Uk Supreme Court Court July 2011 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Houldsworth and Another (Respondents) Vs. Bridge Trustees Limited and ...
Court: UK Supreme Court
Decided on: Jul-27-2011
LORD WALKER (with whom Lady Hale, Lord Collins and Lord Clarke agree) Introduction 1. This appeal raises a question of some importance on the law relating to occupational pension schemes. The agreed statement of facts and issues ("SFI") sets out three issues, but they are all variations on the same general theme, that is the dividing line, for regulatory purposes, between defined benefit (normally earnings-related) schemes and defined contribution (or money purchase) schemes. 2. The general nature of the distinction between these two types of scheme is familiar, and it may be helpful to start with that (though counsel on both sides properly reminded us that we are concerned with a particular statutory definition, and not with the range of meanings in which imprecise expressions may be used). Under a defined benefit scheme (the commonest variety of which is a final salary scheme) the primary benefit to which a scheme member is prospectively entitled, on retirement at normal pension age,...
Lucasfilm Limited and Others (Appellants) Vs. Ainsworth and Another (R ...
Court: UK Supreme Court
Decided on: Jul-27-2011
LORD WALKER AND LORD COLLINS (with whom Lord Phillips and Lady Hale agree) Introduction 1. The first Star Wars film (later renamed "Star Wars Episode IV “ A New Hope" in order to provide for "prequels" as well as sequels) was released in the United Statesin 1977. It was an enormous commercial success. It won an Oscar for best costume design. This appeal is concerned with intellectual property rights in various artefacts made for use in the film. The most important of these was the Imperial Stormtrooper helmet to which the trial judge (Mann J) referred in his judgment ([2008] EWHC 1878 (Ch), [2009] FSR 103, paras [2] and [121]): "One of the most abiding images in the film was that of the Imperial Stormtroopers. These were soldiers clad in white armour, including a white helmet which left no part of the face uncovered. . . The purpose of the helmet was that it was to be worn as an item of costume in a film, to identify a character, but in addition to portray something about that ch...
Autoclenz Limited (Appellant) Vs. Belcher and Others (Respondents)
Court: UK Supreme Court
Decided on: Jul-27-2011
LORD CLARKE, with whom Lord Hope, Lord Walker, Lord Collins and Lord Wilson agree Introduction 1. The appellant ("Autoclenz") provides car-cleaning services to motor retailers and auctioneers. It has contracts with British Car Auctions ("BCA") for cleaning vehicles at a number of different places. The respondents ("the claimants") are 20 individual valeters who at the relevant time provided car-cleaning services at BCA's Measham site in Derbyshire. In these proceedings the claimants say that they were workers within the meaning of the National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999 ("NMWR") (SI 1999/584) and of the Working Time Regulations 1998 ("WTR") (SI 1998/1833) and that, as workers, they were entitled to be paid in accordance with the NMWR and to receive statutory paid leave under the WTR. Their case is that they were paid neither. 2. The question is whether the claimants were workers within regulation 2(1) of the NWMR, which adopted the definition in section 54(3) of the National Minimu...
Jivraj (Respondent) Vs. Hashwani (Appellant) Jivraj (Appellant)
Court: UK Supreme Court
Decided on: Jul-27-2011
LORD CLARKE, with whom Lord Phillips, Lord Walker and Lord Dyson agree Introduction 1. On 29 January 1981 Mr Jivraj and Mr Hashwani entered into a joint venture agreement ("the JVA"), containing an arbitration clause which provided that, in the event of a dispute between them which they were unable to resolve, that dispute should be resolved by arbitration before three arbitrators, each of whom should be a respected member of the Ismaili community, of which they were both members. The principal question in this appeal is whether that arbitration agreement became void with effect from 2 December 2003 under the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 (SI 2003/1660) ("the Regulations") on the ground that it constituted an unlawful arrangement to discriminate on grounds of religion when choosing between persons offering personal services. The JVA 2. The JVA was established to make investments in real estate around the world. By article 9 it is expressly governed by Engli...
Belmont Park Investments Pty Limited (Respondent) Vs. Bny Corporate Tr ...
Court: UK Supreme Court
Decided on: Jul-27-2011
LORD COLLINS I Introduction: the anti-deprivation rule and the pari passu principle 1. The anti-deprivation rule and the rule that it is contrary to public policy to contract out of pari passu distribution are two sub-rules of the general principle that parties cannot contract out of the insolvency legislation. Although there is some overlap, they are aimed at different mischiefs: Goode "Perpetual Trustee and Flip Clauses in Swap Transactions" (2011) 127 LQR 1, 3-4. The anti-deprivation rule is aimed at attempts to withdraw an asset on bankruptcy or liquidation or administration, thereby reducing the value of the insolvent estate to the detriment of creditors. The pari passu rule reflects the principle that statutory provisions for pro rata distribution may not be excluded by a contract which gives one creditor more than its proper share. The anti-deprivation rule 2. What is now described as the anti-deprivation principle dates from the 18th century, although the expression "deprivat...
