Results: 345

• O’Byrne v Aventis Pasteur MSD Ltd

  20 Oct 2006 [2006] EWHC 2562 (QB); [2007] 1 WLR 757, QBD (Teare J)

  09 Oct 2007 [2007] EWCA Civ 966; [2008] 1 WLR 1188; [2008] Bus LR 993, CA

  11 Jun 2008 (Ref to ECJ) [2008] UKHL 34; [2008] 4 All ER 881, HL(E)

  26 May 2010 [2010] UKSC 23; [2010] 1 WLR 1412; [2010] Bus LR 1381; [2010] 4 All ER 1; [2010] WLR (D) 137; Case details, SC(E)

  Subsequent citations: 9.
  PRACTICE — Parties — Substitution
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  PRACTICE — Parties — Substitution — Action brought against wrongly identified manufacturer — Whether power to allow substitution of defendant after expiry of long-stop ten-year period — Whether power existing where party wrongly identified — Whether substitution “necessary” — Whether substitution to be allowed — Limitation Act 1980, ss 11A(3) (as inserted by Consumer Protection Act 1987, s 6(6), Sch 1, para 1), 35(4)(5)(6) — CPR r 19.5(2)(3) — Council Directive 85/374/EEC, art 11

  PRACTICE — Parties — Substitution — Statutory right to sue producer of defective product — Right enacted in implementation of European Directive providing for long-stop period of ten years after product put into circulation — Claim alleging defective vaccine manufactured by French company but distributed by wholly-owned United Kingdom subsidiary — Action brought within period against distributor — Application after expiry of period for substitution of manufacturer as defendant — Court of Justice ruling that substitution of party outside limitation period permissible only when act of “putting into circulation of the product” determined by parent of wholly-owned supplier subsidiary sued within time limit — Whether determination in question act of transferring product to subsidiary or when to be put into circulation by supplier — Whether substitution to be allowed — Limitation Act 1980, s 35(4)(5)(6) — CPR r 19.5(2)(3) — Council Directive 85/374/EEC, art 11

  7 Case(s) considered

  3 Words & Phrases considered

  2 EU Enactments considered

  3 Statutes considered

  2 Statutory Instruments considered
• Raschid v General Medical Council (Fatnani v General Medical Council)

  15 Jan 2007 [2007] EWCA Civ 46; [2007] 1 WLR 1460; [2007] ICR 811, CA

  Subsequent considerations : 1 positive; 1 negative. Subsequent citations: 191.
  MEDICAL PRACTITIONER — Fitness to Practice Panel — Appeal
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  MEDICAL PRACTITIONER — Fitness to Practice Panel — Appeal — Doctors appealing against suspension and erasure from register imposed by panel — Extent of court's jurisdiction to vary penalty imposed by panel — Medical Act 1983, ss 36(1) (as amended by Medical Act 1983 (Amendment) Order 2000, art 5), 40(7) (as substituted by Medical Act 1983 (Amendment) Order 2002, art 13)

  4 Case(s) considered

  1 Statute considered
• R (Government of the United States of America) v Bow Street Magistrates’ Court (R (Central Examining Court, Criminal Court of the National Court, Madrid) v Bow Street Magistrates’ Court)

  06 Sep 2006 [2006] EWHC 2256 (Admin); [2007] 1 WLR 1157; (2006) 156 NLJ 1440; The Times, 19 September 2006, DC (Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers CJ, Cresswell J)

  Subsequent considerations : 1 neutral; 1 negative. Subsequent citations: 83.
  EXTRADITION — Abuse of process — Disclosure
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  EXTRADITION — Abuse of process — Disclosure — Requesting state withdrawing extradition request and reissuing under new statute — Requesting authority allegedly receiving assistance from British authorities in drafting arrest warrants — District judges ordering requesting authority and state to disclose documents to determine whether proceedings abuse of process — Whether proceedings governed by new statute — Whether abuse of process — Whether order for disclosure appropriate — Extradition Act 2003 — Extradition Act 2003 (Commencement and Savings) Order 2003 (as amended by Extradition Act 2003 (Commencement and Savings) (Amendment No 2) Order 2003), art 3

  1 Case considered

  1 Statute considered

  1 Statutory Instrument considered

• R (Hirst) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

  22 Mar 2002 [2002] EWHC 602 (Admin); [2002] 1 WLR 2929, QBD

  06 Jul 2006 [2006] EWCA Civ 945; [2006] 1 WLR 3083; [2006] 4 All ER 639, CA

  17 Jul 2007 (pet dis) [2007] 1 WLR 2021, HL(E)

  Subsequent citations: 11.
  PRISONS — Prisoners’ rights — Media interviews

  PRISONS — Prisoners’ rights — Release on licence
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  PRISONS — Prisoners’ rights — Media interviews — Prisoner seeking permission to give telephone interviews to radio journalist concerning prison issues — Prison rule that permission to be given only in exceptional circumstances — Policy of Secretary of State on permission more restrictive than prison rule — Whether prison rule and policy lawful — Whether restriction on right to freedom of expression justified — Human Rights Act 1998, Sch 1, Pt I, art 10

  PRISONS — Prisoners’ rights — Release on licence — Revocation of discretionary life sentence prisoner's licence — Whether statutory scheme for recall to prison compatible with right to liberty — Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, s 32 — Human Rights Act 1998, Sch 1, Pt I, art 5

