Latest Cases

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division allowed an appeal from a decision of a recorder, refusing to award a fixed-advocacy fee on the basis that the case had settled. It had not strained the language of CPR 45.29C to conclude that the case was one where the claim had been 'disposed of at trial', albeit by way of settlement rather than judgment. 

Judicial review – Foster carer – Deregistration. Court of Session: Dismissing a judicial review petition by a petitioner who was jointly registered with her husband as a foster carer by the respondent local authority, and who sought reduction of the respondents' decisions to deregister her and her husband following the respondents' own investigation of serious allegations about the husband's conduct made by a child who had been in the petitioner and her husband's care (the police having investigated but taken no further action), the court rejected the petitioner's contentions that reduction of the respondents' decisions should be granted because they had failed to adequately take into account her blameless position and had failed to discuss with her the possibility of a variation of the joint registration. 

Insurance – Transfer of long-term insurance business. The Companies Court granted an order, among other things, sanctioning an insurance business transfer scheme to transfer the applicant company, The Copenhagen Reinsurance Company (U.K) Ltd's entire insurance business to another company in the Enstar group. 

Pension scheme – Changes to administration of scheme. Court of Session: In a special case in which a company and the trustees of the company pension scheme, who had been unable to discover sufficient evidence to demonstrate that in 1992 decisions in respect of changes to escalation of benefits and equalisation of pension date were made and recorded in accordance with the requirements of a clause making provision for amendment of the rules of the scheme, invited the court to decide whether it could be inferred that in 1992 the trustees exercised powers under another clause to apply special terms, both in respect of escalation and equalisation, that the company consented thereto and that intimation thereof was made to members in accordance with that clause, the court answered the question in relation to escalation in the affirmative (with a reservation) and the question in relation to equalisation in the negative (with an exception). 

European Union – Directives. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling in proceedings between Pillbox 38 (UK) Ltd and the Secretary of State for Health in the United Kingdom, concerning the validity of art 20 of Directive 2014/14/EU in the context of the legality of the 'intention and/or obligation' of the UK government to implement that directive. The Court decided that there was no factor of any kind as to affect the validity, in whole or in part, of art 20 of Directive 2014/14/EU. 

Practice – Hearing. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed an appeal against an order that the application by the claimant for a detailed assessment of the bills of the defendant, its former solicitors, pursuant to s 70 of the Solicitors Act 1974, should be held in private. It held that the authorities clearly demonstrated that there was a concept of waiver for limited purposes and that was clearly what had happened in the present case. 

Social security – Income support. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, determined two appeals regarding the effect of the Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Act 2013. It held that, by that Act, Parliament had successfully retrospectively validated sanctions imposed on jobseeker's allowance claimants who had failed to participate in certain back to work schemes. In the cases of those claimants who had already appealed their sanctions, the Act had been incompatible with their rights under art 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Agent – Duty to principal. The Chancery Division allowed in part the claimant company's claim that the defendant, B, had made unauthorised payments into certain accounts in the course of managing investments and securities. The court held that B had not been authorised to make the payments, and had acted in breach of duty. He was liable to compensate the claimant for breach of the duty he owed to it as its agent. 

Road Traffic – Disqualification from driving. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, provided guidance as to the effect of the introduction into the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 of sections 35A and 35B, provisions relating to disqualification of driving. In particular, it set out a checklist indicating an appropriate way of working to formal sentencing decisions in respect of disqualification. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post judgment relief. The Chancery Division allowed the claimants' application for a notification injunction, by which they would be notified if the defendants sought to dispose of certain assets. The claimants alleged that they had been caused to enter into business projects that had disadvantaged them and advantaged the defendants, as a result of intimidation by the defendants. The court held that, on the evidence and taking into account that the proposed notification injunction was less intrusive than a freezing order, it was appropriate to conclude that there was a risk of dissipation.