R Vs. Smith (Appellant)
Court: UK Supreme Court
Decided on: Jul-20-2011
LORD PHILLIPS, DELIVERING THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT Introduction 1. Imprisonment for public protection ("IPP") is a sentence which condemns a defendant to indeterminate detention. Section 225(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 ("the 2003 Act"), as substituted by section 13(1) of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, permits a judge to impose a sentence of IPP on a defendant who has been convicted of a serious offence where the judge finds that there is a significant risk that he will commit further offences that will cause serious harm to members of the public. Can or should a judge impose a sentence of IPP on a defendant who is already serving a sentence of life imprisonment under which he will not be released from prison until he can satisfy the Parole Board that he no longer poses a danger to the public? Although this question has been certified by the Court of Appeal as being a point of general public importance, its significance lies in the issue of law, rather than th...
Duncombe and Others (Respondents) Vs. Secretary of State for Children, ...
Court: UK Supreme Court
Decided on: Jul-15-2011
LADY HALE, DELIVERING THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 1. This is the judgment of the court, composed of Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke and Lord Collins. Lord Rodger of Earlsferry presided over the panel which heard this case on 17 and 18 January 2011 and took part in our deliberations and decision upon the appeal: [2011] UKSC 14. His sudden illness and untimely death have sadly prevented him from taking any part in our deliberations and decision upon the cross-appeal. 2. The case relates to the unusual employment status of teachers employed by the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families to work in the European Schools. The main issue in the appeal was whether the terms of that employment fell foul of the Fixed-term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002 (SI 2002/2034) which implemented Council Directive 1999/70/EC concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP. This Court handed down judgment on 30 Marc...
Home Office (Appellant) Vs. Tariq (Respondent) and Home Office (Respon ...
Court: UK Supreme Court
Decided on: Jul-13-2011
LORD MANCE Introduction 1. This appeal concerns the permissibility and in particular compatibility with European Union law and Human Rights Convention rights, of a procedure (conveniently described as a "closed material procedure") whereby an applicant and his representatives may be excluded from certain aspects of employment tribunal proceedings on grounds of national security, and a special advocate may represent his interests so far as possible in relation to the aspects closed to him and his representatives. 2. In the relevant employment tribunal proceedings, the appellant, Mr Kashif Tariq, complains that his security clearance as an immigration officer was withdrawn in circumstances involving direct or indirect discrimination on grounds of race and/or religion, and that this was contrary to the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 (SI 2003/1660). The Home Office's case is that there was no such discrimination, that the decision...
Al Rawi and Others (Respondents) Vs. the Security Service and Others ( ...
Court: UK Supreme Court
Decided on: Jul-13-2011
LORD DYSON Introduction 1. The issue that arises on this appeal is whether the court has the power to order a "closed material procedure" as described in the preliminary issue that was tried by Silber J for the whole or part of the trial of a civil claim for damages and, if so, in what circumstances it is appropriate to exercise the power. The preliminary issue was in these terms: "Could it be lawful and proper for a court to order that a 'closed material procedure' (as defined below) be adopted in a civil claim for damages? Definition of 'closed material procedure' A 'closed material procedure' means a procedure in which (a) a party is permitted to (i) comply with his obligations for disclosure of documents, and (ii) rely on pleadings and/or written evidence and/or oral evidence without disclosing such material to other parties if and to the extent that disclosure to them would be contrary to the public interest (such withheld material being known as 'closed material'), and (b) discl...
R (on the Application of Mcdonald) (Appellant) Vs. Royal Borough of Ke ...
Court: UK Supreme Court
Decided on: Jul-06-2011
LORD BROWN Introduction 1. Ill health can be dreadfully cruel. Some 30 years ago the appellant was the prima ballerina of Scottish Ballet. Alas, in September 1999 (then aged 56) she suffered an incapacitating stroke leaving her with severely limited mobility and other disabilities besides. In April 2006 she fell heavily and broke her hip in several places, remaining in hospital for four months. She then suffered two further falls each leading to further hospitalisation. The problem at the centre of these proceedings, however, is that the appellant suffers also from a small and neurogenic bladder which makes her have to urinate some two to three times a night. Up to now she has dealt with this by accessing a commode with the help of a carer provided by the respondent Royal Borough as part of a package of care services to ensure her safety. For some years past, however, the respondents have been proposing instead that the appellant should use incontinence pads or special sheeting (herea...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »