*Pottage v Financial Services Authority

Financial services Financial Services Authority (FSA). The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) directed that the Financial Services Authority (the FSA) should not to take action against the applicant chief executive officer for misconduct as the FSA had failed to establish that the applicant's standard of conduct had been below that which would be reasonable in all the circumstances.

Shami v Shami and another

Conflict of laws Foreign judgment. The Chancery Division held that although it was bound to recognize two Israeli court judgments in relation to family proceedings between the claimant and the first defendant, which created a beneficial interest in favour of the claimant in a property owned by the first defendant, that interest did not affect the legal charges on the property executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant.

*Fraser v Her Majesty's Advocate

Criminal evidence Disclosure of evidence. The Supreme Court held that, the applicable test to determine whether non-disclosure of information by the Crown had breached the right to a fair trial under art6 of the European Convention on Human Rights was that laid down in McInnes v HM Advocate (Scotland) and that, applying that test, there had been a miscarriage of justice at the defendant's trial for the murder of his wife where the Crown had failed to disclose evidence which might have materially weakened the Crown case as presented at the trial.

Jenson and another v Faux

Negligence Defective premises. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the defendant's appeal where extensive renovation work carried out to a house was not sufficient to allow the court to conclude that a new dwelling had been provided by the defendant for the purposes of the .

*Wright v Nationwide Building Society

Charging order Judgment debt. Court of Appeal, Civil Division: The court ruled that the legislative policy underlying s346(1) of the was that a creditor who had issued execution against the land of a person who was adjudged bankrupt was not entitled, as against the trustee in bankruptcy, to retain the benefit of that execution unless the execution was completed before the commencement of the bankruptcy; that was to say, unless the execution was completed before the bankruptcy order was made.

Excelsior Group Productions Ltd v Yorkshire Television Ltd

Contract Construction. Queen's Bench Division, Commercial Court: Where the parties had entered into three agreements regarding the transmission of television programmes on a terrestrial television, ITV, which provided for a fee to be paid to the claimant if the programme was to be repeated on that channel, the claimant was not entitled to a repeat fee since the repeat programmes had been transmitted on digital television channels ITV2 and ITV3 which had not been provided for in the agreement.

*R v McQuoid

Sentence Imprisonment. Court of Appeal, Criminal Division: Dismissing the defendant solicitor's appeal against the sentence imposed for an offence of insider dealing, the court offered guidance to sentencers on the relevant considerations in such cases.

Noorani v Calver

Costs Order for costs. The Queen's Bench Division awarded the defendant indeminty costs following the claimant's discontinuance of his libel claim, in circumstances where the claimant's claim had been hopeless form the start and where he had acted unreasonably to a high degree by commencing the proceedings.

*Breakspear and others v Ackland and another

The defining characteristic of a wish letter was that it contained material which the settlor desired the trustees to take into account when exercising their (usually dispositive) discretionary powers. It was therefore brought into existence for the sole purpose of serving and facilitating an inherently confidential process. It seemed axiomatic that a document brought into existence for the sole or predominant purpose of being used in furtherance of an inherently confidential process was itself properly to be regarded as confidential to substantially the same effect as the process which it was intended to serve. The court gave further guidance on considerations for trustees where beneficiaries applied for the disclosure of wish letters.

CAB Automotive Ltd v Blake and others

A determination of a claim under r 8(1) of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, required the identification of the reason for dismissal. In the instant case, the tribunal had failed properly to address that question. In concluding that the claim had been made out on the basis that the dismissals had been 'connected with a transfer,' it had erred in law. Moreover, it was apparent from the tribunal's reasoning that it had erroneously thought that rr 8(1) and (2) of the regulations were alternatives. Accordingly, the appeal against its conclusion was allowed.