Search UK Case Law | caselaw

Skip to main content

Search Case Library Notes Exams Flashcards Quizzes Past Papers SQE

SearchBrowse landmarks

Also in your library

9 matches across 3 surfaces

Notes2

Free movement of goods
The law of goods is the laboratory in which market integration and national autonomy collide.
Free movement of goods
Market integration doctrine through Articles 34 to 36, from Dassonville to post-Brexit residue.

Exam questions5

Chemico Ltd, a UK-based manufacturer, produces industrial solvents. Following Brexit, a batch of its
Question · EU/Retained EU Law 2024 Paper 1
Freedonia, a Member State, bans the sale of all energy drinks containing more than 150mg of caffeine
Question · EU Law: FHS-style practice paper
GreenTech Ltd, a UK company, manufactures electric vehicle charging units. It seeks to export its pr
Question · EU/Retained EU Law Practice Paper 1
"The principle of mutual recognition, while essential to the functioning of the internal market, has
Question · Direct Effect, Supremacy & Free Movement: Tripos-style practice paper

Quizzes2

Oxford BA: EU Law — Free Movement
Free Movement · EU Law
Oxford BA: Free Movement
Free Movement · EU Law

Authorities & judgments

Cases

5 landmark · 0 recent judgments · 3 semantic matches for “Free movement of goods”

Free Movement — Van Duyn v Home Office

LandmarkEuropean Court of Justice[1975] 1 WLR 7601 Jan 1975· EU & Human Rights

Relevant?

Schmidberger

LandmarkCase C-112/001 Jan 2003· EU & Human Rights

Relevant?

Great Peace Shipping v Tsavliris

Landmark[2002] EWCA Civ 14071 Jan 2002· Contract

Relevant?

R v Chief Constable of Sussex, ex parte International Trader's Ferry Ltd

House of Lords[1999] 2 AC 418, [1999] 1 All ER 1291 Jan 1999· Public Law

A livestock exporter challenged the Chief Constable's decision to cut the policing of lorries carrying live animals to ports because of protests, arguing it was unreasonable and contrary to the free movement of goods. The House of Lords held that the decision was lawful, because the police had limited resources and had struck a reasonable balance.

Relevant?

TUPE — Spijkers v Gebroeders Benedik Abattoir CV

Landmark[1986] 2 CMLR 2961 Jan 1986· Employment

Relevant?

Omega

LandmarkCase C-36/021 Jan 2004· EU & Human Rights

Relevant?

Cassis de Dijon

LandmarkCase 120/781 Jan 1979· EU & Human Rights

Relevant?

Nordenfelt v Maxim Nordenfelt Guns

Landmark[1894] AC 5351 Jan 1894· Contract

Relevant?

Page 1

caselaw

AI-generated briefs should be verified against the source judgment. This tool is for educational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.

[email protected]

StudyCase Library Browse A–Z Notes Flashcards Quizzes Past Papers Practice exams Verify with Quill LNAT Guides Blog Topics Landmarks Doctrines

ToolsAll tools OSCOLA Case Finder Verify with Quill Glossary Statutes Court hierarchy LLB SQE1 Oxford BA By university

CaselawAbout Methodology Code of ethics How it works Pricing For universities For law firms FAQ Changelog Contact Press

TrustSecurity Accessibility Status Terms Privacy Acceptable use Refunds & cancellation Subscription information Cancel subscription Sign up

JurisdictionsCanada United States Ireland Australia New Zealand Hong Kong Singapore South Africa

Used by Oxford law students·Powered by Anthropic AI·Cases from The National Archives·Payments by Stripe·GDPR Compliant

SQE revision content is produced by Caselaw independently and is not official SQE material. Caselaw is not affiliated with or endorsed by the SRA, Kaplan, or any official SQE provider. Refunds · Terms

© 2026 GetCaseLaw Limited. All rights reserved.
GetCaseLaw Limited is registered in England and Wales, company number 17307882. Registered office: 25 Marbaix Gardens, Isleworth, TW7 4FD, United Kingdom.
Not affiliated with or endorsed by the University of Oxford or any other university. Practice papers and notes are written by Caselaw.