Results: 83

• Mohammed (Serdar) v Ministry of Defence (Qasim v Secretary of State for Defence, Rahmatullah v Ministry of Defence, Iraqi Civilians v Ministry of Defence)

  02 May 2014 [2014] EWHC 1369 (QB); [2014] CN 1019, QBD (Leggatt J)

  30 Jul 2015 [2015] EWCA Civ 843; [2017] AC 649; [2016] 2 WLR 247; [2015] WLR (D) 354, CA (Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd CJ, Lloyd-Jones, Beatson LJJ)

  17 Jan 2017 [2017] UKSC 1; [2017] AC 649; [2017] 2 WLR 287; [2017] 3 All ER 179; [2017] WLR (D) 49; Case details, SC(E)

  Subsequent considerations : 2 neutral; most recently considered: 2022. Subsequent citations: 28.
  FALSE IMPRISONMENT — Suspected terrorist — Detention in Afghanistan

  CONFLICT OF LAWS — Sovereign immunity — Act of state

  HUMAN RIGHTS — Liberty — Interference with
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  FALSE IMPRISONMENT — Suspected terrorist — Detention in Afghanistan — Claimant suspected of being Taliban commander captured by UK armed forces in Afghanistan and detained at British military base — Claimant detained for 110 days before transferred to Afghan authorities — Claimant bringing claim for unlawful detention, false imprisonment and breach of right to liberty — Whether claimant’s detention lawful — Human Rights Act 1998, Sch 1, Pt I, art 5

  CONFLICT OF LAWS — Sovereign immunity — Act of state — Foreign claimants arrested and detained by HM Armed Forces acting abroad — Claimants’ claims in tort for damages for unlawful detention — Whether claims non-justiciable — Whether act of state defence available to bar claims — Crown Proceedings Act 1947, s 2(1)

  HUMAN RIGHTS — Liberty — Interference with — Afghan claimants arrested and detained for more than 96 hours by HM Armed Forces acting in Afghanistan — Whether such detention lawful under Afghan law, United Nations Security Council resolution or international humanitarian law — Whether international humanitarian law providing any authority to detain in internationalised non-international armed conflict — Whether procedural requirements of Convention right to liberty modified during such conflict — Whether claimants’ detention breaching rights to liberty — Human Rights Act 1998, Sch 1, Pt I, art 5

  CONFLICT OF LAWS — Sovereign immunity — Act of state — Foreign claimants arrested and detained by British armed forces acting abroad — Claimants bringing claims in tort for damages for unlawful detention — Whether claims justiciable — Whether barred by doctrine of Crown act of state — Crown Proceedings Act 1947 (10 & 11 Geo 6, c 44), s 2(1) — Human Rights Act 1998 (c 42), Sch 1, Pt I, art 6

  13 Case(s) considered

  2 Statutes considered
• Patel v Mirza

  05 Jul 2013 [2013] EWHC 1892 (Ch); [2013] Lloyd's Rep FC 525; [2013] WTLR 1755; [2013] CN 1169, Ch D (David Donaldson QC)

  29 Jul 2014 [2014] EWCA Civ 1047; [2015] Ch 271; [2015] 2 WLR 405; [2015] 1 All ER 326; [2015] 2 All ER (Comm) 1; [2014] Lloyd's Rep FC 561; [2015] 1 BCLC 256; [2014] WTLR 1567; The Times, 12 August 2014; [2014] WLR (D) 337, CA

  15 Dec 2014 Permission to appeal to Supreme Court given

  20 Jul 2016 [2016] UKSC 42; [2017] AC 467; [2016] 3 WLR 399; [2017] 1 All ER 191; [2016] 2 Lloyd's Rep 300; The Times, 25 August 2016; [2016] WLR (D) 417; Case details, SC(E)

  Subsequent considerations : 8 positive; 6 neutral; 2 negative; most recently considered: 2021. Subsequent citations: 94.
  CONTRACT — Formation — Whether contract concluded

  CONTRACT — Illegality — Enforceability
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  CONTRACT — Formation — Whether contract concluded — Claimant advancing moneys to defendant for purpose of entering into contract to bet on share price of bank — Whether sums advanced recoverable

  CONTRACT — Illegality — Enforceability — Claimant advancing money to defendant pursuant to agreement to use it for insider dealing — Agreement frustrated by failure to obtain inside information — Claimant seeking repayment of money — Whether claimant’s case relying on illegal agreement — Whether claimant barred from relying on illegal agreement if no part of it carried into effect due to frustration

