Uk Supreme Court Court February 2012 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.
Anderson (Appellant) Vs. Shetland Islands Council and Another (Respond ...
Court: UK Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-29-2012
LORD HOPE 1. This is an appeal from an interlocutor of an Extra Division of the Court of Session of 16 February 2010. The respondents seek an order under Rule 36 (1) of the Supreme Court Rules 2009 that the appellant should be required to give security for their costs of the appeal. The first respondents, Shetland Islands Council, suggest that security should be given for their costs in the sum of 50,000. The second respondents, Scottish Water, suggest 40,000 as the amount that should be given as security in their case. In response to these applications the appellant, Mrs Patricia Anderson, seeks an order that each of the respondents lodge security for her costs in the sum of 5,000. 2. With the agreement of the parties, we have considered these applications by way of written submissions. This was to minimise costs and because of the difficulties that would face Mrs Anderson, who is aged 93 and is a litigant in person, were she to be required to travel from Shetland to London for an or...
In the Matter of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (In Administra ...
Court: UK Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-29-2012
LORD HOPE 1. This appeal is concerned with the meaning and application of the "client money rules" and "client money distribution rules" contained in Chapter 7 of the Client Assets Sourcebook ("CASS 7") issued by the Financial Services Authority for the safeguarding and distribution of client money in implementation of the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive 2004/39/EC ("MiFID"). The central feature of the client money rules is the requirement that CASS 7 imposes on MiFID firms to segregate money that they receive from or hold for or on behalf of their clients in the course of MiFID business by placing it into a client money account so that it is kept apart from the firm's own money. 2. Under English law the mere segregation of money into separate bank accounts is not sufficient to establish a proprietary interest in those funds in anyone other than the account holder. A declaration of trust over the balances standing to the credit of the segregated accounts is needed to protec...
In the Matter of Peacock
Court: UK Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-22-2012
LORD BROWN 1. Suppose that a convicted drug trafficker is found to have benefited from his trafficking to the extent of 1m but, having at the time realisable property worth only 100,000, a confiscation order is initially made against him just for this lesser sum. Suppose then that the defendant, entirely legitimately, later acquires property to the value of upwards of a further 900,000. Is he at that stage liable to a further court order increasing to the full extent of his criminal gain the amount recoverable under the confiscation order by reference to these after-acquired assets? 2. It is not in doubt that, assuming his offences were committed after 24 March 2003, and that he were therefore subject to the provisions of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 ("POCA"), the answer would be a clear "yes" “ see particularly section 22(3) of POCA. But what if, as in the case of this appellant, his offences were committed before that date so that he falls to be dealt with under the Drug Tra...
Sugar (Deceased) (Represented by Fiona Paveley) Vs. British Broadcasti ...
Court: UK Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-15-2012
LORD WILSON A: INTRODUCTION 1. Although the British Broadcasting Corporation ("the BBC") is listed as a public authority in the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the Act, as I will call it, applies to the BBC only to a limited extent. The words of limitation are found in Part VI of Schedule 1 to the Act: they provide that the Act applies only "in respect of information held for purposes other than those of journalism, art or literature". I will describe these words of limitation as the designation. This appeal requires the court to consider the meaning of the designation. The focus of the debate is on the word "journalism" rather than on the words "art" or "literature". How widely “ or narrowly “ should the phrase "purposes other than those of journalism" be construed? The answer of course lies in the narrowness “ or width “ of the concept of the "purposes ... of journalism" in the context of the Act. 2. But the appeal also presents a more particular conundrum. ...
Stanford International Bank Limited (Acting by Its Joint Liquidators) ...
Court: UK Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-15-2012
LORD PHILLIPS 1. This interim hearing has resulted from a tangled web of statutory provisions in relation to proceeds of crime. It has been held in order to determine whether or not the parties have an absolute statutory right to appeal to this court. 2. Sections 40 and 41 in Part 2 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 ("POCA") make provision for restraint orders over property in circumstances where a criminal investigation or proceeding is on foot in Englandand Wales. Section 44 originally made provision for a right of appeal to the House of Lords against a decision of the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal in relation to a restraint order. Had POCA not provided to the contrary this right would, by virtue of section 33(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, have been subject to the following requirements of section 33(2) of that Act : "The appeal lies only with the leave of the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords; and leave shall not be granted unless it is certified by the Court o...
Rabone and Another Vs. Pennine Care Nhs Foundation Trust
Court: UK Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-08-2012
LORD DYSON 1. Some time after 17.00 hrs on 20 April 2005, Melanie Rabone hanged herself from a tree in LymePark, Cheshire. She was 24 years of age and was the loved daughter of Mr and Mrs Rabone. At the time, she was on two days' home leave from Stepping Hill Hospital, Stockport where she was undergoing treatment for a depressive disorder as an informal patient (ie one who was not detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 ("the MHA")). She had been admitted to the hospital as an emergency following a suicide attempt. She was assessed by the hospital as a high risk of a further suicide attempt. Mr and Mrs Rabone have always maintained that the hospital authorities should not have allowed her home leave and that they were responsible for their daughter's tragic death. They started proceedings against the Pennine Care NHS Trust ("the trust") alleging negligence and breach of the right to life protected by article 2 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundame...
Ravat (Respondent) Vs. Halliburton Manufacturing and Services Ltd (App ...
Court: UK Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-08-2012
LORD HOPE, WITH WHOM LADY HALE, LORD BROWN, LORD MANCE AND LORD KERR AGREE 1. This case is about the employment status of individuals who are resident in Great Britain and are employed by a British company but who travel to and from home to work overseas. Halliburton Manufacturing and Services Ltd ("the appellant") is a UK company which is based at Dyce, near Aberdeen. It is one of about 70 subsidiary or associated companies of Halliburton Inc, which is a US corporation. It supplies tools, services and personnel to the oil industry. The employee, Ismail Ravat ("the respondent"), lives in Preston, Lancashire and is a British citizen. He was employed by the appellant from 2 April 1990 as an accounts manager until he was dismissed with effect from 17 May 2006. The reason for his dismissal was redundancy. The respondent complains that he was unfairly dismissed. The complication in his case is that at the time of his dismissal he was working in Libya. The question is whether the employment...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›