A full report of the judgment in the costs case related to Marley v Rawlings, in which parents had each signed the wrong mirror will.
The claimant Pakistani national challenged the home secretary’s refusal of a British passport to which she claimed to be entitled as a British citizen by descent.
The Commercial Court dismissed the claimants’ application for an injunction pursuant to section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 to restrain the first defendant from pursuing or taking any step in proceedings commenced against the second and third claimants in the supreme court of New York.
The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) ruled on an appeal by Bookit Ltd against a decision of the Revenue and Customs Commissioners which had decided that credit and debit card handling fees were not exempt from a European directive and should be standard rated.
The claimant had arranged a loan with the defendant bank. He subsequently sought to transfer the loan from himself to a company that he controlled. The claimant and the company brought proceedings against the bank for, among other things, misrepresentation.
The first claimant owned two UK patents for an invention entitled ‘flying shark’ and the second claimant was the exclusive licensee of the first claimant in respect of both patents. The defendant devised and imported toys for sale in the UK, in particular, flying fish known as ‘mega fliers’.
Applicant prisoners lodge applications against UK, complaining they are prevented from voting in European Parliament elections
In this adoption application, the parent and step-parent of a child applied to the court to adopt a mother’s two children (by different fathers). The trial judge refused application so the father appealed.
In a case management conference regarding two libel actions concerning the events that happened when the claimant was leaving Downing Street with his bicycle, the Queen’s Bench Division approved the parties’ proposals that the action should be tried by a judge sitting without a jury.
The claimant sought judicial review of the decision by Transport for London not to allow the Christian organisation’s advertisement to appear on its buses, on the basis that the decision had been made for the improper purpose of advancing the second defendant mayor’s electoral campaign.
The case returned to the employment tribunal (the tribunal) for a decision as to whether the selection by the employer solicitors’ firm of the compulsory age of 65 for retirement had been proportionate to achieve its aims of retention and workforce planning.
The claimant sought judicial review of the secretary of state’s proposal, by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Amendment of Schedule 1) Order 2014, to introduce a residence test for cases most in need of public funding.
The defendant secretary of state had policies concerning the holding of information of the claimant’s gender reassignment. The claimant issued judicial review proceedings, contending that the secretary of state’s policies were unlawful.
A British national, was in prison in Bali, Indonesia, awaiting execution by firing squad, following her conviction for drug offences. The defendant secretary of state had provided substantial consular assistance, but he had declined to pay for legal help, relying on what was said to be a rigid policy. The appellant issued judicial review proceedings in England, challenging the validity of the secretary of state’s policy.
A request had been made in proceedings between Apple and the German Patent and Trade Mark Office, concerning the latter’s rejection of an application by Apple for registration of a trademark.
There was an application before the court in respect of DD, a 36-year-old woman with learning difficulties, who was pregnant with her sixth child. The applicants sought for declarations and orders in relation to the care and health of DD during the final stage of her current pregnancy, and in the safe delivery of the unborn baby. The applicants applied for a further order authorising the conduct of an assessment of DD’s capacity to make decisions about contraception, following the imminent ...
The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) allowed the appeal by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) in which the FTT had decided that a penalty paid by McLaren Racing Ltd for a breach of sporting code of the Federation Internationale de l’Automobile was deductible by McLaren in computing its taxable profits.
The police had been called to an incident in which the appellant had been implicated. The officer had blocked the appellant in a doorway and told him to calm down otherwise he would be arrested.
The parents of a child SR born in 2011 opposed the making of an adoption order in favour of the proposed adopters. The Family Division held that there was only one route which would sufficiently safeguard the welfare of SR and that was the route of adoption.
Six claims were heard together in which each claimant challenged the defendant Director of Legal Aid Casework’s decisions refusing to grant legal aid in respect of their immigration proceedings.
The defendants (AB and CD) both faced charges of having committed offences contrary to s 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
The claimant made and sold hair oil under the name Moroccanoil and the defendant, Aldi, sold hair oil called Miracle Oil. The claimant issued proceedings against the defendant for passing off.
The First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (the FTT) assessed the claimant asylum seeker as a minor, but the High Court in distinct judicial review proceedings found that he was not a minor.
The claimant companies owned the copyright to many films and television programmes. They brought proceedings against the first defendant, H, and companies alleged to have been controlled by him, contending that he had been responsible for large-scale copyright fraud.
