Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Court: uk supreme court Page 1 of about 302 results (0.129 seconds)

May 08 2014 (FN)

British Broadcasting Corporation Vs. a

Court : UK Supreme Court

1. This appeal raises important issues concerning the principle of open justice: in particular, issues concerning the legal basis of the principle, the circumstances in which it can be departed from and the procedure which should be followed. 2. The appeal is brought by the BBC in order to challenge an order made by the Court of Session in proceedings for judicial review of a decision of the Upper Tribunal. In its order, the court permitted the applicant for judicial review to amend his application by deleting his name and address and substituting letters of the alphabet, in the exercise (or, as the BBC argues, purported exercise) of a common law power. The court also gave directions under section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 ("the 1981 Act") prohibiting the publication of his name or other identifying details and directing that no picture of him should be published or broadcast. 3. The appeal raises the following questions: "'i) Whether the court possesses any power at common ...

Tag this Judgment!

May 08 2014 (FN)

Barnes (as Former Court Appointed Receiver) Vs. the Eastenders Group a ...

Court : UK Supreme Court

Introduction 1. The contest in this case is about who should bear the costs and expenses of a receiver appointed under an order which ought not to have been made. The appellant, who is a former partner in a well known firm of accountants, was appointed to act as management receiver of the assets of a group of companies referred to as Eastenders ("the companies") on the application of the Crown Prosecution Service ("CPS"). The order was made under section 48 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 ("POCA") but was quashed on appeal. The receiver's costs and expenses are put at 772,547. Who should bear those costs? There are three possible answers: the companies, the receiver or the CPS. The question has been considered by four judges who have arrived at three different answers. 2. The receiver applied to the Crown Court, after the order had been quashed, for permission to draw his remuneration and expenses from the assets of the companies. The application was refused by Underhill J (now Under...

Tag this Judgment!

May 08 2014 (FN)

L Batley Pet Products Limited Vs. North Lanarkshire Council

Court : UK Supreme Court

1. This appeal raises two issues of contractual construction in documents relating to the letting of commercial premises at 1 and 3 South Ward park Place, Ward park South Industrial Estate, Cumbernauld, Scotland. The appellant ("Batley") is the mid-landlord of sub-let premises and the respondent ("the Council") is the sub-tenant. Batley and the Council disagree on whether the Council was obliged to remove its alterations and reinstate the sub-let premises on the expiry of the sub-lease when the request to do so was made orally by Batley's surveyor and not put in writing in a schedule of dilapidations or otherwise before the sub-lease expired. The two issues are: (a) whether under a minute of agreement that authorised alterations to the sub-let premises Batley was obliged to give written notification that it required the Council to remove the alterations and reinstate the sublet premises; and (b) whether under the repairing obligation in the head lease, which was applied to the sub-leas...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 09 2014 (FN)

Morgan Advanced Materials Plc (Formerly Morgan Crucible Co. Plc.) Vs. ...

Court : UK Supreme Court

1. The issue on this appeal is whether claims against Morgan Advanced Materials plc (formerly Morgan Crucible Co plc) (the appellant) for loss allegedly suffered by reason of a cartel infringing article 81(1) TEC (now article 101 TFEU) are time-barred. The issue links with important substantive questions about the nature of the decisions of the European Commission (or European Court of Justice) which bind domestic courts as to the existence of such a cartel. It has been very well argued by counsel on both sides. 2. Article 81(1) prohibited "all agreements between undertakings . and concerted practices which may affect trade between member states and which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the internal market". The appellant and others operated an illegal cartel in the sector of electrical and mechanical carbon and graphite products. The appellant as whistle-blower disclosed the existence of the cartel to the Commission and a ...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 02 2014 (FN)

Cox Vs. Ergo Versicherung Ag (Formerly Known as Victoria)

Court : UK Supreme Court

1. These proceedings arise out of a fatal accident in Germany. On 21 May 2004, Major Christopher Cox, an officer serving with H.M. Forces in Germany, was riding his bicycle on the verge of a road near his base when a car left the road and hit him, causing injuries from which he died. The driver was Mr Gunther Kretschmer, a German national resident and domiciled in Germany. He was insured by the respondent, a German insurance company, under a contract governed by German law. The appellant, Major Cox's widow Katerina, was living with him in Germany at the time of the accident. After the accident, she returned to England where she has at all relevant times been domiciled. Since then, she has entered into a new relationship and has had two children with her new partner. 2. It is common ground that the liabilities of Mr Kretschmer and his insurer are governed by German law. It is also common ground that under paragraph 3(1) of the Pflichtversicherungsgesetz, Mrs Cox had a direct right of ac...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 02 2014 (FN)

