Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Court: uk supreme court Page 6 of about 302 results (0.140 seconds)

Jul 31 2013 (FN)

Mcgraddie Vs. Mcgraddie (Ap) and Another

Court : UK Supreme Court

Lord Reed (with whom Lord Neuberger, Lady Hale, Lord Wilson and Lord Hughes agree) 1. In the sets of Session Cases in the Advocates Library, the volumes for 1947 fall open at Thomas v Thomas 1947 SC (HL) 45; [1947] AC 484, where one finds in the speech of Lord Thankerton at pp 54 and 487-488 what may be the most frequently cited of all judicial dicta in the Scottish courts: "(1) Where a question of fact has been tried by a judge without a jury, and there is no question of misdirection of himself by the judge, an appellate court which is disposed to come to a different conclusion on the printed evidence should not do so unless it is satisfied that any advantage enjoyed by the trial judge by reason of having seen and heard the witnesses could not be sufficient to explain or justify the trial judge's conclusion. (2) The appellate court may take the view that, without having seen or heard the witnesses, it is not in a position to come to any satisfactory conclusion on the printed evidence....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 31 2013 (FN)

Teal Assurance Company Limited Vs. W R Berkley Insurance (Europe) Limi ...

Court : UK Supreme Court

Lord Mance (with whom Lord Neuberger, Lord Clarke, Lord Sumption and Lord Toulson agree) Introduction 1. Black and Veatch Corp ("BV") is an engineering company incorporated in Delaware. This appeal concerns the top layer of its professional liability insurance programme for the year from 1 November 2007. The first or primary layer was with Lexington Insurance Co ("Lexington"). There are then three successive excess layers (described as the "PI tower") with the appellant, Teal Assurance Co Ltd ("Teal"), which is an associate or "captive" of BV based in the Cayman Islands. Teal reinsured the risks under these layers with various retrocessionaires (Swiss Re, Zurich, etc). Finally comes the top layer, a "top and drop" policy, again placed with Teal and reinsured by Teal with the respondents, WR Berkley Insurance (Europe) Ltd and Aspen Insurance UK Ltd for 50% each. Unlike the layers beneath it, which provided worldwide cover, the top and drop policy excludes any claims emanating from or br...

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 31 2013 (FN)

Torfaen County Borough Council Vs. Douglas Willis Limited

Court : UK Supreme Court

Lord Toulson (with whom Lady Hale, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson and Lord Carnwath agree) 1. Under the Food Safety Act 1990 the appellant local authority ("the council") has responsibility for the enforcement of food safety laws in its area, many of which are contained in regulations made under the Act. We are concerned in this case with the Food Labelling Regulations 1996 (SI 1996/1499) ("the regulations"). The respondent ("the company") carries on the business of buying, processing and selling meat products. 2. On 29 June 2011 inspectors from the council's trading standards department visited the company's premises where they found a number of packages of frozen meat labelled with "use by" dates which had passed. An information was preferred against it, including 23 charges under regulation 44(1)(d). 3. A sample charge was in the following terms: "On 29 June [2011] at Cwmbran, you Douglas Willis Ltd, Unit 5, Grange Road, Industrial Estate, Cwmbran, Torfaen, did sell food, namely 'Pork Pigs'...

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 29 2013 (FN)

South Lanarkshire Council Vs. the Scottish Information Commissioner

Court : UK Supreme Court

Lady Hale (with whom Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Reed and Lord Carnwath agree) 1. In May 2010, Mr Mark Irvine made a number of requests under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) for information from South Lanarkshire Council. He wanted to know how many of their employees in a particular post were placed at 10 particular points on the Council's pay scales. His underlying purpose was to find out whether the Council's pay gradings favoured work traditionally done by men. He did not want to know the names of the employees concerned. The Council refused his request on the ground that to comply with it would contravene the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). Mr Irvine complained to the Scottish Information Commissioner who investigated and decided that the information should be disclosed. The Council appealed unsuccessfully to the Inner House of the Court of Session and now appeals to this Court. 2. There are two issues before this Court. First and most important is the prope...

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 24 2013 (FN)

R (on the Application of Modaresi) (Fc) Vs. Secretary of State for Hea ...

Court : UK Supreme Court

Lord Carnwath (with whom Lord Neuberger, Lord Wilson and Lord Sumption agree) Background 1. This appeal arises out of an unfortunate but isolated oversight in the offices of the West London Mental Health NHS Trust. It occurred over the New Year period at the end of 2010. The consequences have long since ceased to have any practical significance for any of the parties. No relief, financial or otherwise, is now sought in these proceedings against the trust itself. The appeal has been pursued to this court solely against the Secretary of State, on the basis that it raises a question of general importance. 2. That question is formulated by Mr Gordon QC, in his printed case as follows: "As: (i) a public body with obligations in public law and (ii) a public authority under the Human Rights Act 1998 'HRA' can the Secretary of State for Health 'the S/S' lawfully refuse to refer a patient's case to the First-tier Mental Health Review Tribunal 'MHRT' under section 67(1) of the Mental Health Act ...

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 24 2013 (FN)

In the Matter of the Nortel Companies and Another

Court : UK Supreme Court

Lord Neuberger (with whom Lord Mance, Lord Clarke and Lord Toulson agree) Introductory 1. These two appeals raise questions of some significance arising out of the interrelationship of the statutory schemes relating to the protection of employees' pensions and to corporate insolvency. 2. The background to the two appeals is, in very summary terms, as follows: i. Many UK registered members of the Lehman group of companies, and all the UK registered members of the Nortel group of companies, have gone into insolvent administration; ii. (a) One of those Lehman group companies entered into service contracts with, and ran a pension scheme for the benefit of, employees who worked for other group members; (b) The Nortel group included a company which had a pension scheme, and which was insufficiently resourced to fund that scheme; iii. The pension scheme ("the Scheme") in each case was a final salary scheme, which appears to be, and to have been for some time, in substantial deficit; iv. The P...

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 17 2013 (FN)

R (on the Application of New London College Limited) and Another Vs. S ...

Court : UK Supreme Court

Lord Sumption (with whom Lord Hope, Lord Clarke and Lord Reed agree) Introduction 1. The Immigration Act 1971 is now more than forty years old, and it has not aged well. It is widely acknowledged to be ill-adapted to the mounting scale and complexity of the problems associated with immigration control. The present appeals are a striking illustration of the difficulties. They concern the system for licensing educational institutions to sponsor students from outside the European Economic Area under Tier 4 of the current points-based system of immigration control. The status of a licensed sponsor is central to the operation of the points-based system for international students. It is also of great economic importance to the institutions which possess it. It enables them to market themselves to international students on the basis that their acceptance of a student will in the ordinary course enable them to enter the United Kingdom for the duration of their studies. For institutions with a ...

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 17 2013 (FN)

Benedetti and Others Vs. Sawiris and Others

Court : UK Supreme Court

Lord Clarke (with whom Lord Kerr and Lord Wilson agree) Introduction 1. This is an unusual case. It involves a claim for unjust enrichment and, in the course of the argument, has led to a wide ranging discussion of the principles relevant to an aspect of unjust enrichment which has been the subject of lively debate among academics. It will be necessary to give consideration to at least some of the principles but, as is so often the case, the appeal can be determined on the facts without the necessity for the Court to express a final view on all the legal issues which have been the subject of argument. The parties 2. Mr Benedetti is an Italian citizen resident in Switzerland. Mr Sawiris is an Egyptian and American national and was at all material times the Chairman and CEO of Orascom Telecom Holding SAE ("Orascom"), an Egyptian company quoted on the Egyptian Stock Exchange and (through Global Depositary Receipts) on the London Stock Exchange, which operates a telecommunications business...

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 10 2013 (FN)

Kapri (Ap) Vs. the Lord Advocate Representing the Government of the Re ...

Court : UK Supreme Court

Lord Hope (with whom Lady Hale, Lord Kerr, Lord Sumption and Lord Toulson agree) 1. The question in these proceedings is whether it would be compatible with the appellant's Convention rights within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998 for the appellant, who is an Albanian national, to be extradited to Albania. On 7 April 2001, while he was in the United Kingdom as an illegal immigrant, another Albanian national named Ylli Pepa, was killed. On the day after this incident the appellant left London and travelled to Glasgow, where he assumed a false Macedonian identity. It was alleged that he had been responsible for Ylli Pepa's murder. But the Metropolitan Police were unable to locate him, and he continued to live in Glasgow for the time being under that false identity. 2. In December 2001 the Crown Prosecution Service delivered all the materials about the case that were in their possession, including witness statements and productions, to the prosecuting authority in Albania. This wa...

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 10 2013 (FN)

R (on the Application of Aa) (Fc) Vs. Secretary of State for the Home ...

Court : UK Supreme Court

Lord Toulson (with whom Lord Neuberger, Lord Clarke and Lord Wilson agree) 1. The Immigration Act 1971, Schedule 2, paragraph 16(2) ("paragraph 16"), gives power to immigration officers acting on behalf of the Secretary of State to detain a person if there is reasonable ground to suspect that he is liable to be removed as an illegal entrant, pending a decision whether to give removal directions or the implementation of removal directions. 2. Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 ("section 55") imposes duties regarding the welfare of children on the Secretary of State and on immigration officers in all immigration matters. 3. The issue on this appeal is the effect of section 55 on the legality of the appellant's detention under paragraph 16 over a period of 13 days. At the time of the detention the Secretary of State acted in the mistaken but reasonable belief that he was aged over 18. It is now an agreed fact that he was born on 1 February 1993 and so was aged...

Tag this Judgment!


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