  CONTRACT — Illegality — Enforceability — Claimant advancing money to defendant pursuant to agreement to use it for insider dealing — Agreement frustrated by failure to obtain inside information — Claimant seeking repayment of money — Circumstances in which claims based on illegality enforceable — Whether claimant entitled to repayment

  6 Case(s) considered

• Loose v Lynn Shellfish Ltd (Le Strange Meakin, Part 20 defendant) (Lynn Shellfish Ltd v Meakin)

  18 Apr 2013 [2013] EWHC 901 (Ch); [2013] CN 597, Ch D (Sir William Blackburne)

  19 Jun 2014 [2014] EWCA Civ 846; [2015] Ch 547; [2015] 2 WLR 643; [2014] WLR (D) 280, CA

  11 Dec 2014 Permission to appeal to Supreme Court given

  13 Apr 2016 (Crown Estate Commissioners intervening) [2016] UKSC 14; [2017] AC 599; [2016] 2 WLR 1126; [2017] 1 All ER 677; [2016] WLR (D) 181; Case details, SC(E) (Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury PSC, Lord Clarke of Stone-cum-Ebony, Lord Sumption, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hodge JJSC)

  Subsequent citations: 2.
  FISHERY — Several fishery — Foreshore

  FISHERY — Prescriptive private right to take shellfish from foreshore — Whether including foreshore as it existed from time to time up to lowest astronomical tide and former sandbanks
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  FISHERY — Several fishery — Foreshore — Presumed grant from Crown of private right to take shellfish from foreshore — Dispute between lessee of private fishery and members of public as to seaward extent of private fishery — Extent of foreshore changing over time as result of shifting sands — Whether doctrine of accretion relevant — Whether private fishery extending to foreshore as it existed from time to time — Whether extending to all parts of seabed from time to time exposed at low water — Whether seaward boundary lowest astronomical tide

  FISHERY — Several fishery — Foreshore — Presumed grant from Crown of private right to take shellfish from foreshore — Dispute as to seaward extent of private fishery — Extent of foreshore changing over time as result of shifting sands — Whether doctrine of accretion relevant — Whether private fishery extending to foreshore as it existed so as to include former sandbanks — Whether extending to all parts of seabed from time to time exposed at low water — Whether seaward boundary lowest astronomical tide

  FISHERY — Prescriptive private right to take shellfish from foreshore — Whether including foreshore as it existed from time to time up to lowest astronomical tide and former sandbanks

  12 Case(s) 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: 8.
  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
• Wood v Capita Insurance Services Ltd (Wood v Sureterm Direct Ltd)

  14 Oct 2014 [2014] EWHC 3240 (Comm); [2014] CN 1772, QBD (Popplewell J)

  30 Jul 2015 [2015] EWCA Civ 839; [2015] CN 1378, CA (Patten, Gloster, Christopher Clarke LJJ)

  29 Mar 2017 [2017] UKSC 24; [2017] AC 1173; [2017] 2 WLR 1095; [2017] 4 All ER 615; [2018] 1 All ER (Comm) 51; 171 Con LR 1; [2017] WLR (D) 220; The Times, 7 April 2017; [2017] CILL 3971; Case details, SC(E) (Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury PSC, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke of Stone-cum-Ebony, Lord Sumption, Lord Hodge JJSC)

  Subsequent considerations : 9 positive; 1 neutral; most recently considered: 2021. Subsequent citations: 393.
  CONTRACT — Construction — Indemnity clause

  CONTRACT — Construction — Indemnity
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  CONTRACT — Construction — Indemnity clause — Share capital of company sold under sale and purchase agreement containing clause indemnifying buyer against payments “arising out of claims or complaints registered with” Financial Services Authority — Company making referral to Financial Services Authority regarding mis-selling of insurance and agreeing to pay compensation to customers — Buyer seeking to be indemnified under indemnity clause — Principles of construction to be applied — Whether indemnity clause applying only in relation to claims or complaints made by customers

  CONTRACT — Construction — Indemnity — Claimant major shareholder in first defendant insurance company — Second defendant purchasing shares — Sale and purchase agreement containing indemnity provision — Whether claimant required to indemnify second defendant for losses arising from alleged mis-selling prior to sale of shares

  4 Case(s) considered

  1 Words & Phrases considered
• R (Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 4)

  29 Jun 2016 [2016] UKSC 35; [2017] AC 300; [2016] 3 WLR 157; [2017] 1 All ER 403; [2016] WLR (D) 344; Case details, SC(E)

