Judgment call: 25 June 2012
25 June 2012
17 June 2013
28 May 2013
29 April 2013
10 June 2013
9 April 2014
The court considered, as an obiter point, whether the principles in Bolkiah v KPMG (1999) 2 A.C. 222 applied with equal force to a former employed or in-house litigator as they did to a former independent litigator. Judicial opinion was divided, but tentatively inclined towards a view that Bolkiah should not be so extended.
Generics (UK) Ltd v Yeda Research and Development Co Ltd & anor (2012) EWCA Civ 726. Ward LJ; Etherton LJ; Sir Robin Jacob. 31 May 2012
For the appellant Generics (UK) Ltd
Wilberforce Chambers’ Michael Bloch QC and Sebastian Allen; Simmons & Simmons partner Mark Doring
For the respondents Yeda Research and Development Co Ltd & anr
Brick Court Chambers’ Simon Salzedo QC and Thomas Hinchcliffe; Bird & Bird associate Christopher Demauny
R (on the application of Barnsley MBC) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. EWHC 1366 (Admin). Foskett J. 24 May 2012
The Local Government Act 2000 was passed with a clear appreciation that the Local Government Act 1972 s.120 and s.121 remained in force with full effect, and s.2 of the 2000 act was not intended to alter the situation in which land could not be acquired compulsorily by a local authority simply for the “benefit, improvement or development” of the local area. That could only be achieved by agreement.
For the claimant Barnsley MBC
4-5 Gray’s Inn Square’s Lisa Busch, instructed directly by Barnsley MBC Legal Services
For the defendant Secretary of State
4-5 Gray’s Inn Square’s Stephen Whale, instructed directly by The Treasury Solicitor
The interested parties were not present or represented
R (on the application of KM) v Cambridgeshire CC (2012) UKSC 23. Lord Phillips JSC (President); Lord Walker JSC; Lady Hale JSC; Lord Brown JSC; Lord Kerr JSC; Lord Dyson JSC; Lord Wilson JSC. 31 May 2012
The Supreme Court set out a staged approach to be adopted by local authorities when considering whether, in order to meet the needs of a disabled person, it was necessary to make arrangements for the provision of services specified in the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 s.2(1) and the reasonable cost of providing those services.
For the appellant KM
Doughty Street Chambers’ Ian Wise QC, Stephen Broach and Ben Silverstone; Scott-Moncrieff & Associates solicitor consultant Mitchell Woolf
For the respondent Cambridgeshire County Council
4-5 Grays Inn Square’s Richard McManus QC, Jonathan Auburn and Benjamin Tankel, instructed directly by Cambridge County Council Legal Services
For the interveners The National Autistic Society; The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association; SENSE; The Royal National Institute of Blind People
Brick Court Chambers’ Richard Gordon QC and Victoria Wakefield; Irwin Mitchell partner Yogi Amin
For the intervener Secretary of State for Health
Landmark Chambers’ Nathalie Lieven QC and Tim Buley, instructed directly by the Department for Work and Pensions/Department of Health Legal Services
Bradbury v British Broadcasting Corporation (2012) EWHC 1369 (Ch). Warren J. 23 May 2012
A 1 per cent cap imposed by the BBC on increases in the pensionable salary of its employees was not contrary to the Pensions Act 1995 s.91.
For the appellant Bradbury
Littleton Chambers’ Andrew Stafford QC; Devereux Chambers’ Nicholas Randall; Walkers Solicitors principal Ivan Walker
For the respondent BBC
Wilberforce Chambers’ Robert Ham QC; Olswang partner David Farmer
Administration of justice
Shuldham, Re (2012) EWHC 1420 (Ch). Floyd J. 25 May 2012
CPR r.39.2(3) and CPR PD 39A did not give a litigant a right to a hearing in private merely because their case fell within one of the classes identified in the rule. The court would have to form a view of the nature of the confidential information, its importance to the party and the damage they would suffer by its disclosure before deciding whether it was necessary to hold a hearing in private.
For the claimant Timothy Shuldham
Ten Old Square’s Michael Waterworth; Taylor Wessing partner Steven Kempster
Cherry Tree Investments Ltd v Landmain Ltd (2012) EWCA Civ 736. Arden LJ; Longmore LJ; Lewison LJ. 31 May 2012
Where parties had registered a charge over land but had mistakenly omitted a clause contained in an ancillary document extending the circumstances in which the power of sale could be exercised, that clause could not be inserted as a matter of interpretation. A legal charge was a public document on a public register upon which third parties could be expected to rely in order to obtain an accurate picture of the state of the title to the land.
For the appellant Landmain
Enterprise Chambers’ Edward Francis; Edwin Coe senior associate Dominic De Bono
For the respondent Cherry Tree Investments
Enterprise Chambers’ James Pickering; Turner Parkinson partner Christian Eagle
Lewis v (1) Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis; (2) Baroness Buscombe; (3) Press Complaints Commission (2012). EWHC 1391 (QB); Tugendhat J. 25 May 2012
Despite there being significant national interest in a libel claim brought by a prominent public figure in the context of phone-hacking allegations, the statutory presumption in favour of trial by judge alone was not displaced.
For the claimant Lewis
Ely Place Chambers’ Ronald Thwaites QC; 5RB’s William Bennett; Taylor Hampton solicitor advocate Mark Lewis
For the defendant Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
5RB’s Adrienne Page QC and Jacob Dean; Weightmans partner Martin Forshaw