The Bar Standards Board sought judicial review of the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Council of the Inns of Court’s decision awarding the interested party non-practising barrister costs.
The claimant solicitor brought an action for misuse of private and confidential information and harassment, and for damages against the defendant sex worker.
A had been convicted of sexual offences and the secretary of state sought to deport him. A challenged the deportation decision.
The claimant, Danish Kaneria, was a professional cricketer. In June 2012, the defendant body found him guilty of two charges, including inducing or encouraging, or attempting to induce or encourage, another cricketer to not to perform to his merits by deliberately conceding a minimum number of runs.
The claimant had been released from hospital on conditional discharge. The defendant secretary of state recalled him to hospital under section 42(3) of the Mental Health Act 1983.
The appellant Spanish national was accused of involvement in a conspiracy to launder money which was the proceeds of crime.
The claimant musicians sought an interim injunction or specific performance to require the defendant Royal National Theatre to continue to engage them in the production of War Horse.
The claimant housemate in the 2012 series of Big Brother, a former Miss India UK, issued libel proceedings concerning two broadcasts of Big Brother.
The respondent judicial authority sought the appellant Lithuanian national’s extradition pursuant to a European arrest warrant so that she could stand trial in relation to an allegation of assisting an ‘armed robbery’, said to have occurred in 1996.
Ryanair had sought to reclaim air passenger duty, which it alleged it had overpaid in respect of connected flights.
The claimant companies brought proceedings, contending that two patents had been infringed by the defendant companies (together, Virgin). Virgin contended that the patents lacked novelty over a number of other matters, and were obvious. The Patents Court held that, among other things, both patents were invalid for obviousness.
The employment tribunal had found the claimant teacher’s claims, including of sexual and racial discrimination, against the third defendant head teacher established. The tribunal’s order was subsequently revoked on review and there was no outstanding judgment against the third defendant. The third defendant appealed, seeking a decision that the tribunal’s findings of fact had been wrong.
A Guardian journalist appealed after the attorney general blocked the publication of letters Prince Charles wrote to government departments.
The claimant musicians pitched the Real Deal, a music talent show, to Sky. Sky did not commission the claimants’ show, but later commissioned and broadcast another musical talent show programme, Must be the Music.
A Thai official tried to sue the former Football Association chairman Lord Triesman for libel, over allegations Triesman made about him before a parliamentary select committee.
The issue in the case was whether late paid fees for membership of the taxpayer’s health and fitness club were properly to be regarded as the consideration for a supply of services for VAT purposes.
The employee had been made redundant following the closure of a US military base in the UK. She successfully issued proceedings seeking a protective award. On the employer’s appeal to the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, a question was referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union.
In dismissing the applicant’s appeal against a refusal to allow his application for judicial review of the secretary of state’s refusal to revoke a deportation order made against him, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the word ‘matter’ in section 96(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 included evidence that could have been raised, but had not been, on an actual or possible appeal against an earlier decision.
The widow of Alexander Litvinenko sought judicial review of the refusal by the secretary of state Theresa May to order an inquiry into the circumstances of the Russian’s death by poisoning in 2006.
The Chancery Division considered a claim by Lush, a cosmetics company. Lush contended that the defendant companies, which were part of Amazon, the online retailer, had infringed its trademark by using it to direct customers to other products similar to, but not sold by, Lush.
The Divisional Court dismissed the claimant trade union’s application for judicial review of the defendant lord chancellor’s decision to introduce a fees regime for bringing and pursuing claims in the employment tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the defendant’s appeal against conviction for various counts of fraud by dishonest representation and two counts of possession of articles for use in fraud, held that the principles applicable to inconsistent verdicts were capable of applying by analogy where it was logically inexplicable as to how the jury could not reach a verdict on one count when it had reached a verdict of guilty on another. However, it would be a rare case ...
The claimant issued libel proceedings against the defendant newspaper following the publication of an article. The judge rejected the newspaper’s defence of justification and entered judgment for the claimant. The newspaper appealed.
The Commercial Court considered a dispute about the payment of commission by the defendant companies, which had sold insurance and other financial products to the claimant trade union. The court interpreted the agreements between the parties, holding that neither party’s interpretation was correct.
The judgment in the Marley v Rawlings wills mix-up appeal. General guidance was also provided in the matter of validity of wills.