Court : UK Supreme Court
Decided on : Feb-19-2014
1. The facts of this case can fairly be described as exotic, but very few of them are relevant to the present appeal. Dr Williams claims to be the victim of a fraud instigated by the Nigerian State Security Services which occurred in 1986. His case is that he was induced to serve as guarantor of a bogus transaction for the importation of foodstuffs into Nigeria. In connection with that transaction, he paid $6,520,190 to an English solicitor, Mr Reuben Gale, to be held on trust for him on terms that it should not be released until certain funds had been made available to him in Nigeria. Dr Williams says that in fraudulent breach of that trust, Mr Gale, knowing that those funds were not available to him in Nigeria, paid out $6,020,190 of the money to an account of the Central Bank of Nigeria with Midland Bank in London, and that he pocketed the remaining $500,000. The Central Bank is said to have been party to Mr Gale's fraud. The Bank applied for an order setting aside the permission gi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : UK Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-26-2014
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!Court : UK Supreme Court
Decided on : Feb-12-2014
1. The appellant is a limited partnership formed by Mr Alistair Erskine and his wife as a vehicle for entering into a commercial contract with the respondents. These proceedings were brought by the appellant on the basis that it was induced to enter into the contract by a misrepresentation which was fraudulent or in any event negligent. The appellant sought the reduction of the contract and damages. After proof the Lord Ordinary, Lord Hodge, found that Mr Erskine was the directing mind of the appellant, and that he had decided to enter into the contract in reliance upon a negligent misrepresentation contained in an email sent to him some weeks before the appellant was formed. The allegation of fraud was found not to have been established: [2010] CSOH 62. The latter point has not been pursued further. Nor has the present appeal concerned the question whether the remedy of reduction may be available. The issue with which we are concerned is whether the appellant was induced to enter into...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-22-2014
Schuette v. Coal. Defend Affirmative Action, Integration & Immigration Rights NOTE:Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co.,200 U.S. 321. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus SCHUETTE, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MICHIGAN v. COALITION TO DEFEND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, INTEGRATION AND IMMIGRATION RIGHTS AND FIGHT FOR EQUALITY BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY (BAMN) etal. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit No. 12682.Argued October 15, 2013 Decided April 22, 2014 After this Court decided that the University of Michigans undergraduate admissions plans use of race-based preferences violated the Equal Protection Clause, Gratz v. Bollinger,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Feb-26-2014
United States v. Apel NOTE:Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co.,200 U.S. 321. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus UNITED STATES v. APEL certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 121038.Argued December 4, 2013Decided February 26, 2014 Vandenberg Air Force Base has been designated a closed base, meaning that civilians may not enter without express permission. The Air Force has granted an easement over two areas of the Base, with the result that two public highways traverse the Base. Adjacent to one of those highways is an area that the Government has designated for peaceful protests. The Base commander has enacted several restrictions to co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Feb-25-2014
Fernandez v. California NOTE:Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co.,200 U.S. 321. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus FERNANDEZ v. CALIFORNIA certiorari to the court of appeal of california, second appellate district No. 127822.Argued November 13, 2013Decided February 25, 2014 Police officers observed a suspect in a violent robbery run into an apartment building, and heard screams coming from one of the apartments. They knocked on the apartment door, which was answered by Roxanne Rojas, who appeared to be battered and bleeding. When the officers asked her to step out of the apartment so that they could conduct a protective sweep, petitioner came to the door and objected. S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-27-2014
Air Wisconsin Airlines Corp. v. Hoeper NOTE:Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co.,200 U.S. 321. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus AIR WISCONSIN AIRLINES CORP. v. HOEPER certiorari to the supreme court of colorado No. 12315.Argued December 9, 2013Decided January 27, 2014 Respondent Hoeper was a pilot for petitioner Air Wisconsin Airlines Corp. When Air Wisconsin stopped flying from Hoepers home base on aircraft that he was certified to fly, he needed to become certified on a different type of aircraft to keep his job. After Hoeper failed in his first three attempts to gain certification, Air Wisconsin agreed to give him a fourth and final chance. But he performed poorly ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : UK Supreme Court
Decided on : Feb-26-2014
The issues raised by this appeal 1. This appeal raises a number of points in connection with the law of private nuisance, a common law tort While the law also recognises public nuisance, a common law offence, this appeal is only concerned with private nuisance, so all references hereafter to nuisance are to private nuisance It should also be mentioned at the outset that the type of nuisance alleged in this case is nuisance in the sense of personal discomfort, in particular nuisance by noise, as opposed to actual injury to the claimant's property (such as discharge of noxious material or removal of support) 2. As Lord Goff of Chieveley explained in Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd [1997] AC 655, 688, "[t]he term 'nuisance' is properly applied only to such actionable user of land as interferes with the enjoyment by the plaintiff of rights in land", quoting from Newark, The Boundaries of Nuisance (1949) 65 LQR 480 See also per Lord Hoffmann at pp 705-707, where he explained that this principle m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-23-2014
Paroline v. United States NOTE:Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co.,200 U.S. 321. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus PAROLINE v. UNITED STATES etal. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fifth circuit No. 128561.Argued January 22, 2014Decided April 23, 2014 The respondent victim in this case was sexually abused as a young girl in order to produce child pornography. When she was 17, she learned that images of her abuse were being trafficked on the Internet, in effect repeating the original wrongs, for she knew that her humiliation and hurt would be renewed well into the future as thousands of additional wrongdoers witnessed those crimes. Petitioner Par...
Tag this Judgment!Court : UK Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-29-2014
1. Following a trial before HHJ Miller QC and a jury at Belfast Crown Court, Raymond Brownlee was convicted on 1 June 2012 of a number of offences including false imprisonment, making threats to kill and wounding with intent. He had been represented by senior and junior counsel until the close of the prosecution's case. But at that stage in the trial, differences arose between Mr Brownlee and his legal team. Initially, senior counsel intimated to the trial judge that he felt professionally compromised and had to withdraw from his representation of the accused. When the judge put this to Mr Brownlee, he said that he did not want counsel to withdraw from representing him and that he believed that things had been perhaps "taken up the wrong way". At this point his solicitor intervened to say that he felt that the situation was not irretrievable. On hearing this, the learned judge decided to give the solicitor the opportunity to consult with his client over the lunch adjournment. 2. After...
Tag this Judgment!