Latest Cases

European Union – Jurisdiction. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerned the interpretation of Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council. The request had been made in proceedings between Flight Refund Ltd, a company established in the United Kingdom, and Deutsche Lufthansa AG, a company established in Germany, concerning a debt in respect of compensation claimed on account of a flight delay. 

Practice – Conduct of proceedings. The Commercial Court made rulings concerning a confidentiality club used to protect the identities of individuals, properties and companies against whom the claimant Libyan Investment Authority had commenced proceedings. Among other things, the court amended the confidentiality club to allow a negative resolution procedure to apply to all relevant persons to whom the LIA wanted to divulge confidential information, as defined by the order creating the confidentiality club. 

Town and Country Planning – Change of use. The Planning Court, in dismissing the claimant's application for judicial review of the defendant local authority's decision to serve a temporary stop notice (TSN), held that the proceedings were misconceived because alternative remedies were plainly available to the claimant and, in any event, judicial review was wholly inappropriate in a case, such as the present, where the TSN had expired. As to the lawfulness of the TSN, the circumstances in the present case came nowhere near the sort of situation required to demonstrate irrationality. 

Family proceedings – Human Rights. The Family Division granted an application for a declaration by a 16 year old person that the adoptive parents receive no information about his day-to-day life, nor about how his gender reassignment treatment was progressing. In so doing the judge engaged in a balancing of the parties respective rights under art 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights. 

Judgment – Default of defence. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the claimant's appeal and dismissed the second defendant insurer's application to set aside a judgment in default and an award of damages. In particular, the court considered how the court should approach the grant of relief from sanctions in a case where the defaulting party had delayed in applying for relief, but was able to point to evidence that enabled it to allege that the claim was a fraudulent one. 

Practice – Offer to settle. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed an appeal against a costs order as the claimant had beaten the defendants' offer under CPR Pt 36. That had not been changed by the defendants' payment on account pursuant to their partial admission of liability. The claimant's cross-appeal, that costs should have been awarded on the indemnity basis and not the standard basis, was allowed based on the terms of the contract between the parties. 

Will – Construction. The Chancery Division allowed the claimants' application for the construction of a will to include words accidentally omitted. Clause 3 of the will would be construed to include the words 'to my wife', which were the necessary words of gift to the second claimant, the widow of the testator. 

Tax – Appeal. The Privy Council allowed the taxpayer insurance company's appeal against findings of the Jamaican courts with regard the tax consequences of a change in practice for valuation of its reserves, arising from the Jamaican Insurance Act 2001. The effect of submitting an amended tax return had been to create a substantial loss for the taxpayer, which had been disallowed by the local tax authority. The Privy Council held that a change by actuaries in the method of calculating the taxpayer's actuarial reserves was to be properly regarded as a change in accounting policy. 

Local government – Council tax. The Administrative Court dismissed the appellant's appeal, by way of case stated, against the magistrates' court's order that he meet a council tax liability of £975.26, together with an order for costs of £75. The justices had been correct to have found that the application for the liability order had been valid when the summons had included a request for costs, that the appellant had been liable on the evidence and that the costs reasonably incurred in the case had amounted to £75. 

Landlord and tenant – Lease. The Chancery Division, on the claimant's claim for, among other things, a decree of specific performance in respect of the defendant company's obligation to take a new lease, held that the defendant's contention that the lease had been surrendered by operation of law failed, it had pleaded no other defence to the claim for a decree of specific performance and there was no other ground on which such a claim ought to be denied.