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. 

Criminal evidence – Appeal – Fresh evidence. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing an appeal against conviction by an appellant who pled guilty to the murder of his two young sons and whose case the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission referred to the High Court on the ground that there was 'fresh evidence' relating to his mental health at time of killings, the court held that the appeal was bound to fail since the court could not find that the plea was tendered under some real error or misconception or in circumstances which were clearly prejudicial to the appellant. 

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. 

Contract – Construction. The claimant, Lehman Brothers, brought a claim for the balance of a sum which it contended was due from the defendant arising out of early termination of four option transactions governed by an International Swaps and Derivatives Association agreement, together with interest. The defendant had paid the claimant €1,849,968.99. The Commercial Court held, among other things, that the defendant had breached its contractual obligation to use the agreed market quotation formula to determine the sum due. Using that formula, a payment of €2,963,081.18 should have been made. 

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. 

Copyright – Ownership. The claimant company issued proceedings, seeking remedies against the defendants for infringement of copyright and against the first defendant for breaches of contract. The defendants counterclaimed. The Chancery Division ruled on various issues arising out of copyright proceedings. 

Crown – Prerogative. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's rejection of her application for a replacement passport. The Secretary of State contended that the claimant was not who she claimed to be, but was the sister of that person. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the claimant had not discharged the burden upon her to establish that she was who she said she was and that she was entitled to British citizenship. Accordingly, she was not entitled to a passport. 

Contract – Condition. The claimant agreed to sell to the defendants a freehold property. The issue arose of whether the defendants were liable to pay to the claimant the VAT charge on that transaction. A summary judgment application by the claimant was allowed. An appeal by the defendants was allowed. The claimants appealed. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and held that it could be said that the parties intended that nothing was or could become payable by the defendants over and above the specified purchase price of £130,000. 

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. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The defendant in a personal injury claim was refused permission by the district judge to amend his defence late in the proceedings in order to plead formally a case in contributory negligence. The defendant sought permission to appeal and an appeal if granted. The Queen's Bench Division in granting permission and allowing the appeal held that Justice and fairness required that the amendment should have been allowed so that 'the real dispute' between the parties could be adjudicated upon.