Latest Cases

Contract – Termination. The claimant issued proceedings for the defendant's wrongful termination of an investment management agreement, requiring the investment managers to act jointly to provide the investment management services to the defendant. The Commercial Court, in dismissing the claim, held that the defendant had been entitled to serve the notice of breach, as the investment managers had been in material breach of their obligations and that the notice had fulfilled the relevant requirements. Further, the notice of termination had been valid, as the breach had not been remedied. 

Immigration – Asylum – Leave to appeal. Court of Session: In judicial review proceedings in which the petitioner challenged a decision of the Upper Tribunal refusing him leave to appeal against the First Tier Tribunal's refusal of his appeal against deportation, the court continued the petition to a substantive first hearing, holding that the error of law the petitioner raised was arguable and had substance and that while it did not raise an important point of principle of general application there was 'some other compelling reason' to allow review. 

Landlord and tenant – Service charge. The Chancery Division held that a landlord was not entitled to charge the claimant tenant service charges which represented costs for refurbishment works, which it had incurred after the claimant had terminated the lease by operating a break clause. That was so, notwithstanding that the relevant works had been carried out within the original contractual period of the lease. 

Criminal law – Manslaughter. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that a sentence of nine years' imprisonment had not been unduly lenient, in circumstances where the offender had been convicted of the manslaughter of his partner's six week old son. 

European Union – Reference to European Court. The Court of Justice of the European Union held that EU law had to be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which ordinary courts were under a duty, if they considered a national statute to be contrary to art 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to apply to the constitutional court for that statute to be generally struck down, to the extent that the priority nature of that procedure prevented all the other national courts or tribunals from exercising their right of fulfilling their obligation to refer questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling. Further, an appearance entered by a representative in absentia did not amount to an appearance being entered by a defendant for the purposes of art 24 of the Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001. 

Judicial review – Referendum – Entitlement to vote. Court of Session: Refusing a reclaiming motion in judicial review petitions by two convicted prisoners who would be serving prison sentences on 18 September 2014, which made them ineligible to vote in the independence referendum to be held in Scotland on that date, and who challenged their exclusion from the franchise, the court held that the Lord Ordinary had not erred in dismissing the petitions. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant sought permission to apply for judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decisions refusing him leave to remain in the United Kingdom, to remove him from the UK and to give directions for his removal. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), in refusing permission, held that the claimant's grounds of challenge were unarguable. Further, the fact that the claimant could pursue an out of country appeal pointed unmistakeably to a refusal of permission and the duty of candour had required the provision of a witness statement from the claimant. 

Mental health – Mental health review tribunal. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, considered a dispute between two local authorities concerning the responsibility for a man who had been made subject to two hospital orders in different areas of the country. The court held, in dismissing the appeal, that where a person had been made subject to a hospital order with restrictions, then conditionally discharged, then recalled to hospital, and then conditionally discharged for a second time, for the purposes of s 117(3) of the Mental Health Act 1983, he was still to be treated as resident in the area of the same local authority as that in which he had lived before the original hospital order had been made. 

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. 

Mental health – Patient. The applicant NHS Foundation Trust sought declarations, including that it was not in the respondent's best interests to be subjected to further compulsory detention and treatment of her anorexia nervosa, and that it was in her best interests and would be lawful for her treating clinicians not to provide her with nutrition and hydration with which she did not comply. Having fully reviewed the circumstances of the case, including the unanimous medical evidence that the declarations were in the respondent's best interests, the Court of Protection held that treatment of the respondent's anorexia should not be compelled.