Latest Cases

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. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed an appeal against the judge's refusal to make an order for security for costs. The judge had erred in finding that there was no reason to believe that the claimant would be unable to pay if it lost. If there was a practice of the Commercial Court that security for costs would often be granted against a foreign company who was not obliged to publish accounts, had no discernible assets and declined to reveal anything about its financial position, that practice was a sound one. The court gave guidance on the approach to be taken in such applications, in particular in CPR Pt 20 proceedings and where there was an agreed, and court approved, costs budget regarding costs already incurred. 

Pleading – Amendment. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the Unitech parties' appeal against the refusal to allow amendments to their pleadings in relation to five intended defences and allowed the lenders' cross-appeal against the refusal to order a payment into court or an interim payment. In respect of the latter, it was appropriate in the circumstances to make an order in line with the lenders' preference for a requirement for a payment into court. 

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. 

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. 

Local government – Community charge. The Administrative Court allowed the claimant's challenge to the defendant community infrastructure levy (CIL) collecting authority's decision to issue liability and demand notices with respect to the grant of separate planning permissions for a mezzanine floor and external works. It accepted the claimant's argument that the mezzanine planning permission fell within the exemption created by reg 6(1)(c) of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010, SI 2010/948, and the external planning permission created no floor space and so was not liable to CIL. 

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. 

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. 

Mental health – Persons who lack capacity. The Court of Protection determined that it was in the best interests of the first respondent, a 74-year-old woman with dementia, to live at a care home, rather than returning to her home. The interference with her rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights caused by that decision was prescribed by law, proportionate to the identified risks and for a permitted purpose. 

Value added tax – Exemptions. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed an appeal by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners, holding that the BBC, as provider of services to The Open University (OU), was entitled to reclaim VAT on the production and broadcasting of services relating to the OU's courses. While the BBC was not a body governed by public law within the meaning of art 13A(1)(i) of Council Directive (EEC) 77/388, it did have the requisite educational aim to bring it within the education exemption in art 13A(1)(i) and was entitled to rely on the direct effect of that article because of the UK's failure to implement the Directive.