Latest Cases

Arbitration – Arbitrator. The Commercial Court allowed the claimant company's application for an order that the first defendant be removed as arbitrator from an ongoing arbitration between the claimant and the second defendant, pursuant to s 24(1)(a) of the Arbitration Act 1996, where, on the facts, an allegation of apparent bias had been made out. 

Contract – Intimidation. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimant's appeal in respect of disputes that had arisen after he had sold, to the claimant, his shares in the company of which they had been directors. The claimant had not been intimidated into selling his shares, there had been nothing unfair or prejudicial in the judge's conduct of the case and the claimant's claim for a contribution to the sums that he owed the company failed as the sums that he had misappropriated had been for his exclusive benefit. 

Pension – Occupational pension scheme. The Chancery Division, in allowing the appellant's appeal, considered the definition of 'transfer credits' in s 181(1) of the Pension Schemes Act 1993. It held that the pensions ombudsman had wrongly construed the definition of the phrase and, consequently, the appellant had been entitled to require the respondent mutual insurance society to transfer the cash equivalent of her accrued rights under her personal pension scheme, so that she would be awarded transfer credits in relation to her occupational pension scheme. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Infinite Cycle Works Ltd (ICWL) against a decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) relating to opposition proceedings between Chance Good Ent. Co., Ltd, and ICWL, regarding the application by the latter for registration of the word mark 'INFINITY' as a Community trade mark. 

Minor – Abduction. The Family Division dismissed the mother's application to strike out the father's application under the Hague Convention for the return of his children to Spain from England. It was generally inappropriate for the courts to entertain an application to strike out a summary application under the Convention, save in the exceptional circumstances which were not present in the instant case. 

Criminal law – Assisting offender. The Privy Council allowed the appellant's appeal against a conviction for murder in circumstances where the appellant had allegedly assisted another person to commit a murder. The court held that the principle regarding encouragement and assistance expressed in the case of Chan Wing-Siu v R (see[1984] 3 All ER 877) had been wrong. It invited the parties' written submissions as to the advice which it should tender regarding the disposal of the appeal. 

Education – Pupil. The Administrative Court allowed the claimant's application for judicial review of the decisions to transfer him to off-site educational provision and the failure to keep that decision under review. The school had not served the mandatory notice required under reg 3 of the Education (Educational Provision for Improving Behaviour) Regulations 2010, SI 2010/1156 and had failed to conduct mandatory reviews. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The Planning Court dismissed an application by the claimant local planning authority, under s 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, to quash the decision of an inspector appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State allowing an appeal and granting permission for development. There were no grounds upon which to quash the decision. 

Company – Practice. The Chancery Division allowed an appeal against an order requiring three defendants to pay the claimant petitioners £54,000 following their petition for unfair prejudice in respect of the third defendant limited liability partnership (LLP). It held that, notwithstanding the barring (at a case management conference) of the relevant defendants for breach of an unless order, a final hearing had still been required so the petitioners could prove their case and to hear the defendants' counterclaim. The defendants had attended what had been a case management conference and had left with a judgment of £54,000 plus costs against them, which was unjustified and procedurally unfair. 

Human rights – Right to liberty and security. The European Court of Human Rights found that there had been a breach of art 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights, as following the revocation of the applicant's release on licence, it could not be said that the lawfulness of his ongoing detention had been considered speedily. However, there was no breach in regard to the fairness of the detention reviews.