England and Wales Case Law

Amin Dharmeshkumar v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Anor

The correct test for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal under s.289(6) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is the first appeals test in CPR 52.6, not the second appeals test in CPR 52.7, because s.55 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 does not impliedly repeal the specific provision in s.289(6) and Parliament has not expressly required the second appeals test for this category of appeal.

Source excerpt

• Appeals
• Permission to appeal
• Statutory interpretation
• Planning enforcement

Read case analysis

Ping Fai Yuen v Fun Yung Li & Anor

Claims in conversion are struck out as English law does not permit conversion of intangible property such as Bitcoin; trespass to goods is not struck out at this stage pending possible amendment; security for costs is refused due to overwhelming evidence, assets within jurisdiction, and unreliable cost estimates; substituted service is granted for Second Defendant.

Source excerpt

• Digital assets
• Conversion
• Trespass to goods
• Unjust enrichment
• Breach of confidence
• Misuse of private information

Read case analysis

Tandridge District Council v John Brien & Ors

The court found compelling evidence of flagrant breaches of planning control causing significant harm to the Green Belt, with insufficient evidence from Defendants regarding hardship or alternative accommodation. The planning application was invalid and did not reflect actual site conditions. The Council had adequately considered welfare and equality duties. Injunctive relief was necessary and proportionate to prevent ongoing harm, and the terms of the injunction were clear, tailored, and justified both for named Defendants and Persons Unknown.

Source excerpt

• Injunctions
• Green belt protection
• Gypsy and traveller sites
• Article 8 echr
• Persons unknown
• Public sector equality duty

Read case analysis

Iconic Sports Eagle Investment, LLC v John Textor

The just case management solution is to hear the remitted matters and the claimant’s summary judgment application separately and sequentially, with the remitted matters first, and not to stay the summary judgment application, balancing the interests of both parties and avoiding undue prejudice to other litigants.

Source excerpt

• Specific performance
• Put option
• Misrepresentation
• Case management
• Summary judgment

Read case analysis

Microsoft Corporation v Oxide Group Limited

The High Court granted Microsoft Norwich Pharmacal relief against Oxide Group Limited to identify users and operators of RedVDS.com and preserve evidence.

• Norwich pharmacal orders
• Copyright infringement
• Trademark infringement
• Disclosure of information
• Preservation of evidence
• Non-disclosure orders

Read case analysis

Russian Operator Policy Claims, Re

The Deep Sky Claimants failed to provide sufficient evidence that security for costs would stifle their claims, particularly given evidence that parent and group companies have funded litigation costs to date. The court is entitled to expect claimants to seek funding from within their corporate structure. The amounts sought for security are proportionate and justified. Security for costs is therefore ordered in the amounts sought by the War Risk Defendants.

Source excerpt

• Security for costs
• Corporate structure and funding
• Stifling of claims
• Costs management

Read case analysis

Wolverhampton City Council & Ors v Persons Unknown & Ors

There have been no material changes in fact or law to justify discharge of the injunction or power of arrest. The Second Claimant is permitted to discontinue its claim. The injunction and power of arrest are continued (with minor amendments) for the remaining Claimants until 1 March 2027, with clarification of service and signage requirements and removal of the Second Claimant's area.

Source excerpt

• Injunctions against persons unknown
• Anti-social behaviour
• Street racing
• Power of arrest
• Alternative service
• Review hearings

Read case analysis

Birmingham City Council v Persons Unknown who participate or

There have been no material changes in fact or law since the last review to justify discharge or variation of the injunction and power of arrest. The orders have had a deterrent effect but the risk of street cruising persists. The procedural and substantive requirements for continuation are met, with minor amendments for clarity and reinstatement of signage requirements.

Source excerpt

• Injunctions
• Persons unknown
• Anti-social behaviour
• Contempt of court
• Alternative service
• Power of arrest

Read case analysis

Cynthia Nkiruka Tooley v Associated Newspapers Ltd

The application was dismissed because the claimant failed to establish that Guardian News & Media Ltd was mixed up in, or facilitated, the alleged wrongdoing. The Guardian was merely a recipient of information and did not publish or otherwise participate in the wrongdoing. As the third condition for a Norwich Pharmacal order was not met, the court's discretion did not arise.

Source excerpt

• Norwich pharmacal orders
• Journalistic source protection
• Breach of confidence
• Misuse of private information

Read case analysis

Cynthia Nkiruka Tooley v Associated Newspapers Ltd

There is no necessity to depart from the principle of open justice as the Norwich Pharmacal application does not require reference to private family law matters, and any irrelevant or inappropriate reference will be prevented by the court.

Source excerpt

• Open justice
• Privacy of hearings
• Norwich pharmacal orders

Read case analysis