R Vs. O'Brien

Court : UK Supreme Court

1. Is a person who has been extradited to this country for trial on a criminal charge, and who prior to his extradition was guilty of contempt of court by disobeying a court order, open to punishment for his contempt although it was not the basis of his extradition? The answer depends in part on the proper interpretation of the so “ called "specialty" or "speciality" provisions of the Extradition Act 2003 and partly on the law relating to contempt. The speciality principle (widely recognised in extradition law and extradition treaties) prohibits a person who has been extradited for a particular offence or offences from being dealt with by the requesting state for another offence or offences committed (or alleged to have been committed) before his extradition, subject to such exceptions as may be contained in the relevant statute or treaty. 2. Mr O'Brien appeals against a decision of the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal (Gross LJ, Openshaw J and Judge Milford QC) [2012] 1 ...

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 26 2014 (FN)

DurkIn Vs. Dsg Retail Limited and Another

Court : UK Supreme Court

LORD HODGE (with whom Lady Hale, Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption and Lord Reed agree) 1. Mr Durkin has fought this battle for many years. He purchased a laptop computer from PC World in Aberdeen for 1,499 on 28 December 1998. He entered a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement with HFC Bank plc under section 12(b) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 to fund the purchase, apart from a 50 deposit which he paid. On the next day he rejected the computer because it did not conform to his contract. PC World did not accept that he had validly rescinded the contract until the sheriff at Aberdeen in a judgment dated 26 March 2008 determined that he had. In the meantime, HFC treated him as being in default and intimated that default to credit reference agencies. Mr Durkin claimed damages for financial loss caused by the damage to his credit. The principal issue in this appeal is whether Mr Durkin was entitled to rescind the credit agreement on rescission of the sale agreement. The factual background 2. In De...

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 26 2014 (FN)

Kennedy Vs. the Charity Commission

Court : UK Supreme Court

1. Information is the key to sound decision-making, to accountability and development; it underpins democracy and assists in combatting poverty, oppression, corruption, prejudice and inefficiency. Administrators, judges, arbitrators, and persons conducting inquiries and investigations depend upon it; likewise the press, NGOs and individuals concerned to report on issues of public interest. Unwillingness to disclose information may arise through habits of secrecy or reasons of self-protection. But information can be genuinely private, confidential or sensitive, and these interests merit respect in their own right and, in the case of those who depend on information to fulfil their functions, because this may not otherwise be forthcoming. These competing considerations, and the balance between them, lie behind the issues on this appeal. 2. This appeal concerns the relationship between the Charity Commission, a public authority responsible for inquiries in relation to which it requires inf...

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 19 2014 (FN)

P (by His Litigation Friend the Official Solicitor) and Another Vs. Ch ...

Court : UK Supreme Court

Lady Hale (with whom Lord Sumption agrees) 1. This case is about the criteria for judging whether the living arrangements made for a mentally incapacitated person amount to a deprivation of liberty. If they do, then the deprivation has to be authorised, either by a court or by the procedures known as the deprivation of liberty safeguards, set out in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 ("the Mental Capacity Act"). If they do not, no independent check is made on whether those arrangements are in the best interests of the mentally incapacitated person, although of course the health or social care bodies who make the arrangements do so in the hope and belief that they are the best which can practicably be devised. It is no criticism of them if the safeguards are required. It is merely a recognition that human rights are for everyone, including the most disabled members of our community, and that those rights include the same right to liberty as has everyone else. The statutory background 2. The d...

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 12 2014 (FN)

The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis Vs. R (on the Application ...

Court : UK Supreme Court

Introduction 1. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 ("PACE") consolidated various police powers to obtain evidence for the purposes of a criminal investigation. Generally, a magistrate has power under section 8 to issue a search warrant on an ex parte application by a constable if satisfied, among other things, that there are reasonable grounds for believing that an indictable offence has been committed and that there is material on the relevant premises which is likely to be of substantial value to the investigation. However, that general power does not apply in relation to material which is defined in the Act as "excluded material" (section 11) or "special procedure material" (section 14). 2. "Excluded material" includes "journalistic material" which a person holds in confidence. "Special procedure material" includes journalistic material other than excluded material. "Journalistic material" means material acquired or created for the purposes of journalism, provided that it in ...

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //