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. 

Child – Order. The Chinese mother applied to the court for permission to take the child J on holiday to China. The father objected on the basis that there was a risk of abduction. Having regard to the welfare checklist in s 1(3) of the Children Act 1989, the Family Court held that it was in J's best interest to travel to travel to China in the summer. It was important that she kept contact with her Chinese heritage. Further there was no evidence of abduction. 

Mortgage – Priority of mortgagees. The appeal concerned the true construction of ss 26(1)(b) and 31(5) of the Real Estate (Dealers & Developers) Act 1987 in Jamaica, which concerned the priority of charges over land. The Privy Council, in allowing the appellant's appeal, held that the expression 'all other mortgages and charges' in s 31(5) of the Act meant such charges as might remain to be considered, but not those which s 26(1)(b) of the Act required to have been discharged. 

Immigration – Detention. The claimant Guinean national sought damages, declarations and an order for an inquiry for her unlawful immigration detention. The Administrative Court granted her claim. Accordingly, the claimant was entitled to damages, but an investigation into the circumstances of the claimant's detention would not be ordered, as they were well documented. 

Negligence – Information or advice. The claim concerned allegedly negligent advice given by the defendant company to the claimants in relation to a loan. In the course of proceedings, HMT admitted liability. Following the admissions, the Chancery Division made findings as to the various remaining aspects of the case. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The defendant obtained information in relation to the claimant Tata (a multi-national IT consultancy company). Tata was very anxious that the defendant had seemingly managed to obtain access to confidential information and applied for interim injunctive relief requiring the delivery up of certain property belonging to Tata and the deletion of any soft copies of that property and prohibiting the defendant from communicating or disclosing to any person Tata's proprietary and confidential information as well as from inducing or procuring any third party to provide him with Tata's proprietary and confidential information. The Queen's Bench Division allowed both aspects of the interim relief. 

Trade mark – Opposition to registration. The General Court of the European Union considered the applicant company's appeal against a decision that a contested design for 'cookies' was invalid. The General Court held that, on the evidence, the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) had not erred in refusing to consider the internal appearance of the contested design, and accordingly the application would be dismissed. 

Indemnity – Construction of indemnity clause. A foundation and the trustees of the foundation's pension scheme brought proceedings against the second claimant company for negligence and other wrongdoings. The claimant companies sought to recover sums due from the defendant group (RFIB) under an indemnity. The Commercial Court held that a limitation defence would, on the facts, not succeed. However, RFIB was only liable for the settlement sums to the extent that they were in reasonable settlement of the claim for losses occurring prior to the transfer date. It was not liable insofar as the sum represented settlement of the claim for losses occurring after that date. 

Company – Distribution of assets. M built up a considerable business involving property and entertainment ventures. When he died, his business was split between the parties. A dispute arose and the claimants brought proceedings against P, M's brother. The Chancery Division, in dismissing the claim, held that P had not, among other things, been in breach of contract, nor had he acted negligently. 

Costs – Order for costs. The Administrative Court previously gave judgment on the claimant's application for a declaration that the European Commission would be in contempt of court if it had taken certain action that would have the effect of interfering with orders granting interim relief that had been made in the action. The parties sought their costs. The court held that, in all the circumstances, there should be no order for costs as between the claimant and the Commission. However, the claimant should pay 50% of the defendant Food Standards Agency's costs and no order would be made as to the other 50%.