Archive for the 'ultra vires' Category

Regina v Forsyth; Regina v Mabey – WLR Daily

Regina v Forsyth; Regina v Mabey [2011] UKSC 9; [2011] WLR (D) 52

“The power under section 1(1) of the United Nations Act 1946 to create a criminal offence by Order in Council so as to enforce a United Nations Security Council Resolution was not restricted to use at or about the same time as when the Resolution had been passed.”

WLR Daily, 23rd February 2011

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

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

Law firm not liable to loan losses, says appeal court – Law Society’s Gazette

“A law firm that gave negligent advice to a bank before the bank lost £28m in loans advanced to two local authorities does not have to reimburse those losses, the Court of Appeal ruled last week.”

Full story

Law Society’s Gazette, 3rd February 2011

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Haugesund Kommune and another v DEPFA ACS Bank (Wikborg Rein & Co, Part 20 defendants) – WLR Daily

Haugesund Kommune and another v DEPFA ACS Bank (Wikborg Rein & Co, Part 20 defendants) [2011] EWCA Civ 33; [2011] WLR (D) 25

“A firm of solicitors which erroneously advised a bank that municipalities would not be acting ultra vires if they entered into a swap arrangement with the bank was not liable for the losses resulting from the municipalities’ inability to make restitution once the void nature of the swap agreement came to light. Despite their negligence in relation to the vires of the municipalities, the solicitors had taken no responsibility for their creditworthiness or good faith or for the fact that the bank could not lawfully obtain execution against them when they defaulted on the arrangement.”

WLR Daily, 31st January 2011

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.

Progress Property Co Ltd v Moorgarth Group Ltd – WLR Daily

Progress Property Co Ltd v Moorgarth Group Ltd [2010] UKSC 55; [2010] WLR (D) 218

“The sale of a company’s assets to a shareholder was not an unlawful distribution of assets if the court concluded that it was a genuine commercial transaction at arm’s length even if it appeared with hindsight that the sale was at an undervalue. The court’s conclusion depended on a realistic assessment of all the relevant facts and not simply on a retrospective valuation exercise in isolation from all other inquiries. The essential issue was how the transaction was to be characterised, and that was a matter of substance and not form.”

WLR Daily, 8th 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.

MoJ admits drafting error in fee-capping regulations – Law Society’s Gazette

“Acquitted defendants can claim the full cost of private legal fees, after the Ministry of Justice admitted there is a drafting error in the regulations intended to implement its controversial policy to cap awards.”

Full story

Law Society’s Gazette, 3rd June 2010

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Bloomsbury International Ltd and others v Sea Fish Industry Authority and another – WLR Daily

Bloomsbury International Ltd and others v Sea Fish Industry Authority and another [2010] EWCA Civ 263; [2010] WLR (D)

“The Sea Fish Industry Authority (Levy) Regulations 1995, which empowered the Sea Fish Industry Authority to treat sea fish and sea fish products imported from a member state of the European Union as ‘landed’ in the United Kingdom for the purpose of imposing levies upon them, were ultra vires s 4 of the Fisheries Act 1981 and contravened arts 28 and 30 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’).”

WLR Daily, 19th March 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.

Ahmed and others v HM Treasury (JUSTICE intervening); al-Ghabra v Same; R (Youssef) v Same – WLR Daily

Ahmed and others v HM Treasury (JUSTICE intervening); al-Ghabra v Same; R (Youssef) v Same

“In introducing a test of reasonable suspicion that a person was involved in terrorism as the basis for making an asset-freezing order against him under the Terrorism (United Nations Measures) Order 2006 the Treasury exceeded its powers under the enabling provisions of s 1 of the United Nations Act 1946.”

WLR Daily, 27th January 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.


October 2017
M T W T F S S
« May    
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031  

Categories