Results: 33

• Rogerson v Bolsover District Council

  26 Feb 2019 [2019] EWCA Civ 226; [2019] Ch 450; [2019] 2 WLR 1199; [2019] 4 All ER 962; [2019] WLR (D) 118, CA (Nicola Davies, Males LJJ, Moor J)

  LANDLORD AND TENANT — Repairs — Covenant
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  LANDLORD AND TENANT — Repairs — Covenant — Landlord under repairing obligation to tenant — Defect in manhole cover in garden causing personal injury to tenant — Landlord unaware of defect — Whether duty to implement system of inspection — Defective Premises Act 1972( c 35), s 4

  LANDLORD AND TENANT — Repairs — Covenant — Landlord under repairing obligation to tenant — Defect in manhole cover on premises causing personal injury to tenant — Whether landlord under statutory duty to inspect premises — Whether in breach of statutory duty — Defective Premises Act 1972 (c 35), s 4

  3 Case(s) considered

  1 Statute considered
• Richard v British Broadcasting Corpn (Sir Cliff Richard OBE v BBC)

  18 Jul 2018 [2018] EWHC 1837 (Ch); [2019] Ch 169; [2018] 3 WLR 1715; [2019] 2 All ER 105; The Times, 23 July 2018; [2018] WLR (D) 457, Ch D (Mann J)

  Subsequent considerations : 1 positive; 1 neutral. Subsequent citations: 22.
  TORT — Cause of action — Invasion of privacy

  HUMAN RIGHTS — Respect for private life — Interference with
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  TORT — Cause of action — Invasion of privacy — Claimant subject of police investigation — Media organisation broadcasting fact of investigation and police search of claimant’s home — Whether claimant having legitimate expectation of privacy — Whether media organisation’s broadcasting justified by right to freedom of expression — Human Rights Act 1998 (c 42), Sch 1, Pt I, arts 8, 10

  HUMAN RIGHTS — Respect for private life — Interference with — Freedom of expression — Police force investigating claimant entertainer in relation to allegation of sexual abuse — Police giving broadcaster advance notice of search of claimant’s home — Broadcaster televising search — Police bringing no charges against claimant — Whether claimant having reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to investigation — Whether private quality of information about investigation changing following receipt by media organisation — Whether claimant’s privacy rights engaged — Whether of greater weight than media organisation’s right to freedom of expression — Whether media organisation breaching claimant’s privacy rights — Human Rights Act 1998 (c 42), Sch 1, Pt I, arts 8, 10

  HUMAN RIGHTS — Respect for private life — Interference with — Freedom of expression — Police force investigating well-known entertainer in relation to allegation of sexual abuse — Police giving broadcaster advance notice of search of entertainer’s home — Broadcaster televising search — Police bringing no charges against entertainer — Whether entertainer having reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to investigation — Whether private quality of information about investigation changing following receipt by broadcaster — Whether entertainer’s privacy rights engaged — Whether of greater weight than broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression — Whether broadcaster breaching entertainer’s privacy rights — Human Rights Act 1998 (c 42), Sch 1, Pt I, arts 8, 10

  4 Case(s) considered

  1 Statute considered

• In re Birtles, decd (Nield-Moir v Freeman)

  21 Feb 2018 [2018] EWHC 299 (Ch); [2019] Ch 85; [2018] 3 WLR 1802; [2018] WLR(D) 109, Ch D (Judge Paul Matthews sitting as a High Court judge)

  Subsequent citations: 1.
  ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES — Intestacy — Succession
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES — Intestacy — Succession — Parentage — Claimant and defendant claiming to be deceased’s biological daughters — Defendant obtaining grant of administration — Claimant asserting defendant not deceased’s daughter and seeking revocation of grant — Whether court having inherent jurisdiction to direct that defendant submit to DNA testing

  ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES — Intestacy — Succession — Parentage — Claimant and defendant claiming to be deceased’s biological daughters — Defendant obtaining grant of letter of administration — Claimant asserting defendant not deceased’s daughter and seeking revocation of grant — Whether court having inherent jurisdiction to direct that defendant submit to DNA testing — Whether appropriate to exercise jurisdiction — Relevant considerations

