Latest Cases

Social security – Housing benefit. The claimants challenged reg B13(5) of the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006, SI 2006/213 on the basis that it was manifestly without reasonable foundation not to make provision for an extra bedroom where a disabled child in a housing benefit claimant's family was a person who required overnight care from a non-resident carer. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the means employed by the housing benefit scheme to achieve the government's policy objective had not been inappropriate or disproportionate in its adverse effects. 

Criminal law – Appeal. The defendant was convicted of the alleged historical sexual abuse of his step-daughter. He appealed, relying on the fresh evidence of a man who also worked at the workshop where the abuse had allegedly occurred. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, dismissing his appeal against conviction, held that the fresh evidence did not render the conviction unsafe, since the evidence did not establish that the assaults could not have taken place. 

Particulars of claim – Amendment. The proceedings concerned the award of a contract to provide legal services. The claimant solicitors' firm was unsuccessful in a tendering process, and brought proceedings against the defendant Insolvency Service. It sought to amend its particulars of claim. The court dismissed the application, and the claimant appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the appeal would be allowed in respect of the amendment, and that a suspension regarding the award of the contract would be maintained regarding one of the tenderers. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. Pursuant to s 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1969, a judge of the High Court could grant a 'leapfrog' certificate to enable the case to proceed directly to the Supreme Court. In the instant case of several hundred claims by Iraqi civilians seeking damages from the defendant Ministry of Defence for their allegedly unlawful detention and/or unlawful treatment by British armed, the Queen's Bench Division granted the application. 

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. 

European Union – Reference to European Court. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) 562/2006, as amended, (establishing a community code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders) and European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) 810/2009 (establishing a community code on visas). The request had been made in the course of a dispute between Air Baltic and Valsts robežsardze concerning the imposition of a fine on Air Baltic for the administrative offence of transporting a person to Latvia without necessary travel documents. 

Company – Administration. The defendant appealed against the judge's order that the claimant administrators be permitted to sell the assets of a company, which were subject to a fixed charge security held by the defendant, as if they were not subject to that security. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that judge had approached the matter correctly, had properly taken into account the matters to which he had been bound to have regard and had come to a conclusion which had fallen well within the bounds of a reasonable exercise of his discretion. 

Company – Director. The claimant company claimed for loss suffered when two client companies defaulted on their obligations to pay margin calls under open-ended contracts for difference (CfD) entered into between the claimant and those two companies. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, upheld the judge's determination that the defendant had not been a director or shadow director of the claimant, nor had his conduct constituted a breach of s 190 of the Companies Act 2006. 

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. 

Minor – Removal outside jurisdiction. S, aged 15, left her mother in Mexico for London with the practical and financial assistance of her father. The mother applied for a summary return of S to Mexico, but S objected on the basis that she was not receiving a reasonable education in Mexico. The Family Division, in allowing the application, held that there had been a wrongful removal or retention. While taking account of S's views, the relevant considerations pointed clearly to S returning to Mexico.