulson JJSC)

  Subsequent considerations : 1 positive. Subsequent citations: 19.
  CHILDREN — Custody rights — Jurisdiction
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  CHILDREN — Custody rights — Jurisdiction — Child born in United Kingdom to Moroccan parents — Child living in Morocco with mother after divorce and subject to order to reside there Mother subsequently remarrying in United Kingdom and bringing child from Morocco — Father unsuccessfully applying to Moroccan court for residential custody — Father six months later issuing proceedings in United Kingdom for child’s return — Whether proceedings governed by international Convention or Council Regulation — Whether English court having jurisdiction under Convention to make return order — Whether criterion of urgency satisfied — Whether court able to exercise inherent jurisdiction — Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Cooperation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children (1996) (Cm 7727), arts 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 — Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003, art 61

  CHILDREN — Custody rights — Jurisdiction — Child born in United Kingdom to Moroccan parents — Child living in Morocco with mother after divorce and subject to order to reside there — Mother subsequently remarrying in United Kingdom and bringing child from Morocco — Father unsuccessfully applying to Moroccan court for residential custody — Father six months later issuing proceedings in United Kingdom for child’s return — Whether English court having jurisdiction under Convention to make return order — Whether criterion of urgency satisfied — Whether court able to exercise inherent jurisdiction — Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children (1996) (Cm 7727), arts 7, 11

  2 Case(s) considered

  1 EU Enactment considered

  1 International Agreement considered
• R (Cornwall Council) v Secretary of State for Health

  21 Dec 2012 [2012] EWHC 3739 (Admin); [2013] LGR 197; 16 CCLR 83, QBD (Beatson J)

  18 Feb 2014 [2014] EWCA Civ 12; [2014] 1 WLR 3408; [2014] 3 All ER 603; [2014] LGR 433; 17 CCLR 78; [2014] WLR (D) 80, CA

  22 May 2014 Permission to appeal to Supreme Court given

  08 Jul 2015 [2015] UKSC 46; [2016] AC 137; [2015] 3 WLR 213; [2016] 1 All ER 962; 18 CCLR 497; [2015] WLR (D) 298; Case details, SC(E)

  Subsequent considerations : 1 neutral; 1 negative; most recently considered: 2021. Subsequent citations: 7.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT — Community care services — Persons in need of care and attention

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT — Community care services — Provision of accommodation
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT — Community care services — Persons in need of care and attention — Duty of local authority to provide accommodation — Ordinary residence of individual with physical and learning disabilities — Local councils unable to decide who should have responsibility for individual upon him reaching 18 — Secretary of State determining individual’s ordinary residence to be area of claimant council — Whether Secretary of State erring — National Assistance Act 1948, ss 21, 32(3) — Children Act 1989, s 20

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT — Community care services — Provision of accommodation — Incapacitated person reaching age of 18 having been in care of local authority — Dispute as to which local authority responsible for providing him with accommodation as adult — Secretary of State making determination as to where incapacitated person "ordinarily resident" — Whether live issue as to adults residence — Whether incapacitated person to be accommodated by authority in area of which ordinarily resident or by authority formerly providing care — Extent of power to provide assistance to person formerly in care — Whether Secretary of State having power to make determination — Proper approach to determining where incapacitated adult "ordinarily resident" — Whether to be determined by reference to place where parents ordinarily resident — National Assistance Act 1948 (as amended by Local Government Act 1972, s 195(6), Sch 23, para 2(1), Children Act 1989, s 108(5), Sch 13, para 11(1), National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, s 42(1)(a) and Health and Social Care Act 2008, s 148(2)), ss 21(1)(a), 24(1), 32(3) — Children Act 1989 (as amended by Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000), s 2(4)), ss 20, 23C(4)(c)

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT — Community care services — Provision of accommodation — Incapacitated person reaching age of 18 having been in care of local authority— Dispute as to which local authority responsible for providing him with accommodation as an adult— Secretary of State making determination as to where incapacitated person “ordinarily resident”— Proper approach to determination— Principles applicable— Whether incapacitated person’s ordinary residence to be determined as being place of parents’ ordinary residence— Whether acquiring ordinary residence in area where placed by local authority for area where originally ordinarily resident— National Assistance Act 1948 (11 & 12 Geo 6, c 29) (as amended by Local Government Act 1972 (c 70), s 195(6), Sch 23, para 2, Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 (c 48), s 20(4), Sch, Children Act 1989 (c 41), s 108(5), Sch 13, para 11(1), National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 (c 19), s 42(1)(a) and Health and Social Care Act 2008 (c 14), s 148(2)), ss 21(1)(a), 24(1), 32(3) — Children Act 1989 (as amended by Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000 (c 35), s 2(4)), ss 20, 23C(4)(c)

