Latest Cases

Company – Liquidation. In 2010, the claimant, Goldtrail, a tour operator was placed into administration and thousands of its customers were stranded abroad. Goldtrail subsequently went into liquidation. It brought a claim against the first defendant, A, its sole director and shareholder for breach of fiduciary duties and breach of s 175 of the Companies Act 2006, and against other defendants for dishonest assistance. The Chancery Division, in allowing the claim, held that the first defendant was liable to Goldtrail for his misapplication of its money in breach of his fiduciary duties. The fact that the first defendant had been the sole director and 100% shareholder of Goldtrail did not prevent his conduct from being a breach by him of his fiduciary duty. The other defendants were jointly and severally liable to pay equitable compensation to Goldtrail for dishonestly assisting A. 

European Union – Legal basis for regulation. The General Court of the European Union granted the application by the National Iranian Tanker Company for annulment of (i) Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP, amending Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (concerning restrictive measures against Iran), in that the applicant had been listed in Annex II Decision 2010/413; and (ii) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 (implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran), in so far as that regulation concerned that company. 

Human rights – Inhuman or degrading treatment. The respondent judicial authority sought the appellant's return to Romania to serve a three-year sentence, which could potentially be served in the third most over-crowded Romanian prison. The senior district judge ordered the appellant's surrender to Romania and the appellant appealed. The Divisional Court ruled that to return a prisoner to serve three years in a collective cell where the personal space was approximately 1.5 metres would amount to a violation of art 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Contract – Warranty. The claimant (Weatherford) issued proceedings against the defendant (Hydropath) for breach of warranty contained in the agreement to supply its product to prevent scale building up on the inside of pipes. Hydropath and the third party counterclaimed against Weatherford, alleging misuse of confidential information, breach of their licence agreement, inducing breach of contract and breach of directors' duties. The Technology and Construction Court dismissed the counterclaims. It further held that Weatherford had established that the product had been seriously and substantially in breach of the warranty in the supply agreement, given its possible propensity to cause sparking on the adjacent pipework. 

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. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The proceedings concerned an appeal by the grandparents of four children against a full care order made in respect of each of the children and the decision to authorise the local authority to place all four of them for adoption. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that none of the grounds of the appeal had sufficient substance to cause concern as to the essential validity of the process undertaken by the judge and the substance of his judgment. 

Landlord and tenant – Commercial lease – Construction. Court of Session: Allowing an appeal in a dispute as to the construction of the dilapidations provisions that applied on the termination of a commercial lease, the court held that the tenants' construction of the relevant clause was to be preferred, namely that they were not obliged to make payment to the landlords of whatever sum happened to be the total of the various cost estimates contained in a schedule of dilapidations and instead the clause was intended to reflect and reinforce the common law, under which the landlords would be entitled to the actual loss they sustained, which might be calculated using a number of different methods. 

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. 

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. 

Costs – Employment tribunal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the employee's appeal against an award of costs made against him by the employment tribunal. The EAT found that the tribunal had erred in law as it was not possible to tell from the tribunal's reasons whether it had taken into account a potentially relevant matter, namely the employee's means. The matter was remitted to the tribunal.