Latest Cases

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. 

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. 

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. 

Criminal law – Appeal. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division substantially refused the defendant's application for leave to appeal against his two convictions for doing acts tending and intended to pervert the course of public justice, contrary to common law. However, the court had been unable to determine whether leave should be granted on one ground of appeal, thus, that ground would be adjourned with directions, for a further hearing. 

Sentence – Confiscation order. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division held that a confiscation order, with a term of imprisonment to be imposed in default, to recover the value of a tainted gift which appeared to be nil at the date of the order had not been manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. In fact, the confiscation order was deemed proportionate in the circumstances. 

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. 

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. 

Solicitor – Duty. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed an appeal against a finding that two solicitors had been guilty of dishonest assistance in a breach of trust in a mortgage fraud. The honesty of those solicitors was to have been assessed as against what they had believed the facts to have been, and the judge had not made findings on all of that knowledge or belief. Further, he had failed to deal with what was, potentially, a good defence. 

Licensing – Premises. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, set aside the district judge's decision that he had had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal against the revocation of the appellant's premises licence because no person entitled to appeal had done so within the statutory time limit. His conclusion that the mere fact that there had been two corporate entities involved had meant that there had been a mistake of identity which could not be corrected pursuant to the powers in s 123 of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980 had been an error. 

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.