  14 Case(s) considered

  1 Words & Phrases considered

  2 Statutes considered
• International Energy Group Ltd v Zurich Insurance plc UK Branch

  24 Jan 2012 [2012] EWHC 69 (Comm), QBD

  06 Feb 2013 [2013] EWCA Civ 39; [2013] 3 All ER 395; [2013] 2 All ER (Comm) 336; [2013] CN 216, CA

  16 Jul 2014 (Association of British Insurers intervening) [2015] UKSC 33; [2016] AC 509; [2015] 2 WLR 1471; [2015] 4 All ER 813; [2016] 1 All ER (Comm) 114; [2015] Lloyd's Rep IR 598; [2015] WLR (D) 233; Case details, SC(E)

  Subsequent considerations : 1 positive; 2 negative; most recently considered: 2019. Subsequent citations: 15.
  INSURANCE — Liability insurance — Indemnity

  INSURANCE — Guernsey — Insurance
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  INSURANCE — Liability insurance — Indemnity — Employers’ liability insurance covering employee’s injury or disease “caused during any period of insurance and arising out of ... his employment” — Employer paying premium for six years out of 27 in which employee exposed to asbestos dust — Employee developing mesothelioma — Whether insurers liable to provide full indemnity

  INSURANCE — Guernsey — Insurance — Liability insurance — Guernsey employer’s liability insurance covering employee’s injury or disease “caused during any period of insurance and arising out of … his employment” — Employer paying premium for six years out of 27 in which employee exposed to asbestos dust — Employee developing mesothelioma — Employer compensating employee — Whether insurers liable to provide full or proportionate indemnity to employer — Whether liable to pay all defence costs incurred by employer in defending employee’s claim

  10 Case(s) considered

  1 Words & Phrases considered
• Knauer v Ministry of Justice

  24 Jul 2014 [2014] EWHC 2553 (QB); [2014] CN 1627, QBD (Bean J)

  24 Feb 2015 Permission to appeal to Supreme Court given

  24 Feb 2016 [2016] UKSC 9; [2016] AC 908; [2016] 2 WLR 672; [2016] 4 All ER 897; [2016] WLR (D) 103; Case details, SC(E)

  Subsequent considerations : 1 negative. Subsequent citations: 19.
  FATAL ACCIDENTS ACTS — Damages — Multiplier for future loss

  JUDICIAL PRECEDENT — House of Lords decisions — How far binding

  DAMAGES — Personal injuries — Asbestos exposure
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  FATAL ACCIDENTS ACTS — Damages — Multiplier for future loss — Claimant’s wife dying due to exposure to asbestos during employment — Claimant bringing claim for loss of dependency — Employer admitting liability over four years later — Date from which multiplier for future loss to be calculated — Fatal Accidents Act 1976 (c 30), s 1 (as substituted by Administration of Justice Act 1982 (c 53), s 3)

  JUDICIAL PRECEDENT — House of Lords decisions — How far binding — House of Lords decisions resulting in under-compensation in fatal accident cases — Whether justification to depart from decisions

  DAMAGES — Personal injuries — Asbestos exposure — Defendant admitting liability for death of claimant’s wife from mesothelioma — Quantum of damages to be awarded

  4 Case(s) considered

  1 Statute considered

• Menelaou v Bank of Cyprus plc (Menelaou v Bank of Cyprus UK Ltd)

  02 Jul 2013 [2013] EWCA Civ 1960; [2014] 1 WLR 854; [2013] 2 P & CR 21; [2013] WLR (D) 266, CA

  10 Mar 2014 (appn all) [2014] 1 WLR 1232, SC(E)

  04 Nov 2015 [2015] UKSC 66; [2016] AC 176; [2015] 3 WLR 1334; [2016] 2 All ER 913; [2016] 2 All ER (Comm) 259; [2015] 2 Lloyd's Rep 585; [2016] 1 BCLC 335; [2015] WLR (D) 438; Case details, SC(E)

  Subsequent citations: 37.
  RESTITUTION — Unjust enrichment — Subrogation
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  RESTITUTION — Unjust enrichment — Subrogation — Bank holding charges over property to secure owners’ indebtedness — Bank agreeing to release charges to enable owners to sell property in order to purchase new property and repay part of indebtedness on condition that bank granted charge over new property — Charged property sold and new property purchased subject to new charge — Original charges not released until after sale and purchase completed — Charge over new property invalid — Whether bank entitled to be subrogated to unpaid vendor’s lien so as to have equitable charge over new property

  RESTITUTION — Unjust enrichment — Subrogation — Bank holding charges over property to secure owners’ indebtedness — Bank agreeing to release charges to enable owners to sell property to allow purchase of new property for daughter and repayment of part of indebtedness on condition that bank granted charge over new property — Charged property sold and new property purchased subject to new charge — Original charges not released until after sale and purchase completed — Charge over new property defectively executed and void — Whether bank entitled to be subrogated to unpaid vendor’s lien so as to have equitable charge over new property

