|
Lord Justice Mummery
Sir John Frank Mummery, DL (born 5 September 1938) is a former Lord Justice of Appeal and is President of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal and a member of the Court of Ecclesiastical Causes Reserved in the UK. Education Mummery attended Dover Grammar School for Boys between 1949 and 1957 and then Pembroke College, Oxford. Legal career Mummery was called to the bar (Gray's Inn) in 1964, becoming a bencher in 1985. He was a Junior Treasury Counsel (charity matters 1977–1981; chancery matters 1981–1989). By the 1970s he was known as a copyright barrister, being consulted on matters such as Led Zeppelin's ''Black Mountain Side'' and its relation to Bert Jansch's version of ''Down by Blackwaterside.'' He also represented Apple Corps in efforts to stop the distribution of recordings of ''The Beatles in Hamburg''. He was appointed a recorder in 1989 before being appointed a High Court judge on 4 October the same year. He was assigned to the Chancery Division and received the c ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Chancery Division
The High Court of Justice in London, known properly as His Majesty's High Court of Justice in England, together with the Court of Appeal and the Crown Court, are the Senior Courts of England and Wales. Its name is abbreviated as EWHC (England and Wales High Court) for legal citation purposes. The High Court deals at first instance with all high value and high importance civil law (non-criminal) cases; it also has a supervisory jurisdiction over all subordinate courts and tribunals, with a few statutory exceptions, though there are debates as to whether these exceptions are effective. The High Court consists of three divisions: the King's Bench Division, the Chancery Division and the Family Division. Their jurisdictions overlap in some cases, and cases started in one division may be transferred by court order to another where appropriate. The differences of procedure and practice between divisions are partly historical, derived from the separate courts which were merged into t ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Redfearn V Serco Ltd
''Redfearn v Serco Ltd'' [2006EWCA Civ 659and ''Redfearn v United Kingdom'' [2012ECHR 1878is a UK labour law and European Court of Human Rights case. It held that UK law was deficient in not allowing a potential claim based on discrimination for one's political belief. Before the case was decided, the Equality Act 2010 provided a remedy to protect political beliefs, though it had not come into effect when this case was brought forth. Facts Arthur Redfearn was a bus driver for Serco, trading as West Yorkshire Transport Service, for Bradford City Council. He was disabled and drove a bus for disabled people. He had been rated as a first class employee by his Asian supervisor. But then he was elected as councillor for Bradford, representing the far right British National Party. The union had words with Redfearn, who said that on "health and safety" grounds he would be made redundant. The alleged idea was that in an area with large ethnic minority populations, his profile would make ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
A Whiter Shade Of Pale
"A Whiter Shade of Pale" is a song by the English rock band Procol Harum that was issued as their debut record on 12 May 1967. The single reached number 1 in the UK Singles Chart on 8 June and stayed there for six weeks. Without much promotion, it reached number 5 on the US ''Billboard'' Hot 100. One of the anthems of the 1967 Summer of Love, it is one of the most commercially successful singles in history, having sold more than 10 million copies worldwide. In the years since, "A Whiter Shade of Pale" has become an enduring classic, with more than 1,000 known cover versions by other artists. With its Bach-derived instrumental melody, soulful vocals, and unusual lyrics, the music of "A Whiter Shade of Pale" was composed by Gary Brooker and Matthew Fisher, while the lyrics were written by Keith Reid. Originally, the writing credits only listed Brooker and Reid. In 2009, Fisher won co-writing credit for the music in a unanimous ruling from the Law Lords. In 1977, the song was nam ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Copsey V WWB Devon Clays Ltd
''Copsey v WWB Devon Clays Ltd'' [2005EWCA Civ 932 [2005] IRLR 811 is a UK employment discrimination law case, concerning the right to freedom of religion under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Facts Mr Copsey was working in a sand quarry near King's Lynn. The work schedule was changed to keep pace with growing production. Although changes to the timetable were approved by most other workers in the plant, in consultation Mr Copsey was not happy, and he raised objection with four others. He did not want to work Sundays. Mr Copsey was offered another job where he would not have to work Sundays. He refused that. He was also offered a generous redundancy package instead. He still refused. He then said that the change, to make him work Sundays breached his fundamental human right to freedom of religion, as a Christian. This was protected under Art.9 ECHR. He was represented by Paul Diamond (lawyer), Paul Diamond. Judgment Mummery LJ in the Court of Appeal held that ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Peskin V Anderson
''Peskin v Anderson'' 000EWCA Civ 326is a UK company law case concerning Directors' duties in the United Kingdom">directors' duties under English law. Facts Former members of the Royal Automobile Club (RAC) sued the directors for failing to disclose that they had plans to demutualise. They claimed that they could have received £35,000 had they stayed in the club, but had given up their membership. They claimed that the directors had breached a duty owed to them as shareholders to inform them of the upcoming demutualisation plan. The RAC applied to have the claims struck out as having no prospect of success as directors did not owe a duty to individual shareholders. The RAC succeeded in having the claims struck out at first instance before Neuberger J, and the claimants appealed to the Court of Appeal. Judgment The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The only judgment was given by Mummery LJ. Although there were several grounds in the appeal, the main proposition for w ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Hollicourt (Contracts) Ltd V Bank Of Ireland
