Latest Cases

Marriage – Foreign marriage. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed a wife's appeal against a declaration that her marriage by way of Nikah in Pakistan had been valid. On the new evidence presented, the decree absolute that had purported to end her previous marriage had been void as issued less than six weeks after the decree nisi. In any event, the amended date of decree absolute meant that the marriage had not been dissolved for the three month period required by Sharia law before a woman could re-marry. The matter would be remitted to consider whether the fact that her previous marriage had been a nullity due to the husband's bigamy had any impact upon the validity of the parties' marriage. 

Personal Injury: Quantum Case. Road traffic accident. The claimant was awarded £6,500 in general damages. She suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder which resolved 11 months post-accident and a phobia of driving which resolved one year post-accident. The claimant also suffered an injury to her hip which resolved four months post-accident, and a small scar on her eyebrow which was permanent but which was not particularly noticeable. 

Contract – Construction. The claimant, Lehman Brothers, brought a claim for the balance of a sum which it contended was due from the defendant arising out of early termination of four option transactions governed by an International Swaps and Derivatives Association agreement, together with interest. The defendant had paid the claimant €1,849,968.99. The Commercial Court held, among other things, that the defendant had breached its contractual obligation to use the agreed market quotation formula to determine the sum due. Using that formula, a payment of €2,963,081.18 should have been made. 

Company – Winding up. The trial of a preliminary issue was ordered, concerning the priority to be given to the payment of certain charges owed to the respondent company for gas and electricity supplied to retail premises after companies in liquidation had entered into administration and after they had been vacated by the companies. The Companies Court held that liability under the deemed contracts was provable, pursuant to r 13.12(1)(b) of the Insolvency Rules 1986, SI 1986/1925, as a liability to which the companies had become subject after the date of administration by reason of an obligation incurred before that date. 

Company – Receiver. In earlier London arbitration proceedings, the claimant had been awarded around US$300m against the defendant foreign companies. The Commercial Court granted the claimant's application to appoint receivers by way of equitable execution over certain assets of the defendants where, on the facts, it was just and convenient to do so, in the exercise of the court's discretion. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimants challenged the decision of the inspector appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State, affirming the refusal of planning permission for the construction of 23 affordable housing units. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that the inspector had not unfairly used or misunderstood a written policy statement not considered in the hearing. Further, she had considered all relevant considerations in determining the weight to be attached to the availability of alternative sites. 

Unfair Dismissal – Constructive Dismissal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (the EAT) in dismissing the employee's appeal against the employment tribunal's rejection of her claims for constructive unfair dismissal and of detriments on the grounds of protected disclosures and whistle-blowing, decided that the tribunal had not erred in law and had adequately dealt with the question of alleged detriments and had properly set out its reasoning. 

Particulars of claim – Amendment. The claimants brought proceedings against the defendant chartered accountants and licensed insolvency practitioners alleging that they had negligently caused the claimants' financial loss as their trustees in bankruptcy. The Chancery Division ruled on the defendants' appeal and the claimants' cross-appeal following orders made by the deputy master in relation to the claimants' particulars of claim. 

Solicitor – Disciplinary proceedings. The appellant in-house solicitor for a newspaper appealed against the finding of the Solicitors' Disciplinary Tribunal (the SDT) that he was guilty of failing to act with integrity and knowingly allowing the judge to be misled in the conduct of litigation. The Divisional Court, in allowing the appeal in part, held that the judge had been misled. The SDT, having disavowed making any finding of dishonesty, could not properly proceed to make a finding that the appellant had knowingly allowed the judge to be misled. However, it was inevitable that the SDT would have found him guilty on the basis that he had recklessly allowed the judge to be misled. 

Injunction – Interlocutory. The Queen's Bench Division granted an application by the claimants, Russell Brand and Jemima Goldsmith, to continue an anti-harassment injunction against the defendant masseuse where, on the facts, it was satisfied that the claimants were likely to succeed in establishing at trial that the defendant had committed the tort of harassment and where the balance of convenience favoured continuing injunctive relief until the full trial of the matter.