Results: 83

• R (HC) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (AIRE Centre intervening)

  06 Dec 2013 [2013] EWHC 3874 (Admin); [2013] CN 1872, QBD (Supperstone J)

  10 Feb 2015 (AIRE Centre intervening) [2015] EWCA Civ 49; [2016] QB 455; [2015] 3 WLR 1867; [2015] WLR (D) 61, CA

  07 Mar 2016 (appn all) [2016] 1 WLR 2352, SC(E)

  15 Nov 2017 [2017] UKSC 73; [2019] AC 845; [2017] 3 WLR 1486; [2018] 2 All ER 1; [2017] WLR (D) 761; Case details, SC(E) (Baroness Hale of Richmond PSC, Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption, Lord Carnwath JJSC, Lord Clarke of Stone-cum-Ebony)

  Subsequent citations: 44.
  EUROPEAN UNION — Citizenship — Right to reside
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  EUROPEAN UNION — Citizenship — Right to reside — Third-country national with right of residence in United Kingdom as primary carer of British citizen children — Carer applying for non-contributory welfare benefits — When derivative right of residence arising — Whether status conferring right to social benefits — Children Act 1989 (c 41), s 17(1) — Human Rights Act 1998 (c 42), Sch 1, Pt I, art 14 — Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 (SI 1987/1967), reg 21AA (as inserted by Social Security (Persons from Abroad) Amendment Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/1026), reg 6(3) and amended by Social Security (Habitual Residence) (Amendment) Regulations 2012 (SI 2012/2587), reg 2) — Child Benefit (General) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/223), reg 23(4) (as amended by Child Benefit and Child Tax Credit (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2012 (SI 2012/2612), reg 3) — Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/1003), reg 15A (as inserted by Immigration (European Economic Area) (Amendment) Regulations 2012 (SI 2012/1547), reg 3, Sch 1, para 9 and amended by Immigration (European Economic Area) (Amendment) (No 2) Regulations 2012 (SI 2012/2560), reg 2, Sch, para 3) — Allocation of Housing and Homelessness (Eligibility) (England) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/1294), reg 4(1)(b)(iii)(iv) (as inserted by Allocation of Housing and Homelessness (Eligibility) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2012 (SI 2012/2588), reg 2(2)) — FEU Treaty, arts 20FEU, 21FEU

  7 Case(s) considered

  1 EU Enactment considered

  2 Statutes considered

  4 Statutory Instruments considered

• S Franses Ltd v Cavendish Hotel (London) Ltd

  03 Jul 2017 [2017] EWHC 1670 (QB); [2017] Bus LR 1941; [2017] WLR (D) 503, QBD (Jay J)

  22 Jan 2018 (appn all) [2018] Bus LR 549, SC(E) (Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hughes JJSC)

  05 Dec 2018 [2018] UKSC 62; [2019] AC 249; [2018] 3 WLR 1952; [2018] Bus LR 2504; [2019] 2 All ER 463; [2018] WLR (D) 778; Case details, SC(E) (Baroness Hale of Richmond PSC, Lord Sumption, Lady Black, Lord Briggs, Lord Kitchin JJSC)

  Subsequent citations: 4.
  LANDLORD AND TENANT — Business premises (security of tenure) — Application for new tenancy
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  LANDLORD AND TENANT — Business premises (security of tenure) — Application for new tenancy — Landlord opposing application on ground of intention to carry out substantial works of reconstruction — Landlord contriving scheme of works for sole purpose of obtaining vacant possession — Whether landlord having sufficient intention to carry out scheme — Relevance of landlord’s motive — Whether in assessment of scheme judge failing to exclude works capable of being performed under landlord’s right of entry — Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (2 & 3 Eliz 2, c 56), s 30(1)(f)(as amended by Law of Property Act 1969 (c 59), s 15, Sch 1)

  LANDLORD AND TENANT — Business premises (security of tenure) — Application for new tenancy — Landlord opposing application on ground of intention to carry out substantial works of reconstruction — Landlord intending to carry out works if necessary to obtain vacant possession but not if tenant vacating voluntarily — Whether landlord having sufficient intention to make out ground of opposition — Relevance of landlord’s motive — Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (2 & 3 Eliz 2, c 56), s 30(1)(f) (as amended by Law of Property Act 1969 (c 59), s 15, Sch 1)

  5 Case(s) considered

  1 Statute considered
• 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: 60.
  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

• Greenway v Johnson Matthey plc (Dryden v Johnson Matthey plc)

  26 Nov 2014 [2014] EWHC 3957 (QB); [2015] PIQR P10; [2014] CN 2094, QBD (Jay J)

  28 Apr 2016 [2016] EWCA Civ 408; [2016] 1 WLR 4487; [2017] ICR 43; [2016] WLR (D) 224, CA

  06 Dec 2016 (appn all) [2017] 1 WLR 566; [2017] ICR 276, SC(E)

  21 Mar 2018 [2018] UKSC 18; [2019] AC 403; [2018] 2 WLR 1109; [2018] ICR 715; [2018] 3 All ER 755; [2018] WLR (D) 182; Case details, SC(E) (Baroness Hale of Richmond PSC, Lord Wilson, Lord Reed, Lady Black, Lord Lloyd-Jones JJSC)

  Subsequent citations: 16.
  NEGLIGENCE — Damage — Tort

  NEGLIGENCE — Duty of care — Employee
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  NEGLIGENCE — Damage — Tort — Contract — Claimants employed by defendant at chemical plant — Claimants developing sensitivity to platinum salts — Claimants bringing claims in tort and contract — Whether claimants suffering actionable injury

  NEGLIGENCE — Duty of care — Employee — Claimants developing sensitivity to platinum salts following employer’s breach of statutory duty — Sensitivity not physically harmful — Collective agreement providing for contractual periodic testing of employees at risk of sensitisation to avoid development of platinum allergy — Further provision for redeployment of sensitised employees or termination of employment on special terms — Claimants claiming in tort and contract for financial losses on redeployment or termination — Whether claimants suffering actionable injury — Whether employer owing duty of care to protect from financial loss — Whether implied term in contract to protect from financial loss

  NEGLIGENCE — Duty of care — Employee — Claimants developing sensitivity to platinum salts following employer’s breach of statutory duty — Sensitivity not itself physically harmful but leading to allergic reaction on further exposure to platinum salts — Employment contracts providing for periodic testing of employees at risk of sensitisation to avoid development of platinum allergy — Further provision for redeployment of sensitised employees or termination of employment on special terms — Claimants claiming in tort for financial losses on redeployment or termination — Whether claimants suffering actionable personal injury

  6 Case(s) considered

• Gubeladze v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

  30 Jan 2015 [2015] UKUT 50 (AAC), UT

  07 Nov 2017 [2017] EWCA Civ 1751; [2018] 1 WLR 3324; [2018] 2 All ER 228; [2017] WLR (D) 798, CA (Rupert Jackson, Lindblom, Peter Jackson LJJ)

  19 Jun 2018 (appn all) [2018] 1 WLR 4147, SC(E) (Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore, Lord Sumption, Lord Hughes JJSC)

  19 Jun 2019 (AIRE Centre intervening) [2019] UKSC 31; [2019] AC 885; [2019] 3 WLR 71; [2019] 4 All ER 389; [2019] WLR (D) 361; Case details, SC(E) (Baroness Hale of Richmond PSC, Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hodge, Lady Black, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Sales JJSC)

  Subsequent citations: 3.
  EUROPEAN UNION — Freedom of movement — Right to reside

  SOCIAL SECURITY — State pension credit — Entitlement
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  EUROPEAN UNION — Freedom of movement — Right to reside — Workers Registration Scheme requiring nationals of newly-acceded member states to register before starting work in United Kingdom during five-year period — Scheme extended by two years — Claimant national of newly-acceded state failing to register during part of extension period — Claimant’s entitlement to social security benefit dependent on her having “resided” continuously in United Kingdom for three years — Whether necessary that claimant had resided legally in United Kingdom during that period — Whether extension of scheme disproportionate and contrary to European Union law — Accession (Immigration and Worker Registration) (Amendment) Regulations 2009 (SI 2009/892), reg 2 — Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC, art 17

