Law report: Case Summaries
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.THE FOLLOWING notes of judgments were prepared by the reporters of the All England Law Reports:
Landlord and tenant
Scribes West Ltd v Relsa Anstalt and ors ([2004] EWCA Civ 1744); CA (Mummery, Rix, Carnwath LJJ) 20 Dec 2004
WHERE, AT the date of forfeiture, an assignee of the reversionary interest in premises was not the registered freehold proprietor, but had taken a valid equitable assignment of the rents and notice had been given to the lessee, it was entitled, albeit only in equity, to receive the rents of the property and therefore was "the person from time to time entitled, subject to the term, to the income of the whole or any part" of the land leased under s 141(2) of the Law of Property Act 1925. The assignee could, therefore, effect valid forfeiture.
John Cherryman QC, Tom Weekes (Mischon de Reya) for the claimant; Elizabeth Jones QC, Andrew Bruce (Richards Butler) for the freeholder.
Racial discrimination
Webster v Brunel University; EAT (Burton J, Mr J Mallender, Mr G Wright) 14 Dec 2004
THE ONUS of proof transferred to the respondent once a prima-facie case had been established by the applicant that there had been an act of discrimination by the respondent. In future, where there was an issue as to whether treatment complained of by an applicant, which was said to amount to sex or race discrimination, had been by an employee of the respondent, employment tribunals should direct themselves that that the same prima-facie test applied to that question as applied to all other questions in relation to race and sex discrimination.
Paul Troop (Thompsons) for the appellant; Neil Vickery (Eversheds) for the respondent.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments