Latest Cases

European Union – Directives. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 11(1), read in conjunction with arts 5, 7 and 13, of Directive (EC) 2005/60, as amended by Directive 2010/78/EU. The request had been made in proceedings between Safe Interenvíos SA (Safe), a payment institution, and three credit institutions, concerning the closure by those credit institutions of the accounts held by Safe because they had suspected money laundering. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

European Union – Freedom of movement. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding, among other things, that art 33 of Directive 2011/95/EU had to be interpreted as meaning that a residence condition imposed on a beneficiary of subsidiary protection status, such as the conditions at issue in the main proceedings, constituted a restriction of the freedom of movement guaranteed by that article, even when it did not prevent the beneficiary from moving freely within the territory of the member state that had granted the protection and from staying on a temporary basis in that territory outside the place designated by the residence condition. 

Divorce – Ancillary relief. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed an appeal by a husband against an ancillary relief order. The judge had not erred in awarding the wife more than 50% of the assets of the marriage, in circumstances where the husband had not made proper financial disclosure or provided a budget of his needs, and where the judge had made provision for the wife's trimmed budget whilst also providing properly for the husband's needs.