Latest Cases

Contract – Breach of contract. The claimant, Credit Suisse, brought proceedings, claiming €83,196,829 from the defendant company as money allegedly due under an International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) 2002 agreement (the master agreement) in respect of 11 transactions it had allegedly entered with the defendant. The claimant contended that it had duly terminated the master agreement after the defendant had failed to provide security due under a credit support annex. The Commercial Court held that, notwithstanding that three of the contracts, comprising six of the disputed transactions, had been outside the defendant's capacity and therefore invalid, because of warranties in additional representations in the master agreement, that did not affect Credit Suisse's rights or the defendant's obligations under the master agreement. Alternatively, the claimant was entitled in damages for breach of the warranties to the amount that they could have recovered under the master agreement if all the agreements were valid and binding on the defendant. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant issued proceedings, seeking the quashing of the defendant local authority's grant of planning permission for the installation of two wind turbines. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that it would have been driven to conclude that the reasons given in the planning officer's screening opinion had been inadequately expressed, but for the contents of the witness statement. Further, the decision had not been irrational and the planning officer had not misdirected herself as to the expression 'likely to have significant effects'. 

Housing – Homeless person. The appellant had been assessed by the local authority as not being in priority need of housing. The reviewing officer found that he was no more at risk than the ordinary street homeless person and dismissed the appeal. The appellant's application to the county court was rejected. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appellant's appeal and found that the reviewing officer's mistakes regarding the statistics that demonstrated suicide risk among the street homeless had not infected the whole of his decision, which had not been perverse or irrational. Further, the reviewing officer had been entitled to conclude that the appellant's risk of relapse into drug taking did not make him especially vulnerable when compared with other street homeless people. 

Freedom of information – Information. The claimant complained to the first defendant Information Commissioner in respect of the second defendant local authority's failure to provide information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in the requested Excel format and to help him to formulate an appropriate request. The complaints and appeals were dismissed and the claimant appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the authority had been required to provide the information in the requested format. Further, the authority had complied with its duty to help him to formulate an appropriate request. 

Employment – Remuneration. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (the EAT) dismissed the employer's argument, amongst other things, that the employment tribunal had been wrong to hold that the indirect discrimination that the National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999, SI 1999/584 had created by providing, in the exemption set out in reg 12(8), more favourable access to employment opportunities for United Kingdom students than for non-UK students had been justified. The EAT decided that the tribunal had been entitled to conclude that the discriminatory effects had been justified as being in pursuit of a legitimate aim. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant issued judicial review proceedings, contending that the Secretary of State had failed to consult the public of the Republic of Ireland in accordance with art 7 of Directive (EU) 2011/92 in granting development consent for the construction of a European pressurised reactor nuclear power station. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the application, held that the test was not whether the project was 'likely to have significant effects on the environment' applying to Council Directive (EEC) 92/43, but the 'real risk' test adopted in domestic authorities. It further refused to make a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union. 

Contract – Warranty. The claimant (Weatherford) issued proceedings against the defendant (Hydropath) for breach of warranty contained in the agreement to supply its product to prevent scale building up on the inside of pipes. Hydropath and the third party counterclaimed against Weatherford, alleging misuse of confidential information, breach of their licence agreement, inducing breach of contract and breach of directors' duties. The Technology and Construction Court dismissed the counterclaims. It further held that Weatherford had established that the product had been seriously and substantially in breach of the warranty in the supply agreement, given its possible propensity to cause sparking on the adjacent pipework. 

Contract – Construction. The parents' children attended the claimant school which was a fee paying school. When the parents failed to pay certain fees, the school brought an action for payment of a term's fees. The parents brought a defence and counterclaim alleging that the school was not entitled to recover the unpaid fees because it had acted in fundamental breach of contract, entitling the parents to rescind and/or repudiate the contract. The parents also made allegations of racial discrimination and bullying. The Queen's Bench Division held that on he facts and evidence, the school had not acted in breach of any of its three contracts. The defence and counterclaim had therefore had to fail. 

Medical practitioner – Professional conduct committee. The Fitness to Practise Panel (the panel) of the respondent General Medical Council found that the appellant doctor's fitness to practise was impaired and imposed a sanction of erasure from the medical register. The appellant appealed on the ground that the sanction was disproportionate. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the panel's determination was unimpeachable. It had come to a conclusion that it had been entitled to on the evidence before it and had provided adequate reasoning for the task which it had had to discharge. 

Tort – Wrongful interference with goods. The claimant issued proceedings against the defendants, claiming damages for conspiracy, and for trespass to and/or conversion of and wrongful interference with containers of aircraft spares. The Queen's Bench Division held that the conspiracy claim had not been established, but that the first defendant had converted the containers it held as bailee. The fourth defendant was also liable for conversion for taking possession, through the third defendant, of the containers and disposing of them. Damages would be limited to the sale price achieved of £7,500.