  SOCIAL SECURITY — State pension credit — Entitlement — Scheme requiring nationals of newly-acceded member states to register before starting work in United Kingdom during five-year period — Scheme extended by two years — Claimant national of newly-acceded state failing to register during part of extension period — Claimant applying for pension credit — Entitlement dependent on her having “resided” continuously in United Kingdom for three years — Secretary of State rejecting claim on ground claimant did meet residence requirement because she had worked during part of three-year period without first registering — Whether necessary that claimant had resided legally in United Kingdom during that period — Whether extension of scheme contrary to European Union law — Whether claimant fulfilling residence requirement for pension credit — State Pension Credit Act 2002 (c 16), s 1(2) — State Pension Credit Regulations 2002 (SI 2002/1792), reg 2(4)(e) (as substituted by Social Security (Persons from Abroad) Amendment Regulations 2006/1026 reg 9(2)) — Accession (Immigration and Worker Registration) (Amendment) Regulations 2009 (SI 2009/892), reg 2 — Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC, art 17

  EUROPEAN UNION — Freedom of movement — Right to reside — Worker Registration Scheme requiring nationals of newly-acceded member states to register before starting work in United Kingdom during five-year period — Scheme extended by two years — Whether extension of scheme open to challenge on proportionality grounds — Whether extension of scheme disproportionate and contrary to European Union law — Accession (Immigration and Worker Registration) (Amendment) Regulations 2009 (SI 2009/892), reg 2 — Act of Accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia, Annex VIII, paras 2, 5

  SOCIAL SECURITY — State pension credit — Entitlement — Claimant applying for state pension credit — Entitlement dependent on her having “resided” continuously in United Kingdom for three years — Whether requiring legal rather than actual residence — State Pension Credit Regulations 2002 (SI 2002/1792), reg 2(4)(e) (substituted by Social Security (Persons from Abroad) Amendment Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/1026), reg 9(2)) — Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/1003), reg 5(2) — Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC, art 17

  11 Case(s) considered

  1 Words & Phrases considered

  2 EU Enactments considered

  3 Statutory Instruments considered
• Sanneh v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (AIRE Centre intervening) (Scott v Croydon London Borough Council, Merali v Birmingham City Council)

  07 Jan 2013 [2013] UKUT 490 (AAC), UT

  10 Feb 2015 (AIRE Centre intervening) [2015] EWCA Civ 49; [2016] QB 455; [2015] 3 WLR 1867; [2015] WLR (D) 61, CA

  Subsequent considerations : 2 neutral.
  EUROPEAN UNION — Citizenship — Right to reside
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  EUROPEAN UNION — Citizenship — Right to reside — Principle protecting European Union citizens from being effectively forced to leave territory of European Union — Whether conferring right to social welfare benefits — Whether domestic legislation precluding access to benefits unlawful — Social Security (Habitual Residence) (Amendment) Regulations 2012 (SI 2012/2587) — Allocation of Housing and Homelessness (Eligibility) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2012 (SI 2012/2588) — Child Benefit and Child Tax Credit (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2012 (SI 2012/2612)

  EUROPEAN UNION — Citizenship — Right to reside — Third-country nationals with derivative right of residence in United Kingdom as primary carers of British citizen children — Carers applying for non-contributory welfare benefits — When derivative right of residence arising — Whether status conferring right to social benefits — Income Support (General) Regulations 1987, reg 21AA (as inserted by Social Security (Persons from Abroad) Amendment Regulations 2006, reg 6(3) and amended by Social Security (Habitual Residence) (Amendment) Regulations 2012, reg 2) — Child Benefit (General) Regulations 2006, reg 23(4) (as substituted by Child Benefit and Child Tax Credit (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2012, reg 3) — Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006, reg 15A (as inserted by Immigration (European Economic Area) (Amendment) Regulations, reg 3, Sch 1, para 9 and amended by Immigration (European Economic Area) (Amendment) (No 2) Regulations 2012, reg 2, Sch, para 3) — Allocation of Housing and Homelessness (Eligibility) (England) Regulations 2006, reg 4(1)(b)(iii)(iv) (as inserted by Allocation of Housing and Homelessness (Eligibility) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2012, reg 2(2)) — FEU Treaty, arts 20FEU, 21FEU

