Latest Cases

Insolvency – Approval for sale. Where a prior order, (not complied with), was in place over assets sought to be sold by a receiver to third party, it was correct for the receivers to seek approval form the court for the sale. Further, the Chancery Division held that in certain limited circumstances the court had discretion to vary its own order, and in the present situation it would vary its own order, and approve the sale to the third party unencumbered by the earlier order.

Will – Validity. The Chancery Division made rulings relating to a dispute over two wills made by FB. On the evidence, the presumption of due execution had been successfully displaced and FB's will of 2013 had not been executed in accordance with the law. Further, FB had known of and approved the contents of her 2013 will. She had revoked her will of 2012 by asking for it to be revoked.

Practice – Vulnerable adult. In considering three applications for permission to apply for the appointment of personal welfare deputies (PWD) in respect of vulnerable adults, pursuant to s 16 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, the Court of Protection clarified the practice, procedure, and the applicable principles, concerning such appointments.

Limitation of action – Period of limitation. In a group (personal injury) action brought against Tata Steel Ltd (Tata), the claimants alleged that some of those employed by Tata's predecessors had been exposed to dust and fumes at work, resulting in them developing occupational diseases. Tata contended that some of the claims were statute-barred and applied to have limitation tried as a preliminary issue. The Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing the application, held that the overriding objective in the group litigation order would not be best served by determining limitation defences by way of the hearing of any preliminary issue or issues.

Social security – Housing benefit. In holding that the correct interpretation of 'bedroom' for the purposes of reg B13(5) of the Housing Benefit (Amendment) Regulations 2012 was a room capable of being used as a bedroom by a particular claimant, the upper tribunal had erred in law and its decision had been wrong. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that, for the purposes of reg B13(5), 'bedroom' was to be interpreted as meaning a room capable of being used as a bedroom by any of the listed categories and not a room capable of being used as a bedroom by the particular claimant.

Company – Shares. The appellant company's action to strike out the name of the respondent company as the holder of all of a related company's issued shares succeeded. The Privy Council held that one of the appellant's representatives, who had purported to sign an agreement between the parties (the HOA), had lacked the ostensible authority to do so. Further, the HOA and the share transfer purportedly made pursuant to it had been avoidable.

Family Proceedings – Care proceedings. The Slovakian Central Authority's request to transfer care proceedings, concerning three Slovakian children, to the Slovakia courts was refused. The Family Court considered the principles applicable to such applications for a transfer of proceedings under art 15 of Regulation (EC) No 2201/2203 and held that, applying settled law to the facts, the balance was firmly in favour of the case remaining in England and Wales at the present time.

Immigration – Leave to enter. The First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)'s reasons why it had held that the appellant Sri Lankan national's refusal of entry clearance had been a disproportionate interference with respect for family life were tolerably clear and had contained no error of law. The Court of Appeal (Civil Division), allowing the appellant's appeal, held that there had been no error in the FTT's decision and the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) had erred in interfering with the decision.

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. Having carefully weighed two competing placement options, concerning a child (A), who was the subject of an interim care order, it was held that his welfare required that he remained in the care of his mother, who had previously had mental health issues, but where she did not have a clinically diagnosed disorder and was meeting A's needs to a good standard. The Family Court held that the risks of placement with her were sufficiently ameliorated by being managed under the proposed 12-month supervision order and with compliance with a written agreement. Accordingly, the court granted a 12-month supervision order in the favour of the applicant authority. Further, A's father was granted parental responsibility and the court endorsed a final care plan, as amended, in respect of contact.

Pleading – Amendment. The applicants' application to amend their claim failed. The Chancery Division held that, on any analysis, the claim being presently pleaded was a new claim. Further, the court had no discretion to allow the amendments, because the conditions of s 35 of the Limitation Act 1980 and CPR 17.4(2) were not met. The new claims did not arise out of substantially the same facts as were already in issue.