  1 Case considered

• Fearn v Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery

  12 Feb 2019 [2019] EWHC 246 (Ch); [2019] Ch 369; [2019] 2 WLR 1335; [2019] WLR(D) 91, Ch D (Mann J)

  21 Jan 2020 (Appeal hearing) Video archive, CA

  12 Feb 2020 [2020] EWCA Civ 104; [2020] Ch 621; [2020] 2 WLR 1081; [2021] 1 All ER 60; [2020] WLR (D) 86; Press summary (pdf), CA (Sir Terence Etherton MR, Lewison, Rose LJJ)

  04 Nov 2020 (appn all) [2021] 1 WLR 568; Case details, SC(E) (Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Kitchin, Lord Leggatt JJSC)

  Subsequent citations: 4.
  HUMAN RIGHTS — Public authority — Functions of public nature

  NUISANCE — Cause of action — Privacy
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  HUMAN RIGHTS — Public authority — Functions of public nature — Art gallery formed by statute offering art displays and education to public — Claim that gallery acting in way incompatible with Convention rights — Whether gallery “public authority” — Whether gallery exercising “functions of a public nature” — Whether claim for breach of Convention rights lying — Museums and Galleries Act 1992 (c 44), s 1(1) — Human Rights Act 1998 (c 42), s 6

  NUISANCE — Cause of action — Privacy — Art gallery’s walkway allowing visitors to view interior of claimants’ flats — Whether use of walkway invasion of claimants’ Convention right to respect for private life — Whether tort of nuisance capable of protecting privacy in home — Whether operation of walkway actionable nuisance — Human Rights Act 1998, Sch 1, Pt I, art 8

  NUISANCE — Cause of action — Privacy — Art gallery’s walkway allowing visitors to view interior of neighbouring flats — Whether invasion of privacy by overlooking capable of giving rise to cause of action in private nuisance — Whether Convention right to respect for home and private life requiring tort of nuisance to be extended to include overlooking — Human Rights Act 1998 (c 42), Sch 1, Pt I, art 8

  16 Case(s) considered

  2 Words & Phrases considered

  2 Statutes considered

• In re Victory House General Partner Ltd

  18 Apr 2018 [2018] EWHC 1143 (Ch); [2019] Ch 1; [2018] 3 WLR 1024; [2018] WLR(D) 308, Ch D (Morgan J)

  INSOLVENCY — Winding up — Petition
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  INSOLVENCY — Winding up — Petition — Petitioner seeking winding up of company on basis of judgment debt — Company having cross-claim in excess of debt — Whether cross-claim making it inappropriate to wind up company — Whether special circumstances justifying departure from general rule

  INSOLVENCY — Winding up — Petition — Petitioner seeking winding up of company on basis of judgment debt — Company having disputed bona fide cross-claim in excess of debt — Whether cross-claim making it inappropriate to wind up company — Whether special circumstances allowing petition to proceed

  2 Case(s) considered
• Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (UK) v Attorney General (Lehtimäki v Cooper)

  09 Jun 2017 [2017] EWHC 1379 (Ch); [2018] Ch 371; [2018] 2 WLR 259; [2018] 2 All ER 504; [2018] 1 BCLC 677; [2017] WLR (D) 390, Ch D (Sir Geoffrey Vos C)

  06 Jul 2018 [2018] EWCA Civ 1605; [2019] Ch 139; [2018] 3 WLR 1470; [2019] 1 All ER 845; [2018] 2 BCLC 478; [2018] WLR (D) 423, CA (Richards, Newey LJJ, Dame Elizabeth Gloster)

  11 Feb 2019 (appn all) [2019] 1 WLR 2016; Case details, SC(E) (Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore, Lord Briggs, Lady Arden JJSC)

  29 Jul 2020 [2020] UKSC 33; [2022] AC 155; [2020] 3 WLR 461; [2021] 1 All ER 809; [2021] 1 All ER (Comm) 757, SC(E) (Lord Reed PSC, Lord Briggs, Lady Arden, Lord Kitchin JJSC, Lord Wilson)

  Subsequent considerations : 1 neutral; most recently considered: 2022. Subsequent citations: 17.
  CHARITY — Charitable company — Jurisdiction of High Court

