Latest Cases

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. A number of agreements came into existence with a view to the making of a Spanish film entitled La Mula based upon a novel about the Spanish Civil War (the project). The first claimant was a well known film director and the second claimant was a partnership between him and his wife. The first and second defendants (also husband and wife) were shareholders in the fourth defendant, of which the fifth defendant was a wholly owned subsidiary. The sixth defendant was a company incorporated and wholly owned by the claimant. A dispute arose following the start of the project and the claimants brought proceedings in tort. A master allowed summary judgment against the claimants and refused to allow a proposed amendment which would have, in effect, changed the proceedings. He also made a costs order. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the claimant's application for permission to appeal as the master's decision had merely been a robust case management decision and in any event had been correct in law. 

Criminal evidence and procedure – Admissibility of evidence – Prejudicial publicity. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing appeals by two appellants who were convicted after trial of carrying out a fraudulent scheme, the court held that a sheriff had not erred in repelling an objection to the Crown leading evidence of parts of a co-accused's police interview, nor had he erred in refusing a motion to desert the trial following publication by the Scottish Government of a news release concerning human trafficking during the trial. 

Bank – Documentary credit. The judge continued and made interlocutory an interim injunction restraining the second respondent bank from making a payment to the appellant under a letter of credit, as the fraud exception had been established. The Court of Appeal in the Supreme Court in Mauritius affirmed the decision and the appellant appealed. The Privy Council articulated the fraud exception test applicable to letters of credit at the interlocutory stage, but held that the fraud exception had not been satisfied. Further, the judge had erred in his approach to the balance of convenience, given the insuperable difficulty recognised by the authorities. 

Insurance – Repudiation of claim. The appellant company issued proceedings, seeking payment under its insurance policy with the respondent company. The judge found that the appellant had not made a fraudulent claim, but the Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago overturned that decision and the appellant appealed. The Privy Council, in allowing the appeal, held that the Court of Appeal had had no proper basis for concluding that the trial judge had gone plainly wrong in his assessment of the evidence. Accordingly, it had erred in substituting its views on the critical question. 

Gaming – Lawful and unlawful gaming. The claimant casino issued proceedings to recover £1m on unpaid cheques provided by the defendant in exchange for chips, which she had lost. The Queen's Bench Division, in allowing the claim, held that there had been no unlawful giving of credit to the defendant. Further, the defendant had not established any claim in negligence, as it was not fair, just and reasonable that the law should impose a duty of care on the claimant to prevent her from using her cheque cashing facility. 

Costs – Claim. The claimant chairman of the Asbestos Victims Support Groups Forums sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision to bring into force ss 44 and 46 of the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 in relation to mesothelioma claims. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the Secretary of State had not conducted a proper review of the likely effect of the Act reforms on mesothelioma claims, as required by s 48(1) of the Act. 

Town and country planning – Enforcement notice. The defendants appealed against their convictions for failing to comply with an enforcement notice on the basis that the solicitor then acting for the local authority had deliberately concealed information in obtaining the notice. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that s 285 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and R v Wicks ([1997] 2 All ER 801) had precluded the judge from investigating the alleged unlawful act in the context of the criminal trial. The judge had failed to consider the defendants' alternative argument, but it would be inappropriate to remit the case for that argument to be considered. 

Unfair Dismissal – Constructive Dismissal. The employment tribunal had rejected the employee's claim for unfair constructive dismissal in circumstances where he had given seven months' notice of termination following the alleged breach of contract. The employee's appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal raised a short question of law in relation to s 95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act of 1996 as to whether the common law concept of affirmation applied in circumstances where an employee resigned giving notice exceeding the contractual minimum period of notice. 

Rates – Rateable occupation. The tenant of the appellants' property went into liquidation and its liquidator disclaimed all interest in the property. The appellants continued to call on a guarantor to make good the tenant's default and the guarantor paid the sums demanded. The judge held that the appellants were liable for rates charged by the defendant local authority. The appellants appealed by way of case stated. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the judge had been correct to find that the first appellant had been the owner within ss 45(1)(b) and 65(1) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 and, therefore, liable for non-occupation rates for the property. 

Human rights – Privacy. The applicant, who lived in the United Kingdom, had severely limited mobility. She had complained to the European Court of Human Rights (the ECHR), alleging that, following the reduction by a local authority of the amount allocated for her weekly care, there had been a violation of her right to respect for private and family life contrary to art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The ECHR upheld the applicant's complaint in respect of the period between 21 November 2008 and 4 November 2009 because the interference with her rights during that period had not been in accordance with domestic law. However, the complaint concerning the period after 4 November 2009 was inadmissible on the ground that the interference with the applicant's rights during that latter period had been 'necessary in a democratic society', pursuant to art 8(2) of the Convention.