Latest Cases

Feeds

Montalto v Popat and others

Company – Shares. The Chancery Division made findings concerning the ownership of property belonging to the claimant and the first defendant, who had formerly been in a long-term relationship. Among other things, it made findings concerning the ownership of the second and third defendant companies. 

*Re C (Children) (Care: Change of forename)

Children and young persons – Jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed a mother's appeal against an order of the court that prevented her from naming her two children (who had been taken into care) 'Cyanide' and 'Preacher'. The naming of a child was an act of parental responsibility, the extent of which could be determined by a local authority. There was no restriction in the Children Act 1989 preventing an authority from overruling a parent in relation to a forename, but that was subject to a parent's rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The judge had erred in finding that the authority could determine the mother's choice of name pursuant to s 33(3)(b) of the 1989 Act, where the proper route was for the matter to be put before the High Court by way of an application to invoke its inherent jurisdiction under s 100 of that Act. 

Okon v London Borough of Lewisham

Insolvency – Bankruptcy. The Chancery Division held that, providing the claimant gave certain undertakings, it would grant permission to appeal and allow an appeal and set aside a bankruptcy order made in respect of the claimant on the petition of a local authority. The petition had been based on council tax liability orders, which the claimant disputed. The court held that the judge ought to have adjourned the bankruptcy petition in order to await the outcome of the claimant's appeal to the Valuation Tribunal in respect of the liability orders. 

Commodities Research Unit International (Holdings) Ltd and others v King & Wood Mallesons LLP (formerly known as SJ Berwin LLP)

Negligence – Information or advice. The Queen's Bench Division held that the defendant solicitor had given negligent advice in relation to the identification of general conditions of service in the giving of advice in an employment termination agreement. If the claimant had been given correct non-negligent advice about the effect of the payment in lieu of notice clause on the vesting of the final 25 per cent of the long term incentive plan (LTIP), the CRU Group would have been able to avoid agreeing to the vesting of the remaining 25 per cent of the LTIP in the employment settlement agreement and side letter. 

*AIG Europe Ltd v OC320301 LLP (formerly the International Law Partnership LLP) and others

Insurance – Contract of insurance. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, ruled on the true construction of an aggregation clause contained in an insurance policy applicable to all solicitors' indemnity policies, pursuant to the requirement in the Solicitors' Act 1974 for compulsory liability insurance for solicitors and the Minimum Terms and Conditions required to be incorporated into such polices. The true construction of the words 'in a series of matters or transactions' was that the matters or transactions had to have an intrinsic relationship with each other, not an extrinsic relationship with a third factor. 

R (on the application of H and others) v Ealing London Borough Council

Housing – Local authority. The Administrative Court allowed the claimants' application for judicial review of the defendant local authority's scheme, reserving 20% of all available lettings for working households and model tenants. The working households element of the scheme amounted to unlawful indirect discrimination under the Equality Act 2010, which required the authority to amend the scheme, but challenges based on discrimination under the European Convention on Human Rights, the public sector equality duty and the welfare of children were also upheld. 

R (on the application Hudson Contract Services Ltd) v Secetary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills

Industrial training – Levy. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant company's application for judicial review of the Industrial Training Levy (Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2015, SI 2015/701, in particular, art 7(2) of the Order which, read with art 7(3) and (4) of the Order, set the formula for calculating the amount of levy due in the third of three levy periods. The Order was not ultra vires, unfair or unlawful because it violated classic public law principles. 

Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Trigg (a partner of Tonnan LLP)

Income tax – Capital gains. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) allowed the appeal by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber), following a joint reference to it by the taxpayer and the Revenue, that corporate bonds purchased by the taxpayer and subsequently realised in whole or in part were qualifying corporate bonds within s 117 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 and thereby qualified for the exemption from capital gains tax contained in s 115 of that Act. 

Mutch v Mutch

Practice – Family proceedings. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appellant former wife's appeal in financial remedy proceedings, held that the judge had had power to make the relevant consent order concerning periodical payments, and he ought not to have set it aside. 

R (on the application of Onowu) v First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)

Immigration – Appeal. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) quashed the decision of the defendant First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (the FTT), granting the Secretary of State an extension of time to appeal against its decision allowing the claimant's application for permission to appeal against the Secretary of State's decision to remove him to Italy. In consequence, its decision granting permission to appeal was also quashed. It could not be determined whether the FTT had undertaken the required three-stage process and it had failed to give reasons. 

Show
10
Results
Results
10
Results
virtual magazine View virtual issue

Chair’s Column

Feature image

Greetings from India

Chair of the Bar finds common ground on legal services between our two jurisdictions, plus an update on jury trials

Sponsored

Most Viewed

Partner Logo

Latest Cases