is a UK insolvency law case concerning whether a bank should pay restitution for moneys paid out of its account after a moratorium under the Insolvency Act 1986 section 127. Facts Hollicourt was a construction company and it went insolvent in 1996. The Bank of Ireland, 31 King Street, Leeds, continued to operate its account, paying money in and out, for three months after because it missed (through human error) the notification of the winding up petition in the Gazette. Blackburne J, applying dicta from Gray's Inn, held that the bank was liable to pay restitution for the money that had passed through its facility. Judgment Mummery LJ for the court ( Peter Gibson LJ and Latham LJ) held that Blackburne J was wrong. Only the final recipients, not the bank, were liable to repay the money. There was no unjust enrichment on the bank's part, and no comparable restitution case could be found. The banking transactions 'are merely part of the process by which dispositions of the company ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
O'Neill V Phillips
is a UK company law case on an action for unfair prejudice under s.459 Companies Act 1985 (now s.994 Companies Act 2006). It is the only case thus far in the House of Lords on the provision and it deals with the concept of members of a business having their "legitimate expectations" disappointed. Facts Mr Phillips owned a company called Pectel Ltd. It specialised in stripping asbestos from buildings. Mr O'Neill started to work for the company in 1983. In 1985, Phillips was so impressed with O'Neill's work that he made him a Board of directors, director and gave him 25% of the shares. They had an informal chat in May 1985, and Mr Phillips said that one day, he hoped Mr O'Neill could take over the whole management, and would then be allowed to draw 50% of the company's profits. This happened, Phillips retired and O'Neill took over management. There were further talks about increasing O'Neill's actual shareholding to 50%, but this did not happen. After five years the construction i ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Re Barings Plc (No 5)
''Re Barings plc (No 5)'' 0001 BCLC 523 is a leading UK company law case, concerning directors' duties of care and skill. The case is formally identified and cited as "No 5", though some observers regard it as the sixth in the saga of litigation concerning Barings Bank. Facts Nick Leeson was a dishonest futures trader in Singapore for the Barings Bank. He traded in the front office and also did work, in breach of an internal audit recommendation, in the back office, auditing his own team's trades. This allowed him to effectively act as his own supervisor. Leeson abused this situation to secretly make increasingly large unauthorized trades on his employer's behalf. He fraudulently doctored the bank's accounts, and reported large profits, while trading at losses. After the 1995 Kobe earthquake, the stock market went into a downward spiral, and the truth of his losses was uncovered, bankrupting Barings Bank. The Secretary of State sought director disqualification orders under the ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Clark V TDG Ltd (t/a Novacold Ltd)
''Clark v TDG Ltd (t/a Novacold Ltd)'' 999IRLR 318 is a UK labour law case concerning the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Facts Mr Clark was injured at work (a frozen food warehouse in Hull). He was then dismissed when an orthopaedic doctor said he did not know when he would be able to start again. Judgment Mummery LJ said that the DDA drew no distinction between direct and indirect discrimination, and a justification defence is always available. The comparator was someone who was not disabled and could do the work. There certainly was discrimination, but on the question of justification, no attention had been paid to the Code of Practice. Significance Some of the comments in thiecase are no longer good law. Since Directive 2000/78/EC, there has been an amendment to the Disability Discrimination Act so that a distinction between direct and indirect discrimination was introduced, and the language of the Act clarified. '' Lewisham LBC v Malcolm and EHRC'' 008UKHL 43, 008IRLR 70 ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Court Of Appeal In Ireland
The Court of Appeal in Ireland was created by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland under the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Ireland) 1877 as the final appellate court within Ireland, then under British rule. A last appeal from this court could be taken to the Judicial functions of the House of Lords, House of Lords in London. Personnel The Lord Chancellor of Ireland was President of the Court of Appeal. As in England, the full-time judges had the title Lord Justice of Appeal. Other senior judges such as the Chief Baron of the Irish Exchequer, sat as additional judges of appeal when required. The following judges held the title of Lord Justice of the Court of Appeal in Ireland from the Court's creation in 1878 to the abolition of the pre-Independence Courts in 1924. Partition The Court of Appeal in Ireland was replaced by separate Courts of Appeal in Northern and Southern Ireland, along with a High Court of Ap ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Creditor
A creditor or lender is a party (e.g., person, organization, company, or government) that has a claim on the services of a second party. It is a person or institution to whom money is owed. The first party, in general, has provided some property or service to the second party under the assumption (usually enforced by contract) that the second party will return an equivalent property and service. The second party is frequently called a debtor or borrower. The first party is called the creditor, which is the lender of property, service, or money. Creditors can be broadly divided into two categories: secured and unsecured. *A secured creditor has a security or charge over some or all of the debtor's assets, to provide reassurance (thus to ''secure'' him) of ultimate repayment of the debt owed to him. This could be by way of, for example, a mortgage, where the property represents the security. *An unsecured creditor does not have a charge over the debtor's assets. The term creditor ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
