Latest Cases

Insurance – Broker. The Commercial Court dismissed the claimant's claim for breach of contract and/or negligence against the defendant insurance brokers in circumstances where the claimant's business was found to be grossly under-insured following a fire. 

Sentence – Imprisonment. The defendants had been convicted of robbery. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, following a reference by the Attorney General pursuant to s 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, held that the judge had erred by deciding that the sentences should be discounted by 50% because he had been sentencing 'lesser offenders'. Although the defendants' precise roles in the robbery had been difficult to define, the evidence had established, at the very least, their full and significant involvement. Consequently, the sentence for each of the three defendants would be five years' imprisonment. 

Company – Breach of contract. The claimant company sought to purchase a waste management business from the defendants. The claimant claimed that the defendants had breached a number of warranties contained in a specific performance agreement (SPA). The defendants counterclaimed for breach of the SPA. The Commercial Court held that, on the evidence, the claim was made out in part, and the counterclaim was not made out. 

Contract – Warranty. The parties contracted for the construction of a number of wind turbine generators. It became apparent that the design of the turbines had been flawed, and a dispute arose. The Technology and Construction Court held that, among other things, the defendants were entitled to a declaration that the problem had arisen as a consequence of a breach of the agreements between the parties by the claimant company. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The respondent mother, SU, had a child, Z, with her partner, DE. The applicant local authority had removed SU's seven previous children in care proceedings. Following Z's birth, she was placed under an interim care order, but rehabilitation proceedings were later commenced. The authority then directed that rehabilitation stop, despite nothing untoward having occurred, and sought a care order and a placement order. The Family Court, in dismissing the application, held that adoption would be entirely inappropriate and that Z should return to live with her parents. 

Solemn procedure – Time bar. High Court of Justiciary: Allowing an appeal against a sheriff's decision granting two applications to extend retrospectively the 11 and 12-month time limits in relation to two petitions on which the appellant appeared in 2008 and 2010, which the Crown sought because it wished to add the charges contained in those petitions to an indictment in June 2013, the court held that the sheriff's decision was flawed in several respects and there was no evident basis in the history of the proceedings for granting any extension. 

Immigration – Asylum seeker. The Supreme Court considered issues surrounding 'linguistic analysis reports' provided by a commercial organisation (Sprakab) in asylum appeals. It examined the appropriateness of guidance given in RB (Linguistic evidence – Sprakab) ([2010] UKUT 329 (IAC)) (RB), particularly with respect to the anonymity of Sprakab's individual analysts and linguists. With regard to the particular respondents, the reports' comments on their knowledge of country and culture had been inadequately supported by the authors' expertise. Further, the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) had treated RB as binding and had failed to give critical analysis to the particular reports relied on. 

European Union – Indirect taxation. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that art 10(c) of Council Directive (EEC) 69/335 (concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital) should be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provided that the Treasury was to receive a share of the fees charged by a notary employed as a civil servant when he drew up a notarial act recording a transaction concerning the conversion of a capital company into a different type of capital company, and which did not lead to an increase in the capital of the company making the acquisition or changing its legal form. 

Practice – Service out of the jurisdiction. The second defendant issued committal proceedings against the claimant companies and their director for breach of their duties to make full disclosure on their without notice application and failure to comply with an undertaking. The judge held that service of the committal proceedings out of the jurisdiction was authorised by CPR 6.36 and para 3.1(3) of Practice Direction 6B. The director appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the judge had been correct to find that service out of the jurisdiction on the director was permitted. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. Pursuant to s 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1969, a judge of the High Court could grant a 'leapfrog' certificate to enable the case to proceed directly to the Supreme Court. In the instant case of several hundred claims by Iraqi civilians seeking damages from the defendant Ministry of Defence for their allegedly unlawful detention and/or unlawful treatment by British armed, the Queen's Bench Division granted the application.