  COMPANY — Director — Payments for loss of office
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  CHARITY — Charitable company — Jurisdiction of High Court — Extent of court’s jurisdiction over members of charitable company — Whether payment of grant to new charity requiring approval of company’s members — Whether prior written approval of Charity Commission required — Whether members owing fiduciary duty to company — Whether conflict of interest depriving some members of right to vote — Whether grant in best interests of company — Whether court having jurisdiction to direct members how to vote — Whether grant to be approved — Charities Act 2011 (c 25), s 201

  COMPANY — Director — Payments for loss of office — Transactions with directors requiring approval of members — Director/trustee of claimant charitable company agreeing to resign and set up another charitable company — Claimant’s directors/trustees agreeing to make grant to new charity — Whether payment of grant to be made as consideration for or in connection with director/trustee’s retirement from office — Whether “payment for loss of office” to director requiring sanction of claimant’s members — Companies Act 2006 (c 46), ss 215, 217

  CHARITY — Charitable company — Jurisdiction of High Court — Extent of court’s jurisdiction over members of charitable company — Payment of grant to new charity requiring prior written approval of Charity Commission and approval of company’s members — Whether members owing fiduciary duty to company — Conflict of interest depriving some members of right to vote — Whether court having jurisdiction to direct non-conflicted member how to vote — Whether grant to be approved — Companies Act 2006 (c 46), s 217 — Charities Act 2011 (c 25), s 201

  CHARITY — Charitable company — Jurisdiction of High Court — Extent of court’s jurisdiction over members of charitable company — Payment of grant to new charity requiring resolution of company’s members — Whether members owing fiduciary duty to company — Whether court having jurisdiction to direct member how to vote on resolution — Companies Act 2006 (c 46), s 217

  8 Case(s) considered

  1 Words & Phrases considered

  2 Statutes considered

• Golding v Martin

  15 Mar 2019 [2019] EWCA Civ 446; [2019] Ch 489; [2019] 3 WLR 138; [2019] WLR(D) 166, CA (Sir Terence Etherton MR, Lewison, McCombe LJJ)

  Subsequent citations: 1.
  LANDLORD AND TENANT — Lease — Relief from forfeiture
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  LANDLORD AND TENANT — Lease — Relief from forfeiture — Tenant holding under long lease moving abroad without leaving forwarding address — Landlord applying for possession order for arrears of rent — Landlord sending demand to tenant at property — As no defence filed landlord obtaining possession order and taking possession of empty flat — Possession order unconditional and failing to specify date from which order to take effect — Third party purchaser entering into possession — Tenant applying to have possession order set aside within six months of landlord’s resumption of possession — Whether possession order defective — Whether tenant entitled to relief from forfeiture — County Courts Act 1984 (c 28) (as amended by Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (c 41), s 3 and Crime and Courts Act 2013 (c 22), s 17(5), Sch 9, para 10(1)), ss 23, 38, 138

  LANDLORD AND TENANT — Lease — Relief from forfeiture — Landlord’s claim for possession order on grounds of arrears of rent — Order for possession made in absence of tenant — Whether hearing at which order made “trial” — Whether constraints on possession orders made “at trial” applying — Whether possession order defective for failure to comply with such constraints — Whether grant of relief against forfeiture “success at the trial” — County Courts Act 1984 (c 28), s 138(3) (as amended by Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (c 41), s 125(2), Sch 17, para 17) — CPR rr 3.1(2)(m), 3.1(7), 39.3(5)(c), 55.5(1)

  LANDLORD AND TENANT — Lease — Relief from forfeiture — Landlord’s claim for possession order on grounds of arrears of rent — Order for possession made in absence of tenant — Whether hearing at which order made “trial” — Whether constraints on possession orders made “at trial” applying — Whether possession order defective for failure to comply with such constraints — Whether grant of relief against forfeiture “success at the trial” — County Courts Act 1984 (c 28), s 138(3) (as amended by Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (c 41), s 125(2), Sch 17, para 17) — CPR rr 3.1(2)(m)(7), 39.3(5)(c), 55.5(1)

