Latest Cases

Contract – Breach of contract. The claimant, Credit Suisse, brought proceedings, claiming €83,196,829 from the defendant company as money allegedly due under an International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) 2002 agreement (the master agreement) in respect of 11 transactions it had allegedly entered with the defendant. The claimant contended that it had duly terminated the master agreement after the defendant had failed to provide security due under a credit support annex. The Commercial Court held that, notwithstanding that three of the contracts, comprising six of the disputed transactions, had been outside the defendant's capacity and therefore invalid, because of warranties in additional representations in the master agreement, that did not affect Credit Suisse's rights or the defendant's obligations under the master agreement. Alternatively, the claimant was entitled in damages for breach of the warranties to the amount that they could have recovered under the master agreement if all the agreements were valid and binding on the defendant. 

Police – Complaint against police. In the course of litigation following 'Plebgate', the claimant police officers sought judicial review of the Independent Police Complaints Commission's decision to re-determine the mode of investigation of them. The Divisional Court found that, as a result of procedural irregularities, the report of the original investigation had been invalid and of no effect. The argument that the power to re-determine the mode of investigation had not been available could not succeed, but there had been apparent bias or predetermination in that decision. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Tifosi Optics, Inc (Tifosi) seeking annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) concerning opposition proceedings between Tom Tailor GmbH and Tifosi relating to the application by Tifosi for registration of a figurative sign as a Community trade mark. 

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. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The judicial authority sought the defendants' extradition to face trial for fraud and tax evasion offences. The district judge discharged the first and second defendants' European arrest warrants (EAW), but ordered the third defendant's extradition. The judicial authority and third defendant appealed. The Administrative Court held that the EAWs failed to establish the defendants were 'accused persons', under s 2(3) of the Extradition Act 2003 and were insufficiently particular, under s 2(4)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the discharge of the first and second defendants' EAWs would be upheld and the third defendant's EAW would be discharged. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The child S, died in hospital. Post mortem investigations found that she was suffering from a number of injuries usually associated with non-accidental trauma, such as bone fractures, a scalp injury and intra-cranial bleeding. In addition, S, suffered from a number of conditions, all linked to a unique combination of genetic abnormalities. Following a fact finding hearing, the Family Division held that the local authority had not proven on a balance of probabilities that S's injuries had been inflicted non-accidentally. 

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. A dispute arose between the parties to a joint venture for the acquisition of a collection of hotels and resorts and their business, concerning the removal of the founder of a hotel chain and the chief executive officer of a company incorporated for the purpose of the joint venture (the JVC). The Chancery Division granted the claimant an injunction to, among other things, restrain the JVC from taking steps to remove and/or exclude Z from his position of CEO of the JVC until 31 July 2014. 

Practice – Claim. In the course of proceedings concerning a public procurement claim, the Technology an Construction Court determined preliminary issues and gave consideration to the requirements in respect of what for the contents of a claim form under CPR 16.2. 

Immigration – Detention. The applicant, having served a sentence of imprisonment, had been placed in immigration detention. Efforts were made to determine where he was from. Eventually, a deportation order was made while enquiries continued. The applicant was considered to present a high risk of absconding and a sufficient risk of harm and reoffending if released. On his release on bail he issued judicial review proceedings contending that he had been unlawfully detained when there had been no prospect of his removal within a reasonable period. The Administrative Court dismissed his claim as being unfounded. He had been detained for the purposes of deportation and, having regard to his history and criminal record, he had not been detained for more than a reasonable period. Any error in dealing with his case had not crossed the borderline from administrative failing into illegality.