Results: 4030

• Edmund Willison v The Information Commissioner & Anor

  09 Apr 2024 [2024] UKFTT 286 (GRC), FTT

  1. This is an appeal against the Commissioner’s decision notice IC-295693-R6R3 of 15 February 2023 which held that UK Anti-Doping (UKAD) was entitled to rely on section 31(1)(g) (exercising functions for specified purposes) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). The Commissioner found that UKAD was in breach of section 10 and 17 FOIA. The Commissioner did not require the public authority to take any steps. 2. There is a closed annex to this decision. If this decision is not appealed the tribunal will ask for comments from UKAD and the Commissioner before making a decision on which parts
• Shikha Gupta v DB Group Services Limited

  05 Sep 2024 [2024] EWHC 2297 (KB), KBD

  Subsequent considerations : 1 negative.
  ACCORD AND SATISFACTION — Acceptance of lesser sum — Cheque
  1. In this matter, the Claimant Ms Gupta claims damages from her previous employer the Defendant, alleging breach of contract in relation to her bonus compensation decision for the financial year ending 2016. 2. The Claimant was employed by the Defendant Bank (“the Bank”) in its Non- Core Operations Unit (“NCOU”). The Bank employed the Claimant in a rather unusual position. The Bank was trying to get rid of its high-risk assets. As such the NCOU had been set up to carry out this task with the original anticipation that this unit would deliver by 2020. However, in 2015/2016 a
  Expand

  1 Statute considered

• Ulster Metal Refiners Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC

  25 Jun 2024 [2024] UKUT 184 (TCC), UT

  1. Ulster Metal Refiners Limited (“the Appellant” or “UM”) is a company based in Northern Ireland of which Mr Henry Donaldson is the director. The Appellant appealed to the FTT against a decision made by HM Revenue & Customs (“HMRC”) to deny credit for input tax on the basis that it knew or should have known that the transactions in question were connected with fraud. On 12 August 2021, the FTT issued its decision (“the FTT Decision”) allowing the Appellant’s appeal in relation to around 90% of the VAT denied. 2. The Appellant’s appeal had been allocated as “complex” under
  Expand

• Fondee

  16 May 2024 (Case C-695/22); EU:C:2024:406, ECJ

  EUROPEAN UNION — Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom to provide services
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  EUROPEAN UNION — Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom to provide services — Markets in financial instruments — Directive 2014/65/EU — Article 3 — Exemption from the application of Directive 2014/65/EU — Exempted investment intermediary — Legislation of a Member State prohibiting that intermediary from transmitting clients' orders to an investment firm established in another Member State

• Saeed Akbar v Mohammed Sajead Ghaffar & Anor

  17 Jan 2024 [2024] EWHC 50 (Ch), Ch D

  1. I am presently concerned with whether the Defence of the Defendants, Mohammed Sajead Ghaffar (“Mr Ghaffar”) and Sairah Kanwal Shah (“Mrs Shah”), ought to be struck out as a result of their failure to comply with CPR 16.5 in respect of the contents thereof. 2. By his application dated 25 May 2023 (“the Application”), the Claimant, Saeed Akbar (“Mr Akbar”), sought an order that unless the Defendants served a Defence that was compliant with CPR 16.5 within 14 days, then their Defence be struck out and judgment be entered for Mr Akbar against them. However, in consequence of a

• Adam Jonathan Durrani & Anor v Charlotte Justine Coe & Anor

  15 Nov 2024 [2024] EWHC 2912 (KB), KBD

  1. This is a dispute about money that was transferred to the Defendants. The dispute is about who transferred it and whether either of the Defendants have to pay some or all of it back. 2. There are close relationships between the parties. The first Claimant (“Mr Durrani”) was a very good friend of the First Defendant (“Ms Coe”) and her family for over two decades. Mr Durrani and Ms Coe also had some degree of sexual relationship, although they gave differing evidence about the depth and intensity of the relationship. Ms Coe and the Second Defendant (“Mr McCourt”) had
  Expand

• The Secretary of State For Energy Security and Net Zero v The Information Commissioner

  26 Apr 2024 [2024] UKFTT 184 (GRC), FTT

  1. This appeal arises out of a proposal by Horizon Nuclear Power Ltd (Horizon) to build a nuclear power station at Wylfa in Anglesey. Horizon was acquired in 2012 by Hitachi Ltd a conglomerate which among other activities builds and maintains nuclear power stations. The application by Horizon Nuclear Power Wylfa Ltd to build the station, dated 1 June 2018, was made under section 31 of the Planning Act 2008 and was received in full by The Planning Inspectorate on 1 June 2018. In a statement to the House of Commons published on 4 June 2018 the Secretary of State

• Jason Platt v The High Court of the Republic of Ireland

  15 Jul 2024 [2024] EWHC 1821 (Admin), KBD

  1. This is an appeal against an order for the extradition of the Appellant which was made by District Judge Sternberg on 30 June 2023 after a hearing at the Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 5 June 2023. 2. The Appellant is the subject of an accusation arrest warrant (“the Arrest Warrant”) which was issued by the High Court in Ireland on 4 October 2021 under the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and the United Kingdom, and certified by the National Crime Agency on 22 April 2022 under Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003. He faces eight
  Expand

• Procura della Repubblica presso il Tribunale di Bolzano

  30 Apr 2024 (Case C-178/22); EU:C:2024:371, ECJ

  Subsequent citations: 1.
  EUROPEAN UNION — Reference for a preliminary ruling — Processing of personal data in the electronic communications sector
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  EUROPEAN UNION — Reference for a preliminary ruling — Processing of personal data in the electronic communications sector — Confidentiality of communications — Providers of electronic communications services — Directive 2002/58/EC — Article 151 — Articles 7, 8, 11 and Article 521 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Access to those data requested by a national authority having competence to prosecute offences of aggravated theft — Definition of the concept of 'serious offence' the prosecution of which is capable of justifying serious interference with fundamental rights — Competence of the Member States — Principle of proportionality — Scope of prior review by a court of the requests to access the data retained by providers of electronic communications services

• QX v Secretary of State for the Home Department

  05 Aug 2024 [2024] UKSC 26, SC

  1. Introduction 1. The principal question in this appeal is whether the right to a fair hearing, as guaranteed by article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (“the Convention”) and implemented in our domestic law by the Human Rights Act 1998 (“the Human Rights Act”), applies to an application under section 11 of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 (“the 2015 Act”) for the review of the Secretary of State’s decisions relating to the imposition of a temporary exclusion order (“TEO”) on the claimant, QX. 2. The background facts 2. The claimant is a British citizen. He lived