  1 Case considered

  3 Words & Phrases considered

  1 Statute considered

  1 Statutory Instrument considered

• Rittson-Thomas v Oxfordshire County Council

  09 Mar 2018 [2018] EWHC 455 (Ch), Ch D (Richard Spearman QC sitting as a High Court judge)

  21 Feb 2019 [2019] EWCA Civ 200; [2019] Ch 435; [2019] 2 WLR 1397; [2019] WLR(D) 110, CA (Patten, Hamblen, Nicola Davies LJJ)

  03 Dec 2019 (appn all) [2020] 1 WLR 776, SC(E) (Baroness Hale of Richmond PSC, Lady Black, Lord Briggs JJSC)

  23 Apr 2021 [2021] UKSC 13; [2022] AC 129; [2021] 2 WLR 993; [2021] 3 All ER 807; [2021] WLR(D) 227, SC(E) (Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lady Arden, Lord Sales, Lord Burrows, Lord Stephens JJSC)

  Subsequent citations: 3.
  TRUSTS — Resulting trust — School site
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  TRUSTS — Resulting trust — School site — Grantor conveying land for use as site for school — School subsequently relocating to new site — Land lying vacant between relocation of school and sale — Whether original site being used “as a site for a school … or otherwise for the purposes of education” between relocation of school and sale — Whether grantor’s successors in title entitled to receive proceeds of sale — School Sites Act 1841 (4 & 5 Vict c 38), ss 2, 14 — Reverter of Sites Act 1987 (c 15), s 1

  5 Case(s) considered

  1 Words & Phrases considered

  2 Statutes considered

• Duval v 11–13 Randolph Crescent Ltd

  18 Oct 2018 [2018] EWCA Civ 2298; [2019] Ch 357; [2019] 2 WLR 761; [2018] WLR (D) 652, CA (Lewison, Newey LJJ, Sir Stephen Richards)

  05 Mar 2019 (appn all) [2019] 1 WLR 2827, SC(E) (Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Kitchin JJSC)

  06 May 2020 [2020] UKSC 18; [2020] AC 845; [2020] 2 WLR 1167; [2020] 4 All ER 537; [2020] HLR 31; [2020] 2 P & CR 14; The Times, 18 May 2020, SC(E) (Lady Black, Lord Kitchin, Lord Sales JJSC, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Carnwath)

  Subsequent citations: 1.
  LANDLORD AND TENANT — Covenant — Landlord’s covenant to enforce
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  LANDLORD AND TENANT — Covenant — Landlord’s covenant to enforce — Claimant’s lease containing covenant by landlord to enforce absolute covenants of other lessees in block if requested to do so — Other lessee seeking permission to carry out works which would breach absolute covenant — Whether granting of such permission breaching landlord’s enforcement covenant

  LANDLORD AND TENANT — Covenant — Landlord’s covenant to enforce — Lessee’s lease containing covenant by landlord to enforce absolute covenants of other lessees in block if requested to do so — Other lessee seeking permission to carry out works which would breach absolute covenant — Whether granting of such permission breaching landlord’s enforcement covenant

  7 Case(s) considered

• In re Maud (No 2) (Aabar Block SARL v Maud)

  11 Jun 2018 [2018] EWHC 1414 (Ch); [2019] Ch 15; [2018] 3 WLR 1497; [2018] WLR(D) 346, Ch D (Snowden J)

  Subsequent citations: 1.
  BANKRUPTCY — Petition — Creditor’s petition
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  BANKRUPTCY — Petition — Creditor’s petition — Petitioning creditors having jointly owned debt — Second petitioner only seeking immediate bankruptcy order — Whether court permitted to make immediate bankruptcy order — Whether petitioning creditors having to act unanimously

  BANKRUPTCY — Petition — Creditor’s petition — Petitioners owning debt jointly — Petitioner seeking immediate bankruptcy order against wishes of joint petitioner — Whether joint owners of debt required to act unanimously — Whether court permitted to make immediate bankruptcy order

  BANKRUPTCY — Petition — Creditor’s petition — Petitioners owning debt jointly — Second petitioner seeking immediate bankruptcy order against wishes of first petitioner — Whether joint owners of debt required to act unanimously — Whether court permitted to make immediate bankruptcy order