Latest Cases

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. 

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. 

Criminal law – Trial. The Divisional Court allowed the claimant's application for judicial review of the defendant Crown Court's ruling that no member of the public could make notes of the proceedings without permission. The default position was that those who attended public court hearings should be free to make notes of what occurred and the paramount question for a judge, if considering withdrawing that liberty, was whether the note-taking in question would be likely to interfere with the proper administration of justice. 

Insurance – Liability insurance. The Commercial Court granted declarations in favour of the claimant insured, ruling, among other things, that a claim for indemnity insurance had been first made within the relevant policy period. If it had not, but, rather, had been made by letter dated 2 April 2013, it was covered by the second excess policy by virtue of an extension clause and the defendant insurers were not entitled to decline cover by virtue of a clause in the primary policy. 

Value added tax – Input tax. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) dismissed the appeal by the taxpayer company against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) dismissing the taxpayer's claim for recovery of input tax on the basis that the supplies it had made to its subsidiaries had not been supplied for a consideration and were therefore not taxable supplies within the meaning of s 5 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 and art 2(1) of Directive (EC) 2006/112. 

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. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division refused an application made by the paternal uncle of two young children for leave to revoke placement orders. The court held that there probably had been a change of circumstances, but, in considering the second stage, namely, whether the discretion to grant leave should be exercised, in all the circumstances, the application would be refused. 

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. 

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. 

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.