Archive for the 'statutory interpretation' Category

Phone hacking: Met and DPP clash over legal advice on stolen voicemails – The Guardian

“The phone-hacking scandal has spilled over into an extraordinary public clash between the Metropolitan police and the director of public prosecutions, with each side implying the other has misled parliament.”

Full story

The Guardian, 24th March 2011

Source: www.guardian.co.uk

41–60 Albert Palace Mansions (Freehold) Ltd v Craftrule Ltd – WLR Daily

41–60 Albert Palace Mansions (Freehold) Ltd v Craftrule Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 185; [2011] WLR (D) 62

“The meaning of the words ‘a self-contained … part of a building’ in section 3 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 was clear and there was nothing in the section to suggest that the right to enfranchisement attached only to the smallest possible self-contained part of a building.”

WLR Daily, 25th February 2011

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

DCC Holdings (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs Comrs – WLR Daily

DCC Holdings (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs Comrs [2010] UKSC 58; [2010] WLR (D) 333

“When interpreting a deeming provision in a taxing statute it was important not to take the hypothesis further than was warranted. It followed that the deeming provisions in corporation tax legislation on sale and resale ‘repo’ transactions — whereby the parties’ accounts were to be debited and credited on the basis that it was a deemed loan relationship between them — were to be construed so that they reflected the statutory purpose of taxing such transactions on a uniform basis and not so that one party could claim a debit which could be set off against other liabilities.”

WLR Daily, 16th December 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Regina v Williams (Jason John) – WLR Daily

Regina v Williams (Jason John) [2010] EWCA Crim 2552; [2010] WLR (D) 274

“As a matter of statutory construction, fault or other blameworthy conduct on the part of the defendant was not required to establish that he was guilty of an offence under s 3ZB of the Road Traffic Act 1988 of causing the death of another person by driving while unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured; and it was sufficient that the driving was a cause of the death, provided that it was a more than negligible or de minimis cause.”

WLR Daily, 3rd November 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Hertfordshire County Council v Veolia Water Central Ltd – WLR Daily

Hertfordshire County Council v Veolia Water Central Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 887; [2010] WLR (D) 200

“In order to avoid absurdity, s 81 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 and regs 3 and 4 of the Street Works (Maintenance) Regulations 1992 had to be given a purposive interpretation, meaning that the power of a street authority to undertake emergency works under reg 4 was conditional upon an inspection having been undertaken under reg 3 only where appropriate.”

WLR Daily, 28th July 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Regina (Raphael) v Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court and another – WLR Daily

Regina (Raphael) v Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court and another [2010] EWHC 1502 (Admin); [2010] WLR (D) 178

“There was no reason to adopt a particularly narrow or restrictive approach to the construction of s 13 of the Interpretation Act 1978 by which statutory powers may be exercised at any time after the passing of an enabling Act in anticipation of the Act or any provision of it coming into force.”

WLR Daily, 9th July 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Wallis v Bristol Water Plc – WLR Daily

Wallis v Bristol Water Plc [2009] WLR (D) 362

“For a water undertaker to prove that a water fitting had been connected by a person in such a manner that it was ‘likely to cause contamination’ of water supplied by the water undertaker pursuant to reg 3(2) of the Water Supply (Water Fittings ) Regulations 1999 the water undertaker had to show that there was a real possibility that the manner of connection of the water fitting would cause contamination.”

WLR Daily, 14th December 2009

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.


June 2017
M T W T F S S
« May    
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930  

Categories