  Subsequent considerations : 1 neutral. Subsequent citations: 10.
  SUPREME COURT — Jurisdiction — Power to set aside earlier decisions
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  SUPREME COURT — Jurisdiction — Power to set aside earlier decisions — Foreign Secretary appealing against quashing as irrational of ministerial determination not to resettle colonial territory — Foreign Secretary failing to disclose certain relevant documentation — House of Lords allowing appeal — Whether Supreme Court having jurisdiction to set aside earlier decisions of itself or House of Lords — Grounds on which jurisdiction might be exercised — Whether failure to disclose impugning House of Lords’ decision — Whether decision to be set aside

  3 Case(s) considered

• Akers v Samba Financial Group

  28 Feb 2014 [2014] EWHC 540 (Ch); [2014] CN 346, Ch D (Sir Terence Etherton C)

  04 Dec 2014 [2014] EWCA Civ 1516; [2015] Ch 451; [2015] 2 WLR 1281; [2016] 1 BCLC 657; [2014] WLR (D) 521, CA

  31 Mar 2015 Permission to appeal to Supreme Court given

  01 Feb 2017 [2017] UKSC 6; [2017] AC 424; [2017] 2 WLR 713; [2017] 2 All ER 799; [2017] 2 All ER (Comm) 97; [2017] 1 BCLC 151; [2017] WLR (D) 57; Case details, SC(E)

  Subsequent citations: 18.
  CONFLICT OF LAWS — Jurisdiction — Forum conveniens

  CONFLICT OF LAWS — Jurisdiction — Forum non conveniens

  COMPANY — Winding up — Disposition of property
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  CONFLICT OF LAWS — Jurisdiction — Forum conveniens — Defendant’s application to stay proceedings — Whether courts of England and Wales or Saudi Arabia appropriate forum

  CONFLICT OF LAWS — Jurisdiction — Forum non conveniens — Shares held on trust for insolvent Cayman Islands company transferred to Saudi Arabian bank — Trusts unlawful in Saudi Arabia — Company’s liquidators seeking declaration that transfer void disposition — Whether Convention relating to trusts and their recognition applying to transfer — Whether England appropriate forum for determining issue — Recognition of Trusts Act 1987, Sch 1, art 4

  COMPANY — Winding up — Disposition of property — Shares in Saudi Arabian banks purportedly held on trust for Cayman Islands company — Saudi Arabia not recognising trusts or division of legal and beneficial interests — Shares transferred to defendant following company’s liquidation — Liquidators seeking declaration that transfer void disposition — Whether trust created and enforceable in respect of assets in jurisdiction not recognising trusts — Whether transfer of shares in breach of trust constituting “disposition of property” — Insolvency Act 1986 (c 45), ss 127, 436

  CONFLICT OF LAWS — Jurisdiction — Forum non conveniens — Shares in Saudi Arabian banks purportedly held on trust for Cayman Islands company — Shares transferred to defendant following company’s liquidation — Saudi Arabia not recognising trusts or division of legal and beneficial interests — Company’s liquidators seeking declaration that transfer void disposition — Whether Convention on law applicable to trusts and their recognition applying to transfer — Recognition of Trusts Act 1987 (c 14), Sch 1, art 4

  6 Case(s) considered

  1 Words & Phrases considered

  2 Statutes considered
• Poshteh v Kensington and Chelsea Royal London Borough Council

  12 Nov 2014 (Permission to appeal) [2014] EWCA Civ 1544, CA (Patten LJ)

  08 Jul 2015 [2015] EWCA Civ 711; [2015] HLR 36; [2015] CN 1222, CA

  29 Feb 2016 Permission to appeal to Supreme Court given

  10 May 2017 (Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government intervening) [2017] UKSC 36; [2017] AC 624; [2017] 2 WLR 1417; [2017] 3 All ER 1065; [2017] WLR (D) 323; Case details, SC(E) (Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury PSC, Lord Clarke of Stone-cum-Ebony, Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hughes JJSC)

  Subsequent considerations : 1 positive. Subsequent citations: 19.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT — Homeless person — Refusal of offer of accommodation

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT — Homeless person — Suitability of accommodation
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT — Homeless person — Refusal of offer of accommodation — Assessment of reasonableness of refusal — Applicant suffering mental health problems due to imprisonment and torture before arriving in United Kingdom — Applicant refusing local housing authority’s “final offer” of accommodation on ground that features of property bearing resemblance to former prison cell and likely to exacerbate mental health problems — Statutory scheme providing for discharge of authority’s obligations where unreasonable refusal of final offer of suitable property — Applicant exercising right for review of suitability of property — Review officer finding features complained of not matching applicant’s medical advisers’ description of type of accommodation likely to exacerbate mental health problems — Review officer’s conclusion that not reasonable for applicant to refuse property — Whether applicant entitled on review to procedural protections of Convention right to fair determination of civil rights — Whether reviewing officer’s decision correct — Housing Act 1996 (c 52), ss 193(7)(7F) (as amended by Homelessness Act 2002 (c 7), s 7) — Human Rights Act 1998 (c 42), Sch 1, Pt I, art 6.1

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT — Homeless person — Suitability of accommodation — Applicant refusing to accept local housing authority’s offer of suitable accommodation — Local housing authority on review finding reasonable for applicant to accept — Whether reviewing officer correct

  8 Case(s) considered

  1 Words & Phrases considered

  2 Statutes considered
• R v Harvey (Jack)

  03 Jul 2013 [2013] EWCA Crim 1104; [2014] 1 WLR 124, CA

  16 Dec 2015 [2015] UKSC 73; [2017] AC 105; [2016] 2 WLR 37; [2016] 4 All ER 521; [2015] WLR (D) 539; Case details, SC(E)

  Subsequent considerations : 1 positive; 1 neutral. Subsequent citations: 12.
  CRIME — Sentence — Confiscation order
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  CRIME — Sentence — Confiscation order — Defendant owner of company using and hiring out stolen plant to customers — Stolen items used for substantial period before being recovered by police and returned to true owners — Defendant convicted of handling stolen goods and confiscation order made — Defendant’s benefit from criminal conduct assessed as including turnover of company and value of plant when stolen — Whether benefit including VAT received from customers and later paid to revenue — Whether credit to be given for residual value of restored items — Whether confiscation order disproportionate — Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, ss 6, 76(4)

  CRIME — Sentence — Confiscation order — Defendant owner of company using and hiring out stolen plant to customers — Stolen items used for substantial period before being recovered by police and returned to true owners — Defendant convicted of handling stolen goods and confiscation order made — Defendant’s benefit from criminal conduct assessed as including turnover of company and value of plant when stolen — Whether benefit including VAT received from customers and later paid to revenue — Whether confiscation order disproportionate — Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (c 29) (as amended by Serious Crime Act 2007 (c 27), s 92, Sch 14), ss 6, 76(4) — Human Rights Act 1998 (c 42), Sch 1, Pt II, art 1

  10 Case(s) considered

  2 Statutes considered
• In re N (An Adult) (Court of Protection: Jurisdiction) (ACCG v MN, N v A Clinical Commissioning Group)

  20 Nov 2013 [2013] EWHC 3859 (COP); [2014] COPLR 11; [2013] CN 1859, Ct of Protection (Eleanor King J)

  07 May 2015 [2015] EWCA Civ 411; [2016] Fam 87; [2015] 3 WLR 1585; [2015] WLR (D) 208, CA

  25 Feb 2016 (appn all) [2016] 1 WLR 1172, SC(E)

  22 Mar 2017 [2017] UKSC 22; [2017] AC 549; [2017] 2 WLR 1011; [2017] 3 All ER 719; [2017] WLR (D) 202; Case details, SC(E)

  Subsequent considerations : 1 positive. Subsequent citations: 37.
  MENTAL DISORDER — Court of Protection — Jurisdiction

  MENTAL DISORDER — Mental incapacity — Whether court should embark on contested “best interests” trial
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  MENTAL DISORDER — Court of Protection — Jurisdiction — Public authority declining to commission or fund certain services for incapacitated adult — Whether Court of Protection having jurisdiction to consider whether such services in incapacitated adult’s best interests — Whether court’s failure to do so breach of Convention rights — Human Rights Act 1998, s 7, Sch 1, Pt I, arts 6, 8 — Mental Capacity Act 2005, ss 1(5), 15, 16

  MENTAL DISORDER — Court of Protection — Jurisdiction — Public authority declining to commission or fund care package sought by parents of incapacitated adult — Parents seeking declaration from Court of Protection that such services in incapacitated adult’s best interests — Court refusing to hold best interests inquiry as serving no useful purpose given lack of power to order public authority to provide sought-after package — Whether refusal properly within court’s case management powers — Mental Capacity Act 2005 (c 9), ss 15, 16

  MENTAL DISORDER — Mental incapacity — Whether court should embark on contested “best interests” trial

  8 Case(s) considered

  2 Statutes considered