  12 Case(s) considered

  1 EU Enactment considered

  6 Statutory Instruments considered
• Benkharbouche v Embassy of the Republic of Sudan (Janah v Libya)

  04 Oct 2013 UKEAT/401/12; [2014] ICR 169, EAT

  05 Feb 2015 (Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs intervening) [2015] EWCA Civ 33; [2016] QB 347; [2015] 3 WLR 301; [2015] 3 WLR 301; [2015] ICR 793; [2016] 1 All ER 816; [2015] WLR (D) 83, CA

  18 Oct 2017 (Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs intervening) [2017] UKSC 62; [2019] AC 777; [2017] 3 WLR 957; [2017] ICR 1327; [2018] 1 All ER 662; [2017] WLR (D) 691; Case details, SC(E) (Baroness Hale of Richmond PSC, Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption JJSC, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, Lord Clarke of Stone-cum-Ebony)

  Subsequent considerations : 2 positive; 3 neutral; most recently considered: 2023. Subsequent citations: 54.
  CONFLICT OF LAWS — Sovereign immunity — Employment
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  CONFLICT OF LAWS — Sovereign immunity — Employment — Domestic worker at London embassy — Claims of unfair dismissal and breach of working time provisions — Embassy claiming state immunity — Worker excluded from exception for employees — Whether denial of access to enforcement of claims breach of right to fair trial — Whether statute to be disapplied — State Immunity Act 1978, ss 4(2), 16 — Human Rights Act 1998, s 3, Sch 1, art 6 — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, art 47

  CONFLICT OF LAWS — Sovereign immunity — Employment — Domestic worker at London embassy — Claims for unfair dismissal and breach of working time provisions — Embassy claiming state immunity — Worker excluded by statute from exception for employees — Whether denial of access to enforcement of claims breach of Convention right to fair trial — Whether declaration of incompatibility to be granted — Whether statute to be disapplied in so far as incompatible with European Union law — State Immunity Act 1978, ss 4(2), 16 — Human Rights Act 1998, ss 3, 4, Sch 1, Pt I, arts 6, 14 — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 2004, art 47

  CONFLICT OF LAWS — Sovereign immunity — Employment — Domestic worker at London embassy — Claims of unfair dismissal and breach of working time provisions — Embassy claiming state immunity — Worker excluded by statute from exception for employees — Whether denial of access to enforcement of claims breach of Convention right to fair trial — Whether statutory provisions to be disapplied in so far as incompatible with European Union law — State Immunity Act 1978 (c 33), ss 4(2), 16(1)(a) — Human Rights Act 1998 (c 42), Sch 1, Pt I, arts 6, 14 — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2004), art 47

  CONFLICT OF LAWS — Sovereign immunity — Employment — Domestic worker at London embassy — Claims of unfair dismissal and breach of working time provisions — Embassy claiming state immunity — Worker excluded by statute from exception for employees — Whether denial of access to enforcement of claims breach of Convention right to fair trial — Whether statutory provisions to be disapplied in so far as incompatible with European Union law — State Immunity Act 1978 (c 33), ss 4(2), 16(1)(a) — Human Rights Act 1998 (c 42), Sch 1, Pt I, arts 6, 14 — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, art 47

  6 Case(s) considered

  1 EU Enactment considered

  2 Statutes considered

• A NHS Trust v Y

  13 Nov 2017 [2017] EWHC 2866 (QB); [2017] 4 WLR 222; [2017] WLR (D) 771, QBD (O'Farrell J)

  19 Dec 2017 Permission to appeal to Supreme Court given

  30 Jul 2018 (Intensive Care Society intervening) [2018] UKSC 46; [2019] AC 978; [2018] 3 WLR 751; [2019] 1 All ER 95; [2018] WLR (D) 490; Case details, SC(E) (Baroness Hale of Richmond PSC, Lord Wilson, Lord Hodge, Lady Black JJSC, Lord Mance)

  Subsequent citations: 23.
  MENTAL DISORDER — Incapable person — Best interests
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  MENTAL DISORDER — Incapable person — Best interests — Incapacitated person in prolonged disorder of consciousness in hospital — Claim for declaration that withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment in incapacitated person’s best interests — Whether mandatory to bring case concerning withdrawal of treatment before Court of Protection — Mental Capacity Act 2005 (c 9)

