Latest Cases

Insurance – Broker. The Commercial Court allowed the defendant's CPR Pt 20 claim against the third parties, following the defendant's settlement of the claimants' claim for its breach of contractual and/or tortious duties. It held that both the defendant and third parties had been at fault. Accordingly, liability would be apportioned at 30% for the third parties and 70% for the defendant. 

Immigration – Refugee. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant Iranian nationals' challenge to the defendant Secretary of State's certification of their asylum claims on safe third country grounds and certification of their human rights claims as clearly unfounded. Although articles other than art 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and art 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union could be prayed in aid to prevent returns under Council Regulation (EC) 343/03 (Dublin II), there was no flagrant breach of art 5 of the Convention in Cyprus for Dublin returnees who had had a final decision on their claim. 

Bond – Issue of. The Commercial Court, ruling on a preliminary issue concerning the validity of a mandatory conversion notice by the defendant, issued in respect of US$70m 2.5% convertible bonds, held that the notice had been valid. 

Disclosure and inspection of documents – Pre-action disclosure. The Chancery Division dismissed the applicant's application for pre-action disclosure with a view, subject to what the disclosure revealed, to bringing proceedings for conspiracy against the respondents. Disclosure would not assist the dispute to be resolved without proceedings. 

Criminal law – Sentence. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that a total sentence of five years' imprisonment, for the offences of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent, had been unduly lenient. A total sentence of seven years' imprisonment would be more appropriate in the circumstances. 

Immigration – Leave to remain – Appeal. Court of Session: Refusing an appeal by five Pakistani citizens, a principal applicant, who sought leave to remain in the UK as a tier 1 (entrepreneur) migrant, and her husband and three children, whose application was refused on the basis that she had not complied with the requirement to show access to at least £200,000 for the purpose of investing in a business in UK, and whose appeals were refused by the First-tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal, the court held that the necessary letter from the bank confirming that the funds in her husband's account were available to the first appellant was missing, there was nothing to suggest that the husband had placed the funds under his wife's control, and in those circumstances common sense, humanity, or 'a modicum of intelligence' did not require a different approach from that taken by the Secretary of State. 

Criminal law – Proceeds of crime. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, quashed the appointment of an enforcement receiver over their realisable assets of the appellant company and individual defendants, and allowed the defendants' appeals against confiscation orders, following their guilty plea to conspiring to making false instruments in their road haulage company. The orders had involved the unjustified application of the doctrine of lifting the corporate veil. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Tayto Group Ltd (Tayto) against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) relating to opposition proceedings between MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG and Tayto concerning the application by the latter for registration of a figurative sign 'REAL HAND COOKED' as a Community trade mark. 

Negligence – Causation. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the claimant's case in negligence against the orthopaedic surgeon employed by the defendant NHS Trust as on the evidence, the claimant's grounds for establishing breach of duty and therefore liability had not been made out. 

Insolvency – Statutory demand. The Bankruptcy High Court allowed the applicants' application to set aside statutory demands made on them following the failure of a venture to develop land. The applicants submitted that their relationship with their bank had been such to suggest the existence of a joint venture, and that there was a possibility of a cross-claim against the valuer of the company that they had formed. The court held that the debts, or their enforceability, were disputed on substantial grounds and/or the applicants appeared to have a cross claim that was likely to equal or exceed the amount claimed in the demands.