Latest Cases

Practice – Order. The Chancery Division allowed an appeal by the appellant trustees in bankruptcy against an order (the Hay order) setting aside an earlier order (the Paul order) in proceedings where the trustees sought, among other things, a declaration regarding the ownership of a property. The court held that, considering the appeal in the light of the overriding objective, the matter ought to have been brought to an end once and for all by the Paul order. 

Contract – Failure of consideration. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, ruled on the claimant's appeal concerning whether the judge ought not to have found that there had been a total failure of performance on its part justifying the defendant's refusal to pay the contract price and, further, whether the judge had erred in dismissing the claim for the price and allowing the entirety of the counterclaim. The court held that the judge had been right to have found that the defendant had received no part of the contractual performance which it had contracted for. However, the award of damages on the counterclaim had over-compensated the defendant by awarding it the costs of a substitute performance of the contract when it had been relieved altogether of its obligation to pay. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division acceded to the first defendant's application for strike out of certain paragraphs of the claimant law firm's particulars of claim on the basis that the claimant had no title to sue on insurance contracts made between the claimant's clients and the insurers. In so deciding, the claims brought against the third and fourth defendants also came to an end. 

Contract – Breach. The Queen's Bench Division held in relation to or monies due and unpaid in respect of the sale of five consignments of rice as evidenced by the invoices held that the claimant was entitled to be paid but reduced by the amount due by various credits in the defendant's favour. 

Costs – Order for costs. The Technology and Construction Court, on the claimant's application for indemnity costs following the defendant's failure to accept a claimant's CPR Pt 36 offer, held that the offer had been a valid offer within the meaning of CPR Pt 36 and a genuine attempt to settle the claim. In the circumstances, there was no reason why the claimant should not be entitled to indemnity costs from the earliest date by which the defendant could reasonably have put itself in a position to make an informed assessment of the strength of the claim on liability, which was four months from the date of the offer. 

Divorce – Financial provision. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the appellant husband's appeal in respect of one element of an order, which provided for an automatic increase in the level of periodical payments payable to the respondent wife following the date upon which the youngest child ceased privately funded secondary education. The judge had been wrong as a matter of law, and plainly wrong in the exercise of his discretion, by having made an advance variation order based upon only one known element with respect to the parties' finances, and the needs of the youngest child, some four years hence. 

Building contract – Construction. The Technology and Construction Court made three preliminary rulings concerning limitation in a case involving defects in the construction of residential properties. It ruled on the time when the cause of action had accrued and held that, on the true construction of clause 2.5.5 of the relevant building contract, there was one single cause of action. The clause did not operate to preclude claims for defects, whether in contract or in tort, from being brought against the defendant after expiry of the relevant warranty period. 

Sentence – Suspended sentence. In the circumstances, the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division held that total sentences of 6 months' imprisonment, suspended for 12 months, for religiously aggravated intentional harassment and assault by beating, had not been unduly lenient. The recorder had exercised his discretion to suspend the sentences in a way that he was entitled to have done. 

Guarantee – Bank guarantee. The Technology and Construction Court considered the claimant oil company's application for summary judgment against the defendant bank (Barclays) on a claim for payment under the guarantee. The guarantee had been issued as security for a company's performance of its obligations to the claimant under a contract for work on an oil field. The court ruled that it was not a pre-requisite to the validity of the claimant's demand that the claimant had to make a statement that no amendment had been made to the contract impacting the timely performance of the works under the contract. Such a declaration was irrelevant to Barclays' obligation under the guarantee. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The Administrative Court allowed the appellant's appeal against orders for his extradition to Poland to serve a sentence of approximately nine months for offences of robbery, criminal damage and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. As the appellant had served the remainder of his sentence on remand, it would be disproportionate to his rights under art 8 of the Convention to order his extradition.