The Courts and Tribunals Service did not have a free-standing power as occupier of court buildings to exclude individuals from the building without reference to the judiciary.
The Court of Appeal’s provisional view was that the decision in Digital Rights Ireland Ltd v Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources (C-293/12)  Q.B. 127 did not, in the context of the retention of, and access to, communications data, lay down mandatory requirements of EU law with which national legislation had to comply. However, the court referred questions to the European Court of Justice on that point.
It had not been reasonably practicable for a suspected drink driver to consult her solicitor prior to undergoing the Camic procedure where only four minutes had been available between her request and the start of the procedure.
Where issues of recent complaint arose at trial and there was conflicting evidence as to when the complaint was made, the judge had to spell out the conflicting evidence and direct the jury to consider whether a recent complaint had in fact been made and whether the terms of the complaint were consistent with the evidence.
The defendants could not base their assertion of vehicular rights across an area of common land on conduct the commission of which was a criminal offence under s.193(4) Law of Property Act 1925. Hanning v Top Deck Travel Group Ltd (1993) 68 P&CR 14 was binding authority to that effect.