Latest Cases

Contract – Construction. The parents' children attended the claimant school which was a fee paying school. When the parents failed to pay certain fees, the school brought an action for payment of a term's fees. The parents brought a defence and counterclaim alleging that the school was not entitled to recover the unpaid fees because it had acted in fundamental breach of contract, entitling the parents to rescind and/or repudiate the contract. The parents also made allegations of racial discrimination and bullying. The Queen's Bench Division held that on he facts and evidence, the school had not acted in breach of any of its three contracts. The defence and counterclaim had therefore had to fail. 

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. 

Adoption – Application. The applicant de-facto step-father, who was in a close personal relationship with the mother, applied to the court to adopt her two children. Each child had a different father. The trial judge refused the application and the father appealed. The Court of Appeal (Civil Division) allowed the appeal and held that the judge had fallen into substantial error in his evaluation of the balance of rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and, hence, the overall proportionality of making adoption orders. In addition the judge appeared to have misinterpreted the statutory regime under the Adoption and Children Act 2002 and the requirements that it had placed upon him. 

Divorce – Arrangements for care and upbringing of children. Following the breakdown of their marriage and subsequent divorce, the parties participated in a financial dispute resolution on 7 November 2013. The parties were able to agree final capital apportionment between them, including the making of a pension sharing order. Two areas upon which they could not agree were whether or not there should be some 'step down' in the relatively near future in the level of periodical payments payable to the wife; and whether or not those periodical payments payable to the wife should be the subject of some ultimate term or cut off. Giving consideration to s 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, the Family Division stated that it would be totally speculative to consider a 'step down' in the relatively near future in the level of periodical payments payable to the wife or to say that they would be subject to a cut off. 

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. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant Nigerian national sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision refusing him temporary leave to remain in the United Kingdom. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that there was no evidence to support the bare assertion that the claimant had lost all ties to Nigeria and that a decision which resulted in the return of the claimant and his family to Nigeria would not amount to a disproportionate interference with their rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant Police and Crime Commissioner for Leicestershire challenged the defendant local authority's grant of outline planning permission so far as it concerned funding for police services. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the claimant had failed to surmount the very high threshold for establishing irrationality in the authority's failure to ensure an agreement under s 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 secured adequate and timely contributions to policing. Further, the authority had not made an unequivocal representation that could have led the claimant to expect that it would be consulted on the level of and timing of the delivery of the contribution. 

Family proceedings – Costs. Following a decision of the Family Division to make an order in its' inherent jurisdiction that the local authority were permitted not to disclose the care plan for the unborn child to the mother, namely removal into care at birth and three hearings regarding the capacity of the mother in the Court of Protection, the issue of costs arose. The Court of Protection made an appropriate order on the basis of the evidence before it. 

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. 

Arbitration – Award. Following a dispute between the parties, the claimant company, Diag, succeeded against the defendant Czech Republic in an arbitration. It sought to enforce the arbitration award in a number of countries, including Austria. The Supreme Court of Austria held that the award had not yet become binding on the parties. Diag, sought to enforce the award in the English court. The court held that the Supreme Court of Austria's decision gave rise to an issue estoppel that would prevent Diag from enforcing the judgment in the English court.