City of Riverside v. RLI Insurance Company - Case Information

The California Supreme Court has provided case information for City of Riverside v. RLI Insurance Company. The filing date for this case was December 20, 2024. This entry serves as a notification of ongoing judicial proceedings.

Re J (Loss of Parental Responsibility) - Court of Appeal Decision

The Court of Appeal has issued a decision in the case of Re J (Loss of Parental Responsibility), concerning the loss of parental rights. The judgment, dated March 20, 2026, addresses appeals related to parental responsibility and includes intervenors such as the Secretary of State for Justice and Reunite International Child Abduction Centre.

Munemo v City of Wolverhampton Council - Housing Act 1996 Interpretation

The Court of Appeal considered the interpretation of Section 191 of the Housing Act 1996 regarding intentional homelessness. The case involved a claimant who failed to disclose an existing tenancy when applying for housing assistance, leading to a dispute over her secure tenancy rights.

Singh R v EWCA Crim 345 - Attorney General's Sentence Reference

The Attorney General has referred a sentence to the Court of Appeal Criminal Division, arguing it was unduly lenient. The case involves an individual previously convicted of aggravated vehicle taking and drug offenses, who pleaded guilty to three counts of causing grievous bodily harm with intent and wounding with intent.

Mohammed R v Riaz Mohammed - Criminal Appeal

The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) heard an appeal by Riaz Mohammed against his conviction for conspiring to supply Class A drugs. The appeal focuses on the judge's response to a jury question regarding a copy of the defence closing speech, with the appellant arguing the convictions may be unsafe. The court is reviewing the trial judge's handling of jury deliberations.

R. v EGC - Appeal Against Conviction for Sexual Offending

The Court of Appeal Criminal Division is hearing an application for leave to appeal against a conviction for sexual offending. The case involves the historical legal principle of doli incapax, which presumed children aged 10-14 were incapable of committing a crime before its abolition in 1998. Reporting restrictions are in place.

R v Brown - Appeal Against Conviction

The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) heard a renewed application for an extension of time and leave to appeal against conviction in the case of R v Michael Stephen Brown. The applicant, who pleaded guilty in 2014 to child cruelty and assault, is seeking to appeal his conviction after a delay of approximately 10 years. The court also issued a reporting restriction order to protect the identity of complainants under 18.

Greyhound Board v Welsh Ministers - Judicial Review of Greyhound Racing Ban Statement

The High Court of Justice in England and Wales has issued a judgment in a judicial review case brought by the Greyhound Board of Great Britain against the Welsh Ministers. The case challenges a statement made by the Deputy First Minister of Wales expressing an intention to ban greyhound racing in Wales and the subsequent legislative process. The judgment addresses the claimant's argument regarding an alleged unlawful failure to consult.

GSX v Crown Court at Southwark - Judicial Review of Search Warrant

The High Court of Justice (Administrative Court) has ruled on a judicial review concerning a search warrant issued by the Crown Court at Southwark, applied for by the Metropolitan Police on behalf of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). The court acknowledged that the warrant, entry, search, and seizures were unlawful. The primary dispute is whether to grant additional relief beyond quashing the warrant, specifically regarding the return of seized items and the use of obtained material.

BHO v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care - NHS Charging Regulations

The High Court of Justice is hearing a case where the claimant alleges that the NHS Charging Regulations 2015, as amended, breach the Withdrawal Agreement. The claimant argues that the regulations unfairly charge individuals who obtained residence status late but had reasonable grounds for the delay, for medical treatment received between their application deadline and acceptance date. A related guidance document is also under scrutiny.