  MENTAL DISORDER — Incapable person — Best interests — Incapacitated person in state of prolonged disorder of consciousness in hospital — Medical professionals and family agreed that clinically assisted nutrition and hydration should be withdrawn — Whether mandatory to seek order of Court of Protection to permit withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment

  9 Case(s) considered

  1 Statute considered
• In re C (Children) (Abduction: Rights of Custody) (International Centre for Family Law, Policy and Practice intervening)

  12 Jul 2017 [2017] EWCA Civ 980; [2019] AC 1; [2018] 2 WLR 683; [2018] 1 All ER 476; [2018] 1 FLR 186; [2017] WLR (D) 479, CA (Black, Sharp, Thirlwall LJJ)

  14 Feb 2018 [2018] UKSC 8; [2019] AC 1; [2018] 2 WLR 683; [2018] 3 All ER 1; [2018] 1 FLR 861; [2018] WLR (D) 90; Case details, SC(E) (Baroness Hale of Richmond PSC, Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore, Lord Wilson, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hughes JJSC)

  Subsequent considerations : 1 positive; 1 neutral. Subsequent citations: 36.
  CHILDREN — Custody rights — Breach
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  CHILDREN — Custody rights — Breach — Mother taking children from Australia to England for temporary period with father’s agreement — Mother failing to return children at end of temporary period — Judge refusing to return children on grounds habitually resident in England when wrongful retention occurring at end of temporary period — Whether possible for child to be wrongfully retained prior to end of agreed period of temporary absence — Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 (c 60), Sch 1, art 12

  CHILDREN — Custody rights — Breach — Mother taking children from Australia to England for temporary period with father’s agreement — Mother failing to return children at end of temporary period — Judge refusing to return children on grounds habitually resident in England when wrongful retention occurring at end of temporary period — Whether mandatory summary return procedure under Convention applying if habitual residence of child changed to destination state by time of wrongful removal or retention — Whether wrongful repudiatory retention prior to end of agreed period of temporary absence possible in law — Requirements for demonstrating repudiatory retention — Whether children habitually resident in England when retained — Whether mother wrongfully retaining children — Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 (c 60), Sch 1, art 12

  1 Case considered

  1 Statute considered
• D v Comr of Police of the Metropolis (Koraou v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police, DSD v Commssioner of Police of the Metropolis, V v Comr of Police of the Metropolis (Liberty intervening), NBV v Comr of Police of the Metropolis)

  28 Feb 2014 [2014] EWHC 436 (QB); [2014] CN 402, QBD (Green J)

  30 Jun 2015 [2015] EWCA Civ 646; [2016] QB 161; [2015] 3 WLR 966; [2016] 3 All ER 986; [2016] 1 Cr App R 2, CA

  29 Feb 2016 (appn all) [2016] 1 WLR 1205, SC(E)

  21 Feb 2018 (Liberty intervening) [2018] UKSC 11; [2019] AC 196; [2018] 2 WLR 895; [2018] 3 All ER 369; [2018] 1 Cr App R 31; [2018] WLR (D) 162; Case details, SC(E) (Baroness Hale of Richmond PSC, Lord Mance DPSC, Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore, Lord Hughes JJSC, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury)

  Subsequent considerations : 1 positive; 2 neutral. Subsequent citations: 38.
  HUMAN RIGHTS — Inhuman or degrading treatment — Duty to investigate crime
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  HUMAN RIGHTS — Inhuman or degrading treatment — Duty to investigate crime — Victims of crime alleging failures by police forces to conduct effective investigations into allegations of crimes committed against them — Whether duty to investigate allegations of inhuman or degrading treatment by non-state agents — Extent of duty to investigate — Whether breach — Human Rights Act 1998, ss7, 8, Sch 1, Pt I, art 3

  HUMAN RIGHTS — Inhuman or degrading treatment — Duty to investigate crime — Victims of crime alleging failures by police force to conduct effective investigation into allegations of crimes committed against them — Whether duty to investigate allegations of inhuman or degrading treatment by non-state agents — Extent of duty — Whether breached — Whether compensation payable — Human Rights Act 1998 (c 42), ss 7, 8, Sch 1, Pt I, art 3

  22 Case(s) considered

  1 Statute considered