  11 Case(s) considered
• Sharland v Sharland

  29 Apr 2013 [2013] EWHC 991 (Fam); [2013] 2 FLR 1598; [2013] CN 640, Fam D (Sir Hugh Bennett)

  10 Feb 2014 [2014] EWCA Civ 95; [2014] 2 FLR 89; [2014] CN 180, CA

  24 Jul 2014 Permission to appeal to Supreme Court given

  14 Oct 2015 [2015] UKSC 60; [2016] AC 871; [2015] 3 WLR 1070; [2016] 1 All ER 671; [2015] 2 FLR 1367; [2015] WLR (D) 408; Case details, SC(E)

  Subsequent considerations : 6 positive; 3 neutral. Subsequent citations: 48.
  HUSBAND AND WIFE — Financial provision — Agreement

  HUSBAND AND WIFE — Financial provision — Non-disclosure of relevant information

  HUSBAND AND WIFE — Financial provision — Disclosure of material facts
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  HUSBAND AND WIFE — Financial provision — Agreement — Disclosure of material facts — Parties reaching agreement regarding financial provision — Wife applying for resumption of financial provision hearing before consent order sealed on ground of fraudulent non-disclosure by husband — Whether consent order to be set aside

  HUSBAND AND WIFE — Financial provision — Non-disclosure of relevant information — Whether non-disclosure material

  HUSBAND AND WIFE — Financial provision — Disclosure of material facts — Both parties giving evidence about value of assets at hearing to determine financial provision — Parties subsequently agreeing settlement and consent order made — Before consent order sealed wife discovering material non-disclosure by husband — Wife applying for consent order not to be sealed and for resumption of financial provision hearing — Judge finding husband had been dishonest and seriously misleading but perfecting consent order because non-disclosure not material since same order would have been made had full disclosure been made at outset — Whether judge erring — Whether consent order to be set aside

  4 Case(s) considered
• In re B (A Child) (Reunite International Child Abduction Centre intervening)

  31 Jul 2014 (unreported), Fam D (Hogg J)

  06 Aug 2015 [2015] EWCA Civ 886; [2016] AC 606; [2016] 2 WLR 487; [2015] WLR (D) 364, CA (Sir James Munby P, Black and Underhill LJJ)

  03 Nov 2015 Permission to appeal to Supreme Court given

  03 Feb 2016 [2016] UKSC 4; [2016] AC 606; [2016] 2 WLR 557; [2017] 1 All ER 899; [2016] 1 FLR 561; [2016] WLR (D) 52; Case details, SC(E) (Baroness Hale of Richmond DPSC, Lord Clarke of Stone-cum-Ebony, Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption, Lord Toulson JJSC)

  Subsequent considerations : 11 positive; 2 neutral; 1 negative. Subsequent citations: 156.
  CHILDREN — Custody rights — Jurisdiction

  CHILDREN — Wardship — Jurisdiction
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  CHILDREN — Custody rights — Jurisdiction — Habitual residence — Child born to mother living in same-sex relationship with applicant — Applicant involved in caring for child and regarded by child as her second parent — Relationship between mother and applicant breaking down — Applicant prevented from having regular contact with child after separating from mother — Mother taking child to live in Pakistan permanently — Applicant seeking shared residence order, contact order and orders to assist her in locating child — Court declining jurisdiction on ground that child no longer habitually resident in England — Factors to be taken into account in deciding habitual residence — Whether child’s habitual residence in England lost on arrival in Pakistan

  CHILDREN — Wardship — Jurisdiction — British child born to mother in same-sex relationship with applicant — Mother permanently removing child to Pakistan after separating from applicant — Applicant seeking to invoke court’s inherent jurisdiction to make child ward of court and order summary return — Circumstances in which exercise of inherent jurisdiction justified

  13 Case(s) considered
• In re JR38

  21 Mar 2013 [2013] NIQB 44, QBD (NI)

  31 Jan 2014 Permission to appeal to Supreme Court given

  01 Jul 2015 [2015] UKSC 42; [2016] AC 1131; [2015] 3 WLR 155; [2015] 4 All ER 90; 39 BHRC 657; [2015] EMLR 25; [2015] HRLR 13; [2015] WLR (D) 280; [2015] NI 190; Case details, SC(NI)

  Subsequent considerations : 1 positive; 2 neutral. Subsequent citations: 31.
  HUMAN RIGHTS — Respect for private life — Interference with
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  HUMAN RIGHTS — Respect for private life — Interference with — Photographic images of child engaging in street rioting — Publication of images to assist police identifying child and to deter further acts of public disorder — Whether child having reasonable expectation of privacy — Whether interference with child’s Convention right to respect for private life — Whether interference justified — Human Rights Act 1998, Sch 1, Pt I, art 8

  8 Case(s) considered

  1 Statute considered