Latest Cases

Barrister – Disciplinary proceedings. The appellant barrister was charged with four offences of professional misconduct by the respondent Bar Standards Board. He was unable to attend the hearing and his application for an adjournment was refused by the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Council of the Inns of Courts (the tribunal). The hearing proceeded in his absence, and he was disbarred and fined. The appellant appealed against the refusal of an adjournment. The Divisional Court, in allowing his appeal, held that the tribunal had misdirected itself on the approach to be applied when determining whether to grant an adjournment. 

Pension – Equal treatment of men and women. The appellant male-to-female transsexual had not applied for a gender recognition certificate, as she did not wish to annul her existing marriage. Her application for a state pension at the pensionable age for a woman was refused on the basis that she was a man. The First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) and the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) dismissed her appeals. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appellant's appeal, held that the requirement to annul her marriage did not breach the principle of equal treatment in Council Directive (EEC) 79/7 and was not discriminatory under the Equality Act 2010. 

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. 

Company – Director. The defendants committed a number of offences, including fraud, connected to the retention of deposit money by a letting company. They were found criminally responsible, but the court declined to make an order for disqualification. The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills applied for an order disqualifying the defendants, but the Chancery Division held that it was not appropriate to make such an order and was unfair that the defendants should be exposed to the same claim on two occasions. 

Medical practitioner – Professional misconduct. Concerns were raised as to the competence of the claimant surgeon, and he was referred to a disciplinary panel. He applied for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant NHS trust from referring his case to a capability hearing panel. The Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing the application, held that, among other things, on the true construction of the relevant standards procedure, an employer could proceed to a capability hearing even if it had not received advice that a practitioner's performance was so fundamentally flawed that no action plan had a realistic chance of success. 

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. 

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. 

Practice – Summary judgment. The claimant finance company had purchased the debts of a company, which went into administration and subsequently into liquidation. The claimant brought proceedings, seeking to recover a sum from the defendant directors of the company, under deeds of indemnity. The Commercial Court, in granting the application, held that, on the true construction of the deeds of indemnity, the defendants' liability in each case was primary, not secondary and they had no real prospect of success in any of their defences. 

Criminal law – Committal. The Privy Council dismissed the appellant's appeal against the dismissal of his claims for malicious prosecution and false imprisonment, in circumstances where it had been it was unsurprising that both the High Court and the Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago had not been prepared to draw the inference that the prosecutor had acted with malice in proceeding with the prosecution against the appellant. 

Time – Extension of time. Having failed in their claim for defamation, the claimants were granted an extension of time for filing their points of dispute in respect of the defendant's bill of costs. The defendant appealed that order, but it was dismissed. Subsequently, the defendant did successfully appeal the extension on the ground that the claimants had issued their application out of time and so had been seeking relief from sanctions, which the judge had been wrong to grant. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the appeal as the application for an extension had been made in time and so there had been no relief from sanctions. The court gave guidance on changes to the CPR in respect of applications to extend time.