You are here

Bloomsburry Family law

Law Brief

Wood v Holden (HMIT) [2006] EWCA Civ 26

In seeking to determine where central management and control of a company incorporated outside the UK lay, it was essential to recognise the distinction between cases where management and control of the company was exercised through its own constitutional organs (the board of directors or the general meeting) and cases where the functions of those constitutional organs had been usurped in the sense that management and control was exercised independently of, or without regard to, those constitutional organs.

Tarlochan Singh Flora v Wakom (Heathro) Ltd [2005] EWHC 2822 (QB)

Although the courts had not yet given practical effect to the Damages Act 1996, s 2(9) as inserted by the Courts Act 2003, s 100, when awarding periodical payments for future loss whereby the amount of payments would vary otherwise than by reference to the retail prices index, there was no relevant jurisprudence according to which it could be said that a statement of case based on s 2(9) was bound to fail.

R v Longworth [2006] UKHL 1

Section 14(1) of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 had the effect of preventing an order for conditional discharge made on conviction for an offence other than under the Sex Offenders Act 1997 from being classed as a conviction for the purposes of s 1(1) of the 1997 Act and thus of avoiding the notification requirements for sex offenders under the 1997 Act.

Yusuf v Secretary of State for the Home Department

The Immigration Appeal Tribunal had correctly decided that where there was uncertainty as to the nationality of an asylum seeker, any decisions capable of affecting his human rights, such as the issue of which country he would be returned to, would only be relevant to an appeal against a refusal of leave to enter under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, s 69(1) where the asylum seeker had satisfied the authorities that he was a refugee. Consequently, where refugee status had not been established, no question arose as to whether removal to a specified country would result in a breach of human rights so as to entitle the asylum seeker to appeal under s 65(1).

Jones v Garnett (HMIT) [2005] EWCA Civ 1553

In the circumstances the dividends paid to a wife on her share in a husband-and-wife company were not income arising under a settlement as defined in the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, s 660G(1) because the payment of modest salaries to the husband and wife and the declaration of dividends were not part of an arrangement constituting a settlement.

R (Hammond) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] UKHL 69

Paragraph 11(1), Sched 22 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which denied a sentencing judge any possibility of an oral hearing even when he considered it essential for the fair determination of an existing prisoner's minimum term, was incompatible with the prisoner's right to a fair and public hearing under Art.6 of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950. Where a prisoner faced the prospect of imprisonment for the whole of his life or for a very lengthy period and fairness required an oral hearing, it was not an entitlement of which he should be lightly deprived.