Latest Cases

Town and country planning – Enforcement of planning control. The defendants were trustees of a charitable religious trust. They had entered into undertakings pursuant to s 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in respect of a site that they owned in east London. When the defendants breached those undertakings, the local planning authority applied to the court for a mandatory final injunction. The injunction was granted and the defendants appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the judge had been correct to grant the injunction where there had been a substantial breach of the undertakings and in circumstances where the enforcement of contractual planning obligations and planning appeals (which the defendants had lodged) were separate processes. However, the judge had erred in not considering whether to suspend the operation of the injunction. 

Contract – Condition. The claimant agreed to sell to the defendants a freehold property. The issue arose of whether the defendants were liable to pay to the claimant the VAT charge on that transaction. A summary judgment application by the claimant was allowed. An appeal by the defendants was allowed. The claimants appealed. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and held that it could be said that the parties intended that nothing was or could become payable by the defendants over and above the specified purchase price of £130,000. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. In earlier proceedings, the claimant Russian shipping companies had alleged that the various defendants had been dishonestly involved in schemes to enrich a Russian businessman. The claimants had obtained freezing orders against the defendants and gave undertakings (the undertakings) to compensate the defendants in the event that the court found them to have suffered loss consequent upon the orders. Some, but not all of the claims had succeeded. Some of the defendants to the orders (the applicants in the present proceedings) alleged that they suffered loss consequent upon those orders and that the orders had been improperly made due to alleged misrepresentation and lack of disclosure and had caused them loss. They applied for directions for an assessment of compensation for loss suffered to be paid, under the undertakings. The Commercial Court, in granting the application, held that the impropriety of the claimants who had obtained the freezing orders had been such that it would be wrong not to enforce the undertakings. The defendants had adduced sufficient evidence that the orders had caused them loss to justify an inquiry as to damages. 

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. 

Criminal law – Trial. Following changes to the funding of legal aid in criminal cases, the defendants in a complex fraud trial were unable to obtain representation by counsel. The judge in the Crown Court stayed the proceedings. The Financial Conduct Authority, as prosecuting authority appealed. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, allowed the appeal. To conclude that the state had violated the process of the court or that what had happened had jeopardised the integrity of the criminal justice system (as opposed to its effective operation) was wrong as a matter of principle. Further, on closer analysis, the judge had been wrong to find that there was no realistic prospect of competent advocates with sufficient time to prepare being available in the foreseeable future. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The local authority sought a draconian order that in the inherent jurisdiction of the court it be permitted not to disclose to the mother of a new-born child the care plan to remove her unborn child at birth. The Family Division held that due to the risk that the mother presented to herself and the baby, there was a very real risk of physical harm to the child if she were to learn of the local authority's plan of removal at birth and in those unusual circumstances the local authority's application would be allowed. 

Employment – Termination. The Employment Appeal Tribunal found that the employment tribunal had not erred in finding that ss 57A and 99 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 did not apply to the employee's case. The tribunal had been entitled to reach the conclusion that it had done, and the employee's appeal would be dismissed. 

Employment – Discrimination against a woman. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), in dismissing the employee's appeal against the rejection by the employment tribunal of her claims for maternity discrimination, indirect sex discrimination and constructive dismissal, found that although the tribunal had erred factually in its approach to constructive dismissal, its conclusion on the facts had been plainly and obviously right. The EAT also made some observations about the procedure to be adopted where the parties found it difficult to agree bundles for use at the EAT. 

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. 

Solicitor – Negligence. The claimant had instructed the defendant solicitors to act for her in purchasing a property. The solicitors did not advise her about restrictive covenants that affected the property. She carried out works in breach of the covenants and the neighbour with the benefit of the covenants complained. The claimant instructed the defendants to act for her. They did not, for some time, advise her to stop all works on the property but, when they did, she continued the works and the neighbour took out an injunction. The Recorder found the defendant had failed to make clear that the works had to stop and that, had the claimant known of the covenants, she would not have gone ahead with the purchase. Damages were awarded. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the Recorder had erred in finding that the bringing of the injunction proceedings had been caused by the defendant's negligence, but that his conclusion that the claimant would not have gone ahead with the purchase had been correct. The appeal against the calculation of damages was successful in part.