Latest Cases

Company – Investment business. The Commercial Court allowed the claimant companies' claim for repayment of €1.3m, following the restructuring of two funds in a portfolio of assets into one. On the true construction of the termination agreement between the parties, the sum in issue was included in the amounts that the defendant company was bound to pay the first claimant. 

Criminal law – Sentence. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that a total sentence of six years' imprisonment, for cruelty to a person under 16 years, servitude and assisting unlawful immigration to a member state, had not been unduly lenient. In the circumstances, the term imposed had been a well-judged sentence. Accordingly, the application for leave to refer the sentences to the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, pursuant to s 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, as unduly lenient, would be refused. 

Practice – Parties. The Chancery Division allowed the claiming defendants' application for permission to join CL as a defendant to the counterclaim in a case concerning the alleged infringement of the claimants' copyright in the first defendant company's conduct of its therapy business. The counterclaim alleged that the claimants and CL had been negligent, both in their selection of a particular machine as a mandatory device for the administration of the therapy, and in their insistence on the continued use of the machine after problems allegedly became evident with it. The court held that CL had given direct advice to a number of the defendants, and that it could not be said that the claiming defendants had no real prospect of establishing their allegations against her. 

Immigration – Removal. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appellants' appeals against the decision of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), dismissing their claims for judicial review of the respondent Secretary of State's refusal to admit their representations as fresh claims for asylum. It was not possible to say that those decisions had been irrational in the light of the applicable test and the Secretary of State had not failed to have proper regard to any true vulnerability of the appellants. 

Water supply – Charges. The Chancery Division ruled on charges for water and sewerage services supplied to properties inhabited by the defendant local authority's tenants. The court ruled that, among other things, between 2000 and 2013, the defendant had charged the claimant more than the maximum charge allowed under the Water Resale Order 2006. 

Landlord and tenant – Repair. The Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing the claimant's appeal against the dismissal of her claim against the defendant for damages under s 4 of the Defective Premises Act 1972, held that the purpose of s 4(4) of the Act was not to create a strict liability, but to extend the application of s 4(1) of the Act to relevant defects which were outwith its scope and, therefore, to bring them within the scope of the section as a whole. Its purpose was not to confer an additional or alternative route to recovery where the claim under s 4(1) failed on its facts because s 4(2) was unsatisfied. 

Value added tax – Zero-rating. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) dismissed the appeal by Boxmoor Construction Ltd (Boxmoor) against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) that certain supplies by Boxmoor were not zero-rated supplies in the course of construction of a building designed as a dwelling within Item 2 of Group 5 of Sch 8 to the Value Added Tax Act 1994, but were chargeable to VAT at the standard rate. 

Contract – Breach of contract. The Commercial Court made findings, overall in the claimant Portuguese bank's favour, in its claim for declarations that the defendant Portuguese transport companies' obligations under long-term interest rate swaps constituted legal, valid and binding obligations, enforceable in accordance with their respective terms. It rejected the defendants' defences that they lacked capacity to enter into the swaps, that art 3(3) of the Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations 1980 applied and that the bank had acted in breach of its duties under the Portuguese Securities Code. 

Negligence – Causation. The Queen's Bench Division found that the claimant's case against the defendant hospital in negligence succeeded, in that there had been negligence in failing to perform a timely brain scan and call an ambulance and that those failures caused the claimant's injury. The amount for pain, suffering and loss of amenity payable was £107,470, with a total award in the sum of £454,858.65. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The Planning Court allowed the claimant local planning authority's challenge to the decision of the inspector appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State, granting outline planning permission to the second defendant developer to build up to 85 dwellings and associated works. Because of the harm to designated heritage assets, limb 2 of para 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework fell to be considered first and the inspector had only undertaken the weighted exercise in limb 1.