  3 Case(s) considered

  3 Statutes considered

• Rockall v Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

  22 Mar 2007 [2007] EWHC 614 (Admin); [2007] 1 WLR 2666; [2007] 3 All ER 258, DC

  Subsequent citations: 5.
  JUSTICES — Information — Whether validly laid
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  JUSTICES — Information — Whether validly laid — Prosecutor faxing information to magistrates' court on Friday — Time limit expiring on Sunday — Summons issued and endorsed on following Monday — Whether information laid in time — Whether proceedings properly “instituted” — Forestry Act 1967, s 17(2)

  3 Case(s) considered

  1 Words & Phrases considered

  1 Statute considered

• R v Finch

  15 Jan 2007 [2007] EWCA Crim 36; [2007] 1 WLR 1645; [2007] 1 Cr App R 439, CA

  18 Oct 2007 (pet dis) [2007] 1 WLR 2613, HL(E)

  Subsequent citations: 9.
  CRIME — Evidence — Admissibility
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  CRIME — Evidence — Admissibility — Confession by co-defendant — Co-defendant pleading guilty not called as witness in defendant's trial — Whether co-defendant “person charged in the same proceedings” as defendant — Whether confession admissible — Whether co-defendant's statements to police admissible as hearsay evidence — Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, s 76A (as inserted by Criminal Justice Act 2003, s 128(1)) — Criminal Justice Act 2003, s 114(1)(d)

  1 Case considered

  1 Words & Phrases considered

  2 Statutes considered
• District Court of Vilnius City v Barcys (Lithuania v Barcys)

  22 Mar 2007 [2007] EWHC 615 (Admin); [2007] 1 WLR 3249; [2008] 1 All ER 733, DC (Latham LJ and Davis J)

  Subsequent considerations : 1 positive; 1 negative. Subsequent citations: 8.
  EXTRADITION — Appeal — Jurisdiction
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  EXTRADITION — Appeal — Jurisdiction — Appeal notice filed one day outside time limit — Whether court empowered to extend time for filing and service of appeal notice — Whether court having jurisdiction to hear appeal — Extradition Act 2003, s 28(5)

  1 Statute considered
• P & O Nedlloyd BV v Arab Metals Co (UB Tiger, The)

  22 Jun 2005 [2005] EWHC 1276 (Comm); [2005] 1 WLR 3733; [2006] 1 Lloyd's Rep 111, QBD

  28 Mar 2006 [2006] EWCA Civ 1300; [2007] 1 WLR 2483; [2007] 2 Lloyd's Rep 148, CA

  Subsequent considerations : 1 negative. Subsequent citations: 14.
  LIMITATION OF ACTION — Contract, breach of — New cause of action

  PRACTICE — Pleadings — Amendment
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  LIMITATION OF ACTION — Contract, breach of — New cause of action — Claimant's claim for breach of bill of lading contract — Application to amend particulars of claim to plead existence of alternative contract — Application to add claims for declarations concerning and for specific performance of alternative contract — Whether claim for declaration new cause of action — Whether six-year limit in contract applicable to claim for specific performance by analogy — Limitation Act 1980, ss 5, 36(1)(b)

  PRACTICE — Pleadings — Amendment — Application to amend particulars of claim after expiry of limitation period — Whether new claims arising out of same or substantially same facts as original claims — Whether amendments to be allowed — CPR r 17.4(2)

  1 Statute considered

• Gotham v Doodes

  17 Nov 2005 [2005] EWHC 2576 (Ch); [2006] 1 WLR 729; [2006] 2 FLR 844, Ch D (Lindsay J)

  25 Jul 2006 [2006] EWCA Civ 1080; [2007] 1 WLR 86; [2007] 1 All ER 527; [2007] 1 FLR 373, CA

  Subsequent citations: 2.
  LIMITATION OF ACTION — Bankruptcy — Enforcement of charge
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  LIMITATION OF ACTION — Bankruptcy — Enforcement of charge — Charge imposed on bankrupt's house for benefit of bankrupt's estate — Trustee in bankruptcy seeking to enforce charge — Whether “right to receive” money secured by charge accruing on imposition of charge — Whether time-barred — Limitation Act 1980, s 20(1) — Insolvency Act 1986, s 313 (as amended by Enterprise Act 2002, s 261(2)(a)(b)(c) and Civil Partnership Act 2004, s 261(1), Sch 27, para 114)

  7 Case(s) considered

  1 Words & Phrases considered

  2 Statutes considered
• R v Rowe

  15 Mar 2007 [2007] EWCA Crim 635; [2007] QB 975; [2007] 3 WLR 177; [2007] 3 All ER 36; [2007] 2 Cr App R (S) 92; [2007] 2 Cr App R 171, CA

  Subsequent considerations : 2 positive. Subsequent citations: 12.
  CRIME — Terrorism — Possessing article for terrorist purposes

  JUDICIAL PRECEDENT — Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) decision — How far binding
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  CRIME — Terrorism — Possessing article for terrorist purposes — Appellant in possession of notebook containing mortar instructions and substitution code listing components of explosives and locations — Whether notebook and code “articles” — Terrorism Act 2000, ss 57, 58

  JUDICIAL PRECEDENT — Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) decision — How far binding — Defendant relying on Court of Appeal authority to appeal against conviction — Whether authority decided per incuriam — Whether Court of Appeal bound to follow previous authority

  2 Case(s) considered

  1 Words & Phrases considered

  1 Statute considered