Archive
<October 2014>
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
293012345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
272829303112
3456789
Monthly
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
May 2004
May 2002
February 2002
January 2002
October 2001
February 2000
 
Most recent case entries
Select Your Region: Scotland  England and Wales  UK  Northern Ireland  Europe  All
Selected Region: All
By Law Brief Update on 29/10/2014 1:32 PM
Reference for a preliminary ruling made in proceedings between the parents, in relation to the jurisdiction of the courts of the UK to hear and determine the usual place of residence of their child, and the rights of access of the father. The CJEU gave a preliminary ruling finding that jurisdiction - which had been prorogued under Art 12(3) of BIIR in favour of a court of a Member State before which proceedings had been brought by mutual agreement of the holders of parental responsibility - c ...
By Law Brief Publishing on 29/10/2014 1:30 PM
V's patents relating to catalysts for use in the Fischer-Tropsch process for converting gases into liquid hydrocarbons were amended to correct an obviously mistaken reference, and were infringed by C's catalyst structure and process. It would be immediately clear to the skilled person that the various references to "residence time less than five seconds" and "contact time less than five seconds" were unreconcilable, and that a mistake had been made in the drafting. A moment's consideration by th ...
By Law Brief Publishing on 29/10/2014 1:23 PM
Where a father claimed damages against CAFCASS in respect of alleged negligent advice and support in a dispute over contact with his son, the court determined that it was not just and reasonable to impose a duty of care on CAFCASS towards the father. The duty imposed on CAFCASS to safeguard and promote the welfare of X, and its duty to give advice to the court, was potentially in conflict with its duty to give advice, information and other support to the parents and to F in particular. CAFCASS h ...
By Law Brief Update on 29/10/2014 1:18 PM
Regulation 2201/2003 art.10 provides that the English courts retain a residual jurisdiction in respect of a child who had habitual residence in England immediately before a wrongful removal or retention to a non-European Union Member State. The jurisdiction ends when the child acquired habitual residence in another Member State. In this case the Court of Appeal considered the parameters of the concept of habitual residence. In particular the case required it to decide whether in light of the ...
By Law Brief Publishing on 27/10/2014 2:31 PM
Solicitors were not in breach of their retainer or negligent in drafting a contract for the sale of commercial premises to a property developer or advising as to the terms of the contract. The sale was subject to planning consent being granted for residential development, such consent to be applied for following exchange of contracts, and before completion. The contract included a term that permitted the purchaser not to complete if planning conditions were unacceptable, which he relied on. Foll ...
By Law Brief Publishing on 27/10/2014 2:30 PM
A bank loan was securitised along with a tranche of other loans and sold to the Claimant, who in turn issued floating rate notes to investors. The issue was whether the Claimant could bring a claim against the valuation company instructed by the bank in making the original loan for an alleged negligent over-valuation. While economically the investors in the notes had suffered the loss, it did not follow that the Claimant had not suffered loss in respect of which it could claim. The Claimant was ...
By Law Brief Update on 24/10/2014 10:06 AM
Biggart Baillie LLP (vicariously liable for the wrongful acts and omissions of its partner) was liable in damages to the victims of their client's deceit. In essence, the firm acted for their client, John McGregor Cameron (JMC), in security transactions in which JMC pretended to be a wealthy landowner. The firm continued to act for JMC even after he had confessed his fraud to the firm's partner, Mr Mair. In the opinion of Lord Menzies, "a solicitor is expected to have the highest standards of ho ...
By Law Brief Publishing on 24/10/2014 10:04 AM
The First and Second Defendants, Adda Hotels and Puckrup Hall Hotel Ltd, were associated companies within the Hilton Group. Hilton Worldwide Inc. ("HWI") was a parent company within the Group. Adda and Puckrup were the lessees of 10 hotels that were assigned to 9 subsidiary companies. HWI was the guarantor under the original leases. If the assignments were lawful, HWI would be released from its guarantee by virtue of ss.5 and 24(2) of the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 ("the 1995 Act") ...
By Law Brief Publishing on 24/10/2014 10:02 AM
The Claimants shipped a cargo of bagged rice from Thailand to Nigeria on board the Defendant's vessel, The "Quest". On delivery, it was found that cargo was damaged, which the Claimant says was due to the Defendant's breach. Four separate bills of lading had been issued, all of which stated that the law and arbitration clause of the "Charterparty, dated as overleaf" was incorporated. There were three possible charterparties, each of which contained different arbitration clauses. An LOU was subse ...
By Law Brief Publishing on 22/10/2014 9:57 AM
Where a patent claim had been resolved without a trial and no letter before action had been sent by C before issue, the Court could only speculate as to whether proceedings would have been issued had the letter before action been sent. The Court considered that a letter before action was virtually always appropriate even if no response could be reasonably expected. The Court therefore allowed only half of C's costs.
1
This content is made available by CaseCheck Limited under a Creative Commons Licence  |  Terms Of Use